|
Hollywood & Vine
Hosted by Sharon Waxman
Post Style Correspondent
Tuesday, March 19, 2002; 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.
Waxman will be online Tuesday, March 19, 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; and 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: Oh it's all so ugly, isn't it. This year's Oscar campaign is really barrel-bottom nasty, and now they've turned to attacking the journalists. This is a true sign of desperation, in my view. What I can tell you is that there is as consensus out there in big old Hollywood land that the Oscars this year have been truly sullied by the whisper campaigns. And be sure about it, there most certainly are whisper campaigns. The problem is, of course, it's almost impossible to tease these things apart and discover who started what where and when.
But now that it's taken over the Oscars, everyone can rush to deplore it. And deny they had anything to do with it.
We can talk about all this if you like. We're here to talk about the movies, though, which somehow have gotten lost in the mix. Off we go....
Dupont Circle:
Not like I would ever read the gossip columns or anything, but I heard you got a mention in the NY Post this morning. It seems more than just a couple of publicists don't like you anymore, but I couldn't agree with you more about Miramax. How a company who has the most ruthless record of Oscar manipulation on recent record can try to pin their woes on you is beyond me. They deserve what's coming to them just for pushing back Gangs of New York to Winter 2002!
Sharon Waxman: I'm hearing this the first time from you readers. Thanks for watching out for me. I've already spent way too much time on the journalistic sniping, so I think I'm gonna bow out from now on. All I can tell you is that the stuff you read in the Washington Post is fully reported, is accurate and nothing that I"ve learned since publication indicates otherwise. The fact that the negative campaigning now extends to smearing the journalists kind of speaks for itself in my view.
Washington, D.C.:
Sharon,
Since Billy Bob wasn't nominated for an Oscar, why don't you ask Sissy to wash your car if she wins. Knowing Sissy, I'd bet she'd even throw in a free wax. Seriously, if it's not Halle Berry, I hope the Academy gives the award to Spacek. They both deserve it. Your thoughts?
Sharon Waxman: I'm really bummed about that, I was looking forward to having Billy Bob over.
The word I'm hearing is that Hallie Berry really does have the inside track on the Best Actress award. Next in line is most certainly Sissy, but her campaign seems to have run out of steam midway through. (The fact that Miramax hasn't really pushed for In The Bedroom since the nominations, b/c they think it doesn't have a real shot at Best Picture, is part of it.)
Alexandria, Va.:
Reference your intro remark -- can you tell more about what journalists have been attacked, by whom, and why (or a link to an article)?
Sharon Waxman: Of course you haven't noticed, you probably have an actual life.
Much of this has been going on behind the scenes and has not made it into print, because so much of it is spin, rumor and non-printable nonsense. Essentially those of us who have written about the negative campaigning in the Oscars are now ourselves coming under attack for having, essentially, supposedly invented something that doesn't exist. This is very convenient for those who want to a: dodge having anything to do with smearing other movies, or subjects of other movies (I'm thinking most particularly here of John Nash, accused of anti-Semitism, homosexuality and all kinds of other stuff that don't really concern anyone but himself and his wife, since he's a retired mathematician) and more importantly b: find new grist for the gossip mill. A few journalists here in Hollywood, me included, spent a lot of time trying to find the source of these stories last week; I can't speak for anyone else, but even after feeling pretty sure that I knew what was going on, the waters were muddied enough that I didn't feel confident taking the story into print. (Even here.) My editors agreed. That's the nature of smear campaigns; they're very tangled.
But essentially what's going on now is the media that is always hungry for a new angle has found a new bone to chomp on: the journalists. Chomp away.
Linthicum, Md.:
When the negative stories came out about "Hurricane" Carter which ruined Denzel Washington's chance for an Oscar (which you did not mention in your last article), not a peep was heard. Now, every story is how unfair this is to Russell Crowe and Ron Howard. Smells like hidden racism to me.
Sharon Waxman: You bring up a fair point. I did not mention "Hurricane" in my article because I ran out of room. But the reason I didn't write about the "Hurricane" controversy two years ago was because I'd read the two books on which the movie was based, I'd seen the movie, and I didn't think there was a story there. And writing about the controversy (as I've discovered to my aggravation) only invites more attention to it. The reason I wrote it this year is because it really seemed to hit a new low - to accuse John Nash of anti-Semitism by someone selectively distorting the contents of Sylvia Nasar's book was, I thought, truly eggregious. And all for the purpose of a little gold statue.
I don't know that it's about hidden racism with "Hurricane," but that negative campaign most certainly did affect Denzel Washington's chances at an Oscar.
