The Hot Blog

Can't decide whether to laugh or vomit. I think I'll take the third option and go back to not thinking of either of these two wastes of space.

But thanks for sharing your thoughts, David. Well said.

Poland, you were supposed to play the better man here and not even mention this sleaze. Nikki wants to make this news and your smug posting here confirms it. She wins.

"Stay away California! John Doe has the upper hand here!"

No one wins here, Crow. My endless point.

Your urge to count score all the time is what keeps it going, not my acknowledgment of its existence... at least, that's how I see it. Silence is what both of them thrive on.

No, attention is what both of them thrive on.

Dead wrong.

We don't control the attention they get or do not get. We can only control our own choices. And the only reason either person is still in business is because so many look away with others continue to support them.

Silence only works as avoidance... which is normally my tack for my own sanity. But ignoring what others are talking about it is also a loser.

Not really an easy call... but one we each must make.

I don't know what "count the score" means, dude. Why don't you address criticisms instead of neutralizing them in Dave Talk? You very seldom argue our comments. You neutralize them.

I'm just saying that in your urge to hit them both in one fell swoop, you seemed to have inadvertently jumped on Nikki's boat. She wants (NEEDS!) someone out there to ethically legitimize the meat of her piece... someone to poke their nose into something and get all holier-than-thou just like she did. If it means you spitting in her face before cutting down Darth Wells there, I'm sure she's fine with it. What she doesn't want is for you to throw the lightsaber away and walk off.

You should re-run those video interviews with Vinessa...

Shaw might be upset or not - this is probably the most publicity the girl has ever gotten. There are worse things in the world than finding out a blogger is obsessed with your girls parts. The thing I don't like is the asking for special favors to cover things a certain way. I can't figure out if he's really doing that or not. It shocks me how regular and accepted that practice is and it makes me feel sorry for publicists who are just trying to do their jobs.

Wells seems to have recovered from it, though.

Wow...

The fact of the e-mail has already been confirmed by Mr. Wells.

Further degrading Ms. Shaw, BiPed, which is what you are doing whether you like to think it is that way or not, sucks. She's been in some successful movies, she has had an active career since she was 7. Has your sense of film industry perversion really sunken this low? (And I do have a pretty good sense of how she will take this by asking on of her close friends. Vinessa has had plenty of opportunities to get this level of publicity and never taken them.)

There is nothing regular about sending a filmmaker a note asking for nudie shots from his movie. "Special favors?" Unbelievable rationalization!

Let me ask you, BiPed... how would you feel if someone printed a private e-mail about your Jeff's obsession with your breasts? Should I be printing those? It would create more publicity than you have ever had. Does being an actress make Vinessa less violated than you would feel?

Really, yours is the kind of rationalization that allows Jeffrey to continue to behave badly without consequence... in fact, to teach him that he is doing the right thing because overly kind people/women like you re-enforce the behavior by saying it's not so bad.

And Crow, I did address your criticism. Do you not like the answer? We disagree.

I have learned over time that trying to pick a side and consider how my choices will be better or worse or whatever is an impossible conceit. I haven't read or written about Wells in 7 months and yet, because he obsesses on me, we remain associated in the minds of some people. I wish I could be, but I cannot be in charge of what others choose to think based on my work. So all I can do is write what I feel I need to when I need to.

I don't care what Nikki wants. It is as irrelevant here as it has been in the past. Both players in this have crossed a line. And as I have always said about my coverage of the business, if I feel compelled to have an opinion about one area of the game, I feel that it is honorable not to hold back in other areas.

I am not The New York Times. I cover the waterfront, clean and dirty. And while I offer a lot of objective information, I make clear at times that my opinion is my opinion.

Printing private e-mail to no end but self-amusement and trying to tear down someone she sees as competition is a defining moment for Nikki. And all of those who are feeding her gossip - and there are a lot right now - should keep in mind how likely it is that they will become her next attackee as her insane mood flips when a piece of gossip gets juicy enough.

And that should be shouted from every rooftop in town. If you choose to work with Jeffrey in spite of his behaviors, that is your call... but don't pretend they don't exist. This is more proof. And Nikki is a rabid dog who will eventually turn on all of her masters... mostly because she fears being caught with so many of them. That is the clarity I wish to offer. I am not concerned about their hit counts as a condition of my editorial choices.

