Around 12 years ago, Harry and Moriarty said, “Mr. Valenti, tear down that wall.”

For the movie business, this was every bit as revolutionary – and maybe more so – than the Berlin Wall finally being pulled down.

From the very beginning, the movie industry was about creating illusion, including the mythologies of the studio chiefs, producers, directors, and obviously, the movie stars. (Screenwriters… not so fast.) This hadn’t really changed. The concept of a more democratic-minded media was USA Today and those colorful charts. Tabloids existed, but as it still is today, most of what they printed was fed to even the most scandalous outlets by publicists.

The internet, led by Ain’t It Cool News, changed that.

Oh yes… and our Berlin Wall was made up of concept art from X-Men, test screening reviews of Batman & Robin, and videotapes of Episode One… in other words, nothing of real consequence in and of itself. The only thing of import was the potential effect of these leaks of the box office of movies… and even then, it only mattered to the funders of those movies, the studios.

Very important in micro… nearly meaningless in macro.

This has become an absolute bane of our industry. The schizophrenia between the terribly important and the terribly meaningless is making people crazy. And navigating between the two is the primary occupation of the publicists, marketers, all forms of media, and talent and studios and stars and all those who support all of this machinery.

And this is where we find ourselves today, as last 6 Oscar hopefuls of the season are about to drop – at least for media – and it would be no shock at all if 2 or 3 of the ultimate Best Picture nominees came from this last group.

Oh my, it’s all so exciting!!!

Oh my, who give a crap?

This, of course, is what translates to annually shrinking ratings for The Oscars. But that is another column for another day. I am too busy examining my navel for that right now.

Remember when TMI stood for Too Much Information? Now it stands for Too Many Idiots.

The thing is, everyone is just trying to do their job… do what’s best for their movie… do what’s best for their newspaper… do what’s best for their blog… do what’s best for their career.

Unfortunately, what that leads to, here in the awards trenches, is a lot of dancing, a lot of lying, a lot of manipulating, a lot of breaking rules that long-standing professionals know are rules they should be respecting, and a lot of memory loss, and an absolutely unnecessary and destructive frustration.

Things that should mean nothing turn in a flash into hard fought battles that leave scars. And the things that should mean a lot become an afterthought.

For instance… it’s all about whether the movies are good or bad, right? No one I know disagrees with that… as a principle.

But what are you are probably noticing is – isn’t that the bear – that coverage gets nastier as we in the media get closer to the relief that seeing the actual movies is supposed to me. (And of course, for the public, most of the movies are still months from being part of their lives.) So what you are reading about is embargoes and screening dates and information being snuck out of screenings by “spies” and the level of paranoia at the studios is getting higher and higher and higher.

The chicken and the egg are chasing each other in a circle. Studios are paranoid about just showing the movies because they no longer trust virtually anyone not to do something other than what was agreed to in principle. And “journalists” are doing something other than what is agreed to in principle because they feel untrusted, and therefore in direct conflict, with those studios. Both are right. And both are creating the problem for the other side by acting out on those feelings.

Does it matter when they actually show a movie? Nope. But it does! Why? Because they are showing it to some other person or group for some reason with some ulterior goal that has nothing to do with treating those left out with earned professional respect. And unfortunately, the studio/publicist side lies about it… endlessly.. because they know that some people are not willing to allow the truth to be enough. But for others, the lies are too much more difficult to bear than the truth. And so the circle goes around and around.

On top of that, we are in a financial climate in which simply getting off the merry-go-round is not an option for many journalists. There are real fears about how “missing” a story or just not being “first” will effect your standing with your employer.

So when you see or are allowed to write about a movie may seem trivial from a distance… and it may end up being trivial… but in the heat of the battle, it can feel like life or death to many, on both sides of the seesaw.

Think of your own family. A cut on the knee of a 5-year-old can create an atmosphere of hysteria. Who ate a bigger serving of steak? Whose iPod is 40g and whose is 60g (even though neither pre-teen has enough music to fill either)?

In this case, there really are millions – sometimes tens of millions, sometimes hundreds – of dollars at stake. People have spent years of their lives doing the work that feels so very personal.

On the flip side, we journalists don’t have that kind of cushy playpen in which to work. No one is getting us coffee and checking our foreheads for shiny spots (usually). And our only working investment in the work of the artists, paid for by the studio (and others), is how we can use the access we have to raise our professional status. So today’s fever will turn into next week’s fever. And we should understand that we have a much, much lower stake in these films than those who make and release them.

