So What If Jim Carrey Wants to Switch Gears?

In the ‘80s, much was made of the sway film critics have over our moviegoing habits. After much debate, the power of a critic to make or break a film was never proven or disproved. It’s time to shift the focus of filmgoers’ bile: Let’s question the power of movie exhibitors and the trade reporters who cover them.

Judy Brennan’s recent article “Is Jim Carrey Flying in the Face of Success, Again?” (Calendar, April 9) informs us that exhibitors were worried after viewing footage of Carrey’s upcoming “The Truman Show.” They fret that Carrey is veering back into “The Cable Guy” territory.

Here we go again. When “Liar Liar” was released, much was made of Carrey’s

return to comic and box-office form, thus continuing the curious condemnation of “The Cable Guy,” a movie that, while it received generally negative reviews, also turned a profit after all was said and done, though not near the astronomical sums reaped by previous Carrey vehicles.

But what’s with the rampant misperception that the movie represented some sort of divergent dark path for the actor? Frankly, I and many other fans of that film are stumped. It contains the same sort of broad physical humor that has marked all of Carrey’s performances. (Example: The bathroom beating Carrey administers himself in the current “Liar Liar” is a riff on a darkly comic bathroom melee in “Cable Guy.”)

The only thing missing from “The Cable Guy” was a gratuitous flatulence joke. Apparently, therein lies the problem for theater owners. Carrey sans scat? Time to wring hands.

Now Carrey seems to be doing something really different--drama--and the same exhibitors are all but calling for his head. How dare he try to stretch as an actor?

Granted, a film’s initial theatrical gross gets all the press, and the level of satisfaction among exhibitors matters a great deal to many studio execs. I question the judgment of Brennan and Calendar editors, however, in giving these multiplex mavens this kind of mass exposure for their prejudicial comments. As the leading daily newspaper in this company town, The Times has a responsibility to report on such trends, but this piece lacked balance, aside from one exhibitor saying--after the story jumped to another page--that he was intrigued by the “Truman” footage he saw. It screamed “Jim Carrey’s new film is going to tank! Reserve your ringside seats now!”

*

It is, arguably, newsworthy that the exhibitors worry about such a shift on Carrey’s part, but shouldn’t this kind of insider puffery be relegated to the pages of their little exhibitor newsletter? Underscoring the imbalance of the piece are several questionable omissions:

* Brennan states that Dennis Hopper left the project due to “creative differences,” presenting this, with no support from any source, as a clear indication that the production is troubled. As everyone knows, “creative differences” is code. This does not mean that the production is troubled. Casting changes happen all the time, often without regard to professionalism or personalities, and are more often than not to the benefit of the film.

* Carrey received strong notices for his intensely dramatic turn in “Doing Time on Maple Drive,” which Ken Olin directed for the Fox Network while Carrey was still doing time as Fire Marshal Bill on “In Living Color.” No one made much of the different role then. To read this article, one would think that Carrey has never done any serious work in his life.

* Public worrying by exhibitors has in the past damaged the box-office prospects of several big productions, most recently “Last Action Hero,” no better or worse than Arnold Schwarzenegger’s average blockbuster. That film was doomed by poor word of mouth generated primarily by the theater owners who looked to profit from its success, and the reporters who rushed to get that story out.

* Most glaringly, there is little made of the fact that “Truman” is a Peter Weir film. Weir’s gift for revealing hidden talents of established stars is well known. Remember Harrison Ford’s very un-Indiana Jones psychodramatic turn in the director’s “The Mosquito Coast,” lauded by many as the actor’s best work? Or Robin Williams’ about-face in “Dead Poets Society,” a Weir film that spurred a string of acclaimed dramatic roles for him?

As with “The Truman Show,” both Williams and Ford faced some public scrutiny while their films were in production, only to be vindicated by the critical reception their work received. Most likely, the same kind of fate awaits Carrey.

Sure, neither Williams nor Ford was receiving tens of millions of dollars back in those days, a bar that Carrey has been instrumental in raising (a fact that exhibitors, reporters and even moviegoers seem to resent). But neither were they facing an empowered group of exhibitors. Or entertainment-obsessed media outlets intent on giving actors the bare-bulb treatment for daring to stray from their most commercially successful personae.

That these exhibitors whine and fret at the expense of the creative life of a man whose films have already made their theaters so much money is outright offensive. What a gang of spoiled brats. If they had their way, Tom Hanks would be working on a “Turner & Hooch” sequel, Robin Williams would still be in rainbow suspenders, and John Travolta would still be devising new ways to upset Mr. Kotter.

Theater owners are only happy when their houses are full. But if you keep telling the creative community to deliver more of the same, the passion they bring to their work will fade, no matter how sweet their paychecks. And what do you have then, but hollow, joyless blockbusters?

We see enough of those dominating our movie screens already, thank you.