Castle Shannon, Pa:
Sharon, not that you'd ever need him, but my Uncle Guido isn't too fond of publicists. Especially ones who pick on someone as sweet as you.
Sharon Waxman: Sweet? Well thanks. Have Uncle Guido email me, wouldja?
Silver Spring, Md.:
Will this be the year for a black actor/actress winning in the main Oscar category?
Sharon Waxman: I can't say for sure, but I can tell you there's a very strong buzz about that possibility. Both Denzel and Hallie Berry seem to be the leading contenders at the moment. I even met someone who voted for Will Smith. (But no, he has no chance of winning....)
L.A.:
Do you sit in the press room backstage at Kodak, interviewing each winner? Will you also be on the red carpet?
Sharon Waxman: Together with my colleague and buddy Bill Booth, we will both be on the red carpet, and then backstage interviewing winners at the Kodak theater. Did you read that Kodak didn't pay enough money so that its name will be covered up during the Oscar arrivals? (It's on the arch at the entrance to the complex.)
Washington, D.C.:
Is this year's Oscar campaigning really worse than it's been in the past?
Sharon Waxman: Yes. Definitely. Expect some serious meetings and debates about it at the Academy for Motion Picture Arts after it's over.
Washington, D.C.:
What is with all the teen stars, like Brittany Spears, doing all this club crawling? Don't you need to be 21 to get into these clubs, AND, why arent these places being busted for serving under-aged people?
Sharon Waxman: Gosh I'd never thought about it. But didn't you see Traffic? Seems like teens have plenty of access to the bad stuff even without sneaking into clubs. Any thoughts out there on this?
Milan, Ill.:
There is a desperate need to restore dignity and credibility to this year's Oscars. The only chance the Academy has is to get Arthur Andersen to audit the voting.
Sharon Waxman: Well put!
Washington, D.C.:
Not sure if your forum is right for this, but ...
Did anyone else see 40 Days and 40 Nights, and was anyone else HORRIFIED at the fact that the movie passes off a rape scene (yes, a woman can rape a man) as harmless? I was so offended -- this kind of thing (and the unreported/unpunished date rape in Crossroads) are just teaching our kids that rape is not a big deal ... so awful.
Sharon Waxman: Hmmm, something else I hadn't thought about.
I have seen the movie. There's not much shown, but you may make a point worth discussing. I found the scene rather unbelievable. (As if he would have been so out of it as to not notice what his body was doing???)
Altoona, Iowa:
So does your date (and other reporter's dates) have an actual seat inside of the theater while you all are backstage, outside, or wherever?
Sharon Waxman: My date? Sorry to disabuse you of your quaint notion of we reporters at the Oscars, but we there WORKING. We are not partying. Yes, we are dressed up (although I now have my Oscar uniform that I wear pretty much every year, because, after all, who remembers?), but we are working from about 2 pm to about 11 pm, much of it standing on our feet, smashsed like sardines among other overdressed reporters. Past deadline. It's actually one of the most stressful assignments I do. So, no date.
Re: Post Oscar parties:
I just want to check in again as we are near Oscar time to make sure you are going to attend the post-Oscar parties and report on them in that wonderfully humorous, witty manner, as you have in the past. Accompanied, of course, by your friend there, the bureau chief, otherwise known as "that other Post guy." And don't forget to tell us what you're wearing!
Sharon Waxman: You can breathe easy. I have called Booth-man to make sure his tux is clean and his party shoes dusted off. We will be there with bells on and notebooks primed. I love that this evening now has a following. How we suffer for you all.
Washington, D.C.:
So Sharon, Jeanette Walls had some harsh words for you in her recent column. Care to respond?
Sharon Waxman: Unh-unh. Oh well, ok, I'll just say this: she still hasn't read the book.
Filming info -- Reston, Va.:
Good afternoon, Ms. Waxman. Quick question here -- leaving this week to go to London and I know that it is a very popular spot for filming movies -- other than the latest Bond movie, and the latest Jackie Chan movie, do you know any other movies that are busy filming there right now? And just in general, is there a Web site that one can peruse to find out which films are shooting in particular cities?
Thanks.
Sharon Waxman: I don't know of anything else filming there right now, there are always productions and especially post-productions happening there. Anyone know of a good web-site for this reader?
Elkridge, Md.:
Why are the Oscar presenters given the gift baskets worth thousands and thousands of dollars? I keep reading about how it's supposed to be an honor to be asked to present and that the actors aren't paid, but isn't giving them $10,000 or more in gifts paying them? And one other thing bothers me about the Oscars.
