Nudged Out of the Spotlight

In what could prove to be a more momentous disappearing act--certainly for the filmmakers--than any magic conjured up on screen by the wizard Gandalf in New Line Cinema’s “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring,” the four credited producers of the film have agreed to let arbitrators decide which one of the four will not get to step up on stage at the Kodak Theatre next month should the film be named best picture at the Academy Awards.

It is a wrenching decision for the tightly knit filmmakers, who labored long and hard in New Zealand to bring J.R.R. Tolkien’s 1954 fantasy novel to the screen, said executive producer Mark Ordesky. The film received 13 Oscar nominations last week, including best picture.

But in the end, the producers, who include the film’s Oscar-nominated director, Peter Jackson, decided that their friendships and future business relationships were too important to, in “Survivor”-like style, cast ballots to see who would stay and who must be jettisoned.

As a result, Ordesky said, choosing which three producers to list as nominees will be left with the producers branch executive committee of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences. The committee must settle the issue before the academy holds its annual pre-Oscar luncheon for nominees March 11.

“The Lord of the Rings” is one of three Oscar-nominated films caught in the academy’s credit squeeze. Both Disney/Pixar’s “Monsters, Inc.” and Paramount/Nickelodeon’s “Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius,” which are up for best picture in Oscar’s new feature animation category, are being asked to submit the name of a key creative contributor for each film who will be eligible to accept the Oscar. Sources say that each studio is leaning toward letting the academy’s short films and feature animation branch executive committee name that person.

The academy’s move to limit the number of producers on stage to three was applauded by the Producers Guild of America, which has long lobbied for studios to rein in the practice of dispensing producing credits to people who have little or nothing to do with making the movie.The three-producer rule was enacted two years ago by the producers branch after five producers took the stage to accept Oscars for Miramax Films’ 1999’s “Shakespeare in Love.” One of those was Miramax chief Harvey Weinstein, who was listed as a producer in the credits. During the show, he joined other producers on the stage and gave an acceptance speech, leaving producer Ed Zwick trying to get his turn at the microphone before the orchestra started up again.

It was reported afterward that Zwick considered this incident a “mugging,” and published reports say he later recalled that at that moment on stage he had a choice “between a random act of violence before a viewing public of 2 billion people or false modesty.”

This year, the academy has toughened its rules, specifically ruling that studio executives and personal managers are ineligible to take the stage or receive a statuette for best picture unless they have fully functioned as producers on the picture.

In the case of “The Lord of the Rings,” academy executive director Bruce Davis expressed hope that the filmmakers themselves would choose which one of the four producers would be dropped from the list of nominees, noting that up to now the academy has never arbitrated the issue.

“We have never had an arbitration,” Davis said. “In the two prior years, the creators themselves have always made the decision.”

But in a telephone interview from Wellington, New Zealand, where Jackson and his crew are deep into post-production on the second of the $300 million “Ring” trilogy, executive producer Ordesky said the filmmakers want the academy to decide.

Ordesky, who is also president of New Line’s art house label Fine Line Features, said the producers had been aware of the academy’s three-producer rule before the movie was submitted. The producers include Jackson, co-screenwriter Frances Walsh, Barrie M. Osborne and Tim Sanders.

“Since they don’t allow more than three names, we decided mutually that rather than sort it out among ourselves, it might be more fair to have a third party--an objective, impartial body--make the decision,” Ordesky said.

Sanders, Jackson and Walsh are all New Zealanders who have worked together on “Rings” and on Jackson’s 1996 film, “The Frighteners.” Sources noted that Sanders was involved in the entire pre-production phase of “Rings” but departed the project three months into the 15-month shoot. And when the producers guild announced the nominees for its annual Producer of the Year honors last Thursday, missing from the list of producers on “The Lord of the Rings” was Sanders.

Osborne, a veteran producer with such credits as “Face/Off” and “The Matrix,” joined the “Rings” project in April 1999 while Sanders was still with the film. A veteran action producer, Osborne was brought on board to help oversee Jackson’s massive production, which had a cast and crew of 2,500.

In the case of the Disney/Pixar film, “Monsters, Inc.,” Pixar must decide whether producer Darla K. Anderson will be the designated recipient or Pixar founder John Lasseter, who is credited as an executive producer on the movie. Pixar did not return telephone calls seeking a response as to what course it might follow, but sources close to the film said Pixar may let the academy arbitrate the issue.

Paramount Pictures, which released the Nickelodeon movie “Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius,” also declined comment on which of its producers--John A. Davis, Paul Marshal or Steve Oedekerk--would accept the Oscar should the film win. Sources said Paramount may also opt to let the academy resolve the issue.

Davis conceded that it might not be easy choosing one producer who should receive the statuette in the animation category.

“What they are looking for there is a single recipient--the key creative contributor to the film,” Davis said. “This is not always easy to determine.”

The producers guild, meanwhile, argues that the proliferation of producer credits in movies as well as television only dilutes the work of real producers, who develop the material and oversee the entire production.

The guild believes that the academy’s move to pare down the list of producer nominees for best picture can only help its cause.

“We’re extremely supportive of what [the academy] has done,” said Vance Van Petten, the guild’s executive director. “It was a very brave move, even though you can argue that attaching a numerical figure [to the awards] is arbitrary. But something desperately needed to be done.”