|
Hollywood & Vine
Hosted by Sharon Waxman
Post Style Correspondent
Tuesday, March 20, 2001; 2 p.m. EST
Washington Post Style correspondent Sharon Waxman brings Hollywood & Vine Live Online for a discussion about the inner workings of the movie industry. There is a whole political universe behind how the movies happen, the tug and pull of egos, financial imperatives, a pecking order for privileges as well as genuine creative impulses.
Sharon Waxman is on hand Tuesday, March 20, at 2 p.m. EST to answer your questions and field your comments on the industry personalities she has met; the movies that are causing a stir and why; trends in the industry and the culture of moviemaking in general.
Below is a transcript.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Sharon Waxman: Hi guys; here we are in the final countdown toward the Oscar. Very much a nail-biter this year. Must say, however, that the impending strike is casting a pall over matters. What's new - I already told you about the party cancellations. The Independent Spirit Awards are Saturday and - oh yeah - I haven't had time to shop for an outfit. Let's hear all your votes, and here we go...
Arlington, Virginia:
USA Today today was speculating that there is now a backlash against the Tom Hanks backlash and that he might end up winning his third oscar when it is all over. Have you picked up any of that undercurrent?
Or is there already a backlash against the backlash against the backlash that will give the Oscar to Ed Harris?
Sharon Waxman: You've obviously given this a lot of consideration. I was amazed myself to learn that Tom Hanks is in the top running for this category. The mere fact that he's already won two, and that 'Castaway' has not registered much on the radar, I thought would have made him one of the unlikelies. I'm hearing otherwise.
Not sure what original Tom Hanks backlash you mean, but that's my feel for it. Can't tell if Ed Harris is close to the winner's circle yet. So far it's between Hanks and Crowe, I"m told.
Petworth, D.C.:
Can someone justify Exit Wounds for me?
Sharon Waxman: Anyone? I read that Steven Seagal was so far he couldn't even take off his shirt in the scenes in the weight room. Yikes.
Md.:
The Post's review of "Enemy at the Gates" showed a continuing trend of negative reviews toward military movies. The true bias of the Post.
Sharon Waxman: (Whoops, that last shoulda been "fat".)
I am sure you must be joking, or else you don't read Stephen Hunter. I refer you to his lengthy and laudatory review of 'Saving Private Ryan.' Is it possible that the critic just didn't like Enemy at the Gates? I don't think there's many critics who did.
Bamgor, Maine:
Hey Sharon... u got the lights on? U think the Oscars will get blacked out..that would be intriguing ... heheh.
Sharon Waxman: Yeah what is the deal with the lights out in LA? I've been told for months that we have our own independent electricity supplier that makes us immune to blackouts.
Apparently untrue. For Sunday, perhaps they'll ask the poor folks of South Central, who neighbor the Shrine Auditorium, to skip air conditioning and dinner so there'll be enough klieg power for the Oscar arrivals...
Mt. Rainier, Md.:
Hi Ms. Waxman. I love movies about the '60s made during the '60s. Two I've seen recently were "Candy" and "Joanna," both 1968. While "Candy" is dated, "Joanna" comes across to me as a mild masterpiece. A Brit film (released by 20th/Fox in the states) it wasn't afraid to show an enchanting(but doomed) interracial relationship and the earliest scene(to my knowledge) of a black man and white woman in the same bed. Very daring for '68. Much more believable than the paper mache union we saw in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" the previous year. A young Donald Sutherland and Calvin Lockart round out the cast with the lead actress who became the mother of Bijou Phillips. What other movies do you know of from the '60s dared and treaded uncharted waters? Oh! J. Cassavetes "Shadows" comes to mind.
Sharon Waxman: Alas I know not enough about movies from the 60s except the most famous ones. But I'm happy, as always, to learn from my readers.
On the interracial relationship, it was news to me in S. Hunter's piece on director Stanley Kramer that 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner' was so poorly received at the time. Guess nobody told that to Poitier. On that note, by the way, has anyone noticed to what degree interracial relatinships have become the norm on network (and cable) tv? I don't mean they're more common than the reverse, only that they are all over many shows, and given no subtextual meaning or explanatin, which is kind of cool.
