Errata is a web journal written by Robert Davis who has neither spent a night in a ghost town nor pulled a turnip from the earth. He doesn't even know if turnips grow in the ground. Perhaps on trees, like candy corn. Therefore, Errata is a non-commercial project.

Observation #1: It may be appropriate, when leaving a movie theater, to say "mysterious."

Observation #2: It may be appropriate, when leaving a movie theater, to say "mysterious" at the top of your lungs. Bring your eyebrows together before you say it. Effective!

Observation #3: Same for books. Even at libraries.

There is a prize for people who correctly guess the thing about Metropolis, Nevada.

Except where the text specifically states otherwise, Errata's vagaries are indicated vaguely and its authors are indistinct in the traditional way of the Internet, except where the authors lay claim to their work. In some cases Robert Davis lays claim to work that is not his own but has been abandoned like so many ghost towns. Except where held presently, fistfuls of dirt are suspended via dispersal, or dispersed via suspension (in the air), and thus their dissolution is their transcendence, or their transcendence is their dissolution. And yet our eyes tear, and our vision is impaired, demonstrating for the umpteenth time that one entity's gain is another's fit of sneezes. Except where indicated, storms shall outlive the clay upon which they rain, unless storms are improperly delimited by their clouds, which dissolve, rather than by their inevitable return. Thus the clay loses, unless the clay is said to own the storm, to use it to make itself heavy, to make itself cling to white garments, refuse dispersal, cake upon the facades of abandoned buildings, and sit like Man [sic] upon the earth where it is pelted by a storm that it owns. In which case the clay still loses, if you ask us.

Some of the above is legally binding and should be considered a mental contract between Errata and those upon whom it acts. The bit about the prize should be considered an overstatement insofar as prizes differ from dirt and prize dispersal differs from dirt dispersal. Please recall that ownership is a weight and, therefore, hope that you do not win the prize.

One day Errata or its representatives will call upon you for a favor. It is expected that you will hop-to without delay.

You may contact Robert Davis by email unless it's about the rock that was thrown in anger. The rock is more properly called a clod. Why do you continue to raise the topic?

16 March 2004

Tarantino Presenting Hero

According to a news item in Fangoria, Tarantino had something to do with Miramax taking Hero off the shelf:

I had to fight for it with Miramax. I think they lost faith in it and everything. And I thought that HERO was an absolute masterpiece, so I fought with them not to cut it. Not to bring it down, but to keep it the same length as when I saw it. And finally they agreed if I would present it.

I don't know which version he saw, or which one I saw, for that matter (93 minutes). So confusing.

Posted by davis | Link

Reader Comments

March 17, 2004, 08:33 PM

Doug

All I can say is, I've always thought it was a travesty that Tarantino's image was plastered all over the Miramax-distributed video of Chunking Express, which imho was far better than anything Tarantino has ever done.

(...okay, so I haven't seen Jackie Brown or Kill Bill. Well CE is better than half the things Tarantino has ever done.)

March 17, 2004, 11:05 PM

davis

Yeah, it always seems like his own celebrity comes first and the film he's promoting is just a vehicle.

On the other hand I probably wouldn't have been able to see Chungking Express if he hadn't got Miramax to release it. At least not a couple of years ago.

But things are obviously changing. DVD distributors are finding the niche markets. I'm learning to love the big new sandbox that comes with having a region-free player (the dirt-cheap CyberHome player — thanks for the recommendation). Ah, so many possibilities.

March 18, 2004, 09:14 AM

Doug

It's interesting that you should mention that, I actually first saw CE at Tucson's art house (count 'em, that's singular) before it was released on video with Tarantino's sponsorship, so I was surprised to see it promoted in that context. (Did Tarantino initially convince Miramax to release it theatrically?)

I guess the larger question is why does Miramax feels it needs Tarantino's sponsorship in order to release its films in the first place? I guess if you can't have a star in the movie, you've got to have one promoting the movie. No wonder they release such a small percentage of the films they own.

March 18, 2004, 11:51 AM

davis

I dunno about the theatrical release. I saw it on video.

Have you read Biskind's Miramax book? It's trashy, and both his reporting and his conclusions are suspect, but (here I go repeating them, anyway) he paints a picture of Harvey Weinstein as strongly favoring certain stars that are part of the family (that is after their movies have made Miramax a lot of money). He throws them trinkets to keep them happy. I imagine this is how movies like Gerry get made.

I get the feeling that these movies they snatch up are little investments, filed away. Most of them are so cheap, they can afford to amass a bunch of them and wait for someone to bite. Oh, is one suddenly an Oscar contender because Ebert loved it? Oh, we own something Tarantino wants? OK, good. We're preventing people from seeing good movies? Shut up, either we release these movies or no one does. (By the way, they stink and we've got a grad student recutting them.)

Incidentally, here's Biskind's comment on Hero, which typifies the book: "...Miramax paid a mind-boggling $20 million-plus for Hero, which Harvey thought would become the new Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. (It didn't.)"

I'm no media mogul, but I believe you'd have to release the movie for that to happen. There's more to this story, I'm sure -- maybe that Oscar rules dampened Weinstein's spirits -- but because the story doesn't involve the failure or success of any American stars, Biskind relegates it to a parenthetical "It didn't."

Other Recent Posts

Other Recent Episodes

Favorite Films