Digital Dretzka

April 24, 2006

LAS VEGAS – There are times when I feel as if I’m the Grim Reaper of Digital Technology. Because part of my job – such as it is – requires me to attend as many industry-related conventions as possible, I’ve not only been able to alert readers to several new digital wonders, but also to caution them about the impending demise of previously lauded miracle appliances.

That mission carried me to Las Vegas again this week for the convention of the National Association of Broadcasters. Bad news, boys and girls, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are only now dribbling into retail outlets, and NAB attendees are being invited to see the next generation of hi-def.

First, though, a look back in time, from the Ghost of NABs Past.

By now, most consumers have learned that the home-entertainment and personal-computer dodges have relied on vastly different business models than those applied to manufacturers of cars, steel, washing machines and lawn furniture. It was as if no one in Silicon Valley had ever been introduced to “planned obsolescence,” a concept that had ensured vast profits for several generations of Rust Belt moguls.

In Detroit, auto makers calculated that their products would work extremely well for five or six years – slightly longer in California and other dry climes – but collapse in a heap of rust soon thereafter. Refrigerators, stoves and water heaters tended to last a bit longer, but they, too, ultimately would succumb to wear and tear. The manufacturers timed the introduction of their revolutionary new models and technologies to coincide with both the upward mobility of their customers and the necessity to replace worn-out appliances.

This strategy tended to work swell for everyone, except consumers who wanted their cars and TVs to live as long as their Barcaloungers. When German and Japanese interests began producing cars that lasted longer and required less care and feeding, American consumers flocked to their showrooms. The migration not only forced Detroit to make better products, but it also forced the companies to offer extended warranties, just in case.

By comparison, when the home-computing and home-entertainment industries evolved to the point that they were important sectors in the American economy, product lines were upgraded and sent into the marketplace at warp speed. Even as first-, second- and third-generation appliances continued to perform beautifully in the home – and already were more powerful than they had any reason to be -- Silicon Valley firms continued turning out and marketing new, only slightly improved models. Meanwhile, retailers had yet to clear their shelves of the previous inventory.

Designers of software, particularly those products licensed to Mr. Gates and company, would wait a while before introducing new operating systems (not all of which were embraced by the public, either). It not only allowed time for R&D, but also for trips to the bank. Hardware providers forgot to build into their business plans a period of time to rack in the dough, preferring, instead, to stay even in the race to have the coolest products.

At the same time, the software that cost Hollywood filmmakers hundreds of thousands of dollars to acquire in support of such pioneering films as “The Abyss” and “Terminator 2” could be purchased on the exhibition floor of the NAB for pennies on the dollar (two years later, it would be milles on the dollar). Considering the limits of the potential market for morphing and liquid walls – and, again, short shelf life before something cooler came along – it’s easy to see how unprofitable an enterprise this was for anyone except the studios … occasionally.

With each new December in the modern digital era, those of us who cover such things were required to put together lists of cool Christmas gifts for home-entertainment enthusiasts. It was easy enough to do, but, invariably, we’d dutifully return to Las Vegas too weeks later for the annual Consumer Electronics Show. It was here that we’d be introduced to the products that, in six months time, would render our gift ideas obsolete.

VCRs held their value pretty well through the 20 years of their reign, with most of the improvements arriving in regular intervals, and as they were required by consumer demand. Then, along came DVD, which they public also embraced. It’s taken less than a decade for the same cabal to begin making the push for a spin-off technology – hi-def DVD – that would require another full reinvestment from their customers. The jury’s still out on that one.

Best Buy, Target and other retail giants continue to sell analog television sets to customers, even in the face of the government-mandated switchover to digital in 2009. HDTVs and digital converters are readily available now, at affordable costs, but how many citizens actually have allowed that fact to sink into their heads?

The dust had yet to settle from the iPod explosion, when Disney announced that it would support the concept by providing several of its high-rated shows for hand-held display. After the requisite two weeks reserved for competitors to piss on the idea, nearly every provider of entertainment content jumped on the same ship. Video-enabled cell phones also became flavors-of-the-month, even as it became apparent that the vast minority of owners used their phones primarily for conversations, and the occasional IM and photo.

No new or upgraded product – including portable satellite-radio receivers – will be put in the marketplace without some kind of iPod or MP3 gizmo implanted therein. The same is true with new automobiles, many of which still offer cassette and AM/FM players as basic equipment. Hi-def radio, which offers traditional broadcasters expensive new options, is a big item at this year’s NAB … even if XM and Sirius have yet to report a profit.

All this coming at time when our soldiers in Iraq are driving cut-rate coffins on wheels.

