Old news.

By Alison Willmore on 08/14/2006

One of the side effects of reading dozens and dozens of A&E sections from around the world is that stories that are given doubtless reasonable coverage when looked at by region tend to kaleidoscope out into something delirious and painful. No one human being was ever meant to read so many Oliver Stone interviews in one sitting!

Elsewhere, one starts looking for causalities and connections. Take Dave Carr's piece in the New York Times on how journalists on film "have been largely depicted as moral and ethical eunuchs." Had he read Paul Farhi's article in the Washington Post a few weeks ago claiming "newspaper people usually get the hero treatment in movies and TV shows"? The two have the same starting reference  — "Scoop" — but move on to other titles to back up their respective differing points. The whole thing will surely prove fascinating to the seven or eight people who actually saw "Scoop." More interesting is David Thomson's slightly windbaggy look at famous screen drunks in the Independent, which we've also seen similar versions of before, but which is particularly relevant now that everyone's had the opportunity to stand witness to such a spectacular, alcohol-fueled career implosion.

Just one last thing - one for the road, old man - don't think this story is told for sympathy. Don't think there's an explanation to it all. No, it's just the weird compensation when you've had the misfortune to be someone everyone else thought they wanted to be. Actors dread that they are empty vessels, no matter that they bring imaginary people to life. So they need to fill their emptiness up. And if you like acting, leave well enough alone. Don't think to cure them - they can turn ugly.

David M. Halbfinger in the New York Times reports that, despite considerable media coverage, Stone's "World Trade Center" only made $19 million its opening weekend. This still "far exceeded the opening weekend of last spring's 'United 93,'" unless you look at per screen averages, in which case they did exactly the same, with "WTC" costing lots more.

And back to fucking "Snakes on a Plane," we're actually quite pleased to see Ty Burr at the Boston Globe do one better than our own cry of "What would Susan Sontag do?" and put together an article on the film that has quotes from "Notes on Camp" scattered throughout. At the London Times, Kevin Maher conflates "SoaP" with "the cancer of fan-journalism," disregard of traditional film critics and the movement away from press screenings in a few bilious paragraphs that don't make so much sense (quite a few issues there). Ah, at least he didn't throw bloggers into the mix. Bless.

One gambling site is offering odds on how many times Samuel L. Jackson will say "motherfucker" in the film. Blatant publicity grubbing, yes...and hey, it's working.

+ Reporters on Film: Drunks and Tarts (NY Times)
+ It Pays to Be a Print Journalist -- in Films (Washington Post)
+ I'd like to thank my bartender: Soaks of the silver screen (Independent)
+ Oliver Stone’s ‘World Trade Center’ Opens at No. 3 (NY Times)
+ Camptastic! (Boston Globe)
+ Snakes on a gravy train (London Times)
+ ENTERTAINMENT PROPS (BetCRIS)