Harvey Weinstein may be gone from his company, and at the end of his run with the Academy Awards. But his rein over the Oscars comprises 30 years– three decades of his taste changing the movie awards and reinventing them. Prior to 1989, Oscars were won by the studios– Warner Bros, Paramount, Fox, Universal, MGM, etc. Indie companies had rare victories (“Tender Mercies” or “Annie Hall”).

The first Best Picture nomination for Miramax was “My Left Foot” released in 1989. At the 1990 Oscars, Daniel Day Lewis won Best Actor. Brenda Fricker won Best Supporting Actress. And there were nominations for Jim Sheridan for Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay. Also that year, “sex lies and videotape” was nominated for Best Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress for Laura San Giacomo.

The next year, “The Grifters” picked up four nominations — Director (Stephen Frears), Best Supporting Actress (Annette Bening and Anjelica Huston) and Best Adapted Screenplay (Donald E. Westlake). Suddenly, Miramax– a word no one in Hollywood had before– was becoming a problem.

What followed was an avalanche. “The Crying Game” got six nominations and one win. “Passion Fish” had two noms. Then came 8 nominations in 1994 for “The Piano” with three wins– Best Actress (Holly Hunter), Supporting Actress (Anna Paquin) and Best Screenplay (Jane Campion). “Pulp Fiction” came next, then “Bullets Over Broadway” (7 noms, 1 win for Dianne Wiest).

The Hollywood establishment wasn’t happy. Who were these people from New York scooping up awards? Bu the truth was, Weinstein’s taste (and that of his exceptional staff) had already changed Hollywood. It wasn’t just the Oscar nominees. The other releases, too, like “Like Water for Chocolate,” “The Long Walk Home,” “Mediterraneo”– all of them were top notch, first class, beautifully made. “Cinema Paradiso” put Miramax on the Oscar map for Best Foreign Film. Everyone talked about “The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover.” Everyone. Tarantino’s “Reservoir Dogs” was a milestone launch of a new director. “Clerks” became the template for indie films. “Priest” was controversial.

And then came “The English Patient.” Anthony Minghella’s watershed epic won the 1997 Best Picture and 8 other Oscars. It was nominated for a total of 12. It became a recurring joke on “Seinfeld.” I will never forget all the winners and nominees, plus people like Mick Jagger and Keith Richards pouring into the Mondrian Hotel for the studio party that night. Sunset Boulevard was totally blocked. It was madness, with A listers clamoring for invites. That was the watershed.

All together, Miramax scored 68 Oscars during its run including Best Picture wins also for “Shakespeare in Love,” and “Chicago.” Robin Williams, Michael Caine, Judi Dench, Juliette Binoche, Gywneth Paltrow, Catherine Zeta Jones all took home gold. So did Roberto Benigni for “Life is Beautiful” — 4 wins at the 1998 Oscars with a total of 7 nominations. Cate Blanchett won Best Supporting Actress in 2004 for”The Aviator,” which had 11 nominations. In between there were Best Picture nominations for “Chocolat,” “Cider House Rules,” “Frida,” “In the Bedroom,” “Finding Neverland.” And of course there was “Good Will Hunting,” which put Ben Affleck and Matt Damon on the map with a Best Original Screenplay Oscar.

And let us not forget “Fahrenheit 911,” which Harvey and Bob Weinstein co-produced. But when Disney wouldn’t let them release, it, the Michael Moore film went on to make over $200 million.

When the Weinsteins formed their own company in 2005, more Oscars came– two Best Pictures, “The King’s Speech” and “The Artist,” not to mention multiple nominations for “Philomena,” “Lion,” “Vicky Christina Barcelona,” and more Tarantino films. Meryl Streep became a regular Oscar nominee at Miramax/Weinstein, eventually winning for “The Iron Lady.” Nicole Kidman also became a favorite, winning for “The Hours” (a co-production). The Weinstein Company also won Oscars Best Documentary for “20 Feet from Stardom” and “Citizenfour.”