On Sunday, at about the same time as director James Cameron was extolling the benefits of digital cinema and 3-D to attendees, one of the key developers of the THX sound system was warning broadcasters of another unforeseen threat to their profits. In his keynote address to engineers, Tomlinson Holman used surveys and other data to demonstrate how much more sophisticated – and, more to the point, demanding – consumers have become when it comes to audio quality.

“For home theaters, when surveys are done, movies are the killer app,” argued Holman, now a professor at USC. “In these same surveys, however, (consumers) rank audio quality above video quality. Those who own these systems find they do more DVD and television viewing (than those with ordinary setups). The average first-time system costs about $2,100, and about 35 percent of households have already invested that much.

“Satisfaction with these systems is high among those surveyed.”

Holman said consumers who participated in a recent MIT survey, which compared HD and SD systems, “were attracted by the sharper picture, but better sound was the first thing noticed … 75 percent of home theaters are equipped with 5.1 channels of sound. About 70 percent of those surveyed said that upgraded sound was the most important feature of DVDs in a home-theater environment.”

In other words, shape up or continue to watch ratings plummet. Cameron has said pretty much the same thing, except as it regards box-office revenue.

Cameron subsequently visited the booth of NHK Technical Services, whose employees were handing out glasses on the exhibition floor so attendees could sample its 3D-HDTV technology on screens large and standard-sized. The televisions and set-top boxes were still in the prototype stage, but the enabling chips are ready to go. Negotiations with set manufacturers have already begun.

And, yes, it looks great from all angles. HD plus 3D … what a concept. If the public ever does embrace the format, we’re all in for a treat. If chips are built into the sets, the boxes won’t be needed.

A few steps away, other NHK employees were directing foot traffic into a large enclosure, where they would be introduced to the company’s “Ultra High-Definition TV System.” Ultra HDTV? I’m still making payments on my sub-ultra unit, and have no timetable to acquire a hi-def DVD player … let alone, a clue as to whether I’ll choose HD-DVD or BluRay.

The Ultra HD experience – get this – allows for 4,320 scanning lines, and 7680 X 4320 pixels, which compares to the standard HDTV’s 1080 lines and 1920 X 1080. On the audio front, there are 22.2 channels of sound, in a three-layer setup … 22.2 friggin’ channels. Nine channels comprise the top layer, 10 channels in the middle orbit and 5 on the floor.

And, here’s the bad news, it’s amazing … like real life, but better … even compared with the best HDTV I’ve seen. Individual faces popped out from crowds, and we in the audience felt as if we were in the stands watching the basketball game and sumo-wrestling match. A wind-swept field of sunflowers approached those painted by Van Gogh in intensity and vibrancy.

All one needed to know about the sound could be heard in the dribbling of the basketball in the Nets game. Again, it was as if we were in the Jack Nicholson seats at Staples Center … precise, punchy and hypnotic.

Granted, this display was provided on a rather large screen in 16 X 9 aspect. The hostess said it was the same size as Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper,” which also was photographed for the product reel. Anyone who’s going to spend the bucks required for the Ultra experience, however, isn’t likely to waste them on a standard-sized set.

So, there, you’ve been warned. Ultra HDTV is right around the corner, whether we need it or not, and before the vast majority of American consumers have even had a chance to show off their new HDTVs to the neighbors. -- GD

Posted by Gary Dretzka at 12:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

April 19, 2006

Just stumbled upon an article in the corner of Forbes.com reserved for “Unsolicited Advice,” under the headline “Freezing Out the Critics.” It was written by Marc E. Babej and Tim Pollak, who, we’re told, are partners at Reason Inc., a “marketing-strategy consulting firm that works with clients in a range of categories, including media and entertainment.”

Please read their column, http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/19/unsolicited-advice-advertising-cx_meb_0419critics.html, and answer for me this question:

Based on what you just read, who in their right mind would pay these guys anything more than the cover price of a Forbes magazine for their opinion on anything to do with Hollywood, let alone movie critics? If this is what Reason’s clients get for their investment, well … let’s say … they might as well have spent it on popcorn and a Coke.

For those who passed over the link to Unsolicited Advice, I’ve broken out the salient points:

• Studios finally have tumbled to the idea that by refusing to screen certain movies to critics, they can avoid the negative reviews that could put a crimp in weekend box-office;
• The majority of the movies left unscreened are those in genres – horror and sci-fi, specifically – that critics are “prone to disdain”;
• Because critics are, thus, forced to attend these films for purposes of review with non-professionals, “not only do they have to forgo the ego boost of VIP treatment … but now they also have to rush to regular old premieres, sitting next to the hoi polloi (read: you and me)”;
• That this “tactic of skipping advance screenings is taking hold now because the dynamics of movie marketing and pre-release publicity have changed. Like other professional arbiters of taste, movie reviewers just don’t matter quite as much as they used to”;
• The “ultimate upside for studios … remains that some people will see bad movies no matter what: ‘Benchwarmers’ – one of the ‘unscreened 11’ [of 2006] – got only 11% on Rotten Tomatoes' aggregate index. Even so, it came in second on its opening weekend, pulling in a respectable $19.7 million.”

