Dargis' "fuck them" - the first of several - refers specifically to a fact she highlighted in her piece this weekend on the lack of progress in Hollywood films for and about women: Two major studios, Paramount Pictures and Warner Brothers Pictures, didn't release a single movie directed by a female, even in a year of renewed prominence for women in film. One bright spot: The Hurt Locker by Kathryn Bigelow (pictured above) is sweeping the early critics' awards: in the past two days alone she and her film have gotten top accolades from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the Boston Society of Film Critics, the American Film Institute, The New York Film Critics Online, and the Alliance of Women Film Journalists.

In a wide-ranging conversation this morning on women in Hollywood, Dargis, who has been a chief New York Times film critic (a title she shares with A.O. Scott) since 2004, had similarly strong words for Hollywood conventional wisdom and the studio system overall. "My tendency is not to talk in sweeping terms, but one thing I can say in sweeping terms is that there's a lot of sexism in the industry," she says. Here are some of the other highlights from the conversation.

On why women in Hollywood aren't faring any better: This business is really about clubby relationships. If you buy Variety or go online and look at the deals, you see one guy after another smiling in a baseball cap. It's all guys making deals with other guys. I had a female studio chief a couple of years ago tell me point blank that she wasn't hiring a woman to do an action movie because women are good at certain things and not others. If you have women buying that bullshit how can we expect men to be better?

On working within the system: For me the most sobering thing of the last ten years is that there really was a point where four of the studios were run by women… and you would have thought that would lead to an uptick of women directors. I'm not saying I've done a systematic analysis, but it doesn't look like it changed very much… Working within the system has not worked. It has not helped women filmmakers or, even more important, you and me, women audiences, to have women in the studio system. … I think the studio system as it exists now is a no-win situation for women filmmakers.

On director Kathryn Bigelow's success (achieved in part by getting funding outside of Hollywood, detailed in Dargis's June profile of her): Something like a woman winning best director for directing an action movie and not a romantic comedy is symbolically important. Whether it then leads to a lot of women doing things outside of the pathetic comfort zone of romantic comedy – and I say that as someone who loves romantic comedy – we'll see. We know that because women are allowed to make romantic comedies that they can make romantic comedies. That's in everyone's comfort zone. The idea that a woman can be a great action director is not is everyone's comfort zone. That's [Bigelow's] exceptionalism.

On Bigelow's chances for Oscar or future commercial success: The only thing Hollywood is interested in money, and after that prestige. That's why they'll be interested in something like The Hurt Locker. She's done so well critically that she can't be ignored.

Let's acknowledge that the Oscars are bullshit and we hate them. But they are important commercially... I've learned to never underestimate the academy's bad taste. Crash as best picture? What the fuck.

On male and female directors being held to different standards, as Dargis suggested in comparing Bigelow and Michael Mann in her piece: Do you think that a woman would have been able to get forty million dollars to make a puppet movie the way that Wes Anderson has been able to make, bringing to bear all the publicity and advertising budget of Fox? After two movies that didn't make a lot of money? I think this is true for a lot of black filmmakers too – they're held to a higher standard. And an unfair standard. You can be a male filmmaker and if you're perceived as a genius – a boy genius or a fully-formed adult genius – that you are allowed to fail in a way that a woman is not allowed to fail.

On whether there's an essential difference between male-made and female-made movies: Flaubert wrote Madame Bovary. That's all we need to say about that. But I do think as 51 percent of the population we should be given a chance… It's very boring to watch the same people coming from a certain kind of background make the same kinds of movies.

On Nancy Meyers and Nora Ephron: I personally don't think either of them is a good filmmaker — they make movies for me that are more emotionally satisfying but with barely any aesthetic value at all. I really like Something's Gotta Give, but I don't think it's a good movie…. I'm of two minds. Sometimes I think what women should do what various black and gay audiences have done, which is support women making movies for women. So does that mean I have to go support Nora Ephron? Fuck no. That's just like, blech.

On Sandra Bullock, whom she recently wrote should use her production company to "start giving female filmmakers a chance to do something other than dopey romances": Use your power for good, Sandy!

On why so many romantic comedies are so terrible: One, the people making them have no fucking taste, two, they're morons, three they're insulting panderers who think they're making movies for the great unwashed and that's what they want. I love romantic movies. I absolutely do. But I literally don't know what's happening. I think it's depressing that Judd Apatow makes the best romantic comedies and they're about men. All power to Apatow, but he's taken and repurposed one of the few genres historically made for women. ….We had so few [genres] that were made specifically for the female audience and now the best of them are being made by Judd Apatow. But what are his movies supposed to be about? Nominally about the relationship between a man and a woman, but they're really buddy flicks. Funny People was supposed to have an important role for a woman, but she was uninteresting and an afterthought.

On representations of women onscreen: There's a reason that women go to movies like Mamma Mia. It's a terrible movie… but women are starved for representation of themselves. I go back to Spike Lee and She's Gotta Have It. I remember going to see it at the Quad in New York, surrounded by a black audience. People are starved for representations of themselves.

