My hot date with Sheila Nevins

As you can see from my photo, when you have one of those "conversations with" at a film festival--as I did the other night with HBO documentary maven Sheila Nevins at the L.A. Film Festival--it's not a totally intimate affair, since you're sitting on stage in front of a few hundred people, all staring up your nose. Still, you couldn't ask for a better subject than Nevins, who is a fascinating character. First off, she's has been responsible for some of the best documentaries of the past 15 years, from "When the Levees Broke" to "Taxi to the Dark Side" to "Born Into Brothels" to the recent "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired."

Secondly, she puts her money where her mouth is. In the green room, before we did our thing, an indie film exec came over to greet her and handed her a $100 bill. He was paying off a bet: Sheila had predicted box-office failure for "Young@Heart," a feel-good doc that has barely made a dent in its theatrical run, grossing $3.5 million after 10 or so weeks in release. Nevins wasn't bashing the movie--she simply thought no one would go to a theater to see a film about old people and she was right. (She refused the money, by the way, telling her pal to give it to charity.)

But she's also fascinating, as I learned from our "conversation," because she's a woman of a certain age--i.e., a woman who came of age in the pre-feminist movement era of show business, when it was apparently OK for a big-shot network anchor to feel her up right in the office, as she recounted (in a considerably more ribald fashion) during our onstage conversation. I often ask people who work in entertainment who their mentors were. Nevins says she didn't have one, since there were almost no female TV executives on board when she started her career.

It's hard to take notes when you're up in front of a big audience, but here are a few highlights from our conversation:

Pixar defies gravity

I vividly remember two things about having breakfast with Pixar guru John Lasseter earlier this year. One was that my back was out, so unable to sit comfortably, I had to take notes either standing up or lying down on the carpet of his hotel suite. The second was that when I asked him how Pixar had managed to rack up such an astounding streak of hit films, he said simply, "Quality is the best business plan of all."

It's such a simple formula, yet one that has managed to elude every other studio in town. As you may noticed, the business plan at other studios is: Find a sequel or a TV remake or a video game that can be transformed into an action film--and then drain it of any freshness or verve that might possibly alienate the most timid, risk-averse moviegoer. Pixar is all about originality. Of the studio's nine releases, only one--"Toy Story 2"--has been a sequel. Pixar's new film, "Wall-E," is not only strikingly original, but dare I say it, artistically daring--and yet here it is, in the middle of a sequel-laden summer, earning rave reviews and making $62.5 million in its opening weekend, the third best Pixar opening ever.

The critics have been rapturous. (See here and here and here.) In fact, for all the talk that critics are out of touch with mainstream moviegoers, critics and audiences are in agreement on one key thing: Nobody makes better movies than Pixar. The company has six films in Metacritic's Top 100 movies of all, with "Ratatouille" at No. 7 (higher than "Schindler's List"), "Wall-E" at No. 21 (a notch above "Raging Bull") and "Toy Story" at No. 31, right up there with Oscar winner "No Country for Old Men." The amazing thing isn't just that Pixar has so many films in the critical pantheon, but that its films have made tons more money than almost every other picture on the list. Pixar is a total anomaly in modern-day Hollywood: It makes art movies that have mass appeal. Its films are often populated with dark, pessimistic themes, but they still somehow feel spiritually engaging and uplifting.

This stratospheric level of quality has turned Pixar into movieland's most reliable family brand. The company's movies seem exotic and unfamiliar at first glance--every year I see box-office reporters scratching their heads before a new Pixar release, wondering if this time the company has gone too far. Surely parents wouldn't possibly subject their kids to a sci-fi film with nearly half an hour of zero dialog or an ode to a rat that wants to be a chef in Paris. But the movies always end up triumphing over industry cynicism and timidity because Pixar's artistry has earned our trust.

When I talk to rival studio executives, they scoff. Come on, they say--Warners has to have three movies in the summer and two at Christmas. Of course, they're not all going to be good. Pixar only has to make one movie a year. Fair enough. Maybe making one movie a year is easier. But that does really explain why Pixar's one movie is better than all of Fox's 20 movies? Or 18 of Sony's or Paramount's films? But I think the other studios are embarrassed because Pixar's amazing track record stands as a rebuke to a system that is dominated by mindless test marketing and arid group think. There's no way a film as original as "Wall-E" could emerge from today's risk-averse studios, who refuse to greenlight a project that is "execution dependent"--studio lingo for a movie that people actually have to like to be successful.