Arriving so soon after the discredited Duke University study on movie critics -- and how their consensus opinions might be exploited by Hollywood and Madison Avenue marketeers – the column should remind us once again of the cluelessness of those considered to be experts. This is especially true of those academics and consultants whose knowledge of the motion-picture industry, critics and audiences derives from watching the Academy Awards ceremony and occasionally reading the Friday edition of the New York Times.

Fact is, the practice of not screening films perceived to be turkeys is hardly new. For all I know, it’s been going on for the entire 100 years of the cinematic experience. It certainly has been occurring for all of the 35 years that I’ve been writing about movies, reviewing them and, briefly, working as a publicist for a large Midwestern theater chain. If it seems as if more films are going out non-screened, it’s likely that more turkeys are being allowed to escape the coops of Hollywood, prior to a quick turn-around into DVD (a theatrical run, however brief, somehow adds a layer of sheen to even the dullest of titles). Then, too, the screening and junketing process has become so expensive that it’s to the benefit of shareholders that the budget item be excised.

Typically, a sharp marketing department can get all the mileage it desires from other compliant media outlets. For example, “Benchwarmers” was an unavoidable presence on ESPN on the opening week of the baseball season, and not just in commercials. Its stars also were able to plug the film ceaselessly on such cable shows as “The Showbiz Show With David Spade.” Celebrity-obsessed magazines and shows like “Entertainment Tonight” also offer free publicity to movies, whether they’re worth it or not.

Some critics do cop an elitist stance, and enjoy being the belles of any ball. Most, however, are working-stiff reporters who were handed the gig when they demonstrated an ability to turn a phrase and hit a pre-print deadline. Because there are few private screening rooms in flyover country, most also are forced to see the films at special radio-promotion screenings – with the hoi-polloi (a.k.a., their friends and neighbors) – or are required to drive a hundred miles to the nearest big city. Not being forced to travel that distance for the sole purpose of getting a head start on “Benchwarmers” is a blessing in disguise.

“Benchwarmers” almost certainly would have drawn the same box-office numbers if it actually had been screened by critics. No doubt, many of the 11 non-screened titles were considered “critic-proof,” as well.

In the case of entitlement, very few critics believe that studios are required to screen movies ahead of their release. It’s a convenient tradition, but, as we’ve seen lately, so was the 1st Amendment. Movies considered worthy of awards consideration should be screened, if only for strategic reasons and common courtesy. Typically, the task of reviewing bombs is reserved for third-stringers and wire hacks.

Indeed, if anything, too many movies are given serious attention and valuable space in newspapers, today. On a busy weekend, reviews of important movies will be squeezed, so that sub-standard genre fare is accorded space it doesn’t deserve (and young readers won’t see, because they don’t read newspapers anymore). What percentage of worthy books and interesting cable TV shows are reviewed? If niche titles are screened ahead of time for niche audiences, and those viewers head directly for AICN and other niche sites to dis or coo, who, in the end really cares?

Although some sites do shill for certain studios and producers, their readers can smell a turd every bit as easily as any critic for the New Yorker. On the other hand, many of the established masters of genre cinema were embraced by critics before niche audiences even knew their names. One need only look back at “Night of the Living Dead” and “Alien” as examples.

There’s no question that critical opinion has become less important to box-office over the last three decades … but only when it comes to mainstream products (and that’s what most Hollywood movies have become). Distributors of indie, foreign and documentary fare remain almost entirely dependent on good reviews to draw people to arthouses. Few newspapers or pop magazines run feature stories on the actors, themes and directors addressed in arthouse movies, preferring puffball interviews with such over-exposed artists as Sharon Stone, Harrison Ford and even Lindsay Lohan (which, again, go unread by people under 25).

“Brokeback Mountain,” “Capote,” “Good Night, and Good Luck,” “Munich” and “Crash” all were brought to the attention of ticket-buyers by critics and essayists, not the junket press or studio marketing campaigns. Hell, from all the evidence available in television ads for “Brokeback Mountain,” even for the DVD edition, few would guess that its romantic angle was anything but heterosexual. Only a couple of the Best Picture nominees could be said to have done well in their initial theatrical runs, but all should kill in DVD.

Ballej and Pollak also forward this absurd theory: “Inevitably, the New York Times or Chicago Tribune reviewers are taken off their perch when their sound bites [sic] appear next to Movie Mom at Yahoo! Movies, Ericsnider.com, or (our favorite) Hollywood Bitchslap. Even worse, their opinions are devalued when they become just one datapoint in an average score.”

