In the arts, the critic is the only independent source of information. The rest is advertising.
Pauline Kael, 1973
Nearly three weeks afterTitanic
won 11 Academy Awards, the question that burns most brightly isnt how much money the behemoth will eventually earn, but what theL.A. Times
will do once interest in the movie and its box-office receipts diminishes. In the past six months, theTimes
has published a whopping 183 stories in whichTitanic
and James Cameron were both mentioned. While most of these articles, including stories on events like the Directors Guild nominations, made only passing reference to the blockbuster, 36 were devoted exclusively to the movie, its director, actors, the two studios that produced the film and theTitanic
phenomenon itself. By comparison, during the same period, theTimes
published just four articles on James BrooksAs Good as It Gets
, including Kenneth Turans review and a squib on its premiere. On Saturday, March 28, in a remarkable move, theTimes
Calendar section published a by-now infamous front-page letter by Cameron about Turan in which the director essentially called for the critic to be fired. "Forget about Clinton," Cameron blustered, "how do we impeach Kenneth Turan?" It was a shocking if not entirely surprising assault, made all the more entertaining by the fact that it was difficult to know who was the bigger jackass the director or the editorial parties responsible for publishing the letter in the first place. TheL.A. Times
is hypocritical, but its not stupid. Cameron gets to insult Turan in the critics own paper with more column inches than Turan is usually allowed for one of his reviews and the paper gets to preserve its industry-friendly profile, along with its advertising dollars. Coincidentally, Turans public flogging in theTimes
ran the day before the publication of the papers three-part series, "Breaking Down the Wall," a well-wrought justification by Pulitzer-winning staffer David Shaw of theTimes
much-publicized decision to blur the lines between its editorial and business concerns. Anyone who reads and writes entertainment journalism can tell you that when it comes to Hollywood, this "wall" has, historically, been so porous as to be virtually nonexistent. And while its possible to attribute theTimes
interest in all thingsTitanic
to the movies indisputable popularity among audiences and its ubiquity: Its currently playing on 3,265 screens nationwide the volume of coverage raises questions not just about the relationship between the local paper of record and Holly wood, but about the inherently corrupting pressures brought to bear on the Fourth Estate by the entertainment industry. A pressure that, as the
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
epic coverage ofTitanic
makes clear, can originate as much from within a paper as it does from the studios.