list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Stuck on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Stuck/315499/default.aspx Title: Stuck
Year: 2008
Director: Stuart Gordon
Plot: Re-Animator director Stuart Gordon takes the helm for this disturbing tale of a compassionate retirement-home caregiver whose life is turned upside down after a gruesome hit-and-run accident leaves a severely injured homeless man lodged helplessly in her shattered windshield. Despite her promise to take her ailing victim to the hospital, the realization that the accident could destroy both her career and her future finds her uncharacteristically deciding to let the man die a slow death in her garage before conspiring with her boyfriend to dispose of the body. A fictionalized account of actual events, Stuck was co-scripted by director Gordon and frequent Tales from the Darkside contributor John Strysik. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Number of Lists: 4
Number of blog posts: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:24:06 GMTStuck2008Stuart Gordon<a href="http://www.spout.com/films/28245/detail.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Re-Animator</a> director <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____92122/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Stuart Gordon</a> takes the helm for this disturbing tale of a compassionate retirement-home caregiver whose life is turned upside down after a gruesome hit-and-run accident leaves a severely injured homeless man lodged helplessly in her shattered windshield. Despite her promise to take her ailing victim to the hospital, the realization that the accident could destroy both her career and her future finds her uncharacteristically deciding to let the man die a slow death in her garage before conspiring with her boyfriend to dispose of the body. A fictionalized account of actual events, Stuck was co-scripted by director Gordon and frequent <a href="http://www.spout.com/films/34045/detail.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tales from the Darkside</a> contributor John Strysik. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide433http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s315499.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Stuck/315499/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/captainryannn/archive/2008/8/11/33880.aspx Post By: CaptainRyannn
Post To: CaptainRyannn Blog
Post Date: 8/11/2008 9:08:45 PM
Body: Titles in bold represent a first time viewing. 346. Magnolia (Anderson, 1999)----------I thought that this was a pretty great collage-type film with the likeness of a more familiar title, Crash. Aside from Julianne Moore's performance, one of the few things I didn't like was the fact that the characters didn't connect with each other other than the bizarre finale at the end of the film. (7.5 / 10) 347. Stuck (Gordon, 2007)----------Based on a true story, stuck follows a wannabe-ghetto woman (Mena Suvari) after she hits a homeless man and drives him into her garage. The acting was terrible, the premise was good though. Towards the end, it began to pick up in terms of entertainment. (6 / 10) 348. Equilibrium (Wimmer, 2002)----------Christian Bale? Sweet. Reviews relating it to The Matrix? Awesome. This is why I initially checked out Equilibrium. The action was pretty sweet but every few minutes, I couldn't help but see a blatant plot-hole. Also, can someone answer me why do the people have dust fly out of them when they get shot? (7 / 10) 349. The New World (Malick, 2005)----------It seems that whenever Malick puts out a new movie, I become less and less interested. To me, Badlands was his best and his vast collection of movies since then have just seemed to have gone downhill. I appreciated the beautiful cinematography and music along with the great acting. But the pacing was just a little too slow for me. (7 / 10) 350. The Terminator (Cameron, 1984)----------It's funny to think that The Terminator, one of the most masculine movies of all time, came from the same guy who made Titanic, one of the most popular love stories of all time. I basically watched this for mere entertainment and it satisfied that. (7 / 10) 351. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (Cameron, 1991)----------Again, I just watched this purely for entertainment. I think it did a better job at doing that than the first one. The best thing about watching these movies is just pausing it at certain testosterone-filled moments and thinking, This is the governor of California. (7.5 / 10) 352. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (Mostow, 2003)----------This got quite a bit of negative reviews. I wouldn't say that it was especially bad, but rather on par with the first one. The best part was how they ended it. It got me excited for Terminator Salvation. (7 / 10) 353. A Home at the End of the World (Mayer, 2004)----------Although the subject matter may not be something many of us can relate to, the themes definitely are. The overall mood and and portrayals of friendship and love make this worth watching alone. (7 / 10) 354. Undertow (Green, 2004)----------When I first watched this, it was decent. Once I delved into some reviews and analysis' I watched it again and fell in love with it. The story follows two brothers who live with their dad out in the southern forests. Their mysterious uncle comes around and suddenly a game of cat-and-mouse begins. The tone of the film stays consistent and I think that that is it's strongest point along with great performances by Jamie Bell and Josh Lucas. (8 / 10) 355. Antikörper / Antibodies (Alvart, 2005)----------Antibodies is a film that follows closely in the footsteps of The Silence of the Lambs. Our protagonist is a village cop and the antagonist is a serial killer whose finally been caught. The cinematography was good and the acting was average. The basic story-line is something that's been done plenty of times before but the sheer intensity that this takes it to puts Antibodies a little bit above the rest. (7.5 / 10) 356. Cidade de Deus / City of God (Meirelles, 2002)----------I've seen City of God countless times as it is my favorite film along with Once Upon a Time in America. It takes us through two decades in the lives of a handful of children / teenagers in the slums of Rio de Janerio. Most grow up to be hoods and murder and robbery isn't something uncommon in their lives. Our protagonist, Rocket, is an aspiring photographer and just so happens to be there as all of the violence breaks out. If you're okay with subtitles, be sure to check this one out. (10 / 10) 357. Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (Hurwitz, 2008)----------The whole 'Escape' part only really lasts about five minutes. The rest of the film is basically slapstick comedy executed in an non-comedic way. (5 / 10) 358. Shotgun Stories (Nichols, 2007)----------I have been looking forward to seeing this one for quite some time. After falling in love with the trailer, I had to see it. There are two sets of step-brothers. Their father just died. One set knew him as a loving man and the other knew him as a violent, neglecting one. A feud erupts between them and their egos don't allow themselves to stop until irreversible damage has been caused. This movie had some of the most real characters I've ever seen portrayed and it was as if I were watching this unfold in real life. (8.5 / 10) 359. My Bodyguard (Bill, 1980)-----------I rented this based off of Roger Ebert's shining review but found it to be just average in comparison to other tough-time-in-high-school films. The main kid is a rich boy who starts going to a public school. The bullys don't like this and pick on him. After getting pushed around he gets the tough-guy bodyguard and they become friends, but not after finding out a few secrets about each other. (6 / 10) 360. Kicking and Screaming (Baumbach, 1995)----------Unlike the 2005 comedy, this one is actually good. But it's not about a children's soccer team, but rather a group of friend who have just graduated from college and don't know what to do next. This has some of the most subtly humorous dialogue I've ever experienced and I couldn't help but laugh virtually the entire way through. The plot really isn't there, there's no character development or twists. This movie basically stands up on the dialogue and it's characters. The friendship that exists reminds me slightly of that of the American Pie trilogy. Great movie. Worthy of its Criterion stamp. (8 / 10) 361. Schizopolis (Soderbergh, 1996)----------What did I just watch? (?? / 10) 362. Children of Men (Cuarón, 2006)----------Featuring probably some of the best camera work and choreography in film in recent years, Children of Men was superb. To be able to shoot such busy scenes all in one shot takes a certain amount of skill. Watching the special features and commentary definitely gave me an idea of how much work went into this. Children of Men takes place about twenty years in the future where women are infertile and no one knows why. Immigrants are killed and the world is in chaos. An immigrant is found bearing a child and Theo (Clive Own) is in charge of getting her to safety. (8 / 10) 363. The Chumscrubber (Posin, 2005)----------Set in a 'Desperate Housewives' kind of neighborhood, shy-boy Dean, through a series of events, is in charge of getting drugs for the popular kids. With an all-star cast, The Chumscrubber is entertaining, dark, and comedic all at the same time. (7.5 / 10)
]]>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 01:08:45 GMTCaptainRyannnCaptainRyannn Blog8/11/2008 9:08:45 PMTitles in bold represent a first time viewing. 346. Magnolia (Anderson, 1999)----------I thought that this was a pretty great collage-type film with the likeness of a more familiar title, Crash. Aside from Julianne Moore's performance, one of the few things I didn't like was the fact that the characters didn't connect with each other other than the bizarre finale at the end of the film. (7.5 / 10) 347. Stuck (Gordon, 2007)----------Based on a true story, stuck follows a wannabe-ghetto woman (Mena Suvari) after she hits a homeless man and drives him into her garage. The acting was terrible, the premise was good though. Towards the end, it began to pick up in terms of entertainment. (6 / 10) 348. Equilibrium (Wimmer, 2002)----------Christian Bale? Sweet. Reviews relating it to The Matrix? Awesome. This is why I initially checked out Equilibrium. The action was pretty sweet but every few minutes, I couldn't help but see a blatant plot-hole. Also, can someone answer me why do the people have dust fly out of them when they get shot? (7 / 10) 349. The New World (Malick, 2005)----------It seems that whenever Malick puts out a new movie, I become less and less interested. To me, Badlands was his best and his vast collection of movies since then have just seemed to have gone downhill. I appreciated the beautiful cinematography and music along with the great acting. But the pacing was just a little too slow for me. (7 / 10) 350. The Terminator (Cameron, 1984)----------It's funny to think that The Terminator, one of the most masculine movies of all time, came from the same guy who made Titanic, one of the most popular love stories of all time. I basically watched this for mere entertainment and it satisfied that. (7 / 10) 351. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (Cameron, 1991)----------Again, I just watched this purely for entertainment. I think it did a better job at doing that than the first one. The best thing about watching these movies is just pausing it at certain testosterone-filled moments and thinking, This is the governor of California. (7.5 / 10) 352. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (Mostow, 2003)----------This got quite a bit of negative reviews. I wouldn't say that it was especially bad, but rather on par with the first one. The best part was how they ended it. It got me excited for Terminator Salvation. (7 / 10) 353. A Home at the End of the World (Mayer, 2004)----------Although the subject matter may not be something many of us can relate to, the themes definitely are. The overall mood and and portrayals of friendship and love make this worth watching alone. (7 / 10) 354. Undertow (Green, 2004)----------When I first watched this, it was decent. Once I delved into some reviews and analysis' I watched it again and fell in love with it. The story follows two brothers who live with their dad out in the southern forests. Their mysterious uncle comes around and suddenly a game of cat-and-mouse begins. The tone of the film stays consistent and I think that that is it's strongest point along with great performances by Jamie Bell and Josh Lucas. (8 / 10) 355. Antik&ouml;rper / Antibodies (Alvart, 2005)----------Antibodies is a film that follows closely in the footsteps of The Silence of the Lambs. Our protagonist is a village cop and the antagonist is a serial killer whose finally been caught. The cinematography was good and the acting was average. The basic story-line is something that's been done plenty of times before but the sheer intensity that this takes it to puts Antibodies a little bit above the rest. (7.5 / 10) 356. Cidade de Deus / City of God (Meirelles, 2002)----------I've seen City of God countless times as it is my favorite film along with Once Upon a Time in America. It takes us through two decades in the lives of a handful of children / teenagers in the slums of Rio de Janerio. Most grow up to be hoods and murder and robbery isn't something uncommon in their lives. Our protagonist, Rocket, is an aspiring photographer and just so happens to be there as all of the violence breaks out. If you're okay with subtitles, be sure to check this one out. (10 / 10) 357. Harold &amp; Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (Hurwitz, 2008)----------The whole 'Escape' part only really lasts about five minutes. The rest of the film is basically slapstick comedy executed in an non-comedic way. (5 / 10) 358. Shotgun Stories (Nichols, 2007)----------I have been looking forward to seeing this one for quite some time. After falling in love with the trailer, I had to see it. There are two sets of step-brothers. Their father just died. One set knew him as a loving man and the other knew him as a violent, neglecting one. A feud erupts between them and their egos don't allow themselves to stop until irreversible damage has been caused. This movie had some of the most real characters I've ever seen portrayed and it was as if I were watching this unfold in real life. (8.5 / 10) 359. My Bodyguard (Bill, 1980)-----------I rented this based off of Roger Ebert's shining review but found it to be just average in comparison to other tough-time-in-high-school films. The main kid is a rich boy who starts going to a public school. The bullys don't like this and pick on him. After getting pushed around he gets the tough-guy bodyguard and they become friends, but not after finding out a few secrets about each other. (6 / 10) 360. Kicking and Screaming (Baumbach, 1995)----------Unlike the 2005 comedy, this one is actually good. But it's not about a children's soccer team, but rather a group of friend who have just graduated from college and don't know what to do next. This has some of the most subtly humorous dialogue I've ever experienced and I couldn't help but laugh virtually the entire way through. The plot really isn't there, there's no character development or twists. This movie basically stands up on the dialogue and it's characters. The friendship that exists reminds me slightly of that of the American Pie trilogy. Great movie. Worthy of its Criterion stamp. (8 / 10) 361. Schizopolis (Soderbergh, 1996)----------What did I just watch? (?? / 10) 362. Children of Men (Cuar&oacute;n, 2006)----------Featuring probably some of the best camera work and choreography in film in recent years, Children of Men was superb. To be able to shoot such busy scenes all in one shot takes a certain amount of skill. Watching the special features and commentary definitely gave me an idea of how much work went into this. Children of Men takes place about twenty years in the future where women are infertile and no one knows why. Immigrants are killed and the world is in chaos. An immigrant is found bearing a child and Theo (Clive Own) is in charge of getting her to safety. (8 / 10) 363. The Chumscrubber (Posin, 2005)----------Set in a 'Desperate Housewives' kind of neighborhood, shy-boy Dean, through a series of events, is in charge of getting drugs for the popular kids. With an all-star cast, The Chumscrubber is entertaining, dark, and comedic all at the same time. (7.5 / 10) http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/6/10/31080.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 6/10/2008 6:02:30 PM
Body: Yesterday, I posted about Jamie Stuart’s In Spring, a video which had the filmmaker visiting the offices of THINKFilm and turning an interview with Werner Herzog (ostensibly occasioned by the impending release of Encounters at the End of the World) into––I thought––a brilliant piece of satire on the current state of indie film distribution in general and, unavoidably, the rumored struggles of THINKFilm in particular. It was also, on a not entirely subtextual level, about the thorny relationship between journalists and their subjects. Stuart has been doing meta festival coverage for awhile, but In Spring felt like a giant leap forward in his critique of the press process. In my post, I wondered how he was getting away with it. “What does he tell publicists he’s going to do?” I wrote. “Will any of them ever let him do it again? By the end of the day yesterday, Stuart had removed the video from his website. He replaced it with a short video response, in which he explained that although THINK had no legal recourse against him, when they asked him to take the video down he complied based on the inference that somebody’s job was on the line. I was away from the computer for most of yesterday afternoon and was kept abreast of the ongoing status of In Spring via emails and IMs on my phone. It wasn’t until today that I noticed that around the same time that Stuart was being pressured to remove the video––and just about when a FILMMAKER Magazine blog post about Spring was being removed––another blog post popped up, defending THINK’s right to protect themselves from negative reporting. Or, “reporting.” A lengthy excerpt from Tom Roston’s piece at P.O.V. (which does not mention Stuart’s piece): A lot of the “reporting” on the issue has referenced unnamed sources, and there’s been a notable lack of comment from Bergstein or ThinkFilm. It appears that some of the “reporters” didn’t even seek comment from the subjects. And lest we forget, a lawsuit is just a legal claim, not a statement of fact. Not that I’m saying there’s no truth in the matter, but I’ve just been bothered by how the rumors have surfaced as news when, really, there have been very few hard news stories (there’s been one Variety piece) covering the situation. Roston goes on to slam the “blog-media-complex” and the “vile, insidious blog comments” it produces, so I assume that we can take “reporting” to generally mean “blog smearing,” and that Roston’s point is that if there was “real news” here, Variety would have covered the story more extensively. To nitpick: there have been at least three Variety pieces about THINK’s troubles published in the past month (May 12, May 29, June 1). Also, Roston calls out writers for failing to cite sources and seek quotes, without actually citing the guilty “reporters” (or, even, reporters) in his own piece. But I’m more interested in a quote that Roston obtains from THINKFilm’s exasperated president Mark Urman, of which this part is the eye-opener: I am stymied as to why so many film writers are much quicker to cover our problems than they are to cover our films. (And don’t get me started on the attendant and anonymous “comments” that bubble up from the depths and attach themselves permanently to the journalism, or is that germ-alism, like carbuncles!) If we take Variety’s May 12 story to be the beginning of this press frenzy, then THINK has, as far as I know, only released one film since this story broke. With 74% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, I think Stuart Gordon’s Stuck has attracted more positive attention from “germ-alists” than any B-movie about a hobo stuck in a drunk driver’s windshield could have reasonably hoped for. Calling journalists names and pressuring them to alter their coverage with the threat that you’ll fire the people who provide them access doesn’t seem to me like the obvious way to improve the tone and content of the coverage, nevermind encourage writers to focus on the films. But I do spend an awful lot of times down here in the depth with all you carbuncles, so what do I know… Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:02:30 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog6/10/2008 6:02:30 PM Yesterday, I posted about Jamie Stuart’s In Spring, a video which had the filmmaker visiting the offices of THINKFilm and turning an interview with Werner Herzog (ostensibly occasioned by the impending release of Encounters at the End of the World) into––I thought––a brilliant piece of satire on the current state of indie film distribution in general and, unavoidably, the rumored struggles of THINKFilm in particular. It was also, on a not entirely subtextual level, about the thorny relationship between journalists and their subjects. Stuart has been doing meta festival coverage for awhile, but In Spring felt like a giant leap forward in his critique of the press process. In my post, I wondered how he was getting away with it. “What does he tell publicists he’s going to do?” I wrote. “Will any of them ever let him do it again? By the end of the day yesterday, Stuart had removed the video from his website. He replaced it with a short video response, in which he explained that although THINK had no legal recourse against him, when they asked him to take the video down he complied based on the inference that somebody’s job was on the line. I was away from the computer for most of yesterday afternoon and was kept abreast of the ongoing status of In Spring via emails and IMs on my phone. It wasn’t until today that I noticed that around the same time that Stuart was being pressured to remove the video––and just about when a FILMMAKER Magazine blog post about Spring was being removed––another blog post popped up, defending THINK’s right to protect themselves from negative reporting. Or, “reporting.” A lengthy excerpt from Tom Roston’s piece at P.O.V. (which does not mention Stuart’s piece): A lot of the “reporting” on the issue has referenced unnamed sources, and there’s been a notable lack of comment from Bergstein or ThinkFilm. It appears that some of the “reporters” didn’t even seek comment from the subjects. And lest we forget, a lawsuit is just a legal claim, not a statement of fact. Not that I’m saying there’s no truth in the matter, but I’ve just been bothered by how the rumors have surfaced as news when, really, there have been very few hard news stories (there’s been one Variety piece) covering the situation. Roston goes on to slam the “blog-media-complex” and the “vile, insidious blog comments” it produces, so I assume that we can take “reporting” to generally mean “blog smearing,” and that Roston’s point is that if there was “real news” here, Variety would have covered the story more extensively. To nitpick: there have been at least three Variety pieces about THINK’s troubles published in the past month (May 12, May 29, June 1). Also, Roston calls out writers for failing to cite sources and seek quotes, without actually citing the guilty “reporters” (or, even, reporters) in his own piece. But I’m more interested in a quote that Roston obtains from THINKFilm’s exasperated president Mark Urman, of which this part is the eye-opener: I am stymied as to why so many film writers are much quicker to cover our problems than they are to cover our films. (And don’t get me started on the attendant and anonymous “comments” that bubble up from the depths and attach themselves permanently to the journalism, or is that germ-alism, like carbuncles!) If we take Variety’s May 12 story to be the beginning of this press frenzy, then THINK has, as far as I know, only released one film since this story broke. With 74% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, I think Stuart Gordon’s Stuck has attracted more positive attention from “germ-alists” than any B-movie about a hobo stuck in a drunk driver’s windshield could have reasonably hoped for. Calling journalists names and pressuring them to alter their coverage with the threat that you’ll fire the people who provide them access doesn’t seem to me like the obvious way to improve the tone and content of the coverage, nevermind encourage writers to focus on the films. But I do spend an awful lot of times down here in the depth with all you carbuncles, so what do I know… Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/10/31079.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/10/2008 6:01:10 PM
Body: Yesterday, I posted about Jamie Stuart’s In Spring, a video which had the filmmaker visiting the offices of THINKFilm and turning an interview with Werner Herzog (ostensibly occasioned by the impending release of Encounters at the End of the World) into––I thought––a brilliant piece of satire on the current state of indie film distribution in general and, unavoidably, the rumored struggles of THINKFilm in particular. It was also, on a not entirely subtextual level, about the thorny relationship between journalists and their subjects. Stuart has been doing meta festival coverage for awhile, but In Spring felt like a giant leap forward in his critique of the press process. In my post, I wondered how he was getting away with it. “What does he tell publicists he’s going to do?” I wrote. “Will any of them ever let him do it again? By the end of the day yesterday, Stuart had removed the video from his website. He replaced it with a short video response, in which he explained that although THINK had no legal recourse against him, when they asked him to take the video down he complied based on the inference that somebody’s job was on the line. I was away from the computer for most of yesterday afternoon and was kept abreast of the ongoing status of In Spring via emails and IMs on my phone. It wasn’t until today that I noticed that around the same time that Stuart was being pressured to remove the video––and just about when a FILMMAKER Magazine blog post about Spring was being removed––another blog post popped up, defending THINK’s right to protect themselves from negative reporting. Or, “reporting.” A lengthy excerpt from Tom Roston’s piece at P.O.V. (which does not mention Stuart’s piece): A lot of the “reporting” on the issue has referenced unnamed sources, and there’s been a notable lack of comment from Bergstein or ThinkFilm. It appears that some of the “reporters” didn’t even seek comment from the subjects. And lest we forget, a lawsuit is just a legal claim, not a statement of fact. Not that I’m saying there’s no truth in the matter, but I’ve just been bothered by how the rumors have surfaced as news when, really, there have been very few hard news stories (there’s been one Variety piece) covering the situation. Roston goes on to slam the “blog-media-complex” and the “vile, insidious blog comments” it produces, so I assume that we can take “reporting” to generally mean “blog smearing,” and that Roston’s point is that if there was “real news” here, Variety would have covered the story more extensively. To nitpick: there have been at least three Variety pieces about THINK’s troubles published in the past month (May 12, May 29, June 1). Also, Roston calls out writers for failing to cite sources and seek quotes, without actually citing the guilty “reporters” (or, even, reporters) in his own piece. But I’m more interested in a quote that Roston obtains from THINKFilm’s exasperated president Mark Urman, of which this part is the eye-opener: I am stymied as to why so many film writers are much quicker to cover our problems than they are to cover our films. (And don’t get me started on the attendant and anonymous “comments” that bubble up from the depths and attach themselves permanently to the journalism, or is that germ-alism, like carbuncles!) If we take Variety’s May 12 story to be the beginning of this press frenzy, then THINK has, as far as I know, only released one film since this story broke. With 74% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, I think Stuart Gordon’s Stuck has attracted more positive attention from “germ-alists” than any B-movie about a hobo stuck in a drunk driver’s windshield could have reasonably hoped for. Calling journalists names and pressuring them to alter their coverage with the threat that you’ll fire the people who provide them access doesn’t seem to me like the obvious way to improve the tone and content of the coverage, nevermind encourage writers to focus on the films. But I do spend an awful lot of times down here in the depth with all you carbuncles, so what do I know… Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:01:10 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/10/2008 6:01:10 PM Yesterday, I posted about Jamie Stuart’s In Spring, a video which had the filmmaker visiting the offices of THINKFilm and turning an interview with Werner Herzog (ostensibly occasioned by the impending release of Encounters at the End of the World) into––I thought––a brilliant piece of satire on the current state of indie film distribution in general and, unavoidably, the rumored struggles of THINKFilm in particular. It was also, on a not entirely subtextual level, about the thorny relationship between journalists and their subjects. Stuart has been doing meta festival coverage