Thursday, 27 July 2000

DOCKED DOC: Interesting story about David O. Russell's next film, a documentary named for its subject, Benny Hernandez, and the decision to go with a new Web site for production and distribution rather than traditional routes. The new site is called AntEye and they are funding digital movies, with an eye towards TV piloting, to the tune of as much as $100,000 a pop. The story doesn't really tell us whether Russell was turned down by the major TV buyers of documentaries, like HBO and Discovery Channel or whether this doc will have a second life on cable TV, but no mind, this is a positive step for the Internet. Far more so than a hack production like SightSound's Quantum Project. David Russell is for real.

TRUTH IN ADVERTISING: Few things irked me more than Britney Spears whining to the media in Britain that she wears her barely-there outfits to combat perspiration when she dances. Yeah, and people get tongue studs for the fashion statement. "I never wanted this sexy image,'' said the wanna-be-Madonna, whose lies in this regard put her closer to the Material Girl than anything else she's done. Ironically, she also told the Brits, "I want to become like Madonna, only without all the men gossip and scandals.'' But, apparently, with the breast implants that Madonna never needed. You know, if you are going to brainwash millions of little girls into thinking that they should be stacked like an All You Can Eat at IHOP by the time you hit junior high and exposed like a Clinton peccadillo, at least have the restraint to not suggest you are an innocent put upon by all those evil journalists.

SITE WITH BITE: Speaking of kids, a number of readers wrote in to remind us all about Screenit.com, a Web site that breaks down most mainstream films in categories from "Alcohol/Drugs" to "Sex/Nudity" to "Profanity" to "Disrespectful/Bad Attitude." They give detailed descriptions in 15 categories in all. So, not only do I know that Scary Movie is "extreme" in violence, profanity, violence and sex/nudity, but I know exactly how. For instance, "Bobby holds up a stuffed monkey toy so that the banana it's holding is positioned upright and rhythmically moving at the monkey's crotch." That's a mild one. Anyway, it's a fascinating site and it is amazing that anyone does anything this specifically week in and week out. Stunning, really. And even if you don't need the info, it sure is amusing. At least for a while.

CORRECTION: Speaking of dirty stuff, I am reminded that There's Something About Mary was R rated. There was a PG-13 version, but not until after the wave got pretty big. Anyway, part of what threw me off was the boasting of records broken by Scary Movie, which may well come to pass. Interestingly, Mary never had a single weekend that was as big as Scary Movie's third weekend, just passed, in which it did $15.1 million. In fact, Mary was at $60 million after weekend three, just over half of what Scary Movie has scraped up. However, amazingly, if Scary Movie falls in the same trajectory in which it has in its second and third weekends, it won't catch up to Mary's $176 million domestic total, stopping somewhere just before $160 million. Of course, it could start speeding up again, but probably not. And not that $160 million for Scary Movie isn't spectacular. But even in 1998, Mary's long, long legs were a bit of a freak show. And now, Scary Movie is here to prove the point. But are short and stubbies a future that really works for the business?

ANOTHER CORRECTION: Harry Knowles tells me that, in fact, he didn't go to any line at the ComicCon, including Bryan Singer's and that Bryan actually came to visit Harry at Harry's table in Artist's Alley. I'm sure that the person who sent me the story, which ran in Tuesday's column, will say that Harry's lying, as Harry said that the source was lying. My feeling, either way, is "so what?" I do want to get it right, but frankly, I only ran what I ran because it pointed out Bryan Singer's "regular guy" nature, not Harry's hubris. But regardless, both sides have had their say now. I don't really think Harry has any reason to lie about this and in my contact with The Big H, he has traditionally been pretty forthcoming when nabbed. But again, so what? Bigger issues, folks... bigger issues.

DIRTY HANDS: Wired.com ran a story on Tuesday about increased security and police involvement maintaining the secrets of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. Fascinating. And an interesting challenge to the fanboy community. Harry Knowles has had Lord of the Rings stuff coming in for months, but hasn't run any of it out of respect for Jackson. Huzzah for that. But if Harry ran his stuff, would the mighty arm of the New Zealand law come down on Harry & Co.? Especially when New Line and Jackson have pursued a relationship with AICN on this project? I don't know. But the legal realities of "breaking news" on almost all of the early-look movie sites are that the "spies" are breaking laws, criminal or civil, in their passion for freedom of speech. Paramount has blundered its way through their efforts on behalf of Star Trek copyright protection, hurting themselves with the fan base for, really, no good reason. But where is the line? And will any of the fan boys come out in defense of the security guard who may be headed to jail for possessing materials he wasn't supposed to have? What is he, other than another purveyor of fan-loving insight? (That's not wholly a rhetorical question. I really want to know what you think.) To read the Wired story, click here.