Even the studios don’t buy that line of thinking. Junkets of mediocre products and star vehicles are conducted to coerce positive early press – and just these kinds of blurbs – from newspapers willing to allow their reporters to attend such gang-bangs. For the most part, screenings are held within hours of an interview, thus precluding the journalists (and I use the term very broadly here) from backing out. Those who rely on these affairs for access do so because it’s one of the only sure ways to do pieces they can freelance to celebrity-obsessed editors.

The term “junket whore” or “blurb whore” has come to be associated with writers who would – and have – allowed their names to be attached to the most untenable of complimentary quotes (occasionally supplied by a publicist). This assures them of continued access and more invitations to wallow in the troughs of celebrity muck.

Contrary to what these columnists believe, no studio as ever chosen a blurb from a professional junketeer over one from an established critic – or thumb from Roger, Gene and Richard – at any newspaper. Typically, the blurbs seen on the ads that run on the Sunday before a movie opens are those of junketeers; by Friday, they will have been replaced by those quotes, if any, of legitimate critics. Readers picked up on this ruse years ago, and the studios continue the practice because they’re afraid not to do it.

The same is true for the aggregate scores on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic sites. Only an idiot – or columnist for a mainstream periodical – would fail to notice that critics who carry weight in the real world are the same ones that carry weight on compilation sites. And, in any case, amateurs don’t frequent Metacritic any more than they do the New Republic.

If anyone is to blame for the diminishment of prestige accorded mainstream reviewers – as opposed to the respect still reserved for the handful of true critics left in the business – it has more to do with newspaper and magazine brass than Internet pirates. Today, editors take their responsibility to the public discourse far less seriously than readers possibly could imagine:

• When feature editors demand that their critics also interview the celebs whose products they are also required to grade, the readers are left to separate the puff from the punditry … and, typically, they no longer expend the effort.
• Newspapers that insist on using a star-system as shorthand for a movie’s value, have, in fact, given their subscribers an excuse for not reading the text.
• When knowledgeable critics are replaced by “younger voices,” with little or no background in film history or theory, it diminishes the value of all criticism.

The studios have had no role in forwarding this trend, except to have their ad sellers bitch incessantly to their newspaper counterparts about critics they deem overly negative. At a time when studios are cutting back on their newspaper buys, these opinions are given much more weight than in previous years. (This also explains why the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and newsweeklies recently choose to expend an obscene amount of manpower, energy and money into covering the Oscars and Globes.)

Or, one could take the easiest route possible, simply by blaming everything on Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, who opened up a Pandora’s Box with “At the Movies.” Many film snobs have argued that its success gave mainstream audiences – or the hoi-polloi, if you so choose -- every opportunity to never again read another newspaper or magazine. And, of course, neither gentleman ever recommended any such thing.

Upscale and learned audiences, young and old, continue to read as many reviews of important movies as they can get their hands on, though. For them, the aggregate sites have become indispensable tools.

It took the Pulitzer board almost 30 years to award any writer, other than Roger, its prestigious award for criticism, even if there were several deserving candidates. So, blame the board, too.

Giving the studios credit for diminishing the importance of criticism – at a time when newspapers have become their own worst enemies -- may pass muster in Forbes. In the wild and wooly blogosphere, however, that kind of lightweight thinking just won’t cut it. – G.D.

Posted by Gary Dretzka at 05:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In its continuing effort to keep America abreast of all things “Da Vinci Code,” Newsweek has treated its readers to a lengthy “exclusive” preview story; a “Newsweek on Air” panel discussion of the cover story; an on-line Q&A with lead reporter, Devin Gordon; several hundred searchable items on the website it shares with MSNBC.com; links to the movie trailer; and sponsored links to Sony’s official publicity website, SexPriestsAndSecretCodes.com, DaVinciAndJesus.com and a purveyor of audio books. Several more sponsored links to “Code” ephemera can found via the Verizon With MSN search engine, which appears to be affiliated with Newsweek, as well.

With friends like this in the media, who needs an advertising budget?

The latest item to surface in Newsweek’s increasingly frivolous Periscope gossip/trivia column is an in-depth investigative piece on the hairdo favored by Tom Hanks’ character in the movie, which launches on May 19. As silly as it might look on a fictional Harvard symbologist and real-life Hollywood multimillionaire, the coiffure hardly qualifies as news .

And, neither does the imaginary tempest in a teapot furthered by reporters Gordon and Sean Smith. Instead, it’s the kind of baloney bored studio executives enjoy feeding to desperate reporters, knowing they’ll swallow it hook, line and sinker.