Latest example, which does it so much it seems to try to make a point: Gideon's Crossing. Last night's episode had an Asian-AfricanAm. couple waiting for a liver donor (the competing person was an attached gay guy). In
the meantime, the Af-American chief resident finally blurted out his attraction to the hottie intern, who is white. The show ends with them in an embrace. There have been a lot of these on other shows, Ally McBeal, etc. Movies almost never does this, but tv is, increasingly.
What do you all make of this?
Annapolis, Md.:
Yesterday on Howard University Television, I heard a reviewer say "Chocolat" wasn't really that good. He said it was another riff on "Like Water for Chocolate." He also said that Miramax is spends a lot of money and is very, very good and getting not so hot movies on the Oscar nominations. What do you think??
Sharon Waxman: I agree.
Virginia:
The tie-breaker in my office's Oscar pool is best short film. Any idea who will win this one? Anyone?
Sharon Waxman: Any idea who is nominated? Best short film? Are you?
Re: Backlash against backlash:
Can you please explain this hostility to Tom Hanks? One year everyone loves him and now everyone hates him? I'm all for Ed Harris winning but it seems everywhere I turn it is "I hate Tom Hanks", "I'm sick of Tom Hanks and his good performances".
Or does everyone just want him to play a murderer or something? I just know I always appreciate his performances - and would love to see something along the lines of Philadelphia again.
Sharon Waxman: It's the natural cycle of our media society. Even Tom Hanks must have his moment, though I'd hardly call this an "I hate Tom Hanks" campaign, merely a "Hasn't he been showered with enough prizes, money, good fortune?" feeling.
Speaking of Philadelphia, Javier Bardem said that he watched Hanks' signature speech moment in "Philadelphia" to help him prepare for the role of Renaldo Arenas in 'Before Night Falls.'
WDC:
Noooooooooooooo Tom Hanks!! Why would the Academy give a third Oscar to him in a year where there seems to be good competition in the Best Actor cateogry? I could see it if TH were nominated along with, oh, I don't know, Steven Segal, David Arquette, Tom Arnold, and Sisqo ...
Sharon Waxman: See what I mean?
ArtMovieLover, Va.:
Sharon, is there any correlation between the size of box-office receipts and a movie's Oscar haul? It seems that in the past few years, rather than a Best Picture Oscar boosting a film's box office take, which it inevitably does, that the winning movies already have earned boatloads of money. More people have seen the films, and therefore the voters are more likely to vote for the films. Or is Hollywood insulated from how well a film is doing in the rest of the country?
I think of "Titanic," "Silence of the Lambs," "Forrest Gump" ... I'm sure there are others.
Four of this year's Best Picture nominees have made more than $100 million bucks! Is this a first? The start of a trend? The continuation of a trend? It's kind of disturbing.
Sharon Waxman: You make a good point. I do think that the fact that the moviegoing public has given a film its own stamp of approval by making it a hit does influence the Academy. Everybody loves a winner; hence Titanic, Silence of the Lambs etc.
But that's never enough to put a movie over the top, to win Best Picture. Shakespeare in Love was not a huge box office hit until after it won Best Picture Oscar. American Beauty did well, but not as well as it did after they milked it for its Oscar money.
But that's a good observation, and one that applies fully to a movie like "Gladiator" or 'Crouching Tiger.'
Bangor, Maine:
Probably the one about the holocaust will win ... always does.
Sharon Waxman: You're right about that. Is there a Holocaust-related nominee?
Washington, D.C.:
Why do Oscar followers (like me) harbor the foolish notion that an Oscar should and will go to the best nominee? This year I am immensely disappointed to hear that Crowe and Hanks are the front-runners. Bardem's performance has, deservedly-so, received overwhelming critical acclaim. Yet not even a whisper of him winning. Why is the Academy so far off sometimes?
Sharon Waxman: Feel free to let it out. That's what we're here for..
