Quote:
|
Is there anything to this? Hell, I dunno.
|
That's a more probable point. I said as much during last year's Oscar thread. My point at the time was that I simply don't trust LA film critics/writers during Oscar season because I always wonder which are on the take or being gladhanded or have other interests at work.
I know there are an awful lot of "fishy" articles that come from high-profile critics in that region. You know, those high charged negative slams full of all sorts of agendas. We've already discussed the anti-Scorsese article, for example.
I often wonder what the point is of an ill-timed article like that if not soley to sway votes. Rallying against an action which not only has not yet occurred, but is in the process of being decided by the very people who will read your article.
IMO, writers for LA papers/magazines should lay off the anti-slants during awards season. After all, isn't it supposed to be a time of celebration of all things film from the last year? To read some of these guys it's no more than politics to them, and mud slinging politics at that. I would say that if they have real reason to believe in some sort of financial tampering, then such allegations should be brought out professionally in a researched and sourced article, or otherwise left unmentioned.
And more specifically it would seem that the focus should be on the enablers of this studio "misconduct", the other writers, gift givers, etc that allow votes to be bought or swayed. Cite the examples, give us solid reasoning at least if not outright proof.
Otherwise there is NOTHING distinguishing one of these articles from the slander they are allegedly against. For all we know New Line slipped Poland a big fat check to slam Miramax.
Now Poland does cite 2 specific accusations, though again only by speculation. The info resurfacing about Polanski's statutory rape and the Kidman/Law photos/scandal.
Well, there are 2 major flaws with either of those theories. First, Kidman is
MIRAMAX'S shot at Best Actress. So, they are slandering themselves??? Is this how anti-Chicago people have become so that they see the Hours as Miramax competition? That's outright stupidity. Especially when all the while the Hours team is praising Harvey high and low too.
And then the Polanski thing. Well gee, he was forced to leave the country to avoid going to jail. He is back in the spotlight with The Pianist. I have bad news for Roman or any other criminal like this, YOU are not your work. In other words, go ahead and make whatever art you want, it will never be good enough to undo your crime. That is what the legal system is for. Go do your time and then I will be willing to put it in the past. But as long as you are a fugitive is there the least bit of surprise that your crime is permenantly attached to your name?
"Hey, I shot a man to death but I wrote a great song about it so can we just forget the whole thing now?" Sheesh.
Cripes, OJ DID go through the legal system and he still won't be able to do a film period, let alone have it come out without the public bringing the murder trial back up again.
Then Poland makes yet another unfounded claim which falls under the guise of logical debate but is really just a method for further slander..
Quote:
|
If Adrien Brody was considered to be a legitimate threat to Nicholson and Daniel Day Lewis, do you think we’d be reading about some awful thing he might have done as a younger man?
|
Look, if Poland got a phone call saying "hey, we want you to do a story on Polanski to wipe him out of the race", then Poland needs to say so explicitly. You don't say "I don't want to say who, but let's just say somebody was doing you know what with someone else". That is still just gossip, and it's no different than the campaigning he is backhandly accusing Miramax of.
If I were Poland, I would RECORD some of these conversations and then bring them to public light. If he could tie people directly to such methods, even if it was just the go-betweens working for Harvey, he could wipe them out legitimately and help put an end to the activity.
Of course he doesn't do this. And why? Because he WANTS TO KEEP THOSE SOURCES, he doesn't want to burn the bridges. Now imagine the Washington Post choosing not to burn bridges with Nixon during Watergate. That's the same thing. If these sources are not good people, if they are feeding you Miramax based slander, then WHO CARES if you report them and they stop talking to you. You just told us that their stuff is questionable or outright slander.
Or does this just mean that Poland wants to keep his slander for use on his choosing. "Keep sending me the dirt and I will decide which of it I want to use." It's still slander no matter who you are going after. Seeing Miramax as the bad guy doesn't justify the means, it just means you play dirty for a different team.
I'm not pro-Miramax, I just get sickened when I see the anti-Miramax people using the same methods but playing from a holier-than-thou angle. Let's just have hard journalism.
Thi, does that advert mean that we are to view Robert Wise as a corrupted voter who seeks only to sway votes for the highest bidder? Otherwise it doesn't matter who asked him to write the letter. If he was willing to do it without the exchange of money or favors (which would need to be reported) then why shouldn't Marty run the ad. I can see why the Times would view such a letter as a possible Oscar ad only and decide not to print it. I suppose the content would differentiate it as a good letter-to-the-editor or just campaigning.
But if Wise told Harvey or Marty that he loved and respected the effort, then why shouldn't Harvey say "Gee Robert, if you feel that way it would be great if you perhaps told other people." I mean if Wise really feels the way described in the letter and was willing to do it as a friendly gesture only, then so what.
That's quite different than "Hey, if you write this letter we will sign you to a deal next year to direct a film yourself."
That the Times passed on printing the letter is of little news unless Poland assumes that every single letter that is sent in is actually printed. Heck, what if the Times is on New Line's side or someone else's side? That would be motivation enough to not print it too.
As it stands, its an advert only with Wise's words as the copy. That is quite a legitimate method for campaigning, it's recognized as a paid advert. Much better than "reporting" it within a news article as if it were an unbiased piece of journalism. IMO, that method runs rampant in Oscar season, which is again why I say it's tough to trust any "news" out of the Hollywood/LA area during JAN/FEB.
And again the Scorsese thing becomes stupid when you consider that the toughest competition Scorsese faces is ANOTHER MIRAMAX director, Rob Marshall (who just won the DGA). It's fucking silly to picture Miramax agents double-dealing each other, outbidding themselves to win these various awards away from one another.
It's certainly more interesting than the "The Oscars screwed up again by giving it to Chicago" debate that will soon flood either this thread or the post-Oscar discussion thread.
