MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

A Little Irony

Peter Bart’s latest blog attack – printed on his blog with support from Anne Thompson’s blog and indeed, linked to the cover of the MCN website, often called a blog – had the usual dose of “it’s not us, it’s them.” But what really struck me as funny (both odd and ha-ha) was his slap at come-lately websites (like MCN since award season ended) not having enough ads… but take a look at the page he posted it on…
varietyads.jpg
4 ads for Variety… 0 from paying advertisers.
Thing is, it’s not Us vs Them. Variety will survive based on its value in the marketplace, as will MCN. And one-person sites like Nikki Finke’s and Jeff Wells’ will survive as long as those individuals can earn enough to feel good about the effort that goes into their pages. And the newer sites, like The Wrap and HitFix, which have gone and found outside money to launch, will have to deal with their funders and the revenue streams they all feel good about.
What is disingenuous about Bart’s piece is the idea that blogs or websites are somehow more vulnerable to the slings and arrows of competitive angst than Traditional Media like Variety. As I have said forever, my biggest fear with where some New Media is going is that Traditional Media is following like voracious sheep trying to become wolves.
It is true that Nikki Finke is the scum of the earth and that there is not a single studio in town that has not used her AND been burned by her. Only one, that I know of, has given up on controlling her and mostly cut her off. The Nikki Handlers are alive and well. But the worm, in part because there is so much talk about Nikki, seems to be turning. That said, the way Nikki wields her willingness to be reckless and uninterested in facts over insinuation makes her a very hard animal for the industry to put down.
Still, her business does not directly affect Variety’s revenues (or MCN’s, for that matter). The question Variety faces is the need for any trade magazine in the internet era with the significant overhead that the paper – and The Hollywood Reporter – carries. And as Bart notes for others, though it is just as true for Variety, this is a given information “news” arena… not a serious reporter’s medium. Some of the very worst reporting on this business has been from reporters who take their work dead seriously… because the rules of Hollywood just aren’t the same. The stakes are lower and the egos are bigger and corporations lie daily in spite of their stockholder responsibilities.
Stories like DreamWorks/Par/Universal/Disney are the kinds of stories that “real reporters” can work over a series of days, weeks, and months. They matter as news as much as anything in this business does. But for the most part, this is a gossip business. And the people who wield the gossip stick best – or most willfully – are perceived as the most powerful. It used to be Variety. It used to be Patrick Goldstein. Right now, it’s Nikki.
But as her ego inspires her to push her sources – and more importantly, their staffs – to the brink (the entire exercise of her page is about Nikki’s ego and the more it is fed, the more of an embrace she needs to keep up the buzz that keeps her massive self-loathing in check), the info will spread out again. And as I have written before, it already has on stories like Rudin vs Weinstein, where the gossip outlet of choices shifted for each player as Nikki’s ego caused her to expose her sources in a completely transparent way.
On of these days, when I am feeling particularly reckless, we’ll run the list of Nikki Handlers and the sourcing for her last 50 stories or so. But I’m in Bermuda trying to relax and see 3 or 4 movies a day right now.
Anyway… interesting times. All guys like Bart want is to be back on top. And really, who can blame them for that?
ADD – 8:18a, Monday – If you want a specific example of the kind of arrogance that will eventually end the Nikki Finke gossip thing, just look at today’s attack on NBC’s Parks & Recreation, where she reprints an internal document from the network. Like or hate Ben Silverman, who someone clearly has been using Nikki for his entire tenure to tear down, what kind of piece of shit hands Nikki an internal testing report for public consumption in what is sure to be the nastiest way? The kind of piece of shit who is getting closer and closer to being exposed to his/her employers, if this kind of “look what I have” crap continues. This is not old school AICN temp-took-it-off-a-desk stuff (and yes, AICN has evolved well past that). This is clearly an executive or agent with an agenda that Nikki follows blindly because Silverman has been her best fed whipping boy and she has been able to sustain the attack for the longest period with the most eye-catching vitriol.
Having worked in testing for a short period of my life, I can tell you that some of the best shows I ever saw were killed by these kinds of reports. And some of the biggest hits that were on the air a decade ago had reports like this and were successfully turned around.
This show isn’t going anywhere. But some people are having a miserable day today, thanks to Nikki… and Ben Silverman is not at the top of that list. The TALENT that Nikki claims to be supportive of… they get the worst of nasty little stunts like this. Congrats on the “journalism,” Nikki. Brilliant cutting and pasting, as ever.