What is the secret to Pixar's success. Here's what Lasseter has to say:

 

Toronto film festival: A Cannes colony?

Variety reports today that the upcoming Toronto Film Festival, which runs Sept. 4 through Sept. 13, is lousy with movies from this spring's Cannes Film Festival. The Cannes contingent includes a host of prize winners, including Atom Egoyan's "Adoration," which won Cannes' Ecumenical Jury Prize; Arnaud Desplechin's Special Prize winner "Un conte de Noel"; Matteo Garrone's Grand Prix winner "Gomorrah"; and Sergey Dvortsevoy's Camera d'Or winner "Hunger."

But what movie should I put at the top of my list to see in Toronto? I called on Times Film Critic Kenny Turan, who has not only seen all the movies, but can actually correctly pronounce all the director's names. Here's his quick-take review of some of the more prominent Toronto entries: 

Ben Affleck is not guilty about being a celebrity

The world, as we all know, is full of unbelievable poverty, famine and suffering. Busy with our own lives, numbed by millions of hours of footage of dead bodies, mutilated limbs and distended stomachs, we tend to ignore it all--until a celebrity (Bono, George Clooney, Madonna, Angelina Jolie, fill in the blank) comes along to briefly turn a spotlight on the carnage.

We stop, stare, remind ourselves to make a donation to Human Rights Watch and then go about our business. Of course, before we know it, we turn on Fox News or open up the Wall Street Journal editorial page, where some ardent commentator can be found playing the blame game--not blasting all of the governments who've refused to act and have ignored the suffering, but ridiculing the celebrity who took the time to speak out about it.

Ben Affleck is no stranger to this mean little game--he's been bashed all too many times for speaking out on a number of issues. Perhaps that's why I was more than a little surprised to see an e-mail from him today, asking me (and presumably about 800 other people in his Blackberry) to spread the news that "Nightline" is airing a segment tonight (at 11:35 p.m. on ABC) that he put together after making a series of trips to the strife-torn Democratic Republic of Congo. I guess he still hasn't learned to stop sticking his neck out.

As Affleck wrote: "I feel a little foolish emailing everyone I know and asking them to watch a show I worked on, but the point of this effort, in part, is to raise awareness about a part of the world that has endured a great deal, often in relative obscurity. Basically, I think this is important enough to look a little foolish over.... I think the 'Nightline' segment is worth checking out on the merits of the stories of the Congolese people I got to know, the incredible country they live in and how they are fighting to overcome terrible adversity."

If you want to take a little time out of your life to read more about what Affleck learned on his visits, go here--or here--to see a gallery of photos from the Congo. Four million people have died in that country during the past decade and I'm ashamed to say I don't know the name of a single one of them. I'm eager to watch tonight and see what Affleck has to say.

As it turns out, Ben just e-mailed me with a more in-depth explanation of what inspired him to do this. So keep reading:

The coolest song of every summer

Everyone has their favorite summer song, from Sly's "Hot Fun in the Summertime" to Bananarama's "Cruel Summer" to Don Henley's "The Boys of Summer" to Justin Timberlake's "Summer Love." But there's only one song that is a hit every sultry night of every summer: "Take Me Out to the Ballgame." The song is having its 100th anniversary this summer, which has a special resonance for us Cubs fans, since it's also the 100th anniversary of the last time the Cubs won the World Series. Written by Albert Von Tilzer and Jack Norworth, two vaudeville vets who'd never seen a baseball game, "Take Me Out" is now a staple at all ballparks. (To learn more about its unusual history--and see the rarely sung verse about "baseball mad Katie Casey"--go here.)

Anyone's whose spent a summer at Wrigley Field is used to hearing all sorts of visiting celebs, actors, comedians and nutjobs take a whack at the song. The other night, the Cubs-Orioles game was interrupted by some god-awful yowling by "Dancing With the Stars" regular Julianne Hough (sadly, no relation to knuckleballer Charlie Hough), who has released a country album--and recently sang the national anthem at a NASCAR race-- but after hearing her off-key rendition, I wouldn't bet on her future as a singer.

But enough complaints: If you want to hear some amazingly good versions of "Take Me Out," tune in the "Take Me Out" battle of the bands that's been running on ESPN. The sports network has recruited a host of cool groups, who all perform wonderfully idiosyncratic versions of the song. Highlights include a jazzy instrumental version by Branford Marsalis (a Mets loyalist), a bluegrass rendition by the Punch Brothers (who wear Cubs caps) and a rousing "Take Me Out" by Ozomatli, Dodgers loyalists who perform the song salsa-style, with congas, saxophone and stand-up bass. (That's their version at the top of this post.)