And now the whole thing is over. Without Harvey, there is no Weinstein Company. And the Weinstein Company is changing its name. “Wind River,” “The Current War,” and “The Upside”– all intended to be TWC candidates for Oscar noms this year, will suffer. Who knows what the future will bring. But the Oscars– airing March 3rd, 2018 — will be a much different show.

Reginald Hudlin’s “Marshall” — which opens on Friday — is a valiant attempt at a worthy cause– to celebrate the early achievements of Thurgood Marshall decades before he took his seat on the US Supreme Court. But the movie rewrites history—or creates a history that never happened—to achieve its goals. A great deal of “Marshall” is invented or manufactured for dramatic purpose. It is filled with inaccuracies and fake characterizations, most particularly of my late, great uncle Sam Friedman, my grandfather’s older brother who died in 1994 at the age of 90.

This doesn’t take away from Thurgood Marshall’s many considerable successes. But if you’re going to see “Marshall,” a few real facts—not fake ones—should be known.

A quick recap: in December 1940, Joseph Spell, a black chauffeur, was accused of raping Eleanor Strubing, the society wife of his employer, in tony Greenwich, Connecticut. No lawyer would take Spell’s defense. The case was offered to Sam Friedman, a respected lawyer from Bridgeport, who accepted. The NAACP sent their young senior counsel, Thurgood Marshall, to Bridgeport to assist Sam. Marshall did not try the case. He was sent as a consultant.

My great uncle (and believe me, he was indeed great) has been depicted in “Marshall” and in press materials as a novice to trial law, insecure without the presence of Thurgood Marshall. In the movie Sam is seen as a person of no backbone who feared for his life and that his reputation would be ruined if he lost the case. This is laughable. In reality, he’d been practicing law for 14 years, had a sterling reputation as a trial attorney, and was certainly not the flustered novice described in reviews and publicity materials. I have no doubt Sam knew he would win the case once the trial began.

Almost not a word of my great uncle’s depiction in the movie is accurate. The story of the trial, and how Sam Friedman successfully defended Joseph Spell while Thurgood Marshall took notes as second chair, was well documented: In January 1941, the Bridgeport Post covered the trial with daily front page stories. (They are all on microfiche at the local library.) Marshall is barely mentioned. It’s Sam’s masterful questioning of the witnesses that is regularly cited. The trial was also more recently written about in a 2005 article by Daniel Sharfstein in Legal Affairs. https://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2005/feature_sharfstein_marapr05.msp

My great uncle was actually a whiz kid. You wouldn’t know it from “Marshall,” but Sam Friedman graduated from Boston University Law School—where he’d been fast tracked—in 1925. He passed the Connecticut State Bar in 1926 and set up his own office in his hometown of Bridgeport. From the beginning he handled all kinds of cases—not just insurance fraud, as the PR for “Marshall” would indicate. He was subsequently joined in his practice by his brother Irwin. Two years later, in 1943, Sam would become the town prosecutor in neighboring Fairfield. Four years later he was made a judge there. Irwin became a judge in a nearby town in 1951.

From the start of the film, the scales are tipped against my kind, soft spoken uncle as he is sarcastically told by Marshall to carry his suitcase full of books—as if books were something foreign to Sam. Later Josh Gad (talented but miscast) squeals to Marshall (Chadwick Boseman, also miscast) that he can’t afford to lose the Spell case. Marshall responds with “Fuck you, Sam Friedman,” not once but twice. This is absurd and never happened. It’s inconceivable that Marshall, who was erudite, would have addressed my uncle in such a way. (My family cringed when they heard this at a private screening this summer.)

A lot of other things are faked in “Marshall.” My uncle was never beaten up by anyone, especially racist thugs. He was also not accosted by friends in their local synagogue who wondered “what would your parents think?” (In fact, Sam’s parents—my great grandparents—lived right there in Bridgeport along with a huge and supportive family. To suggest anything else is simply fiction.) He didn’t rely on Thurgood Marshall to tell him how to conduct the case. He certainly didn’t panic when Marshall was absent from the courtroom. He was happy to have him there, but Marshall was not the architect of the defense. What also isn’t shown: when Marshall wasn’t allowed to eat lunch in the local hotel restaurant, it was Sam who hosted him without fail.