On women being taken seriously as moviegoers: It's a vicious cycle. We're not going to movies because there aren't movies for us. Therefore we're not seen as a loyal moviegoing audience. My point is that if there are stories about women, women will come out for that…

That's why [women] go to a movie like The Devil Wears Prada and make huge hits. They want to see women in movies. People in the trade press constantly frame that as a surprise. This, gee whiz, Sex and the City's a hit, Twilight, hmm, wonder what's going on here. Maybe they should not be so surprised. In the trade press, women audiences are considered a niche. How is that even possible? We're 51 percent of the audience.

On this quote from a box office analyst for Hollywood.com, in The Washington Post: Fuck him. What an asshole. Yes, that's what I want! That's exactly what I want. If Angelina Jolie had been cast in a movie as a good as The Bourne Identity with a filmmaker like Paul Greengrass, I would have gone out to see it, and I'm sure I wouldn't be alone. That is absurd. That's blaming female audiences – you get what you deserve? Is that what he's saying?

On being a female critic reviewing and featuring women's films: I wanted to get [Bigelow] on the cover of 'Arts and Leisure'. I wanted this fantastic woman director to get her face on the front of the New York Times…[But] I am an equal opportunity critic. I will pan women as hard as men. I've had testy people imply that I should go easier on women's movies. I find that incredibly insulting. Are you kidding me? I don't want to be graded on a curve. None of us want to be a good woman writer.

I don't want to be the woman critic. I don't want to be the feminist critic. I don't want to be the shrew. What I want to do is talk about the art that I love and point out, every so often, inequities….It's a weird balancing act and I'm not saying there aren't contradictions.

On whether the prominence of women-directed films in 2009 will change anything, even if they're not statistically significant compared to other years: It's pretty shitty right now. Anything positive can only help a little bit. How's that for optimism?

Women In The Seats But Not Behind The Camera [New York Times]
Kathryn Bigelow Makes Movies That Go For The Gut [New York Times]
Now Starring At The Movies: Famous Dead Women [New York Times]
With Strong Female Characters, Hollywood Suffers From a Fear Of Failure [The Washington Post]

Related: Double X Films [The Atlantic]

Earlier: Things Are Not Getting Better For Women In Hollywood

For those of you who rushed out to see the movie during its big city engagement before it opens wide on Christmas day will know, Up in the Air is the story of Ryan Bingham, a man who travels around the country firing people who have been downsized by their respective companies. Rich thinks this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, if we could all still afford a loaf of bread or a knife to cut it with.

Here is an America whose battered inhabitants realize that the economic deck is stacked against them, gamed by distant, powerful figures they can't see or know. Up in the Air may be a glossy production sprinkled with laughter and sex, but it captures the distinctive topography of our Great Recession as vividly as a far more dour Hollywood product of 70 years ago, The Grapes of Wrath, did the vastly different landscape of the Great Depression.

Steinbeck did actually tell the story of Up in the Air in The Grapes of Wrath. Early in the novel, he gives a few pages to the bank men who came to kick farmers off their land:

Some of the owner men were kind because they hated what they had to do, and some of them were angry because they hated to be cruel, and some of them were cold because they had long ago found that one could not be an owner unless one were cold. And all of them were caught in something larger than themselves. Some of them hated the mathematics that drove them, and some were afraid, and some worshiped the mathematics because it provided a refuge from thought and from feeling. If a bank or a finance company owned the land, the owner man said, The Bank or the Companyneedswantsinsistsmust have as though the Bank or the Company were a monster, with thought and feeling, which had ensnared them. These last would take no responsibility for the banks or the companies because they were men and slaves, while the banks were machines and masters all at the same time. Some of the owner men were a little proud to be slaves to such cold and powerful masters. The owner men sat in the cars and explained. You know the land is poor. You've scrabbled at it long enough, God knows.

And then Steinbeck moved on to the true characters, the Joads and their trek west, full of empty dreams and shattered promises. The only way this movie — that tries to humanize the corporate hatchet man — could be anything like The Grapes of Wrath is if John Steinback came back from the dead and rewrote it so that it focused on and humanized the men who show up at the Joad's house to tack a foreclosure notice on the front door. But he didn't because his tale is about the people whose livelihood was lost due to natural and financial disaster and who subsequently wander around doing anything just to survive. Through it we can sympathize with the once-proud people who have been laid low by the Great Depression.

Up in the Air, on the other hand, is a film about the man who flies around in first class collecting frequent flier miles for sport and still has a job, an expense account, an apartment, and so many hotel key cards that he doesn't even need to pony up for a night at the Milwaukee Hilton unless he wants to. After a peek into his luxe lifestyle, it asks us to feel sorry for him, because his job firing people is so hard and he doesn't have a life outside of work. He's lonely. Sad face.

While director Jason Reitman uses "real people" who lost their jobs as the sorry spectres loosed from this employment coil by Ryan, how do you think watching this movie must feel for someone who has met the Brooks Brothers-clad grim reaper in a beige conference room in their very own workplace? They're intended to muster up even the slightest bit of sympathy for this dude, who still gets a paycheck, because he doesn't have a life? Yeah, that's not salve we're putting on that wound, Frank, it's salt.