ESPN is letting fans vote on nine different performances (still to come, Saturday at 7 p.m., is a new rendition by Candlebox), with a winner announced on July 13. (Go here for more video clips of the performances.) My vote, so far, goes to Ozomatli. If the Dodgers marketing wizards are paying attention, they should invite the band to play the song during the 7th-inning stretch at an upcoming game. The way the team is going these days, any musical inspiration might be a good thing.

To see the all-time, century-worst "Take Me Out" performance, continue reading:

Secrets from the 'W.' script

All too often these days, especially when the crisis management PR folks are on the case, a visit to a Hollywood set feels a lot like a trip to Los Alamos in the '40s during the development of the atom bomb. That goes double when it comes to the set of Oliver Stone's "W.," especially after all the ruckus caused earlier this year when a bootleg version of the film's script showed up on the Internet. It sounds like our film reporter John Horn got the "I Spy" treatment when he was on the set of "W." recently, to the point where he couldn't even read the "sides"--the pages of the script that are being shot that day.

If John had only stopped by my house before he went to Shreveport, La., he could've gotten a pretty decent idea of what the script (written by Stanley Weiser) was like. Someone in the Stone camp slipped me an early version of the script months ago. While there clearly have been considerable revisions made since, I can guarantee that if you think "W." is going to be an earnest, respectful rendering of the Bush years--sort of like Stone's "World Trade Center" take on 9/11--you would be ... wrong!

As John put it after returning from the set, the film "is heavily focused on the president's relationship with his father, so the best analogy that Oliver Stone came up with was: 'Henry IV.' Like Shakespeare, there's a little bit of history, a little drama, a little comedy--anchored by a story about a king (George H.W. Bush) and his sometimes ne'er-do-well Prince Hal (George W. Bush)."

That's a fair description of the script I read. It hits nearly all the high points of the Bush ascension and presidency, from his youthful frat house antics and religious convergence (we even get a scene where he claims God wants him to run for president) to Bush and Co.'s mishandling of the Iraqi postwar effort. But as John pointed out, the meat of the story involves the complicated 41-43 father-son relationship and how it impacted Dubya's insistence on invading Iraq.

Here's a look at one of my favorite scenes, with the Bush family watching the 1992 election results in a Houston hotel, just after the networks have projected a Clinton victory. (A final reminder: This is clearly not the finished script, but it will give you a flavor of the script's knack for capturing the Bush psychodrama.) 

Sheila Nevins alert!

If you love documentaries as much as I do, you might want to visit the L.A. Film Festival Thursday evening to hear HBO Documentary Films President Sheila Nevins expound on the art of documentary filmmaking. Nobody--not even Michael Moore--has done more to shape the course of docs over the past two decades than Nevins, whose films have won 19 Academy Awards, 20 prime-time Emmys and 28 Peabody Awards. Her most recent hot-button doc was "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which debuted on HBO earlier this month as part of a summer-long series of Monday-night doc showings on the channel. (To learn more, here's a recent column I did on the subject.)

I mention all this because the event, held at 6 p.m. at the Italian Cultural Institute, is billed as "A Conversation With Sheila Nevins." And since the LAFF apparently couldn't get a media big shot like Charlie Rose to host, they asked me. I've got a few questions of my own to ask Nevins, but if we have any doc fans (or detractors) out there, I'd love to hear what questions you'd suggest asking Nevins. So don't be shy--fire away. We'll try to make it a lively evening. (The Italian Cultural Institute, by the way, is at 1023 Hilgard Ave., in Westwood Village.)   

Oliver Stone vs. George W. Bush

It feels like moviedom's version of an Ultimate Fighting grudge match--Bush vs. Stone.

The two men were born into wealth and were briefly classmates at Yale, but since then, the twain has hardly met. One ducked out of military service, boozed and brawled until he found God, ran a baseball team and turned to politics, ending up as governor of Texas and a two-term president, though the last years, thanks to a disastrous war in Iraq, have been pretty much of a fiasco, with his party losing Congress and his popularity ratings at historic lows. The other earned medals in Vietnam before emerging as a bigger-than-life Hollywood filmmaker, tackling the Big Issues of the day ("Platoon," "Wall Street" and "JFK") before seeing his own career take a downhill slide of its own, the bumps in the road smoothed over with booze and psychedelics.

