John Travolta’s Poorly Received ‘The Fanatic’ Is Running An Oscar Campaign

The Oscar race for Best Actor is chock full of heavyweight contenders, from Joaquin Phoenix in “Joker” to Leonardo DiCaprio in “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” Adam Driver in “Marriage Story,” Robert De Niro in “The Irishman,” and Antonio Banderas in “Pain and Glory,” among others. But what about John Travolta in “The Fanatic”? Anyone with common sense knows the “Grease” legend has zero chance of landing a nomination for a film that has received some of the most horrendous reviews of 2019, but that’s not stopping an Oscars push from being launched.

“The Fanatic,” infamously directed by Limp Bizkit frontman Fred Durst, opened in late August from Quiver Entertainment. Travolta stars as the super-fan of a horror actor played by Devon Sawa whose obsession turns psychotic when the Hollywood star proves dismissive of him.

An FYC ad for “The Fanatic” has been circulating on social media and was spotted by Next Best Picture writer Will Mavity. Neither Travolta nor Quiver Entertainment responded to IndieWire’s request for comment, but the FYC ad does make an appearance in Deadline’s most recent edition of the Awards Line digital magazine see page 59. The magazine is targeted at awards voters and the November edition includes ads for top contenders such as “The Irishman” and “Marriage Story.”

The FYC advertisement features Travolta’s character, Moose, next to critical pull quotes hailing the actor as “amazing” in the movie. One quote, attributed to CBS, says, “John Travolta nails it in this movie. His acting transcends the written word.” The pull quotes mention publications but oddly leave out the names of the respective writers.

“The Fanatic” is widely considered one of the most critically-reviled films of the year. In a rare zero-star review, RogerEbert.com critic Brian Tallerico wrote, “'The Fanatic' hates fans. It hates actors. It hates tourists, shop owners, and servants. It really, really hates autistic people. And it hates you. It's a movie that thinks you're an idiot, someone who won't see through its shallow provocations, illogical behavior, and vile misanthropy.”

Check out the FYC “Fanatic” advertisement in the post below.

OMFG TRAVOLTA IS RUNNING FYC ADS FOR THE FANATIC the movie with a 17% on Rotten Tomatoes. I swear to god this is not a bit. People made jokes about him doing this for Gotti last year and he actually did it asghfkj pic.twitter.com/RtPRVbeQBa

— Will Mavity @mavericksmovies November 13, 2019

Source: Indiewire

Peter Bart and Mike Fleming Jr. worked together for two decades at Daily Variety. In this weekly column, two old friends get together and grind their axes, mostly on the movie business.

FLEMING: As I watched Kevin Hart on The People's Choice Awards grow introspective about second chances and feelings of morality after fracturing his spine and nearly dying in a terrible car accident, I wondered if he might reconsider hosting the Academy Awards.

His messy exit last year — which came after old homophobic social media messages were unearthed and served up for scrutiny as soon as Deadline revealed that Hart was getting the job — perpetuated a flawed notion that awards shows are better without hosts. I thought the pace of the last Oscars suffered without a host and that the recent host-less Emmys were damn near unwatchable. I am glad to hear that after last year's dull Golden Globes — where hosts Sandra Oh and Andy Samberg seemed terrified of offending anyone — Ricky Gervais is back to let the air out of the balloon of Hollywood's ego machine. Hart can change an epitaph that would have said, he almost fulfilled his dream of being the host of the Academy Awards. Ah, second chances.

If Hart won't bite, the Academy might reengage Eddie Murphy, who was set to host the show produced by Brett Ratner the year they did Tower Heist together. Ratner was dropped by the Academy for saying a bunch of inexcusable things and Murphy dropped out in solidarity. I just watched the Netflix film Dolemite Is My Name, with Murphy as self-made Blaxploitation star Rudy Ray Moore. I felt the same way watching Murphy as I did when I saw his breakout performance in 48 Hours. Basically, now that is a movie star. Maybe Murphy would make an Oscar stint part of his comeback, and help Oscars swing the focus back to an entertaining celebration of great movies, at a time the industry badly needs it. Both Hart and Murphy are funny stars who aren't stamped by polarizing political positions on President Trump that have hurt Oscar ratings in recent years. Peter, do you agree this would be better than the prospect of another dull host-less Oscarcast?