• "Moviegoers Stingy With Scrooge" is how boxofficemojo described a lower than hoped for $31 million opening for ' CG-animated 3D adaptation of the Dickens classic. Both Mojo and the LA Times point out that Zemickis last film, the similarly animated Polar Express opened in the same range but went on to gross $160 million domestic, with audiences continuing to chug in throughout the long holiday season. The LA Times however, recalls that "audiences embraced that movie like few others", which they strongly hint, will not be the case for the blah Carol. Mojo meanwhile, recalls that while Polar's opening was week, it was up against Pixar's The Incredibles, while Carol is up against...The Fourth Kind. [Box Office Mojo]

• Elsewhere at the box office, This is It, held on to the #2 slot, raking in another $14 million. The Men Who Stared at Goats did a decent $13.3 million. The big story however was early Oscar favorite Precious which grossed $1.8 million on only 18 screens, a mind-blowing $100,000 per screen. [Variety]

• The Prophet, the French thriller with tells "the story of an illiterate young Arab-Corsican man condemned to six years in prison" led the European film award nominations with six nods. [Variety]

• David Poland attempts to do the math on a NY Times piece and can't make it add up. A story this weekend contended that James Cameron's 3D goliath Avatar will cost half a billion dollars. Only problem, as Poland points out, adding up all the numbers mentioned in the piece still leaves one a hundred billion or so shy of that gargantuan figure. [The Hot Blog]

• Kenny Chesney will be the next victim of 3D concert film conversion. Sony plans to release Kenny Chesney: Summer in 3D in April. [Hollywood Reporter]

• The GE/Comcast deal is now just inches away, just this close, with the two sides agreeing on a valuation on the NBC/Universal — Comcast joint venture. $30 billion is said to be the price tag. Vivendi, by the way, which still owns 20 percent of NBC/Universal still hasn't signed off. [Hollywood Reporter]

• The Wanda Sykes Show got off to a solid start for Fox, averaging a 2.2 rating, which is a 16 percent improvement over Mad TV which held the slot last year. [The Wrap]

Columbia Pictures announced today that they are acquiring the first look rights for film adaptation to the Sunday Styles Modern Love column. That astoundingly marks the second development deal Modern Love has inked lately. Earlier, HBO announced plans to develop a series about a fictional editor of the column.

Variety reports that since signing a representation deal with ICM, the Times has closed "north of 20 option deals for film or TV projects, including the recent sale to Lifetime and Sony TV of the article At an Age for Music and Dreams, Real Life Intrudes."

That story told of a young violinist in Ohio, struggling to find the means to pursue her symphony dreams.

Among some of the other recently optioned journalismisms:

• This Strange Thing Called Prom: The story of teenage Senagalese immigrants in Brooklyn going to the prom.
• The story of a 12 year old food critic who cons his way into swanky restaurants.
• Mystery on 5th Avenue: About an uptown apartment that doubles as some kind of Da Vinci Code-like puzzle for kids to climb around and solve.

Sensing a pattern? After all this talk about internets, and opening up the media conversation and aggregating vs. reporting, it all comes down to what people want is quirky kids' stories. A few dozen of those a year, feeding directly via ICM into the Hollywood machinery and the Times will be able to shut down those printing presses once and for all and give everybody bonuses to boot! Throw in a couple wacky contemporary romance ideas and the whole Times building can take the day off to go yacht shopping.

However, looking at the Times homepage today, it seems like there's a more than a few reporters on the beat who don't want to be millionaires. Everywhere you look you see, "Pope Sets Plan for Disaffected Anglicans to Join Catholics" and "Hopes Fade for Comprehensive Climate Treaty." Sorry to break the news to John Broder and Rachel Donadio, but that is not what we call entertainment.

Brooks Barnes has a piece in today's New York Times pondering this very question. Barnes points out that stars such as Denzel Washington, Julia Roberts, Eddie Murphy, John Travolta, Russell Crowe, Tom Hanks, Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell have all starred in big releases that have flopped in recent weeks, which has left studio executives scratching their heads desperately trying to figure out why the doltish masses aren't consuming what Hollywood is trying to force-feed them, just as they've been doing for years.

"The cratering of films with big stars is astounding," said Peter Guber, the former chairman of Sony Pictures who is now a producer and industry elder statesman. "These supertalented people are failing to aggregate a large audience, and everybody is looking for answers."

Mr. Guber added, "Even Johnny Depp" - starring in the drama "Public Enemies" - "didn't exactly deliver a phenomenal result." (The A-list results may be damped partly because Will Smith, a regular summer powerhouse, had no movie open this season.)

Mr. Ferrell bombed in "Land of the Lost," a $100 million comedy that sold only $49 million in tickets in North America. Ms. Roberts missed with "Duplicity," a $60 million thriller that attracted $40.6 million. "Angels & Demons" (Mr. Hanks) was soft. The same for "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" (Mr. Washington and Mr. Travolta).

