‘Shakespeare’ Hit by Snipers

After all of Miramax’s relentless promotion of “Shakespeare in Love”--from the glossy advertising in the entertainment industry’s trade papers to the reams of free press coverage that followed--you might think no one would be surprised when the romantic tale of thespians in love walked away with the best picture Oscar at the 71st Annual Academy Awards Sunday night.

But when Harrison Ford read those three words (and not the other three many had been expecting: “Saving Private Ryan”), it hit much of Hollywood like a frying pan to the forehead.

On Monday, as moguls and minions awoke and rubbed the Oscar-party grit out of their eyes, the talk was about how Miramax had pulled it off. Talk, that is, and a whole lot of sniping. Did the brash pseudo-independent studio (which is now a subsidiary of Disney) simply have the right, finely acted movie at the right time? Or had they cynically shanghaied the academy, forever changing the way studios will have to play the game of Oscar pursuit?

“You have to give Miramax its due. They have championed great films,” said one studio executive who refused to be quoted by name. Nevertheless, he lamented what he called Miramax’s “strong-arm tactics.” “They’re distorting the process. It’s just like a political campaign. Technically, there’s nothing wrong with somebody spending $100 million to get elected. But reasonable people can agree that’s not what the founding fathers had in mind.”

A well-respected producer picked up on the same theme. To be sure, he said, the Oscar telecast raised other, sillier questions (Who knew, for example, that you could tap-dance to the theme from “Saving Private Ryan”?). But the real message of the evening, he said, was a cautionary one.

“We’re due for some campaign finance reform in Hollywood,” the producer said, referring to reports--disputed by Miramax--that it spent in excess of $15 million on its Oscar campaigns, with DreamWorks SKG (which made “Saving Private Ryan” with Paramount Pictures) responding in kind. “The fact is that if one senses you can actually buy the Academy Awards, then the competition is going to get ferocious. And if you can buy it, then what’s its artistic value?”

Another highly placed industry insider called Miramax’s tactics simply “disgusting. The meanness of Washington has splashed over Hollywood. And over what? Some stupid award!”

Miramax executives, who assert that they spent just over $3 million on the Oscar campaign for “Shakespeare,” dismissed the grumbling as sour grapes.

“If it were really true that you could buy Academy Awards, I guarantee you the studios would win every single year,” said West Coast President Mark Gill, who called some of the charges being whispered about Monday “ludicrous, vicious, uncalled for and wildly inaccurate.”

Among the tactics attributed to--and fiercely denied by--Miramax Monday: the practice, alleged by many sources who claim to be in a position to know, of setting up phone banks to call academy members to garner support.

“The whole thing is so ugly. . . . They have a whole team of publicists on hire full time who call members of the academy and, while they don’t ask them how they are going to vote, they say things like ‘Well, don’t you think it’s time someone else won?’ ” said the industry insider.

Gill’s response: “And pigs fly over the moon. That’s 100% categorical lie. The academy has forbidden it, and we don’t do it.”

The spinning started the night before, at the after-show parties. DreamWorks and Paramount hosted a bash at Barnaby’s, a Fairfax Avenue eatery, and put on a lavish spread. But no one seemed particularly hungry. Spielberg was there, looking sober. Jeffrey Katzenberg, who usually talks a blue streak, said little. Paramount chief Jonathan Dolgen looked positively grim.

On Monday, DreamWorks’ marketing chief Terry Press described the mood at the studio as bittersweet. But she said the evening was put in perspective for her when she thought back over the montage of film clips, shown during the Oscar telecast, that represented academy members’ favorite movie moments.

“What struck me was how many of them were from movies that had never even been nominated. We can’t really know what this means until these movies have survived the test of time,” she said, adding that while “Shakespeare’s” win for best picture was a surprise, DreamWorks felt gratified by its Oscar take Sunday.

“Five Oscars for ‘Ryan’ and one for ‘Prince of Egypt’ for a 4-year-old company is not so terrible,” she said.

Miramax’s critics might have been surprised by the studio’s after-Oscar party Sunday. Held at the Polo Lounge at the Beverly Hills Hotel the party was packed almost until dawn, but gloating was clearly considered gauche. The party welcomed celebrities, executives and journalists alike--there were no private rooms, or special places. It was, insiders noted, very un-Hollywood.

As Gill said later, Miramax’s strength--and its vulnerability--stems from its outsider status.

“There was an audible gasp in the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion when ‘Shakespeare’ won best picture because the power elite of Hollywood voted for ‘Saving Private Ryan,’ and they were all in the room,” Gill said. “But the academy is bigger than that. The idea that the little movie from outside Hollywood could beat the 10,000-pound Hollywood gorilla was a surprise to the Hollywood elite. But not to the industry’s craftspeople.”

Instead of crowing about how well Miramax did, Miramax marketing and publicity executive Marcy Granata talked about beginning her promotion of “The Talented Mr. Ripley,” which stars Gwyneth Paltrow and Cate Blanchett (as well as Matt Damon and Jude Law) and was directed by Anthony Minghella (“The English Patient”)--another Miramax best picture winner.

Gill acknowledged that “Shakespeare’s” win likely reflected in part the fact that actors make up the largest voting branch of the academy--an observation that some of the movie’s detractor’s were using to explain its win. Actors, after all, would like a movie about acting.

“The movie itself is about putting on a show, what all of us do every day--the imagination that it takes to do that,” said Granata. “But people also see the wit of the movie and the very fine balancing act accomplishes, making a comedy out of a tragedy. People are very happy that it asks you to be smart. Everyone’s forgetting that when you see a film and it’s a surprise to you, you stay very loyal to it.”

Added Gill: “Ultimately, it isn’t about advertising or mudslinging. Ultimately, it’s about the movie the academy members liked the best.”

There was talk Monday about the trade-off that DreamWorks made by releasing “Ryan” in the summer. The consensus was that DreamWorks had probably made more money at the box office by releasing “Ryan” then, but may have lost out in its quest for best picture because the film was less fresh in people’s minds.

Many people also expected that Miramax’s aggressive campaign--however much it cost--would raise the bar for what other producers would expect in the future. The question many studio execs are expecting to hear next Oscar season: Why aren’t you spending for me what Miramax spent for “Shakespeare in Love”?

The concern expressed Monday over Oscar campaign excess made Bill Mechanic, 20th Century Fox’s studio chief, look particularly prescient. In January, he penned a column in the Hollywood Reporter decrying the Oscar frenzy of rampant spending, and called for reforms.

“The academy advertising process, which began as a way of reminding us of movies to consider, has turned into a sledgehammer system of overwhelming voters into thinking they’d be foolish not to vote for the ‘designated’ choice,” he wrote. “The fight for a nomination is no longer about ‘the best person’ winning; instead it ends with someone’s ear being bitten off. Don’t you long for the days of Ali, not Tyson?”

Times staff writers Robert W. Welkos and Patrick Goldstein and freelance writer Richard Natale contributed to this report.

Oscar Ratings

* The length of the Academy Awards show cost some viewers, but the telecast still took in a sizable audience. F6