READER OF THE DAY: Jason writes frankly: "I knew the answer to each question of your little pop quiz because I, unlike most parents, pay very close attention to the ratings of the movies that come out. After my son was born, I made the decision to give up 'R' rated films, even though I love movies more than any person I know. I felt that I had to draw a line for my son, and it was much easier to say that we don't watch 'R' rated films in our house than to say 'We don't watch movies that feature any type of non-consensual sex, more than four 'F' words and any graphic decapitations.'

Now, I'm not going to preach that everyone should make the sacrifice (and it is a sacrifice that I have made), but we need to show more discretion with what we let our children watch. The fact that they will be exposed to violence, sex, and profanity in the schoolyard or on TV should not be a justification for letting them experience it under our supervision.

I also have to wonder how many kids get dragged to the latest Verhoven sex/violence fest because it was cheaper to drag them along than to spring for a babysitter?

I am the first to admit that the MPAA rating is arbitrary at best. How did Austin Powers come in at a PG-13 and something like Peter Weir's Fearless come in at an 'R'? And until the MPAA comes up with a better system or DVD employs the technology to offer different cuts of the film on the same disc I will continue to go without.

By the way, since having given up on 'R' rated I have seen some of the best movies of my life. By pushing away the latest Wesley Snipes stylistic but hollow action vehicle, I have had more time (and inclination) to go back into the classics like The Red Shoes, The Third Man, The Lady Vanishes, Days of Heaven, and Paths of Glory. Films that I probably wouldn't have seen if I hadn't left behind virtually everything that Joel Silver produces (The Hudsucker Proxy being the one glorious exception.)"

And this from McG (not the dude directing Charlie's Angels): "I always find your column not only to be informative, but uncommonly thoughtful in its writing. But today I have to quarrel with your coverage of ratings and the relationship to kids. Let me preface my dispute by first saying maybe we sit on different fences since I'm not too far removed from 'childhood' (I'm in my early 20s). I've always hated, HATED the ratings system and parental 'guidance' that keeps prevents children from seeing the full menu everyone else is offered. I had to constantly 'sneak' around seeing movies as a child and my life was enriched for many films that would have horrified my parents for different reasons (Body Heat, Godfather I, II, Last Tango in Paris). In fact, the two rated R movies I was discovered to have seen and subsequently punished for both won Best Picture!--Platoon and The Silence of the Lambs.

And to begin with I think the social urge to 'protect' children is fundamentally flawed. The idea of a 'child' is a relatively new construct, as far as I've read it was born out of the Industrial Revolution and the necessity for child labor laws (actually we needed labor laws, period, though). Before that, any reading of a historical nature doesn't really differentiate between the small adults and large adults other than the 'children' being someone's son or daughter. In fact, to digress, I think a lot of Mel's 'protective' instincts towards his children in The Patriot are a projection of our own feelings and paradigms. Him arming his children to help the family seems the more realistic trend (and interestingly enough it horrified modern audiences). I have huge problems with the lack of rights many children have in this society--the right to leave abusive homes, the right to educate and expose themselves to their environment as 'adults' are allowed. Many kids' emotional growth is stunted by these sorts of protections. And I know based on your writing on the Justin Pierce suicide you'll probably disagree--you feel kids are growing up 'too fast' or whatever that means. I feel the opposite, I think there are too many conflicts of freedom as a person goes through their early years that doesn't allow them to make much sense of the freedoms they receive as an 'adult.' Just like any prohibition."

E ME: Actually, I do think that there are things that children do not have to be constantly confronted by. I think that the media continues to up the ante. And not in movies the quality of The Godfather and Last Tango ("Gee mom, why butter and not margarine?"). When two of my nephews were 12 and 15, I showed them Reservoir Dogs. The racist/sexual language eventually got their father to make me turn off the TV and the kids were traumatized and still talk about their shock. My thinking was that there was nothing there but words and that they could handle it. I overestimated a bit. And sometimes, I still do. But do I need scrotum jokes dancing in my 9-year-old niece's head? Nope. Anyway, the conversation continues. If you all continue it.