I was shocked by the Wells email to Mangold to be honest. No film critic/writer/online cineaste should attempt to be that chummy with any filmmaker *and* attempt to ask for nude pictures/footage of an actress who worked on the film. Outrageous to say the least, but Nikke - being the modern day Hedda Hopper on crack - does want to destroy Wells and Poland any way she can.

Everybody looks like shit in this mess.

Anyways heres a thingie I found on the net concerning the Poland-Wells-Nikke love triangle: http://blog.spout.com/2007/06/22/finke-vs-poland-vs-wells-vs-poland-or-what-the-hell-is-going-on-in-the-la-blogosphere/

The weird defenses over Wells' behavior on his blog disturb me. Mangold sounds like a jerk for putting that e-mail out there, Wells definitely sounds like a misogynist, and Nikki Finke sounds like a vindictive, hateful person. None of them pass the smell factor here. Still won't stop me from seeing 3:10 TO YUMA, though.

However, if Wells is intimating that he would give a positive review to a film over noodz... that's beyond the pale.

Thank God Ebert's back. Just reading him is such a blast of fresh air after reading all the vitriol from Finke, Wells, and yeah, you, David.

Thank goodness Ebert's back. All the vitriol from Wells, Finke, and yeah, you too David, to a lesser degree, was exhausting, and it's nice to read a film reviewer again who doesn't appear to have any sort of agenda except to write about movies and share his viewpoints with the rest of us. Certainly Ebert would never stoop to "noods plz".

Sorry about the double post, people. I clacked when I should have clicked.

There are always some BACKROOM SHENANIGANS going on with people online involved in discussing the entertainment industry. It never ceases to amaze me that this pattern continues to present itself -- in different forms -- year after year after year. Good to know that backroom shenanigans are still alive and well in the entertainment part of the web. If they ceased to exist. The net would be lesser for it and less entertaining.

Ye, Sheik... more private e-mail made public for the sake of allegedly detached amusement. Make you want to simply stop communicating with people who don't care for reasonable boundaries. However, in that case, I had some responsibility for responding to Nikki's e-mail copy group. Mostly, I should have just shut the hell up.

This is nothing new where Jeff is concerned. Someone told me that Jeffmcm had a ban lifted on him posting on HE when he agreed to send a nude photo of himself (with a strategically placed grape) to Jeff.

man. this is just so sad on so many levels.

this is rock bottom. this just validates everything i've been talking about with a few people. internet film sites are no longer about discourse, it's about personalities putting their spin on stories that you can read about anywhere, and these personalities trying their damnedest to 'push an envelope' that didn't need pushing in the first place.

The Wells email is fucking tragic. What a fucking open window into the mind of a sycophantic weirdo. I think it's appalling how it got out there, but i'm not sorry it did. It's like those phone messages from Bill O'Reilley talking about rubbing falafel on some woman he worked with. It just shows you that behind the persona is a real scary individual. Creepy, creepy stuff. Was he really asking for stills?

If i directed a movie and i got this email, i'd probably send it out to everyone i knew. Wells is just another typical example of the sycophantic film site people who believe they wield some kind of power (look at his comment at the bottom about waiting to post his comments as not to hurt the movie).

Does Wells think he has any influence? Would his words hurt or help the film's opening? Of course not. But he believes it could. That conceit alone just speaks volumes about Wells.

And Finke, well, she's Perez Hilton. She'll post anything. There are no rules. She's actually surpassed sites like CHUD at the bottom of the barrel. It's like watching someone erect a skyscraper and then begin to burn it down one floor at a time. They should use Deadline Hollywood as an example in journalism classes of just what happens when you abandon all sense and reason and have such a desperate need for attention. She's like the guy from Shattered Glass. Her inevitable implosion will be a glorious sight. people like her who start so many fires will eventually burn every bridge around them.

To that end, i'd say your best bet Dave is ignoring them both. Inserting yourself into this will do nothing but let the tabloidization creep in. Posting about it and then claiming the high road makes you seem a little less than genuine, especially when you talk about emails that Finke has sent you, and that you are too good to print.

It reads like "look at these crazy assholes. i could be a crazy asshole too, but not me. I'm one of the good ones"

The good ones don't need to tell you they're good.

crazy, crazy shit.

anyone seen Shoot Em Up yet?

