A journalist friend agrees that the Love in the Time of Cholera trailer “sucks, but hold your judgement. It’s a decent shot at a difficult book, and two guys I know — real men, I should add, not wussy types — actually found the film quite moving. So maybe it will play to manly men, if their wives or girlfriends can convince them to see it.” I repeat yesterday’s question: if New Line marketers thought they could get regular guys to see this thing, why did they send out a trailer that almost begs them not to?
“Keeping your BlackBerry on isn’t just acceptable, it’s a life-affirming action,” Nicole LaPorte declared in a 10.14 L.A. Times piece about industry cell-phone status, etiquette, penetration. “To turn off your BlackBerry is to be dead,” she says. Which means, of course, that notions of biological, genetic or spiritual identity are passe. In short, “you are your phone.”
If it’s a bare-bones model with no e-mail capacities, you’re an embarassment…a Luddite. If it’s BlackBerry Curve, “you’re someone who lives in the moment and ‘gets’ it, as opposed to those still stuck with the BlackBerry 8700,” LaPorte says. “Treo (any model)? You’re an amateur, I’m afraid, not to mention living in 2006. IPhone? An artiste with vision, as long as you weren’t suckered into buying it at $599. BlackBerry 8830 World carrier? See you in Cannes!”
I went looking on Craig’s List last week for somebody who could fix it so I can access my Verizon account with an iPhone, instead of having to start up a whole new account with ATT/Cingular. There are hackers out there who do this for a fee, but nobody responded. When are the iPhone techies going to open up their device to other carriers? And when is the iPhone 2.0 model coming out?
I’m still refining and cross-checking the numbers, but late last week American Gangster, which was three weeks away from its 11.2 release date, was tracking better than The Departed did two weeks from release. Thursday’s numbers (i.e., two days from now) will probably show a bump, but the huge numbers aren’t just from the male sector. Women, a bit surprisingly, are showing higher-than-normal awareness and interest levels. The definite interest is roughly 50% across the board, and in the vicinity of 60% for over-25 males.
Translated, this means the opening weekend should be in excess of $30 million. No scientific readings required — it’s merely the combination of eyeball-to-eyeball Denzel, bull-in-the-china-shop Crowe and the title. A portion of critics are respectful of Gangster but unsure of its Oscar prospects because it didn’t make them cry; presumably there are Academy and guild people who feel the same way. But reservations of this sort tend to melt away when big money is being made. Gangster‘s tracking, of course, doesn’t indicate “big money” — it promises a big opening weekend.
Manhattan hot-shot entertainment journo Lewis Beale says “it’s a terrific film, it has the best title ever, and if the crowd I saw it with at 84th and Broadway was any indication (very urban, very mixed demographically), it’s gonna get great word-of-mouth. If this isn’t a $100 million film, I don’t know what is.”
Who is the biggest piss-head critic around today? Somebody whose writing suggests that they scowl a good deal and are stingy with affection, who always seem to dissing this or that film for some arcane reason, whose views are so contrarian that you’ve almost come to hate him/her….and yet you read them anyway out of some perverse craving for adversarial drama?
N.Y. Press critic Armond White used to be the most flagrant in this regard, certainly the quirkiest and most strange, but I think the piss-head crown may have been snatched away by Slant‘s Ed Gonzalez. Are there others? Which critics seem to be levitating in a realm of their own creation with their backs arched like serpents, and which seem the most plain-spoken and least pretentious? I guess I’m asking for votes. I guess this is a kind of half-assed poll.
Listen for five or six seconds to the treacly, deeply patronizing narration in the trailer for Mike Newell‘s Love in the Time of Cholera (New Line, 11.16), and you know right off the top that Gabriel Garcia Marquez‘s respected romantic novel has been turned into something florid, unsubtle and aimed at women who didn’t graduate from college.
Javier Bardem in Love in the Time of Cholera
I’d been told it doesn’t quite work, but I still wanted to see it out of respect for Marquez’s reputation and for the great Javier Bardem, who plays Florentino Ariza. Then I saw the trailer and said to myself, “No way, not for me.” Why do marketing guys deliberately do this? Is it really necessary to turn off males in order to appeal to females? Here’s a pan by Slant‘s Ed Gonzalez, but Gonzales is a sourpuss — he always seems to be sneering at this or that film — so you can’t really trust him.
Meryl Streep will be honored at the 35th annual Film Society of Lincoln Center Gala Tribute on 4.14.08, or roughly 30 years after she first punched through with a strong supporting performance in The Deer Hunter. Streep occasionally perform in a dreary film, but she’s generally shown superb taste in picking films. Which is why I still find it mystifying that she’s starred in a film version of Mamma Mia, the Broadway hit musical that has has been a huge favorite of rube tourists since opening in 1999, selling well over 30 million tickets. Laurence Olivier needed money when he agreed to play “Zeus” in Clash of the Titans. What’s Streep’s excuse?
