DEFAMER: There's a legend that Harvey Weinstein dispatched an associate to buy the rights to The Reader, saying not to come back without them. How soon after you were familiar with the book did you know you wanted to direct its adaptation?

STEPHEN DALDRY: Just as soon as I read the book. It was not immediately after it was published; it was a couple of years later. I immediately started to phone up to see who had the rights, and it was my old friend Anthony Minghella. I asked what he wanted to do with it, and he said he wanted to do it himself — write and direct it. And so I kept badgering him over the years: "Are you going to make it, or are you not? What's happening?" I think in the end Anthony realized he wan't going to get around to it for at least a few more years, and he felt a responsibility to [author Bernhard] Schlink to get it made at some point. He eventualy relented very generously and allowed me to make it, with him and [Minghella's producing partner] Sydney Pollack.

D: 36-year-old Hanna's seduction of 15-year-old Michael has proven pretty controversial in the last week, essentially hijacking the discussion of why these two have a relationship in the first place. Do you resent that the conversation has taken that turn?

SD: It's funny, isn't it? Did you watch Mr. Schlink's interview with Oprah Winfrey when the book first came out? The first thing Oprah started talking about was the abuse. Interestingly enough in that interview, it took Mr. Schlink some time before he realized that what Oprah was talking about was not the atrocities Hanna was involved in, but rather the abuse of a 15-year-old boy. He was slightly taken aback, and later said, "This seems to be a peculiarly American question."

But the key element of that relationship is the sins of of the past — not the sins of the relationship. Does the boy love her profoundly and maybe too much because it's his first love? Yes, he probably does. Should she be involved with a 15-year-old boy? Inevitably, different cultures will have different ideas about that. And I do understand that it's a bigger moral issue in America than it might be in other societies. Having said that, I think I'd be disingenuous if I didn't say yes — there is a controlling element about a 36-year-old woman having a relationship with a 15-year-old boy. But I don't think the subject of this story is child abuse. And of course he's not a child; he's going on a 16-year-old sexual being.

D: At least it's deflected some attention from the Scott Rudin/Harvey Weinstein meltdown a couple months ago. As the filmmaker, what was your impression of that imbroglio at the time, and how do you think it impacted the final product?

SD: I don't think it did impact the final product. It's funny, isn't it? I spent two years on this. People talk about the sex scenes, and we took two days shooting those. People talk about the argument between Harvey and Scott, and that took two weeks. In the overall scheme of things, these aren't necessarily pivotal moments for me. In finishing the film, we absolutely did need more time, and Scott was absolutely fantastic — and in the end, so was Harvey — in getting a solution that we were all very happy with. So the fact that subsequently, Harvey and Scott couldn't get on, was a sadness for those two. But it came to a very happy resolution for me.

D: These guys tangled over your film The Hours, too. Did you ever see this coming, or at least have any reassurances early on that such pyrotechnics could be avoided on The Reader?

SD: Yeah, I've been through it with them, and I know how they do it; they have a good old time! I'm just being ridiculous, but yes — they have a combative relationship. There certainly wasn't a creative burden. It was more a practical point about resources and time. And neither of those two were my immediate producers. My immediate producers were Anthony Minghella and Sydney Pollack.

D: What was your reaction when Rudin took his name off the film?

SD: I thought it was absolutely the best thing for him, given the potential meltdown those two were heading into on a personal level.

D: To what extent do distractions like these — especially all the awards-race politics — rattle your faith as a filmmaker?

SD: It's only in the United States. To be frank, the discussion only happens when I get to Los Angeles. I'm sure that the infighting on movies is much more interesting here than it is anywhere else in the world. You have to take it all with a big pinch of salt. I don't think one can worry too much about it. It would, again, be disingenuous of me if I suggested that I'm not aware there's a marketing advantage to the so-called "awards season." But I think that one has to perceive it as a marketing exercise, not get caught up in the idea that it's too important. I don't come to Los Angeles very much, but what's great about it is that everybody's sort of here, and it's like a mini-film festival. Everybody's rushing from screening to screening, and you meet your friends, and there's something rather collegiate about it — not a competition. It's rather lovely.

