MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Posted Tuesday, April 4th, 2006 - 9 Comments »
Be Sociable, Share!

Reporting That Businesses Do Business Continues

spfart3_100.gifWell, the New York Times decided to cool down the hype in the print edition, adjusting the web headline “Universal Will Not Pull ‘United 93’ Trailer, Despite Criticism” to “Despite Criticism, Trailer for 9/11 Film Will Run.”
But the dumbage, uh, damage, is already done. The AP web headline is “Theater Pulls Trailer for ‘United 93’” and contains a grand total of NO original reporting, instead relying on a quote from Newsweek (here in press release form… because publishing news is not enough) and overall tone from the New York Times.
For those of you who wonder why I get upset about NYT screw-ups, this is why. The paper is like the match being struck at the opening of Mission:Impossible and every paper in the country will feel that following the leader requires that they investigate this shockingshocking United 93 trailer story, no matter how thin the story.
And then there is this groundshaking story from the West Coast cypher, the LA Times – “Wal-Mart Sells ‘Brokeback’ Amid Conservative Protest.”
I’m not saying there isn’t a story here, but shouldn’t the story have run as soon as the American Family Association started its campaign against Wal-Mart stocking the Brokeback Mountain DVD? Given that the only example of Wal-Mart folding to conservative pressure groups that LAT can come up with is dumping a pregnant doll in the Barbie line, is there any news in the fact that America’s #1 DVD retailer, Wal-Mart, is selling a hit movie? And if a story is going to be done, shouldn’t it be something more complex, like a look at whether less successful or independently distributed films with gay content have been or can be stocked at Wal-Marts?
Somehow, this story both manages to overstate the issue of whether Wal-Mart might censor Brokeback Mountain and lets Wal-Mart off the hook way to easily.
Take a whiff!
LATE ADD: 11:59a – Just saw a report in CNN that was actually more thoughtful. They were, as so many are, obliged to do the story because of the NYT, but after noting the one theater that pulled the trailer and Universal’s response, the reporter pointed out that the film was made with the complete approval of the families of the passengers, and then A.J. Hammer added a personal note that, “We’ve shown it twice on Showbiz Tonight and I’ve had to look away each time.” I’m not sure that Mr. Hammer’s stomach as a reporter can be vouched for, but at least the piece framed all the issues and non-issues of it. The CNN anchor followed up with the fact that he felt it was “too soon.” And that is a discussion worth having… a discussion, not a headline.

Be Sociable, Share!

9 Comments »

9 Responses to “Reporting That Businesses Do Business Continues”

  1. waterbucket says:
    April 4, 2006 at 1:12 pm

    Geez, and I thought I was a whiner after that Brokeback’s loss at the Oscars. It’s the spring, Dave, and you should feel a little happier and less crabby.
    Anyway, what are you doing tonight? Are you into chains or handcuffs at all?
    Haha.

  2. jeffmcm says:
    April 4, 2006 at 1:27 pm

    Wal-Mart as pulled numerous CDs of artists they don’t like, correct?

  3. ManWithNoName says:
    April 4, 2006 at 1:28 pm

    I have nothing of substance to add, so…
    Did anyone read the Time piece linked on MCN about Gibson’s “Apocalypto”? I’m extremely excited for the film. Say what you want about Mel, his vision as a director continues to impress.

  4. adorian says:
    April 4, 2006 at 1:57 pm

    Since I live out in the middle of rural Nowhere, I was eager to rush to Wal-Mart to buy the DVD of “Brokeback Mountain” today. I was happy to see that they had a large rack with it prominently displayed. I hate being 5 months behind all you “big city slickers” in seeing my movies, but it was worth the wait. I liked “Brokeback,” and I also liked “Crash.” Both films have their tremendous merits, and I don’t begrudge “Crash” its Oscar vistory at all.

  5. waterbucket says:
    April 4, 2006 at 3:16 pm

    Adorian, you don’t begrudge “Crash” for its Oscar at all???
    Then you don’t exist. =p

  6. James Leer says:
    April 5, 2006 at 11:17 am

    “I’m not saying there isn’t a story here, but shouldn’t the story have run as soon as the American Family Association started its campaign against Wal-Mart stocking the Brokeback Mountain DVD?”
    The story ran the first day Wal-Mart actually sold the DVDs…if it had run any sooner, half the story wouldn’t be there.

  7. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:
    April 6, 2006 at 1:58 am

    These family groups need to get in the same room, and be “brainwashed” with our immoral ways. Dickhead morons, the lot of ’em.

  8. Chucky in Jersey says:
    April 6, 2006 at 5:28 am

    “Conservative Protest” is a code phrase for “Right-Wing Pressure Group”. The American Family Association is run by a Christian fundamentalist who hates the entertainment industry. That right-wing zealot is on record as saying Hollywood is run by Jews.
    On this one I’m with Wal-Mart. Had it caved to the AFA and pulled “Brokeback Mountain”, Wal-Mart would have been blacklisted by NBC Universal and sued for breach of contract. Focus Features did that to the Mormon-owned theater chain in Utah that banned the movie. [NBC Universal owns Focus.]

  9. palmtree says:
    April 6, 2006 at 2:20 pm

    I’m afraid Walmart has more control in this situation than Uni. They are the top retailers of DVDs, and Uni would not willingly give up the revenue stream.

The Hot Blog

Comments Most Recent Archives

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