Yep, those would be Harvey Weinstein’s words right there. EW has an interesting piece positing the theory that “The Reader” is really the film most likely to spoil the party for “Slumdog” on Oscar night — even if the writers admit that it’s unlikely to happen. (I agree on both counts.)
It’s a handy precis of the comeback narrative that Weinstein has forged this year — both for himself as a major Oscar campaigning force, and for the movie, which some months ago looked like an awards-season casualty after suffering tepid reviews and unwelcome behind-the-scenes controversy.
How did he do it, given a campaigning budget that’s a mere fraction of the millions he spent back in the “Shakespeare in Love” days? The answer, the article says, lies in Weinstein’s self-professed new “low-key” strategy with an emphasis on simply screening the film, especially in certain well-targeted areas:
Weinstein’s first salvo was to home in on the Academy’s aging Jewish population. Although he’s been trying to get all voters to see the movie, it’s no coincidence that he has screened The Reader at such Jewish cultural hot spots as the Skirball Center in Los Angeles and the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan, places where one is likely to find older voters with a deep connection to films about the Holocaust. ”When I went to a screening, I was one of about four people who didn’t have blue hair,” says one Academy member and former campaign engineer. ”And I was the only WASP.”
Weinstein also invited Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel to The Reader‘s New York premiere, and courted an endorsement from the Anti-Defamation League, a group whose mission is to call attention to anti-Semitism … Weinstein says, ”It must have been the hand of Anthony Minghella and Sydney Pollack, because Elie Wiesel asked to see me after the screening and he hugged me and said how much he loved the movie.” (Wiesel, through his agent, declined to comment.)
Ahem. While there may be a lot of people (Roger Ebert among them) protesting that “The Reader” isn’t a “Holocaust movie” — and beneath the surface, it isn’t really — it doesn’t appear that Weinstein has got that particular memo. The point is that he’s marketing it as a Holocaust movie, and it seems to be working.
Of course, I’m all but certain that “The Reader” isn’t actually going to win. From where I’m standing, it’s closest forerunner is “The Cider House Rules,” another middlebrow adult drama with okay reviews, weak box-office and spotty precursor support that Weinstein nonetheless strong-armed into the Best Picture race. With his “Shakespeare” mojo still fresh in people’s minds, some pundits suggested Weinstein could dethrone the inevitable frontrunner, “American Beauty.”
Of course it didn’t — it probably never even came close. But the film got more attention than it would ever otherwise have received, and wound up grabbing a pair of big prizes. And the same fate likely awaits “The Reader.” (Well, one prize at least). When he hasn’t got the most promising material to work with, you can’t say Harvey Weinstein doesn’t know how to make lemonade.
Finally, also at EW, Dave Karger runs through his Best Picture pecking order, which goes like this:
1. “Slumdog Millionaire”
2. “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
3. “Milk”
4. “The Reader”
5. “Frost/Nixon.”
Are we still buying “Button” at No. 2? I’m not.