At the risk of further beating a dead horse with with “Moneyball” reports we have to point out a few, small things.
There was that infamous email that made the rounds a week or two ago that allegedly came from Soderbergh’s side of things on the picture’s shut down.
Basically Scriptshadow posted it, and it was taken down due to legal action (various other sides had the same email posted in their comments section and those stories were pulled as well).
But David Poland, who wrote a great little, “closing the door on…” late last week that we were too busy to blog about over the Independence day weekend, addressed some of the issues in that email, whether consciously or not (though he surely had it fwd’d to him, no?)
Poland’s piece does a few things we feel like we should have done in our last report, which is take the L.A. Times to task for lobbing softball questions at Sony Chief Amy Pascal and not asking tougher questions. It’s totally true. The piece is a near blow-job and just gives Pascal a venue to air her side of the story, but it’s certainly not a place to ask direct questions. Poland makes a lot of good points including the idea that some though Soderbergh was trying to make an art picture, which is clearly not the case.
“What so irks me about the ongoing stories is this bizarre notion that Soderbergh was somehow transforming this project from a $58 million studio movie into a personal art project. As I have noted before, Soderbergh knew exactly what was at stake for him and his career going into this movie. Success was more important to him on this film than on most of his recent films. It was the commercial lynchpin that would make it easier to move along with his more challenging, smaller projects.”
He also simply questions the validity of the story coming from the Sony side of things and discusses things you’ve already heard at this point (whether or not Major League Baseball had or had not approved).
“The much-loved Zaillian draft had NOT been approved by MLB because of the many inaccuracies, starting with Billy Beane being a skirt-chaser and not a married man. Some insiders say that the changes that MLB had requested did not demand such a dramatic change and that the draft can still be adjusted in small ways that will get MLB approval. But there is no clear answer on this critical distinction.”
Anyhow, it’s worth a read, but might only make sense if you’ve followed the story closely. Another thing of note. The New York Daily News has an article on “Moneyball,” from the baseball perspective and report that Soderbergh was really trying to give Oakland A’s coach Art Howe, a fair shake in the film, because in the original book he was described as a “rube and a clown.”
Poland seems to also be annoyed that Soderbergh seemingly took the brunt of the “Moneyball” because what really happened is de riguer in Hollywood.
“Movies die every day. Feelings and careers are hurt. (Over 200 people were put out of work unexpectedly by [the Moneyball] cancellation.) But the cheap slaps at Soderbergh are way over the top and as unnecessary as slapping down someone you just fired with gossipy attacks (even if accurate), adding insult to injury. Hollywood treats artists like shit because of money and ego. But there is no excuse for those of us who cover the industry to be equally venal.”
Lastly, we read (finally) Soderbergh’s 1999 book, “Getting Away With It: Or: The Further Adventures of the Luckiest Bastard You Ever Saw,” this weekend, which is part Q&A love letter to director Richard Lester (“A Hard Day’s Night,” “The Knack,” “Superman II & II”), part diary which echoes Poland’s final quote sentiment and really puts the “Moneyball” situation into perspective. It charts the months between 1996-1997 — the period right between completing “Schizopolis” and “Gray’s Anatomy” and the nascent beginnings of “Out Of Sight” — and discusses in the diary-like sections no less than four different projects that didn’t come to fruition for no real reason other than politics, logistics, luck and timing (hello, Hollywood, hello life!).
– There was “Neurotica” a purported sequel to “Schizopolis” that Soderbergh called, “the stupidest idea since New Coke: a sequel to a film nobody wanted to see.” He does talk about receiving an advance for it and spending that money elsewhere, so it appears it was more than just a pipe dream.
“A Confderacy of Dunces” – A Paramount project that Soderbergh spent a considerable amount of money wrangling the rights back from studio (suing them to do so and then settling), and eventually passed the project on to David Gordon Green, where it got tied up in too many
cooks syndrome and further legal issues (Soderbergh and his producing partner, were only given rights for a finite period of time). “Scott Rudin is making it impossible,” he writes at one point. Slate did an excellent piece on the unraveling of this project.
“Toots And The Upside Down House” – A Henry Selick animated project that Soderbergh wrote and then got lost at the thick-headness of Fox execs who loved the script and then decided they didn’t.
– A Charlie Chan project for Miramax, that never got past the treatment stage, but the studio and Bob Weinstien were interested at the time.
– “Human Nature” – A project potentially for Universal or Miramax that eventually would be made by Michel Gondry and Fine Line Features. Soderbergh was clearly thrilled with the script and met with Chris Kattan and Marisa Tomei for the parts that eventually went to Patricia Arquette and Rhys Ifans (he also met with David Hyde Pearce), but had to pass on the project because Jersey Films gave him a window to take “Out Of Sight,” which he initially passed on and then returned to (but not after they tried to see if a few other directors were interested as well, including Cameron Crowe).
Other projects he worked on included heavy script rewrites for Guillermo del Toro’s “Mimic” and the Ewan McGregor/Miramax film, “Nightwatch.” You also gotta love that he describes “The Limey” as “Alain Renais making Get Carter.”
Suffice to say, Poland is right. Movie’s die everyday and he shouldn’t get stuck with the baggage. Director’s are like freelancers trying to entice studios into funding their projects and when one bites, four or five other projects generally move to the back of the line and whether those pictures will be of interest to anyone, let alone the director, a year or two later is usually the reason you never hear of them again.
So think of it this way, if Fincher takes the “Facebook” movie, don’t be surprised if the Chef project and the Eliot Ness one die too. Again, there’s still hope for “Cleo,” despite the odds and the climate.