THE WRITER’S-WISH-FULFILLMENT-STARE

While I can’t begin to know why a lot of “entertainment industry” “media” “writers” try to pile on where anything and everything Russell Crowe does, tries to do, might plan on doing, that list o’ naer-do-well by those who naer-think-well is still in development, what with this recent from “Josh Grossberg”:

Mind the headline.

“CROWE CAUGHT WITH HIS PANTS UP” from last February, in which Grossberg asserts more lively information than is necessary for any intelligent reader to get the point of the film project postponement (“Eucalyptus”) but also encourages a wrongful presumption about the key issue itself as to why the film was postponed ( per what Mr. Crowe offers about that project: he loved the original script and the original story from whence the script was adapted, he committed to a character based upon that original script and he objected later to what to his eye and mind became a strange permutation of the character after ongoing script reworks). Mr. Grossberg just wants the focus on pants and body parts: Maybe film but what about pants and body parts, let me write about pants and body parts first and then get to the boring stuff later!

Not like exposing his privates (in the film, in character) to Queen Elizabeth made sense to the character as originally written, and in the original adaptation. Later script permutations result because and by way of the personalities involved with developing scripts — a case of who wants what objective to be realized, oftentimes (sadly for literary interests), it can be because someone wants someone in the film who isn’t scripted to be in the film, has financial interests involved and so gets the rework — same thing with effects, production talent, even complete redos of scripts and films themselves throughout production.

Thus, sometimes it’s best when an idea is great in the original to the most concerned about that best idea to reorganize who is developing what and how and explore other possibities. If they can.

However, in this specific case — although I’ve read similar elsewhere about the same issue about this same film about this same actor — media rather suggests that the issue about this film (“Eucalyptus”) is related to Mr. Crowe’s privates and completely misses the point that Mr. Crowe made: “strange growths appeared on the script…” (and, thus, the script as it became departed from the original story too much for his pleasure and performance).

After reading Mr. Grossberg’s article, I’m thinking Mr. Grossberg has his mind on other issues rather than filmmaking. Or, perhaps, a different type of filmmaking than what he was assigned to write about, from whatever perspective.

Another case of bad reporting from an industry struggling to understand what is good.