As the story goes, rival studio brass are keeping themselves busy these days by speculating out loud about how many millions of dollars Hanks’ modified mullet – which he’s also wearing in a ponytail -- will cost Sony. (The answer, of course, is “none.”) The reporters go so far as to ascribe “whisper campaign” to what likely is nothing more than one exec at the Mr. Chow asking another, “Did you see Hanks on Letterman last night?”

If the movie performs as expected, every 40-plus male in the 90210 zip code will be sporting the same look by the 4th of July, even it means a visit to the Hair Club for Men.

Typically, though, for these kinds of non-stories, it took two reporters, two unnamed sources and 290 words not only to alert Periscope readers to the alleged whisper campaign, but, also, in the next paragraph, to completely discredit the rumor. Worst of all, perhaps, the journalistic assault squad actually allowed one of the anonymous sources to repeat the threadbare cliché, "In Hollywood, it's not enough that I win. You have to lose."

Why did Newsweek editors accord the “perpetrators” of this “whisper campaign” anonymity, if all the readers were going to get from it was a quote so old it’s growing whiskers? Oh, yeah, I forgot … the usual rules don’t apply when it comes to Hollywood gossip. – G.D.

Posted by Gary Dretzka at 01:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 13, 2006

The titles of most of this week’s new movie releases would look every bit as enticing on the marquee of a Pussycat Theater, as the signs informing passers-by of the fare at your local mega-plex. Consider: “Wild,” “Sisters,” “Kinky Boots,” “Hard Candy,” “The Notorious Betty Page,” “La Mujer de mi hermano (My Brother’s Wife)” and, through blurry eyes, “Kekexili” … “Kooky Lezis,” perhaps?

Throw in “Scary Movie 4,” and it’s exactly the kind of schedule Jack Valenti would have said demonstrates the need for the MPAA ratings board. Parents won’t have a clue as to which movies were made for general audiences, and those meant for adults.

And, sure enough: “Candy,” “Page,” “Sisters” and “Hermano” are rated “R.” as they probably should be; “Scary” and “Kinky” are PG-13; “Kekexili” goes out unrated (in Singapore, it’s PG); and “Wild,” an animated feature from Disney, is “G.” The possible sticking point with “Wild” arrives in the nickname, “Spaz,” which is attached to director Steve Williams.

You might recall that the PC police forced golfer Tiger Woods to apologize for applying the same word to his performance at last weekend’s Masters. Personally, I couldn’t care less. It might be advisable, however, for Disney drop the moniker on the DVD boxes.

Of the several movies opening Friday, I’ve only seen “Sisters” and “Kinky Boots.” I wanted to preview “Betty Page,” but no invitations for screenings arrived in my overstuffed mailbox. Judging from the early reviews posted on Metacritic, the biopic didn’t meet anyone’s expectations. Its primary flaw apparently was its avoidance of anything remotely controversial.

“Kinky Boots” belongs in the same category as such Brit working-class crowd-pleasers as “Billy Elliot,” “Brassed Off,” “The Full Monty,” “Calendar Girls” and “Blow Dry.” Julian Jarrold’s tale is based on the true story of a traditional men's footwear factory, in Northamptonshire, which saved itself – and a couple dozen jobs -- by producing platform-heel shoes and boots for transvestites.

Why transvestites and drag queens? Because women’s shoes and boots are designed to support the weight and gait of the typical woman, not men of greater weight and bulk.

Charlie (Joel Edgerton) is an ambitious young man who inherits the dying business from his father. Besides the factory, his dad left him a huge pile of bills. It isn’t until the lad runs into a sore-footed drag-diva, Lola (Chiwetel Ejiofor), that the light bulb goes off in his head. Ejiofor is a large man, and, as the featured attraction in a drag revue, Lola encourages Charlie to take a shot on the new line of footwear. For the idea to bear fruit, however, the boots must past the muster of fashionistas huddled at an Italian shoe expo. Throw in a bumpy romance and some homophobic shoemakers, and, well, you can guess the rest.

“Kinky Boots” is fun, if overly expository. At 107 minutes, it felt long. Foot fetishists aside, the film should appeal to fans of the above-cited against-all-odds melodramas. Ejiofor’s touching performance, too, is worth the price of admission.

“Sisters” is a horse of a completely different color. It, too, features several splendid performances -- including Oscar-quality efforts by Maria Bello and Tony Goldwyn – but the dialogue overflows with bile, and there’s hardly a character who isn’t encumbered with one debilitating character flaw or another.

Richard Alfieri’s stageplay and script were inspired by Chekhov’s “Three Sisters.” This adaptation places the Russian siblings in the hoity-toity milieu of a private big-city college, while the place to which they’re longing to return is a posh post-bellum home in South Carolina.