Not for nothing, but you'd think someone who writes for a living would be a little more aware of what can happen when the written word gets sent out on the internet. Doesn't the guy have a phone?

I want to hear about Shoot 'Em Up, too - any good?

So after seeing this entry (and not knowing what the hell DP's on about) I surfed around and, man, that's some funny shit...all around. It's so very "L.A." for grown people to act like petty kids. I'm not getting down on L.A., I'm just saying that whole tiff is a crystalization of the way people behave in the bizz.

It's like an argument with 3 kids in the back of the car on a long drive. Only no one's driving the car and can threaten to turn it around if they don't quit bickering.

"Let me ask you, BiPed... how would you feel if someone printed a private e-mail about your Jeff's obsession with your breasts? Should I be printing those? It would create more publicity than you have ever had. Does being an actress make Vinessa less violated than you would feel?"

Yikes, what are you attacking me for???!!! Sorry if I came off as uncaring for Vinessa but I am of the mind that sex stuff like that is nobody's business and we are in no place to judge.

Again, for me, the only thing we SHOULD be judging is whether or not he was suggesting he would slant his coverage if he got the photos of her.

And no, I wouldn't be offended by a guy down on his knees begging to see a nude photo of me in an email being sent. Of the hundreds of things that would hurt and offend, I can't see that being one of them.

Did Oscar Wilde return from the dead and send out a stinging rebuke to me from Ian Sinclair's typekey account?
Oh no, it's just a sub-Married With Children level dick joke. Never mind.

So how long until this whole film industry blogger thing gets so incestuous, backstabbing and insular that we get a blog solely about the bloggers?

Ah ha ha ha ha! This was the best thing on the movie blogs since Michael Bay pissed on his own producers.

Personally, I got no problem at all with Nikki or whoever she is printing that email, because it is disgusting and whoever wrote it clearly needs to be publically humiliated as punishment for being such a knob. What a loser. What a sick loser.

But at least we got some comedy today.

I think everyone is overreacting a bit. As an Englishman I am reminded that we shipped all of our repressed Purtians to America. What Jeff did was tacky but it's just horndog behaviour, really no worse than getting your hand caught in the cookie jar. Just have a good laugh about it and forget about it.

FYI: a Purtian is a southern term for an attractive Puritan - i.e "that Puritan there sure is purty"

anghus, I was with you until "She's actually surpassed sites like CHUD at the bottom of the barrel."

What's your beef with CHUD? I've always liked Devin & co. - they clearly love film, most of them can write coherently (unlike the Knowles gang), and they're a genuinely unique voice in the 'net movie quagmire. I find Nunziata's stuff hilarious and miss him as a regular on the site. At the very least, they're much more readable than the cesspool that the Wells site has become, and don't ride their high horse like Poland can (no offense Dave - still love reading you). They take the piss out of an industry that really, really needs it sometimes. Why hate on them?

BTW, Jeffrey has posted the entirety of his Mangold e-mail on HE. He thinks it helps dig himself out of his hole, but I'm not so sure.

Mark,

i disagree with your points. i think they're a prime example of what happens when web sites go bad.
I could cite specifics, but it would just lead to pointless arguments.

you're right, i ride them a little too hard.

In these times when the internet can spawn the coarsest behavior, and help create a world where celebrity matters more than Iraq or Darfur, these things matter. In a world where little girls think they need breast implants and commit suicide (or even consider it) because they're not skinny enough, these things matter. It may be common to wave away the vulgar reduction of an actress to the quality of her breasts in an "all publicity is good publicity"rationale or a "boys will be boys" rationale - but it's not okay. And you're either part of the solution, or part of the problem.

In a town where 95% of the movies are made (and critiqued) by men, it's nice to hear some anger about this, not only for Vinessa Shaw & all actresses, but for the integrity of critics/bloggers. There will be a tendency by some to dismiss it, to conclude this is typical and even acceptable behavior. DP pointed out it wasn't.

While the internet can set speed records for degeneracy, it's nice when someone draws a line - or points out there is one.

p.s. for similar reasons, I was pleasantly astonished by Jeannette Catsoulis' recent review of Dedication in the NY Times that begins, "That weird exhalation you hear at the multiplex these days is the sound of female characters settling for less than they deserve..."

Anghus, did we give one of your shitty amateur movies a bad review?

I just want to add one thing I already posted elsewhere.