Fairfax:
I have noticed more interracial couples, but they are not often shown kissing, which I still find a bit strange. It's like they get thatclose and then its time for a commercial.
I love Gideon's crossing, Andre Braugher is awesome. I hope this show does not get screwed in Scheduling Roulette.
Sharon Waxman: Haven't noticed that. But interesting.
Washington, D.C. :
Saw "Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her" on cable. Terrific movie; good stars. Why did it end up on cable rather than in theaters?
Sharon Waxman: I refer you back to story on actresses in the Post a couple of weeks back. A lot of people were livid that movie did not get a theatrical release, but I had heard through the grapevine that it wasn't very good. (Therefore I didn't make an effort to see it; think it was at Sundance last year.) I believe this movie was bought for theatrical and then dumped on cable because they didn't think it would draw an audience that would justify the cost of making movie prints and advertsing. Another nail in the coffin of movies for/about women. (If it's as good as you say.)
Arlington, Va. :
Re: interracial
Since TV is still considered less important than movies, even trivial, it can sometimes do more things than a movie (and if something is disastrous there is always next week in TV). A movie is a one-shot deal that tries to minimize the risks.
Movies would also attract a lot more commentary along the lines of "Why is Hollywood all depicting good looking women/man in relationships with . What sort of example does this set for our that they aren't good enough for a relationship?
LJ
Sharon Waxman: Mmmmm. Really? (I read something like that regarding David Kelley's interracial storyline last year for Ally McB.) Good point that it's less risky on TV. But it's also more like real life. Will the movies ever catch up?
Crystal City, Va.:
I just saw "Cast Away" and don't see how Tom even gets the nomination. He did a ok job but nothing exceptional; like most of the nominations this year, the movie is just so so.
Sharon Waxman: Last week: Julia Roberts-bashing.
This week: Tom Hanks-bashing.
Next week: Sharon-bashing. (No, no, just kidding.)
Bangor, Maine:
Problem is in today's Hollywood no one has the ingenuity to do what Hitchcock did with James Stewart, make a seemingly positive movie icon into a highly complex and even disturbing figure, and apparenetly Hanks isn't interested in upsetting his fan base either ... too bad.. . love to see Hanks as an obsessed lethal lover or something dark ...
Sharon Waxman: Somehow I think it would be too jarring to see him in something like that. I really doubt his fan base - and that's much of America - would accept seeing him like that.
(Had a jarring moment the other night: saw the godawful 'Bridget Jones Diary,' and spent the first 10 minutes squinting at the screen, trying to get used to Rene Zellweger - miss Midwestern milkmaid - speaking with a London accent. Horrible case of miscasting.
D.C.:
Hi Sharon!
Do you think that Before Night Falls will get more attention after the Oscars?
Sharon Waxman: Only if Javier Bardem wins.
Bowie:
In last week's chat you remarked that studios aren't particularly enamored with negative publicity about films like Dogma and The Last Temptation of Christ. I wouldn't have thought studios would care, since people who would participate in boycotts of such films and their studios probably don't go to many Hollywood movies anyway.
Is angering religously conservative Christians a bigger no-no than I had thought?
Sharon Waxman: I think Hollywood was so flipped out by the controversies over Temptation, and a few years later, Priest, that it turned them off doing controversial takes on religious stories. Especially now that these studios are part of big corporations that can ill afford boycotts; what I mean is, sure the Christian right may not be their movie audience, but they certainly are a segment of those who go to theme parks, or buy Disney movies. Hollywood has become extremely risk-averse in all areas, not only this one.
Re: interracial relationships:
Seems to me that Hollywood is too cautious in this regard. I was trying to think of an instance of an interracial couple in a movie that didn't focus on that aspect of the relationship and came up blank. Anyone else?
Sharon Waxman: Anyone?
Bangor, Maine:
Seeems TV is much more socially edgy than film probably due to cable competetion ... but I'm waiting to see the first SM sitcom on Showtime ... that's what the TV world really needs ... someone's writing it now I bet ...
