If I had to choose one desert island producer making movies right now I’d have to go with Scott Rudin. Count them, not one but three films being released at the end of this year. And even if you want to say that Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is — whatever — that doesn’t take away the fact that it was a brave subject to take on in the first place. Based on a book that was already divisive — as in, some folks thought it too precious — then adapted by Eric Roth, who, I’m here to tell you because I read it, wrote one of the best screenplays I’ve ever read. I know that reading scripts and making them into movies are two different things. But the film, though it may not entirely work, is a risk he took in getting it made. It’s so much easier to make a conventional movie that is all formula, pre-packaged and ready for consumption than it is to take a leap of faith with a great idea. You win some, you lose some but the producers who stop taking chances because it impacts the bottom line? The producers who only make movies that are dumbed-down to the lowest common demo of 13- (going on 30-) year-old boys? The directors who forsake taking risks because the critics give them such a thrashing when those risks don’t exactly pay off? Well, here’s a guy out there getting it done, making or attempting to make great films — films that appeal to actual thinking adults. Huh. Imagine that in 2011. It’s practically unheard of.
He gets my Desert Island vote for last year’s wildly successful masterpiece, The Social Network, and for his having produced No Country for Old Men – arguably the best film I’ve ever watched win Best Picture. There Will Be Blood, Doubt, to name a few. What I see when I look at his resume isn’t necessarily one box office success or Oscar winner after another – but I see someone who is unafraid of taking chances. One of the stupidest stories that ever came out of last year’s Oscars was the very thing Nikki Finke accused Rudin of doing: not coming to the Oscars because The Social Network wasn’t going to win. Honestly? After the DGA handed the award to Tom Hooper I would have stopped showing up too. And not because I wasn’t going to win; the Greek chorus watching the dog and pony show unfold was too trained on watching how Harvey and Scott thrived or bled out for anyone to stomach. There was a lot more to it than just this film versus that film.
And that brings us to this year — Moneyball and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo are attached to Scott Rudin, among others. You can add Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close or not and it won’t change the fact that he’s presented two of the best films of 2011. Not just the best films period but two of my own personal favorites. So I don’t really care if people “like” him or not. At the end of the day to me, it’s always been about the movies. The mishegoss with David Denby showed me two things. First, Rudin is a principled person who cares about right and wrong — whether someone agreed to do something or not, even if it makes him look bad in front of the judgmental Greek chorus. Second, he is willing to fiercely protect his films and his filmmakers. He stood up for something — seems so rare in this day and age when the snark has overtaken just about every form of ideas that float around out there.
When I grew up as a kid in the 1970s, movies were my life. My mother would drop my sister and I off at the multiplex and we’d sit there all day watching movies. We watched them at home on our TV, too. Old black-and-white movies mostly – Fred Astaire, Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney – these were our heroes. I grew up immersed in them, so much so that many films are truly part of my DNA. Almost all of Woody Allen’s movies are, the Godfather saga, Martin Scorsese’s films and the Coen Brothers movies – I watch them over and over again. Very few of them are so good that each time you watch them you learn something new, or drop another layer into the dream. Citizen Kane is one of those movies. The Godfathers I and II are two of those movies. No Country for Old Men was one of those movies and The Social Network is one of those movies, whether people voted for it or not. I like Scott Rudin’s productions because I get that he LOVES movies — with a passion. He also loves literature — with a passion. For me, bring the passion or go the fuck home. I can’t tolerate passive acceptance of the status quo, not at my age, not anymore.
His rival is made out to be Harvey Weinstein, and he is every bit the great producer that Rudin is, especially when his heart is in it. Who else but Harvey Weinstein would have declared, on Gangs of New York, that he would finally win Marty the Oscar? Who else but Harvey Weinstein could have driven Inglourious Basterds through to so many Oscar nominations and a win for Christopher Waltz? Maybe he’s better at playing the Oscar game but that’s assuming way too much at the outset; that’s assuming Oscar voters don’t know a great movie when they see one. And maybe that’s true, maybe it’s not true. But at the end of the day, this year, Rudin has turned out the more impressive array of great films.