What emerges is a world-class bitch-fest that more closely resembles
“Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” on steroids than your local repertory company’s interpretation of “Three Sisters.” The critics hated it, but I kind of enjoyed watching a half-dozen cloistered academics -- and an upwardly mobile blond bimbo -- tear into each other in the king’s own English (certainly that of our reigning president). There wasn’t a missed syllable, or a “like, you know,” in the entire 113-minute length of the film. Anyone looking for new epithets and curses to throw at a spouse, in-law or sibling will find “Sisters” most instructive.

Director Arthur Allan Seidelman, whose background is almost entirely in television, has created an environment that’s too claustrophobic and stagebound to be even remotely credible. The actors have to work double-hard to break through fourth wall, and the effort shows.

Maria Bello, though, as the sister most embittered by her imprisonment within the family legacy, couldn’t be better. Her Marcia is alternately nasty, empathetic, vulnerable and tremendously sexy. Goldwyn plays her long-ago admirer, also married, who turns her inside-out with lust and longing. Anyone casting an updated version of “Virginia Woolf” need look no further for their George and Martha.

Among these titles, only “Scary Movie 4” is likely to make an impression at the box office, if only for old time’s sake. Mainstream audiences need not fear being left too far behind, however, as Hollywood’s summer officially begins next week. – G.D.

Posted by Gary Dretzka at 08:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 10, 2006

LAS VEGAS – In Monday’s New York Times, David Carr interviews John Waters and the co-CEOs of New Line on plans for the 2007 re-adaptation of “Hairspray.” The article does everything, except answer the question it begs: why bother?

For those keeping score at home, the Queen Latifah/John Travolta version will be based on the multiple-Tony Award-winning musical, which added more than a dozen bouncy new songs and a typically uplifting Broadway view of American life to Waters’ wickedly funny essay on race, rock, roll and ratted hair in Baltimore, circa 1962. A strategically pruned, 90-minute version of the Broadway musical – starring original cast members Harvey Fierstein and Dick Latessa, as Edna and Wilbur Turnblad -- recently opened at the Luxor Hotel & Casino here, to positive reviews and appreciative audiences.

It only took one John Waters to write and direct the film, which incorporated such vintage R&B hits as "The Madison Time," "You'll Lose a Good Thing" and “Nothing Takes the Place of You" into its historical context. The Broadway version required the services of Mark O'Donnell and Thomas Meehan, who wrote the book, and composers Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman. It was directed by Jack O'Brien. Shaiman and Wittman already are working on new songs for the movie.

Carr put the projected budget at $50 million, but, for this to be realized, the stars would have to work on scale. Thus, even apart from the vastly premature New York Times plug, the hype machine already is in full gear.

The 2007 adaptation of the 2002 Broadway re-imagining of Waters’ 1988 movie has already generated headlines by launching a nationwide search for hybrid actors/singers/dancers to play Tracy Turnblad, Seaweed, Little Inez and Link Larkin. More buzz was generated with the signing of Latifah to play Motormouth Maybelle (Ruth Brown in the original) and Travolta as the successor to the great Divine, Fierstein, Michael McKean, Bruce Vilanch and John Pinette as Edna. (Waters originally saw pioneer transsexual Christine Jorgensen in the role, so obesity clearly isn’t a prerequisite for the assignment).

Billy Crystal reportedly is in line for the role of Wilbur, Edna’s husband (originally played by Jerry Stiller, in a portrayal that may have inspired Frank Costanza). Expect many more stunt-casting announcements to be made in the months to come. One doubts, however, that producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron (“Chicago”) will cast modern incarnations of such then-Z-list talents as Pia Zadora, Sonny Bono, Deborah Harry, Ricki Lake, Lelie Ann Powers, Mink Stole, Rick Ocasek, Colleen Fitzpatrick and Alan J. Wendl in key supporting roles. If a Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Beyonce, Eva Longoria or Christina Aguilera doesn’t make the final cut, I’ll eat my hat.

And, therein, lies the rub. As Carr mentions, recent screen adaptations of the stage versions “Rent” and “The Producers” hardly scorched the box offices of U.S. mega-plexes. Neither, did “Phantom of the Opera” and “Evita.”
“Chicago” did well, but it took two months and a few Oscars to get it over the $100 million mark. Throw in the costs for prints, marketing and fuel for John Travolta’s jet, and you’ve raised the break-even bar to a precariously high level. DVD and soundtrack sales could help, but those aren’t guaranteed, either.

Now that I’ve arbitrarily raised the budget for “Hairspray” to $100-million-plus, it’s worth asking where the potential audience resides.