Sharon Waxman: I would hardly call network TV socially edgy. Showtime, with that series on gay life, is trying; HBO, with programming like the Sopranos, is succeeding. What passes for edgy in network tv usually just means closer to the lowest common denominator - raunchy, drenched with sexual suggestion. Maybe 'The Job,' that new series with Denis Leary, makes a stab in that direction.
Washington, D.C.:
I didn't want to bring up the issue of "a holocaust movie always wins" because it's hard to take on that issue and not sound like a bigot. But, I'm curious what you think of this, Sharon. I hadn't even though of it until Spike Lee's "4 Little Girls" lost the best documentary award to a holocaust film that I had never seen or heard of. Spike seemed pretty bitter.
Sharon Waxman: Spike's always bitter. But that doesn't mean he has a point.
There are certain realities in Hollywood, and that doesn't make anyone a bigot. The average age of voting Academy memberes is extremely advanced - I don't know the exact number, but it is very old. They don't kick you out until you kick off. And there are a large number of Jews in Hollywood, that's a secret to no one. The number of African-Americans in the Academy is definitely not proportional to the general population, and even if it were, that probably wouldn't outweigh sentiment for a morally weighty, war-generation documentary. Also, the documentaries are usually all pretty awesome; any one of them could get an Oscar, most years.
Jarring Tom Hanks:
But don't you think if he were really interested in the craft he's want to expand beyond what his fan base will or will not accept?
It just seems that TH is interested in being a movie star and not an actor, a la Willem Dafoe, Ed Harris, etc.
Sharon Waxman: Certainly playing a movie solo, opposite a soccer ball, would be considered daring by many people.
Also Forrest Gump was not a leading man, handsome role - and neither was Philadelphia. Come on, Hanks is a brave actor.
Downtown:
Not the best movie of all time, but "Bodyguard" with Kevin Costner and Whitney Houston made no mention of race but featured a romance between the stars.
Sharon Waxman: that movie was originaly supposed to be with Barbara Streisand and they had to fight like hell to get the studio to agree to Whitney Houston.
Glover Park:
Hey, Sharon! Finally saw "Almost Famous" last night on DVD. Is it up for any Oscars at all?
Sharon Waxman: Best Screenplay.
Buenos Aires, South Africa:
For gosh sakes, Sharon. Give Ed Harris the friggin' award already. Make Tom Hanks and Russell Crowe have a man-on-man sex scene with each other and then give them the award next year. Sheesh. Why is this so complicated?
Sharon Waxman: I'm with you. But I don't vote. (Though if I did, I'd be sorely tempted to go with Javier Bardem.)
Alexandria, Va.:
Speaking of Mr. Crowe, this was from the New York Times profile on him a few weeks back: "One of the more oft-repeated stories about Mr. Crowe, which surfaced several years ago and involves the actor's reported habit of shouting out his own name during sex, has transcended industry gossip to become one of those legends that cling to the famous as part of the smog of fame. Last year, the story was the subject of a column in the British newspaper The Guardian, and even the British Film Institute's monthly magazine, Sight and Sound, has referred to the actor as "Russell `Go Russ' Crowe." Do you think the piece was meant to bolster his chances? I know I'm kind of hoping he wins now.
Sharon Waxman: If he does - let's all shout together: Russell! Russell! Russell!
Sharon Waxman: You guys, I'd love to stay but it's Oscar week and I've gotta run. Let's talk about the winners next Tuesday, we'll give you the party poop. No doubt the dashing Bill Booth will be with us, co-Oscar writer and my good buddy.
Let the best candidate win! See you nextt ime.
washingtonpost.com:
That was our last question today. Thanks to Sharon Waxman, and to everyone who joined us.
Stay tuned on Live Online:
World: Sharon's
Visit at Noon EST
Strength and
Fitness at Noon EST
What's Cooking at
Noon EST
Bob Levey Hosts Ted
Leonsis at Noon EST
Radio Talk at 1 p.m.
EST
Health Talk at 2 p.m.
EST
Hollywood: Sharon
Waxman at 2 p.m. EST
In Store: Spring
Accessories at 4 p.m. EST
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.
|
|
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
