The Hot Blog

Is any publicity for this movie good publicity? Awareness seems to be extremely low.

Of course, the film that has been shafted all season long has been "Little Children," which has never played on as many as 40 screens at a time and is far, far more accomplished than "The Painted Veil."

And tangentially, what has happened to Edward Norton? Preposterous accents in small period films isn't exactly the trajectory he was headed on a couple years back....

I never did like Edward Norton. He seems snobbish and too aloof too come back down to earth. Has The Illusionist gotten any awards so far? I've heard many on this blog said they liked it. And I keep seeing the 'For Your Consideration' banner everywhere.

Norton was pretty enjoyable as a faux-cowpoke in the messy-but-interesting "Down in the Valley," another wobbly indie that he championed hardcore.

I'm wondering if that "Italian Job" affair still has him on some Kilmerian problem-child blacklist. I'd say I admire his principles and agree that I'd hate being pressed into a situation against my will, but come on, Ed: Getting paid to romp around with Charlize Theron on a cozy L.A. shoot ain't exactly fuckin' jury duty.

I have both Down in the Valley and Norton's performance in my top 5 for the year. The film split critics and audiences ignored it, but many people really liked it. Obviously, The Illusionist was a really nice critical success and out of left field commercial succes.

We'll have to see about the Painted Veil, but reviews so far have been pretty positive and Norton was nominated for an Independent Spirit award. Overall, I'd say it's been a pretty great year for Norton. Is he a huge commercial star? No. Is he making the movies it seems that he wants to make? I'd say yes.

I wonder how old this story is. Reason I ask: Just last week, I was offered an Ed Norton phoner by my Warners rep. (Had to turn it down, though, 'cause I missed the screening of "Painted Veil.") So it's not like Warners isn't doing ANYTHING to push the film.

WIP has been pushing this film hard... but there haven't been ad dollars... and clearly, they feel it would be better off with a 2007 release at this point.

Essentially, they have $4.5 million into the picture and Yari said he'd put another $10 million in on ads, but wanted that money out first. WB said "no," realizing with no awards nods, there will never be enough money for them to recoup. What I don't know is what the DVD deal is, since that is where all the dollars are on a picture like this. And remember, a domestic push would, in theory, support foreign, where Yari will get his money back but Warners will get none.

Just sayin'.

Does anyone know if Little Children will get a more substantative release now that it's making all these lists and getting some pretty major noms for other awards? I mean, I'm not in a little town in Iowa, I'm in Phoenix and I would sure like to be able to see it BEFORE the award shows begin in Jan.

Does Norton have a rider in his contracts about getting to meddle in post-production, the way rock stars got to have only green M&Ms?

Norton may not have a rider in his contracts but he certainly does have a personality that sides with a desire for control. He has been on the record that confrontation is a part of the creative process.

Norton has also been on the record that, much like Russell Crowe, he doesn't care if you like him or not. He told Total Film last spring, "I don't have to walk away friends with anybody."

Read Total Film scans here.

Of oourse, it helps if you have one friend in Time/Warner's Richard Parsons that you can get on the phone and ask him to intervene on behalf of your latest movie.

BTW, I've been seeing a ton of commercials for this on Bravo, though they don't look like something I'd want to see (even though I did like the movie).

I loved Curran's PRAISE - what a great film, real, emotional, and true.

is anyone EVER going to answer I question I post on here, or am I not good enought to be responded to because I am not "Hollywood." I read this blog EVERY day. I see 3-4 movies a week and I am a journalist like most of you.

I've seen lots of commercials for the film, and the trailer a number of times, so they do seem to be spending and trying. Has anyone considered that there just might not be much of a market for this picture?

Re Norton: Not that I'm defending Tony Kaye, but supposedly one of the things that drove him 'round the bend on AMERICAN HISTORY X was that Norton had completely re-edited the film to suit himself--though I'm not overly clear WHICH of the many versions finally made it to the screen.

I don't think anyone knows exactly what's going on with the release of Little Children.

If The Painted Veil doesn't get any Oscar love, it won't be for the stars lack of trying. They are beating the drums at The Envelope

and Norton is on The View tomorrow. The guy is usually notoriously press shy. I think Curran and the cast will have to go on the PR offensive if this film is to get any traction.

Thank you Stella. Anyway, the little independent theatre I used to go to in Des Moines just listed it as coming soon, but our major art house here has pulled it from its "coming soon" line-up. I assume if DSM gets it, surely Phoenix will.

Tony Kaye was fired off of American History X because he was a pain in the ass. Norton did have major influence in the final cut, and apparently was "directing" the cut.

Norton does the movies he wants - you gotta respect that. And on the little ones, I'm sure he has some sort of final cut. More power to him.

iowabeef this is from December 6th and all it says is that New Line plans a wider expansion in January. Nothing more specific than that.

http://www.variety.com/awardcentral_article/VR1117955102.html?nav=vpage

Tony Kaye wasn't fired of American History X.

Tony delivered his cut, it was tested, it tested well, then he wanted to change it. He was given the chance to do so and never delivered a new cut. Then the ads began and he became persona non grata. But the cut that was released was pretty much Kaye's first delivered cut.

So as far as the film itself goes, Norton and Kaye did not have drastically different opinions about the final cut?