Director Susanne Bier, whose Things We Lost in the Fire opens this Friday, knows she’s not average or aspiring. She’s on it and she knows it. She didn’t say anything when we spoke this morning that betrayed this feeling, but I knew it was there. All serious artists have a fairly high opinion of themselves, and of course it’s the mediocre people who always say, “Who do they think they are? God?” The result is that when you talk to a serious artist, they’re always fountains of modesty.
Talking to this side of them is fine and relaxing, even as a voice tells you that the real creator — the miner, the re-arranger, the painter, the songwriter — is somewhere else. The cell phone Bier was talking from had crackly reception. I asked about attending the premiere (which happens sometimes this week) so I could take some pics, but the Paramount publicists were unresponsive. I’ll survive.
Jamie Stuart‘s third N.Y. Film Festival piece takes way too long to load…way. But once it’s up and running you can feel a Terrence Malick/Thin Red Line/”never met a leaf I didn’t like” influence.
The piece is mainly about leaves, water (dripping, ponds, gutter currents), ducks, construction scaffolding, the evident boredom on Tommy Lee Jones‘ face, the usual atmospheric space music, more construction sites, joiners, the evident boredom being felt by Jamie Stuart, bolts, wing nuts, plywood, shots of sky and clouds.
The best part is a one-on-one of Todd Haynes (director of I’m Not There) talking about capturing the style, mood and attitude of ’60s-era films and photography.
The official word from IMAX spokesperson Warren Betts: “There are no plans to release 2001: A Space Odyssey to IMAX.” Roger Ebert said last week that a 2001/IMAX release is “almost inevitable.” Warner Bros. to IMAX executives: “Forget it. We wouldn’t make back the money we’d spend on properly transferring the 70mm interpositive to IMAX. The world has moved on. Under 30s don’t know from Stanley Kubrick or monoliths or Johann Strauss. Releasing an IMAX version of the The Last Samurai, however, might work.”
It’s a good thing people like me weren’t notified of the Laszlo Kovacs tribute seminar until today. (Ray Pride‘s item went up Friday but it only made MCN’s front page a few hours ago.) If I’d known earlier others might have found out also and made plans to attend today’s gathering at the Chaplin Theatre at Raleigh Studios, at 3:30 pm. God rest the soul of the man who shot Five Easy Pieces, Paper Moon and Shampoo.
The shared mirth aside, what’s the most distinctive thing about this photo of Ethan Hawke, playwright Jonathan Marc Sherman and Josh Hamilton during a rehearsal for Sherman’s Things We Want, which begins previews at Manhattan’s Acorn Theatre on 10.22? For me, it’s the unattractive footwear. Hawke’s generic Foot Locker lace-ups with those lame white stripes on the side, Sherman’s chunky-soled construction boots, and particularly those godawful sandals worn by Hamilton that show his grotesque white feet, most notably his splayed, bony toes.
The most pronounced difference between boomer and GenX guys is that most boomers I know aren’t very big on wearing sandals anywhere except at the beach or at a picnic, and GenXers wear them just about anywhere, to anything. The idea that a fair percentage of men’s feet are fundamentally ugly or funny looking — an unwelcome sight for strangers — doesn’t seem to occur to under-40 types. Just as the idea of footwear that actually looks cool and elegant — shoes that might actually prompt a casual observer to go “whoa, nice” — has totally bypassed a good percentage of them.
This is a real generational dividing-line thing. Boomers are more partial to leather (loafers, lace-ups, boots), and are sometimes possessed of good taste in shoes and sometimes not. GenXers and GenYers share an almost uniformly atrocious taste in footwear — “affected” thick soles and conspicuous stitching, terrible color and design sense. In the warm months too many of them (guys in particular) walk around in dorky sandals, exposing without a hint of shame the most distasteful digits since the days of John the Baptist.
It used to be that only beatniks and hippies wore sandals. Uptown guys like Cary Grant and Dean Martin used to joke about the sight of them. Now sandals are legion in every town and city in the country. The idea of having to look at funny- looking feet is one reason I’m cool with working indoors a lot.
Some people (women especially) have nice-looking, even sexy feet. Maybe 15% to 20%, at best. But most people (particularly men) don’t, and those 80% to 85% really need to sit down and ask themselves, “Should I wear sandals to this thing I’m going to tonight?” The answer really needs to be no. Cover them up and keep them covered. For life. Please.