So what now? I’ve written about and reviewed movies for over 25 years. There have been countless instances of history being twisted to make movies seem more interesting. Did I think it would happen in my own family? Never. Now I know what it’s like and it isn’t so much fun. My great uncle, who was my father’s mentor and the leader of our family, has been sold out. He suffers, Joseph Spell suffers, and so does Thurgood Marshall in the process.

updated today MONDAY FEB 19 2018 Heather Graham is still talking about Harvey Weinstein– this time on Marc Maron’s podcast. She seems to have totally erased “Committed” from her memory– she didn’t sleep with Harvey Weinstein, no one attacked her. It’s a cute film. She was the STAR of the movie. Head scratcher here…

from October 11, 2017 The rush to have a story about Harvey Weinstein is giving some people selective amnesia.

Heather Graham has written a first person account of almost being propositioned by Weinstein. The piece appears in Variety.

Heather says that because she didn’t play ball, so to speak, she didn’t get a job. She says: “I was never hired for one of his films.”

But Heather must be suffering from some memory disorder. She starred with Luke Wilson and Casey Affleck in the 2000 Miramax comedy called “Committed.” It was good a little film. I remember seeing it at the Sundance Film Festival.

Nevertheless, “Committed” never took off and was sent to DVD.

In the Variety piece, Graham says it was in the early 2000s that Weinstein told her he had basically an arrangement with his wife and wanted to put her in movies.

Well, he did put her in a movie. And Graham filmed it in 1998. Let’s refresh her memory with this trailer:

Having been scooped by the New York Times, Ronan Farrow is now about to drop an exclusive on Harvey Weinstein in The New Yorker. The media world is standing by.

Ronan had a failed daytime show on MSNBC last year. When that ended he was sent over to NBC’s Today show. I’m told he pitched the Weinstein story to NBC and they rejected it. So he went to The New Yorker and they bit despite the fact he has just about no magazine credits at all. But when he went to MSNBC he had no broadcasting credits either. Hmmm…

Every part of this is strange and points to conflicts of interest. Strange: Ronan’s biological dad is New Yorker favorite Woody Allen, whom Ronan hates and tries to destroy at every turn. Is The New Yorker trying to tell Woody something? Seems like a betrayal, no?

Then there’s the conflict of interest: That father whom Ronan hates. Harvey Weinstein has had a lot of success with Woody Allen films over the years. He released “Bullets Over Broadway” and “Mighty Aphrodite” at Miramax. They were each big hits. Dianne Wiest won on Oscar for the former film. Mira Sorvino won for the latter. Harvey also released “Vicki Cristina Barcelona” at the Weinstein Company. Penelope Cruz won an Oscar for that one.

Weinstein has also released “Everyone Says I Love You,” which has become a kind of template for modern movie and TV musicals (See “La La Land”) and “Celebrity.”

So what’s in it for Ronan Farrow re Harvey Weinstein? It’s pretty obvious. He’s a good target by association. Now that Amazon has become Woody’s studio, we’re not going to see Ronan attacking Jeff Bezos. But Weinstein looks like a good punching bag until Farrow can figure out his next move.

PS Ronan is going to cast himself as defender of women against the casting couch. I suppose it’s lucky his real father wasn’t Frank Sinatra after all!

Sunday at the Hamptons Film Festival brought an abundance of possible Best Actress nominees.

First Annette Bening arrived– with Jamie Bell– with their “Film Stars Don’t Die In Liverpool.” Bening is sensational as 50s film star Gloria Grahame, an Oscar winner herself but a sort of B version of Marilyn Monroe. “Liverpool” is a true story of Grahame’s later in life fling with a sexy young guy (that’s Jamie Bell), whose Liverpool family took care of her.