The book written for the Broadway, Las Vegas and touring versions focused far more on the outsider status of the larger-than-life Turnblads, than the integration struggle that inspired Waters. That edge was dulled, necessarily, at the expense of all the wonderful singing and dancing required to sell tickets to the tourists along the Great White Way. Eliminating Waters’ casting quirks and directorial nuances reduces the chances of “Hairspray” attracting his traditional fan base, modest though it may be.

Knowing full well that what works on stage doesn’t necessarily work on screen, theater aficionados found little inspiration for re-watching screen versions of “The Producers” and “Rent.” This, of course, leaves pre-teens, teens and Travolta fans to carry the rest of the load. A few novenas may be in order.

"'Hairspray' was a niche movie that resonated beyond the niche," Michael Lynne, co-chief executive of New Line, told Carr. "It will be reinvented, but what remains is the essence, John Waters's special sensibility and humor about the social condition, the freedom to puncture certain shibboleths and make people a little uncomfortable."

Robert K. Shaye, the other co-chief executive of New Line, added, "We didn't give that up in the play, and we aren't going to give that up in this movie."

Oh, really? Maybe not by Hollywood standards, but the productions remain, in fact, too very different things. A re-viewing of Waters’ version – recently seen on cable rotation – attests to the durability of its “subversive” message.

But, good luck, anyway. If it is to succeed, “Hairspray” will have to appeal to the fat girl in all of us, not the hipster or ironist. Stranger things have happened.

Meanwhile, in Las Vegas, the Broadwayization of the Strip continues to generate mixed results, as well. “Mamma Mia” remains a solid crowd-pleaser, even if “Avenue Q” never found the audience it deserved at Wynn’s Las Vegas, and will soon close its doors to make way for “Spamalot.” (“We Will Rock You,” the Queen musical, also underperformed.) “Cats” has arrived at the Aladdin Theater for a two-month run, and the Venetian is spending $35 million to re-mount “Phantom of the Opera” in a 90-minute version to be staged in a new $40-million venue. This, in addition to the half-dozen Cirque du Soleil and Cirque-inspired extravaganzas any impresario would kill to mount on Broadway.

Wouldn’t it be great if every American city -- not named New York, anyway – could boast of such an embarrassment of riches?

Posted by Gary Dretzka at 06:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

April 6, 2005

LAS VEGAS – Just took a quick stroll around the exhibition floor of CTIA Wireless 2006, one those conventions that couldn’t draw flies a decade ago, yet today attracts nearly 1,000 exhibitors and more than 35,000 attendees from 90 countries. Having covered an alphabet soup of conventions – from NAB and CES, to NATPE to VSDA – I thought this one would be little different than the others: a mix of old and new, with distinguishable product lines and interesting gadgets.

I came away more confused about the future of telecommunications than ever. The cacophony of signage, unfamiliar brands and techno-garble was overwhelming, but that’s par for the course at these shows. It was the palpable smell of consumer blood in the air that unnerved me most.

Anyone in the general vicinity of Hollywood knows that studio executives have begun to salivate over the potential for miniaturizing their products and sending them out for viewing on a screen about the size of a commemorative postage stamp from Cameroon.

Downloading music and audio-books to an iPod is a logical extension of listening to baseball games on a transistor radio. Be able to download TV shows and movies to an iPod, with any hope of retaining some sort of aesthetic integrity, is a fool’s dream. It demonstrates, once again, in how little regard the industry holds its intellectual properties.

But, the profit potential is endless. And, thanks to a compliant media – which, this week, bally-hooded Disney’s not-so-new idea for branded cellphones with parental controls – the content providers are guaranteed a free pass for years. The it’s-so-cool factor is so much easier to cover than the economic realities of progress. The continuing soap opera surrounding the launch of high-definition DVD is proof that gee-whiz gets the headlines, while postponements and price points are buried in the briefs.

If the CTIA gathering more closely resembles a gathering of car dealers than other such techno-centric events, maybe it’s because the product lines have names that would be ruled out in any game of scrabble. Who were all these companies, and what were they selling, anyway? Their prefixes and suffixes in the names offered few clues. Dozens of companies began with micro-, mobile- or digi-, while countless others ended in –cell, -less, and –tel, which leads us to believe that they’re dealing small objects. All offered “solutions,” “capacity” and “flexibility” to problems so obscure we probably wouldn’t notice if we dropped our Blackberry and stepped on one.

A century ago, automakers bestowed the names of their designers or founders to their product divisions. In the ’50s and ’60s, new models were required to live up to such names as Mustang, Impala, Firebird, Cobra, Thunderbird, Barracuda, Charger, Caprice, Bonneville, Sebring. Eldorado, Daytona, New Yorker … Edsel (OK, some didn’t). When Japanese automakers began to dominate the international market, the legend goes, they struggled to find words that had no meaning in any language -- Celica, Camry, Altima, Integra -- so as not to offend anyone by accident, and their American counterparts followed suit with Alero, Lumina, Reatta and Achieva.
It didn’t matter all that much, as most the cars shared similarly boxy looks, chassis, engine blocks, prices and warranties. Only obsessive consumers took the time to learn the difference.

