The Hot Blog

« March 2009 | Main | May 2009 »

April 30, 2009

BYOB - Travellin' North

Driving up to San Francisco today for the SF International, America's eldest film fest with some of America's smartest and ambitious fest programming.

You have the con'...

Posted by dpoland at 11:08 AM | Comments (51)

April 29, 2009

DP/30 - Il Divo writer/director Paolo Sorrentino

Paolo Sorrentino biopic about Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti is not like any bio-pic you've ever seen... part Scorsese, part Oliver Stone, and all Sorrentino. I had a chance to sit down with the writer/director (and his off-screen interpreter) in Los Angeles recently.

The video interview is after the jump... and the DP/30 home page is here and the podcast link can be found here.

Posted by dpoland at 10:31 PM | Comments (0)

Review: Wolverine

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is no The Dark Knight. Nor is it Batman Begins or Spider-Man or the first, groundbreaking X-Men or Burton’s Batman or Donner/Lester’s Superman pair.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is also no Superman Returns or a Schumacher Batman or Fantastic Four or Daredevil or Ghost Rider or The Punisher or Catwoman either.

It’s not a breakthrough film. It doesn’t seem to aspire to being a breathrough film. But it is no piece of junk either.

Wolverine lives in that interesting middle ground, where directors who are aiming a little higher with a lot less money win some, lose some, and basically deliver a functional, enjoyable night at the movies. Titles that come to mind include Iron Man, Hulk, Blade and Blade II, Constantine, The Crow, and Hellboy.

Iron Man had The Suit That Had Not Been Seen (and Downey as a rare commodity... a fun anti-hero in a lead) and Hulk had Big Green (for better or for worse) and Guillermo del Toro has a visual sense unlike many other directors of any level. But all of these films spoke to the audience that was listening, created some major fans and some major detractors, and with the exception of Iron Man, didn’t gross through the roof. We can all sit around pick out what we liked and didn't like about each of these films... inspired and insipid moments... moments of personal taste.

And that’s where we are with Wolverine.

High Jackman is everything he was in the X-Men trilogy and more. Strong, strong performance by him, within the range of that character. Liev Schreiber and Danny Huston are more than capable of making their cardboard characters into people we are interested in seeing on screen.

Not all the casting was as strong. Will.i.Am has been fairly called out as a car wreck… much better when he isn’t talking. Kevin Durand and Dominic Monaghan are both good, but nothing earth-shaking (pun intended for Durand’s character). Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins both read as the cheap versions of some actor that has more on-screen charisma (say, Timothy Olyphant and Michelle Monaghan).

And the story… well… it is the story. It’s a placekeeper for a bunch of big action sequences, most of which I thought were very effective, if not groundbreaking in any way. They are mostly mutant-on-mutant fight scenes. Wolverine fights his brother three different times and he takes on a few different mutants outside of the family. He is created. And there is a lot of blowing up stuff real good with either mutant powers or conventional weapons aimed at mutants.

Of all the action, the only sequence that I didn’t really enjoy was the finale – bad timing – because it was, in the end, just another balletic fight with mutant powers and not a crescendo. As with Star Trek, there is no real threat of death for our hero(es) in a prequel. So the method in which the hero overcomes the obstacle must be extra special so we forget that we already know the outcome. And a number of moments felt sloppy... almost unfinished.

But all in all, I enjoyed the humor and the humorlessness of Wolverine himself. I enjoyed seeing some of the mutant effects that I saw in comic books come to life in clever and realistic ways. (For me, the fire escape gag is the top one in the film… completely believable in spite of itself.) Moments that have been done badly in some other comic book movies – public nudity in Fantastic Four leaps to mind – were well done here… and didn’t feel like some cheap rip-off of Terminator.

The story points that made no sense to me – and I am not an obsessive aficionado of the comic, worrying about all the details… such as Cyclops’ comic book origin story – all involved Gambit and why he made the choices he did in 3 of his 4 moments of making a decision to participate in the story. But the screenwriters also danced around the "things we know that will become part of the Wolverine story in future former sequels" thing with reasonable skill. "Guess which kid mutant is which mutant you know and love" goes on just long enough to not being dead boring.

Is Wolverine the comic book equivalent of Hal Ashby and Waldo Salt’s Coming Home with mutant powers? No. But versus last year’s second tier parade of high grossing action – Indy 4, Hulk Incredible, Mummy 3 and Jules Verne's Center of the 3D – it looks like a low-rent masterpiece.

It’s a B movie with 1000 effects shots, pure and simple. Gavin Hood made some good acting choices, moved the pieces around the board effectively, Don McAlpine lit the shit out of it, Harry Gregson-Williams hype scored it (not memorably, but loudly, as this material demands), and after 107 minutes, you are ready to sit through the next Origins, not expecting the world, but not unhappy to be there for the ride.

What else, exactly, were you expecting?

Posted by dpoland at 05:48 PM | Comments (57)

Another Silly Stat From The Ticket Salesmen

Fandango - "WOLVERINE opens tomorrow night at midnight, and it appears that Hugh Jackman’s star power is a contributing factor to the film’s brisk advance ticket sales.

According to a Fandango survey of more than 1,000 moviegoers, 44% of WOLVERINE ticket-buyers had viewed the 2009 Academy Awards Show with Hugh Jackman as the host, and 34% of those viewers said the Oscar telecast actually made them more excited to see him as Wolverine. (64% said his Oscar duties had no effect on their anticipation for the movie, while 2% said it made them less excited to see him playing the character.)"

Around 150 self-selected survey participants (34% of 44% of "more than 1000") out of, perhaps, 100,000 people who have already purchased tickets online from both services for Wolverine , or about $1m in gross revenue on what stands to be a weekend of at least 50x that many tickets sold, is being "reported" as news.

God bless the hypesters, but why does anyone run this as anything close to news?

Posted by dpoland at 04:39 PM | Comments (5)

The Biggest Little Story In A While...

April 10 - Clearly the fringe operators are falling by the wayside, but the stalwarts like Village Roadshow, Spyglass, Legendary and Relativity are still very much in the game. Asked about one report that all was lost, the head of a production-financing entity said simply, "It's true, but it's not true. We're raising money from a new banking source. We're still players."

Village Roadshow this year helped finance Clint Eastwood's $40 million movie "Gran Torino," which will do $260 million worldwide.

That's the sort of result that keeps the money flowing. Or that finds new money.

April 16 - Village Roadshow Pictures, Warner Bros.' longtime feature co-financing partner, was unable to deliver its share of funding on four titles last year, leaving the studio to cover the entire cost, Time Warner disclosed Wednesday.

Village Roadshow also may not be able to finance the 2009 films to which it has committed. The four pics from last year were "Get Smart," "Gran Torino," "Nights in Rodanthe" and "Yes Man."

Hey... you... look at the agents putting all their suits in one closet... don't pay any attention to THE MONEY THAT KEEPS THE BUSINESS GOING FALLING AWAY...

Hollywood's studios have built a funding bubble around DVD bubble... not unlike Wall Street following the internet bubble with the real estate bubble. And the situation is just as bad... except that the infrastructure of a film studio is actually so much smaller than, say, the auto industry, that it can cruise along without acknowledging the RED ALERT for a couple of years.

If you want to know why the summer looks so much different than the last few summers, it is that responsible studio top execs put on the brakes over a year ago.

And what remains the biggest bullshit story in this industry right now? That the box office doing okay answers the questions that this industry has to face and face sharply.

What's the second dumbest story? That the AMPTP behavior towards the unions/guilds was acceptable in the face of an economic downturn... when, in fact, the costs of non-star union talent is one of the smallest, already cut back budget lines on any movie or TV show.... and the stars are not an issue with these contracts since they essentially create their own rules via negotiation.

Anyway... Village Roadshow quietly not paying their bills is not a small story. (Financial Times did more than quote the earnings release and spoke to an unnamed source at Village Roadshow, who says that the company will eventually pony up what they owe.) And one of the least reported stories in town right now is the cash crunch being experienced at a few of the studios in particular. WB is fortunate that Harry Potter is here again. But those Friday night numbers are going to be sweatier this summer than any time in memory.

Posted by dpoland at 02:06 PM | Comments (4)

Questions - Countdown To Summer

Wolverine launches tonight... what will May look like?

Posted by dpoland at 12:18 PM | Comments (23)

April 28, 2009

Summer Movie Promo du Jour

Not bad. Amusing for slightly longer than it takes to download the app, a period which counts as a long attention span these days. Find it here.

Posted by dpoland at 11:53 PM | Comments (0)

DP/30 - Anvil: The Story of Anvil

Producer Rebecca Yeldham and Director Sacha Gervasi talk about their documentary sensation.

The video interview is after the jump... and the DP/30 collection is available as a podcast here...

Posted by dpoland at 06:58 PM | Comments (2)

BYOB 42809

Sorry if I gave anyone whiplash with the problems loading the last entry... and sorry to the 99% of you who have no idea what I am talking about.

Does anyone care as little as I do about the agency merger?

Michael Speier writes in The Wrap, "The new company's creation is, without a doubt, an industry-shifting jolt to the entertainment business at large. WME is now a company that will automatically rival CAA as the top agency in town both in terms of mojo and clients."

But there is no real notion of why anyone who is not directly connected to this inside baseball story should be paying much attention. Will a greater consolidation of talent create better movies or just more shitty packages?

Agencies have too much power and are paid way too much money in packaging deals already... so is there some way that his deal changes that... aside from making it incrementally worse? I mean, agencies don't MAKE anything... they are middle men.

And frankly, the one notable thing is the use of the word "Entertainment" in the new title, which scarily suggests that there may be an intention to assert more of a hand in developing movies and television... people whose jobs - with all due respect - are not to make anything of quality, but to sell something.

The real power remains with the studios and distribution channels, though the people in charge of these things often forget that they are The Money and that the agencies are not, giving too much to the agents and threatening the financial potential of projects.

What am I missing?

Posted by dpoland at 04:47 PM | Comments (71)

Hard Summer Questions, Part 2

How do you solve a problem like The Wolfie?

We have now moved into the last few days before the X-Men Origins: Wolverine is released. Tracking is solid. The Mexican opening has been delayed, but the rest of North America seems to be good to go. The film has been seen by a lot of press now, particularly the junketeers. The illegal leak of the film is sure to be mentioned in a majority of features and reviews in the days to come. Whatever the box office number, it will be spun by different people in different ways.

Last Friday, I wrote about the anonymous story on AICN and others picking up on that story. My core notion was that the story – which claimed that, “"The workprint version IS in fact identical to the release print, sans effect and some audio work." – was an unnecessary form of piling on.

I still believe that to be the case. But at the same time, I feel compelled to acknowledge that the story – though overly negative in tone – was essentially correct.

I still object to the “gotcha” nature of this coverage and the tone of the anonymous source in particular. But the truth is the truth.

But that is where things get thick. One could argue that by confirming that story’s accuracy, I too am breaking the rules of conduct. I have pointedly asked the studio what it feels about this and, at this point, they seem to feel that we are close enough to the end, that tracking is strong enough, that they have successfully turned the focus to “easter eggs” at the end of the film, and also understand that the news is the news.

I’m still uncomfortable about it all… and I guess one could argue that framing this as a moral issue is just a way of excusing myself for possessing the knowledge about the two versions. Then again, I never quite bought the argument made that having looked at and judging the leaked version is the same as running the review that got Roger Friedman fired. I thought it was unnecessary at that point – especially the extra information about what this guy thought of the film – but not the same as what had happened on Fox News. (For the record, even though some of you seem to be enraged by my bringing it up, I did offer my illegally purchased disc of the film, and was asked to simply destroy it, which I now have.)

Anyway… there are, indeed, two “easter eggs.” Both were shot during production. (Were rumors that at least one of these "easter eggs" was shot just last week true - and it appears that they are absolutely not- and the only reason for shooting them was to differentiate from the leak, I would still argue that it was a unneeded pre-release story, though I would think that running it next week would be fair and add to the story of how to deal with a situation like this.) One involves Hugh Jackman. One does not. One was on the leaked version. One was not.

The idea of the different versions being on different prints is kind of silly. I understand the urge to shift focus, but one “easter egg” actually moves the story along while the other is a kitschy nod to a potential sequel, but not really a story point. To have the latter and not the former would actually be a shame for those who care about such things. (Amazingly, with all the focus on the “easter eggs” at the end of credits, almost the entire crew of junketeers who were bused onto the Fox lot for the screening not only left the theater before credits were over, but their vans took off immediately, effectively abandoning the one guy who did stick around for the very end. Oh those junketeers!)

Personally, I think Fox should include the now-infamous leaked version in the eventually DVD package for this film. Own the situation. And if you are a film lover, the footage of unfinished effects is kind of interesting when you see the final version. It’s the kind of stuff that studios put in DVD extras in order to illustrate the process of building effects.

Of course, seeing the illegally leaked version would temper any theatrical experience… not unlike any situation in which you see a film a second time in any format. I am embarrassed to admit that my nephew saw the film on some teen friend’s computer and claims he will not now see the film in the theater. But I will interested to see whether that holds up. I’m quite sure that he will argue with his girlfriend to Wolverine and not Ghosts of Girlfriends Past if they go to the movies this weekend.

Anyway… it is an ongoing dilemma. A journalist is often faced with doing something wrong or downright illegal in order to establish the facts of a story. Obviously, this is not a license to do wrong (much less to kill) with immunity. In the case of piracy, there is an absolute need to find out what the real status of any reportedly pirated film is, whether it means downloading it illegally or buying it on a city street. But what do you do once you have confirmed just what has been pirated? This has become a blurrier issue in the era of the gossip/journalist/critic, where as a pure reporter, like a John Horn, you would report the fact of the pirated version’s existence and quality and not even considering offering an opinion on the film itself.

In the particular case of Wolverine, this has gotten even blurrier, as there was over a year of very aggressive complaining, on behalf of Gavin Hood, about Fox interfering with his vision for the film. As often happens in the genre-loving community, things were (and in some quarters, are) way overboard. So the urge to pile on to Fox and Tom Rothman added to the dynamic around the leak.

In the end, the marketing for a movie of this size still dominates. There is probably over $50 million in media buys from Fox combines with another $30m - $40m worth of TV and other media from sponsorship partners. Either Hugh Jackman rising from the water all flexed or flying through the air and cutting into a helicopter gets you to want to see this movie this weekend or not. And even if a DVD of the release version of the film was available, if you love the movies and if you are under 30, you likely still love going to the movies.

For journalists, the complexities of the environment and the challenges to long-held rules are happening every day now. I think that most journalists behave in ways that they consider their best choice. But we (and I, in particular) are not always right. And with readers empowered to speak up with their perspectives, we often get good – and sometimes uncomfortable – perspective after we have already gone to print, whether on paper or electronically.

And on we go…

Posted by dpoland at 04:42 PM | Comments (12)

Hard Summer Questions, Part 1

There are issues that face journalists and editors every day. Some are expected. Some are surprises.

Every summer, for instance, the issue of the cost of mega-movies comes up. Invariably, studios spin those numbers down. As a journalist, you hear all kinds of things and then have to parse it all, get enough sources to feel sure – since actually being handed a hard budget by someone inside production is very rare – and do your best to find the truth. Along the way, you end up feeling as though you are calling people who you have known for year - and often like and respect thoroughly – liars. After all, if someone tells you that the budget is $X million and they are a senior executive and they have been told directly by the CFO what the number on a film is, they feel they know it to be true.

But this is Hollywood. And perception is reality, even inside the hallways of studios. Publicists know that lying is a part of what they sometimes have to do. But many of the best ones really, really don’t like doing it. They would rather work the truth into something that benefits their sell than to throw out lies, in no small part because it can come back to bite them on the ass.

This year’s first “How much does it really cost?” is, for the moment – another one or two will surely come up – is Star Trek. I have not heard a single number, going back months to when the film actually finished post-production, that was not $208 million or higher. The number has come from all kinds of directions via people who are close to the production and the studio.

Reports when the film was greenlit was that the greenlit budget was right around $150 million… high for a Star Trek film, but that number would have made it the cheapest or second cheapest (behind Angels & Demons?) major release of May 2009. Obviously a big sci-fi film with a lot of CG… not a shocking number at all.

Word was, as the picture hit some minor delays because of the WGA strike last year, that the budget was rising. They also pushed the release from Christmas ’08 to Summer ’09, which in an of itself meant 6 months of interest on the dollars spent on the film. In addition, JJ Abrams decided to enrich the product quite a bit and that he was getting the full support of the studio. Around then, Spyglass was brought on as a funding partner in addition to Level 1.

When the picture locked earlier this year, the number that was out there was anywhere between $208 million and $225 million. Some had it up at $250 million, but that was probably an exaggeration… and was taken as such as the reports in the low 2s kept piling up.

And then, last week, The Number became $130 million in the press. WSJ danced a little by making it $130m - $150m (aka, the greenlight budget).

Obviously, it is in the studio’s interest to look like it has a smaller mountain to climb to profitability. Obviously, there are people who are rooting for any studio’s big movie to fail.

Aesthetically, the cost of a movie means nothing. There are great cheap films and there are horrible mega-budget films. But it can mean a lot to a studio as it tries to wrangle the perception of how things are going in the media. Last summer, Paramount had 3 huge hits that grossed $2 billion ($851 million domestically and another $1.15 billion overseas). But that story was tamped down a bit by the fact that Paramount’s only financial upside in that $2 billion was about $200 million in distribution fees. Not bad… nothing to sneeze at… but not really what has traditionally been thought of as what a $2 billion summer means to a studio.

This summer, Paramount once again comes to the table with three mega-movies, two of which are well established franchises (Star Trek and Transformers) and one that they hope will take off, GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra. The budget floating around for Joe is $170 million. Inevitably, the number will be set by the studio much closer to $100 million. I don’t have much intel on that film, so I don’t have a strong opinion as to what the truth is… but I am pretty sure that what the studio tells newspapers will be low. Likewise, on Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen, the number is in the low 2s… but I expect spin to put it in the $180m range… and someone to use the word “crazy” to explain estimates that crack $200 million.

Of course, studios are smarter than journalists and geeks tend to think they are. I would bet that Paramount has Star Trek estimated to open in the mid-60s about now, running to a gross of just under $200 million domestic… and that internationally, they are praying daily. But let’s say worldwide is being estimated at $300 million… then $130 million to produce and $100 million to market worldwide makes that a clear success, no? Yes, you don’t get out of red ink until DVD, but that’s expected these days. Even another $20 million in costs means that they need another $30 million in box office (plus ancillaries) to make it up… not quite a success at $150m. Throw in another $60 million on top of that and all of a sudden, Star Trek has to be a surprise runaway smash worldwide to break even.

They know this.

The math is not hard.

They also know that Transformers 2 is going to be huge… and that a big chunk of the profits will be siphoned over to Steven Spielberg and DreamWorks… and that their former partners will not be shy about touting the windfall, especially as they keep waiting for their own cash wave to crash onto their shores.

They also fear that GI Joe could be one of those films that tanks for real, whatever it costs.

Surprise, franchise-record-breaking box office for Star Trek with some perceived financial upside + lots of success with Transformers 2 + a write-down on GI Joe = a pretty good summer. Good + Great + Terrible still = Good-plus.

Obviously, greater success is a variable that everyone is thrilled to see and changes the overall math. It isn't too bad when the films are good also.

It’s funny… I just had a conversation with a magazine about breaking down the revenues of a summer movie, but they were interested in a smaller movie with a major star… making the math all the more convoluted… and forcing a lot more guessing about gross points. As you have one of those conversations, you realize how many pieces there are of the puzzle… how many variations that make breaking it down to “Actor X is making X% of your box office dollar” a bit of a reach. (This includes the constantly aggravating estimates of numbers of tickets sold… the single least important and impossible to estimate on any single movie statistic there is.) At the same time, some of this math is pretty basic.

Paramount and Fox have more cash on the table this summer than any other studios. At least $800 million per studio on just 3 movies each, including worldwide P&A. Fox is betting huge on three sequels. Paramount has two sequels and a launch.

WB is just the domestic distributor of Terminator Salvation, leaving their only mega-budget release being Harry Potter, fully funded by the studio… and one of just two mortal locks of the season to gross more than $700 million worldwide.

Angels & Demons is the only $100 million-plus movie from Sony this summer.

Land of the Lost and Public Enemies are as big as Universal is going this summer with $35 million for Bruno looking like the big bargain of the year.

And Disney’s only expensive film is Pixar’s Up.

Let the dancing begin…

Posted by dpoland at 10:48 AM | Comments (44)

April 27, 2009

Uh, no...

It's fanmade trailer posted to YouTube on October 19, 2007... which you wouldn't know if you just looked at the embed on The Wrap website. Internet 101, guys.

Oy.

Of course, compared to Bill Wyman catching one of Nikki Finke's infamously self-serving overwrites... I guess dumb is better than malicious.

Posted by dpoland at 07:54 PM | Comments (21)

A Pig of A Poll

Results after the jump...

Posted by dpoland at 04:18 PM | Comments (14)

Who Should Buy Whom? - Episode One

On the sad, but inevitable occasion of the official end of Conde Nast’s Portfolio, I am inspired to sit down and to write a piece I have been considering for weeks now.

Variety – If they want to keep the brand alive, they need to find some points of focus in the online universe. First, they should buy HitFix up immediately. I have no doubt that for enough money to cover the start-up, a few stock options, and the promise of a handful of salaries, they can acquire this new website, which has little chance to survive on its own, but which has ideas that the infrastructure of Variety would support well. The idea of being The Place To Go If You Want To Find Entertainment, To Set Your Entertainment Schedules, And To Even Buy The Tickets is the kind of consumer play that Variety has been looking for… and I suspect that the start-up has done this for a fraction of what it would have cost for Variety to do it on their own. In addition, the editorial team at HitFix, which is made up of some who have been seen as rebels, are committed to mainstreaming a bit. Rebels on the payroll – especially ones who will not lose you ads – are a quick way to web street cred.

Next, as much as it sickens me, the Trade Paper Of Record should hire Nikki Finke, Roger Friedman, or someone at Page Six… someone who is willing to run ”scoops” that are spoon-fed by one of the parties involved, but carry the cache of “breaking news.” They need someone to be a self-contained pariah who is also self-interested enough to understand where the lines are. That – and the ego that makes her think she is worth way too much money – may leave out Nikki. But Finke 2.0 is just a matter of finding someone who will do that dirty job and love doing it… which really leaves out the too-long-fat-n-happy-with-Variety-as-cover Michael Fleming… he’s just not used to playing in that dirty a pool.

Finally, they should either buy the new Movieline – also not long for this world, though it can last as long as whoever paid for the brand name on the logo is willing to not make any money, as his staff is surely willing to work for the same peanuts they got from Gawker Media as long as they have their editorial freedom – and make each of those writers into weekly or bi-weekly columnists that can combine enough bitchy slapping with enough genuine insight into the art of filmmaking to build an audience OR they need to raid the dying magazines for some other interesting talent.

The Hollywood Reporter – They need a complete facelift.

I am still a believer that MCN would be a good way to rebuild, but I’ll put that aside…

Buy Gawker Media.

