From: RePorterNoteBook@aol.com Date: 06/12/06
By SHARON WAXMAN
LOS ANGELES, Dec. 4 - With some early reviews lauding the audacity and
innovation of Mel Gibson's bloody Mayan epic, "Apocalypto," Hollywood's
tight-knit community of Oscar voters may find itself facing a difficult
dilemma in the coming weeks: Will they consider the film for an Academy
Award?
Since Mr. Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews last summer, many people
in Hollywood swore - both publicly and privately - that they would not
work with him again or see his movies.
But that was before the critics began to weigh in on "Apocalypto," a
two-hour tale about a peaceful village of hunter-gatherers who are
attacked and enslaved by the bloodthirsty overlords of their
Meso-American civilization.
Mr. Gibson wrote, directed, produced and financed the film, much as he
did "The Passion of the Christ," his surprise 2004 blockbuster; the Walt
Disney Company is distributing the film.
"Apocalypto," which will open on 2,500 screens across the country on
Friday, is as different from a typical Hollywood film as Mr. Gibson's
last one: it features unrelenting, savage violence, is told in an
obscure Mayan language and uses many nonprofessional actors with a
primitive look born far from Hollywood.
Most critics (including this newspaper's) have yet to weigh in on
"Apocalypto," but the excitement of those who have - like that among
journalists who lingered to debate the film after a screening ended in
Los Angeles last week - has been palpable.
" 'Apocalypto' is a remarkable film," Todd McCarthy wrote in Variety.
"The picture provides a trip to a place one's never been before,
offering hitherto unseen sights of exceptional vividness and power."
"Gibson has made a film of blunt provocation and bruising beauty," Peter
Travers wrote in Rolling Stone. "Say what you will about Gibson, he's a
filmmaker right down to his nerve endings."
Other reviewers allowed themselves to psychoanalyze Mr. Gibson even as
they praised the film. In a mixed review in The Hollywood Reporter, Kirk
Honeycutt observed that Mr. Gibson "knows how to make a heart-pounding
movie; he just happens to be a cinematic sadist."
The rising tide of generally positive, if qualified, reviews poses a
problem for Hollywood insiders, many of whom would prefer to ignore Mr.
Gibson entirely, despite his formal apology and a trip to rehab.
Powerful players like Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures
Entertainment, and Ari Emanuel, of the Endeavor talent agency have
publicly disavowed Mr. Gibson, with Mr. Emanuel writing online last
summer that "people in the entertainment community, whether Jew or
gentile, need to demonstrate that they understand how much is at stake
in this by professionally shunning Mel Gibson and refusing to work with
him."
Other studio chiefs have said they would not work with Mr. Gibson in the
future but would not say so for attribution because they didn't want to
endanger their future business dealings. At least one influential
publicist has declined to work on an "Apocalypto" Oscar campaign because
of objections to Mr. Gibson's views, but would not say so publicly for
similar reasons. And yet, can the 5,830 voting members of the Academy of
Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences - an organization that like broader
Hollywood, includes many people who are Jewish - ignore a film that may
well be considered by critics to be among the best of the year?
Murray Weissman, who has worked on Oscar campaigns for many years and is
working for the Weinstein Company on its hopefuls this year, said some
voters would not see the film on principle.
"There is still a lot of resentment out there among the Academy members,
certainly the Jewish group of them, over the incident," he said. "There
are a lot of people who are very unforgiving. I have run into some who
say they will not see any more Mel Gibson movies."
Yet, Mr. Weissman added, those who saw the movie and believed it
deserving would vote for it. "The movie academy is of full of
professionals; they will respect a good movie," he said. "If the guy
made a classic film and it's absolutely brilliant - hey, I'm Jewish -
I'd probably embrace it. But going in, I'm shocked and dismayed at his
behavior."
The problem posed by Mr. Gibson touches on an age-old question of
whether an artist's personal behavior ought to be a factor in judging
his or her work.
The question is not a new one even in the brief history of cinema, which
includes people like D. W. Griffith, the visionary feature director
whose work fed racist stereotypes; Leni Riefenstahl, whose
ground-breaking talent served Nazi Germany; or Roman Polanski, who in
1977 pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor and then fled the
country, which did not prevent him from winning the Oscar for best
director in 2003 for "The Pianist."
As Richard Schickel writes in the Dec. 11 issue of Time magazine,
"Gibson is a primitive all right, but so were Cecil B. DeMille and D. W.
Griffith, and somehow we survived their idiocies." Disney has taken a
low-key approach to the Oscars, awaiting a general sense from critics
and influential voices in Hollywood. The film was not on a list of
screenings for Oscar consideration sent to Academy members, and no
screenings are scheduled with question-and-answer sessions featuring Mr.
Gibson, as has become the custom for movies vying for Oscar consideration.
But as the film has been gathering critical support, executives at the
studio have begun to refer to "Apocalypto" as their "Million Dollar
Baby," the small movie directed by Clint Eastwood that came from behind
two years ago to win best picture at the Oscars. And the studio is
planning to send out "screeners," DVDs sent to Academy members.
"From Day 1 we'd hoped that people would judge the movie on its artistic
merits and judge Mel as a director," said Dennis Rice, a Disney studio
spokesman. "We believe they'll separate their feelings of Mel the man
from Mel the artist."
But in addition to the other issues, the film's sheer violence - which
includes decapitation and hearts ripped from the chests of human
sacrifice victims - could turn off some voters, whatever their feelings
toward the director.
"Once the reviews come out and it's perceived to be a foreign language
film with that kind of violence, you will have trouble getting people to
actually go see it," said one seasoned Oscar campaigner, who declined to
speak for attribution because of business ties to Disney.
"There will be a degree of resistance, And Mel would be the first one to
say, 'I anticipate a degree of ambivalence,' he knows that," said Peter
Bart, the editor of Variety . "The violence is an issue. But that's the
way he is. That's the way he sees the world."
By SHARON WAXMAN
LOS ANGELES, Dec. 4 - With some early reviews lauding the audacity and
innovation of Mel Gibson's bloody Mayan epic, "Apocalypto," Hollywood's
tight-knit community of Oscar voters may find itself facing a difficult
dilemma in the coming weeks: Will they consider the film for an Academy
Award?
Since Mr. Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews last summer, many people
in Hollywood swore - both publicly and privately - that they would not
work with him again or see his movies.
But that was before the critics began to weigh in on "Apocalypto," a
two-hour tale about a peaceful village of hunter-gatherers who are
attacked and enslaved by the bloodthirsty overlords of their
Meso-American civilization.
Mr. Gibson wrote, directed, produced and financed the film, much as he
did "The Passion of the Christ," his surprise 2004 blockbuster; the Walt
Disney Company is distributing the film.
"Apocalypto," which will open on 2,500 screens across the country on
Friday, is as different from a typical Hollywood film as Mr. Gibson's
last one: it features unrelenting, savage violence, is told in an
obscure Mayan language and uses many nonprofessional actors with a
primitive look born far from Hollywood.
Most critics (including this newspaper's) have yet to weigh in on
"Apocalypto," but the excitement of those who have - like that among
journalists who lingered to debate the film after a screening ended in
Los Angeles last week - has been palpable.
" 'Apocalypto' is a remarkable film," Todd McCarthy wrote in Variety.
"The picture provides a trip to a place one's never been before,
offering hitherto unseen sights of exceptional vividness and power."
"Gibson has made a film of blunt provocation and bruising beauty," Peter
Travers wrote in Rolling Stone. "Say what you will about Gibson, he's a
filmmaker right down to his nerve endings."
Other reviewers allowed themselves to psychoanalyze Mr. Gibson even as
they praised the film. In a mixed review in The Hollywood Reporter, Kirk
Honeycutt observed that Mr. Gibson "knows how to make a heart-pounding
movie; he just happens to be a cinematic sadist."
