A good film held hostage by bad PR

SURELY it tells us all we need to know about today’s overcaffeinated media universe that the backlash against “Munich,” due in theaters Friday, began in earnest nearly three weeks before the movie’s release. For months the Steven Spielberg drama has been viewed as the prohibitive favorite in the Oscar race, based on its filmmaker pedigree and weighty subject matter -- the bloody manhunt for the Palestinian terrorists who murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

Until recently the entire project was shrouded in secrecy. Spielberg’s only comment, a two-sentence prepared statement, was released last summer, Solomon-like, to an Israeli paper, an Arab TV station and the New York Times. Even as the film reached completion, Universal Pictures and Marvin Levy, Spielberg’s longtime publicist, insisted that the filmmaker was turning his back on a cascade of interview requests and would avoid any overt Oscar campaigning.

But on Dec. 4, just days after Levy had again said Spielberg would remain silent, lo and behold, Time magazine showed up with an exclusive interview with the filmmaker, who appeared on the cover next to the breathless tagline: “Spielberg’s Secret Masterpiece.”

Since then, Levy has maintained -- as he told me Friday -- that the Time cover came “out of left field.” As it turns out, Time critic Richard Schickel was shown “Munich” on the same day Levy told our reporters Spielberg wasn’t talking, but Levy insists: “It happened all of a sudden. Boom! The call from Time came in. So we did have a plan [not to talk], but when Time calls, how do you turn that down?”

Levy has a better sense of drama than accuracy. According to Schickel, the magazine’s decision to do a Spielberg story came on Nov. 17, nearly two weeks earlier, when his editors in New York, after receiving assurances that Spielberg would talk, asked him to do the cover story.

Screenings of the film for other media outlets began the day after Time hit the stands. Since then, the uproar over the film has scarcely stopped. Bloggers have attacked Universal and Levy for saying one thing and doing another, while criticizing Time for assigning the story to Schickel, who, as the magazine disclosed in its story, made a documentary that Spielberg produced and financed through DreamWorks.

The content of the film also has drawn fire, notably from the New York Times’ David Brooks, who assailed the film’s “false generalizations,” saying “because he will not admit the existence of evil, as it really exists, Spielberg gets reality wrong.” The New Republic’s literary editor Leon Wieseltier complained, “There are two kinds of Israelis in ‘Munich’: cruel Israelis with remorse and cruel Israelis without remorse.”

Even worse, in terms of the film’s once unassailable Oscar hopes, “Munich” was shut out in the year-end New York and Los Angeles film critic awards, and Variety’s Todd McCarthy, a reliable barometer for critical opinion, panned the movie, saying “members of the general public will be glancing at their watches rather than having epiphanies about world peace.” The film was also conspicuous in its absence from the Golden Globe’s best picture nominations, perhaps because Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. members were needlessly insulted when Universal, instead of delivering Spielberg for a news conference, handed out copies of the Time story, then delayed the screening, as if to say to voters: Read what you didn’t get! (Spielberg later agreed to sit down with the Los Angeles Times, for an interview published Sunday.)

Not all the news is bad. The film has earned praise from other political writers and is showing up on some critics’ Top 10 lists. Sunday night it had its first academy screening, where the film may find a more receptive audience. But the decision to stay silent so long, knowing that the film would spark spirited debate, was a huge misjudgment, not only of today’s itchytrigger-finger media universe, but also of the movie’s strengths and weaknesses.

Crisis management expert Allan Mayer, who has represented clients including R. Kelly and Rush Limbaugh as the top scandal spin-meister at Sitrick and Company, once told me: “If you don’t tell your own story, someone else is going to tell it for you, and chances are, you won’t like the way it comes out.” This is exactly what happened to Spielberg, even though Mayer is one of his key advisors on “Munich,” having helped assemble a team of high-profile political advisors to help guide the film through a minefield of ideological crossfire. However, Mayer has been uncharacteristically silent about the film’s bumpy reception, declining to speak to me last week.

I think “Munich’s” problem is part perception, part reality. The worst thing Spielberg’s team could’ve done was to publicly say it was refusing to take part in the usual Oscar excesses -- and then instantly swing a deal with Time, making its initial high-road stance look all the more hypocritical. It is hard to imagine an area the media views with more cynicism than the payoff studios get for exclusive scoops from news magazines, which these days tend to do more hyping than reporting on movies.