It’s really that simple. Nick Denton is now Facebook to a world of Twitters. He overplayed his hand and is now last gen. But his principles for running web content are very strong. You don’t want him running your company in whole, but if you took The Hollywood Reporter and Gawker-fied it, you’d have a truly unique web profile, mixing old school trade reporting with the idea of a stream of information that the Gawker really created.

Imagine 10 reporter/bloggers creating more than 100 posts a day, each tasked with a very specific beat. We all see the heat coming off of Nikki Finke’s diet of strikes, agency gossip, and attacks on Ben Silverman. What would happen with 3 times the content from writers who were actually edited and committed to their beats? Fill the news holes. Work the rumors, quickly and efficiently. Offer real insight.

Follow this up with the purchase of indieWiRE, maintaining the staff, but Gawkerizing them as well, so they can do their great work and stop trying to overreach.

New York Times – The Paper of Record is doing pretty well in New Media, even if they continue to have terrible trouble finding writers to cover the industry as well as they should. (Team Cieply up with John Horn, freed of his LA Times shackles, and the combo and the internal combination might make for the best work on the film industry in any daily ever.)

The only thing they are really missing is web depth… and ruining the branding of The Carpetbagger by making it their catch-all movie blog is a disaster that should be corrected TODAY. Carr is The Money. Don’t make it mud.

But do hire Anne Thompson and free her from reporting any full-length stories. Make her be the blogger she might want to be. 10 stories a day… never just a headline wrap… minimum of one reported conversation about a story before she posts her opinion. Anne loves working the room. So let her do that. She’ll never turn into a cheap gossip, but she can be the social butterfly of Hollywood, taking the temperature with a wink and a smile.

And find a way to buy the idiotic, but smartly conceived Reverse Shot from indieWIRE. It will never churn a profit for indieWIRE, but the idea of a “farm team” for NYT criticism is smart. In fact, they could do this without actually buying Reverse Shot, but by actually building their own, featuring all of the critics they have freelancing these days. Set the financial bar low… cruel but such is life. But let these critics write as much as they like under the banner. For a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year – maybe less – The Paper could be the place where the next generation of great critics is built and that leadership role is a big part of the site’s future.

USA Today – The web site needs to be fixed so it can be more easily navigable. It’s just brutal… especially from the nation’s biggest circulation paper.

But the web play that could be huge for them – and relatively cheap – is to become a clearing house for all of the film journalism and critical organizations out there. Create a home for National Society of Film Critics, LAFCA, NYFCC, etc, etc, etc. The people involved are pre-vetted by membership and the state-by state idea of the newspaper can move to their website. If you are in Michigan and want to read every and any critic in the state, USA Today should be the place to go.

LA Times – The classic LAT play would be to buy The Wrap. Fortunately for them, Sharon Waxman’s ego will keep that from happening. (Sharon might want to ask Arriana Huffington what her revenues are and not just her still-inflated-by-the-election numbers are.)

The LAT would also be well served by buying HitFix… but never will because they will think they can do it cheaper and better in house… and then never do it.

The TribCo is, allegedly, launching an in-house web system so all the papers can share content more effectively. This is, I still submit, where the future of the company is… only it needs to be public. TRIBUNE needs to become a national brand that doesn’t thin itself out to the degree that it’s just one voice in 12 markets. It needs to be 4 of 5 voices playing out in all of their markets. Drama is conflict. And just by allowing interactive writing, conflict is inevitable.

They really don't need to buy more talent... they have the talent... they just need to let it loose.

I’m sure I am missing some sites that need to buy and/or be sold. We’ll get into it again…

Posted by dpoland at 12:15 PM | Comments (14)

April 26, 2009

Weekend Estimates by Klady - April 26

The opening of Obsessed brings up another interesting anomaly of the niche era of studio distribution. Of the 7 films with a higher opening gross and the one just below it - within a million dollars on opening - 4 have hit $100 million... but only one of those (Blart!) didn't open much bigger than the other 6 titles we're talking about. (Fast, Monsters, and Watchmen all opened over $55m... the next biggest opening is $41m for Medea Redux.)

So - sorry this is getting too numbery - the sample we're looking at comes down to 5 films. Blart is the outlier with better than 4.5x opening. Medea in Jail is the second best multiple... at about 2.25x opening. The other two are the Friday The 13th re-do and Hannah Montana 1-D. Friday is already out of theaters and did just over 2x its strong opening. Hannah has another $10m - $15m left in the tank... which looks to make it around 2.5x opening.

Go back just 4 years to 2005 and you see the openers in that $28m - $40m range:

As you can see... nothing happening now is all that different than what was happening then... except that the Young Teen and Pre-Teen Girl money has shifted from horror to Hannah, The Jonases, and HSM.

And so the question of the weekend is, what niches are Obsessed working with? Is it an "Urban" hit or a Teen Girl thriller? Both niches are likely to lead to a low multiple. Did they find anyone outside of these "love it and leave it" niches? I don't know. But the question of what next weekend's drop and ultimately, it's domestic total - will be is not so much about "is it good?" but about who the audience for the film is. My guess is a $65m domestic total... which is a great day for Screen Gems, though you must know they are trying to figure out how to make Obsessed 2 work following this natural one-off.

Fighting, The Soloist, and Earth are all in a similar opening boat, though there is a very good chance that the best opener of the trio, Fighting, will be the lowest domestic grosser. Why? Again, niche. Fighting will have some holdover, but 2.5x opening is the best it can expect. The Soloist defines An Adult Picture... so if they can keep screens in Boca, the over 60s will find the film and it could go as much as 3.5x opening, though it will take time. And Earth is a kids play from Disney and we'll see how they support it. There's nothing much new for the younger kids until Night At The Museum 2. Are parents going to indulge their 8-year-olds' demands to see Wolverine... or will they be at Earth, looking at real wolverines?

Posted by dpoland at 11:10 AM | Comments (32)

April 25, 2009

Does Size Matter... In The Summer Movie Season?

Let me make it clear from the beginning… this should not be read as a look at the quality of either movie. (One is embargoed, the other is not.) How I feel about either film – or anyone’s notion of the quality of either film in general - is not an issue in what I am bringing up. Please don't try to read the subtext, because I am intentionally offering none.

But it seems to me that one of the big stories of the summer should be the very different core styles of X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Star Trek. They represent two very different approaches to big studio franchises.

In some ways, they are quite similar. They are both prequels to a series of very successful franchise films. They are both in the sci-fi/fantasy realm. They both have a lot of special effects.

But where they differ dramatically is that Star Trek is really about size and pushing the envelope of the effects work. Wolverine, while it has a lot of effects, is somewhat conservative in its overall approach.

You could say it is (the original) Star Wars vs Raiders of the Lost Ark, on some level. But the perfect analogy is tough to figure out. I would say that Wolverine is of the Frankenheimer school while Star Trek is more George Lucas. But still… not quite right.

Star Trek cost almost twice what Wolverine cost to produce and that is completely apparent in the films themselves. But the different levels of expense – you can really see the money on the screen (as money goes in this era) in both cases – is not a clear positive or negative in either case. They are just different concepts.

Fox is clearly trying to build the Origins franchise, taking advantage of improvements in effects, but not going too far overboard on spending. It’s more raw, more character driven, more focused on the actors (casting top veteran actors not known for being in action films in the big supporting roles) and has a more simple palette, the biggest visuals being actual outdoor locations.

Paramount is clearly going for The Big Gross with Star Trek. It’s densely visual from start to finish, with showy lighting, tons of production design, and edited at an intense pace. It’s got that action movie relentlessness and similarly to a Michael Bay or David Fincher movie, you can feel the layers of effort put into every frame. On the effects level, it is 100% true that this is not your father’s (or grandfather’s) Star Trek.

The question all studios face, now more than ever, is how to balance financial risk and reward. You can certainly cheap your way to product that doesn’t feel like a summer tentpole. But you can also overspend your way into a big gross and a bottom line loss. No one goes to the movie theater to watch a budget. How you spend the money is the biggest issue. But an $80 million Transformers movie would not likely have been the hit that the last film was. On the other hand, throwing $50 million more at a comedy that isn’t an effects comedy than you normally would is, obviously, not going to make it any funnier.

In both of these cases, the movies themselves don’t scream, “The should have spent more,” or ,“They should have spent less.” (The budget details might be a different story.) They feel as though the intentions of spending what was spent were met.

The questions are, can a more visually intense Star Trek film than we have ever seen become a breakout for the franchise… and if Fox decided to spend another chunk of money on mega-effects, could that franchise have leapt from the $300m - $450m worldwide range to the $600 million worldwide range?

Similar question… what is the “right” budget for GI Joe or Land of the Lost? How much do you have to spend on these effects-heavy conceits to “qualify” to be $450 million-plus blockbusters?

Studios may not have the luxury of the more expensive choice too often in the future. And it’s not really a new question. It’s just a key question at this moment in the history of the industry. Studio budgets for their big summer films have already started being pulled back and many are being supplemented by outside money (including Star Trek). It just seems to me that these two films are dictionary definitions of each of the two approaches to summer movie ambitions.

Posted by dpoland at 11:08 PM | Comments (32)

Summer of Love

Why has the idea of doing my Summer Preview: 20 Weeks of Summer been like anticipating a trip to a dentist this year?

I guess it's because so much of this upcoming summer is so not for me.

I mean, I am actually looking forward to Transformers 2. Not being irritated by it would be great, but should this really be the film I am excited about?

Terminator: Salvation? I hope so... but God, does McG's name on it scare me.

I think Angels & Demons will be a lot better than the first of that series, but how excited can I get?

Up is certainly going to be very good, but Nemo, The Rat & The Wall will be hard to beat.

I would love to love The Girlfriend Experience, but everything about the movie screams ambivalence.

Land of The Lost and Year One? Surprise me please!

I am pretty sure I will get on board The Taking of Pelham 123. That could make a nice mid-summer adult pleasure.

The great two week span for me is likely to be Public Enemies and Bruno. It's a big ball move for Mann to be doing period with handheld digital and Cohen will surely be just balls out.

God, I hope that Julie & Julia is actually great... and come on, Quentin... hit one out again... it's been a long time!

I don't know... another Harry Potter movie kind of defines it all for me... should be good... but hard to get excited for it...

Where's the surprise going to come from?

Posted by dpoland at 02:36 PM | Comments (72)

Bea Arthur, 86

She was one of those rare things... a self-contained icon.

There are few people who are the dictionary definition of a type. A "Bea Arthur-type" is not easy to find. Very tall... very droll... very deep voiced for a woman... very tough... but capable of being quite vulnerable.

Her strength was also her limitation. But she will remain indelible.

Posted by dpoland at 01:29 PM | Comments (19)

We Are All The Kirk

ADD, Sunday 11:39a - Funny... just saw a Trek ad on ESPN... all about Kirk as The Man. Seems that the marketing team sees the need to lean heavy on that notion, even if the film is not so singular in focus.

========

The most interesting element of JJ Abrams' Star Trek, for me, is the Generation Why? mindset that everyone is equal, no one is actually special... or everyone is.

Kirk is at the center of the film, but in many ways, it is much more Spock's story. All of the well-known supporting crew - aside from McCoy and Scott - have skills and smarts that mean they really could fill in for anyone else on the Enterprise. There is no ying and yang because everyone is so in touch with both sides of themselves.

Even the bad guys in the film are motivated - wrongheadedly, we find out - by an honorable rage not unlike the rage that made Americans willing to attack Iraq... and not with the seeming Machiavellian, secret motives that motivated Cheney/Bush.

It fascinates me, in part, because the folks who made this film are also responsible for Fringe, a TV show that establishes character distinctions of strength, weakness, and motive with complete alacrity within minutes of meeting any character.

I will write more about the film in time... but for me, this is the biggest thematic difference between this film and the Roddenberry vision, which was so much about seeking equality for all... the new Star Trek starts from that point, conceptually... which begs the question... what are they Trekking for?

This may turn out to be the populist turn that makes this film work for bigger, younger audiences. I honestly have no idea... as I don't know what makes teens feel good about themselves these days. But the concept intrigues me.

Posted by dpoland at 11:06 AM | Comments (37)

Friday Estimates by Klady - Draft Day

1992... The Hand That Rocks The Cradle surprises people with a good opening ($7.7m) and long legs ($88m domestic total) with a similar story... Rebecca de Mornay, Annabella Sciorra, and Matt McCoy never quite recover, career-wise..

Later that same year... Single White Female opens to $10.2 million and ends up with $48 million... Jennifer Jason Leigh has a nice run of roles afterwards while Bridget Fonda hits a career wall.

The opening of Obsessed looks to land somewhere between Taken and He's Just Not That Into You. Nice number. Not shocking... except to those who think they should have seen it coming... and not very important.

Dito Montiel's shot at The Next Level will do... okay.

The Soloist has a better shot at legs than either of the other films, it seems. A movie for adults takes some time to build.

Earth, ironically, is not being put in perspective by many as a TV project now being shown on a big screen. Good number for that. But Disney has certainly got to be considering what the potential of DisneyNature is, for future, and how they will build an audience for future releases that are fresher, but still about nature.

Posted by dpoland at 10:42 AM | Comments (13)

April 24, 2009

Roger Friedman Goes Back To Work

First, he celebrates...

And then, he blogs...

Soon to come... a quote-alicious rave of Inglourious Basterds and some ads to go with it...

Posted by dpoland at 06:17 PM | Comments (50)

Box Office Hell - 2/24/09

Posted by dpoland at 05:14 PM | Comments (35)

DP/30 - Is Anybody There?

I had the chance to sit down with the great interview of moviedom, Sir Michael Caine, and John Crowley, a terrific young director to discuss their new film. Unfortunately, we did it at the start of a junket day, shot on their set, and plugged in their sound... which was way too hot... one of the few things you just can't fix in post.

I really enjoyed the film and the interview... so if you can put up with some bad sound, I hope you will enjoy it too... it's after the jump...

Posted by dpoland at 04:15 PM | Comments (0)

More Wolverine Baiting

A remarkably ill-informed piece on The Business Insider led me to look at the work output of its author, Hillary Lewis. This led to a story headlined, "Fox CEO Tom Rothman Wrong: No New Footage In Final Version Of Wolverine."

Oy.

This led to an AICN story with someone who goes by Veritas (the arrogance is breathtaking) saw the film at a junket or exhibitor screening and also saw the leaked download and claims: "The workprint version IS in fact identical to the release print, sans effect and some audio work."

I haven't seen the release print yet. But I can say, from what I did watch of the leaked version via a street-bought DVD of the film (as I wrote about last month), "effect work" is a massive change to the leaked version of the film.

As for anything else, it is so very inside baseball that it's nothing but geek masturbation.

In the AICN Talkbacks, the issue of the moral line that was so dramatically shifted at the site on the occasion of this leak, not running reviews based on the leak, was thrown up in the air again by allowing a piece about the difference - or the lack thereof - between the leak and the release version... a piece that required a close review of the illegal leak and the assumption on the part of the "reviewer" that they have a perfect memory of both versions, so as to compare.

The argument is made - as I have made in other contexts - that this is not a review of either version of the film, but a journalistic look at whether or not the leaked version was, in fact, substantially the same as the leaked version. And while I can understand and appreciate that position... the idea that it is okay for a screening that was obviously not meant to lead to public commentary of any kind to not only lead to comment, but to comment that, in effect, call Tom Rothman a liar, is the same kind of shit that has been the problem with AICN and sites like it forever.

What purpose is there in running this on AICN, other than to try to damage the movie's box office take and to hurt Tom Rothman? There is no reasonable argument that it is empowering movie lovers, as any movie lovers who have watched the film have watched it through illegal means... and Harry Knowles has already made the argument that this is the case.

Of course, I would not be writing any of this had the AICN piece not leaked into what claims to be a legitimate source of business news, The Business Insider.

Not only are the stories on both AICN and on TBI misleading and poorly reported, but they are the start of a potential next wave of coverage that aggrandizes illegal behavior towards no good end. And when that ball starts rolling downhill, it quickly gets out of control.

I hope that cooler media heads will prevail. And I understand the irony that I am sitting here writing about it as I am asking others not to do so in future. Such is the nature of gossip.

Forget about who you like or don't like in this fight... what is the right thing here? How can Fox defend itself from salacious spin without digging themselves a bigger ditch? Wasn't it better when this all just quieted down and became what it really should be... a non-story in every way except for the danger of digital materials being shared outside of a trusted few?

ADD, 6:55p - Another factoid... the talk about matching running times is interesting, since the illegal leak has fake titles from one of the other X-Men movies on it. I, of course, have no idea of whether the titles for Wolverine will be the same length as those of what looks to be X3. But the running time of the film part, including opening credits, is about 1:40:30. So if you are trying to tag the film based on running time, one version versus the other, compare accurately.

Posted by dpoland at 03:34 PM | Comments (24)

April 23, 2009

BYOB - Pre-Weekender

Posted by dpoland at 11:38 PM | Comments (52)

DP/30 - Bermuda '09 - Faubourg Treme: The Untold Story of Black New Orleans

Director Dawn Logsdon & producer Lucie Faulknor

Posted by dpoland at 05:30 PM | Comments (0)

Serving The Customer

I was not aware of, until last night, WB's Red2Blu site, which allows HD movie buyers to get Blu-rays to replace the now obsolete discs for just $4.95 a pop. It doesn't cover all the WB HDs that are now on Blu, but it's a nice offer and a smart play for Warners, as it gets Blu-ray buyers on their website - as opposed to Amazon or others - and gives a nice, warm feeling of loyalty of the company to people who have been buyers in the past. And they likely make a buck or two in the deal to boot.

Also interesting was a piece of mail today that came in offering a year of EW for $10... with an extra coupon to let a friend in on the same offer. $10. Does that cover postage? Got to keep those subscription rates up.

I had a conversation just a couple of days ago with an Academy member who didn't pay for a Variety subscription, but was sent the paper daily for years anyway... I suppose so Variety could claim that all Academy members (or some very high percentage) received the print version of the paper which charges so very much for that front cover during Oscar season. The paper stopped showing up on his doorstep each morning in February of this year. Will it start again in October? Probably. But interesting times... interesting times...

Posted by dpoland at 05:03 PM | Comments (10)

Review - Out Rage

Kirby Dick's latest doc lands in Tribeca today or tomorrow. I didn't really intend to be writing about it until after sitting down with him in a couple of weeks. But particularly striking was a Brian Brooks "First Look" at the film in indieWIRE that pretty much "outed" every single thing the film has to offer. It's here... but I really wouldn't read it if you intend to see the film.

The film is, not unlike Dick's last film, This Film Is Not Yet Rated, is very well made and serves effectively as a primer to the controversy. But it fails to dig much deeper... which for me, is a shocking thing from Kirby Dick, whose films Sick: The Life & Death of Bob Flanagan, Supermasochist and Twist of Faith dug deep, deeper, and deepest.

The basic set-up starts with Larry Craig and the internet journalist (Michael Rogers) who pushed for the details behind that story which led, in part, to Craig's resignation. There are a lot of gay Congressmen in the closet... there are a lot of gay staffers in both parties in the closet... he is working on the stories of a number of high profile names who he will eventually out...

So what do you expect from this film? A bunch of surprising names being outed... or a few... or a single one.

And you don't get any.

Now, is that what the film needed to be... and outing fest? Of course not. A film like this has many roads it can take and the filmmaker makes that call. But what we get is basically a dozen public figures who have already been outed, most of whom are either still in office and out of the closet or have given up their public lives. By the film's end, there are two public figures in focus who have been pretty much outed, but who are still firmly maintaining their place in the closet.

Great. But a little ho-hum.

And it didn't help that the distributor made a big deal out of not showing the film earlier because it was soooo controversial. BZZT! It's controversial if you have never read The Village Voice. I mean, even Fox News addressed the question of whether Charlie Crist is a closet case.

My personal take was that what this 90 minute film is could and should have been done in 60 minutes. As I wrote, it is very well made, the interviews are good and the cinematography/visual direction in this film is as beautiful as you'll see in any talking heads doc. But to make this a 90 minute film, either the tone had to be much tougher - many of the interview subjects walk away without answering the toughest questions and other interviews, even given the fact that many people would never agree to be interviewed for this and I am not demanding that Kirby go all Michael Moore on them, just weren't there as follow-ups to some of the questions posed by the film - OR there needed to be some new blood in the water OR there needed to be some of the long history of outing and how that gossip sheet history became so much more political. The film does do a nice job of explaining the idea of why political figures in the closet can be so much worse than, say, celebrities. But I would argue that the kind of outing that some of the people in this film were doing as the AIDS crisis grew, from actors to guys like David Geffen, who was still publicly straight in the early 80s, became more and more serious and less frivolous and that it would not lessen the political argument to have that included in this film.

Nonetheless... as a history of the outing and non-outing of closeted politicians in the last 20 years, the film delivers. Like I said, I might have liked a slightly broader historical perspective or a shorter film, but still, in this way it is effective. But it is not a game changer or a next step in any way. The film even pulls its punches a bit when it doesn't acknowledge that a major factor in Charlie Crist not getting the Republican VP nod was that his outing was close enough to confirm that his White House ambitions, no matter what the film says, are dead.

And if there is one thing that I found truly shocking in the film and was truly disappointed in the filmmakers for not pursuing more aggressively, it was a segment of Larry King Live, with guest Bill Maher, which the film shows was edited from the live broadcast to the reruns to remove his outing of a Republican whose homosexuality is, as Maher explains beforehand, an open secret in Washington. They interview Maher... but don't discuss the edit. There is no indication that CNN refused an interview about it. There is... nothing more.

Now, Maher, in that interview segment, seems to have explained the situation, and perhaps, something about Outrage. He says that he doesn't want to be the first person to publicly out someone because of all the legal issues that raises. I'm sure CNN felt the same way. And I guess that Kirby and Magnolia Pictures also felt that way because there isn't anything here for anyone to potentially sue over.... at least nothing I can see.

Good movie... not explosive.

Finally... on a more personal note... I found myself reflecting quite a bit during the first 30 minutes or so of the film, as the discussion of the politics of outing were discussed by a wide variety of people. It was much the same discussion I have about the idea of writing about the work of other journalists. Like closeted politicians, journalists work behind a veil of a certain kind of invulnerabilty... journalists don't want to "out" people and journalists don't really want to be seen "outing" bad work by other journalists. In the gay situation, the question is, "What is the news value of exposing someone's personal life." In journalism, it's more like Fight Club... you just don't talk about other members of the club to the public. But I have always felt there was a major hypocrisy in doing a job in which one publicly analyzes and often attacks the jobs that others are doing while being free from public scrutiny of the way in which you are doing that analysis. And as gay politicians in the closet do bad things to keep from being scrutinized, so do journalists whose standards are below the journalistic high bar.

