Beware: Next comes the Oscars' 'smear campaign'?
If a fury erupts over the accuracy of "American Gangster" similar to the one that blew up over "A Beautiful Mind," the next installment of this soap opera is easy to predict: everything will get blamed on an imaginary "smear campaign"! (Not up on this new Oscars Soap Opera? CLICK HERE to read more about the "American Gangster" hubbub.)
That's what everybody swallowed during the "Beautiful Mind" scandal a few years ago. Today it's remembered as one of the most infamous periods in the history of American showbiz awards — when Hollywood was at its ugliest and got caught! The problem is: the infamy never happened. It was another one of those fabulous fictions hatched in a town that makes billions selling fantasy on film to the world.
The fact that Ron Howard and his film were able to withstand such an assault against the movie's integrity and still win best picture is dramatic evidence, I think, of how strong two factors are in the selection of Oscar winners: advantage of the early frontunner and the firm bond between the awards for best picture and director. No matter how ugly things could've gotten that year, one thing was clear. Ron Howard was finally going to win best director. TV's former Opie Taylor had suffered enough disrespect from the Hollywood elite. How much grief does a guy have to take to be sufficiently punished for the crime of once having been America's Dimpled Everyboy? Back in 1995, Howard's "Apollo 13" was so widely acclaimed that many Oscar pundits, including the L.A. Times, predicted it would win best picture. It got upset by "Braveheart," but the fact that "Apollo 13" had such serious support is significant because the voters didn't feel the same way about Howard. He wasn't nominated for best director. That's especially odd considering he had won the DGA award for "Apollo 13." That almost never happens!
So, by 2001, Oscar voters knew they owed Opie big time. Therefore, "A Beautiful Mind" was the early frontunner to win best picture. It looked like Russell Crowe would go along for the ride and end up doing what Tom Hanks had recently done: win two Oscars in a row. Hanks had snagged consecutive golden boys for "Philadelphia" and "Forrest Gump." Crowe had won the previous year for "Gladiator."
But then the scandal erupted over the accuracy of "A Beauitful Mind." Russell Crowe was in separate trouble after his clash with a British TV producer at BAFTRA. This scandal was much bigger. It could bring down the whole film. The hubbub grew slowly, outcry by outcry, finally reaching such a tempest that an exasperated studio exec could take it no more and screamed, "Conspiracy!" Because the media loves a good conspiracy — especially when it involves Hollywooders — journalists suddenly started reporting on the "smear campaign" as if it was a matter of fact.
The Washington Post claimed that the devious campaign "included well-placed calls to reporters, gossip columnists and Internet webmasters noting that the real-life protagonist of best picture nominee 'A Beautiful Mind' had alleged 'homosexual incidents,' was an anti-Semite and had abandoned a child he had out of wedlock."
Director Ron Howard fumed that the campaign was just as bad as the dirty tricks political campaigns against presidential candidate Michael Dukakis.
Actually, there's no doubt that Nash once abandoned an illegitimate child. The child's mother denounced Nash publicly for it, even calling him "really sort of mean" instead of the heroic figure portrayed by Crowe. The homosexuality claim stemmed from Nash once being arrested in a men's room and his harsh views of Jews were outrageously expressed in a letter Nash wrote in 1967.
Much of this scandalous info had been public record for a long time — reported in Sylvia Nasar's best-selling book, upon which the movie was based. It had been in print for years. Millions of copies. So what was the problem?
There wasn't one. Neither was there a conspiracy. The editors of GoldDerby.com, predecessor of TheEnvelope.com, teamed up with reporters from USA Today to find evidence — any evidence — of studio skullduggery and discovered nothing. We contacted scores and scores of top journos to locate just one who'd received a phone call from a rival studio trashing "A Beautiful Mind" and came up with scratch.
What was really going on was that Matt Drudge set off several media stampedes by calling attention to some shocking things he read in the book — which he had at his bedside throughout awards season. Every now and then, when he'd come across another doozy that didn't jibe with Nash's saintly portrayal in the film, he'd cry, "Hey, wait a minute!" Then lots of other journos started investigating the claims. It took Drudge a long time to finish reading the book, frankly, so he set off a few waves of investigation and the whole drama played out over months. Thus the feeling that there was a "conspiracy."
You realize, of course, that you're going to have loads of comments from the legions of Drudgebots that are going to read this linked story. And you're going to be accused of taking part in some obscure "liberal" conspiracy. I'm just sayin'.
Posted by: MichaelD | November 07, 2007 at 06:20 AM
You are right, many Americans are drawn into the web of a supposed conspiracy. Look at the traction that the 9/11 truthers were getting, until, one by one all of their theories went the way of many other urban legends.
In the end, this will have much less traction, afterall, who even goes to movies anymore? Most of America, you know, the majority of the country that the elites call "fly over country", don't care for the tripe that Hollywood has been putting out and consequently don't spend their hard earned dollars and time to be talked down to. Note the deafening silence of America at the supposed tragedy of the writers strike. Soon the elites can have their own pity party, similar to their awards shows, where rather than saying, "you're great, no you're great, no you're great", they will be saying, "why are you irrelevant, no, why are you irrelevant..."
Posted by: KC | November 07, 2007 at 05:50 AM
who really gives a sh*t. the whole "ocsar" thing is promoted and handed out for the sole purpose of generating revenue. i mean really, the best actor is ...... or the oscar goes to........ there is no such thing as the best in art. the most popular, maybe. if someone really wants an oscar just follow harvey weinstein's lead and buy one.
Posted by: billy | November 07, 2007 at 05:42 AM
The trouble with these "fact-based" Hollywood movies is two-fold.
1) Many times the "facts" are boring, controversial, or not in line with Hollywood's kooky left wing "values". Writers, producers, and directors (a la Oliver Stone) inject their own versions of the "facts" as it suits them and their political beliefs.
2) Movie making is entertainment and primarily fiction, something Hollywood has perfected over the years. To expect ANY film to be truthfully accurate shows a lack of contact with reality!
The trouble is that viewers with small minds, like those consuming a steady diet of network newscasts, absorb this bunk like sponges and accept it as reality.
To place a black man in the role of classic American gangster, when all of America knows that they are usually immigrants (Italian, Irish, Jewish), is typical of Hollywood and the "entertainment" industry. After all, we must have at least one of each minority in every film and TV show. While the twist to this plot might be refreshing (How many more Italian gangster movies can we take?), it is obviously not based on reality.
Posted by: Ricardo Maxwell | November 07, 2007 at 05:09 AM
Am I to understand that somehow this was all Matt Drudges fault?
Posted by: Alain | November 07, 2007 at 04:55 AM
When Hollywood stops RE-Writeing history the public will give more of a crap about their whiney problems.When the American Public once agin learns histroy in school...the writers will know what the facts are.Right now...Movies ARE History 'books' for this dumbed down under 50 folks.
Posted by: Stu | November 07, 2007 at 04:48 AM
And if it doesn't get nominated, this will be the excuse the lazy pundits use, rather than the fact that just because a musical/crime drama/etc. wins one year, you can't just assume that the Academy will go the same route the following year, especially if you don't have someone like Martin Scorsese helming it.
Posted by: Edward Douglas | November 07, 2007 at 03:59 AM
Ron Howard wasn't *that* inevitable that year. Don't forget, Tom, that Robert Altman took the Golden Globe, and many thought he could take the Oscar, too.
Posted by: FYC | November 06, 2007 at 05:32 PM