November
21The Chaos of Kudo Season
Kudo season this week shifted into high gear with stars and filmmakers already exhausted, Oscar voters confused and screenings a study in disarray.Last night top critics and other supposed tastemakers were shown Paramount’s “Benjamin Button” at the Directors Guild, but the screening was shut down after about 25 minutes. For reasons no one could fathom, the $150 million movie was being digitally projected in black and white, not color. There were two further efforts to start the movie, but the techies couldn’t get it right.
The audience escaped to the lobby to sample wine and food while Paramount PR folks tried to figure out alternative screening dates. In color.
Meanwhile at the Arclight, Variety’s screening of “Australia” started late. The post-screening interview of the two-hour, 45 minute movie featuring Hugh Jackman and Baz Luhrman had to be cut short because the theater had scheduled a midnight screening of “Twilight.”
Earlier in the week, gremlins had eliminated the titles that were supposed to run with “Che” (which is in Spanish). The titles showed up on another picture. And executives for Paramount Vantage were angered when the film “Defiance” broke during a crucial point in the third act at the Dome Theatre.
It became clear last week that the studios’ key strategy for mobilizing Oscar and Globes votes was to rush their stars and directors to as many Q & A sessions as possible with kudo voters, then ply audiences with booze and food. The Jackman-and-Luhrman team hurtled between the Leno-and-Letterman circuit and live screenings, doing as many as six shows per day.
Even kudo-wary stars like Meryl Streep have gotten embroiled in the Q & A circus. The problems are obvious: Stars get weary responding to the same questions. Given the parade of late-season releases, audiences get numb both to the movies and the stars (especially given the length of the major films).
A gracious man, Hugh Jackman nonetheless was getting irritable by the week’s end, explaining the geo-political ramifications of having been selected People magazine’s Sexiest Man Alive. Danny Boyle, director of dark-horse favorite “Slumdog Millionaire,” had a simpler script. He simply reminded audiences that he’d doubted his film would even get a theatrical release, no less a shot at the Oscar. After Warner Independent couldn’t figure out how to release it, Boyle intervened with his friend Peter Rice to persuade Fox Searchlight to save the day.
Boyle’s no dummy: Underdogs always have the best story to tell.
A postscript: Angelina Jolie has been invisible in the kudo derby, though “Changeling” is being pushed. According to a page-one story in the New York Times, Jolie’s “deal” in talking with the press is that she’s guaranteed control over the coverage and the questions asked. People magazine allegedly bought photos to the newborn twins from Angelina and Brad on condition that she be guaranteed an acceptable “editorial plan.”
One stipulation: No use of the amalgamized name “Brangelina.”
Jolie, the story said, has no press agent (nor does Brad) and rigidly controls her own press relations. Brad is participating marginally in the “Benjamin Button” campaign, but his appearances are limited. Though he’s ingratiating and thoughtful in person, he seems uniformly stilted and impersonally in his TV appearances.
Loosen up, Brangelina! Join in the kudo chaos!
Subscribe to Peter Bart's Blog Feed
• NYTimes, Seeking Page Hits, Finds Backlash
Excerpts:
If the NY Times wants to dredge up vague slurs just as Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have two major Oscar contenders riding in large part on the strength of their image in the media, then I think it’s entirely appropriate that we do what we feel is right to speak out and slap down disparaging innuendos.
Like I said in the update above, it’s downright spooky how misfortune and fate conspire.
Creepy indeed, how the NY Times smear job on Angelina Jolie to magically aligns with their weekend magazine cover featuring Aniston. Gee, it’s almost as if the Times people made some sort of People magazine deal with Aniston. One can imagine the press-manipulating demands behind the scenes:
“Theres a precondition of course: We do the interview, but first you agree to set the stage by publishing something really nasty about That Other Woman.â€
Posted by: Ligaya | 11/23/2008 11:18:13 PM
• Please do a better job of reporting than NY Times reporter Brooks Barnes (known for botching his coverage of the WGA strike) and do some fact checking before being his echo chamber. Mr. Barnes made several baseless allegations including Ms. Jolie going to Pakistan and Afghanistan to deflect criticism of her relationship with Mr. Brad Pitt. Contrary to his belief, the United Nations High Commission on Refugees does not schedule field missions to Pakistan, Afghanistan or anywhere else to accommodate a celebrity’s publicity needs. Did Mr. Barnes even try to confirm with the UNHCR whether Ms. Angelina Jolie in fact initiated either trip?
There are a lot of assertions made and very little to back them up, reliance on only a single source or unnamed sources not independently verified, in a shoddily reported but carefully crafted hit piece against Ms. Jolie. Since when has the New York Times considered a former editor-in-chief of tabloid rags Star and Us Weekly a reliable source? It didn’t even identify the magazines as tabloids well known for inventing stories out of thin air, and it certainly didn’t reveal the conflict of interest between Ms. Fuller in her former capacity as EIC of these rags and tabloid target/subject Jolie.
And certainly, as the article even said, “[w]hile all celebrities seek to manipulate their public images to one degree or another [otherwise known as spin engaged in by all public figures includimg politicians, CEOs, and even Big Media],†why single out Ms. Jolie other than that she’s a cash cow for circulation and internet traffic? Why not name some other names and give some other examples? The least the NY Times could do is one other article examining the rest of this phenomena, a separate article for each isn’t necessary.
Posted by: Ligaya | 11/23/2008 10:52:06 PM
Absolutely not true about Jolie's performance in Changeling lump516. The movie is not without problems but I found Jolie's performance to be top notch and a redeeming quality. It would be nice to see her rewarded for her efforts.
Posted by: sandrinB | 11/23/2008 8:29:18 AM
Considering how bad CHANGELING is, and how hammy and overwrought Jolie is in it, I'd be rather shy about pushing the film in the press, too.
Posted by: lump516 | 11/22/2008 5:58:56 PM