GIVE ME CINEMA OR GIVE ME DEATH! CRUISE/WAGNER BEGINS PLOT TO TAKE OVER WORLD!
by Whiting Tattoon
This news was too big to pass over and write about something as silly as the purpose of this website and its content. As many of you have heard by now, Tom Cruise and his producing partner Paula Wagner have been tapped by private financiers to resurrect the currently dormant UA Studios (United Artists). While many rip the couch-dancing fanatic as a lunatic at best and an automaton at worst (or was I the only one who did that?), I couldn’t be tickled any pinker if I was Paris Hilton with a case of Grey Goose and a German Chauffeur named Der Kommisar.
For those of you who don’t know, before the conglomeratization of Hollywood, UA was an artist’s studio. Originally formed by Douglas Fairbanks, Charlie Chaplin, D.W. Griffith and Mary Pickford, UA was a haven for artists who wanted to make movies with artistic freedom (read: far, far away from studios, studio execs, and anyone or anything else intent on homogenizing and corrupting meaningful cinema). UA’s high point, as astutely pointed out by Claudia Eller in the LA Times, was the 60’s and 70’s. They put out such fantastic films as West Side Story, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Midnight Cowboy, Rocky, Annie Hall, and the James Bond and Pink Panther franchises (though, in retrospect, I have been a little pissy with UA because NO WAY Annie Hall beats Star Wars as the best film of the year). They also did Heaven’s Gate, but that was in 1980 when it was owned by insurance conglomerate Transamerica Corp, so we’ll pretend the whole thing never happened and pin it on the corporation. The only thing insurance salesmen know about film is that Tom Cruise isn’t allowed to do his own stunts or they shut the film down faster than you can say Mission Impossible IV (which is the key to reviving the flagging franchise: give it the Roman numeral – it says prestige, it says class, it says Get in Line You Don’t Want to Miss This!).
“What does all this mean,” you ask? “Who cares,” you say? “Pass the salt,” you mutter? Listen. I don’t care how daffy Tommy’s behaving. I don’t care if he runs around in a tiara, tutu and bunny slippers, holding a slobbery Ritz cracker aloft screaming “Cracker!” in Times Square – he and Paula are artists running a studio. And if you don’t understand what that means, just trust me in knowing it’s a very important and exciting thing. Sure, they have limitations. According to the esteemed Mizz Eller, they will only be able to greenlight films under $60M. But you know what? That’s where the great movies are made. In general, budgets don’t need to be higher than that. The higher budgets usually mean star salaries, which usually means studio tentpoles, special effects, action over substance – all the trappings that make studio films bland, formulaic, pedantic, mind-numbing and generic. People will undoubtedly point at that budget ceiling as a negative – say it’s because they can’t be trusted with bigger budgets, they don’t know what they’re doing, running a studio and producing a movie are like night and day. Media analyst Harold Volger was even quoted as saying, “Good for Tom – it’s a great press release. But it’s little beyond a press release and the revival of a moribund label that happened to be available.” Cynicism at its finest. Normally, I’m more than happy to jump on the cynic bandwagon, particularly when it comes to politicians or multi-national conglomerates. But Harold, the old dear, is missing the point. He can pooh-pooh it, sweep it under the rug, dismiss it and all the other whatnot. But in so doing he’s missing the point entirely: talent has control. I don’t care how much. It’s happened. Every time the studios choke the life out of film, independent film and the artists who make it happen rise up and alter the landscape – and this might be Tom and Paula’s chance to do just that. This could be the dawning of a new age – or Harold may be right, it may be a blip on the radar that never amounts to anything. But let’s celebrate the possibility, revel in the chance that Tom’s lunacy can inspire genius and alter the landscape of film production, if even for only a little while. The world is full of negativity, full of people saying you can’t do it, you’ll fail, etc. All based on what? On it having never happened before? Or because somewhere along the line someone else tried it and failed? Genius often comes from the most unexpected places, so before the idea gets kyboshed, let’s celebrate it as a victory for artists everywhere and pray that more chances like this are on the horizon. Isn’t that better than living in an age when studios make producers out of hacks proffering hackneyed reviews on-line just so they can earn studio perks, end up with producer deals, and speak highly of the coming slate? The Producing deal is dangled like Modern-Day Payola to the influential. If that’s normal, if that’s something that has more credence than the revival of UA, then I just might pack up my laptop and move to Montana and do me some ranching.
Whiting Tattoon is meant to be applied topically. If Whiting Tattoon is inadvertently ingested, induce vomiting and contact your physician immediately. Or email him directly at Whiting@fantasymoguls.com.


I'm totally on the same page as you here : it IS some kind of victory. I always wondered what had happened to UA (not being really knowledgeable on the details of the cinema scene) and I think Tom Cruise is onto something here. To be honest, I do put a lot of faith in the guy, as I think he has a lot of creativity and artistry in there. The fact that artists own some sort of a studio is really a plus, and I think Tom is finally showing his true colours : he is an actor that actually loves cinema, and is hardly the young boy we knew from Cocktail anymore. He now wants to see art made again... not like some of these actors who really still just want to act for a big salary.
And if it amounts to nothing? Well, as you say, at least the prospect is there : so I celebrate with you.
Posted by: Rug | July 11, 2007 at 01:32 PM