Be Sociable, Share!

13 Responses to “A Little Irony”

  1. Blackcloud says:

    Three or four movies a day? That’s a lot. Won’t they all turn into a blur after a while if you keep that pace up for more than a couple of days?

  2. I haven’t read the guys article (why waste my time?) but whose issue is it how many ads someone has? Shouldn’t he want less ads on rival blogs so they go bankrupt or whatever. Ugh. Pointless.

  3. scooterzz says:

    I haven’t read the guys article (why waste my time?)
    well, what a dickish remark that is…how many informative, entertaining books have you written lately?…you may have a keen eye for (other people’s) art but when it comes to actually producing anything…well…jus’ sayin’…

  4. Bob Violence says:

    Speaking for myself, I’ve written 27 massively informative and entertaining books within the past six months and I agree that Bart sucks.

  5. David Poland says:

    Pretty standard for film fests, Blackcloud, though I have been slowed at Sundance and Toronto in the last couple of years by the DP/30 effort, which forces a different pace.
    Truth is, the good stuff and the really bad stuff stays crystal clear and the mediocrity tends to fade. I find myself less and less interested in writing about the mediocre and the crap as years go by. And with indies, especially at smaller fests, I really don’t want to bash much… these filmmakers have a hard enough climb without me adding any weight – however small – to their packs.
    Normally, Bermuda means fewer screenings for me, but I am on a jury this year – mostly because of the kind of sponsorship cutbacks that I am seeing at all festivals – and there are other films I want to see. The pace will drop off as more events happen and the weekday schedule of the fest slows to 3 films per screen per day, so I want to get a lot in over the weekend. Plus I still have DVDs from back in LA that I am trying to catch up on.
    And next week, it’s on to AFI Dallas.

  6. MDOC says:

    Why does The Finke hate Ben Silverman so much?
    Can we also call a moratorium on the Poland bashing here? It seems a bit silly and it’s getting old.
    Dave, you seemed to have cooled down on the videos, Lunch with Dave, etc. You should consider podcasting. I really enjoyed the podcast you were a guest on that dealt with the Matrix Blu-Rays. It is interesting to hear about the mood of the screenings and buzz of movies that opened a few years back. It’s probably hard to tell those stories upon release without perspective, but it’s fascinating stuff and nobody is doing it. Watchmen will be an interesting discussion for 5 years from now. The fans are extra rabid, nobody else cares, etc.

  7. SJRubinstein says:

    C’mon, Jim Jarmusch DP/30 for “Limits of Control.”
    Though I’d settle for Neveldine/Taylor for “Crank: High Voltage.”

  8. anghus says:

    she’s a cancer to the industry. not the only one, but certainly the most malignant.
    she’s the Katherine Harris of Hollywood and this description sums her up nicely.
    “a person who willingly uses his or her talent or ability in a base and unworthy way, usually for money.”
    it’s the definition of the word ‘prostitute’.

  9. Scoot, I don’t read Glenn Kenny and since Dave is tearing the piece apart why should I start now?

  10. Oh, and am I supposed to even know that Kenny has written a book? In case you’re not aware, I’m from Australia. I generally don’t follow any American critics.

  11. jeffmcm says:

    Not even the good ones?

  12. David Poland says:

    Haven’t cooled. DP/30 is, actually, my top priority these days. There is a new one about 2 entries down… there were 2 more for SXSW… 3 more just before that… about 15 from Sundance… over 30 for Oscar season… more on the way. The pace is more than one a week this year.
    http://davidpoland.typepad.com/dp30/

  13. Jeff, not really. Ebert – when I’m interested – and occasionally Dargis. It’s more about the film itself though. If I want to read reviews for a movie I will, but I have critics from here that I read on a week-to-week basis since they’re dealing with movies that are actually being released here.

The Hot Blog

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