for awhile, but In Spring felt like a giant leap forward in his critique of the press process. In my post, I wondered how he was getting away with it. “What does he tell publicists he’s going to do?” I wrote. “Will any of them ever let him do it again? By the end of the day yesterday, Stuart had removed the video from his website. He replaced it with a short video response, in which he explained that although THINK had no legal recourse against him, when they asked him to take the video down he complied based on the inference that somebody’s job was on the line. I was away from the computer for most of yesterday afternoon and was kept abreast of the ongoing status of In Spring via emails and IMs on my phone. It wasn’t until today that I noticed that around the same time that Stuart was being pressured to remove the video––and just about when a FILMMAKER Magazine blog post about Spring was being removed––another blog post popped up, defending THINK’s right to protect themselves from negative reporting. Or, “reporting.” A lengthy excerpt from Tom Roston’s piece at P.O.V. (which does not mention Stuart’s piece): A lot of the “reporting” on the issue has referenced unnamed sources, and there’s been a notable lack of comment from Bergstein or ThinkFilm. It appears that some of the “reporters” didn’t even seek comment from the subjects. And lest we forget, a lawsuit is just a legal claim, not a statement of fact. Not that I’m saying there’s no truth in the matter, but I’ve just been bothered by how the rumors have surfaced as news when, really, there have been very few hard news stories (there’s been one Variety piece) covering the situation. Roston goes on to slam the “blog-media-complex” and the “vile, insidious blog comments” it produces, so I assume that we can take “reporting” to generally mean “blog smearing,” and that Roston’s point is that if there was “real news” here, Variety would have covered the story more extensively. To nitpick: there have been at least three Variety pieces about THINK’s troubles published in the past month (May 12, May 29, June 1). Also, Roston calls out writers for failing to cite sources and seek quotes, without actually citing the guilty “reporters” (or, even, reporters) in his own piece. But I’m more interested in a quote that Roston obtains from THINKFilm’s exasperated president Mark Urman, of which this part is the eye-opener: I am stymied as to why so many film writers are much quicker to cover our problems than they are to cover our films. (And don’t get me started on the attendant and anonymous “comments” that bubble up from the depths and attach themselves permanently to the journalism, or is that germ-alism, like carbuncles!) If we take Variety’s May 12 story to be the beginning of this press frenzy, then THINK has, as far as I know, only released one film since this story broke. With 74% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, I think Stuart Gordon’s Stuck has attracted more positive attention from “germ-alists” than any B-movie about a hobo stuck in a drunk driver’s windshield could have reasonably hoped for. Calling journalists names and pressuring them to alter their coverage with the threat that you’ll fire the people who provide them access doesn’t seem to me like the obvious way to improve the tone and content of the coverage, nevermind encourage writers to focus on the films. But I do spend an awful lot of times down here in the depth with all you carbuncles, so what do I know… Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hospital/MemberTagFilms.aspxhospital
Number of films tagged: 614

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 65

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:25:05 GMT6142665Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/homeless/MemberTagFilms.aspxhomeless
Number of films tagged: 330

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 31

]]>Sat, 12 Sep 2009 00:39:36 GMT3301731Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/doctornurse/MemberTagFilms.aspxdoctornurse
Number of films tagged: 1446

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 9

]]>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:01:21 GMT144659Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/garage/MemberTagFilms.aspxgarage
Number of films tagged: 63

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 5

]]>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:02:39 GMT6345Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hitandrun/MemberTagFilms.aspxhitandrun
Number of films tagged: 101

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Tue, 19 May 2009 13:05:22 GMT10122Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dilemma/MemberTagFilms.aspxdilemma
Number of films tagged: 125

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:01:47 GMT12500Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hospice/MemberTagFilms.aspxhospice
Number of films tagged: 11

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:05:40 GMT1100Tag