There’s an expression a dog wears when it’s done something wrong that you haven’t found out about yet, as it slinks over to cower in its basket, hoping you won’t notice. For some reason, that’s kind of what it feels like when films like this week’s John Cusack-starrer “Shanghai,” or last month’s Jean-Pierre Jeunet-directed “The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet” limp into theaters after a long time out of sight, presumably spent chewing on your dress shoes upstairs. Both those titles were MIA for a long time after they’d been finished and even released in other territories; both come pre-infused with an almost palpable aura of defeat; and neither has received much in the way of a marketing push. And there’s one other thing both films share—they are being put out (in the sense of both “distributed” and “doused as one would a fire”) by The Weinstein Company.
Jeunet has already been outspoken about TWC’s mistreatment of his film (which to be fair, we didn’t think very much of), saying “Harvey Weinstein is still pissed off because I refused to reedit my film… I have the final cut. I always choose this specifically to avoid this kind of problem, but with Mr. Weinstein you never avoid this kind of problem, of course.” Mikael Håfström’s starrier “Shanghai,” which was a 2010 title in China, got a last-minute trailer a week ago and will be in select (i.e. not many) theaters this weekend. And the list of shelved, delayed and quietly put-in-a-sack-and-drowned movies that the Weinsteins have been responsible for does not end there. With the high-profile debacle of “Grace of Monaco” (review) eventually skulking onto the Lifetime Channel in May, and with the U.S. fate of one-time Oscar hopeful “Suite Francaise” starring Michelle Williams still unknown despite it having played overseas already, this year alone has seen its fair share of Weinstein doghousing.
It’s a fascinating phenomenon, especially because it is so handily ascribed to one of the most divisive, domineering and downright successful dog trainers in the business: Big Harvey himself. The larger-than-life ex-Miramax, now-Weinstein Company honcho is such a striking personality that he’s inspired nicknames (“Harvey Scissorhands”), lawsuits (from Michael Moore, among others) and even thinly veiled threats from mild-mannered Japanese animators (ok fine, Miyazaki sent him that Samurai sword, with the words “no cuts” on it as a joke, but still…). He is also endlessly entertaining and, seemingly lacking the diplomacy gene that makes so many studio heads sound so mealy-mouthed by comparison, he’s damn good copy. So because “Shanghai” got us thinking about the chilly place that his disfavor must be, here are the stories behind 16 of the Bad Dogs from Harvey Weinstein’s kennels.
“Dead Man”
What is it? Jim Jarmusch‘s twangy, elegiac black-and-white western about a man called William Blake (Johnny Depp) on a psycho-spiritual journey across the Old West accompanied by a Native American called Nobody (Gary Farmer).
What the hell went wrong? Since he’s the very rare filmmaker who insists on full ownership of his films, perhaps it’s strange that Jarmusch ever got into bed with Miramax. But then again, this was 1996, and Weinstein did not perhaps have the rep for meddling the way he now does —the gloss was still very much on the Miramax project at that point, and one can see why his apparent distribution Midas touch might have been tempting to a filmmaker who had just contended with his biggest-ever budget (pocket lint by Hollywood standards, but still). For Weinstein’s part, the appeal was obvious: massive indie credibility from Jarmusch + Johnny Depp at peak teen heartthrob status + classy arthouse black-and-white with impeccable behind-camera credentials = surely the kind of crossover, award-laden indie hit that Miramax was built on. And it surely would have been, had Jarmusch just been more reasonable about making the cuts that Weinstein, in his infinite wisdom, requested he make [sarcasm emoji —the film is fucking perfect as is and Jarmusch was right to not alter a single frame].
How did it all shake out? As punishment for not toeing the line, “Dead Man” was released as though “with tongs,” in the words of J.Hoberman, and limped into a halfhearted and largely unsupported limited release. Despite being the most expensive Jarmusch movie to that point ($9m budget), and starring an immensely bankable Johnny Depp, and indeed being one of his all-time greatest films (according to our retrospective anyway), the film only yielded just over $1m, making it the second-worst performing Jarmusch film ever.
Bitterness Level: 8/10. In a 2004 interview for The Guardian, the famously independent Jarmusch had this to say: “We had a problem because I sold him a finished film that was produced by my company, and then he wanted me to change it and I’d already signed a contract that he was distributing the film as is. He just bullied me, and I don’t like bullies…. [but then] he apologised and sent me a bottle of champagne and said “let’s not disrespect each other in print,” and I said, OK, let’s let it go now.” However, when asked if that means he disrespects Weinstein when he’s not speaking to the press, Jarmusch replied “Well, everyone disrespects him privately.”
“Snowpiercer”
What is it? The English-language debut of Korean genre-bending master Bong Joon-Ho (“Memories Of Murder,” “The Host”), this allegorical sci-fi saw the have-nots (Chris Evans, Octavia Spencer, Jamie Bell) attempting to overthrow the haves (represented by Tilda Swinton) on a train containing the last of humanity in a post-apocalyptic icy wilderness.
What the hell went wrong? Financed mostly with Korean money but with primarily an English-speaking cast, Bong’s big-scale sci-fi picture was a tantalizing proposition, and The Weinstein Company seemed to agree, picking up rights to the movie in November 2012 with the aim of a wide release in summer of 2013. The film went on release as planned in Korea at that time to rave reviews and strong box office, but soon word emerged that Weinstein, as is often the case, wanted to remove his magic 20 minutes from the movie, stripping out character detail, along with some additional voiceover. He has often pulled this trick with his Asian genre pick-ups, hoping to maximise their appeal and the amount of showings he could screen. Bong remained diplomatic, saying “Weinstein is actually being pretty soft about editing,” but other cast members like Swinton and John Hurt weighed in to support him.
How did it all shake out? Weinstein appeared to have been playing hardball, preventing the movie from playing at TIFF in its original form, and testing the shorter cut he favored. But his ammunition must have weakened somewhat when the film’s Korean producers tested the director’s cut and it received higher scores than the trimmed down version. In the end, Bong didn’t have final cut and the Weinsteins agreed to release the movie untouched, but plans for a wide release were scrapped, with the company’s subsidiary Radius-TWC putting it out in the summer of 2014, and in a pioneering move, released it on VOD a few weeks later. It made a decent $4.5 million domestically and twice as much on VOD, but it’s still less than the crossover hit that was hoped for.
Bitterness Level? For Bong? A low 2/10: he told us in an interview that stories of clashes were “exagerrated,” and that he would “jump at the chance” to work with Weinstein again. Whether the film’s smaller release reflected a degree of bitterness for Weinstein isn’t clear —to this day, the film’s never been released in the UK, where he also holds the rights.
“The Yards”/“The Immigrant”
What Are They? The second and fifth movies, respectively, from oft-underappreciated, adored-in-Europe auteur James Gray —the first a sophisticated crime tale with Mark Wahlberg, Joaquin Phoenix and Charlize Theron, the second a lavish period love triangle with Phoenix, Marion Cotillard and Jeremy Renner.
What the hell went wrong? Hotly tipped after his debut “Little Odessa,” Gray was initially set to make “The Yards” at Fox Searchlight, but when that studio dropped it, Weinstein’s Miramax stepped in with a healthy $17 million budget. But according to Gray, the super-producer “made every major decision from beginning to end. It’s all top down, starting with him.” The film was completed in September 1998 but wasn’t test screened for months (Miramax alleged at the time that Gray was late in finishing his edit, and Gray said that Weinstein didn’t come to screenings of the film). Reshoots were eventually agreed upon, at the price of the director consenting to do an additional movie for the company, but the process continued to be tumultuous —the studio asked for an 83 minute streamlined version closer to a thriller, though it ended up testing worse than the original. Gray didn’t make another movie for seven years after the film finally hit theaters in 2000, but even then it was a surprise to see him six years later reteaming with Weinstein for period drama “The Immigrant,” bought after the film wrapped by The Weinstein Company on the strength of the all-star cast. Unlike with the earlier picture, Gray refused to change the film, saying “I learned my lesson after ‘The Yards.’”
How did it all shake out? Poorly —“The Yards” debuted at Cannes, but got mixed reviews, and Gray suggested that Weinstein abandoned the film after that: it was released in 150 theaters without street posters or TV ads, and the film’s official premiere wasn’t attended by anyone from Miramax, according to the director. It failed to make more than $1 million at the box office. “The Immigrant” suffered a similar fate: the Cannes notices were a little more positive, but it seemed clear that it was an awards-long shot, and the film was held up for nearly a year. It too never played in more than 150 theaters: (“[they] chose to release the movie in a particular way based on the fact that I was not going to change the film,” Gray told Hammer To Nail), and initially went without an awards campaign, until Weinstein belatedly launched one for Cotillard after a number of critics’ group wins.
Bitterness Level: 6/10. Gray told the LA Times after “The Yards” that he was “not bitter.” After “The Immigrant,” Gray was a little less positive, praising Weinstein’s love of cinema in an interview, but responding to the question “so you guys have a good working relationship then?” with a muted “Harvey and I know each other well.”