I don’t know if the Academy voters are going to allow themselves to love the pulpy, intense beauty that The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is – if it were me, I’d vote for it because, damnit, it’s the only mainstream player that isn’t soaked in a bowl of sugar. Look, I like sentiment as much as the next person. I cried during Hugo, War Horse, The Descendants and Moneyball. But that girl in me, the one who waited hours to see Jaws a few times in a row back in the 1970s still wants a movie I can sink my teeth into. Something savory among the sweetness. The Dragon Tattoo is a big juicy hunk of meat of a movie. Is it the best film of 2011? It’s one of them. Moneyball is another.
So that’s why Scott Rudin is our Desert Island Producer pick for 2011. Here’s to you, Mr. Rudin, and thanks for all the fish.
The bag is at the door. No fail.
“Kimmy, I don’t understand. You praise Harvey Weinstein for showing up whether his film wins or loses and then accuse him of whoring himself out to anyone who listens and of having no shame.”
He’s shameless, indeed. I praised his persistence. That doesn’t mean I like the man. I also can’t deny the facts just because I think of someone as shameless. He will show to the Oscars win or lose, at the very least to conduct business. He IS essentially whoring himself out, for a lack of a better word, BUT again– the facts– he’ll be championing his film/his actors/his company to the very end. I don’t see Rudin doing that. It’s like he was discouraged knowing TKS was going to win, so he sat the Oscars out. As for Weinstein, just because I don’t respect someone doesn’t mean I’m going to negate their workmanship and/or ignore their accomplishments. That’s childish.
wow this is a new low for awardsdaily, youre actually sucking up to a sleazeball, fatcat producer? Trust me they have only contempt for their audiences.
Rudin is also great. The funny is that if you put a picture of him close to one of Harvey, they look like being brothers. And they are usually rivals when It comes to Awards Season.
He produced one of the best films of the 90s and the best of 1998 for me: The Truman Show. I don’t know how the campaign was done then but it was a shame to see this missing BP and Best Actor and films like Life Is Beutiful and Elizabeth taking its place. And there were also Gods & Monsters and Pleasantville that year. Another 2 great films that deserved more recognition. That year in my opinion the Academy made a lot of mistakes not only in the nominations but in the winners also. In the main categories, I only agree with Adapted Screenplay and Directing. Would have given Actor to McKellen, Actress to Montenegro, Sup. Actor to Harris, Picture to Saving Private Ryan. Sup. Actress is the one I don’t really know. Judi Dench was briliant in that few scenes she appeared but it was a tough category. All the 5 were great.
”Who else but Harvey Weinstein could have driven Inglourious Basterds through to so many Oscar nominations and a win for Christopher Waltz? ”
Sasha, Weinstein is a genius. A reference for producers. But you mentioned one of his least successful campaings. He made a lot of mistakes in campaigning Basterds. First of all, the film did fine but was not a big success at Cannes. Even with this, Waltz won. In the US, the film had outstanding reviews. Waltz was already an unanimous choice just like M’onique was that year. But when it came Oscars time, Weinstein took a very long time to decide where to campaing M. Laurent and wrongly chosed to campaign her for lead and Kruger for sup. actress. Considering Laurent has much stronger scenes, it was a bad decision. When the Oscar nominations morning came, Basterds had 8 nominations against 9 from The Hurt Locker and Avatar. And why it did not lead? Because it failed to get nominated for Costumes and Art Direction. How could the only BIG (not counting An Education) period film nominated for BP that year miss the nominations in this two category?? With the 10 nominations and the SAG win few days before, I guess Basterds could have gotten enought momentum to become an alternative to the BIG blockbuster and the BIG inde… and take Best Picture.
My Favorite Rudin-produced Films (in order of release date):
– Searching for Bobby Fischer
– The Truman Show
– South Park
– Wonder Boys
– The Royal Tenenbaums
– The School of Rock
– I Heart Huckabee’s
– Notes on a Scandal
– No Country for Old Men
– There Will Be Blood
– Fantastic Mr. Fox
– The Social Network
– Moneyball
Rudin rules for me also.
But I’m wondering about something you wrote. Did you mean that you feel NCFOM is your favorite of all Best Picture winners that you’ve seen, or is it the best film given the top prize since you’ve been viewing live telecasts of the awards? Because I also love NCFOM, but I’d say there are better Best Picture winners out there (The Godfather films, for example).