"Imagine That," starring Mr. Murphy, was such a disaster that Paramount Pictures had to take a write-down. Mr. Sandler? His "Funny People" limped out of the gate and then collapsed.

Ha! Well, here's a clue as to what might be wrong: all of the films mentioned here, with the exception of Duplicity, sucked! But of course, their failure to make truckloads of cash is all the fault of modern technology.

"You look around the theater and can see the glow, not on people's faces from watching the movie, but on their chins - from the BlackBerrys and iPhones," said Mr. Guber. "They are immediately telling their friends whether it's worth their time. And the answer to that, more often than not, seems to be no."

So if the big movie star attached to a sub-par product method isn't working at the box office any longer, what's the secret to success? Make a product that's entertaining! The studio heads can sit around and bitch all they want about the internet is destroying their business because I can now blast a tweet from inside of a theater telling everyone how Funny People sucked ass, but that doesn't get to the root of the problem, which is their shitty product. On the flip side, make a movie that entertains people and then they will employ the same online tools to laud it and encourage all of their friends to go see it. You see how that works? Amazing, isn't it?

So how does Hollywood "entertain" people these days? By making films that are well-written and well-acted OR feature storylines that are too fast-moving and complex for most people to understand with massive explosions mixed in every 7 minutes or so. Either make smart films that stimulate and engage the mind or make extreme sensory stimuli films that reduce the mind to a blob of mush tucked inside of a thick skull. That's it. Like I said, it's really quite simple. Either way, just don't suck.

Pic via

Former Village Voice columnist Tricia Romano has a piece in Thursday's New York Times profiling the phenomenon created by Ryan Heffington, a "choreographer, performance artist and designer" who has created something called "Sweaty Sundays," a weekly aerobics, errr, dance class held in a performance space in the heart of LA's very own Williamsburg.

Here, members of this creative class - artists, photographers, fashion designers and screenwriters - dance off the previous night's excesses to a soundtrack of indie rock, techno, and 1980s new wave hits. And they do it while looking fabulous in Jane Fonda leg warmers and belted leotards.

"It's kind of an American Apparel ad come to life," said Terence McFarland, 40, the executive director of the Los Angeles Stage Alliance, who is a regular.

On a recent Sunday, Christopher Kreiling, a 33-year-old visual artist, was among the first to arrive. It was his first time, but he already had the look down: a pair of very short white corduroy shorts, a pink-and-white striped tank top and the all-important headband.

"I just had 10 cigarettes and a coffee," he said. "I'm like, ‘O.K., let's go.' "

Heffington says that the class has become so popular with the local idiots that he's added a second Sunday class as well as a weeknight one called "Wet Wednesdays." And don't fret over not being able to participate in the fun yourself if you don't happen to live in the LA area, because there's a DVD coming soon. Yippee!

Now, the real question the article about this hideous trend brings up is what will the Williamsburg hipsters do to top it? Sorry Williamsburg, but your little kickball and tetherball retro-fitness trends don't stand up against this. You all need to step it the hell up! Surely it's the lack of availability of things such as "Sweaty Sundays" that stokes Tricia Romano's smoldering hatred of New York. Win back her dark, jaded heart! Do it for New York!

EW.com reports that Paula's first post-resignation gig will be guest spot on Ugly Betty. She'll play a temp secretary who bonds with ditzy receptionist Amanda, who is basically Paula Abdul in a headset. Before then, she'll guest star on Drop Dead Diva, Lifetime's show about a woman who dies and finds herself without a job on America's most popular TV show, we mean, trapped in the body of a fat lawyer. Anyway, both sound ridiculous.

But the news today is that ABC wants more out of her than a guest starring role. Network head wants her not as a judge, but as a contestant on Dancing with the Stars and possibly with a show all her own. Oh, we can only dream!

Oh, and the New York Times reveals today that Paula left American Idol because of money concerns and because she never felt like she was appreciated. But then again, you knew that already.

Replacing Lyons and Mankiewicz as hosts of the long-running show, formerly hosted by Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, will be A.O. Scott of the New York Times and Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune, two men widely respected in the world of film criticism who have both served as fill-ins on the show in the past.

As the LA Times Patrick Goldstein notes, Ben Mankiewicz wasn't all that bad, but it appears as though he was brought down by the tremendous weight of Lyons' Herculean suckage.

To be fair, Mankiewicz, the scion of a fabled Hollywood family who hosts Turner Classic Movies presentations, was clearly more knowledgeable than his counterpart. As my colleague Chris Lee reported last December, Lyons, son of film critic Jeffrey Lyons, was held in such low esteem in the critical fraternity that others in the profession were lining up, happy to be quoted by name ridiculing his work, with Chicago-based film critic Erik Childress saying of Lyons: "He has no taste. Everyone thinks he's a joke."

So how awful was Ben Lyons? This awful:

You know what hurts a movie like Max Payne is the success of the Batman franchise. That obviously is about story and character so they think for all films of the genre it's gotta be about story and character and this whole backstory of him losing his wife. I don't care about that. I wanna see Max Payne shoot people. That's all I want from a movie like this.

