Z
MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Oscar Asshole™: Whose Stupid Idea Was Stunting The Red Carpet?

Here are some questions to really ask yourself about the idea of Sacha Baron Cohen appearing on the Oscar red carpet as “The Dictator”…

1. Paramount and Graham King’s company spend millions of dollars to push for Hugo to win some Oscars and, they hoped, Best Picture. Do you really think they want to shift all the focus from Hugo, a film about the artistry of cinema made by a living legend (and really a team of living legends) and which they still hope will be a multiple Oscar winner, to their upcoming film of the (higher end) Norbit variety?

2. Do you think Martin Scorsese wants Sacha Baron Cohen mocking, for lack of a better word, the sanctity of the Oscar red carpet, on his dime?

3. Have you considered how this stunt plays out on the red carpet? Unlike the silly stunt by the South Park guys, who arrived in drag for the show and walked the carpet, Cohen’s methodology involves drawing other people in to his sometimes brilliant game. Is it fair or even decent to allow him to infringe on everyone else’s moment?

I was an advocate of allowing Banksy to turn up at the Oscars in any disguise that pleased him. Again, the difference is that Banksy being masked is a part of his art and a part of his film, which was honored with a nomination. I would not advocate him walking around with a can of spray paint, painting other nominees as they talked to E! on the red carpet. Ironically, as much as a guerrilla as Banksy is, he seems to understand his place in the world and respects it as much as any businessperson would.

If it were just Sacha walking down the red carpet in that outfit, waving… whatever. But you know that the money shot is going to be Octavia Spencer giving The Dictator the stink eye or trying to get some international outlet to interview him as though he was a nominee or engaging Meryl Streep in some way. If you aren’t actually in Ari Emanuel’s pocket, as some “journalists” won’t toldja they are, the idea of Mr Emmanuel’s client disrupting the event may be amusing at first, but ultimately will get in the way of journalists whose outlets invest heavily in this event getting their jobs done.

I don’t believe that this was Paramount’s idea, though Nikki Finke seems to want to collar them with it. This is a company that is heavily invested in the awards season and respectful of The Academy. And no one over there is stupid. Stunting the red carpet is not a tradition.

And the comparison of this event to Cohen’s Borat premiere at Toronto is, simply, moronic. That stunt was brilliant. But it was at an event that was specifically about Borat. It wasn’t in conflict with the tone of the evening. It did a great job setting the tone of the evening. (And by the way, it was planned WITH the festival in space set aside by the festival for pre-premiere press activities.) And after the projector broke and they had to reschedule the screening at another venue, we were all disappointed when there was not an even bigger stunt at the new venue.

The con here is to spin this as The Uptight Academy. But that either intentionally unfair or just plain ignorant. Hundreds of people are invested in that red carpet, thousands and thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars… and that’s beyond the investment by ABC and The Academy. But there are always plenty of people who just want to see the staid, organized event turned upside down. Ha ha.

There is a difference between inventive spontaneity and imposing yourself on others.

Paramount’s marketing and publicity department know this. They are as smart as anyone in this business.

And actually, Sacha Baron Cohen knows this. This kind of thing is actually a bit out of his wheelhouse. Even when he included celebrities in his Bruno stuff, he set up small, private, controlled situations. Neither of his previous characters for film were about invading major public events and subverting them. He gets his laughs from pained intimacy, not mocking the business in which he makes 10s of millions a movie. (Rebel with a platinum card.)

Of course, in the end, this was probably never meant to end up with Cohen on the red carpet in his dictator suit. Once it was announced to The Hollywood Reporter, it lost any chance of being subversive and would have all the edginess of product placement in it went forward. Cohen would be the perky Ford that keeps getting close-ups for no apparent reason.

My guess would be that everyone knew this… that Paramount would never have allowed WME’s client to announce this – and maybe didn’t know it was coming – unless they knew it would die before Sunday… and that the story on Sunday night after all this will be that Sacha isn’t going to do any interviews on the red carpet, which he wouldn’t be doing out of character anyway, so people will speculate on him being muzzled by The Academy. Perhaps he will wear a piece of tape on his mouth to create more media drama as he moves quickly into the theater.