Yet… the pressure on the media side is very, very real. And whether it’s tiddly-winks or high-stakes poker or the Oscar season, competition brings out different things in different people. But for people who have risen to a place where someone is paying intense attention, it is very likely that when the game is afoot, the competitive streak will be wide and fierce.

It is time to think, and think hard, about what should happen in the “fallen wall” landscape. For me, it comes down to working in an atmosphere of trust and honesty. Of course, some will cross the line, on both sides. But for those of us in these trenches, this is becoming, more and more, a hostile work environment. And some of that will never change. People with huge risk involved in their work tend to be very high strung. And for many years, studios have been free to manipulate the media as they saw fit, with limited blowback. Now, more than ever, structure is a necessity… and in less evidence than ever before.

And it’s not the blogosphere… unless you realize, it’s ALL the blogosphere now. All of it. Every jackass that spent the last five years whining about “those bloggers” is now blogging and blogign hard, because it is their last chance to keep a paying gig.

After all, Ain’t It Cool News is a part of the mainstream now. Every once in a while, they send up a flare of rage and individuality. But mostly, they are a part of the system (a part with its own voice, style, and rabid audience). And Mr. Valenti, the suave showman, is now Mr. Glickman, the smart political mechanic.

So let’s put this all where it should be… on the sidelines… and get back to what matters.

The movies.

Just that simple. Just that complex.

– David Poland
November 13, 2008

Four years ago, it was one of our softest Oscar seasons.

Eight years ago, it was one of our best.

How much does the election matter?

2004 didn’t seem terribly urgent, as the election went. As much as people wanted Bush out in this town, by this time of year it already seemed pretty unlikely that John Kerry had it in him to overthrow the W.

There was something rather retro about the season, with The Aviator, Ray, and Finding Neverland all set in the past; Million Dollar Baby feeling for all the world like a 50s period drama, and the only “current” movie was Sideways, which was, as most Payne/Taylor films are, kinda 70s.

Left behind were Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, Fahrenheit 9/11, The Sea Inside, The Motorcycle Diaries, Collateral, House Of Flying Daggers, Bad Education, and others… none very comfortable.

On the other hand, 2000 embraced Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Traffic, Erin Brockovich, and the more conventional Gladiator (and Chocolat…. oy). These were small, muscular movies that pushed the envelope on production.

Of course, Gladiator won. Whether that was about it being The Epic or just because the small movies knocked each other out, we have no way of knowing for sure.

This year, Australia, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Slumdog Millionaire all offer the possibility of a movie/movie epic to Academy voters. Interestingly, all three filmmakers are capable of pushing the envelope, though we only really have a clear picture of Danny Boyle’s work so far. And all three, amazingly, also have that kind of period feel… two being in period and the in-India film feeling old-school – in spite of being quick cut – down to the heat around the show who Wants to Be A Millionaire?.

And every other major contender right now is also period – Frost/Nixon, Doubt, Revolutionary Road, Milk, The Reader, and indeed, the old-white-guy race drama, Gran Torino.

Hmmmm…

Even the next group of films – aside from The Dark Knight – is periodist… The Visitor, Rachel Getting Married, Happy Go Lucky, and The Wrestler are all very 70s… Che is set in the 60s and 70s and Defiance is set in WWII.

How will all of these films find a way to differentiate? This is the advantage of the bigger movies. No film will have the landscape of Australia. No film will have the time lapse of Ben Button. No film will have the exotic joy and amazing familiarity of Slumdog.

Are Frost/Nixon and Milk walking in the same footsteps?

Will we see a radical right-wing season loaded with Meryl Streep in a habit and Clint Eastwood with a sawed-off shotgun?

Who will come out of the four-way intimate drama cage match of Rev Road, Rachel, Wrestler, and Visitor?

What intrigues me about this is that some of these films can’t help but to go away… but one in each category is likely to find its way into the top group of films, five of which will be nominated for Best Picture. And if you are in the fight, you have a shot. The Visitor can be the longest of shots, but so long as it is discussed in the same breath as the once-a-lock Revolutionary Road, the only thing it needsto pull the upset is to be, in the eyes of Academy voters, better.

Now… wearing just my poli-sci hat, here are some ideas:

If Obama wins, the darker films become harder to sell.

If Obama loses, the darker films become easier to sell.

If California’s Prop 8 passes (eliminating gay marriage), Milk becomes very hot in a hurry because it is about a gay political martyr (of sorts), along with Doubt, which is about raging zealotry.