Film lovers of the America rejoice — your own personal long national nightmare is finally over! But what will now become of the "Stop Ben Lyons" blog?

According to Brian Stelter of the New York Times, the goal of NBC's multimedia advertising assault is to transform his upcoming show's already sky-high level of public awareness into a tidal wave of frenzied anticipation. NBC executives want you counting down the days until the premiere of Leno's new show, they want you talking about it to your co-workers around the watercooler at work, they want you Twittering about it constantly, hell, they want you masturbating to Jay Leno (And you know that you want to!). But most of all, NBC executives want you to laugh, because your life is shit and you should laugh at Jay Leno's stupid jokes just to add an extra layer of shit to it all.

"For us this is like, in effect, launching five shows," Adam Stotsky, the president of NBC Entertainment marketing, said in an interview.

The network's strategic proposition for Mr. Leno's show is "life needs more laughter," Mr. Stotsky said.

"Most people are dealing with daily pressures, day-to-day drudgery; the economy's got them down, or they may be tiring of the crime time that exists across the 10 o‘clock landscape," Mr. Stotsky said. The comedy show "will be the antidote."

See! You all need more Jay Leno in the black hole of suck you call a life. There's no use denying it, so just bend over, bite down and take your Leno, because he's coming in hard.

NBC's promotional tactics for Mr. Leno involve infiltrating mundane activities and inserting Mr. Leno's mainstream humor. That's why the network made a push into movie theaters last weekend, most notably with a two-and-a-half minute segment on National CineMedia's advertisement reel that runs on 16,000 screens across the country.

Later in the month, Mr. Leno's bits of comedy will also appear on airplanes, at gyms, in elevators and in New York City taxi cabs. "These are moments that are just begging for a bit of laughter," Mr. Stotsky said.

You hear that America? Adam Stotsky and Jay Leno are coming to save you. Aren't you excited?!

The Late Shift, a 1996 HBO movie based on a book by the New York Times' Bill Carter, chronicled the infamous struggle between David Letterman and Jay Leno to replace Johnny Carson as the host of the Tonight Show after his retirement. Higgins, in an interview with Starpulse's Mike Ryan, said that he knew at the time he was offered the role that the film would be controversial and that he risked facing a backlash within the notoriously petty industry for taking the role, but at the time he was a struggling actor who desperately needed $300 to fix his broken-down car.

They had a hard time casting it for that reason. And he was very powerful — and is. He didn't like the project from the beginning and didn't make it easy for me — or for anyone doing that project. It was (pauses) it was hard. I took it because I needed to fix the steering column on my Subaru is why I took it. I needed $300 or I wouldn't have a steering wheel. So, I ended up making more than $300 but in the end it's one of those jobs you just can't... I could not turn it down. I may be able to turn it down now, but I couldn't at the time. It would just be completely crazy and irresponsible.

You know, it was scary. I was scared of it. No question. Actually, doing the job itself was a tricky acting challenge but I had had harder acting challenges onstage. That part wasn't so bad, it was the appendant hoopla which was difficult for me to navigate and I didn't do it that well because I was so inexperienced. There was a lot of press, there was a lot of interviews and comparing me. And [Letterman] was saying things about me on his television program. It was difficult. I didn't know what I was doing.

I had a lot of help from HBO's publicity department who was holding my hand through it because I suddenly was in a rather glaring spotlight. Mostly not because of the project, which was good, but it wouldn't have gotten all that press. It was mostly because of the nature of the project. An inside, big Hollywood story where people were actually getting represented on the screen. People who are alive and well.

It was a great opportunity and it was really daunting and scary. It was like, "Should I do this? This could end it all. This could start and end the whole thing." Thankfully, it didn't.

Higgins also said that Letterman has refused to speak to him in the years that have passed since, though he was booked to appear on Letterman's show, only to get bumped without explanation.

There was a famous incident where he invited me to the show and I got bumped off the show. Everyone sort of tried to figure out what happened there ... it's odd though, it's an interesting job. It's really interesting to industry people. To still be talking about a job I was in 12 years ago is very unusual.

Back in February, Letterman invited the mother of the late comedian Bill Hicks onto his show so he could apologize publicly for a slight he perpetrated upon Hicks back in 1993. Maybe one day Letterman can invite John Michael Higgins to join him on the air to talk about The Late Shift and put all of the animosity to rest. We think it's be a tremendously nice gesture, not to mention something that would make for very compelling television, don't you think?

John Michael Higgins Talks [Mike Ryan/Starpulse]

Seriously, the writing in adult films has gone to hell. Where have all the great porn screenwriters of yesteryear gone? What scourge against humanity, against everything that is righteous and good, could possibly compel humans to alter their porn consumption habits to the point that it becomes more viable economically for porn production companies to skip the dialogue and get straight to the boinking? Anyone have any guesses?

The actress known as Savanna Samson once relished preparing for a role. "I couldn't wait to get my next script," she said.

There's no reason to look at them anymore, she said, because her movies now call almost exclusively for action. Specifically, sex.

