What you talkin’ ‘bout, Jesse?!?!

In a spectacular display of PC idiocy, Jesse Jackson yesterday invoked the name of Martin Luther King, Jr. to complain about Barbershop invoking the name of Martin Luther King, Jr.   Not only did Jesse fail to get the joke, but actually suggested that the film be altered in future forms of release… in other words, this civil rights leader suggested that censorship of dissenting opinion was a good idea.  Good thing that he wasn’t running the FBI when King was alive.  Even J. Edgar Hoover didn’t have the temerity to try to censor the words of civil rights leaders, even if he would as soon see them all dead. 

Jesse might want to create a spin-off of Clean Flicks called Clean Of Ideas I Don’t Like Flicks.  (The Barbershop story is here).

SPEAKING OF CLEAN FLICKS:  The company’s press rep, John Dixon, was kind enough to respond quickly to an e-mail I sent yesterday.  In ongoing conversations, the issue of financial remuneration continued to come up.  So I asked specifically:

1. When you offer a sanitized video or DVD for rent, have you purchased an original uncut video/DVD for every copy that is in your rental program?

JD Answer: We have to have a 1:1 ratio. We buy every movie for the edited one.

2.  When you sell sanitized videos/DVDs, has your company purchased an original uncut video/DVD for every copy you sell?

JD Answer: Yes again

3.  If you own all the "unclean" videos and DVDs, what do you do with your stock of materials that you are never going to use?

JD Answer:  We package this together on the DVD side and we are copying the edited version on the original VHS.

I sent a response to his response re: the DVDs.  If you actually get the original DVD and an edited version from Clean Flicks, I would say that Clean Flicks becomes pretty hard to argue against. 

But on the base issue, the way I read this is that Clean Flicks is spending money on videos and profiting on rental in the same way as any mom & pop video/DVD store in the country.  So the financial situation is not a losing one for the film business.  In fact, by taking the responsibility for these changes out of the hands of studios and paying full price for the unedited videos/DVDs, this is really a boon for the studios.  If they started putting out sanitized video/DVD, there would be issues about what they left in, what they cut out, etc.  Plus, they would be creating an added layer of stock that they have to market to retailers.  Plus, they would have to deal with the censorship issues that dog their biggest customer, Blockbuster, even in today’s market.  With Clean Flicks doing the dirty work, their hands are clean and their market is expanding to buyers and renters who would likely have done without were it not for Clean Flicks.  Even more impressive, the studios are selling these videos/DVDs at a higher price than they sell at to Blockbuster and Hollywood Video.  So Clean Flicks, as conceptually odious as they may be, are generating higher profits and expanding the market base for the studios while taking all the heat.

The DGA will probably remain alone in their legal wrangling.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE:  One of the elements of the WB troubles putting a superhero on screen that I’ve forgotten to write about is base ownership.  While Avi Arad and Marvel are free to look for the “right” partners for their properties and can make adjustments when things go wrong, DC characters are locked in at Time-Warner and will only appear as WB or New Line properties.   Next year, Marvel characters will turn up at Fox (Daredevil and X-Men 2) and Universal (The Hulk), while Ghost Rider may turn up at Miramax, Spider-Man 2 will return to Columbia and even Warner company New Line is in the Marvel business with Blade and possibly, Iron Man.   Meanwhile, Catwoman, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and any one else in Senior Circuit tights has to wait for WB execs to get out of their own way.

There are two ways of looking at this.  One is that the freedom not to have to worry about losing rights should make it easier to get a DC character project rolling.  The other is that the lack of worry has created the complacency that has kept a project from being greenlit for over 5 years.  All I can say is, “Get on with it!”

GETTING IT ON:  Some guys even more nutty than the guys who made a mint with “Girls Gone Wild” started distributing a tape called “Bumfights”.  No, these are not Page Three girls trying to crush walnuts with their buttocks.  These are bums and other lost souls fighting for cash, food, booze or whatever and allowing it to be taped.  Sick?  You’re not the only one who thinks so.  The story is here.

DON’T MISS:  Tonight, Reel Roundtable is presenting a new film called SURFACING, which is based on the true story of a tormented young man who returns home to reconcile with his childhood sweetheart.  The film stars Jay Thomas and Lin Shaye.  Afterwards, there is a cast & crew party at Scratcher’s… and you’re invited.  For more info, check out www.reelroundtable.com or call (212) 502-7945.

SPEAKING OF MS. SHAYE:  Lin has an uncredited role in a major movie coming to theaters next weekend.  I don’t want to give it away, but let me know if you figure out the movie and notice her contribution.

TRYING:  I keep wanting to link to Amy Wallace’s terrific story on fourth wives in Hollywood.  In fact, I’ve wanted to for so long that the LA Magazine story is in is now off the stands… just days after the issue Wallace’s story hit the web… without a link to her story.  Sigh…

DISNEY BORED:  The Disney board met yesterday and there was little news.  Both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal headlined that the board backed Michael Eisner and his plans for the future.  The LA Times, which notably gave the story to Richard Verrier and James Bates, was in agreement, though a bit tougher in it’s assessment. 

But the overall answer seems to have been… the beat goes on… they will keep going down this road for at least six months more.