N.Y. Times columnist David Carr has delivered a frank, well-written examination of the facts driving the persistent rumors about the Weinstein brothers skating on thin financial ice.
Harvey and Bob Weinstein
“The Weinstein Company is still looking to acquire or produce something for small money and have it blow up huge,” he notes. “And for years, Harvey Weinstein was the first and last stop for indie hopefuls hoping to make it big. Now, there are a dozen or more companies, many staffed by people who broke in with the Weinstein-era Miramax, that are looking for the same thing.”
This is the essence of Harvey and brother Bob’s problem. They’ve been outflanked by competitors who know the game as well as they do, and who generally have smooth, agreeable personalities who seem (the “s” word being crucial) more likely to respect and listen to filmmakers, and who are thought to be more trustworthy (the “t” word being a flexibly defined term).
Harvey tells Carr “that even the box office losers will eventually perform because risk has been hedged and deals for international rights, DVD proceeds, and pay television one-offs will yield profits.
And at the Oscars, he expects The Great Debaters, a film directed by Denzel Washington and produced by Oprah Winfrey, and Grace Is Gone, a war-related film starring John Cusack, to be in the mix.” Hey, what about Cate Blanchett‘s Best Actress nomination for I’m Not There?
And “there are huge box office expectations around The Mist, another Stephen King project from Dimension,” Carr reports.
“But if the Weinstein catalog does not contain its share of winners, the value of the entire enterprise will be called into question. It is, in part, a self-created problem, with Harvey’s refusal to sit quietly while he built the company — by overpromising and underdelivering, he created a huge opening for a whisper campaign by his critics.
“There is a legion of competitors in Hollywood and New York who only tolerated Harvey Weinstein when he was on top and who are eager to do a happy dance on his company’s grave,” Carr observes.
Denzel Washington in The Great Debaters, a 12.25.07 Weinstein Co. release.
“[But] they should not put their hands in the air just yet. The Weinstein brothers have roared back to life more times than the average monster in one of Bob’s money-making horror movies. But they remain deeply challenged, with some big losses on big bets, antsy investors and a lack of bench strength in a world of competitors they helped train and build.
“That doesn’t mean Harvey is in danger of slipping below the surface — his backers have far too much at stake — but it could end up getting hotter in there still.”
I need to say this again because things like this need to be said as often as possible in this business. You have to do right by your friends. That doesn’t just mean you have to make money for them. That also means that when things go wrong you have to stand up and make them right. Are you listening, Quentin Tarantino?
The worst financial hit that the Weinstein Co. has suffered in recent months was due to the failure of Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez‘s Grindhouse. Harvey bears the primary responsibility, of course, but Tarantino and Rodriguez took him for a bath by spending their asses off on a film that should have been made on a shoestring, like the real grindhouse flicks of the ’60s and early ’70s were.
If I were Quentin I would feel guilty as hell about this, and I would try to make things right by being a man, stepping up and making a return of the Vega Bros. film — i.e., Pulp Fiction II — for Harvey for almost nothing, and a soon as possible. I would push out a good script if it killed me (the Vega Bros. return to the earth as ghosts?), and I would convince John Travolta and Michael Madsen to do it for a reduced fee with deferments and basically do everything I can to even the score.
I don’t know Tarantino, but I wonder if he’s even capable of considering this idea of trying to undo the harm done to the Weinstein Co.? Maybe he is. Maybe he’s making moves along these lines right now….but I doubt it.
<div style="background:#fff;padding:7px;"><a href="https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/category/reviews/"><img src=
"https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/reviews.jpg"></a></div>
- Really Nice Ride
To my great surprise and delight, Christy Hall‘s Daddio, which I was remiss in not seeing during last year’s Telluride...
More » - Live-Blogging “Bad Boys: Ride or Die”
7:45 pm: Okay, the initial light-hearted section (repartee, wedding, hospital, afterlife Joey Pants, healthy diet) was enjoyable, but Jesus, when...
More » - One of the Better Apes Franchise Flicks
It took me a full month to see Wes Ball and Josh Friedman‘s Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes...
More »
<div style="background:#fff;padding:7px;"><a href="https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/category/classic/"><img src="https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/heclassic-1-e1492633312403.jpg"></div>
- The Pull of Exceptional History
The Kamala surge is, I believe, mainly about two things — (a) people feeling lit up or joyful about being...
More » - If I Was Costner, I’d Probably Throw In The Towel
Unless Part Two of Kevin Costner‘s Horizon (Warner Bros., 8.16) somehow improves upon the sluggish initial installment and delivers something...
More » - Delicious, Demonic Otto Gross
For me, A Dangerous Method (2011) is David Cronenberg‘s tastiest and wickedest film — intense, sexually upfront and occasionally arousing...
More »