The pornographic movie industry has long had only a casual interest in plot and dialogue. But moviemakers are focusing even less on narrative arcs these days. Instead, they are filming more short scenes that can be easily uploaded to Web sites and sold in several-minute chunks.

"On the Internet, the average attention span is three to five minutes," said Steven Hirsch, co-chairman of Vivid Entertainment. "We have to cater to that."

Ahhhh, the internet, of course! Damn you stupid internet—You ruin everything!

Lights, Camera, Lots of Action. Forget the Script [New York Times]
pic of Sasha Gray and Belladonna via Fleshbot

In a piece on how web users are spending increasing amounts of time watching video on the web, Stelter credits Hollywood for the change in our viewing habits:

TV networks get much of the credit for the longer-length viewing behavior. In the past two TV seasons, nearly every broadcast show has been streamed free on the Internet, making users accustomed to watching TV online for 20-plus minutes at a time. By some estimates, one in four Internet customers now uses Hulu, an online home for NBC and Fox shows, every month. "Dancing With the Stars," the popular ABC reality show, draws almost two million viewers on ABC.com, according to Nielsen.

Stelter goes on to theorize that this Hollywood-inspired increase in time spent watching video on the web has led to much of the new scripted content on the web is being created independently, outside of the traditional, soul-sucking Hollywood development system.

The viral videos of YouTube 1.0 - dog-on-skateboard and cat-on-keyboard - are being supplemented by a new, more vibrant generation of online video. Production companies are now creating 10- and 20-minute shows for the Internet and writing story arcs for their characters - essentially acting more like television producers, while operating far outside the boundaries of a network schedule.

Much of the video innovation is coming from people who - empowered by inexpensive editing equipment and virtually no distribution costs - are creating content specifically for an online audience.

"On the Web, producers have this delicious freedom to produce content as long as it should be. They're starting to take advantage of that," (Blip.tv co-founder Dina) Kaplan said.

Though we agree with much of what Stelter says, one point we'd like to expand on that isn't addressed in Stelter's piece, something we addressed previously in a post titled "The End of Television as We Know It" back in May, is that we believe eventually someone will independently shoot and distribute an episodic series online that will become a cultural phenomenon, something people discuss around the proverbial water-cooler on a regular basis, and that will be the moment when the scale is officially tipped and the television networks run the risk of becoming little more than relics of a bygone era. How far off into the future is something like that happening is anyone's guess, but it certainly seems as though we're getting closer and closer with each passing day.

Rise of Web Video, Beyond Two-Minute Clips [New York Times]

Hathaway, coming off a much-deserved Oscar nomination for her performance in Rachel Getting Married, is starring in the Shakespeare in the Park production of Twelfth Night opening this week at the Delacorte Theater in Central Park. As a result, Hathaway was featured in a piece in Sunday's New York Times and is subject of this week's New York magazine cover feature.

About her gender-bending role in the play, Hathaway sounded, well, terrified in the Times piece.

"I have a double learning curve, not only because it's my first time with Shakespeare but because this is my first major theatrical production," Ms. Hathaway said. "So just staving off a nervous breakdown has been the main thing for me."

"A lot of people in the cast come up to me at the end of the week and ask how I'm feeling, and I kind of vomit emotions, and they say, ‘Oh, good, that's exactly where you should be,' " she said. "And I remember the first time a bug flew into my face at rehearsal, I turned to Dan and asked, for my own edification, ‘If a bug flies into our face, are we allowed to react or just be stoic?' He just said, ‘Use your discretion.' "

Ms. Hathaway still seemed a bit surprised and thrilled to be in the cast.

"Yeah," Ms. Hathaway said, "I think I live in constant fear of being revealed to be a fraud because I'm with not only exquisite experience, but actors who have so much stage experience. And people who have experience in the park, which is a whole different kind of expertise."

"I had a very naïve, really arrogant adolescent idea that I could do Shakespeare because I did one monologue in an acting class when I was 18," she said. "One thing that dawned on me early in this process: We were sitting around and sharing our knowledge of Shakespeare and some trivia, and I just realized that the study of Shakespeare is cumulative, and I felt really lucky to be getting my first crack at it at such a young age."

In the New York piece, Hathaway noted how she's long yearned to spread her dramatic wings by tackling stage roles and secretly harbors a desire to become a full-blown stage diva.

She likes the long rehearsals, she likes slipping off to the uptown Shake Shack with cast and crew. It's a bit of being the actress she imagined she'd be when, as a child in New Jersey, she decided to take after her mother, who acts in regional theater and has done so forever. "I hounded [Public Theater director] Oskar Eustis for years," she says. After Rachel, "I think it became more of a priority for him to get me onstage." Hathaway stirs her coffee. "I do hope that doesn't sound obnoxious."

Talk of other projects swirls around her, but she's coy about it. "I don't mean to be, but sometimes things don't work out in the end, and then people think it's because you hate someone, and I don't hate anyone!"

It has, however, been confirmed that she'll be playing Judy Garland on Broadway, and that seems about right.