The computer industry followed suit, with products that had meaningless names and incomprehensible technology. Only someone very learned could precisely parse the difference between Mac and IBM, let alone Dell and Compaq. Consumers looking only for an affordable and reliable appliance that could be used to connect them to the Internet, retrieve e-mail, play solitaire and download porn, often walked out of the local Best Buy with a system powerful enough to service most small businesses.

Unlike the even-larger Consumer Electronics Show, held each January on these same floors, the tens of thousands of geeks in attendance at CTIA weren’t as much interested learning the practical applications for such technology, as finding the ghosts in the machines and turning them into their personal slaves.

Wireless technology offers convenience, portability and instantaneous communication. The practical applications range from receiving phone calls and listening to hit songs, to watching “Desperate Housewives” on the subway and being permanently yoked to one’s employer, spouse or kids, no matter where they are on Earth. There are many more uses, of course, but what will make money in the future is what made money in the past: connecting customers to the Internet, retrieving e-mail, playing solitaire and downloading porn. Here, however, the house advantage belongs to many of the same service providers, who, until consumers got savvy, charged their customers extravagant fees for going over their allotted minutes-per-month.

For around $30 a month, home-bound customers can get unlimited access to the Internet and everything that links to it. One can play poker for hours, and not pay an additional cent for the privilege. Try that on a portable device, while on a cruise, and you’d better subscribe to a wireless service provider that offers unlimited access for a flat fee. Typically, though, consumers won’t recognize the best service package for their individual needs until they exceed the limits of the one they were sold.

As I type this entry in my hotel room here, I’m paying $12 a day to Cox for unlimited wireless Internet access. If I need to log in at the airport on the way home, and there’s a flight delay, I might be able to get away with a similar tariff from the facility’s in-house provider, but, a la carte, it’s something like $9 an hour.

Wouldn’t it be great if our home wireless providers were accessible wherever we went … or remote fees were fixed and common throughout the industry? Sure, but that’s not going to happen any time soon.

Conveniently, representatives of the FCC were on hand at CTIA, ostensibly to show their concern for the issues facing companies represented at the convention, as well as consumers. The agency tends to wave the flag at NAB, also held here in April.

Judging from headlines made recently out of FCC statements and actions, though, the commissioners are as clueless on how to protect Americans against abuses as everyone else. They’re pushing consumers kicking and screaming into the digital age, while obsessing over political footballs left over from the analog era.

It took the FCC three years to come to an agreement on how much to fine CBS for Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl nipple slip. A postcard campaign orchestrated by right-wing conservatives, who tune into radio shows only to get offended, still trumps action over such issues as payola and media conglomeration. This week, the new leader of the FCC urged owners of huge newspaper chains to lobby their customers over the issue of cross-ownership, so he has a good reason to revive plans to turn our newspapers, airwaves and Internet into one giant phone company.

If the FCC thinks a lot on its plate in 2006, wait until nano-technology becomes a reality and some company no one’s ever heard of suggests that chips – or whatever the hell other technology comes along – be implanted in all children at birth. This will eliminate the need for any hardware, whatsoever, and allow the government to track a citizen’s every step and thought. Cool, huh?

More from CTIA, later … -- G.D.

Posted by Gary Dretzka at 10:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Dear Mr. Dretzka,
A small matter: Where was it "reported" that either I or Ben Brantley "have a beef" with the Times's nomination of Manohla Dargis for the Pulitzer? Certainly not in the silly Women's Wear Daily article that appears to be your main source for this blog item. While I can't speak for anyone else at the Times, I certainly have never expressed any such "beef," publicly or privately, for the simple reason that no such beef exists. Manohla has long been one of my favorite film critics, as well as one of my best friends. I am proud to have helped bring her to the New York Times, and nothing would make me happier than if she were to win this year's Pulitzer. She knows all this perfectly well, as does anyone who actually knows either one of us.
Anything you might do to clarify or correct the record would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
A.O. Scott

Gary Dretzka Responds:

I have/had no reason to think you and MD were at odds, or how accurate the widely circulated gossip item was. My only point was that IF you or BB had a beef, there would be a way to sidestep the in-house process. Having only a BA in English, and in 20/20 grammatical hindsight, the sentence probably should have begun:

"If either Tony Scott or Ben Brantley were to have had a beef, as reported, he might have considered sidestepping his bosses, and nominating himself, prior to the submission deadline, or have someone else do it .... etc. etc."

Sorry for any misunderstanding this might have caused. - GD

Posted by poland at 06:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)