Rushfield Babylon
Month
The Rushfield Babylon Oscar Recap Lay That Crystal Down Podcast is here!
Before we bid Oscar farewell, let’s recap this show so that it stays recapped
In which we discuss the woes and joys of Oscar night with a distinguised panel of experts, featuring, and veteran observer Jim Gibson.
We debate the merits of Cirque, the stupendous journey of Angelina Jolie’s leg, the perils of Billy Crystal and whether anything can be done to save this darn show. Join us for this very extra-special episode.
Please ruminations, reflections and reminiscences aplenty!
Download it direct here.This is pretty much the model of what every scene in film should be.
Happy Oscar night America.
Valiant Nikki watcher David Poland points out the other interests that Nikki’s pro-Baron Cohen/Anti-Academy screed served: namely pleasing Nikki’s true masters WME boss Ari Emmanuel, and possibly some folks at Paramount - another of her string pullers - along the way.
When people ask why I dislike our Crazy Aunt in the Attic so much it boils down to this: the nastiness I can live with. The wacky prose under the right circumstances could be fun. The fact that she manages to make the gray drip of industry reporting as seen elsewhere slightly lively is to her credit. But what keeps me on this path is that what she claims to be - a fearless journalist willing to spit in the face of the powers of Hollywood - is something I know this town sorely needs. And unfortunately this is the exact opposite of what Nikki is, which is - a dictation secretary for a handful of the most powerful in Hollywood.
No one in media serves the interests of Hollywood’s rulers more than Crazy Nikki. By giving them a venue to dump whatever nastiness they want to unleash and dressing it up as fearless journalism, she is the ultimate flak of Hollywood late-floundering clueless corporate era.
In general, the laws of misdirection are a pretty good cue for judging humanity. A person doesn’t wear wacky colors and crazy boas because they think they are interesting; they dress that way because they think they are boring and trying to hide it. The louder someone declares they are the only fearless journalist in Hollywood, the more you can be sure they are precisely the opposite.
In the HBO/Entourage fantasy version of the Nikki Finke story, Hollywood’s most ruthless blogger stops at nothing to punish a source who gives a scoop to a rival publication. In that fantasy, she meticulously plots her revenge and goes in for the kill by dropping an item about, let’s say, a deal that was this close to being finalized, her perfectly timed report killing it and costing the players involved millions; making them have to pull out of that Hawaiian dream house they had just put the down payment on, causing their wives and families to desert them and ultimately, the players to take their own lives, crying out “Curse you Nikki!” as they leap into the abyss.
In real life however, Nikki’s revenge is more like a crazed outpatient leaving a bag full of her own feces on her target’s doorstep, but stumbling en route and smearing herself with the intended revenge matter, finally running down the block cackling to herself at full volume after she manages to smear a handprint on the front door.
There is no knowing the motive for any particular Nikki item. Within the complex psychology of Hollywood’s crazy aunt in the attic, there probably never is sorting out anything as clear as motives. But there are some items from which the sound of cackling rings so loud, and the unpleasantness is so ham-fisted and ill-targeted that it is hard not to see the image of that feces-handprint when you read it.
So this morning Academy CEO Dawn Hudson (full disclosure: a friend) sat for her first major interview about all the fusses in Academy land. She had the entirely good sense to give this interview to The Hollywood Reporter and not to Her Lunacy, whom of late has thought herself something of the ultimate authority in Academy affairs.
Six hours later, this story appears about Sacha Baron Cohen being “banned” from the red carpet. To most observers, the idea that Baron Cohen would be “banned” was silly on the face of it. And indeed, ninety minutes later the Academy gave a statement saying he was “not banned.” So this is essentially what Nikki’s ruthless revenge generally amounts to: 90 minutes of hassle for all involved while they have to correct the thinly sourced, wrong-headed twisting of the facts that she puts forward - while of course grandstanding that she is the only real journalist in the world, like, an outpatient standing on a park bench in top hat and tails proclaiming that she is Cornelius Vanderbilt.
90 minutes of hassle later, nothing of her revenge is left to the parties slimed but the icky feeling of having been caught in some sort of horrible psychodrama and of course the lingering smell of those handprints.
As I say, there’s no proving that revenge was the reason for this silly piece, as the Finke psyche is ultimately as unknowable as the void of space, but throughout the piece, telltale signs of the psyche having become unhinged are apparent, like those handprints. Let’s take a little tour through the masterwork, shall we?
• Sentence One: “The Academy Of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences has pulled actor Sacha Baron Cohen‘s tickets from the 84th Academy Awards.”
Really pulled them? How does that work? By now they would probably be in his hands…Did they send someone to break into his house and “pull” them out of his hands?
• In the update she added two hours later after the Academy denied it had “banned” Baron Cohen, Nikki wrote: “the Academy’s Managing Director Of Membership Kimberly Rouch phoned Paramont’s awards staff to say Baron Cohen’s tickets had been pulled unless he gives the Academy assurances ahead of time promising not to show up on the Red Carpet in costume and not to promote the movie on the Red Carpet. The Academy made it clear that, without those assurances, it would not issue him the tickets. So he’s banned” How is that, a blanket, “he is banned.” The Academy, has rules for dress codes, behavior, etc at the show. If they call someone and say, I’m sorry if you show up naked we can’t admit you, does that mean that person is “banned”? If they call someone and say, “I’m sorry if your hands are smeared with feces and you are trying to rub them all over everyone, we can’t let you in” does that mean the person is “banned”?