"This is so embarrassing, but one of the waitresses just walked by with a glass of white wine and I almost reached out and grabbed it. It would be lovely to have a bit of release, but no. I have to go to rehearsal. I don't want to be the girl who shows up tipsy. But wouldn't it be fun? Wouldn't it be fun someday to be a grande dame who can get away with anything?"

We think she'll do just fine and we look forward to seeing her perform in the play. Now, who wants $50 to go out and wait in line for a ticket for us, because we don't have time for that crap.

The Three Sisters of Twelfth Night [New York Times]
Her Enchanted Evenings [New York]

In an email sent out tonight by one of the organizers, Palin pal John Ziegler, the group claimed victory and implied that the fight has only just begun:

This is John Ziegler, the Los Angeles radio talk show host and documentary film producer who went to New York to speak at Tuesday's rally outside the taping of David Letterman's show.

I wanted give you some major news about this cause. Despite the media doing their very best to try and diminish our efforts and pretend that the issue is dead, several the members of this list have received e-mails from "Olive Garden" announcing to them in very strong language that the restaurant chain is pulling their advertising from David Letterman's show for at least the remainder of the year.

We hope/expect that this major development will create some news coverage on Thursday and hopefully other advertisers will follow suit if you keep the pressure on.

Regardless, congratulations!! You have already made an impact and we still have a chance for some sense of accountability and justice here.

Ziegler then went on to offer his followers a treat for all of their hard work, a discount on some stupid DVD he's been going around peddling:

As a big thank you for those of you who have supported this cause, I would like to offer you a special discount on my highly acclaimed (endorsed, on air, by both Governor Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh) documentary on the media coverage of the 2008 election which got me involved into this issue to begin with.

How many of the sheep receiving Ziegler's email do you think are actually stupid enough to buy his garbage? Just curious.

Regardless, Zeigler's email points a major flaw in Olive Garden's claims that the termination of their Late Show ad buying just so happened to coincide with the protests—The fact that an executive at the company sent out emails filled with "very strong language" announcing their allegiance to a handful of extra-chromosome wingnuts and disgruntled Hillary supporters. A flack for Olive Garden told the Times' Bill Carter that the person who sent the emails to the group, company guest relations manager Sherri Bruen, isn't "an authorized spokesperson for the company." Yeah, okay. Can we just go ahead and call "shenanigans" now on this?

This is all so unfortunate—On the handful of occasions in life where I've eaten at Olive Garden I've really enjoyed those breadsticks and that gluttonous never-ending pasta bowl thing. Too bad I'll never eat there again.

Olive Garden Backtracks on David Letterman Ads [Politico]
Olive Garden Says It Did Not Cancel Ads on the Letterman Show [New York Times]

Ed Wyatt, we hear, didn't show up at the party. So, uh, everything is fine now. Forget this little "Party At Sony Exec's House" ever happened. Just forget it. Unless you were there, in which case, email us.
[The whole story]

Now, to the untrained eye this may appear to be that ancient, hibernating specimen called a "conflict of interest." When we called up Steinhauer to ask if she thought it was, she said, "Jamie Lynton [wife of Michael] is one of my oldest friends" and asked semi-rhetorically, "Do I cover the movie beat?"

The Times' Hollywood coverage is run by its culture desk, while Steinhauer answers to the national desk. "I don't have anything to do with the cultural coverage," she said. But that's where her husband, New York Times Hollywood reporter Ed Wyatt works; Steinhauer pointed out that her husband covers TV, not movies, so this shouldn't conflict him.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Well! This is one of those cases where only extremely smart people can understand that this is fine. For example, Sony Pictures also makes television shows, which, we've established is what Ed Wyatt, Jennifer Steinhauer's husband, covers. He just wrote a story about Sony Pictures on March 23, in which Michael Lynton was quoted. Maybe it would be better if his wife—who also happens to be the NYT's L.A. bureau chief (we're being repetitive on purpose)—did not allow the head of Sony Pictures to host her book parties?

Of course, the NYT is far more expert in this issue than we are! Bernie Weinraub, their old Hollywood correspondent, is married to Amy Pascal— who heads Sony's movie studio. Before he retired in 2005, he also claimed to only cover television. So they know what they're doing here.

It may be that Sony Pictures executives are so inherently interesting, and honest, that NYT staffers based in LA naturally gravitate towards them. Which, okay then! Anybody can have any friends they want. But you can't have any job you want, always. The Times has already been embarrassed by its staffers' speaking fees this week. Sometimes it's better to have an abundance of caution, rather than no caution.

It's brutal. Carter wrote around the quotes and got exactly what he wanted: to write a Riot-Act level piece capable of inciting the pitchfork-wielding masses of Hollywood suits, gossips, and former NBC employees who want a Blackberry lodged through Silverman and Jeff Zucker's skulls (and put on display prominently at the NBC-Universal commissary). The title alone ("NBC Hired a Hit Maker. It's Still Waiting.") is fairly cruel. But then again, so was what he managed to get. For the first time, we're seeing less signs of Silverman hanging himself out to dry, and what might be the first instances of a somewhat apologetic-sounding Jeff Zucker beginning to try and swim to shore on Ben. Yes, Zucker is now trying to save his own ass:

Jeff Zucker, Mr. Silverman's boss and the chief executive of NBC Universal, says he continues to value Mr. Silverman's work. "Ben has a skill set that is incredibly appropriate for these times," he said. "If we weren't supportive of Ben, he wouldn't be here."