BART: In discussing hosted vs un-hosted shows, let's consider the phenomenon of today's jaundiced juries. A hosted Oscar show would fly in the face of this reality: our society has fractured into a maze of self-anointed juries that take it upon themselves to decide the fate of anyone unfortunate enough to pop into public view. They plunge into that person's past, both physical and emotional, exploring every possible shadow cast by the social media. They are basically jaundiced juries, their decisions poisoned by pre-existing antagonisms, political and sexual.

FLEMING: Most of the detritus of powerful people banned for abhorrent actions against women has been swept away, and we are all reading the postmortem books by Jodi Kantor & Megan Twohy and Ronan Farrow, with the terrific Roger Ailes pic Bombshell about to open. We have to get past the idea that imperfect people must be ended if they offend us with words, and there should be some retroactive grading curve for dumb things said long ago. Eyeing a return to the stand-up stage, Murphy has said that a lot of his early routines from 1983's Delirious would never fly today; nor would he be comfortable saying them, as they don't reflect who he is now. Hart has said much the same thing about his indefensible past social media comments. Neither he nor the Academy handled last year's controversy particularly well. He came off angry at those who unearthed the controversial comments he said he had apologized for previously. Ironically, had Hart issued the apology he did in announcing he was bowing out of the Oscars, all this might have been okay. Instead, the dust-up reiterated that hosting the Oscars is as thankless a job as directing a Star Wars film. Worse, it created the notion that not having a host is the trendy safe play. I don't think it is. Also, I suspect if you put all the angry unforgiving people in one corner, and measure them against the number of people who might enjoy watching the show with Hart as host, the latter would be far greater and might help liven up the show and boost the ratings.

BART: I simply don't believe adolescent misdeeds or misstatements should be grounds for terminal disrepute. Nor do I think that random jokes or critique, real or facetious, are grounds for ostracism. Given the power of these jaundiced juries, I think that anyone who is put forth as a host sets himself or herself up for the nightmare of social annihilation. Even revered figures from the past, Johnny Carson or Bob Hope, would face attack, if not onslaught. I had the good luck to have spent time with both individuals, and there was certainly enough grist from their past to trigger potential attack.

I became a journalist at a time when the media arguably was too protective of public figures. There was an unwritten and unspoken code to protect JFK and his various girlfriends. I read accounts of how reporters covering Franklin Roosevelt resolved never to write about his extra-marital relationship. I covered the political rise of Ronald Reagan for The New York Times and, once again, his private life was off limits. Besides, we all liked him so much me included that we'd never expose him to ridicule. But that was a different world. And a different time. Reagan would have been a great Oscar host.

FLEMING: So, if the Academy isn't already doing so, should it get busy trying to tempt Hart, Murphy, Tina Fey or someone else funny to host, since universally liked Tom Hanks seems unwilling to do it?

BART: Do I favor a host? Yes. It lends a sense of structure and continuity to a show. It sets a mood. But would I ever urge someone to take the job? No way.

FLEMING: Let's switch topics to Netflix and awards season. I have written a lot about the pending demise of The Paris Theatre, Manhattan's last single screen movie palace. Sources tell me that Netflix is far along on a 10-year lease deal that will keep the theater open and give the streamer a New York beachhead to show its awards season films in a venue credited with helping films like The Artist to Best Picture prizes. The Solow Family owns the real estate, and shuttered The Paris after its lease expired with City Cinemas in August. Word was they were going to lease the space for a medical clinic. I've heard the Netflix talks are far enough along that after reopening the theater last Sunday with Noah Baumbach's Marriage Story, Netflix will eventually move The Irishman to The Paris. The Irishman is currently being showcased in Broadway's Belasco Theatre.

I use that bit of news to discuss the recent criticism by NATO against Netflix over failed negotiations with theater chains AMC and Cineplex that NATO said would have given Martin Scorsese's film a wide theatrical release, if only Netflix had agreed to keep the film off its streaming service for 60 days, feeding it to streamer subscribers for Christmas instead of Thanksgiving.