I have made many enemies, known and unknown, by "outing" bad journalism. And most of the time, the public attacks in response have not been factual, but personal or wild in response... which I see as an affirmation of the work that I did to cause that response. There is no question that the closeted politicians who have worked against gay causes have literally been responsible for the death of thousands or hundreds of thousands, if not millions of gay men... both by maintaining the closet and by their actual votes in Congress and efforts within other institutions. Bad journalism or gossip posing as journalists will not literally kill anyone. But I do believe that the ongoing lowering and readjustment of standards, while not directly responsible for a changing media landscape, changes the map that will eventual settle into being the standard as things shake out. In other words, an AP (as an example) entertainment story may be limited to 500 words, but those 500 words don't have to be shallow or gossipy or inaccurate because another 500 words will turn up in a few hours.

Standards matter. Truth or the very best effort to find truth is the first standard. This is how things get better... whatever medium you work in... however serious or silly your profession is.

Posted by dpoland at 02:48 PM | Comments (1)

April 22, 2009

Toy Of The Week

The entire auto-loading thing after the jump...

Posted by dpoland at 06:11 PM | Comments (11)

DP/30 - Bermuda '09 - Garbage Dreams

A remarkable documentary by Mai Iskander about an entire working culture in Egypt, Garbage Dreams tells the tale of 60,000 Zaballeen... people who make a living processing garbage, closeup and personal... happily. Their livelihood is being threatened by The Future, in the form of government contracts for the very impersonal removal of garbage by non-Egyptian companies.

Iskander manages to get us past the initial discomfort of the idea of living in a world of refuse and ultimately reminds us that all working cultures deserve respect.

The film premiered at SXSW and in one short month since then, it won Best Doc at Bermuda, won Best Director and the Audience Award at Phoenix, and just won the Al Gore Reel Current Award in Nashville. It heads to the Newport Beach Film Festival this weekend, here in California. There’s a little fest in NY stealing some of the attention from Newport… a fest that chose not to program this winner… and Sundance passed as well. It just goes to show you, the big fests don’t always find the great films. It takes a little extra work and consideration from all of us to support the stuff that isn’t parked right in front of us.

The video interview is after the jump...

Posted by dpoland at 05:10 PM | Comments (0)

The Lonely Journey Of A White Suit In A Shit Storm

I sometimes forget the realities of the business I earn a living in... and then, yet another piece about raging bloggers and raging Traditional Media that obsesses on the personalities and not the work... and I am reborn.

I forget to appreciate that unsexiness of having an actual business that has earned its weight and more for the last five years without becoming a gossip blog or resorting to some of the bad choices that have forced some Old Media into New Media. Admittedly, ego lurks. It's not really fun to see stories (even nasty stories) about all the new, unproven sites on the block - almost all of which will be out of business by this time next year - while no one in media can be bothered to notice the one business in this grouping that actually works for the industry, drives significant traffic daily to all the other sites without ego, and consistently turns a profit. Yawn. Much more fun to do the mud-wrestling story.

Why aren't they throwing dirt my way? Thanks for not throwing dirt my way.

After a dozen years online... after all kinds of ego breaks... after all kinds of fights, public and private... I realize that I am peace when I am doing the work I choose to do, not worrying about others. But it is hard not to get involved (or want to get involved) in the soap opera of it all.

Sigh...

Back to work...

Posted by dpoland at 05:05 PM | Comments (3)

The Hollywood Reporter Pleads Its Case

Posted by dpoland at 11:02 AM | Comments (1)

April 21, 2009

BYOB - Humpday 42109

Posted by dpoland at 11:52 PM | Comments (34)

Review: Heckler

I think Jamie Kennedy is a talented guy... and I think that he reached a level at which his reach exceeded his grasp.

That said, he and a TV director/producer/writer named Michael Addis made a doc that is now running on Showtime that is more than a little worthwhile. It's called Heckler and apparently, it's sat around for a couple of years looking for some kind of distribution... which it never found. Apparently, it premiered at AFI in Los Angeles in 2007... and that was that. There are five Rotten Tomato reviews, only one from a major outlet (Variety).

But it should be seen.

In fact, for people in the business of being critical, it should be absolute required viewing.

It's not masterfully made, shot, edited, or conceived. But wading through this content is worth well more than the 80 minutes, as it is not just about hecklers, as we know them from comedy venues, but Kennedy - stinging from the well-deserved slaughter of Son of the Mask, a movie so bad that I am loathe to bold it - makes the leap to the idea that critics, particularly film critics, are also hecklers of a kind.

While there are not more than a couple of lame attempts to interview comedy hecklers, heckling film critics get more of a chance to offer their position. I'm not sure that they really gave our breed a fighting chance, but the main representative for modern criticism is Devin Faraci... who has some smart stuff to say... and then turns around and confirms all the worst fears of internet criticism by attacking Leonard Maltin. And it wasn't that he attacked Leonard, who had dismissed Devin's site as being quote-worthy. It was how he attacked Leonard... and that he didn't show the smarts to respect Leonard's decades of commitment to the form and to then slam his opinion instead of making it personal.

But I digress...

The film is dominated by people who have been hurt emotionally by film critics. Joe Mantagna wants to kick some ass... and the film covers Uwe Boll actually kicking ass. And these critics of critics are often unfair. And they are also often right on target.

Two of the most intriguing moments take place as Kennedy reads harsh reviews of his work back to internet film critics... and we watch the critics squirm or smirk or try to appear placid. I don't know these guys, but I do know that feeling. To sit with a filmmaker - and I'm not talking about someone on Jamie Kennedy's on-the-run fun level, but serious filmmakers - when they know that you don't like the work they just did is very, very, very uncomfortable. But it is when you have to sit in the soup of your creation... as the filmmaker does when he/she reads the reviews... that you find out whether you really stand behind the words you have written and offered in some form of publication.

Seriously... if you are prepared to really think about how the human side of criticism feels today, online and off, you need to see this imperfect, self-aggrandizing, fascinating film.

For the record, here is my "Worst of 2005" commentary about Son of The Mask:
1. Son of The Mask - How can one even describe just how bad this sequel is? Jamie Kennedy is to Jim Carrey as milk is to bourbon. Alan Cumming tries to camp it up in the villain role, but can't even get a good bite of the scenery without being undermined. Traylor Howard was directed to sleepwalk through the film. The wacky story in which a second mask is found never leads to a second mask being used at the same time as the main mask. It's not funny. It's not charming. It's not cool looking. It's humor is gross without being gross out. It looks like it was cut by Baz Luhrmann's editor on the very last day of a month-long cocaine bender. (Note: No inference that anyone is using illicit drugs is intended by that metaphor.) The film reached the heights of irritation, boredom and incompetence all at once. Impressive.

And here is the trailer for Kennedy's film...

Posted by dpoland at 11:09 PM | Comments (11)

Portrait Of The Last Moonshiner - "I got a 2" ---- and a 6" tongue and knows how to use both of 'em."

In our DP/30, Johnny Knoxville refers to an interview he did with a moonshiner from Tennessee last October, describing the man as, "a ribald old codger and one of the most unbelievable som’ bitches I have ever met. I really wish I could look upon all your faces when Popcorn starts to discuss his wife. Shit howdy, here’s Marvin “Popcorn” Sutton."

The embed of the video profile is after the jump.

Here is the link to Johnny's first piece on Popcorn... and then, to the second.

Posted by dpoland at 03:31 PM | Comments (2)

DP/30 - Fixer: The Taking of Ajmal Naqshbandi

Director Ian Olds, winner of the Truer Than Fiction award from the Independent Spirit Awards in 2006 for Occupation: Dreamland, which he made with his directing partner Garrett Scott, is back with a remarkable story about one of the guys who facilitates access to locals, including the most dangerous terrorists, and what happened when the reporter he was working for and he got kidnapped in Afghanistan. It is, if you will, a more dramatic and less America-obsessed perspective on the Daniel Pearl story... A Different Mighty Heart: The Doc. Most importantly, it reminds us that life in a war zone is more complicated than anyone thinks... even for the people who know "the rules" best.

The video interview with Ian is after the jump.

Posted by dpoland at 03:22 PM | Comments (0)

Sometimes A Banana Peel Is Just A Banana Peel

Variety's Pamela McClintock is a smart reporter... but I am always gobsmacked when I read news - in this case, some release date shuffling 8 months out - that makes perfect sense... until a reporter tries to turn it into a trend piece even though it doesn't fit.

This week, everyone is still revved up on the box office success of a few first-quarter titles... so Fox dating two movies in Q1 '10 is suddenly about Paul Blart. Uh, no.

The first film, The Rock as The Tooth Fairy, was separated by one week from a stop-animation film, also from Fox, going into Thanksgiving. One of them had to move. Dwayne has had three kid-oriented films successfully open on what used to be considered off dates; Race To Witch Mountain in March and The Game Plan and Gridiron Gang in September. Between moving the Wes Anderson stop-motion into the wilderness of Q1 - where a 3D Beauty and the Beast will be strong in February and Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland should be a big winner in March - and moving The Rock into January, where it will be the only family movie opening, get the advantage of MLK weekend, and be clear of Chipmunks 2 by almost a month... no contest.

Does it hurt that Paul Blart did almost $150 million on that date? No. Was there a much better or more obvious date out there before this move? No.

As for Date Night.. well, first I love that Variety is going all the credit for March openings to 300... since Date Night is so like 300. But seriously, the truth is that it was Fox that re-opened March for business with Ice Age in 2002 after Enemies at The Gate and The Mexican kind of shut down that slot as an Oscar/drama window in 2001, the year after Erin Brockovich both did big bucks and got nominations out of what had become "the serious spring slot." And a tip of the hat to the 2001 success of Spy Kids, though it was a March 30 opening.

But getting back to Date Night specifically... which is actually opening in April, making 300 and Ice Age irrelevant... Mean Girls was the top grossing April launch in 2004 (albeit April 30)... Sin City, Scary Movie 4, and Disturbia kept the month strong for teens in 2005-07, and in 2008, we got both Baby Mama and Forgetting Sarah Marshall building a landmark for this very specific Fey-ian, Segel-ian, Apatow-ian kind of film that Date Night is. This year's March 20 release, I Love You Man, is right there too, making a similar number to its predecessors. And March was out of the question for Date Night, given that Sony has a Sandler/James/Chris Rock film slotted in there now... right in between the Feb slot that Sandler has done so well in (Wedding Singer/50 First Dates) and the April slot of Anger Management.

Ah, slotting!

Posted by dpoland at 08:27 AM | Comments (4)

April 20, 2009

The Fox Atomic Press Release Lands

DEBBIE LIEBLING TO REJOIN TCF; AND FOX ATOMIC DIGITAL TO BE INTEGRATED INTO FOX FILMED ENTERTAINMENT
Atomic to cease to operate as independent production division

LOS ANGELES (April 20, 2008) -- Fox Filmed Entertainment (FFE) today announced that Fox Atomic will cease to operate as an independent production division. Fox Atomic Digital – comprised of six people – will move under the FFE digital umbrella, where it will report to Peter Levinsohn, president of new media and digital distribution for FFE, and also will work closely on some marketing projects with Jeffrey Godsick, executive vice president of marketing and digital content for Twentieth Century Fox.

Debbie Liebling will return to Twentieth Century Fox (TCF) as executive vice president of production, where she will report to co-presidents of production, Emma Watts and Alex Young. Liebling joined Atomic in 2007 from TCF, where she shepherded such hit films as BORAT and DODGEBALL. Prior to joining Fox in 2002, Liebling was chief programming executive at Comedy Central, overseeing original shows that helped define the network and served as co-producer for the feature film, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut.

“Debbie is the premier comedy executive in our business,” said Young and Watts, jointly. “So we are thrilled to welcome her back and look forward to her immense contributions to the company.”

Liebling will continue to oversee post-production on Atomic’s upcoming releases, I Love You Beth Cooper and Jennifer’s Body -- both of which will be released by TCF -- and Post Grad, which will be released by Fox Searchlight.

Fox Atomic Digital’s activities include creating original series for distribution across digital platforms. These series are based on original material or derived from feature films. The group also produces digital content for feature film viral marketing campaigns; and has worked on campaigns for such films as JUNO, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE and 12 ROUNDS.

Approximately six Atomic feature film production staff will be impacted by the closure of the division.

About Fox Filmed Entertainment
One of the world’s largest producers and distributors of motion pictures, Fox Filmed Entertainment produces, acquires and distributes motion pictures throughout the world. These motion pictures are produced or acquired by the following units of FFE: Twentieth Century Fox, Fox 2000 Pictures, Fox Searchlight Pictures and Twentieth Century Fox Animation.

Posted by dpoland at 05:41 PM | Comments (0)

Sumer Survey #2 Results

BOX OFFICE GROSS

QUALITY

Posted by dpoland at 05:02 PM | Comments (15)

Can The NYT Keep Sinking Lower?

What’s the Skinny on the Heftier Stars?
By MICHAEL CIEPLY
Published: April 17, 2009

How do you sleep at night if you consider yourself a journalist and this is what you spend a day or three "reporting?"

I guess it's time for the NYT to hire Jeffrey Wells... no one is a bigger expert - or idiot - about this stuff.

Sad.

Posted by dpoland at 04:44 PM | Comments (12)

DP/30 - The Wild & Wonderful Whites Of West Virginia

I have been looking at a bunch of docs and features that will shortly be premiering at Tribeca and the first thing that's clear is that it's a very strong year for docs.

And what else is clear is that The WWWoWV is going to be one of the best, most talked about, best remembered docs of this year. I don't want to appear to damn any other film with faint praise as I whoop it up for this one... but DAMN... this is The Shit.

For me, this film combines much of the formalism of The Maysles with the rock and roll of Nick Broomfield. Many will have a hard time believing what they are seeing, before, during, and after the film. But it's real. And as you will see in the DP/30 conversation, the director and "The Jackass Guys" didn't go into this as some kind of crazy joke... they are serious about The Whites and they are serious about documentary as a form.

Okay... enough from me.

The current trailer for the film is here - in censored SFW form - and here - in uncensored NSFW form.

The interview with the director and two producers is after the jump... and also downloadable for your computer or portables on DP30.com.

Posted by dpoland at 03:20 PM | Comments (6)

April 19, 2009

BYOB Sunday Night

Posted by dpoland at 05:36 PM | Comments (27)

UPDATE: Battle Of The Gossips

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!

Has the world gone INSANE?!?!?!

Is ANY sense of shame gone?

3:56p - (Un)Trustworthy Trades: Rumor-Monger
"(Mike Fleming) today posted the rumor that film label Fox Atomic may be closing. No matter if it turns out to be true: this is irresponsible."

5:19p - EXCLUSIVE: Fox Atomic Shutting Down
"I've just confirmed that Fox Atomic will cease to operate as an independent production division."

Are any of you who defend this NUTCASE as a legitimate journalist paying any attention? Are the studios paying attention?

Are you people who feed the gorgon getting it? Will you ever open your eyes?

And let me note this before the apologists start sharpening their swords, as usual... I have been in business for more than six years. My business hired more people in the last eight months while others have been laying people off. We are not a business the size of Variety. But we were not a business the size of Inside either... and I still have a thriving business and Inside has been out of business longer than MCN has existed. My job is not directly threatened by Nikki Finke, unlike many other people in this game who have a boss to answer to and quarterlies to worry about.

This is an issue of principle, not personal animus. Nikki has been aggressively abusive to me in private conversations all of this town, but so what... she can get in line.

But this is where we are... people will not think past their gossip-loving brain-dicks or thrilling at the prospect of building a monster that they think they can control and use to their own ends, as though the trades and feature-laden magazines were not full of enough opportunities to be whored out... and as a result this whack job without a moral compass feels comfy writing that someone else is a piece of shit for running gossip at 4p and then claims the same story as an exclusive at 5:30p.

"Shitty to report rumors when no one has been told." Apparently, everyone was notified in that hour and half, right?

PS - The follow-up to this was The Strike Queen running excerpts from a 4p Variety story as her own news at 4:40... and then running an "Update" that was also right out of the Variety story.

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!

People have to stop whining about The Evil Internet and deal with the crap that is right under our noses. The medium is the medium, but it is individuals who poison the well for everyone else.

Love Nikki all you like... but let's not delude ourselves into believing, for even a second, that this has anything to do with journalism.

==================

4p Sunday - Little has changed in a month away from the daily journo-whoredom grind.

This afternoon, La Finke is SCREECHING about Variety's Michael Fleming "scooping" her on the official closing of Fox Atomic... but she knew... she just didn't tell... because even though she runs true and false gossip on a regular basis, she is a virgin media princess when someone else beats her to it.

Stupider even... Fox Atomic has been all but officially shut down for a year already. The division of the division has had their name on product for three years... and released just six movies, including a whopping total of ZERO last year. Woo Hoo!!!

Was there hope that the Peter Rice perk division (for not going to Paramount) might turn itself around under Debbie Liebling? Sure. Then Miss March made under $5 million and 12 Rounds did $11.3m. Game over. (Did you think that a mid-September release for Jennifer's Body was a sign of belief in the product? Did it occur to you that Juno started its run at film fests in August '07, five months after production ended... and that Jennifer's Body finished shooting more than 11 months ago? Should I mention that I Love You Beth Cooper finished shooting over a year ago as well... and that the Heroes phenomenon is over, making a Hayden Pants sell brutal on any outlet other than Perez Hilton?)

Fox Atomic has been a walking corpse, much as Paramount Vantage now is, for well over a year... and this fighting over who gets to pronounce the corpse dead first - and Fleming did a nice job of making it sound a lot better a situation than it has been - is pathetic... especially from someone whose primary ability to "scoop" is based on running rumors of who is being fired next and then squealing "Toldja" like the pig (moral, not physical) she is.

And those of you in the talent community that think she is your friend, does it bother you at all that she slams the work of people who write, direct, and act in movies... that she hasn't even seen? Fake journalism... not even good gossip.

Maybe we should ask Patrick Goldstein what the kids in his neighborhood think? Or even better... maybe Slate can hire some freelancer to extol the virtues of media piracy because that's what he wants.

My city screams...

Posted by dpoland at 04:03 PM | Comments (4)

Weekend Estimates by Klady - 4/19/09

So, will 17 Again be a slightly smaller He's Just Not That Into You, an dead-on Race to Witch Mountain or a slightly bigger Bride Wars? This is roughly where this Zac Efron fluff(er) fits. Somewhere between an eventual $60 million to an eventual $95 million… no real way of knowing until next week… though I suspect it will be right down the middle, especially with just one more weekend before Summer begins. A mid-30s drop next weekend would put the film around $50 million after two weekends.

State of Play is less than 10% ahead of the pace of Body of Lies. The film is better and the only “adult film” opening wide before Angels & Demons is The Soloist next weekend. $45m - $50m looks to be where this one is headed.

On Crank 2, do we see a trend here at Lionsgate?

Even so, Crank 2 is only a third off of the original. I really get the idea that the first film was a cartoon, so who cares if they bring a dead guy back to life for the sequel. Do rules really matter in this kind of genre material?

Lionsgate marketing suffers the niche marketplace, as in this media universe, each niche really seems to know exactly what they want… and what they don’t want. You can treat Crank: High Voltage like it’s a Saw film and boom boom boom all day. But The Great They knows. And when Lionsgate movies like 3:10 To Yuma (4x opening) and The Bank Job (5x opening) are actually meant for wider audiences, they slowly find their way.

Sin Nombre has a nice number, apparently finding the Spanish speaking audience. The film is already a head of all but two of the year's indie releases - by my definition, not purely by distributor - and is sure to be #2 for the year shortly.

Posted by dpoland at 11:20 AM | Comments (57)

April 18, 2009

I Must Admit...

As trailer footage goes - and there is some form of trailer here after the cute car break-up scene - this material suggests that Transformers 2 will be a major improvement on Transformers 1. They seem to have gotten more serious about making the CG autobots more the emotional cartoon characters they were meant to be. And even in such snipped clips, Bay seems to have figured out how to give the CG creations visual space to play in, instead of everything being about close-ups of gears.

I was not a fan of the first film, but this one may really not suck... it could even be great summer fun.

*Exclusive* Transformers Revenge of the Fallen Footage from Bay Films/Michael Bay Dot Com on Vimeo.

Posted by dpoland at 02:54 PM | Comments (44)

Friday Estimates by Klady - 4/18/09

State of Play is a couple hundred thousand dollars ahead of the opening day numbers of Body of Lies.

17 Again is right in between the opening days numbers for He's Just Not That Into You and Bride Wars.

Crank 2 is running about 25% behind the opening day numbers of Crank.

The big 1st-Friday-to-2nd-Friday droppers are Hannah Montana and Observe & Report, neither a huge shock. Hannah's drop is a little less severe than the Friday-to-Friday for Jonas 3D and about 10% worse than the drop for the Hannah concert film. O&R had a disproportionately large Friday number, so the % drop for the whole weekend should end up significantly lower. Still, the drop puts the film behind Zack & Miri - off just 37.7% in its second weekend - as of today and the space between them will only get wider as the run continues.

Monsters vs Aliens is looking at landing around the original Ice Age numbers, which is first or second best for non-summer/non-holiday/non-sequel animation, assuring sequels.

Fast & Furious continues to chug along towards the domestic numbers of the first film of the franchise and will probably get there just in time to be shut down by the summer wave. But it is already ahead internationally and thus, ahead on the overall gross worldwide. I don't care much about ticket counters, but the $50 million in additional production costs do matter in assessing the two films and so, the new film is still more than $70 million away from being "as successful" as the original in big picture terms.

(EDIT, 11:50a - Chart error corrected.)

Posted by dpoland at 10:58 AM | Comments (40)

April 17, 2009

The Return Of Box Office Hell

And the premiere of MCN Weekend...

Posted by dpoland at 08:07 PM | Comments (9)

LOVE This...

From a collection of David Strick shots from the LAT...

Posted by dpoland at 07:32 PM | Comments (1)

SAG Tragedy

I don't have a whole lot to add to what I wrote almost 4 months ago (below).

Expect the threat of am industry shut down forced by an AMPTP lock-out to leak out over the weekend, probably on a blog. The threat will be intended to scare SAG voters to ratify, but may become real, as if a shutdown is coming, it will be before the fall TV season would normally start production for the fall. The AMPTP could deal with a May/June shutdown if it becomes necessary.

This contract is a disaster for middle-class actors and I am going to be disgusted when the anti-Rosenberg forces try, as they already have with some success, to pin it on him. This contract was function of an AMPTP that committed to a strategy that worked brilliantly with all the unions - divide and conquer - and the internal drama at SAG that took the focus off the very real problems with this deal.

As one radical in the union said today, "Now it's up to the membership to take their union back!"

Good luck with that.

===========

Dec 22, 2008

The “right deal” died with the other unions, with AFTRA as the killing blow. I am amazed that AFTRA continues to behave in a completely predatory way and still, SAG members are out defending AFTRA as some sort of victim of the current SAG leadership. And when AFTRA eats SAG whole, which now seems inevitable, those same people who fought to give AFTRA more power earlier will blame Rosenberg for that also.

The “No Strike” forces have won… because in the end, the sentiment of no strike is the right sentiment, even if some have motives that can surely be disputed in high decibel levels. And there will never be a strike authorization vote or a strike.

So… what does SAG do now?

The question is, can Doug Allen and Alan Rosenberg be forced into signing the deal that is on the table? That is what I believe membership now wants, in the majority. (Yes, a guess on some level. But how many really dispute this… and is the vote delay anything less than confirmation from within?) Well, Rosenberg says he will do it if there is not support for a strike. So…

AMPTP has the offer of synchronized contract end dates for WGA and SAG in 2011 on the table… but history has shown us that once precedent is set, it doesn’t change much. So the idea that 2011 will bail SAG out is not too realistic. And by the end of 3 more years, it wouldn’t be shocking anymore for SAG to handle movies only and AFTRA to oversee all of television. This is where we have been heading since AFTRA started being more generous to producers of “taped” television that SAG was. This is where AMPTP is heading, it seems to me. It all makes perfect sense… to everyone but actors who want to make a living and will never be marquee stars. A merger will blur this more, but at some point, the interest of film actors will be discarded by a merger actor’s union and a movement to restructure will emerge.

Anyway…

I think it’s all over. A deal gets signed shortly after The Oscars. Doug Allen is marginalized or gets a settlement allowing him to take all the money and go get a job with some other union that’s going out. Rosenberg resigns. And on to the AFTRA merger.

And in all the in-fighting one very simple detail is forgotten. No one at SAG wins. AMPTP wins. 5 for 5.

Fuck.

(EDIT, 11:55a Sat - Date typo of no consequence)

Posted by dpoland at 06:58 PM | Comments (5)

Dancing With The Stars News

Posted by dpoland at 06:48 PM | Comments (0)

The Future News On SAG

April 19, 2009 - Rumors have surfaced in Hollywood that if the agreement between SAG and AMPTP is not embraced by the membership of the union, the studios, already making cutbacks and suffering losses, will be forced to lock out the actor's union within days and to, essentially, shut down the town. An unnamed studio executive, who asked for anonymity because he is a conniving scumbag who is using this outlet to send out his threats without taking any responsibility for it, said, “We really hate to do it. Our jobs are on the line too. Our corporate parents are ready to shut it all down. We only wish the actors understood that they are playing with a time bomb and though they may not like this contract, it is better than anything they will see if they force us to close our doors for the next six to eight weeks before they cave and settle. Uh, can that last part be off the record?”

April 27, 2009 - The membership Screen Actors Guild has agree to a pact with the Association Of Motion Picture & Television Producers, avoiding a second work stoppage within a span of two years. The new leadership of SAG, which pushed aside president Alan Rosenberg and his negotiating team to get this deal done offered a bittersweet perspective. "This deal is not very good for actors... but given the mess that Rosenberg and his allies made of it, it was the best that we could do. Next time, we'll know better than to put those radicals in charge of our union."

April 28, 2009 – Alan Rosenberg resigns from the presidency of SAG… signs on for the next season of “So You Think You Can Sing!”

June 2009 – Two studios laid off another 6% of their film and television workforce today, citing union threats to strike in 2011.

July 2009 – The SAG/AFTRA merger has gone through, bringing together the two acting unions. The new union is to be known as AFSTRA.

May 2009 - DGA, WGA, and AFSTRA all closed deals with AMPTP this month, avoiding a work stoppage. The contract as being held up a groundbreaking, raising the fee for online use of a network show to a record $325 per year and, for the first time, getting a union deal for Twittered content.

Posted by dpoland at 03:55 PM | Comments (0)

Review - HBO's Grey Gardens

Grey Gardens, the feature film on HBO that premieres this weekend, is a mixed bag. Jessica Lange is perfection. Drew Barrymore does some of her best work ever in a dramatic role that hooks into her personal flamboyance and sadness.

But the film, which lays heavily on the making of and repeated recreations of the documentary by The Maysles, feels a bit like Cliff Notes on the rest of their lives. Is the true narrative not that interesting? Or were the writers trying so hard to allow for emotional ambiguity that they never found a strong storyline? I don’t really know. I did see the musical Grey Gardens, which covers a lot of the same ground, but is, in fact, a musical and works decisively in the light or in the dark.

The big question that comes out of the experience of the documentary is, “How did these women get here?” And the doc doesn’t make any effort to answer that question, though some of the film’s great moments are seeing the sense of loss in the eyes of both characters, some things expressed in an oblique way in comments.

The answer, I have learned in the next two incarnations of the tale, is, simplistically, that the mother (Big Edie) had a bad combination of being both co-dependent and delusional in thinking she was truly independent, all in a period where women’s work in wealthy society was marriage and kids. The daughter (Little Edie) shared her mother’s ambition about being independent as well as suffering a serious co-dependence issue. This schizo thinking led to a bad marriage – and an eventual divorce - for Big Edie and no marriage at all for Little Edie.

Dramatically, this is a tough nut to crack, as both women get in their own way and mostly have themselves to blame for their plight. The reason it is so compelling in the doc is that we are watching the results and like reading a novel, we fill in those blanks for ourselves, while at the same time being overwhelmed by what is in front of us. In the musical, it leaps from bright and shiny to the dregs of these lives. The HBO film aspires to filling in some of that middle… and it may be an impossible task.

Simply, there is about 20 missing years of deterioration and whether by design or because there is no better answer, it is missing in this film as it is in the doc and musical, but somehow, because the film is a straight drama, you feel the hole as an audience.

And while I hate to tell a filmmaker what I would have liked him or her to do, I wonder whether there was a better answer in a more raw portrayal? Both the doc and the musical address the idea of sexual jealousy between mother and daughter. Not so much this film. What the film does offer that the other versions do not is an actual affair for Little Edie. Yet, the film doesn’t really dig into its raw power, just the idea that Edie gets hurt by a married man acting like a married man.

What I wanted to know, to be frank, is whether Little Edie, who cock teases the boys in another scene, likes sex. Does she see it as a means to an end? Is it something she truly experiences with passion?

I guess that issue circles around the bigger issue for the film… what are these women passionate about? Anything? Nothing? Are they dead of heart… dead of loins? If so, why? Is it really just as simple as confusion and missed opportunity?

I really hoped for more from this film… and got less than in either other incarnation. Though again, two very strong performances, especially from Ms. Lange, whose absence from the big screen is a real shame. (I felt that way after seeing Dustin Hoffman on screen last year, too. Tootsie 2 is a bad idea… but that reunion of two great actors with two very different styles as mature adults… I would pay to see that.)

If you see the film and it is your first exposure to the tale, you should be pleased and titillated. And then, you should go to Criterion’s website and buy the documentary. Then, in September, you can watch Lange get her Emmy and Drew enjoy having been nominated.

Posted by dpoland at 01:26 PM | Comments (5)

Review – 17 Again

Zac Efron is cute. Leslie Mann is cute. Thomas Lennon is Tony Randall.

Can I stop there?

Michelle Trachtenberg, at 23, is getting a little creepy playing 17-year-old goth virgins, though it certainly is not her fault that she has perfect skin and young looks and unless she wants to take jobs where she has to take off her clothes to prove she is a 20something, she’s kinda stuck. Melora Hardin is still sexy at 41. Brian Doyle-Murray looks like Bill after 20 years in prison.

Are we done yet?

Matthew Perry is a nice looking man and there is not a hint of him ever looking as movie-star perfect as Zac Efron… not to mention that there is no way that any man goes from Efron’s energy to Perry’s energy… just not smart casting. They should have just pulled the trigger and hired Paul Rudd for a few days… or Michael Sheen, who can use a quick, commercial jobs between awards movies.

The highlight for most adults will be Thomas Lennon as The Other 40 Year Old Virgin. Nice outright steal, guys. The whole film is like that, though not often as successfully. I’m not sure that the trio of girls who are, quite literally, offering Zac Efron sex without requiring that he even know their names (and unlike O&R, no sobriety issues… this is clear eyed slutting) is the best thing to put into a film for teen girls. No question though, Melissa Ordway will get a lot of meetings with execs trying to get her to repeat the offer… though I have a feeling she’s already been having those meetings and that’s not likely what she’s after. (She wants a part… not THAT part.)

Aside from another offer to be in Footloose, this film won’t do much for anyone… except for the kid, Sterling Knight, who doesn’t seem at first to be able to act, but who gets stronger as the film progresses. There is a glimpse that he may become something real in time.

The story? Uh… yeah. 1950s teen comedy with texting. (Note: this is not your breakthrough “kids text now” film. ) Not a complete piece of crap… not anything worth paying much attention to… just your basic Novocain, not nitrous oxide kind of movie.

Posted by dpoland at 12:23 PM | Comments (4)

BYOB - The Weekend To Come

Kim Voynar's column this week gets into the O&R date rape muck again.... well worth reading.

My perspective remains pretty much the same, even after a two-day edit/discussion with Kim on her column. I think both sides of the discussion tend to overreach the scene itself. It can be argued that it is or is not a date rape. The content of the film does not offer real answers, only moments that can be interpreted as one chooses to interpret them.

Kim gets to the bigger issue, which is whether discussions about things that are on that line of political correctness are allowed by The Dogmatics. I would argue that the same is true for those on the side of political incorrectness. Far too many people are dismissing arguments that it is a date rape as hysterical or "not getting it." And I find that on both sides use the examples of filmmaker comments, etc, that best make their side of the argument and avoid those things that suggest they are wrong. Not cool. As much as saying that it absolutely could not have been consensual on some ugly, but real, level, claiming that it absolutely could not qualify as date rape is an extremist position.

My personal argument comes back to the filmmaker. Did Jody Hill develop this scene to spur debate... or was he just using sex and drug abuse to create a shock punch line? The former would have be kinda brilliant... the latter, to me, given the content of the scene, inexcusable. But that's just me...

Posted by dpoland at 11:15 AM | Comments (44)

April 16, 2009

Summer Survey #2

Okay... using the prior survey as a way to narrow the summer's most promising box office films down to ten, here is a smaller list to work with and a different way to work through it. Good luck.

Posted by dpoland at 10:23 PM | Comments (36)

Summer Movie Survey #1, Results Pt 3 - Thrillers

Please Note: I am posting all of these because people took the time to fill out the survey. I do not really feel that 199 self-selected surveys are anything close to scientific polling. What they are really best at is, to my eye, showing how many of these titles are virtually unknown to people, to the point where they put them in the completely wrong category, though I think some of the picks were meant as jokes.

Posted by dpoland at 06:40 PM | Comments (1)

Summer Movie Survey #1, Results Pt 2 - Comedy

Posted by dpoland at 06:08 PM | Comments (4)

Tilda & K-Big Blow Up Indiestyle

JULIA trailer in HD

Posted by dpoland at 05:28 PM | Comments (1)

Summer Movie Survey Results, Pt 1

Okay... so the survey says that 199 people have completed their survey. The results are hardly shocking, but might be of interest. I was amazed by how many people started and abandoned the survey... over 2800 starts that didn't get finished. That should offer some bracing perspective on online surveying.

More info... and surveys that I don't have to sort by hand... to come...

Posted by dpoland at 04:55 PM | Comments (5)

More Futurism

I actually think this is a bit absurd and when I got my annual note about the countdown to the new Potter trailer, I rolled my eyes and started thinking about writing about how I think that this kind of countdown stuff is reaching its point of cultural irrelevance... much the same feeling I have - with due respect to a site and a staff I really do respect and appreciate - when I get my fifth indieWIRE alert of the day about some tiny distributor picking up some tiny film for the cost of a lunch and a print... at some point, all the "must see now" alerts become "must wait til it happens to float past me."

However, I haven't seen this specific kind of thing before... and so I post...

6:03p - And now... after the trailer ran... looks like another Potter film... it seems that all they left behind was a noisy/cute Hulu promo every time someone loads the page... and no repeat viewing option for the trailer... hmmm....

Posted by dpoland at 02:55 PM | Comments (7)

Review - State of Play

State of Play sets itself up to be a strong contender for a now all too rare genre of film… the complicated-story but genre-simplistic morality tale as a thriller. Lumet to Pakula to Pollack to Bourne. The problem with State of Play is that it fails in this ambition on two fairly serious fronts. First, the rather great story ideas – stuff that has not yet been well done on film – don’t have enough room to breathe. If you walked out of the film feeling that you really had a sense of what internet writers are like and how they operate versus how old school print reporters operate – especially in Washington –this would have been a masterpiece. But the ambition to add in this twist, seemingly well into the life of this screenplay bouncing around in its various incarnations, didn’t make this into the true “A” story in which the intrigue thriller the reporters are working on becomes the thing that draws you into the world of these reporters and pays off with some third act thrills.

The “A” plot of this film remains a political intrigue that the reporters are chasing down. This track is also interesting. The movie that seems to be leading here is “Russell Crowe is an old-school reporter whose close ties are both his greatest asset and his greatest problem and he’s going to fight through, walking the tightrope, until we get to the story’s end and all the secrets have been revealed.” But besides the second fatal flaw of the film, which I will get to momentarily, there is a big problem with the great idea of focusing on how web reporting is infecting traditional newsrooms – or not – in that it ends up completely distracting from this story, which would have worked a lot better if it just stuck to its narrow, more traditional ambitions.

And that is the rub here, isn’t it? Both tracks of this movie are, very clearly, about The Old vs The New. The screenplay gives us both Old Media vs New Media and Old Washington vs The Hope of a New Washington. Operating on both tracks at once is a modernistic approach to a classic kind of tale. (Don’t confuse this script with Traffic, as an example, where there are many stories that tie together thematically and, eventually, in story connectors… this is not that kind of story concept.) But the film fails because of that modern ambition. If they had just stuck with the classical form, they would have been 90% of the way to a win already. On the other hand – just like in all of these battles – you have to be excited by the ambition of reaching for more. The problem with those reaches, most often, is that everything else isn’t working near perfection, every flaw in the Big Idea gets muddled and the soufflé falls.

State of Play is one of those frustrating films in which you are being entertained, scene by scene, but almost every time you start getting into one element of the film and it’s coming together, it flits off to explore the other elements… and you don’t feel like it’s building into a crescendo, but that that each time it gets distracted, you are being asked to build your interest and emotion all over again from scratch… until the film shifts back to somewhere you were excited about before… but once again, you have to get back to the level of energy you had watching the earlier bit… and by the time you do, on to something else.

The second major problem with State of Play is casting. And I’m not talking about Brad Pitt being in it or not being in it. I don’t know whether he would have made much of a difference or not. He may have muddled it more. I’m talking about the casting as it exists now. It is all over the place and really makes no sense.

I feel terrible, for instance, for Ben Affleck, who gives a good performance, feels right for the role – taken out of context – but who is 8 years younger than his “college roommate,” Russell Crowe and 6 years younger than his “wife,” Robin Wright Penn. Both of the other actors are not only looking their age, but take full advantage of every line on their faces and every ounce of their maturity. Thing is, the movie could have turned this into an asset… but doesn’t have the time to do that… because the movie is not about that. And it’s already about so many things that it can’t really stop to get into unexpected ideas. For instance, I instinctually felt like Della, Rachel McAdams’ in-house blogger, is working more on the same level with Affleck’s young Congressman than his wife or his college pal who seems to have been on the beat for a decade longer than he has. Affleck’s playing Crowe’s friend, but they too would be separated by a generational shift in technology.

Thing is, Russell Crowe, even playing his real age (he seems to be playing older, though the story seems to want us to see him as 45, max), feels too young for his role. Guys our age may not all be webheads, but the anti-web curmudgeon thing is generally left – amongst thinking people who are not just endlessly paranoid about losing their jobs… and Crowe’s guy here is pretty cool and cocky – to people at least in their 50s. And even many of them are now hip to the online room. Looking at Crowe’s character, as he stands now, at the age Crowe is, you get the feeling that he might love “the old way,” but would have forced himself to learn how to use the web to gather intel years ago. And if he hasn’t, fine… but we need to have a clearer sense of why. A beard and a beat up car are clichés of a era of which he isn’t old enough to be a part. We need more.

Conversely, Rachel McAdams, who is fine in this role and at her age, is a shadow figure in the entire film. There are times – and I mean this seriously – where my mind starting thinking that she was CGed into the background of scenes or that they reshot to give her 2 lines in scenes that she wasn’t in when they first shot them. When she is wrestling with The Paper or Crowe, she is okay… still underdeveloped… still not really using the tools of a first-gen blogger the way they are really used…but she is okay. But as Crowe goes on his investigation, she is nothing but background noise in the story. Which, again, is not her fault… but the fault of the overreaching ambitions of this project.

The bad movie version of McAdams’ Della – and thank God, they didn’t really go here in the film – would be her hacking some impossible-to-get-to-piece of information from a government database in 30 seconds to prove she is a web person. But where is the person who has sources she never speaks to or has even met, but who will send her a text with some real insight when she needs it? Where is the idea that she can use the resource of a community that shares information differently than the old schoolers would ever think of doing? And the biggest missing idea is really getting into the immediacy of blogging and how quickly things can get way out of hand… that The Bad Guys would be checking into her blog for posting or her Facebook or her Twitter account, which she would be using throughout this situation at least every hour or as some do, every few minutes. A guy can now follow you down a dark alley without ever being in the alley. That is The Obsessive Web. Della can have a dozen untrained eyes around town working, in a friendly way, for her while Crowe’s Cal is still looking for people who really know something, one at a time.

Not in the movie. Nothing like it anywhere to be found.

A six-hour mini-series could have held it all in quite brilliantly with the same writers and same director. But the movie has to make the choice, over and over again, about which story to focus on… and the other stories always pay for that necessary choice.

Now I haven’t seen the original Brit mini-series. And looking at the casting, the age elements seem to be similarly confusing. In fact, The Old School Reporter was played by a 33 year old (at the time) actor and The Guy In Parliament (I assume he was in Parliament) was played by a then-39 year old. The Young Reporter was 27 at the time, so not much of a generational rift in those 6 years.

And really… none of that from the other film matters…

One of the main themes of this film is a generational shift, the old way fighting the new way, and both showing their strengths and weaknesses. And I haven’t really touched too deeply on how this works in the political thriller part of the film. Again, it is the Old Guard, here into bribes and big money and no interest in humanity, versus the new kid on the block who could be president in 6 years – a la Obama – so must be stopped, above and beyond the details of this story. What does The Establishment do to stop The New… how far will it go… how dark is that road?

Again, an interesting element to this film… but not so much in the film. The specific of the particular intrigue kind of overwhelms it as a big picture theme… and the other themes suck out all the rest of the running time.

Amazingly, Die Hard 4 did a better, if somewhat absurd, job of telling this story on the tech side, with the geeks both fighting and supporting McClane’s retro hero. Obviously nothing so outscaled would be appropriate here. But there is a very real and not yet well dramatized difference in the way the digital and the analog minds work. That was the opportunity that was created in whatever version of this script it was where this came up as a theme. By not really exploring the “what would have happened with Watergate if Woodward & Bernstein not only had some of the info the pursued door-to-door on the web, but struggled with finding it there, and were also having the same story pursued by others who were 100% fluent in web but who didn’t know the players and never made actual contact with them, while at the same time had people in the newsroom looking over their shoulders who were ready to leak mid-process reporting to web sites that were more than happy to scoop W&B with W&B’s work and none of their own other than the hard work of clicking on an e-mail” angle with any depth, the opportunity was lost.

Additionally, by blurring the natural, if stereotypical age and moral weight groupings of the actors involved without acknowledging the oddities, the movie keeps the audience slightly off balance along the way.

Thing is, I can’t say that State of Play is a capital-t Terrible movie. It’s certainly no Body of Lies, which was a real mess. It really isn’t. If you don’t care that it flips around like a fish in a boat, never escaping to the water, never being fried up in a pan, you’ll be fine with all the high-quality distractions. I know that I was. But as I kept being frustrated by being pushed here and there and everywhere, my grip on the experience taken away as I was constantly asked to find the next one, I got frustrated and disinterested and judgmental. That’s not where I want to be in any more.

There is a really great movie in here… somewhere. Maybe it needed to be a really great mini-series. It was no small feat to get this to work. Traffic is the great example of where it did… and still, there was complaining from the peanut gallery because it so simplified what the mini-series had done. But that is the nature of adapting bigger to smaller. Take too big a bite and no matter how delicious the fare, you choke.

Posted by dpoland at 01:44 PM | Comments (13)

April 15, 2009

DP/30 - Tribeca '09: Racing Dreams dir Marshall Curry

Marshall Curry, who was nominated for an Oscar for his very first film, 2005's Street Fight, is back with more paved action... though this time, the challengers are still in puberty. It's the story of the top-end cart racers who are racing in an unofficial minor league for NASCAR racing. A couple of boys and a girl are centerstage, as Marshall was for this pre-Tribeca DP/30.

We have a special sneak peek at the film for you after the jump... and then the video interview with Marshall...

Posted by dpoland at 05:51 PM | Comments (0)

DP/30 - Norman Jewison

Around the 20th anniversary of his founding of the Canadian Film Centre, director Norman Jewison is being feted north and south. This weekend, the party comes to a LA Contemporary Museum of Art event, which will be attended by many of the actors that shared some of the best moments of Jewison's career.

This gave us a chance to sit down with the director of five Oscar Best Picture nominees - In The Heat of The Night, Moonstruck, The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming, A Soldier's Story, and Fiddler On The Roof - not to mention The Thomas Crown Affair, The Cincinnati Kid, The Hurricane, ...And Justice for All, Rollerball, Jesus Christ Superstar, some good silly 50s/60s comedies with Tony Curtis, Doris Day and others amongst his 13 other feature films, plus a TV career as the guy who made Judy Garland look her best on the then-new medium.

The video interview with the 82-year-old legend is after the jump...

Posted by dpoland at 01:06 PM | Comments (9)

Summer Poll 1

4/16p, 6:16p - This poll has been closed... Please do not waste your time filling it out, as your answers will not go through. Results will come up in other entries over the next 24 hours... and if you abandoned your effort or didn't get to participate, fear not... I will be offering more polls in the days to come, hopefully better designed for your ease of use.

Note: 4/16, 3:10p - There is a lot of data building up... unfortunately, the delivery mechanism of this web survey company is not quite as simple as I though it would be. Working on a fix and getting the survey info to you soon...

Posted by dpoland at 12:16 AM | Comments (63)

April 14, 2009

SAG Fight Not Over... E-Mail From The Front

The Rally this week is again at the AMPTP/MPAA offices at Sherman Oaks Galleria, NW corner of Ventura and Sepulveda Boulevards, on Thursday, April 16, 2009 at 11am-2pm. Parking in the structure or on side streets.
 
In the Los Angeles Daily News, April 10, 2009,  the AMPTP said that we "...are not operating in reality."
 
THE REALITY IS, WITHOUT US THERE IS NO ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY
THE REALITY IS THESE MONOPOLIES ARE TRYING TO CRUSH US
 
REALITY: we will lose $600 million in network move over to streaming
REALITY: the fractional pension improvement, one-half of one percent, will be more than wiped out by losses in the move over of 14.8% in contributions to P&H
REALITY: Thousands of our members will lose health coverage and pension benefits
REALITY: They get 17 to 24 days of free streaming then pay $22.77 for 6 months of constant streaming.
REALITY: pre 1971 movies: no residuals in New Media
REALITY: pre 1974 tv series: no residuals in New Media
REALITY: Non-union production in New Media
REALITY: Product Integration: 2 jobs - 1 paycheck
REALITY: Clips: As a condition of employment we lose control of name, voice and likeness

ALL OF THESE ISSUES ARE ROLLBACKS
BE THERE. BRING YOUR FRIENDS
FIGHT FOR YOUR RESIDUALS, HEALTH COVERAGE AND PENSION BENEFITS!
 