Now another chapter is being written. Down in Louisiana, Oliver Stone has been shooting "W," his very personal take on the psychological evolution of George W. Bush, the movie everyone in Hollywood is dying to see but no one was willing to fund. It stars Josh Brolin as Dubya, with Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney and Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush.

Our film reporter John Horn has just returned from steamy Shreveport, where he watched Stone filming a father-son scene between Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. set during Dubya's tenure as owner of the Texas Rangers, with a local football stadium standing in for the Rangers' home field. John's story will run this Sunday, but here's a sneak peek at some of his interview with Stone.

Our critics speak!

I wasn't expecting a huge cascade of accolades when I signed on to start this new blog. After all, for a newspaper to launch a blog in an era when it's become something of a sport to dismiss newspapers as creaky, irrelevant and in financial free-fall, is almost like turning around, pushing your tush up in the air and saying, "Go ahead -- kick me!" The early reviews are in and, as they say in show biz, they are mixed. But I figured if I'm going to shoot off my mouth, I oughta be able to take a few punches in return.

Mediabistro was especially nice, wishing us luck and calling The Big Picture "one of our favorite columns at the paper." They also asked me a bunch of questions, including whether I planned to shower and dress before working, which I guess comes with the territory. The New York Observer has a piece up today that's very even-handed, offering both plaudits and brickbats, but always quoting me accurately. I suspect they were hoping to stir up a fight between me and Deadline Hollywood Daily's own Nikki Finke, but alas, neither of us took the bait. Nikki even said I was "one of the nicest people I've ever met," though being Nikki, she felt compelled to add, "That's my problem with it. He's way too nice," believing I'll need more of an edge to compete online.

The worst notices came from Movie City News' David Poland, who seems to spend most of his waking hours ridiculing the LA Times (and myself) as old-media dinosaurs. So it was hardly a surprise that he didn't have anything positive to say, dismissing my column as being "lunchified, arrogant and meaningless to anyone who isn't one of his potential victims/subjects." Apparently he is outraged that an entertainment reporter would regularly have lunch with agents, managers, producers and studio executives as a way of digging up good stories. (I guess David's own "Lunch With David," where he has lunch with actors and filmmakers somehow doesn't count.) He says they rarely have anything to say that is anything but "self-serving." David, here's a tip: Those self-serving insiders are a lot smarter than you think. Spend a little more time with them. Who knows -- maybe some of their brain power might rub off on you!

What happened to Charlize Theron in 'Hancock'?

From a casual viewing of the marketing material for "Hancock," Sony's upcoming Will Smith comic thriller, I hardly knew that Charlize Theron was even in the movie. Our crack reporter Chris Lee turned up at an early screening and offers this assessment:

"At an early screening of 'Hancock' at the Grove last week, Will Smith’s performance as an alcoholic superhero with a bad attitude and a mounting public relations crisis had the packed theater alternately chuckling and wide-eyed. 'Hancock’s' third-billed costar, Charlize Theron, on the other hand, had everyone--high school students, foreign tourists, Sony executives--literally gasping with surprise.

"In the film, she’s a stay-at-home mom, the skeptical wife of a PR executive with a heart of gold (the movie’s second-billed costar, Jason Bateman) who’s trying to repair super-screw-up Hancock’s negative public image one good deed at a time. For his part, Hancock repays the kindness by trying to put the moves on his publicist’s woman. I won’t spoil the surprise here, but let’s just say Valkyrie-like South African Oscar-winner Theron has a much meatier part in the film than you might otherwise be led to believe by her marginal presence in various trailers, billboards and one-sheets for 'Hancock.'

"Even the little kid with a backpack who offhandedly calls Smith a 'jackass' in the trailer is getting more YouTube face time. While it’s certainly tricky to entice moviegoers with the promise of a big third-act plot twist--without giving too much of its pivotal 'reveal' away--past marketers have done much more with much less (to wit: the all-fur-coat-and-no-knickers viral marketing scheme for 'Cloverfield'). All things considered, it’s downright mysterious that Sony would squander any opportunity to connect with 'Hancock’s' core constituency--young males--by leaving the blond bombshell Esquire named 'the Sexiest Woman Alive' on the cutting room floor."

Chris makes some good points. So I called up Sony marketing guru Val Van Galder to find out--did the studio really blow a chance to get even more young guys in to see their film? Here's her side of the story: