June 28, 2004

The only thing worse than dealing with the arrogant and self-righteous is dealing with the arrogant and self-righteous after they have an enormous success…

With an estimated $22.6 million opening weekend, Fahrenheit 9/11 becomes the most successful non-IMAX documentary of all time… in just three days of release. How leggy will the film be? That's impossible to say. But I still feel, as I wrote weeks ago, that you will start to see a film like this making real inroads into the election's undecideds after it hits around $60 million at the domestic box office, as you start to get around the 10 million-viewer mark. And it is more than likely that this film will get to and well beyond $60 million. Make no mistake… I was wrong in underestimating the box office potential of this film.

Comparisons to The Passion of The Christ are appropriate, as Lions Gate/IFC/FAG could never have built audience for this film as well as Michael Moore and the media did on their own. Like Mel Gibson, Moore spent a lot more time manipulating reality than telling the truth… something that which both men claimed to have a singular hold. But like the best movie marketing, the truth is irrelevant.

It is appropriate to keep in mind, as Harvey Weinstein has by not being willing to publicly predict how much this film will make based on this weekend's huge success, that this opening is about a quarter of The Passion's start and the F9/11 per screen average is about 6% lower than Passion. Additionally, it will be quite interesting to find out how many actual screens F9/11 played on. None of this diminishes the accomplishment of this opening, but perspective is called for.

Another joke is the notion that the right wing is making a huge noise against this film. With the exception of a stunningly brutal piece by Christopher Hitchens and one pathetic right wing web site, MoveAmericaForward.org, I haven't really seen much hardcore braying against the movie. Perhaps it is because I read the outlets I read (more than 50 float by each day searching for MCN links). But what I have seen is rather harsh judgments of those like myself who dare to question Moore's efforts and the real quality of the film. Disagreeing respectfully over this film is not an option for many people. It has become as black and white as the Bush Administration positioning of Saddam Hussein that the film so vigorously protests. Remember, the Democrats in Congress voted to allow Bush go into Iraq. Even if you assume they were duped, they were convinced and actively voted for the war. Responsibility is a harsh pill. There is no black. There is no white.

If George Bush could demonize Saddam Hussein (who helped him in the effort) into a target of a war by repeating the same statements over and over (WMD and the Al Queda connection) and if Michael Moore can demonize George W. Bush (who helped him in the effort) into a personification of stupidity while also making him the evil mastermind actively responsible and ideologically intent on pushing forward every bad idea in the last four years by repeating the same jokes and half-explained connections over and over, who is next?

Thank God or whatever you believe in that Mel Gibson didn't want to make a movie calling for attacks on Jews in the modern era or you can be sure that there would be dead Jews in the streets of the world.

The enemy for me, no matter how many times certain people want to say otherwise, is anyone who wants to simplify the world into a place where we can make blank-faced enemies out of any class, creed, color or political affiliation. But that's just me.

What political film am I excited about? Well, there are plenty of documentaries on the way about Iraq and America. I highly recommend Control Room and Imelda and am really looking forward to seeing Gunner Palace. But I look to Team America, the Matt Parker and Trey Stone puppet movie (won't a live-action Thunderbirds look silly if this thing catches on?) to really bring it all together when it is released by Paramount in October.

The film promises to skewer George W. Bush… and every other potential target on every end of the ideological spectrum… including Michael Moore. But don't expect there to be the kind of hard push from any one side, as we have seen from Moore and Gibson's personal visions of piety. Parker & Stone won't play that game. And they will pay a price at the box office for their honesty. But they will also sleep more soundly at night. I know I will.

What do they say? … never talk about politics, sex or religion with acquaintances if you want to stay acquaintances. So, F9/11 and The Passion are here, but we still haven't seen the great controversial film about sex… no, Showgirls wasn't it. And there may not ever be a film that inflames any one group on the issue of sex (or money, for that matter) that makes this kind of national arousal is possible. After all, a film of Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman having sex might sell a lot of DVDs, but we have seen Ms. Kidman simulate sex many times in R-rated films. How many Americans would really pay to see more?

Generally, sex separates into niches, but there isn't really a group, like liberals or committed Christians, whose sexual interests have left them feeling unappreciated and are ready to be motivated into theaters. Gay cinema is a strong niche. But with pornography so prevalent in all demo segments of the home entertainment, the cultural phenomenon sex movie may never come.

ON THE OTHER HAND: After everything they've gone through on Fahrenheit 9/11, whether it was fairly portrayed by Moore and the media or not, don't you think that Disney would stay far, far away from an public political stance this year?

Me too.

Yet this morning they find themselves in a potential hornet's nest as Move America Forward, a right wing group whose public behavior has been so obnoxiously overt that one almost wonders whether they have secretly been set up by the left as a stalking horse (almost!), has sent out a press release headlined:

MOVE OVER MICHAEL MOORE…
Disney & Move America Forward
Team Up to Show a Brighter Side of America
Special Early Screening of "America's Heart & Soul"

As it turns out, Disney is setting up literally hundreds of these screenings (like this one - - in Huntington, West Virginia) with all kinds of community organizations. But none of them are "teaming up" with Disney. This bit of self-aggrandizement by this fringe group wouldn't mean much at any other moment. But in light of the big opening of Fahrenheit 9/11 and given the fact that Moore and his associates have used Move America Forward as on of their primary examples of a right wing conspiracy against the distribution of the film - as we reported at MCN a couple of weeks ago, there were threats to exhibitors that some linked back to the MAF.org website - you couldn't really ask for a worse timed event than a Monday morning screening of your new movie… unless, of course you want to make this the Fahrenheit 9/11 of the right.

I don't think Disney is intentionally playing with that kind of fire. But if I were the kind of reporter who was into bashing Disney and I was aware of the design of the America's Heart and Soul release - slow rollout across America's heartland, where presumably the movie will play with "real people" - I might start toying with the notion that Disney was looking for the same Success du Marketing Cynicism as F9/11 and The Passion of The Christ.

John Horn's story in the LA Times covering the film's marketing, written more than two weeks ago, outlined the strategy and suggests nothing of the like. This film was made by photographer Louis Schwartzberg, who financed it himself as round after round of studio rejection kept it a personal project. Even after it was done, Disney was the only studio that was willing to distribute the film. The film's sin? Too square. But in this political atmosphere, the underdog story of a filmmaker, fighting the system to create his vision and finally succeeding only gets the lavish attention of the media when there is some sexy story to tell and the politics fit.

Or to quote one industry journalist who has not seen the film, but is itching to attack the apolitical, but patriotism-friendly film, "Anything that Move America Forward supports has to be problematic, at the very least."

Let's hope that Moore & Co. is too busy counting money and broken records to bother attacking Disney and Michael Eisner over this self-promoting effort by Move America Forward. After all, the underdog position is slipping away as the cash register rings loudly.

But then again, there was a rumor floating around in L.A. over the weekend that the F.B.I had refused to put an anti-piracy warning at the front of F9/11 for political reasons. Of course, there is no F.B.I warning in front of theatrical releases. And the idea that there was even a discussion of withholding that warning on the home entertainment release of this film or any other film is ridiculous. But that is the atmosphere of debate right now.

We'll see.

NOT LEAVING ON A JET PLANE: There were two stories this weekend about not landing at JFK Airport in New York. First, there was The Terminal, which had an estimated 29% drop this weekend. That's excellent, but it's not an indicator that the film, now with just over $41 million at the box office after 10 days, is going to rebound spectacularly from its lackluster start.

I've written about the opening before, but I gather that some people wanted me to fall on my sword for predicting big things for the movie. (This, by the way, is why entertainment media rarely goes out on a limb… it's lonely out there.) But as I have always said, opening weekend has nothing to do with the quality of a film. The bottom line on the opening was that DreamWorks didn't get the thing sold. There was certainly more critical resistance to the film than I expected. But the lackluster-for-Spielberg-and-Hanks start ($19 million) cannot be blamed on that resistance.

Ultimately, in the frenzy of F9/11 and with Hanks & Spielberg unable to spend the time on the media circuit that they needed for a change-of-speed film like this because of the late delivery date and with DreamWorks still enjoying the orgasmic glow of Shrek 2's overperfomance, the film just sat there.

You are certainly welcome to hate the film if you like. I quite like it. But business and personal pleasure are, as so often is the case, two separate issues.

Another name that often divides people is Manohla Dargis, now of the NY Times, as per this memo from the NYT's Jon Landman, announcing the hire internally.

But Manohla is not leaving the warm shores of Los Angeles to do the job. She will do her writing from here and grace us with her smiling and smirking face at local screenings, if no longer in the LAFCA. (The Times has frowned on critics group participation now and again.)

I have been a fan of Manohla from back in her Village Voice days. Like most powerful writers, almost no one could manage to agree with every piece she writes. She has eclectic tastes and strong opinions. But mostly, she has a big brain.

I have been openly doubtful about her role at the Los Angeles Times after they hired her away from the L.A. Weekly in a surprisingly daring move. Manohla is not the critic that studios want to be in their hometown paper. But for me, the issue was whether the LA Times was misusing her considerable talents. I felt they were and when they went to a pay program for the Calendar section, cutting off Manohla from the national debate that her once bi-weekly web-only column was a joyous part of, they cut their own throat for no clear reason.

There is no guarantee that things will be great at the New York Times. Manohla and Tony Scott are both apparently thrilled to be a team, with Stephen Holden as their trusty sidekick. But what we will all be watching, now that the team can be said to have a very specific personality, is whether the New York Times' embrace of the mature cutting edge of criticism will work effectively.

My hope is that Manohla, whom I consider to be at her very best when opining in essays rather than in specific reviews, will become celebrated as a voice of real vision in the currently-limping critical community as she reaches the summit of the profession. She has earned this opportunity. Manohla offers what the Times arts coverage has been missing lately… perspective. And if you want to read someone who comes up with some truly compelling ideas after a film or films have had time to ferment in her mind, Manohla is one of the world's best right now. And unlike most, she remains modest and fully aware of those things she doesn't know. Sometimes, she seems nutty…but she does have a unique wisdom about her.

Though Manohla isn't leaving L.A. physically, she has left a hole at the L.A. Times which will have to be filled… or maybe more than filled. If I were advising the L.A. Times and the Tribune Company about how to proceed from here, I would clean house and look to make a bold statement of its own.

With due respect to Ken Turan, it is time to make him the critic emeritus, writing feature pieces from his placed of wizened insight and not in the lead critic slot. I hate to say it, but he has aged out, due as much to his style as his actual age. Turan is a strong voice, but not a stylist. His potential as a home run hitter has passed. A good man and a fine critic… but not everyone is a superstar. Kevin Thomas has also outlived his usefulness as the cranky but overly generous utility infielder of the LAT's critics group.

Spend some money and get David Thomson to write for the paper. Reach out to an online critic who has something to say. Go after a Brit. Fight to bring B. Ruby Rich onboard. Give the 3-spot (at least) to a well respected local veteran like FX Feeney or Andy Klein. Convert a TV voice, like Salon's Heather Havrilesky, and put her in the 2-spot where she can grow. Want to take the fight to the NY Times… bring Edelstein on board. (He also happens to be quite good at his job.) Radicalize a little with Scott Foundas or Bob Kohler. I'm not asking that anyone reading this agrees with the specific critics, but hopefully, you get my drift.

There are a lot of ways to make a big statement and still have excellent coverage in an era when personality is absolutely critical. The New York Times made a big step by stealing Manohla and if they let her personality loose and Tony Scott's with it (Tony is more well-liked and more fun than his reviews seem to indicate), they will be an instant winner. Next!

READER OF THE DAY: BLACK LABEL writes: "You asked for opinions, here's my humble one. I don't know what to think about F911. First off, I have to admit that I agree with his sentiment. I agree with you that retreading the 2000 election is something that has been discussed ad nauseum, however it gives his story a point of reference. Would starting off with the black screen and the audio of the WTC attacks have been more effective? Given the title, maybe, but that would make the movie more driven by emotions. And I guess that's one of my big gripes about the movie. I understand that Mr. Moore is passionate, and he was basically writing a filmic essay, but emotions may have clouded his editorial judgment. When I was taught to write an essay, I was told, make your conclusion based on the facts that you have presented. Moore doesn't do that. He presents facts, and then leaps to a speculated conclusion (usually presented as a question). He beats us over the head with his conclusion, and does not let the audience come to their own conclusions based on pr

My other gripe is more a question that I could not rectify: Is this a work of art? That is a question that bothered me the way home from the theater. 12 hrs later, I still can't tell.

FYI, the trailer for America's Heart and Soul played before F911. It got booed by the obviously liberal audience I saw the film with (midnight show at the art theater in Minneapolis). I seemed to be the only one interested in seeing it. Of course I was also the only one interested in seeing Before Sunset too."

SWEDIE PIE writes: "I don't think reading your column suggests one needs to see Fahrenheit 9/11. Even supporters of the film (e.g., David Edelstein) explicitly say it's not really a great movie; for some of us, great movies are what your column is all about. Your commentary on the business side of things is often of interest, but ultimately it's all about a celebration of moving, beautiful images, a view of a fresh new world, and a thoughtful conversation about ideas. These are all things I emphatically don't expect from Fahrenheit 9/11

I write this as one who has, in my three years in the U.S., seen virtually every documentary that has come within an hour's travel. I sincerely want to support the wide dissemination of non-fiction film, and I actually heartily agree with most of Mr. Moore's political sentiments: I am, after all, a Swede. But this merely makes me the more put off by his relentless trivializing of important questions by making them into cheap shots; his pursuit of inflammatory images of extremely dubious relevance and taste (what earthly reason had he for including the plane crash in Bowling for Columbine?); the relentless, all-consuming narcissism (Kmart bans ammunition sales, and Moore finds his own reaction to be much the most important part of the scene); and on, and on."