In solidarity
Scott Wilson
Henry Kingi

===============

Here is a radio interview about where SAG is now on Heart of Hollywood with Scott Wilson guesting.

Posted by dpoland at 01:29 PM | Comments (2)

BYOB 41409

Posted by dpoland at 01:09 AM | Comments (64)

April 13, 2009

The Spirit: The Surprising Blu-Ray Experience

Like many others, I skipped The Spirit in December. I was interested, but Lionsgate didn’t seem overly interested in screening it for me and it kind of plopped out into the marketplace. The film grossed under $20 million, raised the internal strife at the distributor, and 3.5 months later, arrives on DVD.

When I threw it into the Blu-ray ahead of a pile of other films that gathered on my doorstop (figuratively), it was because I was curious about the look of the film. I figured I’d look at a scene or two and then move on to some other film, returning to The Spirit when I had the time. (The lack of extra scenes didn’t inspire me much either… though the LG live front page for the DVD, which includes location, weather, and time, though the time was incorrect, was intriguing.)

But the movie had me at “hello.”

It is a long, long way from being a perfect film. But it also a whole lot closer to being the work of a true visionary artist than any other piece of film using similar aesthetics and the same kind of tool box. You may or may not like the work, but Frank Miller has a very specific visual style of his own and he is more than capable of delivering on those images he has in his head.

The distinction is subtle, but profound. The best early example of this in the film is the muddy fight between The Spirit and The Octopus. For starters, the mud is never brown… as brown is not a color that interests Miller in this film. As a result, you have the insane and daring choice of having Sam Jackson play The Octopus through much of the scene in blackface. I mean, you couldn’t really find more bulgy white eyeballs than Jackson’s through that sequence… not in a race movie that was all about bulging white eyeballs on black men. But I found the aesthetic fascinating (and amusing) to watch and Miller matched my standard for any choice that has a serious chance of offending a large part of the audience… he had an artistic ambition in making the choice and he rose to it.

Ironically, one of the bad memories some have of The Spirit, back when Will Eisner was doing it, is a character called Ebony White, a sidekick of classically racially incorrect blackface creation. I am not terribly familiar with the character, so it is hard to figure out how he really fit in and why the book wasn’t burned. But it wasn’t.

Anyway, Jackson’s appearance is just one small element of this sequence. Miller delivers big ideas with small details all over the place. They are splashing around in what look to be 4” pools a lot of the time… until he decides to push The Spirit into the muck head first past his flawlessly white-bottomed tennis shoes. But you are looking at what he is doing, not the effect or the method or the tools.

Of course, there is plenty of stuff that doesn’t quite work. Jamie King as “Lorelei Rox,” who plays the same role as Jessica Lange did in Bob Fosse’s All That Jazz… she is a siren calling our hero to his death. Not terrible, but not meaty enough. Miller doesn’t quite find the rhythm for allowing the audience to play along with the ideas of how The Spirit is perceived by women. The cloned thugs are kind of a great gag… but they don’t always get as much out of it as if they had a better actor in the role… say a Steve Zahn or Michel Chiklis.

The biggest flaw is Gabriel Macht, who is not terrible, but just isn’t swinging the giant charm underneath his understated style and dazzling looks. Because that is so much of what makes the movie fly or stumble, coming up a bit short there it a very big problem.

The women look, obviously, sensational. Scarlett Johansson doesn’t get to do much more than model her hats and to be the punchline of a joke about brilliant women. But Paz Vega as sensuality incarnate milks all there is to milk out of that, Sarah Paulson was fine and dewy as Elizabeth Perkins, and Stana Katic gets it just right as a tough sexy cop. But the show is stolen, sometimes literally, by Seychelle Gabrielas young Sand Serif and Eva Mendes as the adult version, who leaves her signature on one crime scene by Xeroxing her – as she calls it – perfect ass. Mendes really has developed a strong skill set as an actress and this film with a first-time director (on his own) really shows that.

But there is enormous promise for Frank Miller as a director based on this. I would have loved to have seen him do Watchmen, as an example. He has real style and understands visual shorthand better – shockingly - than Robert Rodriguez or others who emulate his aesthetic style.

The Blu-ray is, of course, breathtaking, though the extras, as I said above, are a bit underwhelming. In some ways, I consider that a plus, in that it shows that Miller is not the kind of guy to linger in his outtakes. There is a narrated animation of an alternative ending, which is interesting. A couple decent little docs about making the film and about Miller.

But the highlight is the film, looking as good as it will ever look on your home screen. And even better, a movie I am pleasantly surprised by and am glad to have seen.

Posted by dpoland at 10:23 PM | Comments (51)

Piracy & News

It's an interesting discussion...

Phil Spector was found guilty today. Vikram Jayanti made a wonderful documentary about Spector for BBC2 - The Agony & The Ecstasy of Phil Spector - that ran a week on the BBC2 website then was pulled down after a week. Spector gave Jayanti access to and allowed the use of all kinds of materials that Spector holds the rights to and this makes the doc truly one of a kind. The interview with Vikram took place right before and/or during the first trial. Great stuff. So much so that the film won an award for Best Single Documentary at the 35th annual Broadcasting Press Guild Awards in the UK just a couple of weeks ago.

The film is not scheduled to play in America... and I have no idea whether it ever will. It seems likely that Spector will allow it to play here after the legal battle is completely over, but this conviction, which will be appealed, may keep it out of view for years to come. The film actually leans towards Spector's argument that he could not have had his hand on the trigger when Ms. Clarkson was shot. But who knows what kind of spin writers and potential jurors might take on the film.

So a few hours ago, I look on the MCN front page and Ray Pride had stumbled upon the documentary, in full, on a major streaming website.

After a bit of investigation... and after excitedly preparing an entry about the film here on The Hot Blog, I pulled the link down and dumped my planned entry.

Obviously, this is frustrating. It's a great film. It should be seen. I have no idea whether it is not being shown because Spector set the rule or because there is a US deal still pending or whatever. Still, the moral issue is the moral issue. I don't have the legal right to see or distribute the film and clearly, neither does the person who posted it to the web... in good conscience, solely interested in sharing similar materials with others who are interested.

It frustrates me in these situations that we don't even have the right to pay for access to content, like this, which is so valuable to those with an interest. I would surely pay for access via BBC's website or buy a DVD of this film. But no.

Of course, the next step is to question whether watching a region coded DVD on a region-free player is morally valid.

Sigh...

Posted by dpoland at 07:00 PM | Comments (11)

Zac Does HSM4... And Walt Defrosts

Posted by dpoland at 06:03 PM | Comments (13)

SNL Documents Blogging

Posted by dpoland at 05:55 PM | Comments (1)

Marilyn Chambers Is Dead

I have to say... I never really got it.

Somehow, for me, the idea of Marilyn Chambers was sexier than any sex scene in which I saw her perform. She seemed kinda funny and sweet and sexy... and when it got all porno, that charm was gone.

I recall her various R-rated shows on Cinemax, etc, after her porn career was well over and her breasts had massive implants added. Blech.

Chambers was, also, the first famous porn actress to make a serious attempt at crossing over into the mainstream. She has a lot of non-porn credits. But like all of the others, including Paris Hilton, the transition was near impossible.

Still, sad to see anyone go so young. Marilyn Ann Briggs, born on April 22, 1952, passed on April 12, 2009.

Posted by dpoland at 05:18 PM | Comments (17)

Broadway - Hair & Exit The King

The great Broadway experience of this season is the revival of Hair, merging a great score, a still absolutely non-existent book, and last season’s Xanadu, one of the great nights out ever that also happens to be unquotably about the experience of that evening.

There is something undeniably modern about this months-away-from 40 year old show. I didn’t see the show when I was 5, so I have no idea of whether it felt like it was so much about The Communal Conversation back then. But that is what it feels like now.

“The Tribe” hangs out together around New York… people come and go… a few members of The Tribe are “stars” within the community… but people stand up and make themselves heard within the communal over the course of the evening. As I wrote, there really is no book of note, just a head nod to the idea that Claude is going to go throw the process and will struggle with whether he will allow himself to be drafted. It is, to stretch a metaphor, a highly talented group blog with some members who stand out, but in which every member is welcome to add to the conversation.

There is also an edge of sexuality that is missing from Broadway these days. It isn’t brazen or an effort to show off. It is the seduction of young sexuality… still unencumbered by too much thought. It is the anti-Sex & The City, in a way. It’s not about talking about sex… but it is about people who have and enjoy sex and who deal with all the personal drama of sex.

On some level, it makes me think of the West Side Story revival and why Anita is so strong and most of the rest feels unformed… it’s that Anita wants to keep having sex with Bernardo… she has already passed the schoolyard games of the street gangs and when she is faced with Maria’s virginal passion, it heightens her passion, reminding her of something she’s lost a little. But unlike everyone else, Anita is alive in her life, which includes her sexuality. She is waiting for everyone else to catch up... and so is the audience, except when we are swept up in Maria's blind enthusiasm. (Unfortunately, I have never seen a version of WSS in which I believed in the love surviving the circumstances less.)

In any case… Hair is sexy. And that sexy is also a fascinating function of the wild diversity of the cast, in both race and physical type. True, there are only a few examples of people who are not in good shape. But everyone is not Broadway Dancer Lithe either.

What most caught my imagination in the first 15 minutes of the show was how quickly and completely defined almost all of these characters were, both the eight “leads” and the 20+ members of The Tribe (who do not have character names in the Playbill… only the names of songs they have leads in). As a result, there is that feeling you have when you go into a new social situation. The impact of the purely visual is what you start with, but as you get to know people, you are drawn to personality as much as the visual. And in this show, where almost everyone is always on stage, often watching others perform centerstage, that richer sense of relationship develops quickly.

Of course, it is pushed along by the production, which sends the actors into the audience from the first scene to the last, cracking the fourth wall aggressively, the way many great nightclub performers do. (Yes, “where are you from?” is actually asked out loud.) I actually wonder whether Hugh Jackman or his peeps who helped develop the opening number at The Oscars this year saw this show in the park over last summer. That opening, combining crowd interaction and the “we’re making this up as we go along” feel, is very much the feel of this show.

Before I went to the show, it was interesting how resistant people were to this show. At least three people told me not to waste my time going. Others, after I saw it, needed a lot of convincing – and probably still don’t believe me – that it was worth the time. One person who had seen it complained that the cast was “rather long in the tooth” for the roles.

All I can do is to shake my head and wonder, “Why?” I mean, for me, Allison Case and Kacie Sheik were the only irreplaceable members of the cast… hard to imagine anyone doing better… though it was interesting to think about Amy Adams and/or other singing celebs jumping into a month or two in this show, where the pressure wouldn’t be quite as great as being a lead and where they could be part of a true ensemble show. Caissie Levy grew on me as the show progressed, though she suffered a bit early on from her character not having much story development. The guys – Will Swenson, Gavin Creel, Darius Nichols, and Bryce Ryness were all strong.

But he point is The Communal and as such, every single person had to be very strong… and almost every single person is replaceable by another incredibly talented person. That is the strength. That is the joy.

One of the memorable moments is the brief moment of full and full cast nudity at the end of the first act. (Kacie Sheik actually has to strip down AND carry a fake pregnancy belly.) But part of what is memorable about it – aside from Ms Levy’s award-winning physique, which will inspire more dating interest for Jewesses everywhere – is how forgettable it is. Again, it is part of The Communal. Even minutes later, as the second act began, I could remember glimpses of this body part or that - more memorable was the process of disrobing, which was different for each actor and which led to the intermission gathering of clothes by stagehands on a curtain-less stage – but we were all on to another conversation and that shock beat, it was just a part of the overall experience.

And that was Hair. A group grope of The Communal.

That, and that score, which still slays me all these years later. Song after song after song, meaningful and tuneful and catchy and funny and memorable. “Aquarius,” “Hair,” “Easy To Be Hard,” “I Got Life,” “Good Morning Starshine,” and “Let The Sun Shine In,” are the best known of the group, but there are at least a half dozen other unforgettable tunes. Me? I love almost every song. But my older sister, who did see the show on Broadway when she was 19 or 20, played the album almost as much as she did The Beatles, so I knew most of the lyrics and turns in the score before I was 10.

It’s hard to imagine anyone not enjoying themselves at this show, unless they really, really don’t want to enjoy it. That is not to say that it is the best show ever. The lack of a book still keeps it from soaring above. And that is, I must say, true of blog life as well. The glory of The Moment and the incompleteness of The Moment is what both frees and limits the form. Someone will rise above – and the score here has that effect – but the simplicity of the form creates its own limitations. But I would put the score in the Top 30 of all time. And that ain’t nothing.

I found myself thinking that this would be a sensational opportunity for a Spike Jonze movie, shot without any effort to make more of the book, shot on location like a documentary… as that is the spirit of the show… and Jonze has the artistry to make it more than just a document while maintaining the intimacy of the exuberant life of the show and the wonderful performances that don’t demand any more casting with names or other actors to be a pleasure to experience over and over and over again in a film.

ALSO – The mere fact of the existence of Ionesco’s Exit The King in a Broadway theater, with Roundabout’s production of Beckett’s Waiting For Godot just starting now, demands applause. The fact that the theater is full – even with a much-lauded performance by Geoffrey Rush and Susan Sarandon in support, is a near miracle.

Unfortunately, it is a long night at the theater.

It has its rewards. Rush is manically relentless and a pleasure to watch… but you get a whole lot of him.

Lauren Ambrose is building a stage career that is more than admirable. She gives herself over to this work completely and gets about as much as one can get out of a limited character. The same is true of Bill Sadler, who gives it his all and just doesn’t get enough to play with to be as memorable as his outfits.

Susan Sarandon seems loathe to let it go in the first act, but finally gets to tuck into some more lengthy and quality speeches late in the second act and acquits herself with all the skill you would expect. The writing is schizo for her character, who seems to be waiting for her alone-time on stage…. and while solid, Sarandon doesn’t find a way over the play itself until it moves back into her comfort zone.

The scene-stealers here are the two clowns, Andrea Martin and Brian Hutchison. Both kill. The audience is loyal to them. And, as is almost always the case, when your favorite moments in a show are when a supporting actor is hamming it up, the show is a bust. (Though I must say, Rush’s speeches, especially one in which he wanders off-stage and up and down the aisles, were a highlight worth the price of admission for me… but likely not enough for some others… including the entire band, Pearl Jam, each member noticeable for the age inappropriate goddesses by their side.)

The show would have been far more of the moment when our last president was still in office. That is, not coincidentally, when Rush started doing this show (which he co-adapted as well) to great acclaim. The notion of a king raging at the dying light… trying to hang on… not caring what his behavior does to others… unwilling to listen to those who know the history and seek a peaceful solution to the inevitable… all interesting Bush-aphors.

But it’s nice to see something other than “easy” shows on the boards… even if it takes movie stars (who can act their asses off) to get them there.

Posted by dpoland at 04:14 PM | Comments (9)

Loving John Waters

Waters has a gallary show here in L.A. for the next month or so... Vanity Fair was compelled by the movies shown on asses, but I like this one, Children Who Smoke, even better.

(more info on the show and when you can see it)

Posted by dpoland at 02:18 PM | Comments (7)

April 12, 2009

Date Rape Redux

I'm not sure what is more disturbing... David Edelstein using someone who has not seen the film as the standard for moral outrage over Observe & Report OR David Edelstein oversimplifying both the argument that the date rape in the film is offensive and the argument that it is acceptable as an artistic choice ("I hope I also wouldn’t harass a Muslim co-worker, use a Taser on a man who parks next to a loading dock, break into a mall and assault policemen, or triumphantly shoot an unarmed criminal. Although I adore Lolita, I hope I am never tempted to lay a finger on a prepubescent girl. Although I grew up watching the Three Stooges, I shall endeavor never to jam two fingers into someone's eyes or yank anyone by the nose with a ball-peen hammer.")

This is, really, Clinton territory. What are the moral standards if you either love or hate the person/film being examined?

I can say, unequivocally, that someone liking O&R does not disqualify them morally in my eyes, for the date rape scene or any other politically incorrect scene.

But it is all too easy to lazily dismiss cruelty because it is either funny to us or because it abuses a group that we do not respect.

The three women who sleep with Javier Bardem in Vicky Cristina Barcelona are worse for the grape, disregard other relationships, and make excuses for what some would say is slutty behavior. Yet none of the three ever seem objectified in anything close to the way the character in O&R is.

Much of what Edelstein argues are "mitigating factors" in the controversial scene in Observe & Report are textbook examples of power inequities that define the somewhat blurry concept of date rape. In other words, if the woman sleeps around and gets herself loaded, a man who has to carry her - literally - into her home should feel free to mount her seemingly unconscious body – “Live and learn—or don’t and pay the consequences.” – so long as at some point, he recognizes that she is not moving at all and may need medical attention, which inspires her, in her inebriated state, to demand that he keep pumping along. After all, according to Edelstein, she is, “apparently enjoying herself.”

Let’s use the basic standard. If your family member was profoundly broken, on a bender, not saying “no,” but clearly out of it, would you think it was funny for some guy – who btw, added to the haze by giving her his prescription drugs – to have sex with her? Would you laugh out loud?

And when she shows no further interest the next day, would you think she deserved what she got and had enjoyed herself?

No, I don’t think it makes you a jerk not to think about all of that like I just laid it out. It is a movie… just like The Three Stooges.

But it doesn’t make you a tight ass to be unamused by a movie making light of date rape either… especially when part of the reason it’s “funny” is that it is white trash being screwed… just the way momma’s fall-down drinking is a hoot. Ha ha.

Posted by dpoland at 09:24 PM | Comments (69)

15 Days Sober

The experiment of me banning myself from comments is at its half-way mark about now.

As with a movie that one feels like one "gets" at the halfway mark, the question of the second half of the experience is an unknown, no matter how obvious it might feel.

The most interesting thing I have noted so far is how boring inside blog baseball stuff is, as I take a deeper, longer breath, trying not to take it personally. Me responding to it has to be even more boring.

I am also more cognizant of the phenomenon of one commented demanding attention and then others - sometimes the same one - accusing me of obsession or self-involvement when I choose to respond to that original demand. I'm not sure there is an answer to this problem that is not more extreme than the problem.

The experience has also cemented the sad reality that some of this blog's commenters... well... to paraphrase William Shatner... they need to get a life.

And the vast majority of you - each one of you representing thousands of silent readers - contribute interesting and thoughtful stuff, whether you agree with me or not and whether you express yourself passionately or calmly.

This is, by my design, an open house. I don't want it to be anything else. But if this was real life, and you were all in my house, there are about a half-dozen of you who I would feel compelled to ask to leave... not because you are so challenging to me, but because you are irritating gits who spend more of your time trying to figure out how to control the party than socializing civilly with the other guests. (An alternative take would be that some of "you" are morons... but I choose not to go there.) Of course, most of "you" would probably just sit in the corner and suck your thumbs, hoping no one noticed you if this was real life, so "you" wouldn't irritate, just take up space. I doubt any of you would have the balls to piss on the floor and try to rub the host's face in it whenever possible.

Honestly, I wish those 5 or 6 of you would just go away. And if you took the few thousand readers you represent with you, great. But that's not going to happen. Nothing is ever that simple.

And so... a couple more weeks of thinking about it.

Posted by dpoland at 08:32 PM | Comments (57)

Weekend Estimates by Klady - Easter Sunday

Disney's choice of Easter weekend for The Hannah Montana Movie was, I gotta say, kinda genius. With a film whose fan base pretty much assures that it will boom on opening day, catch the rest of the audience on Saturday, and drop like a stone on Sunday, the placement makes that short-lived trajectory seem less obviously about the product itself.

The estimate on Observe & Report puts it less than a million ahead of Zack & Miri's opening... in spite of at least twice the marketing buys. It will be interesting to see how these two Seth Rogen films play out against each other, as the earlier one was kinder and gentler than its title and director's career suggested while the new film is the opposite, clearly more harsh than what is being sold.

The cult around Jody Hill is making itself known, as in evidence with all the excuses made for the weaknesses of the film in comments after my review. We even got ourselves a little Bosley Crowther shout out... which in and of itself explains what's so wrong with the rationalizations around O&R... unlike Crowther and then then-ground-breaking Bonnie & Clyde, no one that I have read has issues with the film because it pushes the envelope, but rather because it fails to deliver on its apparent ambitions... "apparent" because changing tone every 90 seconds is not a sign of genius or insight, but rather adult-onset ADD.

(Cue a parade of "he's obsessed" comments in response to me daring to respond to those who disagree with me. Sigh...)

But I digress...

Fast & Furious is holding up well enough to be well assured of becoming the biggest grosser of the franchise... even if it won't sell (yawn) the most actual tickets... because they funded the film based on the actual number of tickets sold and dvds purchased, not the revenue... right? BZZT! Wrong.

I Love You, Man is doing nicely, though it is not the breakout some hoped for. Seems to me like we are seeing The Apatow Era maturing into a series of strong, but not overwhelming numbers... not that there's anything wrong with that. Of course, Apatow has nothing to do with this film - it is a Donald DeLine/Reitman/Pollock production of a John Hamburg film - but the Paul Rudd/Jason Segel combo was cast right out of Judd's cash flow river. And Seth Rogen as the 100% frontman on Observe & Report is also an obvious spin on Apatow's greenback village.

It's generally a good bet that when a trend in movie talent gets a name, it is on its way to death's door. Obviously, talent and commercial thinking can always overwhelm any trend line. And there is no question that Judd Apatow and many of those he has brought to the top of the business with him are very, very talented. But the gold rush for "bromance" may well be over.

Keep an eye on Year One, which I have some doubts about from the trailer and Super Bowl spot. I hope for History of The World, Part I - even though the ancient Rome stuff is the most forgettable in the film - but I fear Caveman, a movieI loved when I was 16... but mostly because I was amused by John Matusak acting and lusted for Barbara Bach.

I am even more scared of Funny People, which strikes me as Punchline with cancer. I was not a fan of Punchline without cancer. And even with a lot of critical praise and awards talk, a box office-hot Sally Field and a rising star in John Goodman, the film stands as one of Tom Hanks' few early bombs. Apatow is a very talented guy... and maybe this film will turn out to be the great Adam Sandler dramatic effort. But when the funny guys try to do the melancholy thing... well... at least Woody Allen stole from Bergman before he finally figured out how to walk the comedy/drama line perfectly in Crimes & Misdemeanors... which was 11 years and 2 other bombs from his first effort with Interiors (a movie I actually like... but in a kind of kinky, theater way).

I honestly hope for the best. But the smoke signals spell "fear." May they be dead wrong.