How can they prevent you from selling it one day? I know they make you sign a paper saying that neither you nor your heirs will sell, but you can't control what people do once you're dead and if you refuse to sign does that mean they take your Oscar away from you?
Sharon Waxman: This year I've been told by those giving them that the gift baskets are worth $20,000. Those are pretty darn big baskets, if you ask me. (I think they include stuff like televisions, or DVD players....) Yes, of course it is in lieu of paying them. Yes of course every presenter loves getting free stuff. And they may certainly sell it on E-bay, and they probably do.
Re: Underage clubbing:
Two words: fake ID. I went to club when I was about 17, some clubs stamp your hand so you can't buy drink and somes just don't let underages in. Solution: borrow someone's ID. In the case of Britney, she is famous enough to get in anywhere.
Sharon Waxman: I figured as much.
Virginia:
Sharon, I love you dearly and enjoy these talks. But the movie didn't mention the girlfriend and what I read was that she called the girlfriend of Nash and asked her opinion. (Which anyone might expect; her opinion wasn't that great given how he treated her before and after his illness.) So how is this a smear? Did I miss something else? As for the anti-Semite comments, that was Matt Drudge's comments, right?
I love your articles and so don't take this personally -- I'm trying to figure out what the smear that Jeanette Walls did.
Sharon Waxman: Ok, so that we get it straight. There are many true details in John Nash's life (and probably mine and maybe yours too) that could be plucked out and blown up large to make him look like a terrible person. It is true that he had an illegitmate child in an affair - though not an adulterous affair, as Page Six put it, they probably also didn't read the book - and that he did not raise the child. It is true that Nash, according to Nasar's book, made some anti-Semitic comments when he was at the height of his schizophrenic delusions. To take that and then say he was an anti-Semite is, in my view (and the views of everyone I know in Hollywood), a smear. That was the most eggregious thing I saw. Jeannette Walls' thing about John Nash's son happened to come out the same day or next day; the timing of this was all too convenient, the day the Academy ballots went out. There was nothing new about any of this information, and the Drudge thing was pure distortion. I was not deciding whether this amounted to a smear campaign, there had already been stories in print for weeks about a smearing of various films going on, including "Moulin Rouge." This was just one more step on that path.
Whether or not Walls found the item on her own, these kinds of stories were being used last week and the week before to discredit 'A Beautiful Mind' by people in Hollywood calling attention to this information to other journalists.
If Jeannette Walls wants to make her reputation on the fact that she, in an enterprising way, "found" the woman who had an affair with John Nash -- already written about in context, in detail in Sylvia Nasar's book - and managed to embarrass this guy all over again through selective reporting, that's fine with me. Consciously or not, that certainly served the interests of people who have films running against "A Beautiful Mind."
Oscars:
Ok.
1. Who do you want to win?
2. Who do you think will win?
3. Who have you heard might win?
Sharon Waxman: Actually that's a story I have to go write right now. It'll run Sunday.
A hint: despite all this negative campaigning against "A Beautiful Mind," I don't think it really laid a glove on the picture.
London Filming:
I don't know of a Web site, but there is a poster from London -- London Callin' -- that regularly joins Desson's & Rita's chats. She's always up on those kind of things. Look for her in Desson's Friday Oscar chat and ask her then.
Sharon Waxman: thanks.
RE: Film shoots:
Try www.upcomingmovies.com. You can search by date, director, actore, etc.
Sharon Waxman: great, thanks much.
Annapolis Md.:
Does anyone else find it slightly funny that Birkenstock, long the symbol of everything Hollywood "isn't", is giving each presenter a $300 gift certificate in those lovely baskets?
It's right in there next to the certificate for a Godiva chocolate bath and a 5000 watch.
Sharon Waxman: Hmmm, thanks for that.
Fairfax, Va.:
Hi Sharon,
With your frequent exposure to stars, do you still get impressed and tongue tied in front of any particular person ? or are they all pretty much another human being to you.
Sharon Waxman: Only when Denzel called me. Knees went jelly.
Somewhere, USA:
I like your style - but SWEET?
Sharon Waxman: Well exactly. Sorry I'm not able to get to a lot of postings today, but we'll do an Oscar special show next week where we can talk about Jeannette Walls some more. Or perhaps we'll get to talk about who won some Oscars. This all reminds me of my first year covering the Oscars when I fell on top of Joan Rivers, live, on camera, and she looked at me, picked up my evening bag and shrieked: "IT'S CHANEL! FAKE CHANEL!" And she was right. See ya next week.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