NATO's John Fithian renewed his long-running spat with Netflix by launching an assault on The Irishman in The New York Times, calling it a “disgrace” that Netflix declined the 60 day offer. This feels like smoke to me. I have trouble believing that the chains would have granted an exception to Netflix — their sworn enemy for years — while still holding members of its clique to a 90 day SVOD moratorium. If anything, Scorsese should be lauded for being changeable enough to find a path to make the version of The Irishman he wanted to. I don't think any studio would have spent $160 million for this 3.5 hour drama because they might have lost their shirts. This film could only happen on Netlix, hungry for premium content to satisfy a global streaming audience it must not alienate, even as it draws auteurs with promises of short theatrical windows. Netflix can only evolve its model so much or risk losing subscribers and seeing its stock value plummet.

The theatrical film business is in such disarray right now. Between saving The Paris and The Egyptian in Hollywood, Netflix has done two significant things to endear itself to the Hollywood community. It ought to help remove the stigma during Oscar season, which is what this investment is all about. Peter, you wrote not long ago in this column that as an Oscar voter, you wouldn't cast a Best Picture ballot for a Netflix film. Much has changed. How do you feel now?

BART: Sure, as an Oscar voter, I would support a Netflix contender. But, candidly, I would do so with a pang of regret. Netflix has proven its support for film and filmmakers. It has backed projects that would have been instantly rejected by the studios. It has been respectful of filmmakers and the filmmaking process, in all its agonies. As a board member of the Cinematheque, I voted to accept Netflix offer to buy the storied Egyptian Theater, albeit with the understanding that Cinematheque programs would continue to be shown there along with Netflix projects. I am persuaded Ted Sarandos' passion for movies equals, or surpasses, that of any studio chief.

FLEMING: I feel a big “but” coming.

BART: Why the pang of regret? Call it sentiment. Guilty sentiment. The traditional concept of cinema has been eroded from all sides — by superheroes, by streamers, by the business traumas of the indie distributors. I understand why the major exhibitors are resisting elements of the Netflix deal. I also understand why hardcore filmmakers like Martin Scorsese are gratefully accepting both Netflix' largesse and its deal making idiosyncrasies. Hollywood has had a great ride. Now it's time to get on with the show.

FLEMING: While the major studios are distracted with streaming ventures, I keep hearing that by next year they are going to force the issue with NATO-repped chains to significantly shrink these theatrical windows. Streaming is becoming too an attractive alternative. Look at all the movies that would have worked years ago but recently tanked, with the obligatory trade stories on who does a financial face plant each weekend. If a streamer paired The Shining with the sequel Doctor Sleep which would have benefited by having The Shining 2 in its title they would have created an event, and saved tens of millions of P&A. It would have been a win. The optics would have been similarly different if Terminator: Dark Fate had a showcase premiere on a streaming service. Paramount just made a deal with Netflix to reboot Beverly Hills Cop with Eddie Murphy on Netflix, instead of risking the collective yawn these films are being greeted with at the box office. We are headed toward this chasm where theater going will be limited to arthouse films, and behemoths. Mid-budget fare will live on streaming services.

The inability of content makers and exhibitors to get on the same page has contributed to this crisis. There is a disconnect as the responsibility for drawing crowds is on studios and not the theater chains. If you think about it, the booming streaming market segment is helped by content creators owning their distribution platforms. There, and on TV, consumers are given what they want, when they want it. Instead of railing against Netflix, you wish exhibitors would try some enterprising things like Netflix has in evolving their model. Disney + got 10 million subscribers by its launch date, and more streamers are coming that will keep people from leaving their homes. The subscription plans that exhibition chains now sell are helpful in getting young people back into the practice of movie going. More direct relationships with their customer base would also help. Everyone has to be more changeable to figure out their place in this brave new world.

Source: deadline.com

Director Jenifer McShane describes her new documentary Ernie & Joe: Crisis Cops as “a buddy cop film with strong social issues.”

The buddies are officers Ernie Stevens and Joe Smarro, partners in the San Antonio Police Department. The social issues have to do with the unit Ernie and Joe work in, a Crisis Intervention Team CIT that specializes in responding to mental health-related incidents. Early in the film Stevens and Smarro get a call about a mentally ill man pacing in a courthouse.