Posted by dpoland at 03:04 PM | Comments (29)

April 11, 2009

BYOB - Back In LA... Ahhhhhhh

Posted by dpoland at 10:56 PM | Comments (87)

Friday Estimates by Klady - 4/11/09

The Hannah Montana Movie had twice as big a Friday opening as Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best of Both World Concert Tour. What that will mean by the end of the weekend, who knows? But the base for this film - the niche - is cleaner and stronger for the film based clearly on the Disney Channel series, whereas the concert had all the fear elements that conservative parents bring to the idea of a concert... which seem to have hurt the Jonas Bros concert movie even more after word-of-mouth of the overt subtextual sexuality broke.

Fast & Furious' drop is no surprise given the massive opening. Look for the weekend drop to be more in the high 50s.

Monsters vs Aliens going up a little is a bit of a surprise. Probably a lot of people going to the 3D after being afraid of being shut out - or being shut out - in weeks past.

Observe & Report opens about a third behind I Love You, Man, about 50% off of Paul Blart: Mall Cop, about $300k ahead of both The Uninvited and Confessions of a Shopaholic, and at double the opening day of Zack & Miri Make A Porno.

Dragonball Evolution devolved.

Posted by dpoland at 09:08 AM | Comments (35)

"Spontaneous" Dancing Breaks Out In T-Mobile Euromercials

Posted by dpoland at 08:14 AM | Comments (2)

April 10, 2009

Hot Blog Poll du jour 2

Posted by dpoland at 09:23 PM | Comments (11)

Hot Blog Poll du jour

Posted by dpoland at 09:20 PM | Comments (5)

Why Does...

... the idea of Ghosts of Girlfriends Past seem absolutely brilliant... and the movie they made seem like it is going to be absolutely horrible?

Posted by dpoland at 09:14 PM | Comments (15)

Review - Observe & Report

How do I start this?

Jody Hill… save your money.

The clock is ticking on this spectacularly overrated writer/director. He just got a second season pick-up for the mediocre Eastbound & Down. Observe & Report is coming out with some love from the people who so want to love this guy’s style of hateful, white-trash-mocking humor.

And unless he shows an enormous amount of growth – which is unlikely for writer/directors who are told they are geniuses when they are just kinda okay at best – he will be a movie business memory by 2012.

Observe & Report is, after all the hype, Paul Blart: Mall Cop with less storytelling skill and a lot of “fucks,” cocks, implants (bobs and lips) and drug/alcohol abuse. Hill has the advantage of having some taste in actors. Seth Rogen shows that he really is capable of carrying a movie… but is not asked to do much more than to be a pudgy face and to read lines in his familiar rhythms. The highlight of the film, for me, is Michael Pena as an indescribably ambivalent Hispanic all cop with a Mike Tyson speech impediment who is teamed with Rogen’s Ronnie Barnhardt. He is just funny and really commits to the character.

The toughest acting work comes for the actresses, who Hill seems to think can be misogynized or mocked as slutty old drunks only to be redeemed by one ”good girl.” He didn’t watch The Farrellys closely enough.

But back to the movie itself…

It’s not funny.

I laughed out loud once during the entire film. The audience I saw it with laughed out loud twice… the second time when someone was shot with a gun. Hee hee.

I’m sure Mr. Hill is a great guy and it seems that talent is ready to work with him. His humor reminds me a bit of Dane Cook… if it’s not funny, make it loud and use the word “fuck” and at least you will get their attention.

The problem with the movie is not that it is severe… because in truth, it is not nearly as severe as some of the smarter comedy out there. This guy has nothing on Bruce, Carlin or Pryor's sense of truth-telling. It is that it lies… mostly to itself. Gags have a shelf-life of minutes… sometimes less. Whatever might get a laugh. But who are these people?

When I read the pathetically self-congratulatory argument from this director that this film is inspired somehow by Taxi Driver, it all makes sense. He doesn’t understand or have any interest in Taxi Driver. He understands and is interested in a guy looking in the mirror saying, “You talkin’ to me?,” and even more so, people imitating DeNiro saying that phrase. That is his cultural touchstone… not the film and what it was about, but the decades of people getting instant gratification with a reference to a line that has become less than the whole of that film.

I would be curious to know how many people recognize – or even hear – Hill’s reference to Miller’s Crossing during the movie. It perked me up. It got me rooting for the guy. How bad could he be if he made a Miller’s Crossing joke in this middle of this simplistic comedy? But he soon lost me again.

After a while, I just kept thinking that this was a movie about grown men who play with their own poop and think it is the funniest thing in the world. And that is about all that the movie will commit to. Ronnie Barnhardt isn’t really a loser. He’s a guy who, if he stayed on his meds, might be a real success. Of course, the movie throws out the idea that he is both on meds and that he stops taking them in a matter of a minute, about halfway through the film. Bam. There it is. But even that left field shot doesn’t actually go anywhere. The story suggests he is driven to extremes by circumstance, not psychosis. So why throw in the meds issue? And if it matters, why doesn’t he really go nuts?

Over and over, that is the story of this film. Hill sets up the situation and then drops the ball completely, looking quickly for the next set-up to raise and abandon. This is true of both the biggest and smallest plot points. What is his relationship with becoming a “real” policeman? What is the post-first-date relationship with The Girl? What does this guy do all day?

One of the moments that struck me, in particular, was Ronnie’s mother – the sadly abused, always excellent actress Celia Weston – struggling to put booze in a soda bottle. It is a somewhat subtle, insightful, and intriguing bit. It is one of the things that alcoholics who want to maintain the pretense that they are not really drinking often do. But she is not a booze hider. Her words are relentlessly honest and direct about herself and what she feels to be true.

So which one is it? You want to make the argument that “real life” is both, sometimes at the same time? Okay. But as drama goes, I consider that a complete cop out. Who is Ronnie and what does his life with his mother mean? Is he still living with her because he really is a loser or because he is being responsible for a woman who can’t take care of herself? Has she been shielding him from him limitations for all these years?

I am sure that some people will wonder, “why are you taking this silly comedy so seriously?” Well, that is the thing of all drama, serious or comedic, austere or frivolous. The reason that most of the Apatow films and the early Farrelly films work so well is that there is that core of truth. You forgive their lead characters everything and root for them no matter how ugly their behaviors. Even if absurdity, they are humans with recognizable wants and needs.

Is date rape funny? Does a girl waking up long enough to tell the guy to keep pumping away make it okay to laugh at a date rape? But let’s go past that scene… when the same woman establishes, as she really did even before the date rape scene, that she has no boundaries in her sexual choices aside from who brings the drugs, alcohol or power, is it funny for one of those who used her to treat her like a whore?

The difference between Apatow and The Farrellys and Hill is that the first two understand that The Guy has to learn something in order for his former bad behavior to be something other than hateful.

Of course, there are a load of other silly mistakes in judgment in the film by the filmmaker. Anyone who shows themselves to have the skills that Ronnie occasionally shows would be valued differently than he is in the film. The flips between romantic notions and opportunism would make Nadia Comaneci queasy. The whole “real gun” obsession plays like a neo-Nazi porn video. And the music… oy. I have quoted a great composer before, commenting that the fewer music cues a film has, the better the film. This film is so wall-to-wall with music that one has to wonder if Mr. Hill trusted anything he put on film to connect with audiences without a loud, pounding cue.

I guess it is easy to overstate just how bad this movie is. But honestly, when you get halfway through a film like this and sincerely feel that Paul Blart is a better made, more clearly thought out, simply enjoyable piece of crap… well, that is a pretty low standard to challenge.

I really like watching Rogen. I feel as though Anna Faris has destroyed her future career with the breast implants and lip collagen – though this is her second of three studio leads since she pumped up... studio jobs she wasn't getting before with a push-up bra and perky charm – and I miss the lovable girl she used to be every time I watch her work now, talented though she still is. These two and Pena and Weston made the experience of watching this quite frustrating. That and that the ideas here could well have made a really interesting, quirky comedy. But they just didn’t.

Finally, I am beginning to think that the need that some of these comedy directors have lately to show penises flopping about is another show of a sad immaturity in these men. Part of me says, “Who cares?” But part of me says,” If it doesn’t matter and you did it, you have failed utterly.”

I would argue that the “turnabout” argument made by some women is inaccurate, as the analogous body part to the make penis is not the breast, but the labia… and when is the last time you saw labia in a studio movie? How impotent do you have to be to feel compelled to put male genitalia on display to get a laugh? And how immature is the laugh you get? Just wondering…

Posted by dpoland at 07:48 PM | Comments (76)

BYOB Weekend

Passed over work... but a 2 movie day today...

Posted by dpoland at 02:43 PM | Comments (13)

April 08, 2009

Members of the BORN INTO BROTHELS Team Recommend a New Film

IN A DREAM, a film near and dear to us, that we also executive produced, is coming to theaters nationwide beginning Friday April 10th at Cinema Village in New York.

This stunning, gorgeous and emotional film deals with love, art, family and mental illness. It was directed by Jeremiah Zagar who began his work in film as the editor of the BORN INTO BROTHELS DVD. Jeremiah's father, Isaiah, is a well-known mosaic artist in Philadelphia. The film is an incredibly intimate look into Isaiah's loving but sometimes tumultuous marriage to his wife, Julia. Like BORN INTO BROTHELS, this film celebrates dreaming out loud and in color as well as the power of art to build community.

The film was shortlisted for an Academy Award and we think it is something that all of you will enjoy. Please take a moment to watch the trailer, join the Facebook group, and read more about the film on IN A DREAM Blog.

Best Wishes,
Ross Kauffman, Director - BORN INTO BROTHELS
Geralyn Dreyfous, Executive Director - BORN INTO BROTHELS and Chair of Kids with Cameras

You can see IN A DREAM in the following cities:

NEW YORK, NY
The Cinema Village
Starting Friday, April 10th

PHILADELPHIA, PA
Landmark Ritz at the Bourse
Starting Friday, April 17th

SAN FRANCISCO, CA
The Roxie
Starting Friday, April 17th

ATHENS, GA
Cine
Starting Friday, April 17th

BOZEMAN, MT
The Procrastinator Theatre
Thursday, April 23rd - Tuesday, April 28th

LOS ANGELES, CA
Laemmle Music Hall
Starting Friday, April 24th

SANTA FE, NM
Center for Contemporary Arts
Starting Friday, May 1st

SALT LAKE CITY, UT
The Tower Theatre
Starting Friday, May 8th

More cities and dates will be announced in the coming weeks.

Posted by dpoland at 03:45 PM | Comments (2)

The New Guggenheims Are Here!

The list of 2009 Guggenheim Fellows (press released here) was released today and there were many filmmakers on the rise.

Amongst my faves are Ramin Bahrani, Julia Loktev, and Kelly Reichardt... but I am sure that others would be on that list if I knew more of their work... which, hopefully, these grants will make possible.

Ramin Bahrani (GOODBYE SOLO), Filmmaker, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Adjunct Professor of Screenwriting and Directing, Columbia University: Film.
Danae Elon (PARTLY PRIVATE), Filmmaker, Brooklyn, New York: Film.
Lynn Hershman Leeson (STRANGE CULTURE), Filmmaker, San Francisco, California; Chair, Department of Film, San Francisco Art Institute: Film.
Henry Hills, Filmmaker, New York City: Film.
Sam Kauffmann, Filmmaker, Medfield, Massachusetts; Associate Professor of Film, Boston University: Film.
Julia Loktev (DAY NIGHT DAY NIGHT), Filmmaker, Brooklyn, New York: Film.
Julia Meltzer, Filmmaker, Los Angeles, California; Director, Clockshop: Film.
Arturo Pérez Torres, Filmmaker, Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Film.
Kelly Reichardt (WENDY AND LUCY), Filmmaker, Astoria, New York; Visiting Assistant Professor of Film and Electronic Arts, Bard College: Film.
Federico Solmi, Filmmaker, New York City: Film.
David Thorne, Filmmaker and Artist, Los Angeles, California: Film.

Posted by dpoland at 03:33 PM | Comments (0)

BYOB Passed Over

Posted by dpoland at 03:22 PM | Comments (46)

Baby, The Sky Must Fall

I wish the discussions of the future could be had without the hysteria.

Jeff Jarvis went all drama queen after the New York Times did a story about the AP trying to find a legal way to regain control of their content.

Thing is, this IS the discussion of the future. And the notion of AP or anyone else expecting to get paid by people who link to their content is as dead stupid As Jeff Jarvis screaming about the old white men of Traditional Media. It is not a one or the other conversation and surely, nothing like that can ever be a solution.

There are two kinds of aggregators in the game... those who just link and might comment and those who steal significant chunks of content, making a click-thru an unlikely choice for a large portion of their readership.

I would say that, as Jarvis notes, the first group is responsible for the survival of the AP and pretty much all the news organizations that will survive and thrive in the web era. Drudge, for instance, is the King of the Aggregators and can deliver page views in the hundreds of thousands for many of the stories to which he links. And, in fact, the creation of Breitbart.com to funnel wire service links to a controlled site that can produce more revenue from those links was not only very smart, but, as I assume Breitbart pays AP for their content, it makes sense for them as well.

The other side of it is sites that use other people's content to not only fill the giant holes in the coverage they claim to offer, but take large chunks of content, stuck on branded and (theoretically) ad-sold pages, sometimes multiple internal pages, knowing full well that only a small percentage of readers go past the first few graphs anymore online. So they grab with a heavy headline, create a another page view or two by copying the content (and another when people click back to the homepage where they found the initial link), and more often than not, never send eyeballs to the organization paying for the wire service in the first place.

I consider this stealing... even if Jeff Jarvis thinks its old thinking. Linking = good. Reprinting content for free with no consideration = bad. Just like all piracy.

This doesn't make the failure of Old Media to convert to New Media any less real. But it is a different argument.

There is another category of what AP is chasing (along with other content creators), which is control of Google placement. And that is a more complex issue. If AP and/or Reuters and/or TribCo and/or NYT and/or WashPo, etc, have easy and clear access to their stories with one site as the source, do they deserve to be the link people use and Google puts on top? It is my philosophy that, yes, they do. We have always tried to work our way back to the source when linking at MCN. For years, the wire services have not had home pages and we have chosen between hundreds of wire service subscribing websites for links. Drudge used to link most AP stories through the Washington Post web pages until Breitbart.com. At MCN, we spread it around. But if AP wants the link to their story and I can find it and it is the complete story, hell yeah, happy to offer readers the source.

The lesson of a closed web has already been learned. It doesn't work. If you close your content off, someone else will run a similar story and you will get fewer and fewer links. Almost nothing, in this age, is actually exclusive in any way for more than a few minutes. There are stories that don't actually get re-reported, but just re-printed in some form or the other. I have no use for that. But think about what happens on most industry stories when they break. There are, usually, at least four or five outlets that have already done some reporting on the story. That is the speed nightmare... everyone is on it... who is going to break it, even if it isn't really news yet.

Even the legendary NYT wrote a story just a day or two ago in which they ascribed - with zero way of knowing the truth - a "most people found out" status twice, not based on any objective facts, but clearly on the personal experience of the authors of the story... a detail that used to be (and still should be) irrelevant in journalism.

Anyway...

Jarvis sounds like a buffoon when he bloviates: "You lost an entire generation. You lost the future of news."

Both sides of the argument need to start realizing… nothing, but printed content being sold daily in the quantity of hundreds of thousands of full-price-paying customers loaded with full-price-paying ad buyers, is lost forever… nothing is over… standards will change… some things will be better… some things will be worse…

Everything in life is not a fucking trend story. Please step away from the hysteria.

ADD, 3:10p - I forgot to mention... the once irreplaceable Michael Wolff has become another self-serving web idiot. What is it about this medium that drives reasonable people to start acting like gunslinging cowboys, making mature sites like AICN looking like level-headed businesspeople?

Does Wolff realize - or care - that he is, on what seems to be a legal standard that will hold up against him if ever challenged, boldly saying that he not only thinks that stealing content is ok, but that it is, somehow, the moral high ground?

He wrote: "If newspapers follow the Journal model and wall off their content with subscription fees, we’ll do what we do now with the WSJ site. We'll buy a subscription and then we'll summarize whatever they’re charging for, bringing their way-too-long and gassy prose down to Internet size—so you can, in other words, read less, and know more—and we'll give it to you for free."

In other words, if someone won't give away their work to us to do with what we like, we will steal it and reconfigure it as we like, and give it to you for free.

Huh?

Of the Wolverine leak, his insight includes this claim against the elder leaders of News Corp: "They continue to think of this as exceptional behavior, while everybody else knows it’s trivial stuff."

Stealing is trivial. Great.

You know, it may be unavoidable. They may need to change the model drastically. But trivial it is not.

He continues with his profound self-awareness that the New York Times is dead and it doesn't really matter because he can just go on with so much other news reporting out there. And while I don't buy into the "the web is evil... Traditional Media is the only way to get news," the idea that the best of reporting means nothing anymore - not this week, but forever more - is just idiotic and short-sighted.

But again... a really smart guy. What is with all the saber rattling by men with dulled tools?

I would suggest that, ironically, it is experience that makes these guys so loud... and that experience has made formerly hysterical sites much more moderate... and accurate... about where we are.

As I find myself repeating... when the value of a segment of an industry drops from 60% of revenues to 40%, it is a massive change... and in micro-world, it a earth-shaking... but when we start talking about the 50% drop in significance to that 40% and forget that 40% is still a whole lot... it's very real... and it is enough to keep 2/3 of the careers at risk going... that is when we have lost all perspective because it is all about us and never about what's real.

Posted by dpoland at 02:34 PM | Comments (7)

J&J&J

In this economy, even chick flicks are now doing the Pirates thing and shooting the sequels as they shoot the first films. So, with that in mind, here is the premiere of the one-sheet for the sequel to Julie & Julia (whose one-sheet premiered today on FirstShowing.net) , set for August 2010...

Posted by dpoland at 08:45 AM | Comments (9)

Monday's Trip To Air America

Posted by dpoland at 12:17 AM | Comments (7)

April 07, 2009

BYOBloody Pictures - Chicago Day 2

I guess critics' quotes really do matter!

This is actually from NY on Sunday. I went back to see if Fast & Furious had yet made it to the streets - it had not - and saw this new Wolverine cover with a (fake... obviously) quote from Jeffrey Lyons... two claws down, way down.

Checking in to the hotel, there was a police incident down on the street... and suddenly I felt the Batman vibe.

Opening Day at Comiskey Park, home of the Chicago White Sox... and one of those places where being overtly all-American still plays...

it was 40 degrees... but after removing my hoodie, I was still sweating, the sun was so intense. Sorry I couldn't get a shot of the 2 jet flyover on my silly little iPhone camera.

Posted by dpoland at 04:13 PM | Comments (41)

In Closing...

"Fox News representatives and Roger Friedman met today and mutually agreed to part ways immediately. Fox News appreciates Mr. Friedman's ten years of contributions to building foxnews.com and wishes him success in his future endeavors. Mr. Friedman is grateful to his colleagues for their friendship and support over the past decade."

I have to say, I am amazed by the sympathy some have shown towards Mr. Friedman finally being hoisted on his own petard of long-standing. If this makes you think less of me, so be it. If you know what I know about the man and his work, this makes you either remarkably generous or remarkably foolish.

As I have written before, I expect Roger to rebound quickly with as nasty a website as any gossip site we have ever seen, except for those who line his Ziplocked pockets with food and access, competing more than he has with Ms Finke, his natural competitor in this arena. And while he will never cause the tumult inside the movie beltway that Nikki does, he has a real shot at being much more widely popular, given that his interests are broader and more celebrity focused. TMZ would be well served, given their moral position in this business, by hiring him.

Posted by dpoland at 03:52 PM | Comments (7)

April 06, 2009

BYOB Chicago

The (small) world tour continues...

Posted by dpoland at 07:30 PM | Comments (23)

Surrender Of The Fittest

Every now and again, an idea that's been percolating takes on a new perspective for me. Today, it was the thought that industries like the movie and journalism businesses, challenged by a changing marketplace, tend to act competitively. It is an evolutionary reaction... survival of the fittest... the mindset that got them where they are, on the top of the hill.

But when evolution is devolution... when the winning strategy is doing less... the urge to compete can be a form of unintentional suicide.

Cuttng off an arm and a leg to stop a relentless disease from klling the rest of you is painful and limits you. And when your notion of power is measured by your freedom to do as you see fit whenever you see fit - a freedom earned - it is nearly unthinkable.

There is no middle choice right now. As long as the movie business measures itself by its recent past, it is doomed to an incremental illness followed by a quick death at some moment of extremis. Newspapers are already ill... but there is still room for a twist. Cut deep, but - as Richard Mulligan's crazed producer in Blake Edwards' SOB noted - make sure you have enough to "reshoot." Make the choice to act, even if it is counter-intuitive at first, and move towards a new vision. Don't just linger in the disappontments of how today compares to last year.

Posted by dpoland at 02:32 PM | Comments (12)

Does Brooks Barnes Have An Editor?

Okay... let's put opinion aside... let's just look at the facts....

Barnes writes,"Pixar’s last two films, “Wall-E” and “Ratatouille,” have been the studio’s two worst performers"

Here are the numbers...

Rank - Title - Total - Domestic - Foreign - Year of Release
1 - Finding Nemo - $864.60 - $339.70 - $524.90 - 2003
2 - The Incredibles - $631.40 - $261.40 - $370.00 - 2004
3 - Ratatouille - $621.40 - $206.40 - $415.00 - 2007
4 - WALL - E - $534.80 - $223.80 - $311.00 - 2008
5 - Monsters, Inc. - $525.40 - $255.90 - $269.50 - 2001
6 - Toy Story 2 - $485.00 - $245.90 - $239.20 - 1999
7 - Cars - $462.00 - $244.10 - $217.90 - 2006
8 - A Bug's Life - $363.40 - $162.80 - $200.60 - 1998
9 - Toy Story - $362.00 - $191.80 - $170.20 - 1995

Even just using domestic gross - which only someone who is ignorant or willful would do - there are two movies that didn't break $200 million while Ratatouille and Wall-E did. But The Rat is Pixar's #2 ALL TIME foreign and Wall-E is #4.

Do those numbers not count?

And here is a personal note... the same idiots were saying the same crap about Wall-E last year... and were dead wrong.

But back to the facts... this is a complete embarrassment for the Paper of Record.

Posted by dpoland at 12:09 AM | Comments (32)

April 05, 2009

Morality… and Change

Things change. Circumstances change. Perspectives change. If we cannot allow for that, we can not make progress. There are many things that I would not do today that I did a decade ago or five years ago. Some are about personal growth. Some are about the changes in how things work. Some things change because experience changes how we see them. That last one… that is how I feel about my rights, as a journalist, to process pirated materials.

As seems to consistently be the case, there are always people who narrow the context of all things to what they seem determined to believe. If there is a single driver in my work, it is trying to break this cycle. Obviously, it is not always possible. But in the name of transparency – or my best efforts to create it – here I go again…

My history with the issue of piracy is not terribly complicated. I have always been against all forms of it. And there have been multiple examples of me breaching the most stringent notion of that believe.

The two major examples that are thrown in my face the most are Hostel II and Gangs of New York. They could not have been more different underlying stories.

