Miramax Studio: Oscar's puppetmaster

Erin Podolsky

You Will Someday

This isn't a serious allegation, but it's not unwarranted. As an avid entertainment conspiracy theorist, I turn my attention this week to the latest scandal that Hollywood and the other governing bodies of our country (make no mistake, Hollywood is as much in control of our leisure time as Washington is in charge of our tax breaks) have perpetrated on the public.

The culprit this year, last year, and throughout the 1990s, is Harvey Weinstein. Perhaps you've heard of him. You probably have, because he loves to plaster himself across the media as the benevolent papa bear of Miramax, the little indie studio that could. This projection is just the first of many such little white lies; Miramax is now a subsidiary of Disney, one of the world's largest corporations, entertainment and otherwise.

In each of the past eight years, Miramax has had at least one best picture nominee. For a so-called independent, that's pretty mainstream. The nominees are great movies, and some of them arguably the best films of the decade. But can "The Cider House Rules" really be referred to in the same breath as "Pulp Fiction" or "The Crying Game?" Old Harv has had his nomination appetite whet, and anybody who's seen the guy knows he loves to eat. Just because Miramax had no resounding critical or box office success this year doesn't mean that Harvey will be content to starve while his peers gorge themselves.

I woke up early on the morning of the Oscar nominations and turned on the TV. I expected "Cider House" to pick up a few nominations here and there, at least a nod for John Irving's adaptation of his own novel because the Academy loves to honor efforts of that sort whether or not they're successful. But never in my wildest dreams did I believe a movie that so blatantly shouts "Love me! Nominate me!" from the hilltops would actually be listened to, let alone get only one nomination less than the vastly superior "American Beauty." I hurled curses at the TV set. My roommates woke up and considered administering sedatives.

The nominations for "Cider House" come completely out of the blue. It had won virtually no recognition in the list-happy months of December and January; it had been ignored by the Golden Globes, often considered a harbinger of the Oscars; its box office was negligible (had you heard of the movie before Oscar nom morning? I thought not); and most striking, it had a lukewarm response among the nation's film critics.

The latter fact is the most important for reasons of comparison. Pay a visit to www.rotten-tomatoes.com, a site that catalogues reviews and tabulates percentages of positive and negative reactions. Looking at the other best picture nominees for this year, "American Beauty" has an approval rating of 93 percent, "The Green Mile" 79 percent, "The Insider" 94 percent and "The Sixth Sense" 85 percent. Other movies that showed up on a multitude of ten best lists all scored higher than 80 percent.

"The Cider House Rules" clocks in with a whopping 63 percent.

I believe that Harvey Weinstein makes certain that Academy voters have seen his movies. That's good business, good marketing. I also believe that Harvey somehow convinces various outlets to declare that the Oscars are a two-horse race between "American Beauty" and "Cider House." Maybe he offers them walk-ons in the next "Scream" installment or a few backend points on the upcoming Tarantino picture. As a result, voters sitting at home read that news and make their decision based on what amounts to manufactured peer pressure. I'd like to be wrong. But the facts remain that Weinstein is known for his campaigning and that "Cider House" wasn't even mentioned until it popped up seven times during the nomination announcements. I won't even address Meryl Streep's nomination for "Music Of The Heart," one of the worst movies I saw last year. I hadn't considered that she would get a nomination. Silly me - "Heart" is a Miramax movie.

The Academy Awards mean nothing to me personally. But for people who believe what they read in the papers, who watch CNN to find out what they should see this weekend, they mean a lot. They become the de facto arbiter of good taste for people who don't know any better. I'm not saying that my taste is better than yours; what I'm saying is that I see upwards of 125 new movie releases in a given year, so I have a larger frame of reference. I don't expect others to be as dedicated or obsessive. But I expect a governing body - the Academy, FDA, pick your poison - to be as informed and make judgments accordingly rather than pandering to audiences and believing their own hype.

I don't begrudge "Shakespeare In Love" (you guessed it, a Miramax movie) its best picture Oscar, although in 10 years we'll look back and be agog and aghast that it defeated "Saving Private Ryan." "Shakespeare" is a bona fide "good" movie. It's smart, witty, entertaining. Is it an Important Film? Maybe. "Cider House," on the other hand, is sappy, sentimental, mildly entertaining. Is it an Important Film? Certainly not. It is strictly old school, takes no chances in a year that includes the risky "Magnolia" and "Being John Malkovich." There's nothing wrong with a "feel good" picture being recognized. What's wrong is when a movie like that is recognized in lieu of ten other movies that are far and away better works.

Go see "Cider House" for yourself. Enjoy it, even. But don't ignore what else is out there. Don't believe everything you read. Hell, don't believe what you're reading here. Don't let Harvey Weinstein's hype machine become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

- Erin Podolsky can be reached via

e-mail at oppsie@umich.edu.