So I would bet the real answer to the headline question is, “No one’s.” The goal was to get attention for a new movie without actually shitting where Paramount, Cohen, WME, and Nikki Finke live. Goal achieved. Shame on y’all. Shame on us.

5 Responses to “Oscar Asshole™: Whose Stupid Idea Was Stunting The Red Carpet?”

  1. Edward Havens says:

    With all due respect, Dave, I think you’ve missed the point on this one.

    Cohen and Paramount and everyone else had to know well in advance the Academy was never going to let this stunt happen. It’s a no-brainer. So what better way to get some free publicity out there than float an idea that very much in Cohen’s wheelhouse (let’s face it, he is a shameless self-promoting whore) and let the fur fly when the inevitable happens? How many images of Cohen as The Dictator have gotten out in the past 36 hours? How many words written? How many segments on televised entertainment news magazines and talk shows and local news shows?

    And I’d even be willing to bet interest will be raised in the Oscar arrivals shows, as some will want to see if Cohen shows up as The Dictator anyway.

  2. David Poland says:

    Did you read to the end, Edward?

  3. My favorite part of Nikki’s EXCLUSIVE is where she vents, and now because they’ve banned him, he’s going to get a ton of publicity out of this…pointing an accusing finger at the rest of the press in advance for doing what she has just done.

    Beyond that it was even by Nikki standards one of the most incoherent posts of her distinguished career

  4. David Poland says:

    Too many people telling her what to write at once. She was clearly being fed by Ari’s office and Rob Moore. And neither one wanted to be tagged as responsible.

  5. Edward Havens says:

    I did not, apparently. Sorry.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“The core fear is what can happen to you, personally. Your body. That’s what horror films deal with, precisely. We are a very thin skin wrapped around a pumping heart and guts. At any given moment it can come down to that, be it diseases, or somebody’s assault, or war, or a car wreck. You could be reduced to the simple laws of physics and your body’s vulnerability. The edged weapon is the penultimate weapon to disclose that reality to you.”
~ Wes Craven, 1996, promoting Scream

MAMET
Well, that, to me, is always the trick of dramaturgy; theoretically, perfectly, what one wants to do is put the protagonist and the audience in exactly the same position. The main question in drama, the way I was taught, is always what does the protagonist want. That’s what drama is. It comes down to that. It’s not about theme, it’s not about ideas, it’s not about setting, but what the protagonist wants. What gives rise to the drama, what is the precipitating event, and how, at the end of the play, do we see that event culminated? Do we see the protagonist’s wishes fulfilled or absolutely frustrated? That’s the structure of drama. You break it down into three acts.

INTERVIEWER
Does this explain why your plays have so little exposition?

MAMET
Yes. People only speak to get something. If I say, Let me tell you a few things about myself, already your defenses go up; you go, Look, I wonder what he wants from me, because no one ever speaks except to obtain an objective. That’s the only reason anyone ever opens their mouth, onstage or offstage. They may use a language that seems revealing, but if so, it’s just coincidence, because what they’re trying to do is accomplish an objective… The question is where does the dramatist have to lead you? Answer: the place where he or she thinks the audience needs to be led. But what does the character think? Does the character need to convey that information? If the answer is no, then you’d better cut it out, because you aren’t putting the audience in the same position with the protagonist. You’re saying, in effect, Let’s stop the play. That’s what the narration is doing—stopping the play… It’s action, as Aristotle said. That’s all that it is—exactly what the person does. It’s not what they “think,” because we don’t know what they think. It’s not what they say. It’s what they do, what they’re physically trying to accomplish on the stage. Which is exactly the same way we understand a person’s character in life—not by what they say, but by what they do. Say someone came up to you and said, I’m glad to be your neighbor because I’m a very honest man. That’s my character. I’m honest, I like to do things, I’m forthright, I like to be clear about everything, I like to be concise. Well, you really don’t know anything about that guy’s character. Or the person is onstage, and the playwright has him or her make those same claims in several subtle or not-so-subtle ways, the audience will say, Oh yes, I understand their character now; now I understand that they are a character. But in fact you don’t understand anything. You just understand that they’re jabbering to try to convince you of something.
~ David Mamet

Z Z