Instead of confronting the man aggressively, they calmly probe what's got him disturbed. They're dressed in plain clothes and take a seat as the man shifts nervously.

“How you doing? You okay?” Ernie asks him. “How can we help you today?”

“We kind of catch flack internally in the department of being poor tactically...because you sit down with people,” Joe notes in the film. “I'm not going to stand over them and talk down to them. I'm going to sit down and get down to their level because they're going to tell me a lot more than they're going to want to tell you.”

The man's agitation gradually dissipates and the incident ends with him leaving peacefully with Ernie and Joe. But in other jurisdictions around the country, situations like that often end tragically. According to a survey by the nonprofit Treatment Advocacy Center, “as many as half” of all people killed in encounters with police were suffering a severe psychiatric condition.

“It's happening all over the place,” McShane notes. “I feel we're really doing everyone a disservice, including the first responder, sending [officers] into situations without any real knowledge as to what they're seeing and options for handling it,” McShane comments. “So we're kind of setting up a bad scenario for everybody and not just the person who's in crisis.”

San Antonio's police department requires 100% of its officers to undergo extensive crisis intervention training, teaching them to de-escalate and defuse encounters with the mentally ill that might otherwise end explosively.

“It's a shift in law enforcement,” Smarro tells Deadline. “Because [traditionally] we're taught to walk in and take control. 'Everybody be quiet. I'm here now to save the day. You're going to listen and do what I say and I'm going to fix this problem.' And the reality is you're not going to fix anything.”

“Sometimes less is more in law enforcement,” Stevens adds. “This may be the first time anybody's even listened to this [distressed] person, who's venting about a situation. And if the officer can validate that and let them know, 'I'm here and I'm listening to you...I want you to tell me how I can help you. And if it's within my abilities, that's exactly what I'm going to do.'”

“They're light years ahead of a lot of places,” McShane says of the San Antonio Police Department. “There's effort being made and there is success. There's a lot of positives that other places haven't even kind of occurred to them yet. So I'm hoping the film will inspire some 'Aha!' moments.”

Ernie & Joe: Crisis Cops opens in theaters in New York and Los Angeles on Friday, qualifying the film for Oscar consideration this year. It debuts on HBO this coming Tuesday. At the SXSW Film Festival, where the film premiered in March, it won a Special Jury Prize for Empathy in Craft.

The documentary explores what motivated Ernie and Joe to serve on the CIT unit. For Stevens, participating in a training session years ago impacted him profoundly.

“When I went through CIT training and I heard a family member speak about what it was like living with her son who had mental illness, her story broke my heart. It just broke me completely,” he recalls. “And I knew right then I had to do something, I had to do my little part, whatever that meant, to get the ear of the department and the community to help not only her but families like her that struggle with mental health needs.”

Smarro's sense of empathy comes from having dealt with mental health issues himself, stemming from a childhood of physical and sexual abuse. He's remarkably candid about the trauma he suffered.

“When you do that you really are allowing yourself to be vulnerable,” he observes. “It's one thing to make a concerted effort to see somebody, but to really kind of close that loop, you have to be willing to be seen in return. And for me, that's why I'm so open and vulnerable to people.”

Despite the dramatic subject matter of the film, it includes moments of humor as when Ernie and Joe conduct a training session for officers.

“My name's Joe Smarra. I've been with SAPD since 2005,” Smarra says by way of introduction. “Before that I was in the Marine Corps. Oorah!”

Stevens adds, “My name is Ernie Stevens. I've been on the SAPD going on 22 years. Prior to that I was a Cub Scout. Oorah!”

“I think there's this tendency to assume that serious documentaries about serious issues have to be totally serious and somber. And actually I think sometimes you can go through these emotional journeys a little easier if there's levity,” McShane observes. “The film is also about friendship and people working together, and that whole relationship.”

McShane continues, “I liked the idea that the audience could have a little relief...Also when they laugh about the Cub Scout line [that shows] they've connected to the characters. They are really engaged with these two human beings, which I love.”

Source: deadline.com

Parasite isn’t just one of the best movies of the year — it’s also a box office hit.

Bong Joon-ho’s darkly comedic thriller, which you’ll want to read everything about and then make Ram-Don, has grossed over $11 million in North America, with an expected “stateside endgame” of around $20 million, according to Deadline. That may not sound like much, not when Avengers: Endgame made over $858 million domestically and Godzilla: King of the Monsters remember that movie? is considered a flop because it “only” earned $110 million. But Parasite is working on a different scale, and for a foreign language film from an indie distributor Neon, it’s doing extremely well.

“ Parasite’s current haul is the year’s highest for any non-English-language film in the US,” reports the Guardian, which notes that although it won’t come close to the all-time record Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which made an insane $128 million, “the milestone is enough to seal the Palme d’Or winner’s status as an international arthouse phenomenon.” Parasite has earned an additional $103 million internationally, including Joon-ho’s native South Korea, good for a box office haul of $115 million. And counting.

So, if Parasite is a criticial and financial hit, that means it’s going to do well at the Oscars, right? About that: a South Korean film has never been nominated for Best Foreign Language Film, now called Best International Feature Film, let alone Best Picture, where it’s extremely tough for an international film to be recognized only 11 have been nominated, including Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and they all lost. But Alfonso Cuarón’s exquisite Roma made the cut earlier this year, even if it eventually lost to Green Book, and it’s possible Parasite, the “most 2019 film of 2019,” could be next.

Give Jessica the Academy Award for Best Original Song, at least.

Knock like you own the place. #Parasite star Park So Dam teaches us the Jessica Jingle, now available to download at https://t.co/uN1olvIz56. pic.twitter.com/4FNHS76o0S

— NEON @neonrated November 7, 2019

When the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences abruptly moved the 2020 Academy Awards ceremony up to early February, panic set in among those other awards shows that often serve as bellweathers for Oscar's grande finale. Stung by record low ratings for the 2018 telecast, hosted for the second year in a row by Jimmy Kimmel, an Academy Governor told me, “We have to do something.” Thinking they were losing their audience by being the last in a long line of ceremonies, where often we see the same winners and hear variations on the same speeches, AMPAS suddenly withdrew the already announced date of February 23rd, 2020 and instead declared February 9th, 2020—a full two weeks earlier than normal the show will move back to the end of February in 2021 and 2022. That was problematic for BAFTA—perhaps the most prestigious of the pre-Oscar shows. But working with Motion Picture Academy officials, BAFTA moved to February 2nd Super Bowl be damned, just one week ahead of the Academy Awards. Since final Oscar ballots are due only two days later, the impact of BAFTA wins will be smaller than usual but then, they haven't agreed on a Best Picture since 12 Years a Slave in 2013.

Netflix

The Golden Globes, Critics' Choice, and SAG Awards have not significantly adjusted their broadcast dates with this Academy move, but they are giving nominees little room to breathe, with successive Sunday dates of January 5th, 12th, and 19th, and there are a whole bunch of guild shows in their midst too. SAG had originally planned on January 26th, but that put them directly in The Grammys' line of fire, and anything earlier would be in the heart of the holiday season also a no-no. So crunched is this season, anything later would run smack into the BAFTAs, the Super Bowl, and Oscar territory.

For those precursor awards, gauging their winners' influence on Oscar voters is a tougher call than ever, since, due to the earlier date, the Academy will conduct nomination voting in a very condensed window—January 2nd to 7th—just five days. That means ballots are due only two days after the Globes, and well ahead of Critics' Choice and SAG. Of course, those key precursor groups still may have influence on their nomination choices, because those will be announced before the holidays, when Academy members will likely still be busy cramming in as many screeners as possible before their deadline. A Globe, CCA or SAG nomination could push a screener to the top of that pile, or that list of downloads.

I actually happen to think the nominations that come from these three groups could be more important in such a short season. Oscar voters have little time to get to all these movies as it is, and need help in separating the must-sees from the rest of the pack. Studios have already been slow to get contenders into Academy voters' hands, so there will be a lot of last-minute viewing, and the heavily-advertised endorsement of nominees in the three televised precursor awards ceremonies can't hurt.