It's completely ridiculous that Wells and his defenders act outraged at Finke's "invasion of privacy" for publishing the email, when Wells is the sleazy guy who emails a director asking him for outakes and stills from the shooting day, and "some unused footage of Shawe and Crowe doing whatever." As though going behind the back of Shawe, and asking for secret nude or sex scene footage isn't an invasion of privacy? Such hypocrisy.

Wells wasn't asking for an invasion of privacy because the images he was asking for are currently playing on thousands of screens nationwide.

I doubt it Devin. That would require you guys to do a story that wasn't already posted by Variety or the Hollywood Reporter.

"Unused footage" is by definition unused and therefore not playing on thousands of screens nationwide. Wells asked for outakes and unused footage of "Shawe and Crowe doing whatever."

"Unused footage" would be a violation of Lions Gate's copyrights, but since it was for a film, it isn't Shaw's personal property and therefore not a privacy violation.

hejia, i dont know if youre defending wells or not.

but he emailed the director of a film, someone that poured his heart into a project, and basically said 'i didnt care for it, but can you send me stills of the hot actress naked'.

even if it is a joke, it's a bad one. tasteless, classless, and it shows you want a weirdo Wells is.

You're completely missing the point. I wasn't posting about legal questions regarding private property laws. I was pointing out how hypocritical it is to act outraged at Finke's ethics for invading Well's privacy by publishing an email that was given to her, when Wells is the sleazy guy who goes behind Shawe's back to try to get unused nude footage of her.(We also don't know know the details fo Shawe's nudity clause). Ethically, Well's was invading her privacy so all thw outrage at Finke for invading his is ridiculous.

heija, i think we're fighting the same fight. they're both idiots. it's a losing proposition on both ends.

when websites get angry and belligerent and start feuding with one another, everybody loses, because it becomes about the websites rather than the films which is the entire reason for these sites to exist.

it becomes about personalities and ego instead of movies. and at that point, most people lose interest and start looking elsewhere.

ETA I meant to post "his outrage at Finke" is ridiculous.

Anghus, yeah I'm pretty much in agreement with most of what you've said. My follow-up posts were in response to jeffmcm.

I think Wells is a pretty pathetic figure and I was not defending him(wasn't that obvious by my post?). I stopped reading him a few months ago because I became disgusted by the hate and misogyny he spewed.

it was either Wells or his doppleganger but he was sitting in front of me while I was riffin about him droppin his very dirty drawers in public. He is at Toronto right?

jesus h for him to tell 3.10 dir Mangold that SHOOT EM UP does its job better, just shows you what a collossal maroon Wells really is, apart from being misanthropic (he hates men and women).

SHOOT EM UP is not a "fuck yoyu' to John woo flicks" - its a idiotic 90m masturbatory ode to them you fucking chickenflicker. It's going to slide with critics who will give it a pass purely on the basis that its supposedly got its tongue firmly in its cheek. So its acutely self aware, big fucking deal - is it aware that its a complete piece of shit? No it does not. It aches to be cool but its just a shameless xerox from a fat guy who looks like Spielberg. Not worth your dimes.

yeah, hatred is what loses it for me. when it becomes bile spewing. I compared the situation to CHUD because of an incident involving a publicist at a screening and a similar online back and forth where some rather nasty words were said. And whether said person knows it or not, that article had a lot of impact on how people view the site.

i think most people who run websites don't understand that anger, rage, and bile is really off putting. it breeds the kind of audience that makes up AICN talkbacks and phrases like "George Lucas raped my childhood." And while it might be good for a laugh or two, it's hard to be taken seriously when you're posting your gripes online.

It's obvious Wells and Finke are scumbags of a different order...and it has to be said that I wouldn't even KNOW about this whole hullabaloo if DP hadn't posted about it. It's all petty and childish ALL of it, but it's also frigging hillarious.

"I wouldn't even KNOW about this whole hullabaloo if DP hadn't posted about it. It's all petty and childish ALL of it, but it's also frigging hillarious."

that sums it up well. there is humor to be found, but it's all rather sad, and if dave hadn't posted something about it, i wouldn't have even noticed.

The only thing harmed here is his credibility. Oh and that he's a creepy character.

Hejia, I agree with you that Wells is a scumbag, and very removed from any version of reality.
My point is merely that Nikki Finke is, I would argue, worse.