PEAKING OF THE TIMES:  Another really strong column yesterday by Patrick Goldstein, who takes a look at the older moviegoers who actually go to movies quite a lot more than they are given credit for by the studios.  The story is here.

One thing that occurred to me as I was trying to come with a closing joke about how young Terry Press is and that I can never imagine anyone with her attitude getting old…  every exec that Patrick interviewed for the piece was on the younger side (except for TV exec David Poltrack).  Young execs might not think of older moviegoers… but there really aren’t too many older movie executives either.  Ageism is even crueler to them than to audiences looking for a good old-fashioned movie.

READER OF THE DAY:  Robin Baldwin, webmaster of the The Christopher Plummer Page @ http://www.christopher-plummer.com writes:  “Christopher Plummer is the next Oscar winner (Supp Actor) for Nicholas Nickleby.

Wait til the world sees his new one hour Oscar PR doc with Russell Crowe, Robert Redford, Whoopi Goldberg, Paul Newman, Joanne Woodward, Julie Andrews and More.

Check out his hot off the press awesome reviews for King Lear from the New York Times and Variety. By the way, RUSSELL CROWE attended the opening. (I was also lucky to be there.)

He will not only be nominated, he WILL WIN win the Oscar.

I will be smiling all the more next March when he wins because the so called Oscar gurus at this point in time only have him on the back burner or not even on their long lists.

There will be much more PR about all of this later this fall.

DAVID RESPONDS:  I have, indeed, left Nicholas Nickleby off of my Oscar list.  It’s certainly no slight to Plummer, who I pushed for an Oscar nomination over a decade ago for his role as “Shitty” in Where The Heart Is, for his role as “Mike Wallace” in The Insider three years ago and recently, for being the only element in Ararat worth watching.  I wish him the best.

GET BACK JO sends in this correction to yesterday’s column, starting with my problematic quote:  “"There are a couple of god perspective pieces on AOL/Time-Warner, here and here."

If there actually were *god* perspective pieces at these links, I might have been even more interesting. But I think you mean something else...  :)

A Hollywood movie is a movie that could have been just as good or better and made at half the budget it actually was.”

ON THE SCHNEID is not amused:  “I have  a headache after reading about what is and what isn't a Hollywood movie. Because I don't really care. A movie is a movie is a movie...That's my gut reaction. Labelling a movie Hollywood or Non-Hollywood, and actually caring about whether or not the movie is "Hollywood," is a great way for high-minded film goers to seperate themselves from average Joe movie watchers. And that's why I think it sucks. People go see movies. Each and every person who watches the movie has a reaction to it. They come home, they say it was good, or bad. End of story. Hollywood or Not Hollywood? It doesn't matter. Unless you want to try and be elitist about it.”

The great MS NOT NBC cuts up:  “Actually, it's Charlize Theron and Gretchen Mol I can't tell apart. Also Julia Stiles and Rachael Leigh Cook. Also Erika Christensen and the kid from 24 (Elisha Cuthbert or sumpin like that?). Also Michelle Rodriguez and Edward James Olmos.”

JOHNNIE E writes:  “How can I apply for Tom King's job?  If he is so ignorant about the movie industry that he lumps all those actresses together because they're blonde, he has no business making money to write about Hollywood.  Will his next column be about how you can't tell the difference between Wesley Snipes, Samuel L. Jackson, Ving Rhames, LL Cool J and Laurence Fishburne?

Oh, and Reese Witherspoon is getting $15 million for Legally Blonde 2.  Take that, Colin Farrell!”

And THE YAC closes with:  “Before I get started, I just want to state that I advocate watching movies in their unaltered form, meaning in it's original aspect ratio, with the sex and violence left in. I also would rather have parents wait until their child is an appropriate age before showing them masterpieces such as Godfather I and II, Shawshank Redemption, and Saving Private Ryan in their full glory. If you're offended by these kinds of movies, by all means, DON'T WATCH THEM.

I looked at both sites and did some research before I made up my mind regarding these two services.

As for Clean Flicks, I'm split on what they do. I have no problem with people sending in movies they have already purchased to be cleaned up. They can do what they want with the movie, it's their property. If they wanted to watch a sanitized truncated version, fine by me. They're just missing out. However I do have a problem with the company buying movies, editing them, and selling the edited movies to the general public. This isn't right. They are profiting from tampering with a director's original version of the movie.

Regarding MovieMask, I have no problem with people taking a movie they already own and using software to edit out or cover up objectionable parts. As long as they aren't selling the edited movies for commercial purposes, no problems here.

As for Barbershop, I think it is ridiculous that Jesse Jackson has managed to coerce the producers of the movie into apologizing for remarks made by the characters. I haven't seen the movie, but I have seen the clip of what offended Mr. Jackson. I thought it was funny. I plan on seeing the movie when I find another job. Mr. Jackson needs to realize that some people have a different outtake on what happened at certain points in American history and people. I hope the DVD isn't edited in any way so I can enjoy the movie the way the director meant it to be seen. This sounds like to me another example of Jesse Jackson using his power to influence his will on other people.”

E ME:  Whose Oscar am I overlooking?  Who’s bum should I be fighting?  And what joke would you like removed from a film?