« This One I Object To... | Main | Did The LA Times Cross A Line? »
October 06, 2005
F-ing Enough Already!
It must be a proud day at the L.A. Times. First, last Tuesday, they print a really lousy attack on Sony by Patrick Goldstein that played the insider/outsider game in the worst way. Goldstein used his access to Michael Lynton to beat up Lynton for not answering the question, regarding Albert Brooks’ Seeking Comedy In The Muslim World, that was to the effect of “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” As I have written before, Lynton would have been a jackass to tell Brooks, as he sent his film out to find another distributor, “Well, we just don’t think it’s funny.” And telling that to Goldstein would be even worse. And Goldstein, who is no novice, should have known better. He was played by Brooks and/or Gill, abusive to Sony and Lynton, and didn’t ask any of the hard questions of Brooks, clearly taking sides.
This was followed by a Reuters story that further chased this non-story and got a non-committal comment out of Sony. But the rumors that many at the studio just weren’t that in love with the movie also went into this story.
That leads us to today’s Page Six story that states as a fact that Sony didn’t distribute the film because of the title. It further gives, inaccurately, Mark Gill responsibility for marketing March of the Penguins when the job belongs to Laura Kim, who did a great job in both marketing a publicity for the film. Worse, Brooks delivered a polite private note from Lynton to Page Six to seal the story.
This is really shitty, unprofessional behavior on the part of Brooks. Even in a town that is ethically challenged, this is a breach of etiquette that could keep most studios from ever dealing with Brooks again… understandably.
Of course, Sony still must remain silent because unlike Brooks, they understand that ripping potential creative partners publicly – even ones that are kicking dirt in your face - is bad business.
I have heard from people who love the film and from others who definitely do not. That is besides the point. I hope it's brilliant. But even if it is, that doesn't mean that Sony had to or shoudl have chosen to distribute it if they weren't 100% on it.
But the idea that this is really all about the title is a media scam and it has spiraled out of control and I just wish everybody would stop.
Posted by poland at October 6, 2005 06:49 AM
Comments
The bigger question is Albert Brooks keeps making films?
I thought they banned him after The Muse.
Posted by: Bruce ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 6, 2005 01:53 PM
Ahhhhh, it's times like this that I wish I did not read sites like this. Because as always the truth is more complex then what the public or general media wish to accept.
Now when the film comes out I'll have to just roll my eyes and wince as all of my friends rail about how Albert Brooks is being censored and punished by Sony.
I'll try to explain...I'll recommend these types of industry sites...but they will undoubtedly just give me a blank stare and go back to the Entertainment Weekly version.
Oh well...
Posted by: Nicol D at October 6, 2005 02:34 PM
Dave, here's a question for ya:
What if Albert Brooks had caved and changed the title months ago? Are you saying that Sony still would have dumped the picture regardless? Sure seems like a risky bluff with no upside to me...
Posted by: drew at October 6, 2005 08:48 PM
The truth is always more complex than web sites???
What a profound statement.
Posted by: Angelus21 at October 6, 2005 10:25 PM
Angelus,
If your comment is intended to be a shot at me it would be much more clear if you didn't have the ??? after your first statement.
Slow day?
Posted by: Nicol D at October 6, 2005 11:09 PM
The studios won't deal with Brooks again? That could be true if his pics keep making no profits.
Posted by: LesterFreed at October 6, 2005 11:09 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)