But the first real major breach on my part was the original Spider-Man, not Gangs. Both were in 2002. I was on my own, doing The Hot Button under Voices of Hollywood and scraping for survival as an entity. My relationship with Sony was dicey at the time and when a copy of Spider-Man ended up playing in my living room on VHS, I decided to go for it.

And had it happened a year later… it would not have happened.

I was wrong to do it and at this point, I would not let the tape be shown in my home, much less reviewed on my site.

In that case, I did not give the tape to Sony… in part because I didn’t have a copy… and in part because it had an exec’s name on it and giving it to them would reveal the source of the tape.

Again, the accepted rules of thumb – for me and amongst journalists in general – have changed quite a bit since then. I have long been out of the habit of pursuing any kind of opportunity to see a movie before the studio or filmmaker is prepared to show it. In the end, that just isn’t the job. And the mania to be “first” will make asses of us all.

Moving on to Gangs on New York.... It was 2002, about eight months after I had reviewed Spider-Man off a screener. There were already battles going on over early reviews going up on the web of both GONY and Chicago. (Ironically, given this weekend’s news, that was the first time I ever spoke to Roger Friedman… and the first time I spoke to him, he lied to me absolutely with absolute authority.) I had already seen GONY twice before I ever saw the earlier cut of that film, also on VHS in my living room. I had big problems with the film. And I was very frustrated that I did, because I revere Scorsese.

In that early cut, I saw an answer to why things had gone so bad for Scorsese on GONY. It wasn’t a public leak. The tape had been made off of the Avid specifically to show some people privately that the film was not intended to be what was being released. And it did.

Would I do this again? Well, there are two answers. One is that I see work product from filmmakers often, and the intent is often to find support for their point of view against a producer or a studio. Sometimes it is just to gather opinions. Over time, I have come to consider both of these situations to be off the record. I am happy to offer thoughts about a cut. But I am not willing to be a public sounding board for a filmmaker or a studio for or against a film or a filmmaker or a studio. There might be some circumstance in which I was willing to argue publicly for a film or filmmaker, but the forces against the filmmaker would have to be formidable and the situation confirmable with the studio/producer. And even then, caution against being used would be extreme.

The other answer is, I don’t think I would even look at a film like GONY in that situation at this point. There are too many complications. Even if I never make public what I have seen, I have seen it and there is little chance that it will not skew my perspective of the final work. As the years pass, I find that – even after years of saying “no” to production scripts and reviews of same and test screening reviews – I am even more of a believer in the final product being the only relevant determining factor in my perspective on a film.

That said, I do not see that situation as the same as a leak like Wolverine. There is a serious difference between considering an artifact after the film has been seen and reviewing off a leak. And please note that I did not comment on the GONY early cut until the week of GONY’s release in theaters… weeks after I saw the film twice on screen. I was holding any review until that embargo date.

That same year, I saw Chicago on a leaked screener also. And I didn’t write about it. I waited to see the film on screen, on a celluloid print, even while Miramax screened it digitally for others and then let their reviews run well before the embargo date without reprisal.

Two years later, in 2004, I picked up a screener Soul Plane in New York because it was on the streets weeks before the film was being released. Only after I spoke to MGM and they told me that they actually felt it was like having free marketing for the film, I watched it and wrote about it. After the film tanked at the box office, their tune about piracy changed.

On that same trip, I bought Visionary Snyder’s Dawn of The Dead, which had been in release for a while. The quality was horrible, but I wrote about the interesting effect that a live audience response had while trying to watch the film on that screener. (I believe that screener went to Universal when I got back home.)

In the four full years since, there has been a grand total of ONE event of me writing about a film based on a leak. That was Hostel II. In spite of what some claim, I clearly did not review the film. I have never, in fact, watched the film front to back as a film… ever. I basically watched the screener I had purchased illegally on the streets of Seattle, hoping to be able to simply disregard the whole thing and never see the film in full, by watching, fast forwarding, watching, fast forwarding… etc. I felt the first film was a bore and expected the same from this one. And for the first hour, that was what I perceived.

The entirety of my “review” of the first hour of the film was: : “I got through about 30 minutes ... three girls touring Europe ... a hot Eurobabe who invites them to the Hostel ... minor skirmishes with guys on the train ... yadda yadda yadda ...

Somewhere around an hour, the inevitable turn. The girls are sold over the internet for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Men will soon come and do whatever they want to do with them, invariably leading to death. This is the lovely premise of this idiotic horror porn franchise. (Last time the guys were sold.)

The girls get separated. The third act has begun.”

That’s when I saw the Heather Matarazzo sequence and the rest is horror porn history.

I did rewind to re-watch the set up for the Matarazzo murder, hoping to find some context of value. No such luck.

I was clear then and I still feel – though you are welcome to disagree – that I made a news over criticism choice, inspired by circumstance. I was ambivalent… and wrote as much. But I did it.

And if faced with the situation again, as with Wolverine, I would (and will) simply not watch the disc with any kind of critical eye other than to note markings, etc, therefore never again creating a moral journalistic dilemma like the Hostel II one for myself.

Now, the principle of buying the disc… that I have no compunction about. I am a professional journalist. And the leaks of movies are part of my beat. It’s not an issue of me being better than anyone or more appropriate a buyer than anyone. It is an issue of doing the job. And I do have a set of standards for how I behave regarding these materials.

When I wrote, years ago, about buying Soul Plane on Canal Street and Hong Kong films at a nearby retail outlet, some felt I crossed some line by explaining where the purchase was made. On the other hand, my writing was part of what prompted the MPAA to become more aggressive about sweeping Canal St , where the salespeople were so brazen about it that permanent stands were set up in some cases. (It’s time to return to the scene of those crimes, MPAA.)

Still, when I do buy screeners now, I don’t give locations of where I bought them. When I feel that there is reason, I will still buy bootleg screeners. And I will not review any of them. And I will offer them to the studios, as they often feel that there is information they can use on the screener itself.

My point in all of this is that in the handful of piracy situations that have I have become directly involved with, I have made different choices for different reasons and my decision-making has changed over time.

I am stuck with my history as everyone else is. But I have never, ever advocated illegal downloading, the purchase of pirate DVDs, or any other kind of copyright infringement. Nor have I indulged it as the right of my readers or anyone else.

Truth is, though I certainly cannot speak for him, that Drew made the right call by condemning the viewing and reviewing of the pirated version of Hulk and then backed off under pressure. Years later, he has taken a position similar to his initial response on Hulk. And I am 100% willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and to allow for a change of consciousness. (I believe Drew would argue that he was never an advocate of certain practices that I feel he and the site actively advocated… but that is another argument for another day.)

Same with Jeremy Smith at AICN. I don’t know if Harry agrees with his position or not. I don’t know whether the position, which is not one historically taken by that site, is strategic or sincere. But either way, I will not throw rocks and say, “it’s not possible that they have grown up and come to understand the destructive nature of piracy,” even if we continue to disagree strongly about test screening and script reviews.

If you see my history in the prism of, ”you did something I would consider similar once or twice and therefore, my hands are as dirty as anyone’s, all actions in my perception are morally the same, and therefore you cannot make comment on issues of piracy in your eyes”… so be it. There is nothing I can do to combat your narrow view.

If you can find the circumstance in which I ever encouraged anyone to download or buy illegally – which Friedman did – or to review a movie off a pirated screener since 2002 – which Friedman did last week, please, feel free to put me in the same boat. And if I or Drew or Jeremy reviews a movie off a pirated screener in future, please, feel free to condemn all or any of us for hypocrisy.

But it is not “all the same.” That’s just silly.

And perspectives change. And people mature. And if you can’t see that, you have a bad case of myopia.

This does not mean that you cannot just disagree with me on principle. But if you choose to be blindly unforgiving, your opinion won’t mean much to me anyway. Too severe, whoever it is pointed at.

Finally, let me say… had Fox not taken so strong a position with the projectionist who reviewed Fantastic Four 2 from the booth – which I agreed was reasonably a firing offense – then the standard for them for the Roger Friedman incident would not be firing. I think that much of the internet rhetoric on this was based on the earlier incident. And I hope that all of those who spoke up understand that they have now created their own precedent that they cannot honorably retreat from.

And… there were many things that Roger Friedman should have been fired for over the years. He is, in fact, in Harvey Weinstein’s back pocket and had lived there for as long as I have known of his existence. He has spent many column items attacking people with untrue claims while the real story was about a petty personal dispute of access of some such thing. Aside from the issue of the alleged e-mail chain of lies that he may or may not have participated in, he has a long history of lying about me and other people, in detail, to others, as has been reported back to me year after year. He is that kind of person. No ethics… no boundaries. So if you are feeling sympathy towards him right now, I respect your kindness and have to disagree without limit.

(Note: If you think I forgot a film or situation, please feel free to comment or send an e-mail. It's 2:30 am, I am tired, and I think I covered it all. But if not, I will follow up openly and as honestly as possible. As noted last week, I am not offering any comments myself in the comment section this month.)

Posted by dpoland at 11:16 PM | Comments (16)

How Very Wolverine

So on Sunday, Roger Friedman starting telling people that he had not yet been fired. This was after private and then public confirmation of the firing, with Team Fox spinning the alleged immediacy of it all.

Posted by dpoland at 09:11 PM | Comments (2)

Another Veteran Gone

So now... Peter Bart gets kicked up and out. (Remember when The Hollywood Reporter did the same to Bob Dowling a few years back?)

This was inevitable, but not quite a solution. Bart was in the way of the future. Bart is no longer in the way of the future. But Variety has not answered the same question plaguing other Traditional Media outlets that have a much wider path on which to seek answers.

New Media, which Bart resisted fiercely, is not a panacea for an outlet like Variety, since the one thing the paper has that really differentiates it from the now endless stream of show business media out there IS the paper. 45,000 subscriptions - whether or not more than 30% of those hard copies are being read anymore - is the only unique proposition that Variety has left... especially now that they have cut way back on the one other area where they had a unique proposition, a role as one of the few places to review virtually every film you might want to see reviewed.

Want to top Variety in that area this very year? Hire 4 out-of-work quality critics for $30k a piece to write you a minimum of 3 reviews a week every week. Add another $50k for freelancers another $100k to the budget for travel. And for $250,000, YOU are Variety's superior. And frankly, you wouldn't really have to spend that much. You could cut the travel budget back to $50k, lay more heavily of festival freelancers, and you could probably get some really good critics to work for less than $30k.

But those 45,000 print copies a day, during the award season, expected to sit around the office for a week or more each... those are worth some big money... that one cover is. 100 days a year... $75k a year (and dropping… off 11% in last year’s fourth quarter)... that's $7.5 million. Online, I'm guessing they can do another $1.5 million or so. The number is surely low… but let’s use it to float the discussion…

Could you run Variety for $9 million a year? What do you do to maintain the legitimacy of the paper and website for that kind of money?

Truth is, there are many of us out there who could build a competitive trade magazine with that kind of revenue base. But we are starting with much smaller infrastructures, particularly in printing. Even with a retail price tag of more than $1 a day for a subscription, Variety takes a loss on its annual subscriptions. How much does it cost to publish 60,000 copies of Daily Variety, 250 or so days a year (roughly 15 million copies printed and delivered a year)? I don’t know, really.

And there’s the rub. How far can the Reed Business folks cut through the on-Oscar season and still ramp up the prices during the award season itself?

The painful reality is that content is the cheapest part of the product for Variety. They have to pull back and to be less extravagant than they have been… but they have to keep publishing enough of a paper with enough of an impact to keep from becoming… well… The Hollywood Reporter.

Anyway…

Tim Gray is a good man and a very good company man. I have no bones to pick with him. But I don’t see him as the visionary of the paper’s future either. He will keep the machine running and running with less personality issues than Bart, but he will surely be managing someone else’s idea of the future.

Of course, news of the move is indicative of the problems that face Variety, above and beyond revenue issues. Variety ran the story at 5:30pm, then Nikki Finke ran it while claiming she could have broken it but got jobbed by Tim Gray (who she didn’t call until Sunday at 5 even though she “knew about this” last night… perhaps too busy talking to Roger Ailes to bother to report much bigger industry news… but then again, Nikki is known for her careful restraint, especially regarding Peter Bart), followed by The Wrap doing nothing but reiterating the Variety story, and then Anne Thompson, who linked to The Wrap (where she might get a freelance gig eventually) and Variety (where she has one) … and now, me and surely others now and before me and after me… yadda yadda yadda.

I’ve certainly had my share of scraping for position in my day… but now, it’s all day, every day, on every story. Who is first with which scrap and who are they crediting for the work they didn’t do, etc, etc, etc. And Variety, as most media blogs know, is as guilty of these thefts as anyone, though they don’t tend to have the balls to claim an EXCLUSIVE. (The exclusive is becoming like a virgin counting which acts she/he has experienced so far. First kiss, first copped feel, first show and tell… all are EXCLUSIVE! these days.)

Good luck, Tim. Sorry it didn’t happen when your paper was at full power.

Posted by dpoland at 08:02 PM | Comments (0)

BYOB Sunday Night Live

Posted by dpoland at 02:35 PM | Comments (28)

Weekend Estimates by Klady - April 5, 2009

The second biggest non-summer/holiday opening of all-time, beaten only by The Passion of The Christ. Impressive. Sequels that give the audience what they want are a beautiful thing... though I have no idea of whether the movie is, having not yet seen it.

Though the opening of Adventureland will be seen as soft by some, it is the best opening for Miramax since 2005, including for No Country For Old Men, The Queen, Gone Baby Gone, and Doubt, the division's biggest grossers in that period. Obviously, this is not an awards play. But still... context...

Posted by dpoland at 09:09 AM | Comments (128)

Sunday Morning Coming Down

And so... Roger Friedman is dead at Fox...

I wish I could say, "Long Live Roger Friedman," but he should fall into the void... but won't. I would expect a Crazy Nikki-esque standalone site before the month is out, likely financed (silently) by Harvey Weinstein.

To be fair to Nikki, Roger Ailes did use her to cover his ass by giving her word of the firing first last night. It took about 20 minutes for me to have it confirmed after word popped up on the Blackberry after she ran it late Saturday night.

To be fair to everyone else, Nikki missed this element of the story 100% until she had an excuse to go back and pilfer from everyone else's coverage of the issue while failing utterly to explain that it was other web writers who pointed out this story to Fox on Thursday night and then were relentless about demanding Friedman's firing all day Friday.

There is little doubt that this incident - as so many in Friedman's Fox News career - would have been disappeared, like his column was disappeared - were it not for this public approbation in the midst of a bigger story for the studio. But Nikki, given that - as usual - her source was not so much interested in breaking news as breaking spin, skipped over all that and spins the lie that Fox News acted "promptly on all fronts." Not only did editors at FoxNews.com run the copy... not only did their legal department not stop the copy from being published or pull it down on their own... but when confronted about the Thursday column late Thursday night and then again Friday, the column came down mid-afternoon on Friday - about 36 hours after it posted - and at the time of the late Friday night press duel releases, Friedman was still employed by Fox News. It wasn't until another day over coverage that Ailes took action to commit to firing Friedman on Saturday afternoon.

Way to get it wrong and late but to whore out for that Drudge link, Nikki. Congratulations on being the future of journalism!

The great irony of all of this is that it was the folks who most raged at Fox for pushing in a way that for that Fantastic Four 2 projectionist/AICN "reviewer" fired that were most aggressive about pressuring Fox on Friedman and enlisting others, like myself, to do the same. And I can't say that I am 100% clear on what that really means.

There is certainly a change in the tone out there in GeekLand. Ain't It Cool News - led on this story by Mr Beaks/Jeremy Smith - and HitFix, as embodied by former AICNer Drew McWeeny/Moriarty, both condemned the leak, downloading of the film, and reviewing the film based on the leak.

This is an interesting moment for Geek Culture in general... and Drew in particular. When we get into the WayBack machine and look back to the last time this came up on a big movie, it was June 9, 2003 and Drew was saying, "Shame on you. All of you. Not everyone reading this, of course, since most of you are sane, normal, law-abiding citizens. I’m speaking directly to that percentage of Internet users who simply can’t exhibit a modicum of self-control, who feel the need to pirate films at the absolute first second they possibly can, and specifically... I’m speaking to the person who leaked the workprint of Universal’s HULK in the first place. Shame on you."

This was followed by Harry Knowles' in-house response: "'What is wrong with downloading a movie early'

Harry here... Well Moriarty certainly stirred up the shit yesterday didn't he?

Is there a double standard, a certain level of hypocrisy when it comes to condemning the widespread piracy of film via the internet when often times Moriarty and myself come into contact with materials that we shouldn't be seeing early, by most accounts?"

This led to Drew's follow-up: "I have no business telling anyone what decision to make regarding the trafficking of stolen materials. And I wouldn't even if my hands were squeaky clean. Which they aren't.

At this moment, with me dealing with the people I deal with all day long and all week long, and with my career developing the way it is, I have a particular perspective on the issue of the duplication and distribution of copywritten material. It's my personal perspective. It's not more right than someone else's. It's not more ethical. It's not more moral. It's simply mine.

When I wrote what I wrote, I spoke down to my readership. And that's absolutely a mistake. The minute you condescend to the person reading your work... whoever they are... you risk alienating them.
When I first met Harry Knowles... the very first time... we hooked up because I was looking for a way to get something onto the Internet for other fans to enjoy.

It was something I wasn't supposed to have.

It came from someone's office who had no idea I had it.

I was told by someone online to try Harry Knowles. I got in touch with him in Texas. He hooked me up with a guy in Australia.

Why?

To circumnavigate US copyright law. That's why.

Hello, kettle? It's the pot. I'm black.

So mea culpa. No other arguments are really needed to convince me that I made a colossal mistake the other day."

Here are my before and after commentaries on it all.

So... all of this defense of the Wolverine leak... it's a new day.

As most of you will be aware, there is no love lost between Drew and Tom Rothman, which makes Drew's arguments not to download this film all the more dramatic. Is it a call of morality or a response to a more personal appeal by Gavin Hood, who has been supported vigorously by the geek community against Evil Fox throughout his making of his first action film which is also his first with a budget over $30 million.

Regardless, it's the right call.

Finally... and perhaps this is burying the lead a bit... but I did find Wolverine on DVD on the streets of New York yesterday. As always, I will offer the copy to Fox for it to do with as it will. But it is, as has been reported elsewhere, a pristine digital copy that looks as good or better than most DVDs. It also is, as reported elsewhere, pretty much complete - whatever cut it is - except for clearly missing effects shots.

What was most shocking to me, while looking over the DVD - I haven't really watched it as a movie and don't intend to do so - was the lack of any markings on it. Now, of course, there might have been markings in the letterbox margins that were covered over when it was printed by the pirates. What does happen at one point is that a header comes into frame, very briefly, for the length of just one shot, as though you were on a computer, which says, "Rising Sun Pictures" and is dated "02 March 2..." as it goes past the right edge of the frame.

Anyway... there it is. I guess it was inevitably that once this was in the Bit Torrent stream that it would end up on DVD across the globe, including here in New York and across America. That is, in my eye, the tipping point for Fox losing some audience... probably in the single digits on millions on opening weekend. The difference between this and the online access is that it will reach a much wider audience on hard copy, street-sold DVD whereas the web surfers who bother to watch the whole film are, as others have said, a group that's more committed to genre film and will want to see it finished and on a big screen with an audience.

Also on the street was Sony Classics' May 22 release, Easy Virtue, which was already released in Europe... and also appears in pristine digital form. The only real effect in the film, Jessica Biel's shape, is complete.

Posted by dpoland at 06:44 AM | Comments (23)

April 04, 2009

More On Friedman

Not really good enough. The projectionist incident still stands as an example of how the company acts.

And "taking it down" is definitely not a real answer. It's not the effect of the posting - as no one who is not in the business or in a demographic that would ever pay for a ticket to Wolverine reads this idiot anyway - it is the choice to post. And don't even get me started on what lies Friedman spreads in professional situations not for publication.

It's not as though Friedman doesn't have a long history of working for Harvey Weinstein, Peggy Siegel, and others more slavishly than News Corp.

I can think of no gossip who deserves to be fired more than Roger Friedman. And now, he has acted in a way that News Corp has historically seen as a firing act.

Here are the dueling press releases...

Los Angeles, Calif., April 3, 2009 --

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX:
"We‚ve been made aware that Roger Friedman, a freelance columnist who writes Fox 411 on Foxnews.com ˆ an entirely separate company from 20th Century Fox -- watched on the internet and reviewed a stolen and unfinished version of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. This behavior is reprehensible and we condemn this act categorically -- whether the review is good or bad."

NEWS CORPORATION:
"Roger Friedman's views in no way reflect the views of News Corporation. We, along with 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, have been a consistent leader in the fight against piracy and have zero tolerance for any action that encourages and promotes piracy. Once we learned of Roger Friedman's post we asked Fox News to remove it, which they did immediately."

Posted by dpoland at 09:47 AM | Comments (34)

April 03, 2009

Porn Leaves A Trail(er)

Patrick Goldstein does this whole piece about a documentary called Naked Ambition having its trailer red-banded by CARA and takes the MPAA to task for this.

But he links to this trailer aka "Last Looks" with Audio Mix - 01/30/09... which has a CARA green band and an R-rating on the front of it, though I guess that those are not official... especially since they are on every version of the rejected trailers.

Ah... the other versions.

The filmmakers, in offering Patrick a look at the last version they submitted, also gave anyone with a geek brain access to the first four versions. Here is the first look aka Rough Cut 12/16/08. Plenty of overt sexuality including a girl licking her own breasts, the f-word (albeit partially bleeped), a glimpse of nudity, a real-doll being felt up, and a closing tag in which an actress proclaims that "I get so much dick... it's amazing". So, it seems, that's were the relationship with CARA started.

I found it kind of interesting to watch each successive version in order to see what changed. The breast licking, language, and glimpse of nudity disappear... though I would hardly say, "not even anything especially suggestive."

Here are the other cuts...

2nd Pass Rough Cut for Approval - 12/17/08

3rd Pass Rough Cut for Approval - 01/19/08

4th Pass Rough Cut for Approval - 01/21/08

Of course, I always love when web-hating Patrick lets people get away with quotes like, "I could tell from our phone conversations that I was dealing with a generation of people that really didn't understand today's MySpace culture at all," unchallenged because it fits his agenda. If what he means is, "Kids see this stuff online so the adults should stop trying to get in the way," he kinda loses me. And normally, I would expect that to be true of Patrick as well.

And one big issue - the fact that MPAA owns a copyright on the term R rating - is glanced over. As the director offers, inaccurately, "'R' isn't their emblem or anything." But it is. Legally.

Anyway... an interesting glimpse into a process in spite of the poor journalism. I mostly think that this guy, with enough ego to try to qualify for Oscar - he seems to be 4-walling the film to qualify before it goes to TV after midnight, as many HBO docs do - got some free publicity out of this spectacular non-issue.