ONE BILLION KB: "The most thrilling thing about seeing FAHRENHEIT was that there was actually a line and a nearly packed house at a Friday morning matinee of this "documentary". I don't think there were many Bush fans in attendance and if all of these people show up to vote in November Bush will be leaving Washington.

It is humorous. It is heartfelt. As usual Moore goes too far at times to make some of his points. But excellent points are made. The most damning case against Bush and his cronies comes right out of their own mouths.

The film is superbly edited and the use of music is terrific. I laughed, I cried. That there is less of Moore doing his shtick in this film than others is a very good thing. I know I'll never convince my Republican friends to see it but there are things in the film EVERYONE needs to see.

A timely DVD release near the election couldn't hurt either..."

This one's from THE SQUIRE: "As I watched Farenheit 9/11, it became rather apparent how much I had been lied too. How much my government and my press, had decided to not be honest with me. Decided to lie. Decided to deceive. Decided to take care of their own needs, and put the needs of any soldier at risk. A soldier, not trained in urban warfare, until the middle to late 90s. If anything, this film reveals the lunancy of the lunatic we have in office. THAT, on IT'S OWN, should make this movie shown to everyone in this country. If anyone sees this film and decides to vote for Bush. They not own do themselves a diservice, but the entire bloody world a diservice.

However, if you want to attack Michael Moore for deceiving or staging or whatever, then you are missing the point of this movie. You cant deny who runs Afghanistan now. You can't lie about the Taliban leader coming here in March 2001. You can't lie about the poorer folks in this nation taking up the slack for damn near everybody else, and joining the military.

Carrying on about the way Moore carries himself, and has talked about this film. Completely and utterly denies it's important. In no way does it come across as empty. It comes across, as say, Neo finally waking up. Seeing the real world. Yeah, a move analogy, but that's how I feel at least.

But if Moore aggravates you as much as he does David, then may I suggest the Courtney Love rule. I love Hole and America Sweetheart, but not exactly Courtney Love. At some point you have to, or should try to, separate the artist from the art. Moore might have made himself out to be a victim, but he has made one of the most important documentaries this country will ever need to help possibly rid itself of tyranny in the office.

Moore might have changed his facts, but the fact does not change that his film and he himself have point. Bush has failed us. He must be sent packing to Crawford, TX with the rest of his associates."

And this from PD QUIK: "I just read your review of "Fahrenheit 9/11" and I wanted to thank you... yours has been one of the most intelligent and evenhanded takes on the film yet. It expresses not only my feelings towards the film, but my feelings towards the Democratic Party as well.

Let me start of by telling you that I don't consider myself either a Democrat or a Republican. I voted for Bill Clinton in 92 and 96, but decided to support Bush in 2000. I don't believe I will be voting for him in the fall...not because he is a demon or a war-monger, but rather because I feel he has not done a good job of handling the economy and foreign policy. I'd like to vote Democrat... I really would... but I am also not pleased with the choice I am given. Mr. Kerry is running in the "Bush is evil; vote for me 'cause I'm not Bush" ticket, and that troubles me. As you mentioned, I want the Democratic party to clearly state why I shouldn't vote for them this year and to own up for any mistakes in these past 4 years. Show me what you have to offer, not how bad the current administration is. I know that!

I think Mr. Moore is a manifestation of the partisan sentiment that has taken over my country. I can't discuss the movie with anyone without polarizing the issue. If I say the movie is biased and nothing more than partisan politics, I'll have some friends screaming, "conservative, conservative!". If, on the other hand, I try to tell people that Moore is not an anti-American traitor and is merely expression his views (as biased as they might be), I have another group of friends screaming "liberal, liberal!".

I loved Moore's "Roger & Me" and "Bowling for Columbine"... those are films that made me think. But, he this new film lacks the cleverness and the ability to put things in perspective. It is an extremely one sided attack. I don't think it will change minds... those who already share Moore's feelings will still feel the same, those who oppose him will still oppose him, and those in the middle such as myself will find it too partisan. I think it's time that we put some of this aside, and try to work at improving our government and our place in the world as a nation. By sitting in the middle, I am often accused of being a fence-sitter. My response is that I am indeed. Sitting on top of the fence gives me a good view of both sides... and that is how decisions should be made."

E ME: The beat goes on…