Both Bening and Bell are knockouts. Bening throws her name once again into the Best Actress pool, which is filling up with names like Judi Dench and Emma Stone. She’s been there before, and should have been there last year with “20th Century Women” if A24 hadn’t concentrated only on “Moonlight.” “Liverpool” comes from Sony Pictures Classics, which steered Cate Blanchett to Best Actress not long ago with “Blue Jasmine.”

And then Diane Kruger arrived with “In the Fade,” which Germany has entered into the Foreign Film race. Kruger won Best Actress in Cannes with Fatih Akin’s intense drama about neo Nazi terrorism. Kruger plays Katja, who is seeking justice for her murdered son and husband. She is simply outstanding in what turns out to be a courtroom drama wrapped in a political thriller. It’s the role of a lifetime for Kruger, who is best known for her own stand out performances in “Inglorious Basterds” and “Farewell My Queen.”

After last night’s screening, “Law & Order SVU” star Mariska Hargitay and actor husband Peter Hermann, who was raised in Germany, stopped backstage for photos and kudos. Hargitay, who’s played hard as nails cop Olivia Benson for almost 20 years, was in tears. She said, laughing: “I don’t know why, I see this in my job every day. But she was amazing.”

It’s quite possible we’ll see both Annette and Diane on Oscar night. They are top of the list for possible nominees.

Anna Rose King is the beautiful (gotta say it), smart, and talented daughter of the late Roger King. You may remember seeing the production company name KingWorld on everything from “Oprah” to “Dr. Phil” to “Wheel of Fortune,” “Inside Edition,” and so on. Roger King and his brothers were the kings of TV syndication. Unfortunately Roger died ten years ago at the age of 63.

Luckily, his other legacy is a daughter who can act, direct and write. Anna Rose’s first feature, “Good Enough,” debuts today (Tuesday) on every digital platform from iTunes to Amazon and so on. When I was summoned to see “Good Enough” last week, I really thought, oh this is going to be terrible. But “Good Enough” is more than good enough. If Anna Rose had gone to Sundance or Tribeca, she’d be the darling of indie films right now.

But she’s her father’s daughter. “The deals were all bad,” she said. “And the movie would have died after a week in LA and NY and no one would have seen it. This made more sense.”

Breezy, quirky, and very fully realized, “Good Enough” is the story of a daughter trying to discover her dead father’s roots. It is totally fiction. Anna Rose knew Roger King very well. But Lorna, a flight attendant, never knew her divorced dad at all. So she goes looking for his long lost brother, crisscrossing the country. It’s a very amusing and touching journey. I don’t want to spoil the result, but it’s well worth being patient for the payoff.

Is Anna Rose King an heiress? I have no idea. But she graduated from NYU Film School and made her movie on the cheap. She shot “Good Enough” guerilla style. “I dressed up in my flight attendant uniform and we just shot in JFK and LaGuardia. La Guardia was really easy,” she told me. “Everyone’s filming something!”

Tonight “Good Enough” gets a Virtual Premiere down at the NYU Production Lab at 16 Washington Place beginning at 6:30pm. According to a release:  The entire production lab will be divided into different viewing areas reminiscent of the inside of an airplane. There will be a first class, economy, a cockpit and a Kodak Sky Lounge! Guests will be able to watch the downloaded film on Kodak Ektra’s – their new professional-quality, photography-first smartphones – all while wearing headphones (provided), similar to what a silent disco might look like. Each viewing area will serve a different purpose, whether viewers prefer to watch from a Kodak smartphone, their own phone, or tv screens displayed throughout the room. Babe Sparkling Rose and popcorn will be provided as well as other food and drinks. Viewers will be encouraged to use social media using the #GOODENOUGHMOVIE hashtag – and we will have various influencers going live on the @GoodEnoughMovie Instagram account to promote the virtual premiere concept throughout the nation.

And “Good Enough” is not a one off release. Anna Rose King is here to stay. She has many irons in the fire. And that’s a really good thing.