And dare I expose my knowledge base by point out that while Jenna Jameson - who is featured in the HBO doc, Thinking XXX - appears here only on the red carpet on on stage for the AVN Awards themselves, Ron Jeremy and Tera Patrick do not appear in this trailer at all and if they are in the film, it is not apparent from this 2 minutes. Is it possible that Mr. Grecco is overselling this detail as well?

Posted by dpoland at 08:17 PM | Comments (9)

Responding To The Week In Comments

I am going to try this out as a way for me to respond to comments, as opposed to commenting randomly as comments come in. It gives me a chance to put the comments in perspective and to respond more coolly and less emotionally when I feel people are giving me excessive grief.

=============

"You'll never admit that you pulled the notion that movie bootlegs are predominantly the domain of "urban blacks and hispanics" completely out of your ass."

Uh, no. I did not pull that out of my ass.

It is a well-established thesis in the industry - though it is possible that it is changing over time - that it is people in urban centers and predominantly less well-off people who are both willing to buy these discs in this country and who are willing to embrace the savings on these discs and overlook the poor quality.

Does that mean that many poor white people don't buy bootlegs? Of course not.

Does this mean that urban centers are exclusively populated by ethnic minorites? Of course not.

Nor does the higher percentage of individuals, versus total populace of the group, counted as ethnic minorities who have been through the penal system mean that minorities are more prone to criminal activity than white americans. There are many other issues in play with that stat, as with the soft stat I offered.

I think it is also reasonable to point out that pirate DVDs are more the delivery system of choice for the poor, who have less quality access to computers and the internet.

And it is also fair to note than younger people who have more familiarity with and greater access to the internet are more likely to download illegally, as opposed to buying discs on the streets.

I'm sorry that this so chafed. And it may be a bit too simplistic. But it is hardly something that was pulled out of the ether.

=============

"Does this mean he gets money from the DVD?"

Disney licensed the NCFOM interview from iKlipz and me, yes.

=============

I am pleased that LexG is making an effort, while still being quite dramatic, to not go so far off the deep end that he is simply a buffoon... and I am pleased that some folks took him seriously enough to interact and to ask real questions, to which he seemed to give real answers. I would hope that the personal hopes and aspirations of commenters do not become too frequent a topic of conversation around here. A little goes a long way. But the irony of the person who comments, by far, more than anyone else ever have or likely ever will complaining about this is, at least, ironic.

=============

If I wasn't clear enough... every single film festival that I know of is cutting back.

=============

"it's when a movie hits dvd and a flawless rip appears online that a movie really gets hurt"

Also still unproven I would argue that the vast majority of people are willing to spend money for their filmed entertainment. I don't think that, in this country, DVD is suffering from downloading very much. In Asia, however, the genie is way out of the bottle and is unlikely to ever be put back into the bottle.

=============

"so when are we going to see the review, dave? or is it just too 'niche'?"

As I've stated before, there are two occasions when I have in any way reviewed anything based on a leak. One was Spider-Man, which I would not do again. The other was Hostel 2, which I honestly had no intention of reviewing - only avoiding - when I felt that the story was about more than the movie itself. It was still a borderline decision. So no... no Wolverine review... and I'm not looking to download it. I was, however, trying to find a DVD copy on the streets of NY this week, but only to see if the situation had progressed to that. After confirming it was real, I would then turn the disc over to Fox, as has been my practice when dealing with any leaks... and I have not always made the leak public on the site/column/blog.

=============

"DP correctly notes that cost per production across entire slates are going up as the mix shifts in favor of supposed blockbusters."

If that is the impression I gave, my apologies. I don't believe that the mix is shifting in favor of wannabe blockbusters. The studios are actually pulling back on costs of most of the more expensive films. It's just that those savings would not be reflected by a MPAA-wide average as the artificial restraint of the smaller films has disappeared virtually overnight.

Posted by dpoland at 07:00 PM | Comments (13)

A Firing Offense?

A colleague brought a gossip column from yesterday to my attention that suggests all kinds of completely legitimate issues.

I was supportive of Fox's rage over an online review by a projectionist who watched Fantastic Four: Rise of The Silver Surfer from the booth during an exhibitor's screening and wrote about the film in depth on the web. The rage, which led to the kid being fired, caused a lot of anti-fox backlash on the web. But I agreed. A company hiring a screen for a private showing has the reasonable expectation of privacy, from the exhibitor renting out the screen and providing a projectionist most of all.

Cut To: A major News Corp investment of well over $100 million, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, illegally gets released onto the web a full month before release. The film is widely available to most internet sites as a result, but most sites, as well as most mainstream media, stay away from either admitting having seen the film, much less reviewing the movie based on this unfinished, illegally leaked work print.

And so, the question... if the kid who reviewed the film he only saw because the studio was paying the exhibitor - and him in turn - for a completely private screening was fired... shouldn't Roger Friedman be fired for reviewing Wolverine?

It shouldn't matter that he wrote a glowingly positive review, right? It's the principle of the thing.

So, in conclusion, if Tom Rothman, et al, do not at least push hard and publicly to have Friedman fired for publishing this review of their film, illegally downloaded, and by his efforts, encouraging others to download the film and other films, then they have to be held up as hypocrites.

It doesn't work both ways. Either piracy is bad or it is good. Piracy can't just be bad when it works against you and okay when it works in your favor.

(Full Disclosure: In my long-held opinion, Roger Friedman is not only a hack, but a wretched human being who should have been fired from any job where his embrace of play-to-play gossip is not the acknowledged company standard.)

Posted by dpoland at 06:38 PM | Comments (28)

BYOB Weekend

It's a rainy day in NYC... so much for the debuts of the new stadia!

But wait! The Mets game started anyway... 3-1 over the Red Sox with 1 on and 2 outs.

A lovely, busy, wet day...

Posted by dpoland at 04:42 PM | Comments (47)

Wolverine Lives

The Wolverine leak story is pretty much over.

Fox has pretty much done all of the internet containment there is to be done and the geeks who are reviewing are, I guess, mixed negative overall. But this is no Hulk or Batman & Robin, where the majority buzz - from the effects leak in the first case and test screening reviews in the latter - was vicious.

But Fox now faces a different challenge than we have seen in the past... Mainstream Bloggers hanging onto a story like this well beyond its expiration date because they sense heat and because there is so little else out there to write about in the boring spring. Yesterday it was a 2-day-old EXCLUSIVE in EW.com with Tom Rothman telling the magazine what Fox had been happy to put him or others on the phone to say on Tuesday night or Wednesday. Today, NY Mag's Culture Vulture is living up to its name with "15 Reasons Not To Download Wolverine," an excuse to backdoor a somewhat detailed review of the leak while pretending not to be breaking protocol or the law.

I am not so much wagging my finger at these choices as noting the tonal shift and realizing that another month of geek talkbacks is not the challenge for Fox at this point... it's getting people to shut up about the incident until it is rehashed endlessly on opening week.

Posted by dpoland at 09:03 AM | Comments (21)

April 02, 2009

When The Web Discussion Works

The Wall Street Journal did a story today - behind the pay wall - about Hollywood squeezing above-the-title movie actors in light of the current economic system.

My first reactions were that there was limited insight into how the various deal really work... and that we see this story every couple of years, hyped by most major media, before they realize that the story was grossly overstated by someone interested in hyping their situation... like the agents involved in Used Guys who turned what is now, clearly, a smart choice by Fox, into a nasty and seemingly reckless attack on talent by Fox.

But before I started writing up something on the issue, there were Gabriel Snyder, now at Gawker, and Kim Masters, now freelancing with The Daily Beast, essentially annotating and correcting the Journal story.

Of course, I feel like both of these stories have some issues as well.

But I don't feel like slicing into those details right now. I am just pleased to see others doing the heavy lifting of not only taking on Traditional Media pieces, but doing it with the kind of detail that I have tried to bring to my analysis for a long time now.

It's nothing personal. We are all on a search for the facts and how they lead to some kind of truth. And even at Gawker and even at The Daily Beast, both web-only businesses laden with a lot of gossip, actual facts and smart analysis does emerge. And I am pleased.

Posted by dpoland at 10:15 PM | Comments (1)

Bruno Goes Red Band

EDIT, 10:06p Thursday - Thanks to MySpace for a working embed code... this should look better as well.

Posted by dpoland at 04:19 PM | Comments (14)

BYOB - Thursday After April Fools

Posted by dpoland at 12:48 AM | Comments (66)

April 01, 2009

NYC

I land just after 4p. By 8p, I've been through a rain storm, argued with a desk clerk, scheduled an interview with a movie legend, had a snack at a favorite dive, found a last minute ticket for one of the hottest shows in town, made a reservation for an 11p dinner at a favorite non-dive, wrote two blog entries, set another interview with another movie legend, walked blocks in the rain to find a place where there wasn't a crowd desperate for a cab, settled into a seat in a theater, and prepared not only to be entertained and moved, but to remove the ugly ghosts of Legally Blonde from the Palace Theater.

Only in New York, kids... only in... gag... ack... gurgle...

I've had a pretty great run of theater and theater to come on these last few stopovers.

As I Twittered last week, God of Carnage is a great evening of theater, with James Gandolfini and Jeff Daniels doing excellent work, but Marcia Gay Harden and Hope Davis stealing the show.

This is the kind of knockabout farce loaded with dark truths that every sophisticated high school drama teacher will be dying to do, but will be stopped by the principal. Two couples, trying to be polite and to work out some bad business that happened between their kids at school, slowly start to unravel in front of each other.

Part of me wanted to see Gandolfini and Daniels switch roles, since both are a little too perfect in the roles they play. You couldn't really ask for better... just for less familiar. But Marcia Gay Harden swings back into the mode of hers that I love best... cool, sexy, and funny... the Marcia Gay Harden that I discovered (for myself) in Late For Dinner.

And Hope Davis... well... I have always liked watching Hope Davis' work, but I haven't always understood how directors saw her in some of the roles she's played. Something like American Splendor is character work... terrific. But there has always been a kind of angry, sexy blond thing that I could see that directors saw in her, but I never really got it. To see her throw herself around the stage here... fearless... and showing herself to have a body that you would expect to see gracing the pages of Maxim. After years of watching her work, a serious actress, I must admit that it came as a real surprise to me.

The show, directed by Matthew Warchus, echoes his success last year with Boeing-Boeing. But it is not Boeing-Boeing. It isn't as light and quick and delightfully silly. There is no jaw-dropper of a performance like that of Mark Rylance. It's farce, but of a much gentler tone.

Still... a really good time at the theater. You will see truth and you will laugh hard. What more could you ask?

Impressionism is a little less compelling, though again, a good evening of theater, if not something for the very top of your list. The show marks Joan Allen's return to the Broadway stage after 20something years. And she is very good, very blond, and not terribly challenged by this character from my perspective. Doing a much more complicated job is the great Jeremy Irons, who has to be the straight man to the whims of Allen, throw off many of the best lines, and build a story for his character slowly, leading to a place where what happens at the end of the show feels believable.

The show is, basically, a one-act with flashbacks, telling the story of a woman who owns a gallery... how she came to this moment... and why she clings to her paintings, which she displays for sale every day, but never really seems to want to sell. There is also the tale of her "assistant," a character with no clear job, but as played by Irons, expands from coffee boy to a full, rich character as the tale unfolds. There is a great turn by Andre De Shields, who, like all the actors, plays multiple characters, making his greatest impression as an elderly baker.

Watching the show, there are five other actors, including a pretty young woman... and it kept bugging me... I knew who she was... but... arrrr... and then a look in the Playbill... it was Margarita Levieva. Still nothing. Credits... Adventureland! Ah. Lisa P! Amazing. This is that girl? She plays the amusement park's house bombshell, who, eventually - as Greg Mottola tends to deliver - turns out to be more interesting than she first seems. But there was more... Spread. This young actress, doing not-too-demanding-but-the-kind-of-thing-you-do-to-get-really-good work, treading the boards with some great, long-established actors, is the third lead of that film, behind star Ashton Kutcher and a light-it-up turn by Anne Heche. But it's the kind of role that launches a serious movie career if you can keep from just becoming a target for directors who just want you to do that shower scene. She steals scenes from Kutcher, who as goofy as his movie persona is, is usually stealing scenes from others. But your attention often goes to her and her mysterious ways in this role. Interesting.

Discovery is a joy in the movie theater, but on stage, I find it even more compelling. There is something about the actor standing on that stage, even when silent, that really allows you to see when the spark is there... not as manipulated by movie directors, cinematographers, and editors.

One actor who was a stand out in a relatively small role on Broadway was Matt Cavenaugh in Grey Gardens. His roles were overshadowed by the two Tony-winning performances by Christine Ebersole and Mary Louise Wilson as Little Edie and Big Edie, but still, he made an impression by being unexpected. He got through the non-started of A Catered Affair. But tonight, he was unexpected again... and truly special.

Cavenaugh is Tony in the new/old revival of West Side Story. And from the very first time he starts singing, you know that he, as they say on American Idol, owns the songs, even though they are amongst the greatest and most familiars tunes ever to grace Broadway. And he's not trying really hard to come up with something new, as some people do. He's just doing the work. And he is easily the best Tony I have ever seen in any version of this show. He reminded me of what a young Mandy Patinkin might have been like in this role. Patinkin has recorded versions of some of these songs in concert or for CD and is a different kind of different. But I can see this young man doing all of the great roles... being The Next Guy... a role that Raul Esparza may or may no be ready to fill.

And Karen Olivo, who got a lot of love for her turn in In The Heights, is a strong contender to win a Tony for her turn her as Anita... the role that won an Oscar for Rita Moreno. She eats the stage every time she appears.

That was the best news of the show. It is fascinating to watch a show that has been recreated from a now-legendary choreographer's original work. Jerome Robbins. How must have theatergoers at previews, before the critics told them how brilliant this show was, felt when they saw gang members dancing a ballet in 1957... even a decade after Agnes de Mille?

Interesting touches include two of the very familiar songs sung entire in Spanish when the Spanish-speaking characters are on their own. This both works and doesn't, as we are so familiar with the songs that we know exactly what is going on, lyric for lyric. On the other hand, people like to hear the new version of what they love. The gimmick works better on "America" and ""I Feel Pretty" than on "A Boy Like That," where I really, really wanted to hear Olivo turn the phrase, "A boy like that... will kill your brother" and "A boy like that cannot love... a boy like that has no heart... stick to your own kind... stick to your own kind."

Maria and Bernardo are both Broadway first-timers, both South Americans... both a bit disappointing... though Josefina Scaglione as Maria acquits herself pretty well. She just happens to be up against two of the strongest performances that we will see on Broadway this year.

But what drove me a little nuts was how weak some of the rest of the cast was. I don't want to call actors out, but so many times, the speaking roles seemed like they were lost in translation.

On the other hand, the chorus - some of whom had speaking or individual singing roles - was spectacular... especially the women. It was another gimmick of the show... a much more successful one.. that this West Side Story was young and sexy. The costumes, by David C. Wollard, managed to be completely appropriate, and dead sexy. The Jets girls wore skimpy skirts and dresses, just cut high enough so you could appreciate every sinew of the dancers' legs, but not gross. The Sharks mamacitas were either in longer skirts that twirled mercilessly or period shorts, cut high on the thigh. And oh, how they all moved. The guys... not really sexy. Basic. But effective. Again, Tony is the standard. He always looked like a real guy wearing real clothes... and they never kept him from dashing from corner to corner of the stage.

Maybe it's just too hard to take a classic, with an indelible movie version, and to fill every role with someone who will pop the way characters pop in the film. When your cast is this big, it gets tough for everyone to be a star. But man, as someone who knows the show, you really want it. Chorus standouts were all girls... and the folks doing the show seemed to indulge in yet another gimmick that worked... casting for women who looked real and not just like actors. All kinds of body types... some unexpected... are out there, knocking it out of the park. (Anybodys, played by Tro Shaw, also stood out.)

Anyway... a mixed bag.

Still to come this week are two shows that got raved by the NY Times this last week... Geoffrey Rush and Susan Sarandon in Exit The King.. and the revival of Hair, another show whose Broadway cast album is as familiar as any Beatles album, since my older sister played the grooves out of both, but which I have never seen on stage.

Plus, New Directors is on right now... and museums call...

I do love New York. No place like it.

(ADD, 4:42p Thursday - A third song in the West Side Story revival is sung in Spanish instead of the traditional English.)

Posted by dpoland at 11:04 PM | Comments (7)

WTF?

Man, this pisses me off!

How did Patrick Goldstein - aside from the fact that he lives in a delusional state of fear and loathing about the evil internet despite the fact that he now is exclusively a blogger (with his blog entries printed now and again) in his job at the LA Times - manage to take an inflammatory story from the Times of London, cite pick-ups by The San Jose Mercury News and The New York Posts, and spin it into yet another f-ing "that evil, irresponsible web" story?

I feel bad for the people who were innocently using Patrick as a mouthpiece to spin their version of what happened... since he couldn't help himself but to make something that had almost nothing to do with the internet into a "evil bloggers" slam-a-thon.

Quotes directly from the Times of London piece (bolds added by me):

Headline - "James Gray's anger over Joaquin Phoenix's rap career"

"A good performance, meanwhile, from Gwyneth Paltrow, complete with a coolly erotic breast-baring scene, ensured that popular interest was appropriately piqued."

"'It’s like, Letterman was trying to get the movie out there, but the only thing that’s out there now is a crazy person with a beard making a fool of himself!' says Gray, still seething today at the 'circus' surrounding Phoenix."

"when it came to shooting the now infamous 'breast scene'”

“If it is shown to be a hoax, then that’s great, because Joaquin will come back to acting. And he is something special. But if it isn’t, ye know, I think he needs, well, help.”

Where, exactly, was there room for Those Darn Bloggers to make this story more hyperbolic?

What is Patrick's big issue? That they misunderstood a quote that includes the word "clown," mostly because the phrasing is so poorly delivered by the author of the piece, Kevin Maher.

And he's commenting on media laziness... but again, it's The Times of London that he is actually criticizing, not the web.

Patrick closes, quoting Gray:

"It feels crazy to me that you can say 'X' and after the Internet is through with it, it comes out 'Q.' They either only include the first half of your quote or the headline is sensationalized and by the time you read the third story, it ends up having nothing to do with what you actually said."

But that's the Web in all its glory: never letting the truth get in the way of a good sensationalized story."

Yes, Patrick... that does seem to be the case. You don't have the integrity to place 100% of the blame where it should be - if blame is due... as you don't seem to feel it appropriate to consider whether the director was covering his tracks with this tale of woe - on the Traditional Media newspaper, The Times of London.

If you weren't automatically sliding into your Abbott & Costello Niagara Falls bit - "The BLOGGERS fall! - every time the web came up as a possible whipping medium, you would have dealt with that entire final quote laid the anger at the feet of the wrong medium.

I guess they found the right blogging sensationalizer who wouldn't sweat the truth to sell this story.

Posted by dpoland at 10:08 PM | Comments (1)

Chaos In NY

It's one of those NYT stories that pulls ts punches and still resonates profoundly for months to come. That is the nature of the bubble of New York, where the NYT is more powerful than any mayor and certainly as mighty as the Senators from this great state.

This is this morning's tale of Mara Manus, the new Executive Director of the Film Society of Lincoln Center. (Full disclosure... I am friends with a candidate for this job who got down to a direct competition with Ms. Manus.)

There are all kind of details in the piece, which will surely be gone over and over by the high end movie chattering class, supplemented by more honest commentary from those who have left the organization than the quote the POR was able to get - understandably - for this story... people needs their settlement checks.

What really struck me is that this story is going on at festival/film programs all over the world right now. The Film Society is both a great target, because it is so well funded, and it is a muscular and somewhat transparent - because it is so hand-in-glove with journalists - example of the troubles.

Mara Manus was hired not for her artistic insights, but because she is seen as a big muscled NY fundraiser. And I am sure she is. All the sidebar stuff about her involvement in the movie business is... well... pretty irrelevant. She has friends, but no legacy from her years, years ago, in the film world. But she is a part of the NY firmament now, after her tumultuous time at The Public.

But at the moment, there is no money to raise out there. So by hiring a money person to lead at a time when there is no way that the best fundraisers can do what the people who hire them expect them to do, The Film Society of Lincoln Center has left her more than a little bit vulnerable. Had they hired with an eye to aesthetic innovation - which is more mind than money - then strides could be being made while the fundraising efforts suffered.

Of course, when they hired Ms Manus, they were already underway on the new, extremely expensive project. So... maybe there was no answer that could satisfy all the different demands.

The great good fortune at Sundance is that they are not in the real estate business. Toronto, right now... not so lucky.

Times is hard...

Posted by dpoland at 03:54 PM | Comments (2)

Wolverine Escapes!

Okay... loving the hysteria... but so far, this is a completely "inside the beltway" situation.

The one major release where this actually was considered an issue after its release was MGM's Soul Plane. The early leak of a full, clean print ended up being sold on the streets of major cities across the world and when the movie opened to $5.6 million, MGM sincerely felt that the film had been pre-screened by too many people in its primary demographic... urban blacks and hispanics. This also happens to be the core audience for bootleg DVD.

While the movie was not destined to be a cash cow, I think they had a real beef.

The huge difference here is that we are looking at a movie that's targeting an opening of well over $50 million and is, so far, not for sale on the streets. For all of the real concerns about internet piracy, the group of individuals in this country who are stealing movies and television on a daily basis is limited. Will 100,000 people see this stolen copy of Wolverine? Could be. But if that is the extent of the damage, Fox shouldn't able to measure the box office damage in any accurate way.

If the film starts turning up across the country in cities and is traded amongst more than a million people, that is when real damage could begin.

And maybe I am being a Luddite by not thinking that we are near that point yet in the proliferation of internet piracy... maybe I will be offered a copy of the film on a NY City street this afternoon... anything is possible. But I doubt it.

One thing is for sure... reviews of a pirated DVD on AICN have never moved the needle on the box office an inch in the long history of the site or this business. So if there are negative reviews... well, it just won't matter.

And if this is the in the lead of every review of Wolverine next month? Not so important either. But unfortunate.

Also... MTV (and who knows who else) keeps getting the Hulk story wrong. It wasn't the entire film. And it wasn't close to completed. The issue in that leak was the quality of the CG of The Hulk, which was, as the geek flies, the entire cause for the movie. And it was SLAMMED.

Thing is... the movie still opened.

Not only that, it opened huge. It was, at the time, the 16th best opening of all time. It was the best June opening of all time. Its $62.1 million opening, five-plus years later, is still in the Top 50 openings of all time. Hulk is still the fifth best comic book character opener, behind Batman, Spider-Man, Iron Man, and X-Men.

Finally, as I have noted before, for all the targeting of this film by the web buzzers, supported by an angry Gavin Hood, I have word from inside his camp that, in the end, the movie is about 90% what he wanted it to be. I consider any suggestion that he was responsible for the leak to be incredibly reckless and profoundly unlikely.

And I will save the finger-wagging about how the "now" and "if I can find it, I should be allowed to see it" mentality has led to this for another day.

Posted by dpoland at 02:19 PM | Comments (43)

BYOB - April Fool's Day

I can feel me... flying in the air today... oh lord...

Posted by dpoland at 12:00 AM | Comments (20)