MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Copping Twenty Million

It hasn’t yet gotten the attention the Art Buchwald case got, but I think that the $20 million award won by Francis Ford Coppola and producer Fred Fuchs over Pinnochio is perhaps the most important legal triumph in Hollywood in a long, long time. Why? Buchwald’s case came from an outsider, and the win was essentially a victory over business affairs. In reality, the win hasn’t done much more than to change the fine print in contracts and to, more than ever, close the gates of the kingdom off to “untrustworthy” outsiders (meaning those who don’t have enough of a stake in relationships to avoid litigation despite getting screwed).
The Coppola case is all about the heart and blood of studio business. Can studios safely continue to control and, as often as not, kill loads of projects a year so that no competing studio can make them? This jury seems to have preferred the logic of reasonability to the pure letter of the law. Warners wasn’t really willing to make Pinnochio, so why hold Coppola up? And Coppola’s attorneys went right after the WB hierarchy. WB’s movie co-chief took direct hits as “Where’s Bob Daly?” became the sing-song attack in closing argument. The movie business spends more money without signed deals than any industry in the world. But now, a lot of subtext that normally remains unwritten legally (and often unspoken) will have to be defined as this case shifts more power to the creative side. And defining language in contracts is the foundation of conflict.
With so many stars doing double duty as “producers,” will their agents now have the upper hand in untangling their weighed-down projects? And what about the thousands of screenplays that linger with years-old studio attachments that are too onerous to ever allow anyone else to consider making the films? And what about Bond, James Bond? MGM may well have the law on their side regarding anything more than one Bond film, directly based on Thunderball, at Sony. But will a jury side with MGM over Kevin McClory, who actually developed characters with Ian Fleming? Pandora’s Box may now be open.
ARMAGEDDON SPIN WATCH: The spin began in earnest over the weekend as Disney planted a story at The Hollywood Reporter that has unnamed “media executives” putting Armageddon‘s TV ad buys at no more than $15 million. Given their $2 million Super Bowl ad buy, the $5 million premiere at Cape Canaveral and the previous pervasive reports of TV spending in the $40 million range, does Disney really think anyone will believe this? This is even sillier than the $140 million budget figure that keeps being reported even though Disney passed that figure up months ago before the international add-ons and effects overruns. (Ironically, when Lucasfilm fesses up about increasing their budget by $40 million for Star Wars I, they get hammered and questioned. That’s why the major studios now make it a habit to lie about their budgets on big films more often than not.)
REFLECTIONS OF THE ARMAGEDDON: Meanwhile, Beacon Pictures, who brought us Air Force One, just hired commercial and video savant Marcus Nispel to make his feature-directing debut on the $100 million-plus Arnold Schwarzenegger film, End of Days. The Hollywood Reporter quotes “one observer” as saying, “Many studios are gravitating towards these hip, young directors because they have a new style that stimulates the MTV generation.” Was that before or after this weekend? Right now, the two hot directors of this summer are Mimi Leder and Betty Thomas. And F. Gary Gray, who came out of video but isn’t a high-gloss shooter, looks like he may end up being the most profitable transition guy of this year (with The Negotiator) as Bay, Antoine Fuqua, Kirk Wong, Spike Jonze and other guys flounder in their excesses. The verdict is still out on David Fincher, who could return to Seven-quality work with The Fight Club, currently in production.
TURNING INDIE DEPENDANT: When Miramax joined the Disney monolith, the studio and the mini-major started to battle over content. As a subsidiary of an MPAA signatory company, the studio could no longer release unrated films. Yet, releasing NC-17 product was considered a dangerous thing to do. Miramax won the battle over The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover. But those conflicts have died down a bit as Miramax has restrained itself from pushing that envelope as it’s become an even more commercially-oriented company, relying on thrillers from its young Dimension arm more than on “real” art films marketed to the high heavens.
But October Films, the studio that rode so high on the wave of truly artistic Oscar contenders in 1996 (Secrets & Lies and Breaking the Waves) has quickly buckled under the harness of Universal Pictures. The first film to be dumped by October is Todd Solondz‘s Happiness, which took Cannes by storm despite it content, which includes pedophilia, gunplay, onanism and human dismemberment. (Hey, folks, it’s a comedy! Kind of Solondz’s sick version of Woody Allen‘s Hannah and Her Sisters.) Note To Universal: The idea was to buy a company that could expand your range, not to buy an expansive company and have them stick to lame, CopLand-like, celebrity-driven arthouse films that won’t push any boundaries. Bad show, old sports.
READER OF THE DAY: As promised, here’s Ryan’s letter: “Dear Dave, The problem with Harry is the same problem with all journalists in the entertainment industry — they’ve successfully sucked the magic out of the movies. I don’t want to know what Harry thinks of Armageddon. I don’t care if he goes to the premiere and reviews it. It doesn’t matter. Since when were movies about press junkets and premieres?
And why just pick on Harry? He’s no different than the catty bitches that darken E!’s ‘The Gossip Show.’ The industry has reached a point where hype and anticipation are more important than films themselves. Titanic was all about how much it cost to make, how much it grossed worldwide, how many awards it won. And how many soundbites from teenage girls they could cram into a newscast. But it was never about the film. It was either about how the film would fail or why it became so successful. To the media and the industry, the film itself didn’t really matter.
This weekend I saw The Search with Montgomery Clift and My Own Private Idaho with River Phoenix. Two great actors, two great films, and two great performances. I didn’t think about what critics thought, what went into making them or the ultimate tragedies that befell the leading men. I thought about what it must have been like to have been an orphaned child in post-World War II Berlin. I thought about what River’s character must have been going through when he confesses his love to Keanu Reeves. I thought about what a shame it was that River and Monty are no longer around to make movies. I thought about what a blessing it was that these films were their legacy. That’s what the magic of the movies are all about. That’s what I’d like to see on a Website.
Ain’t It Cool News? Not really. Your own private Hollywood? No thanks. It’s the films that remain. It’s the Montgomery Clifts and the River Phoenixes that live on because their gifts are the kind that illuminate and educate. Theirs are the gifts that inspire a passion in people. They are the reason why I go to the movies. They are the reason why most people go to the movies. Not because of the hacks on the ‘The Gossip Show.’ Not because of the editors of Premiere, Entertainment Weekly, US, Variety etc. Not Mary Hart. Not CNN. And no, not because of rough cut. And certainly not because of a film geek like Harry Knowles. In other words Dave, don’t waste your time on people or subjects like Harry. Because that’s not what it’s about. That’s not what it should ever be about.”

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon