Who Does It Reflect? Pollack/Minghella -vs- Rudin/Weinstein
This is an original essay by Movie Smackdown! contributor Joe Rassulo
One always wonders, at least in the business of making films, how much difference a Producer makes if film is ultimately a director’s medium and ultimately a writer’s descent into hell. We have an interesting case at this year’s Oscars.
No one truly expected “The Reader” to snag one of the best picture nominations. It has not been an overwhelming critical favorite or a significant audience favorite. It is, however, the only movie on the list we haven’t seen before, that disturbs us deeply as we struggle with its moral ambiguity. And it continues to slowly earn its praise and its viewers because of that. With help, of course, from Kate Winslet’s amazing ability to make so unlikable a character burrow so deeply under our skin until we see ourselves in her, like it or not.
The tragedy that has struck this film historically is now renown. Its two producers, industry giants Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella, both died before the film was completed or released. They were the duo that shepherded this film and all its components into being. It was their sensibilities, their talent, their perseverance, and their belief in the talent assembled (including director Daldry and writer Hare) to bring an uncompromising, unusual, and unforgettable film to all of us.
Now, as the story goes, Scott Rudin and Harvey Weinstein stepped in after the deaths of Pollack and Minghella to finish the job they started. And, as we all now know, their behemoth like egos clashed with Harvey the Bull besting Scott the Screamer. Rudin removed himself from the equation and the credits when Weinstein won the fight to rush the film to completion to get it into the Oscar race. And, given his penchant for forcing feeding films to the Academy, Harvey once again succeeded, much to Rudin’s chagrin and, we can only imagine, amazement.
But whom does this film’s essence really reflect regardless of the Oscar outcome? The Gentlemen Producers or the Gangster Producers?
The resumes of all exhibit great films among the lesser ones, great talent among the average and great choices mixed with regrettable ones. But, in reference to "The Reader," its subtly, nuance, duality of moral conscience, emotional heartbreak, and contemporary significance can only be the result of those of similar tendencies among its Lineage. The complexities of personalities that have long fought the good fight in a gentleman’s manner, whose instincts lie not in bullying or badgering friends and enemies alike, but in listening and nurturing, not by bruising the best of talent but by understanding and tolerating the talent of the best. Films, ultimately, are like children. They reflect their parents, their environment, the love they have received. And while some manage to overcome the worst of abusive surrogates, most never do.
I congratulate Rudin and Weinstein for their contributions, regardless of style, for bringing The Reader to Market.
But I acknowledge Minghella and Pollack for their contributions in “raising” a work of art that is, in my mind, the centerpiece of that market. Much as they were the centerpiece in the lives of all who touched them.
"The Reader" is a proper and beautiful eulogy to their significance as people of conscience, reflection and love. And it is, in my mind, the Best Picture of the Year.