Hard to figure in this is a film like Frost/Nixon, which will be entertaining and interesting, but is not an anti-Nixon polemic. Good or bad?

Does Rachel Getting Married become a celebration of racial harmony or a “been there, done that” leftover?

Is a campaign for “Randy The Wrestler” too ironic… too late after McCain loses… too raw an idea if McCain upsets?

Will anyone want to think about war crimes or Jews in the woods if Obama wins and we are looking forward into a hopefully brighter future?

We’ll see. But it does seem to me, on an instinctual level, that we are already down to a race between the movie/movies… and the difference could be how much pushback each film gets aside from those who love them… unless McCain wins… and then, the mood could change… in a hurry.

– David Poland
October 30, 2008

Four years ago, it was one of our softest Oscar seasons.

Eight years ago, it was one of our best.

How much does the election matter?

2004 didn’t seem terribly urgent, as the election went. As much as people wanted Bush out in this town, by this time of year it already seemed pretty unlikely that John Kerry had it in him to overthrow the W.

There was something rather retro about the season, with The Aviator, Ray, and Finding Neverland all set in the past; Million Dollar Baby feeling for all the world like a 50s period drama, and the only “current” movie was Sideways, which was, as most Payne/Taylor films are, kinda 70s.

Left behind were Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, Fahrenheit 9/11, The Sea Inside, The Motorcycle Diaries, Collateral, House Of Flying Daggers, Bad Education, and others… none very comfortable.

On the other hand, 2000 embraced Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Traffic, Erin Brockovich, and the more conventional Gladiator (and Chocolat…. oy). These were small, muscular movies that pushed the envelope on production.

Of course, Gladiator won. Whether that was about it being The Epic or just because the small movies knocked each other out, we have no way of knowing for sure.

This year, Australia, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Slumdog Millionaire all offer the possibility of a movie/movie epic to Academy voters. Interestingly, all three filmmakers are capable of pushing the envelope, though we only really have a clear picture of Danny Boyle’s work so far. And all three, amazingly, also have that kind of period feel… two being in period and the in-India film feeling old-school – in spite of being quick cut – down to the heat around the show who Wants to Be A Millionaire?.

And every other major contender right now is also period – Frost/Nixon, Doubt, Revolutionary Road, Milk, The Reader, and indeed, the old-white-guy race drama, Gran Torino.

Hmmmm…

Even the next group of films – aside from The Dark Knight – is periodist… The Visitor, Rachel Getting Married, Happy Go Lucky, and The Wrestler are all very 70s… Che is set in the 60s and 70s and Defiance is set in WWII.

How will all of these films find a way to differentiate? This is the advantage of the bigger movies. No film will have the landscape of Australia. No film will have the time lapse of Ben Button. No film will have the exotic joy and amazing familiarity of Slumdog.

Are Frost/Nixon and Milk walking in the same footsteps?

Will we see a radical right-wing season loaded with Meryl Streep in a habit and Clint Eastwood with a sawed-off shotgun?

Who will come out of the four-way intimate drama cage match of Rev Road, Rachel, Wrestler, and Visitor?

What intrigues me about this is that some of these films can’t help but to go away… but one in each category is likely to find its way into the top group of films, five of which will be nominated for Best Picture. And if you are in the fight, you have a shot. The Visitor can be the longest of shots, but so long as it is discussed in the same breath as the once-a-lock Revolutionary Road, the only thing it needsto pull the upset is to be, in the eyes of Academy voters, better.

Now… wearing just my poli-sci hat, here are some ideas:

If Obama wins, the darker films become harder to sell.

If Obama loses, the darker films become easier to sell.

If California’s Prop 8 passes (eliminating gay marriage), Milk becomes very hot in a hurry because it is about a gay political martyr (of sorts), along with Doubt, which is about raging zealotry.

Hard to figure in this is a film like Frost/Nixon, which will be entertaining and interesting, but is not an anti-Nixon polemic. Good or bad?

Does Rachel Getting Married become a celebration of racial harmony or a “been there, done that” leftover?

Is a campaign for “Randy The Wrestler” too ironic… too late after McCain loses… too raw an idea if McCain upsets?

Will anyone want to think about war crimes or Jews in the woods if Obama wins and we are looking forward into a hopefully brighter future?

We’ll see. But it does seem to me, on an instinctual level, that we are already down to a race between the movie/movies… and the difference could be how much pushback each film gets aside from those who love them… unless McCain wins… and then, the mood could change… in a hurry.

– David Poland
October 23, 2008