The week before Time’s “Munich” cover, Newsweek scored an “exclusive” first look at “King Kong,” which resulted in 2,189 supremely uncritical words about the film. A few weeks earlier, Time trumpeted its “first look” at “Memoirs of a Geisha,” which included the prediction that “ ‘Geisha’ has a shot to join ‘Chicago’ as a best picture champ.” When I asked Schickel about this hyperbole, he responded: “Since I slept through ‘Geisha,’ I can guarantee I didn’t write that. I’ve never written any variant on the phrase, ‘Polish up the Oscar for -- .’ It’s clearly hype writing.”

As for the use of the term “masterpiece” on Time’s “Munich” cover, he said, “When they ran the cover line by me, I said I didn’t like it, which shows how much clout I have. But if you said, ‘Spielberg’s Very Good Movie,’ it wouldn’t have the same ring to it, would it?” As for his ties with Spielberg, he says, “This story was just another professional relationship with him. My point of view is that I make my own ethical judgments, and I’m not so interested in what other people think.”

“Munich’s” real problem won’t be these media dust-ups but moviegoers’ own judgment about the film. The real mistake Spielberg’s team made by putting a veil of secrecy around the film was creating unrealistically high expectations. Many of us who have seen the film were impressed by its filmmaking. It has the high drama of a top-drawer John Le Carre thriller. But for me, its failing is its refusal to take a personal stance on the more unsettling issues raised by its story, as if Spielberg were wary of being accused of being too much of an advocate. That’s fine if you’re a Middle East negotiator, but if you’re a filmmaker, passion trumps peacemaking every time.

That brings us to our annual assessment of the top best picture contenders. Here’s a peek at this year’s race, with odds for winning it all.

Favorites:

“Brokeback Mountain.” 4 to 1. For now, the unquestioned favorite, with everything Oscar voters value: great performances and prestigious critic awards, all accompanied by a theme of tolerance that packs an emotional wallop.

“Munich.” 7 to 1. If Spielberg makes his case for the film, it will benefit from academy respect for the filmmaker and his serious intent.

“Walk the Line.” 8 to 1. Less emotionally stirring than “Ray,” but it will benefit from strong actors-branch support for its craft and impressive performances.

“King Kong.” 10 to 1. If it’s a box-office smash, the good reviews and cinematic artistry will earn this emotion-laden spectacle a trip to the Final Five.

“Good Night, and Good Luck.” 12 to 1. With its politics in the academy’s comfort zone -- safely set in the past -- it has enough goodwill to be a serious candidate.

Contenders:

“Capote.” 15 to 1. Despite rave reviews and Philip Seymour Hoffman’s stellar performance, it may be too austere and unsentimental for academy voters.

“Crash.” 16 to 1. Should have strong acting-branch support but needs more grass-roots momentum to bring it back to life.

“Memoirs of a Geisha.” 17 to 1. Mediocre reviews and a poor showing with the Globes have put a damper on this beautifully crafted but chilly adaptation.

“The Constant Gardener.” 18 to 1. Full of political passion and filmmaking craft, it needs a serious second-look from voters to make a bid for the Final Five.

“History of Violence.” 18 to 1. Incendiary and unpredictable, this inspired drama got great reviews but is perhaps too disturbing for mainstream academy types.

Longshots:

“The New World.” 22 to 1. After being shut out by the big critics and the Globes, it’s running on fumes, especially without any support from its own filmmaker.

“Pride and Prejudice.” 23 to 1. A clever adaptation with spirited performances, it traverses too-familiar terrain for a best picture slot.

“Match Point.” 25 to 1. Not original enough for the academy to give Woody Allen one final bow.

“Mrs. Henderson Presents.” 30 to 1. Not much heft here, but it will find admirers among the older wing of the academy.

“Syriana.” 35 to 1. Smart and timely but too volatile politically, not to mention too dense dramatically, to make it to the Final Five.

“Cinderella Man.” 40 to 1. The academy shuns high-profile flops, especially with a star who is the opposite of a sentimental favorite.