• But I do love the syntax of her “So he’s banned.” Final petulant harumph, desperately trying to have the last word and put the final period on a conversation that’s gotten out of her control.
• “Of course, the next best thing to that publicity stunt is all the media coverage which this ban is going to generate for Baron Cohen’s film.” Gee, I mean, who in the media would fall for that? Can you imagine!…Oh, I mean…um…
• “Loosen up, people. Frankly, the Academy looks like uptight wankers with this treatment of one of the globe’s funniest comedians.” One of my favorite Nikki tropes is when she proclaims people should just loosen up, usually said directly after she’s released hurricane of crazy. Another thing Nikki should steer far clear of is positioning herself as an expert on “funny,” her humor tending to run along Tourettes'ish lines of shouting swear words at full volume. Any sane person who has seen the trailer for The Dictator would know that Baron Cohen has forfeited his one of the world’s funniest claims.
• “So the Academy has decided to act like dictators about the actor playing The Dictator. Ugh.” See above about steering clear of comedy.
• “An Oscars spokesperson acknowledged to Deadline yesterday: ”We would hope that every studio knows that this is a bad idea. The Red Carpet is not about stunting.” Oh really? Then why did Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park crossdress down the Red Carpet as J-Lo and Gwyneth Paltrow in evening gowns in 2000? Or Ben Stiller appear as an Oscar presenter in full blue Avatar makeup and hair in 2010?” Okay, first of all, small point but in those examples above, they were not dressed in the costumes of movies they were promoting. Ben Stiller, you may recall, wasn’t actually the star of Avatar. He probably should have been, but he wasn’t. Second, those are your precedents for why something should be allowed? Because of that hilarity? If these no costume rules had been enforced, humanity would never have known the wonders of Ben Stiller dressed like an Avatar character?
• “At the 2007 Oscars, Baron Cohen was asked to be a presenter and said he would do it only if he could be in character as Borat. And Oscars’ Powers That Be said, “No way.” He didn’t attend. But this is the first time he has been officially banned from the show.” I’m sorry, but how is this time not exactly the same as that?
• “Purists feel that the Oscars is no place for such in your face promotion. The Academy hasn’t even allowed movies to be advertised during the Oscarcast, until this year. Then again, these Oscars have very little suspense because it’s a forgone conclusion that many of the winners of the marquee categories are already known and The Artist will win Best Picture. The prospect of Baron Cohen’s Red Carpet walk was the closest thing to drama." Does Nikki really believe that having people dressing in costumes for the movies they are promoting would make the Oscars more fun? Is lack of product hype really the problem Oscars suffer from? Particularly when the product is as rancid and stillborn looking as The Dictator? Baron Cohen doing another third world accent dressed in an advertisement for his film would add some drama? And we need to do that because there’s not a tight race for Best Picture?
• "And a trailer for The Dictator certainly was one of the raciest ever allowed by the MPAA during the Super Bowl, where Baron Cohen’s character was hilariously depicted running a competitive race while and leg-shooting rivals with a starter pistol as they got close to him.” Yes, hilariously indeed. Who can argue with hilarity like that? Who can argue with logic like any of this?
Let it never be said that the Los Angeles Times is incapable of proving the obvious. With an enormous team investigation, they are indeed perfectly capable of proving what is abundantly clear to any casual observer.
In the past decade, the Los Angeles Times has lost roughly half of its readership. Its coverage of Hollywood has all but become invisible, its pages filed alternately with gray goo warmed over profiling tied to the weekend’s releases, a retinue of critics whom (with a couple exceptions) have failed in the internet age to build followings. At all. Dreary deadly serious industry writing, slower and more self-serious than the competition, that even the industry no longer reads. And all that is on a good day. (On a bad day the line-up of unsupervised juniors filling their pages is likely to produce some of the greatest jaw dropping howlers available on the internet.)
I know from my experience that there are lots of very excellent reporters on staff there. On their own, I would put the LA Times’ entertainment reporting bench against any group of reporters in Hollywood. However, they are hobbled by a clueless upper management that to this day fails to grasp the meaning of the internet age and has an uncanny knack for making the worst, most hamfisted decisions possible; for being so cut off from the industry and the city at large in their Civic Center bunker that they have no capacity (or will) to reality check their own notions.
The LA Times again, probably has the largest group of entertainment reporters working on any non-celeb oriented product in Hollywood. I am guessing their team is, even today, bigger than the reporting staff of Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Deadline combined. And yet the last time they produced a piece of investigative journalism that had any impact on the industry whatsoever, that even was widely talked about was…..Claudia Eller on Chris Albrecht is the last thing I can recall. That’s going back a good five years I think. Maybe someone can think of a more recent example.
So today, they release a big team investigation. Those scarce investigative resources they have been hoarding are finally put to use and we get what? An exhaustive survey revealing the members of the Academy of Motion Pictures are largely white and male.