Patrick Goldstein has the news at his blog, though details are foggy and fairly speculative; pretty much everyone knows by now how fiercely Rudin and Weinstein loathe each other, with both Weinstein and his pocketbook suffering last week as Rudin's authentic hate mail made the tabloid rounds. But contumely is the coin of the realm with these guys. As sure as their awkward public detente of 11 days ago was bullshit, couldn't they just as easily keep their mouths shut for two months as director Stephen Daldry went about his post-production business for a Dec. 12 opening?

Ha. Like The Reader isn't just any movie — it's the final co-production of the late Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella, and the film for which Harvey wants star Kate Winslet to compete against herself for an Oscar next year — these aren't just any tyrants. Someone to had to win, and win now. Goldstein notes that Rudin's talent relationships (Winslet, Daldry and screenwriter David Hare in particular) couldn't withstand the now-regular strafing, adding that Daldry isn't necessarily equipped to complete the film without Rudin guarding his back from a Harvey incursion.

But finish it he will, under contract, assuming Dec. 12 still stands. If so, it's a worst-case scenario for everyone involved: Daldry will rush it, Winslet won't promote it, Rudin won't discuss it and Weinstein will drop the equivalent of a late-term abortion on a skeptical critical corps that can't wait to watch him burn through the last of his nine lives. It's not the film's fault, but hey. it's always the children who pay.

• New Shock Wave Hits 'The Reader' [Big Picture]

The contents may in fact be untrue — just Rudin doing his malevolent macher business as usual. Harvey's survived worse. Alas, the e-mail itself turned out to be quite real, as Nikki proved last night in a post to Deadline Hollywood Daily. But what about Rudin's Page Six denial? Oh, that? Never mind:

Scott Rudin confirmed to me Monday night that it is his email describing Harvey Weinstein's alleged callous treatment of the late Anthony Minghella's and the deceased Sydney Pollack's families. Rudin also claimed to me that HW's people all day pestered him "to protect Harvey and deny the email and lie to Page Six" — so he told me he did "in order to keep peace for the next weeks that the two of us still have to work together on The Reader."

Yowza! Let this be a lesson to always use pencil when updating your Rudin/Weinstein Blood Feud Scorecard. To recap: After resurgently pushing The Reader into the '08 Oscar race, Harvey Weinstein lays million-dollar odds that his mortal enemy Scott Rudin could go another three or four months without publicly fucking him. (At least he didn't threaten to shoot himself this time, though he might be wishing he had.) Rudin, meanwhile, one of the most press-savvy moguls in town — with Harvey's own cutthroat Miramax publicity alums on retainer — lies to Page Six (and, by extension, Variety, the LA Times and everyone else for that matter) to protect... Harvey?

Is this a joke? We know they have e-mail, but don't these people have phones? Is this the new wave of Oscar strategy: Set your film up for an impossible delivery date, alienate your lead and the press, and spend a tenth of your awards-season budget on accidental philanthropy? We knew Harvey was a trailblazer, and maybe the fumes are burning our eyes too much to see the genius here. Moreover, perhaps that's the point; one thing pretty much everyone can agree on at this point is that this is a playbook written in Braille.

• Harvey: Blog Story's 'Insane' [NYP]
• Harvey Weinstein's Offer I Can't Refuse [DHD]

No word yet on whether or not Winslet will promote The Reader so close to Sam Mendes's Revolutionary Road or what kind of platform release the film faces with MGM out of the picture, but official word from Rudin, Weinstein and Daldry after the jump suggests at least three-quarters of a happy family:

The Joint statement released Sunday was kind of lovely in an eerie, WTF way: "We are issuing this statement together to emphasize the fact that we are in complete agreement on the date we have chosen to release The Reader," said Rudin and Weinstein. "Working together, we developed a plan to extend the post-production schedule in order to give Stephen Daldry the additional time he needs to successfully complete the film in time to release it on December 12, 2008."

One report places that extended schedule at a full month, overlapping with Daldry's current adaptation of Billy Elliott for Broadway. By all indications, a Factory Girl-esque race to final cut was the last thing the director wanted (at least he can skip the reshoots), but he's got his public happy face on for now. "On their own, Scott and Harvey spent this weekend working together to find a way to accommodate my needs so that I may fulfill my obligation to the studio without compromising my vision for the film," he said. "I am thrilled and relieved that we have all found a way forward to work together to bring The Reader to theaters this year."

Great — The Harvey Renaissance is back on! Let's keep it this way, Fanboys notwithstanding.