So there was never a significantly better version of the film out there? The cut that was released is a decent movie, but it seemed to be too much infected with Commercial Director's syndrome.

Norton went in with an editor for a few days after Tony disappeared. (He was in the Bahamas with his guru.) But the conflict really started with Tony not being satisfied with his own director's cut.

So Norton and Kaye were working with two separate editors?

If he did, there isn't much an editor can do with a feature film in a few days other than look at the cut movie and talk about it or maybe re-cut a fight or chase or a specific problem area, but as far as coming to know the footage, a few days is barely enough time to cut a music video. On a sort of similar note, does anyone know approximately what year re-cutting movies for the theatrical after-market (i.e. home video or DVD) took off?

I know, TH, I asked because I am acquainted with someone who worked on that film.

The answer to your question is probably 1992, as that's the year that saw the release on home video of the director's cuts of Blade Runner and The Abyss, which I seem to recall were pretty high-profile re-edits.

Why anyone would even try to re-cut a fight or chase or a specific problem area in a matter of a few days is beyond me, when the original editor has spent months getting it right.

"So Norton and Kaye were working with two separate editors?"

Supposedly Kaye and Norton were working with separate editors simultaneously in a sort of odd collaboration, but then Kaye asked Norton to leave and he did. After that New Line took the film from Kaye and did their own edit that (by all accounts except Kaye's) wasn't all that different from what he came up with.

Josh, you jest, "separate editors simultaneously in a sort of odd collaboration...." Ed had an editor on his personal payroll? Was it the assistant working nights with him? -- that I could believe.

"...New Line brought in several people - including Edward and Oscar-winning editor Jerry Greenberg (The French Connection) - to help director Tony Kaye.... Edward is mystified by Kaye's behavior. 'I think it's going to be the best movie a director ever took his name off of,' he says. 'For a first-time director to get a year and a half of postproduction time from a studio to edit a film is literally unheard of, and after that, they ultimately moved forward with the best cut they had.'" from
http://www.edward-norton.org/articles/entony.html

Sorry, I don't have any insider info here. The '99 Vanity Fair article (which is also on that site) said that Norton was working with "an [unnamed] editor of his own" while Kaye worked on his cut "next door." It's hardly a gospel account given the source -- Kaye himself is quoted in the article but doesn't seem to have been in any mood to go into detail, so his version isn't presented -- but that's the story as I was familiar with it. The final cut is said to be based primarily on one of Kaye's earlier, discared cuts.

The Painted Veil isn't half as good as Venus, but it's not that bad either. Sorry, I'm not Ben Lyons on E!, who looks exactly like Jeffrey and smiles constantly while energetically delivering reviews. That's how to get people interested. At least his English isn't as clipped as his cohorts. Backing up to try and make out words, only to give up, isn't why I bought TIVO.

Thanks Josh. Two rooms and an Avid for the assistant are high on every editors "what-I-need" list. I don't have any insider info on the movie either, but I can't think of a better way for a director and editor to unwrap a producer from around their necks, than to send him/her next door to work on a cut with an able assistant.

"Ironically, Edward Norton, who often seems to be in the middle of these kids of bruhahas, hasn’t supported Yari’s The Illusionist very much"

Maybe he's still bitter over the truly vile eye-bleed poster for the movie.

http://www.impawards.com/2006/illusionist_ver3.html

Does anybody have any idea why they replaced Norton's real head with something that could've been made in Microsoft Paint. Has Norton's face always been that triangular? And how weird does Paul Giamatti look just floating there in black.

Curran is an interesting director. I really want to see The Painted Veil despite have major issues with Praise and We Don't Live Here Anymore.

"Does anybody have any idea why they replaced Norton's real head with something that could've been made in Microsoft Paint. Has Norton's face always been that triangular? And how weird does Paul Giamatti look just floating there in black."

I wasn't aware of Norton not liking the poster for The Illusionist but it wouldn't surprise me if he hated it. This kind of treatment often happens to all actors and public figures. Recently Katie Couric's image got "Photoshopped" to make her look thinner and a Newsweek cover of Martha Stewart was actually a photo composition.

Really, the only time I think someone should get upset over image alteration is when it bumps up against stererotypes and taboos that reinforce assumptions. When I was in college in 1994, Time magazine featured O.J. Simpson's mug shot taken by the L.A.P.D. The magazine's editors chose to darken Simpson's complexion for the cover of that issue. My journalism instructor immediately canceled his subscription to Time.

Even on a film set, make-up artists stand at the ready; actors will get face and body paint to hide "imperfections." Speaking of The Illusionist, this is an industry of illusion, after all.

As far as movie posters are concerned, any actor will get the Photoshopped treatment and every actor knows this. Such tactics are common, whether it's for adding hair, erasing acne scars, covering moles, wrinkles, etc. Unless Norton wants to enter yet another realm of micromanagement, he might be better off to let it go and put his energies elsewhere.

I think the complaint is that Norton's image looks cruddy and the work seems less than competent, not anything to do with image alteration.

When I read Camel's comment - that Norton's head looked as if it had been "replaced" - the practice of image alteration came to mind.

Not that Camel needs the shameless plug here but he's got a great blog entry on the crappy look of the new Oceans 13 poster. The thing even smells bad.

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.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: