FYI: As DHD approaches 5 million page views since the site went up in March, its look is going to change ever so slightly next week so it can accomodate a lot more advertising. I've made certain this won't interfere with the content. Many thanks.

I heard about this around 5 pm today, then tried to find out details why threatened ex-journalist Anita Busch (and her lawyers) decided to include the ex-CAA chairman and ex-Disney president in her civil lawsuit against Anthony Pellicano and others for directing, organizing, commanding, employing and/or hiring individuals to engage in what is only generally described as "unlawful and tortious conduct". When no details were forthcoming, I waited to post because I think news like this needs details. But the Los Angeles Times, without getting any details either, put the news on its website tonight. So there you have it. There isn't really much more to say now (though I have a myriad thoughts about this, obviously). In the meantime, for background on Busch, and what happened to her, here's my LA Weekly column from June 23, 2005, headlined Requiem For Anita Busch. 

My new  column, Deal Or No Deal, compares what's happening with Eli Broad, Ron Burkle and David Geffen and the Los Angeles Times/Tribune Co. to NBC's hit game show and asks the question: Broad, Burkle, Geffen... when it comes to the Times, whose briefcase is bigger? (Thursday's New York Times also looks at Geffen's interest in buying the paper. But the story has nothing new in it.) In my view, more and more, the newspaper on Spring Street is beginning to resemble Deal or No Deal. Forget all those ink-stained news males: bring on the female eye candy. Or better yet, the really rich guys. Hollywood mogul David Geffen is still an enthusiastic contestant to buy the Los Angeles Times; in fact, he’s so eager he’s already planning what he’ll do once he owns it (more on that below). Like any great game show, though, the stakes just got raised. Today, two other Los Angeles billionaires, investor tycoon Eli Broad and supermarket magnate Ron Burkle, have opened their briefcases. Only this time, fueled either by local pride or a lower-than-expected sale price, Broad and Burkle jointly submitted a bid to acquire the Times’ big-media, loser parent Tribune Co. In terms of fortunes, Eli Broad's is valued at $5.6 billion; Ron Burkle's at $2.5 billion, David Geffen's at $4.6 billion. Broad and Burkle could outgame Geffen by buying the entire parent company first, whereas David only wanted the paper and not the other assets. Then, again, no one outgames Geffen. Everyone in Hollywood knows that. I’ve been reporting for months how Geffen’s pursuit of the Tribune Co.’s most troubled outpost not only hasn’t flagged, it has fired up, and not just because the paper’s 20 percent profit margin is so much better than the 6 percent earned by his bonds. Now I’m told Geffen is starting to plan what he intends to do at the paper once it’s his. Here’s what he’s saying to friends: He’ll pour money into more hires. He plans to staff -- more like stuff -- the paper with name writers and journalism stars. (Of course, he’ll raid The New York Times, where Frank Rich and his wife, Alex Witchel, are his good friends and occasional overnight guests. So are Nora Ephron and Nick Pileggi. So are a lot of literati.) He’ll demand quality. He’ll ratchet up the Web site (even though he hates how prohibitively expensive it is to do that). He’ll figure out a way to bring in Latinos as readers. Geffen loathes how boring, badly written, inconsequential and pedestrian the L.A. Times’ editorial and opinion section is. He thinks nobody reads it. He knows nobody talks about it. Most of all, he wants his newspaper to be talked about. He’ll put the newsroom ahead of the ludicrous profit margins demanded by Wall Street and the Tribune Co. That’s not to say he wants to lose money, just that he thinks it’s a good investment already (though not if its stock price keeps dropping). What not to expect from Geffen is that he’ll devote every waking minute of his life to the venture. But, at 63, he’s looking for a new challenge. The movie biz, well, that hasn’t excited him for years. His Oscar-touted pic Dreamgirls could be his last showbiz hurrah. (And some scenes from it were, ironically, filmed inside the LA Times building.) Besides, look at the lengths he’s going to make the paper his. First, there are all those recent art sales he’s making. True, he’s timed it to the top of the art market, but the hundreds of millions of dollars he’s getting could be going into his war chest to buy the LA Times. Even if Burkle and Broad beat him to the first bid, Geffen is well positioned to get what he wants. Consider his friendship with Tribune investor John W. Rogers Jr., the Ariel Capital Management chairman and CEO, as well as with Rogers’ protégée and powerhouse Ariel president Mellody Hobson, who sits on the board of DreamWorks Animation. (When Hobson visits L.A., she often stays at Geffen’s mansions.) Geffen was also one of those bold-faced names who met with LA Times managing editor Leo Wolinsky about a possible purchase of the paper. As I reported back in September, Wolinsky, acting as editor Dean Baquet's surrogate, was playing a dangerous game with the paper’s integrity by having secret talks with the "billionaire boys' club" to drum up local support for a local buyer of the LA Times. But Wolinsky himself refused to confirm or deny or even discuss the meetings with me. I found it bizarre that both Wolinsky and Baquet were so blind to the obvious need for transparency here. So, now, Geffen, Broad, Burkle... Deal or No Deal?

Read the rest of my Deal or No Deal column, including my analysis about who's winning and losing a day after rebellious L.A. Times editor Dean Baquet, who refused to cooperate on further staff cuts with new publisher and Tribune Co. bagman David Hiller, was replaced with Chicago Tribune ME James O’Shea. Also, for the latest LA Times/Tribune Co. twists and turns, see Kevin Roderick's LAObserved.com.

Previous: Broad/Burkle Bid for LA Times' Parent, LA Times' Editor Dean Baquet Out; Chicago Trib ME James O'Shea In, David Geffen, Chicago Is Calling On Line 1, LA Times: Sleepovers at David Geffen's, Finke/LA Weekly: Dean of Sycophants (And The Paper Drops A Bomb), LA TIMES CHAOS: Current Publisher Fired; Tribune Toadie Hired; Baquet Shows Himself To Be Gutless Wonder, Finke/LA Weekly: Baquet's Billionaire Boys Club; Geffen 'Confident' LAT Buy, EXCLUSIVE: Top LA Times Editors Loyal To Baquet Said To Have A 'Suicide Pact', The Michael Kinsley Experiment Ends, Baquet Begins

My latest  column, Stars Get Caught In Hirsch's Hornets Nest, is my exclusive account all about the names dropping and allegations flying as showbiz legal eagle Barry Hirsch sits in L.A. Superior Court. Here's how it begins:

"Even on Oscar night, it’s hard to imagine talent like Owen Wilson, Jennifer Lopez, Julia Roberts, Richard Gere, Sean Penn, Michelle Pfeiffer, Antonio Banderas, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Jane Fonda, Bernie Mac, Rob Schneider, Baz Luhrmann, Dick Donner, Francis Ford Coppola, Barry Levinson and Peter Berg together in one place. But that’s happening now, at least figuratively, in nondescript Room 313 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, where two law firms are slugging it out before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert H. O’Brien. The nonjury trial will decide how to divvy up the money from the Hollywood deals they both claim as their own. Though only Penn, Coppola and Levinson have testified so far, some 200 stars and 500 projects are being scrutinized in the proceedings, which began on October 18 and will probably continue through Thanksgiving. So far, it hasn’t generated a single media story because none of the firms involved want publicity about it, fearing their star clientele might pitch fits. Also because, if reporters did get wind of the trial, it would be fodder as much for Entertainment Tonight and US magazine as for the Hollywood trades and legal journals. The lawsuit, first filed on August 13, 2004, by Hollywood super lawyer Barry Hirsch against his former firm, which he founded, Hirsch Jackoway Tyerman Wertheimer Austen Mandelbaum & Morris (which quickly exorcised Hirsch’s name), was bitter from the get-go. It quickly turned even sourer when his old firm turned around and filed a cross-complaint against Hirsch and his new partners (who were members of the old firm). As if that weren’t enough, Hirsch then sued the wife of his ex-partner, Jim Jackoway. She is an attorney and shareholder in the old firm but was never on its management committee. It seems Hirsch wanted to pressure her so Jackoway and his partners would settle. But she toughed it out, and when Hirsch’s side exhausted its ability to go after her, they dismissed her from their lawsuit.

"Nasty, nasty, nasty.

"By setting this mess in motion, Hirsch opened up a Pandora’s box for many of his clients. Already, the financial terms of some of the most well-known movies ever made have been entered into evidence. Among the films mentioned in court documents and during the trial have been Wedding Crashers, My Best Friend’s Wedding, Pretty Woman, The Godfather and its sequels, Mystic River, The Naked Gun and its sequels, Peggy Sue Got Married, The Polar Express, On Golden Pond, Ocean’s Eleven, Ocean’s Twelve, Shopgirl, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Chicago, Closer, Conspiracy Theory, Dangerous Minds, Disclosure, Rain Man and on and on. Also caught in the crossfire have been Hollywood studios like Sony, New Line, Universal, Disney, Miramax, Warners and Paramount, some of which have tried to quash subpoenas compelling them to turn over deal details.

"So week after week, a herd of expensive blue and gray suits — 15 at any one time, about half of them Hollywood lawyers — filled the court rather than finished their clients’ deals... In some instances, the clients’ names are redacted from evidence, but then bandied about in court.... For instance, in court on Monday, Howard Fishman, a partner in Hirsch’s new firm, Hirsch Wallerstein Matlof & Fishman, took the witness stand and told how he helped with the sale and syndication of Julia Roberts’ photographs of her twin children to the press. Other client names dropped were Jane Fonda, Robert Redford and Rachel Weisz, who needed the firm’s help negotiating a deal with Revlon... Last week, Bob Wallerstein, who followed Hirsch to the new firm, testified that he reduced his fee arrangement with Owen Wilson from 5% to 3% to hang onto the star actor as a client. On Monday, testimony from Fishman focused on client Rachel McAdams, and details from the former firm’s deals on The Notebook and Mean Girls. One interesting footnote had to do with the various ancillary services that the old firm would provide some clients, like estate planning. McAdams wanted that too. But it came out in court that Fishman, when he was with the old firm, had written witheringly that, while McAdams “has a very bright future, she probably has not paid us enough money to date to justify estate-planning services.” 

That was nothing compared to Hirsch's own contention on the stand that any of his clients is free to leave without any obligation to pay him fees on deals concluded while he represented them. Suffice to say that the lawyers on the other side were amused by this notion..." Continued

My previous LA Weekly columns on this: August 26, 2004/Hirsch's Hornets Nest, September 16, 2004/More Buzz In Hirsch's Hornets Nest

Latest news on the Los Angeles Times front: Reportedly, Los Angeles billionaires Eli Broad and Ron Burkle have jointly submitted a bid to acquire Tribune Co., owner of television stations, newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Cubs baseball team. The offer was made through affiliates of Mr. Broad's family-owned investment company and Mr. Burkle's Yucaipa Cos..

Upcoming will be my latest  column on all the LA Times news.

Not exactly a surprise, especially to my readers. So now let's see who has the guts to quit in solidarity (LA Times Editors Loyal To Baquet Said To Have A 'Suicide Pact'), eh? UPDATE: * Well, Doug Frantz and Leo Wolinsky say they're staying, but no one's heard yet from Baquet pal John Montorio...* Well, with Baquet's ouster, that's one less thing David Geffen has to do when he buys the Los Angeles Times. The announcement was going to be made tomorrow, since it doesn't make sense to disrupt the newsroom in the middle of the midterm elections. But it leaked.

The new editor of the LA Times is journeyman editor and reporter James O'Shea (left), managing editor of the Chicago Tribune since 2001, who worked closely with the current LAT publisher James Hiller at the Tribune when Hiller was that paper's publisher. When O'Shea was upped from deputy managing editor for news in 2001, his Chicago Tribune boss, Ann Marie Lipinski, senior vice president and editor of the newspaper, called him "an exquisite journalist and an editor of near-impeccable judgement. He is a connoisseur of the toughest reporting and the finest writing, a journalist who can produce both and knows how to encourage it in others." Before that, O'Shea, 62, had been deputy managing editor for news since October 1995. He previously served as the Tribune's associate managing editor for foreign and national news. A veteran of the Chicago Tribune's news staff, O'Shea covered local, business, national and foreign news for the newspaper in a variety of assignments. He joined the Tribune in 1979 after working as a reporter, editor and correspondent for the Des Moines Register. He has won numerous journalism awards and is the author of two books: The Daisy Chain, about the savings and loan crisis and Dangerous Company, an investigative profile of management consultants and the role they play in corporate decision-making. He holds an undergraduate degree in English and philosophy from the University of Missouri and a master's degree in journalism. Hiller's new memo says about O'Shea: "He is a journalist's journalist, coming up mostly on the foreign and national news side. He is a tough minded but fair, independent thinker, of rock hard news values and integrity, professional and personal. He also understands the imperatives of sustaining readership, and of innovating and changing things to build readership. He has worked a lot over the years with Dean, Doug Frantz, and many others of you who can speak to your experiences with Jim. Jim has managed a large news operation, and has been an architect with Dean of our new model of foreign and national coverage, including the bureau. This will be helpful as we find additional ways to collaborate with other Tribune newspapers. Jim has also been leading the efforts in to re-invent how the newsroom operates in the new 24/7 multi-channel environment, and he will not miss a beat in jumping into the work actively going on here. I could go on and on, but instead Jim's bio is attached. I will say, finally, that Jim is a personable, considerate and good-humored colleague (in that sometimes gruff but charming Irish sort of way), traits you are accustomed to and that will serve us all well on the road ahead. Please get to know Jim and help us all succeed together."

Hiller (left) also talks about Baquet and the paper: "When I came here four weeks ago, Dean Baquet and I agreed that we would work to get to know each other, for me to get to know the newspaper, and we would decide if we were on the same page in terms of the strategic and operating direction of the paper. After considerable discussion, we concluded that we have significant differences on future direction, and so Dean will be leaving. I do not want to dwell on my differences with Dean. In my note earlier this week I set out, in a positive but realistic way, how I see our challenges and opportunities, and what we need to do to continue our role as the leading and most trusted source for news and information in and Southern California. The headlines were innovation and change in the newspaper to turn around current readership and circulation trends; allocating more resources to accelerate our growth on the web; more media products to build our reach with certain segments of the market; sharpening our strategies to serve the Hispanic community; and managing our resources and expenses in light of current business realities. Part of that last point relates to levels of staffing and other resources, and how we allocate and re-allocate resources as our business changes. As I write this, I still do not have a definite view of staffing levels across the company, including in the newsroom.  We are working through these issues in connection with the 2007 operating plan. I think it is very important, as I said in my note earlier, that all of these resource and staffing issues be decided within a framework of where we are leading the business for the long term. It is also important that all of us be aligned on how we will approach these needed changes, and that we lead these changes positively and with confidence. I appreciate that not everybody will agree and choose to join in this direction, and that's OK. Smart and reasonable people can differ significantly. Everybody gets to choose whether this is a direction they can support, and do so with excellence and passion. But decide we all must, because the last thing we can stand is confusion on our mission and objectives. It's going to be hard enough as it is."

Previous: David Geffen, Chicago Is Calling On Line 1, LA Times: Sleepovers at David Geffen's, Finke/LA Weekly: Dean of Sycophants (And The Paper Drops A Bomb), LA TIMES CHAOS: Current Publisher Fired; Tribune Toadie Hired; Baquet Shows Himself To Be Gutless Wonder, Finke/LA Weekly: Baquet's Billionaire Boys Club; Geffen 'Confident' LAT Buy, EXCLUSIVE: Top LA Times Editors Loyal To Baquet Said To Have A 'Suicide Pact', The Michael Kinsley Experiment Ends, Baquet Begins

AMERICA WELCOMES THE KAZAKH! 'Borat' Opens #1 with $26.1 Mil (Maybe Even $27 Mil?) From 837 Crowded Theaters; Tops 'Santa Clause 3' $20 Mil From 3,438 Theaters; 'Flushed Away' 3rd With $19.1 mil/3707 Theaters 

Here's the link to The New York Times annual Holiday Movies preview featuring the makings of a New York Oscar campaign, Emma Thompson, Will Smith, a brand new flock of penguins and more. And, all I can say, is: I'm issuing a personal invitation to David Carr to get out more -- like, way out, like leave New York City and visit Los Angeles. Because the media columnist writes that, when it comes to Oscar PR: "Films may be produced and made in Hollywood, but come October and November the center of gravity shifts, and they are remade in the crucible of New York. With just 600 members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in New York, compared with about 4,000 in Los Angeles, the city might seem to play big for its size, but it is home to the culture-and-celebrity media, where momentum or certain death can be bestowed with a few keystrokes... If they can make it here, well, is a dance with Oscar at the end of February far behind? " And then, lower down in his article (NYT photo illustration above), Carr reverses himself: "The Oscar-night victory of the L.A.-centric Crash of course provides a vivid counter-example to New York’s taste-making primacy." Which leads me to ask: Are NYC media too big for their britches, or are they just Hollywood's bitches? The fact is that the only people who really matter around Oscar time are those flawed, aged and unpredictable Academy voters, the vast majority of whom are claimed by L.A. Just compare the critics' awards lists and the media's Top 10 lists with the actual Oscar winners: parallel universes. Also, look at the vast quantity of articles ordered up by NYC-based media editors between Labor Day and New Year's about movies that supposedly are going to be awards-worthy -- but then never receive the time of day from Golden Boy. In other words, you guys back East aren't more important to Oscar PR: just more easily spun.

UPDATED Sunday AM: Wow, were all those box office guru predictions for this weekend wrong! I'm told Fox's Borat, though playing in just 837 theaters, shocked the experts and became the No. 1 movie in the U.S. HBO cable funnyman Sacha Baron Cohen's spoof took in a staggering $9.1 million Friday and $10 mil Saturday for what was at least an opening weekend of $26.1 million and, if Sunday holds, closer to $27 mil. (Those estimates of $30 mil by some media were overly optimistic. As usual, weekend numbers include Sunday estimates.) Playing in four times as many theaters for the weekend, #2 Disney's Santa Clause 3 opened at $20 mil, and Paramount / Dreamworks' Flushed Away finished 3rd with $19.1 mil although rival studios put the figure at $18.7 mil. Based on the anecdotal evidence that came in to me about long lines at the box office, sold-out screenings, people sneaking out of work early just to see the movie, and fans driving more than an hour to find a theater showing the pic, I believe Borat was standing room only. I think the moviegoers weren't just rolling in the aisles, they were sitting in the aisles, for the film to make this much money. Indeed, the per screen average for Friday was a whopping $10,535 and $11,950 Saturday. (Only Pedro Almodovar's Volver, the Sony Classics pic starring Penelope Cruz, had a better per screen average this opening weekend with $11,282 from 5 theaters Friday and $15,167 Saturday.) By contrast, the movie all the experts thought was going to finish first came in 2nd: the Santa sequel, starring Tim Allen and opening in 3,458 theaters, earned $5.2 million Friday, and $8.8 mil Saturday, with an anemic per screen average of only $1,490/$2,555. Paramount / Dreamworks' Flushed Away opened in 4th place Friday but moved up to 3rd place. Playing in 3,707 theaters, it earned $4.6 mil Friday but the Saturday kiddie bounce gave it another $8.4 mil -- better than expected. Paramount says it's the biggest opening ever for an Aardman movie. (So no "down the drain" jokes necessary there.) Since date night these days means a horror flick for teens and young adults, Lionsgate holdover Saw III playing wide in 3,167 theaters took in $5.1 mil Friday (down 64%) to be the No. 3 pic. But it settled down to No. 4 by Saturday with $6.3 mil for what was a $15.2 mil weekend added for a new cume of $59.7 mil. Marty Scorsese's Oscar frontrunner The Departed, starring Leo Dicaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson and Mark Wahlberg, still had legs at the box office its 5th week out even though its theater count declined to 2,785. Taking in $2.3 mil Friday, Warner Bros.' dramatic thriller was No. 6 but it climbed up to No. 5 with 3.5 mil Saturday for what was another $7.9 mil added to its healthy cume of $102.1 mil. Disney's 3-week holdover, The Prestige, expanded its theater count to pop up as #5 Friday; now showing in 2,305 theaters, the magician pic raked in $2.4 mil Friday and $3.3 mil Saturday to finish the weekend in 6th place with $7.8 mil and new cume of $39.4 mil. For #7, it's Paramount/Dreamworks' box office disappointment but critical success Flags Of Our Fathers from director Clint Eastwood: despite expanding its theater count to 2,375, Flags earned only $1.3 mil Friday and $2 mil Saturday for what was a $4.4 mil weekend and a new cume of just $26.5 for this 3-week holdover. In 8th position, Universal's comic holdover Man Of The Year starring Robin Williams made $1.2 Friday and $1.7 mil Saturday for a $3.8 mil weekend and a new cume of $34 mil after 4 weeks out. Miramax' Oscar buzz-worthy The Queen -- starring Helen Mirren in a touted Best Actress performance -- creeped into #9 on the Top 10 after making an estimated $800,000 Friday (up 70% thanks to its theater count expanding into 387 venues) and $1.2 mil Saturday for what was a $2.9 mil weekend and a new cume of $10 mil for the 6-week holdover. And, finally, Fox's family friendly Flicka took in $750,000 Friday for #10, but then dropped out of the running, replaced by Sony's gutty little animated pic Open Season which even after 6 weeks out, made $2.9 mil this weekend added to its new cume of $81.2 mil. Flicka ended the weekend with $2.6 mil and a new cume of $17.5 mil after 3 weeks out. Other openings this weekend included Volver, which earned $56,000 from its 5 theaters Friday, and AdLabs' Umrao Jaan screening in 65 theaters. Meanwhile, Paramount's Babel, the Brad Pitt starrer getting good Oscar buzz, expanded into 35 theaters and earned $241,000 Friday. and $374,000 Saturday, ending the weekend with $880,000 and a new cume of $1.4 mil. Next weekend, Fox expands Borat into 2,200 theaters, so Sacha will be No. 1 again, easily fending off Will Ferrell (Stranger Than Fiction) and Russell Crowe (A Good Year).  

UPDATED Saturday PM: Fox showed savvy to cherry-pick its theaters in big cities and college towns: "They knew people would have a great group experience watching a very funny movie, and the word of mouth would spread like wildfire," a source explains to me. "What they didn't want is for people to walk into half-full theaters and have theater owners feel like it was a disappointing weekend before the word of mouth could catch up." Today, I received this report from San Marcos, Texas (Texas State University): "Went to Borat, and the place was in near riot. Packed for a 3 PM showing. I've never experienced that kind of atmosphere in a theater before. The place was outta control. Never stopped laughing." Fox execs anticipate that, with its misogynistic and anti-Semitic hero, Borat will have legs, especially on college campuses that love Cohen’s HBO cult figure, Ali G. Take Friday night: at a cineplex playing Borat in Carbondale, Illinois, home to Southern Illinois University, I received this report: "Almost impossible to hear the dialogue since everyone was laughing so hard. In the parking lot, a few minutes ago, kids were doing Borat jokes after the film." In NYC, at a 4:40 PM Saturday showing, "there were two lines down 2nd Avenue at one of the theaters showing Borat -- each with more than 100 people -- one for the box office, one for ticket-holders. I doubt either was for Marie Antoinette. I'm confidently betting that it was a brilliant move, and not shortsightedness, to keep the country at large waiting another week to see the movie." By Saturday afternoon, the talk of Hollywood was whether Fox could have earned double or triple its weekend take if the studio had not been scared off by Borat's early weak tracking in Middle America. (See below.)

UPDATED Friday PM: OK, my gurus are telling me that today's Borat matinees are HUGE and so are tonight's showings. The per screen averages in those 837 theaters will be killer this weekend. But they say Disney's Santa Clause 3 is still gonna win the weekend with its 3,458 theaters and Saturday kid bounce. Still, Fox's last-minute Borat strategy -- to suddenly cut back its opening to just 800 big-city screens in the U.S. and Canada when it became clear Sacha Baron Cohen's spoof wasn't tracking in Middle America -- looks smart. I'm told Borat should outperform Paramount / Dreamworks' animated Flushed Away despite the kiddie fare's 3,707 theaters. In terms of numbers, look for Santa Clause 3 in the high 20s as in millions, Borat $15 mil, and Flushed Away also in the teens. I was the first to warn that the tracking showed Middle America wasn't getting the Borat joke. Back on October 17, I learned that awareness of Cohen’s pic, widely thought to have runaway box-office potential, was well behind that Tim Allen clunker The Santa Clause 3. Then the Borat PR blitz started to wear thin (I began referring to it as Bore-At). For awhile, Borat looked comparable to Snakes on a Plane: examples of how Internet hype do not necessarily translate into box-office hype. So, even though Fox felt they had a movie that plays better than any comedy they'd released in a while, the studio blinked and announced Borat's “tiered theatrical release.” (A better word for it would have been retreat.) Most of the Borat theaters are in big cities, with the studio hoping that word of mouth will motivate "the local yokels" to see it next week when it expands. With only an $18 mil budget, this pic is certain to make moola. But how much more publicity can this movie generate? The pic started making waves at the Cannes Film Festival and wowed audiences at September’s Toronto Film Festival. Cohen, in character as fictional TV reporter Borat Sagdiyev, the “sixth most famous man in Kazakhstan,” staged various Washington, D.C., stunts outside the White House gates and Kazakhstani Embassy during a state visit by Kazakhstani President Nursultan Nazarbayev, who was not amused. The media ate it up, and since then Cohen has been red hot in Hollywood. Sacha already has his next deal in place: the British comedian is getting $42.5 mil from Universal for his next pic in which he'll play gay Austrian fashion reporter Bruno in the same documentary-style as Borat.

Previous: Fox Trims 'Borat' Screens, 'Santa Clause 3' Tracks BIGGER Than 'Borat'

My own paper's NYC sibling, the Village Voice, has a cover story written by my pal Rachel Sklar about this 2006-2007 version of Saturday Night Live that deeply depresses me. (Though that wasn't her intent.) Take this: "Tonight, no one is getting smashed. No one is in the bathroom snorting cocaine. A few cast members come outside for a cigarette—Amy Poehler with her husband, Arrested Development's Will Arnett, Bill Hader, Will Forte—but that's about it. Inside, there's conversation and camaraderie on display, not overindulgent egos or out-of-control consumption... This group seems to love the job and each other in a wholesome, decidedly non-angsty manner. 'There's way less, you know, crazy everyone's-boning-each-other kind of awesome gossip, but at the same time everyone's much more relaxed and friendly,' says Andy Samberg. 'Everyone in the cast and all the writers too are just super-laid-back, humble, mellow people—it's really nice.' Agrees Amy Poehler, 'We all really love each other a lot around here.' Is this feel-good chemistry enough to keep the creative sparks flying? Aren't artists supposed to be, you know, tortured and drama-driven?"

Me again. Sklar has high hopes for this season, but I already know it's a total turd. You'd think with so many great political gaffes they could at least open the first four shows with a semi-guffaw. But no. More from Sklar:

• After 31 years of making television history, where does SNL stand now? This summer, the show had a well-publicized budget crunch, and Michaels was told by NBC brass to cut episodes or cast members. He chose the latter, firing eight-year veterans Chris Parnell and Horatio Sanz, plus recent arrival Finesse Mitchell. With the loss of Fey and Dratch, this reduced the cast by almost 30 percent, from 16 to 11. 
• Right now, says Michaels, the cast is in what he calls a "rebuilding" period, with few old familiar favorites to entice viewers and no big star like a Will Ferrell or a Mike Myers. True, stalwarts like Amy Poehler and Maya Rudolph are familiar veterans by now, and in his 12th season, Darrell Hammond is officially the longest-running player still on the show—but there are no Billy Madisons or Tommy Boys, at least not yet. Would you recognize Kristen Wiig on the street? If so, you're one better than all the Gawker Stalkers out there. She moves among them, invisible. Concedes Michaels: "They're not household names yet." And yet these are Michaels's chosen few to drive SNL forward into the post-Fey, pan-YouTube unknown.
• SNL's ratings have dropped. The September 30 premiere with Dane Cook and the Killers pulled in 6.7 million viewers and a 3.2 rating; five years ago, the show was getting a 3.7 rating—for the full-season average, which includes lower-rated reruns. As a raw statistic, 6.7 million viewers represents a lot—Jon Stewart gets 1.4 million, and the nightly-news numbers are not that far off (8.65 million for NBC, 7.56 million for CBS, both at 6:30 p.m.). But there have been other measures of the slide—for example, in the 12–17 category. Over the past five years, the numbers for this demographic have dropped 1.3 points, from 2.4 in 2001–02 to 1.1 last season.

Wow, massive print coverage on Tom Cruise's takeover of United Artists, but little of it as cynical as my posting yesterday how this was hardly more than out of the box PR-think by slapping a studio name onto a housekeeping deal and grabbing positive headlines for the tarnished star. Isn't everyone and their mother finding outside financing these days? I also feel the need to point out that, as a production company, Cruise/Wagner over the years has been surprisingly glacial in getting projects underway, considering they could get almost anything they wanted done at Paramount and any other studio, and also considering CAA genuflected to them on a regular basis. Why in the world weren't they more productive as producers? That said, I've received emails asking me for the 411 on Tom's partner, Paula Wagner. OK, here goes: she started out as an actress. After working in New York theater, Wagner moved to Los Angeles and hoped-for stardom, but had to settle for a few bit parts of television. Her agent, Susan Smith, had seen some of the best in the business (Sally Field, Kathleen Turner and Glenn Close) because of her acumen for spotting talent, and Smith quickly recognized that, as an actress, Wagner was only mediocre. After a year of trying to jump-start Paula's career, Smith finally called Wagner into her office. "Go away over the weekend and think about what I say to you. You have three choices: either you must leave the agency because I don’t know how to do it for you, or you have to go to regional theater and remember what acting is about again, or, and this is the one I recommend, you give up acting and let me train you to be an agent, because I think you could be terrific.” As Smith talked, tears streamed down Wagner’s face. That Monday, Wagner began her training as an agent. From the start, Wagner was good at it. After four years with Smith, Wagner caught the attention of Wally Nicita, Rick Nicita’s then wife, who worked as a casting director. She told Rick about this “really tough lady” who would make a great agent at CAA. Nicita went to CAA head Michael Ovitz, and Wagner was offered a job. (When Rick and Wally Nicita later divorced, Rick would marry Paula and they became CAA’s power couple.) At CAA, Wagner’s unbridled ambition helped her rise fast. She was a good signer, partially because she used to give the same rehearsed half-hour speech to all prospective actors and actresses about how important it was for them to make movies with great directors. (Hilariously, she'd sit at her desk applying makeup while talking on the phone to clients.) She had a knack for recognizing on-the-rise talent. She happened onto Tom Cruise early in his career. When Cruise’s star rose after his 1983 breakout in Risky Business, Wagner’s rose with him. She left CAA to launch Cruise/Wagner Productions in September 1993. Her husband took over Cruise as a client at CAA. So there you have it.

Count on Sony not to miss a merchandising opportunity now that James Bond is in the 'hood. In celebration of the 21st 007 film Casino Royale, Sony Electronics oh-so-proudly urges consumers to buy its product tie-ins, aka the Limited Edition James Bond 007 Spy Gear. The "Bond-branded beauties" -- how much time did an ad copywriter spend thinking up that alliteration? -- include tricked out (and slicked-out) laptops, micro PCs, digital cameras and flash drives. Barf.

UPDATE: The 411 On Tom's Partner Paula Wagner

So I exhaustingly spend the entire night working, and finally go to sleep in the wee hours, and I wake up late to rudely find out that Tom Cruise will run United Artists? Am I still dreaming? My first thought is that this may be the vanity deal to end all vanity deals. Years ago, it seemed big when Kevin Costner got a hot tub in his offices at Warner Bros. What's next: George Clooney gets a fat slice of Australia if he partners with Rupert Murdoch's Fox? Well, one thing's for sure: great way to bitchslap Sumner Redstone, eh, Tommy Boy? We all knew that hedge fund financing stuff was just filler. Major congrats to CAA and Bert Fields and Harry Sloan (and the Scientology folks) for thinking out of the box PR-wise, first by returning UA to its celeb roots, and then by slapping a studio name onto a housekeeping deal and grabbing positive headlines for the tarnished star. Isn't everyone and their mother finding outside financing these days?Now the lunatics are literally running the asylum (though it's really only four films a year). This is gonna be a ton of fun to watch. In the meantime, here's the text of the press release from MGM on this relaunch of United Artists studio:

"LOS ANGELES, Nov. 2 -- United Artists, the studio founded by movie greats Douglas Fairbanks, Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford and D.W. Griffith some 85 years ago and responsible for delivering such iconic film franchises as Rocky, Pink Panther and James Bond, will be reborn under a partnership formed between Tom Cruise, Paula Wagner and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. The announcement was made today by Harry E. Sloan, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, MGM. Cruise and Wagner, one of the most successful film production teams ever, will drive the rebirth of United Artists as MGM's operating partner. Along with their substantial ownership, Cruise and Wagner will have control of setting the company's production slate, from development to production greenlighting ability, subject to certain parameters. Wagner will serve as Chief Executive Officer of United Artists, overseeing the day to day operations of the studio alongside her longstanding producing partner Cruise, who will star in as well as produce films for United Artists and also be available to appear in film projects for other studios. Cruise last teamed up with the original UA on Rain Man in 1988, which won four Academy Awards including Best Picture.

"In establishing United Artists as a new entity, MGM and Cruise/Wagner will return the studio to its former roots by recognizing what made UA great in the first place -- studio management by creative talent who can best encourage and support other creative talent. The talent friendly studio will be reborn as a place where producers, writers, directors and actors can thrive in a creative environment, developing and producing entertaining film projects. The plan would allow artists throughout the community to pursue their creative visions outside of the traditional studio system. The studio plans to have a production slate of approximately four films each year, which may increase in the future. World-wide marketing and distribution will be handled by partner MGM. UA will be a major supplier of feature films to MGM, with production and development of UA movies being fully financed by MGM and its partners. MGM is the only major studio controlled by private equity firms which include Providence Equity Partners and Texas Pacific Group along with industry partners Comcast Corp. and Sony Corp. of America." The agreement between Cruise Wagner Productions and MGM/UA, which takes effect immediately, was brokered by Cruise Wagner's rep CAA and attorney Bert Fields.

"'Partnering with Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner, we have the ideal creative foundation from which to reintroduce the United Artists brand,' said Sloan in making the announcement. 'Tom and Paula are the modern versions of the iconic founders of United Artists -- Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford, Charlie Chaplin and D. W. Griffith -- and our partnership with them reaffirms our commitment to providing creative talent with a comfortable home at United Artists and a dedicated distribution partner in MGM. United Artists is once again the haven for independent filmmakers and a vital resource in developing quality filmed entertainment consistent with MGM's modern studio model.'

"Commented Cruise: 'Paula and I are very respectful of the rich history and tradition of United Artists, and we welcome the opportunity to contribute to that legacy by providing a wide range of releases that appeal to all audiences. It's our desire to create an environment where filmmakers can thrive and see their visions realized.' "'This is a great opportunity for Tom and me to re-establish the United Artists brand and to work closely with the creative community,' stated Wagner. 'As studio partner-operators, we will provide a supportive environment and infrastructure for filmmakers that will allow them to do their best work.'

"'Providing Tom and Paula with the ability to greenlight films under the UA banner validates MGM's commitment to and recognition of independent producers as the true creative nucleus of Hollywood filmmaking,' said Rick Sands, COO of MGM. 'The relationship between UA, which will provide the creative environment for independent producers to nurture content of their own vision and MGM, which will apply its expertise to distribution and marketing to those projects, is an ideal collaboration of art and business. The resurgence of United Artists will take us another step closer to realizing the full revitalization of MGM. Harry and I are personally thrilled to be working with Tom and Paula.'

Wagner and Cruise launched Cruise/Wagner Productions as an independent production company in September 1993. Since its inception, the company claims global box office grosses of $2.9+ billion. Films produced by the company include the Mission Impossible franchise as well as War of the Worlds, The Last Samurai, The Others and Vanilla Sky, among others. In a career spanning 26 years, Cruise has received three Academy Award nominations and has won three Golden Globe awards for his performances in Born on the Fourth of July, Jerry Maguire and Magnolia. Films he's starred in have resulted in worldwide box office totals of approximately $6 billion and his last two films, War of the Worlds and Mission Impossible III, have grossed nearly $1 billion worldwide. Overall, Cruise has made 14 films that have grossed $100 million in domestic receipts, with his last seven consecutive films reaching that benchmark.

Previous: Who's Crazier: Viacom or Tom Cruise? Cruise And Redstone Do Battle

I'm told it cost the Hollywood studios $30,000 a page to advertise, including online placement as well. But now some of those moguls complained to me last night that the Los Angeles Times' "Awards Season Preview" printed advertising supplement of The Envelope didn't appear in large areas of the city yesterday as it was supposed to. "There was some huge mechanical problem. So the section did not get included in newspapers to Big Cheese places like the Westside, which are the very people who we bought ads to reach," one studio honcho phoned me to gripe. "The LA Times has admitted the flub created delivery confusion and told us there was a production glitch." This idea to go mano a mano with the trades for awards season advertising was the brainchild of Lynne Segall, the well-connected former vice president and associate publisher of The Hollywood Reporter who in June jumped to the LA Times for the newly created position of VP for entertainment advertising. Goal: to stop the movie ad hemorrhaging at the paper. Result: this oops ain't gonna help. (Plus, we all saw how her earlier uber-elaborate promo campaign with Universal still couldn't save The Black Dahlia from being murdered at the box office.) The Awards Season Preview was the first of what's billed as The Envelope Print Series: still to come are Crafts/Special FX (Nov. 8th), Animation (Nov. 15th), Best Writing (Nov. 22), Best Actor (Dec. 6), Best Director (Dec. 13), Best Picture (Dec. 20), Golden Globes Preview (Jan. 10), Oscar Nominees/SAG Wrap-Up (Jan. 31), Grammys (Feb. 7) and Oscar Award Show Preview (Feb. 21).  High-profile Calendar reporters like John Horn and Patrick Goldstein have articles in the advertorial. Surprising, since both Goldstein and Horn correctly turned up their noses when the online version of The Envelope debuted last awards season. This time around, I hear a lot of groveling was involved on the part of editors. "This had to be a huge step for the LA Times," one studio source told me. "I was surprised the paper felt the need to recruit some of their toughest writers to do advertising filler." (Now, I understood that quote to be a compliment to John and Patrick, but today I found out they didn't take it that way. It's the section, not their contributions to it, which is shredder-worthy.) Don't confuse this LA Times section aimed at Academy voters with the upcoming holiday movie preview that The New York Times does annually. Also, as I reported in September, David Carr is reprising his Red Carpet role as "The Carpetbagger" for the NY Times beginning any day now. 

Previous: NY/LA Times Re-Commit to Oscar Puffery 

This just in from the Wall Street Journal, which has been on top of this financial story from the beginning: "The first round of bids for Tribune Co. have come in low, prompting the newspaper and TV company to notify bidders that it is now prepared to consider offers for parts of the business, say people familiar with the situation. Tribune's move opens up the auction to people interested in bidding for individual assets such as the Los Angeles Times... A much wider group of people is likely to show interest in specific assets. Wealthy individuals such as David Geffen, Eli Broad and Ron Burkle have already come forward signaling their interest in acquiring the Los Angeles Times." Meanwhile, I just heard today that Geffen's reason in part for wanting the paper is because of the liberal Hollywood mogul's obsession with the LAT's editorial and opinion sections and how boring, inconsequential and wrong-headed he believes they are. Oh, by the way, Geffen's hanging out these days with Frank Rich, The New York Times columnist. And the mogul has sold yet another painting at the top of the art market, this time a classic drip painting by Jackson Pollock for about $140 million, prompting more speculation it's for his LA Times war chest. For more depth on Geffen's pursuit of the LA Times, see my previous: LA Times: Sleepovers at David Geffen's, Why Is David Geffen Selling His $$$ Art?, Geffen 'Confident' LA Times Buy, David Geffen/LA Times

My latest  column, Blood From Stones, is about how the spin campaign against Leo DiCaprio's upcoming pic Blood Diamond is on. Here's how it begins:

"For more than a decade now, rap and hip-hop have made bling the thing, and no one more than Russell Simmons, who even started his own diamond-encrusted-jewelry line two years ago. “So I said to Warner Bros., get to Russell,” said Bonnie Abaunza. As the Los Angeles–based director of Amnesty International’s celebrity-outreach program, she has been using the studio’s December release of Blood Diamond to focus attention on so-called conflict diamonds (gems mined in war zones and sold to finance the fighting in underdeveloped countries) and the human-rights questions that still surround the diamond industry. So on September 21, when Simmons showed up in a midtown-Manhattan hotel to attend the Clinton Global Initiative Conference, Abaunza seized the moment. “I just saw this movie, Blood Diamond. You could really make a difference on this issue with this generation that buys the diamonds and doesn’t know the history,” she explained to him. Simmons admitted he didn’t know much about the conflict-diamond issue, but confided that “De Beers just contacted me and wants to work with me on this.” He was referring to the world’s largest diamond producer, which also supplies the bling for his jewelry company. Still, Abaunza was hopeful. She followed up with an information-packed letter. She screened the film for him. “He told Warner Bros. that he was moved,” she recalled. So moved that this powerful black entrepreneur, known for his work on behalf of modern-day civil rights and social justice, announced last week that he will lead “a fact-finding mission” about the diamond industry in South Africa and Botswana from November 26 to December 4. But the trip is not being sponsored by Amnesty International. Instead, it’s being organized and underwritten by the Diamond Information Center — which just happens to be the De Beers cartel’s U.S. marketing arm. “Coincidence? C’mon,” a frustrated Abaunza told me.

"All along, the real question behind the scenes of Blood Diamond — an action-adventure pic set against the backdrop of civil war and chaos in the diamond-mining center of 1990s Sierra Leone, starring Leo DiCaprio, Jennifer Connelly and Djimon Hounsou, directed by Ed Zwick and produced by Paula Weinstein — is not whether it will be an Oscar contender (probably) or a critics’ favorite (possibly). It’s just how much mud the World Diamond Council and its flacks and flunkies and friends are planning to throw at the well-intentioned film and its too-liberal-for-the-room credits. Now the answer is clear: a lot, more than enough to dirty its awards chances. It’s rare in Hollywood, home to most things horrible, to have good vs. evil play out offscreen as well as on. (As opposed to seeing this as a level playing field where the really rich are ganging up on the really rich, so, in on sense, they deserve each other.) Yet here, the tactic of choice, already evidenced, is to smear the film’s production by accusing everyone involved of exploiting the Africans in much the same execrable way the diamond industry has done for decades — even though the director, the stars, the producer, and even Alan Horn, the studio mogul who pushed the project, are known for their progressive activism, and even though not one do-gooder, Amnesty International (the Nobel Peace Prize–winning organization), but two, Global Witness (the Nobel Peace Prize–nominated org), both endorsed the film. But, in terms of Oscar, damaging allegations, especially those smelling of hypocrisy, can stink up an Academy Awards campaign. And that’s what is happening..." Continued 

Reclusive Sue Reappears In Hollywood