David: I'm not quite sure I understand this whole business of, hey, never reveal what's in a private e-mail. I mean, if someone sends me an e-mail out of the blue and tells me that they love reading my reviews in Variety, and they are amused by my blog postings, and by the way they were amused the last time I made a snarky response to that (fill in any anti-Semitic slur) Poland, and don't I really hate those (fill in any other anti-Semitic slur) and those (fill in homophobic slur) who run Hollywood.... Are you saying that I should not reveal the content of this e-mail to anyone? Seriously, I want to know your take on this.

I think the difference, Joe, is that when I get a an email I find offensive I deal with it myself. I either write back and tell the person they are out of order, block their access to me or laugh at it and delete it. The very last thing I would do is share it with someone else; but then, I have class, tact, balls and a sense of humour.

Ian, i ask this out of general curiosity, not in an attempt to argue with your point.

If you were a filmmaker who poured two years of their life into making a film, and you got this sycophantic little email with some comments about naked actresses. After the initial 'what the fuck' phase, wouldn't you probably show it to a few colleagues if only out of shock to say 'can you believe this guy?'

I doubt Mangold sent it to Finke or intended for it to surface.

But if i got an email like that, i probably would have responded with something like 'get bent' and then forwarded it to colleagues and ask them if they ever got anything this creepy before.

"The very last thing I would do is share it with someone else; but then, I have class, tact, balls and a sense of humour."

You forgot to mention modesty in your list of virtues.

Bottom line, Wells asked a man to give him nude pictures of a co-worker without her knowledge. That reeks of a lawsuit.

Well firstly Joe, I don't think I used the word "never."

But I don't think it is my role - or yours - to expose people via their private e-mail. And I have lived by this for a long time. There are many times when blog commenters could be shut up in an instant by my use of an e-mail sent by someone they are defending or accusing me of bashing. But I think my job is to gather and synthesize the information. And if I got into the game of "well here is my proof of that person's insanity!," it would never end. Moreover, even staring the facts in the face, there are people who would still see it differently.

What is fascinating about some writers in this game is that people inside the studios have endless examples of misogyny or racism or vile behavior and still, these people are given access and opportunity. That is what always shocks me, again, in private. I am not going to tell you what studio and what exec said what thing about what writer, but every time I get a call or have a chat complaining about X or Y, all that is left to do is to roll my eyes and say, "You have created your own problem," because you can't indulge the mania and then expect it not to turn up again and again and again.

So to answer specifically, if someone who could matter in my universe is writing to you and calling me a dirty Jew - or as some people on this blog think is amusing to speculate, that they think I am gay because I dare to have an educated opinion about theater - I would hope you would give me a private heads up. And unless is was someone of rather high stature, in whose case such behavior would actually be news, I wouldn't expect you to print the e-mail.

If you need to read a private e-mail printed to know that Jeffrey's a misogynist, you haven't read his work very closely. Of course, back when we were friendly, I was quite aware of how muted his real angers were versus what he printed. And now... I want to be involved with neither.

Dave,

they still deal with them because just like most people in Hollywood, there is a deathly fear for breaking the mold and doing anything differently.

that's why websites with zero influence and rapidly disintegrating audiences still get access to screenings and information.

Dave, since there is zero respect within the industry for the online film sites, why do you think they would care if the person acts like an asshole?

Jeffrey Wells has posted the uncut version of his e-mail on his site
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2007/09/wrapping_up_man.php

I just saw 3:10 and Vinessa Shaw is not even naked in the movie the way Wells seems to think she was. I think I saw the tip of her butt crack. Makes his email all the more creepy, as if he filled in the lurid details in his mind.

Love the full letter too....homophobic much, Jeff? Sheesh. What a loony. How is he one of the higher eschalon film "bloggers?" Anyone...anyone...?

"I don't think it is my role - or yours - to expose people via their private e-mail."

I disagree. I'm not talking about nobodies, mind you. But if someone of any importance sends me an e-mail filled with hate-speak, I would be willing to buy billboards to out him or her. Why? Let's just say that I kept my mouth shut more than a decade ago when an influential Houston media person in my orbit let loose with the most horrific anti-Semitic slurs I've ever heard from someone in such a position of power and influence. I was a moral, if not physical, coward. I will not make that mistake again.

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: