You want to play the manipulative press game come highstakes Oscar season? Two can play that game:
The “Slumdog Millionaire” backlash campaign (brought to you by the makers of ‘Benjamin Button’? 😉 went into overdrive this week with claims that the Indian children in the film were exploited up the hilt. ‘Slumdog’ filmmakers responded with a can of STFU whupass. The father of one of the children has come out and said that the film and its producers have done more for the child than he ever could. “[They] are taking complete care of my child. Whatever a parent could have done, they have done much more than that,” he said in an interview. A campaign to derail the film — that is of course set to win Oscar — claimed the children were paid peanuts, but its been revealed that in addition to paying wages that were “three times the average local annual adult salary,” the filmmakers are also funding their educations, health care, and basic living expenses, and have set up trust funds from which the actors will receive a “substantial lump sum” upon completion of school. The cynical will cry that this “revealed” information comes from the studio — how convenient- – but with something this potentially damaging, the studio is surely aware that a lie or retroactive buyout, is a fucked up and potentially backfiring strategy. Two wrongs don’t make a right you say? How about fight fire with fire. [Yahoo/ Vulture]
A fantastic argument why New York Times critic A.O. Scott and the New Yorker’s David Denby should take over for the assclowns talking monkeys that are the “At the Movies” team of Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz: a lively Charlie Rose show featuring the both of them. Bring intelligent film discourse back to TV. [L.A. Times]
Wait, ‘Benjamin Button’ is #2 in the Oscar race?? Oh wait, now it’s “Milk” all of a sudden coming back from behind! Are the trades /press making up Oscar talk just to create dialogue, hits and web traffic? Or are they doing it because — much like why a dog licks its balls — they can? God, we love David Poland [HotBlog]
Maybe you’ve been living under a rock or backed up like us. The Oscar is going against its rules and ruling that more than three producers can be listed as the producers of a film. In this case they’re making the exception for “The Reader,” presumably because two of those producers, Anthony Minghella and Sydney Pollack, beloved members of Hollywood, are dead. Curiously, Scott Rudin — who was passed the the torch after Minghella and Pollack passed away — is absent. Presumably because when you take your name off a film as a producer, it stays off, no matter what. [Variety]
An interesting theory that Harvey Weinstein’s meddling could cost Kate Winslet “The Reader” Oscar. [InContention]