To conduct the study, Times reporters spoke with thousands of academy members and their representatives — and reviewed academy publications, resumes and biographies — to confirm the identities of more than 5,100 voters — more than 89% of the voting members. Those interviews revealed varying opinions about the academy’s race, sex and age breakdown: Some members see it simply as a mirror of hiring patterns in Hollywood, while others say it reflects the group’s mission to recognize achievement rather than promote diversity. Many said the academy should be much more representative.
Some suggestions for future exposes on the Academy:
• Sending reporters to walk every inch of Hollywood Blvd to prove that the Kodak Theater is really there.
• Interviewing all 30,000,000 viewers to prove that they do go to the bathroom when the winners of the sound and editing awards make their acceptance speeches.
• Proving that the average pay of the average Hollywood star presenting an award is in fact higher than the average busboy who will take their empty drinks away at the Governors Ball
• Proving that black ties are not really black because technically black is not a color on the color spectrum but the absence of color.
(Important disclaimer: Dawn Hudson the CEO of the Academy is a friend. I have nonetheless, criticized the Academy during her tenure, notably and loudly on Ratnergate. But if because of that relationship, you think everything I say does not even merit consideration, you are free to stop reading here and now and disregard me forever. Off you go then!)
Anyway, my question is of course: was there anyone at the LA Times who didn’t know at a glance what the result of this survey would be before you interviewed 5,100 people? If there anyone at the LA Times who thought that anyone who even casually follows the Academy would not know this at a glance?
Yes, the Academy membership is clearly white, male and incredibly rich. So, if you haven’t noticed are the upper echelons of Hollywood at large. The culture of the industry is indeed, outrageous and despicable, but it is not, in the least, surprising. Yes, the Academy should open itself up a bit, but isn’t that really the tail wagging the dog? You are complaining about the lack of diversity in the organization representing the elite of Hollywood but not the lack of diversity in Hollywood’s elite itself?
Anyway, lots of fine reporters worked on this piece. I wish them leadership in the future that will let them produce pieces worthy of their efforts and abilities.
Galveston. Always Galveston.
A very creditable cover of the great Glenn Campbell’s most important song.
51. Had I the heavens’ embroidered cloths, etc, etc/But I, being poor, have only my dreams.
52. I loved too much/And by such and such/Is happiness thrown away.
53. But I being young and foolish with her could not agree.
”—A history of Ireland in 100 excuses.Was taking stock a bit on the podcast of the important milestones we’ve been passing on the road to the collapse of civilization and it feels that in the last few weeks we’ve made some huge strides. Certainly our days on Earth as non-media based entities and living flesh must be drawing to a close.
• Last week Marvel released a 17 second teaser for their upcoming Superbowl ad for their upcoming Avengers film. We are now officially in the era when we count down to pieces of marketing. Marketing for films that are themselves marketing for rides, toys, product tie-ins..
It is certainly only a matter of time (months? weeks?) before there will no long be any need for the film at all. A film after all is such a big, clunky olde timey, non-interactive way of distributing “content” and all we will have will be ads for films; and the films themselves won’t need to exist…except for hardcore nerd fanboys who can go find them somewhere online. Ads can be supported through product placement on ads. Or there can be Kickstarter campaigns to help Sony make an ad for the new non-existent film based on the characters in last year’s hit Mountain Dew ad campaign.
• In the latest magazine sales numbers, we passed the threshold where reality stars are bigger than acting or singing stars. A good old fashioned celeb break up like Heidi Klum and Seal’s which used to dominate the supermarket magazine covers for weeks, now barely makes a ripple in the face of Kardashian Weight Loss Secrets. Being famous for something other than being famous (or being crazy) has now become not only besides the point, but actually a drawback.
• The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills held part two of their three week reunion of the twelve week season. The reunion will soon be longer than the season itself. There will soon be reunions of the reunions. Which is all in keeping with the spirit of the times, that the experience itself isn’t what matters but how we process the experience.
Monday night, in fact, was an explosion of reality TV watching with RHOBH, The Bachelor and The Voice airing gigantic very special episodes all around. Twitter was ablaze with a thousand campfires. One moment when I reached for the laptop to tweet an especially hilarious Bachelor observation, my wife who does not Tweet, looked at my Tweetdeck and all the commentary on all the shows and asked incredulous, does everyone just Tweet while they watch TV? An obvious question but it occurred to me, no longer is it enough that we are immersed in media which is showing us reality shows attempting to create a surrogate life, we now need media also to process our thoughts about the immersion in that media.
Which is all to say that the zone of ourselves that is not media is becoming very very small and it isn’t long .
It was Charles Dickens 200th birthday yesterday. Dickens more than made me want to be a writer; it’s impossible to think about what a writer is if it were not for Dickens. The ability to find the drama and pathos in society and portray it from the high to the low as the grand pageant of living society was his creation. And none of the developments above would have surprised him in the least. Post-modernism has nothing on the disembodied absurdity of the case of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce in Bleak House. The age of gossip as a living devouring monster that fuels society was all foretold in the Veneerings drawing room in Our Mutual Friend.