Sasha-
Going *slightly* off-topic here…
We do get it — you love The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. But though Rudin did a swell job producing, I cannot find this adaptation award-worthy in any regard; it is merely a fairly well-crafted thriller. There is no way that Girl is on the level of Moneyball. You keep talking about how the Academy may not have the balls to nominate it or it’s too strong for them. I respectfully ask if perhaps you may be overrating it… It was your number one most anticipated film of the year, you’re the world’s biggest Fincher fan and — you loved it.
I was disappointed, frankly, that what I consider to be much of the “meat” of the story — the depth of theme about “men who hate women,” the slow-burn, coming to trust each other relationship between the two leads who meet here and then are in bed 15 minutes later, the philosophical discussion near the end of the original about letting someone, even someone evil, die vs. saving them, the deeper wounds of Lisbeth revealed and partially healed when visiting her mother, etc. — is all utterly missing from Fincher’s adaptation. This stuff is forsaken in favor of including far more “plot” related to the family attempting to invest in Millennium, several visits to Harriet/Anita, a ton of falling action about bank accounts and then a way out-of-place scene where Lisbeth behaves emotionally fragile in a way that I didn’t buy, for one second, that she would, effectively removing all hard edges from someone is is loaded with them. The scene in the elevator was very effective; too bad Mara wasn’t given more of this gutsiness. None of these modifications I mention made any sense to me, and the exposition in this version seems so heavy-going that it’s quite a lot to take.
By contrast, in the original version, the characters and their relationship were crystal clear to me, but more importantly, the theme of men who hate women and how one woman has chooses to deal with such widespread injustices — her father, her attackers in the subway (which here is one man who doesn’t even brutalize her), her parole officer, the Vanger family’s killing spree) — was more direct and powerful. Points taken very well.
Here we have a bunch of expensively nice sets, a softer Lisbeth (not a great idea to me) and a mystery which even has its most terrifying scene watered down with Enya in an attempt to be “clever” — I saw no other reason for doing so. Ditto the credit sequence, which seems very cool and post-modern and sexy and stylish but divorced from the film.
Nice looking movie, superb production values, entertaining at times but the meat and theme and memorable characters have been jettisoned, in my view. And I didn’t see anything particularly deep or engaging in Mara, though I thought she did a terrific Swedish accent.
Just my view.
Scott Rudin is a genius, in my book. Some of my favorite films of all time have been produced by him (TSN, No Country, etc..)
I don’t think he did wrong at not showing on oscar night. Weinstein’s campaign was a bad taste, disgusting way to promote his film, so I totally understand why he did it.
Scott Rudin holds a permanent spot in my movie-soul for producing the wonderful Revolutionary Road back in 2008. Your comment about his love of literature makes sense because it takes a passion for great writing to really understand the novel on which it was based. I’d kill to adapt Richard Yates’ other masterpiece, The Easter Parade…
I’m not sure how involved Rudin is in the production of these films, but I imagine lending his name and connections makes for a neat boost and I thank him for it because the results are exceptional.
Kimmy, I don’t understand. You praise Harvey Weinstein for showing up whether his film wins or loses and then accuse him of whoring himself out to anyone who listens and of having no shame.
“One of the stupidest stories that ever came out of last year’s Oscars was the very thing Nikki Finke accused Rudin of doing: not coming to the Oscars because The Social Network wasn’t going to win. Honestly? After the DGA handed the award to Tom Hooper I would have stopped showing up too. And not because I wasn’t going to win; the Greek chorus watching the dog and pony show unfold was too trained on watching how Harvey and Scott thrived or bled out for anyone to stomach. There was a lot more to it than just this film versus that film.”
Whatever his reasons may have been, it made Rudin look bad… very bad… when he didn’t show to the Oscars. Go out and support your film, support Fincher, support the great cast. I think it was shameful on Rudin’s part, whatever his reasons may have been, to not show up. Unless there was a life-and-death scenario going on (which I think we all would have heard about by now), Rudin has no legitimate reason to skip the Oscars. It boils down to pride. Both Rudin and Weinstein have too much pride. I will give Weinstein credit though, he’ll show up whether his film wins or loses. He uses the Oscars as a great networking device to pimp out his upcoming films. No win at the 2011 Oscars? No problem… Weinstein will whore himself out to anyone who listens… watch him talk up P.T.A’s upcoming film and whatever else he has on his slate. The man has no shame. Does it matter? Not really. It’s Hollywood- the world of the souless and shameless. Rudin could use a few lessons from Weinstein. I loathe both men but Rudin loses this round.