Amazon Studios

In terms of past track records, it can be a mixed bag. Looking at last year, the Globes fared better than any of the others, with a particularly high average mirroring eventual Oscar winners. Keeping in mind that they split drama and comedy/musical into two separate categories, the Globes' two big Motion Picture winners were Green Book comedy/musical and Bohemian Rhapsody drama. The former went on to win three Oscars, including Best Picture, Screenplay, and Supporting Actor for Mahershala Ali, just like the Globes, while the latter won four Oscars, including Rami Malek's Best Actor, and a Best Picture nomination. The Favourite's Olivia Colman and Regina King were also big Globes and Oscar winners, as was Alfonso Cuarón for Director and Foreign Film. “Shallow” from A Star Is Born won Best Song, and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse was Best Animated Film. The Globes inevitably had influence on the Oscars.

However, SAG and Critics' Choice—both usually more reliable in matching Oscar—were a bit off last year with a track record of 50% or less. It is all cyclical because the year before, the Critics' Choice matched Oscar winners 90% of the time, and is often in line with Academy tastes.

Top contenders for the Globes' Motion Picture drama this time around are the Netflix trio of The Irishman, Marriage Story, and The Two Popes, with all three quite realistically landing those nominations. Universal's upcoming Sam Mendes WWI drama 1917 is a good bet, even sight unseen as of this writing. Honey Boy, The Report, Ford v Ferrari, Little Women, Dark Waters, Just Mercy, and A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood are all probably near the top of the pack. As for box office behemoth Joker, it is anyone's guess where that one may land with the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, but starting with its big win in Venice, it has been very strong with international critics and audiences, so it stands a decent enough chance of an appearance on Globes night. And can Downton Abbey escape its TV roots to land big time in the Globes movie contest?

Sony Pictures

On the comedy/musical side of things, Quentin Tarantino's much-loved Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood joins Jojo Rabbit, Rocketman, Dolemite Is My Name, Hustlers, Booksmart, and Knives Out. Universal's Cats, derided by some after its first trailer dropped, will get a big push for Globes love from Universal, and could be a factor here as well, but is another unknown quantity. Of course, some of these films are stretching the definition of 'comedy', but as many an awards strategist keeps telling me, if The Martian can do it, anyone can. There are elements of comedy in a lot of the dramas, like The Two Popes and Marriage Story, and conversely, there is a lot of drama in Rocketman, so go figure.

SAG's Outstanding Cast award is often thought of as their version of Oscar's Best Picture, but as last year's results proved, they rarely are in sync with one another. Last year Black Panther took it, while Oscar Best Picture winner Green Book wasn't even nominated. For this year's lineup, look for The Irishman, Marriage Story, Parasite, Bombshell, Knives Out, Little Women, Avengers: Endgame, Ford v Ferrari, 1917, and O nce Upon a Time... in Hollywood as likely possibilities.

NEON

The categories to watch at all three shows will be the wildly competitive and star-filled Best Actor and Supporting Actor races. In the Lead Actor contest, Adam Driver, Joaquin Phoenix, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonathan Pryce, Robert De Niro, Adam Sandler, Eddie Murphy, Antonio Banderas, Christian Bale, Paul Walter Hauser, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Pattinson, Taron Egerton, Michael B. Jordan and more make this a Solomon's Choice if ever there was one. And for Supporting it may be even worse, with Brad Pitt, Anthony Hopkins, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci, Tom Hanks, Shia LaBeouf, Jamie Foxx, Willem Dafoe, Tracy Letts, John Lithgow, Timothée Chalamet, and many others vying for very few slots. Will the Globes, SAG, and Critics' Choice help narrow the field and apply some clarity?

All three of these shows also hand out numerous awards in the TV field, with the Globes usually going for the newest and freshest names around, and SAG often lagging behind the Emmys. Critics' Choice is usually throwing in the edgiest names as contenders. However, with the Emmys recently surprisingly awarding new blood like Fleabag, Killing Eve's Jodie Comer, Pose's Billy Porter, When They See Us star Jharrel Jerome and other breakouts, these groups will have their work cut out to remain even half as hip. Of course, getting cool choices didn't exactly help the Emmy ratings this year, and the next ceremony is a long way off, so, unlike the influence on the Oscars, gauging the effect of Globe, SAG, and CCA wins on the Emmys is murky at best. And with the Globes now regularly besting Emmy in the ratings game, does it really matter anyway?

Source: deadline.com