 
|
 |
|
Los Angeles-based Hollywood reporter Sharon Waxman is featured today on the New York Times website, answering reader questions in the "Forums" section about the Oscars and the movie business. So far only two questions are up, and one of them generated a correction.
Her story in the paper today on the possible harm to Mel Gbson's career done by Passion of the Christ has some people in Hollywood asking their own questions. Waxman quotes an unidentified studio chairman saying, not for attribution, that he won't hire Mel Gibson ever again, and she mentions another chairman not by name who feels similarly. David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg of Dreamworks are mentioned by name, but the source who says they have "privately expressed anger over the film" is an unidentified studio executive. You have to go eleven paragraphs into the story before anyone criticizes Gibson by name, and it is Haim Saban, who sent an email to friends last week complaining about Gibson and his father's Holocaust-denier views.
(This is the first time I've used the online "New York Times link generator," which promises to create hyperlinks that will endure longer than one week. It created the second link above; let me know if it doesn't work for anyone.)
Update: Rumors swirled much of Thursday that the NYT would run an editor's note about the story -- and the rumors proved accurate. In Friday's paper, the Times says:
An article in The Arts yesterday about Hollywood's reaction to Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" cited an executive close to David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg, principals of DreamWorks, saying that the two men had privately expressed anger over the film.The Times should have checked directly with both men and given them an opportunity to comment on the executive's statement.
Mr. Geffen said yesterday: "Neither Jeffrey or I have seen the movie or have formed an opinion about it."
At the end of the day, regardless or what studio execs may say (or be attributed to them), business is business and Gibson is bankable. He'll do just fine.
Posted by: ben at February 26, 2004 06:05 PMIn Hollywood, the bottom line is the bottom line and Gibson's movie made back it's production cost on opening day. He will be fine. Just fine.
Posted by: Rodger Jacobs at February 26, 2004 07:03 PMBoy, Sharon's quite a boffo bonanza, herself,, isn't she? Two questions? My Mom could draw two questions!
And an un-ID'd studio head--there's a scoop, for sure.
Wow, that was one huge blunder by the Times. I was receiving posts and private emails all day yesterday, challenging me to defend Katzenberg's position (someone I have worked with). Of course--although I found The Passion an execrably violent work--I would never defend censorship of this kind. Waxman should really go to the woodshed for this!
Posted by: Roger L. Simon at February 27, 2004 12:00 PMRoger, do you doubt that Katzenberg has been overheard "expressing anger" about the film? I'll assume for now that Sharon's source was right about that. But if she didn't call JK and DG officially to check, yeah she should have. It's quite possible all that's happened here is the Dreamworks guys got heat yesterday (as you say, everybody was talking about it) and prevailed on the NYT to run the note.
Posted by: Kevin Roderick at February 27, 2004 03:36 PMHollywood is all about money. I don't believe that people aren't going to work with Gibson.
Posted by: Tiffany at February 28, 2004 02:52 PMQuite the contrary. They're probably lining up to work with him on the sequel.
Posted by: ben at March 1, 2004 10:35 AM
of LA Observed
I guess for some the question is simply one of trying to ascertain whether or not the apple falls far enough from the tree. But to me, the bigger question is not whether the film is anti-Semitic (it is, and so is the material on which it's based), which may or may not not mean that Mel Gibson himself is anti-Semitic too, as it's his artistic license to make it the way he wants. The question to me is who the hell really loves or even cares about this film enough to think it's anything other than pure sadomaso-pornography. So far as I can tell, it's only right-wing fundamentalists, the Bush Christian coalition, who love this film.
Posted by: joseph at February 26, 2004 05:55 PM