Still, the fact that there has been no formal deal announced to renew Mr. Silverman's contract will probably set off speculation among Mr. Silverman's critics that Mr. Zucker does not want to make a public endorsement of him.

As for his personal life, Mr. Silverman said he had taken steps to temper his social profile, which made him a frequent target in the Hollywood blogosphere. (He famously held a party populated by models in bikinisand white tigers in cages.) "I am more conscious of how I'm being presented," he said.

The off-hand remarks:

He was quoted dismissing two network competitors as "D-girls" - or low-level development executives. "I should never have called them that," Mr. Silverman said.

Silverman's goal posts:

...In its current position, still last among the major networks, NBC needs up, not flat; it also had the Super Bowl this season and it won't next year. To pick up [the] slack, it will require something (or several somethings) shiny and successful out of Mr. Silverman's shop.

...as well as his removal from the day-to-day of developing and green-lighting shows, the programming failures (though there is some praise reserved for his success with The Biggest Loser and The Office, both of which arrived via him, before he got to NBC). Oh, and then there's this gem, which makes Silverman sound like he showed up to work on the first day in boardshorts, ready to rock the lot with a set of aged cedar bongos under his arms:

"What I didn't realize is, it's really hard to have a vision running a network," Mr. Silverman said. "You can have an agenda. But it's almost impossible to have a vision because of the scale of the business and the entropy that already exists."

What the hell were Zucker and Silverman thinking giving anything - quotes, on the record or off - to Carter in the first place? How did they not know he was gonna hang them out to dry? If anything, this is throwing a propane tank on the coals: the piece in it of itself represents a massive fuckup on both of their parts, and Silverman - probably sitting at home right now, face in a Pyrex - will inevitably go deeper into hiding from being the programming rockstar he once saw himself as, and further into the dark, cavernous corridors of his advertisers' offices to do the "business stuff" he imaginably despises. It doesn't help that they included a chart (pictured below) to show how terrible of a job Silverman's doing. Growing up: bummer, man.

">

An earlier version of this article incorrectly included entrepreneur Stephen Bing as a participant to testify before a grand jury.

Someone's lawyers called a certain major newspaper! Bing is always quick to 'correct' unflattering stories about him in the press.

So let it be known: scuzzy rich real estate heir, developer, and major Democratic party fundraiser Steve Bing will not testify to the grand jury about how he hired criminal wiretapping private eye Anthony Pellicano for some sort of matter related to his messy paternity case with Elizabeth Hurley while Pellicano was secretly actually working for billionaire Kirk Kerkorian, who was paying Pellicano to figure out that Kerkorian's ex-wife's daughter was actually fathered by Bing. For the record!

A tipster tells us that more layoffs are coming down at Viacom today: "They are cleaning house at VH1/MTV Linked Group right now. Like more than half the people involved with the website and the video just got laid off. HR is making appointments to call every freelancer this afternoon." Skeery. If you have more info, email us.
UPDATE: Another tipster adds: "Freelancers are being called in because when they hit their 9 mon point they have to leave. They can come back 3 mon later and be considered a new hire. They're trying to get rid of the perma-lancer thing that went down Dec. 07 but still not hire anyone as staff."

Some freelancers were given a 3 mon extension on their contract but they can only be given it once before HR gives them the axe.


An analyst thinks the New York Times Co. could raise $1.2 billion by selling the Boston Globe, Worcester Telegram & Gazette, its new headquarters building, and its stake in the Red Sox. On one hand it would mean taking a huge loss on those assets, but on the other hand $1.2 billion is not that bad, considering that it's more than the market cap of the NYT Co.

Keith Kelly confirms our rumor from yesterday about Newsweek closing its London bureau. He also says that Newsweek staffers are pissed they had to read about their magazine's big redesign in a New York Times story. Which is understandable. Is that how the Historical Jesus would act?


Five large NY/ NJ newspapers including the New York Daily News and the Newark Star-Ledger are all going to share content with each other, probably so that some of them can lay off some reporters.

Playboy had an atrocious fourth quarter, losing $145 million, and now says that it's "open" to discussion of selling its flagship magazine. They should really have to change the company name if they do that.

According to a media executive with direct knowledge of the meeting, a principal in one of the Valcon private equity firms floated the idea of a purchase by The New York Times at a meeting of the Times' board of directors this week. (I cannot reveal the identity of the executive to protect the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.)

But that doesn't sound like the right fit to me. The New York Times is not in the business-to-business business. And I'm not sure why a big media company saddled with a core print business would take on more dead-tree properties.

Duh, recycling money! Anybody got a few Diet Coke cans to kick over to the beleaguered folks at the Reporter?

• Hollywood Reporter is For Sale: NYT gets the pitch [Waxword]