Gossip columnist banned from 'Valkyrie' screening

I've been hearing feedback on United Artists' "Valkyrie" from various reporters and writers in recent days, with the Tom Cruise-starring World War II thriller inspiring all sorts of buzz, from the good to the bad to the ugly. A lot of viewers have said it's a snooze. Others, like Variety's Anne Thompson, have been more kind, with Thompson calling it an "entertaining, well-made thriller." But Fox News gossip writer Roger Friedman can't say what he thinks, because as he put it in his blog today, he's been banned from seeing the movie. Undeterred, Friedman quotes from a pan by Emanuel Levy (whom he bills as "perhaps the only actual film critic on the Hollywood Foreign Press," which gives you a tiny taste of Friedman's tart tongue). Levy calls Cruise "stiff and unconvincing," calling the movie a comeback attempt for a star whose "career as a major player seems to be over." Ouch!

I'm a regular reader of Friedman's Fox News blog, which is a strange combination of juicy inside gossip and unfettered opinion, often bolstered by formidable reporting--Friedman has done a great job of eviscerating both the National Board of Review and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for insider cronyism. On the other hand, Friedman plays favorites, especially when it comes to Harvey Weinstein, whose films are given unfailingly favorable treatment--Friedman has recently been beating the drum for "The Reader," repeatedly touting it as an Oscar favorite, despite a string of lackluster reviews. Tom Cruise, on the other hand, has received unrelentingly negative coverage, with Friedman constantly referring to "Valkyrie" over the past year as "the Nazi movie," frequently disparaging its box-office hopes and critical reception.   

I called UA marketing chief Michael Vollman, wondering if it was really such a good idea to ban a writer from a screening. I mean, God forbid, what if Friedman saw the movie and actually liked it? Vollman defends the move, saying Friedman has such a closed mind on the subject that when one of the publicists working on the project spoke to Friedman the other day, he said "I'm going to hate the movie." Vollman sent along dozens of Friedman gossip items that ridiculed Cruise's role in the film. (Here's one that captures the flavor of Friedman's coverage.)

"Roger hasn't been banned--he just wasn't invited to the screening," Vollman explained to me. "Screenings are a privilege, not a right. If he'd indicated a desire to be open-minded and not telegraphed his intentions ahead of time, we would've acted differently. But when someone says 'I'm going to hate this movie,' you get the impression they have a closed mind." Friedman has been especially critical of Cruise's involvement with Scientology, but Vollman says that's not what at issue here. "This is absolutely not about Scientology. I work on behalf of 'Valkyrie' and I only took this action so the movie would have a fair assessment from a critic."

I don't like the idea of studios banning writers from screenings, since judging from the state of my frosty relations with a couple of studios right now, it's quite possible that, ahem, I could be next. I'm not sure that it's a great precedent to set, any more than when presidential campaigns sometimes ban reporters from their campaign planes because of supposedly negative political coverage. The upside is that you control your coverage; the downside is that you make the writer a martyr. Keeping Friedman away certainly didn't stop him from trashing the movie anyway. He's attacked "Valkyrie" so many times that I've certainly stopped paying attention--at least until his banning kicked the story into a higher gear.

Still, Vollman is sticking to his guns, saying there is a price to be paid for unrelentingly negative coverage. "Roger has shown through his actions that he has nothing but negative things to say and I don't see the need for us to facilitate it," he says. "I really wouldn't say we've banned him. It's not like we put guards at the door to turn him away. He's just not invited. Hey, lots of people still haven't seen the film. I don't think my parents have been invited yet either."

Photo of Tom Cruise in "Valkyrie" by Frank Connor / Studio Babelsberg / AFP / Getty Images

Comments

[Arye Michael Bender]

If only 'friendly' reviewers are given access to upcoming releases, it cheats the reader. Think action is to protect what I expect will be a laughable picture. Based only from the puff clips we've all seen, 'Valkyrie' looks shaky.

The German language requires a certain body torque and facial attitude to reflect its sound and culture. A sense of Germanic formality would absolutely be required from General Stauffenberg. From the clips, Tom Cruise completely blows it. His presence appears to be an American star turn, rather than a habitation of a key historical character in his place and time. Cruise's films are becoming increasingly self-conscious settings for a power ego. The joy and freedom of early Cruise is all but lost.

Similar to the point where Jerry Lewis became too self-important to be funny. Cruise, I believe, has crossed that same line.

We'll soon know how other Americans respond -- but I expect disaster.

- Arye Michael Bender -

[Nicolette]

Vollman may SAY the cult has nothing to do with this, but the cult does have quite reputation for denying it's critics their rights to freedom of speech in such ways. I HIGHLY doubt they didn't have an influence in this. Considering the fact that they didn't care about offending Germany by having a high-profile member of a nazi-like cult (sorry Godwin) to play the part of one of the few men they could call a hero in that time, they should expect some harsh criticism and show some character by dealing with it appropriately instead of trying to suppress, deny, hide or run from it.
But the cult just can't handle the truth.

[Laura Sabatino]

Friedman is just the lowest possible "journalist" out there, and not just about this movie. It is about time that someone called him on his unethical beaviour. It's absolutely right that he always favours Harvey Weinstein production, and aside the Weinstein connection, he is all about access: if he is garanted one, he is happy and writes something favorable, if not he writes something scathing, even on a personal level.

[Tina]

Don't be fooled, this is PROFOUNDLY, COMPLETELY and UTTERLY about Friedman's criticism of the scientology cult.

Tom Cruise may not be talking about his dangerous little cult anymore but his multiple acts of censorship among critics are loud and clear.

[Tom Klemesrud]

Someone should ask Michael Vollman if he, or anyone else at the UA studio, has seen a Roger Friedman "suppressive person" dossier compiled by the covert intelligence arm of the Church of Scientology'--the "OSA"--for Friedman's critical writings on Cruise and the "church."

[Jeff]

It is obvious that Friedman is a bit over the top when it comes to attacking Tom Cruise, no matter what he does. Why would you have a fanatic at your premiere/screening? I understand that UA acts this way, even if it leaves a little bad taste. The reviews I saw after the screening however showed diverse reactions.

[Franklly....]

Cruise is a nightmare.

[Lisa]

Hey, it's my party. I'll invite whoever will enjoy it.

[Fredric L. Rice]

Mr., Cruise has to admit -- to himself as well as to his Scientology handlers -- that his career is finally over. Few of us can stand looking at him any more, leave along suspending disbelief long enough to watch one of his movies. All that comes across is his frothingly insane cultism, with or without the eye patch.

[vegasgirl]

Whether Cruise's lastest is any good remains to be seen. However, there's no doubt his star is permanently damaged. His bizarre, ranting behavior and constant pushing of his beliefs from a few years back have left a bad taste in the public's mouth.
Could he be truly huge again? Perhaps, if he continues the "mea culpa" tour he's apparently on now.