The rising tide of generally positive, if qualified, reviews poses a
problem for Hollywood insiders, many of whom would prefer to ignore Mr.
Gibson entirely, despite his formal apology and a trip to rehab.
Powerful players like Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures
Entertainment, and Ari Emanuel, of the Endeavor talent agency have
publicly disavowed Mr. Gibson, with Mr. Emanuel writing online last
summer that "people in the entertainment community, whether Jew or
gentile, need to demonstrate that they understand how much is at stake
in this by professionally shunning Mel Gibson and refusing to work with
him."
Other studio chiefs have said they would not work with Mr. Gibson in the
future but would not say so for attribution because they didn't want to
endanger their future business dealings. At least one influential
publicist has declined to work on an "Apocalypto" Oscar campaign because
of objections to Mr. Gibson's views, but would not say so publicly for
similar reasons. And yet, can the 5,830 voting members of the Academy of
Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences - an organization that like broader
Hollywood, includes many people who are Jewish - ignore a film that may
well be considered by critics to be among the best of the year?
Murray Weissman, who has worked on Oscar campaigns for many years and is
working for the Weinstein Company on its hopefuls this year, said some
voters would not see the film on principle.
"There is still a lot of resentment out there among the Academy members,
certainly the Jewish group of them, over the incident," he said. "There
are a lot of people who are very unforgiving. I have run into some who
say they will not see any more Mel Gibson movies."
Yet, Mr. Weissman added, those who saw the movie and believed it
deserving would vote for it. "The movie academy is of full of
professionals; they will respect a good movie," he said. "If the guy
made a classic film and it's absolutely brilliant - hey, I'm Jewish -
I'd probably embrace it. But going in, I'm shocked and dismayed at his
behavior."
The problem posed by Mr. Gibson touches on an age-old question of
whether an artist's personal behavior ought to be a factor in judging
his or her work.
The question is not a new one even in the brief history of cinema, which
includes people like D. W. Griffith, the visionary feature director
whose work fed racist stereotypes; Leni Riefenstahl, whose
ground-breaking talent served Nazi Germany; or Roman Polanski, who in
1977 pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor and then fled the
country, which did not prevent him from winning the Oscar for best
director in 2003 for "The Pianist."
As Richard Schickel writes in the Dec. 11 issue of Time magazine,
"Gibson is a primitive all right, but so were Cecil B. DeMille and D. W.
Griffith, and somehow we survived their idiocies." Disney has taken a
low-key approach to the Oscars, awaiting a general sense from critics
and influential voices in Hollywood. The film was not on a list of
screenings for Oscar consideration sent to Academy members, and no
screenings are scheduled with question-and-answer sessions featuring Mr.
Gibson, as has become the custom for movies vying for Oscar consideration.
But as the film has been gathering critical support, executives at the
studio have begun to refer to "Apocalypto" as their "Million Dollar
Baby," the small movie directed by Clint Eastwood that came from behind
two years ago to win best picture at the Oscars. And the studio is
planning to send out "screeners," DVDs sent to Academy members.
"From Day 1 we'd hoped that people would judge the movie on its artistic
merits and judge Mel as a director," said Dennis Rice, a Disney studio
spokesman. "We believe they'll separate their feelings of Mel the man
from Mel the artist."
But in addition to the other issues, the film's sheer violence - which
includes decapitation and hearts ripped from the chests of human
sacrifice victims - could turn off some voters, whatever their feelings
toward the director.
"Once the reviews come out and it's perceived to be a foreign language
film with that kind of violence, you will have trouble getting people to
actually go see it," said one seasoned Oscar campaigner, who declined to
speak for attribution because of business ties to Disney.
"There will be a degree of resistance, And Mel would be the first one to
say, 'I anticipate a degree of ambivalence,' he knows that," said Peter
Bart, the editor of Variety . "The violence is an issue. But that's the
way he is. That's the way he sees the world."