list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Taxi to the Dark Side 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/Taxi_to_the_Dark_Side/325400/default.aspx Title: Taxi to the Dark Side
Year: 2008
Director: Alex Gibney
Plot: From the producer of Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room and Who Killed the Electric Car? comes a documentary that takes a critical look at the Bush administration's policy on torture by investigating the death of an Afghan taxi driver who, after being taken into the custody of American soldiers at Bagram Air Force base, suffered fatal injuries at the hands of U.S. soldiers. In 2002, American soldiers accused an Afghan taxi driver of taking part in a deadly rocket attack. Five days after being handed over to the US military for questioning, the man was found dead - the victim of a brutal bout of torture and abuse according to the medical examiner who inspected his body. According to the examiner, the taxi driver's hands had been bound to the ceiling, forcing him to stand for hours on end as his assailants repeatedly - and relentlessly - kicked him. Compelled to finally unearth the truth about the mysterious fate of the deceased taxi driver, filmmaker Alex Gibney takes viewers on an illuminating journey from a tiny Afghani village to Guantanamo Bay, to Abu Ghriab, and ultimately the White House to explore why the man who turned up in the morgue wasn't the only victim to fall prey to the Bush administration's controversial foreign policy. By examining the sad fate of the wrongly accused, the toll that the War on Terror has taken on an exhausted United States military, and Justice Department Official John Yoo's internal memo concerning interrogation techniques, the filmmakers behind Taxi to the Dark Side encourage viewers to weigh out the issues for themselves, and never accept what's told to them on face value. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 22
Number of Lists: 11
Number of blog posts: 21
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:15:09 GMTTaxi to the Dark Side2008Alex GibneyFrom the producer of Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room and Who Killed the Electric Car? comes a documentary that takes a critical look at the Bush administration's policy on torture by investigating the death of an Afghan taxi driver who, after being taken into the custody of American soldiers at Bagram Air Force base, suffered fatal injuries at the hands of U.S. soldiers. In 2002, American soldiers accused an Afghan taxi driver of taking part in a deadly rocket attack. Five days after being handed over to the US military for questioning, the man was found dead - the victim of a brutal bout of torture and abuse according to the medical examiner who inspected his body. According to the examiner, the taxi driver's hands had been bound to the ceiling, forcing him to stand for hours on end as his assailants repeatedly - and relentlessly - kicked him. Compelled to finally unearth the truth about the mysterious fate of the deceased taxi driver, filmmaker Alex Gibney takes viewers on an illuminating journey from a tiny Afghani village to Guantanamo Bay, to Abu Ghriab, and ultimately the White House to explore why the man who turned up in the morgue wasn't the only victim to fall prey to the Bush administration's controversial foreign policy. By examining the sad fate of the wrongly accused, the toll that the War on Terror has taken on an exhausted United States military, and Justice Department Official John Yoo's internal memo concerning interrogation techniques, the filmmakers behind Taxi to the Dark Side encourage viewers to weigh out the issues for themselves, and never accept what's told to them on face value. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide22Tag Target (>10)11214http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s325400.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Taxi_to_the_Dark_Side/325400/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2009/1/8/39253.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 1/8/2009 1:02:16 PM
Body: Cory Doctorow at BoingBoing is calling it “a masterful takedown” of “the right-wing myth that Hollywood keeps making anti-war movies that flop, proving how out of touch the Liberal Elite are with the will of the peeepul.” This post from Leverage creator John Rogers may be that, but it also points to something I’ve brought up many times before: the whole “Liberal Hollywood will spend untold sums of money to make sure we lose the war in Iraq and turn your children into godless eco-communists!” hysteria only floats when buoyed by willful ignorance of the stratification of the film industry. Different kinds of films are made, distributed and marketed in different kinds of ways, thus lending their ultimate market performance different kinds of expectations. I know when infidel propaganda like Taxi to the Dark Side doesn’t quite do the same business as good ol’ entertainment like Hannah Montana Topless With the Jonas Brothers in 3D, it’s tempting to say that America hates Alex Gibney. Except that America doesn’t know who Alex Gibney is. Rogers, who wrote the post in response to a conversation at Big Hollywood, the new Breitbart offshoot edited by John “Dirty Harry” Nolte, first uses budget vs box office breakdowns to demonstrate that films like In The Valley of Elah and Lions For Lambs, oft cited as proof that Americans aren’t buying what Liberal Hollywood is selling, actually made a profit. He then argues that many of the anti-war films that *didn’t* turn a profit are hardly either proof of a Hollywood conspiracy against the will of the people, or evidence that all of America has voted with their wallets against this kind of cinema, because they were neither produced by Hollywood nor released wide enough for most Americans to even get a vote. To excerpt liberally from Rogers on Redacted: FIFTEEN THEATERS for Redacted, for chrissake. Here’s a quick clue — when Hollywood wants to sell something, we make it as widely available as possible for purchase. Crazy, I know. What sort of marketing mumbo-jumbo is this? …an experimental film by DePalma costing, last I heard, about $5 million, this one pops up all the time in angry screeds, but … we’re really down in the weeds here. Fifteen theaters. Grace is Gone, released in 7 theaters? No End in Sight released in 2 theaters (made a nice bit of coin in DVD)? I’m going to assume Nolte isn’t arguing that because no one went to see a movie playing in two theaters in the entire country this is somehow proof nobody wants to see those kinds of movies. It’s like arguing that because all of America doesn’t eat at Mama Luigi’s in Brockton, Mass., America hates Italian food. He isn’t that stupid. “Stupid” isn’t the right word. Most arguments that “prove” American theatergoers have no interest in the propaganda that evil “Liberal Hollywood” is trying to shove down our throats purposefully ignore the fact that most movies with any sort of real, balls-out political agenda are either produced independently of the Hollywood studio system, and/or are made for so little money that they can break even fairly easily. And this goes for liberal or conservative films — as Rogers points out, we could talk about Stop-Loss and An American Carol in the same breath as evidence that overtly political films on either side are a simple waste of resources … if we were “the sort of fuckwit who tries to derive patterns off two lousy data points.” Rogers accuses Nolte and Big Hollywood of displaying a “childrens understanding of how Hollywood runs.” I say they actually do know better, they must understand basic concepts like relative gross well enough, but deliberately pretend they don’t in order make sure their rhetoric floats. Whatever gets you through the blog, right? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:02:16 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog1/8/2009 1:02:16 PMCory Doctorow at BoingBoing is calling it “a masterful takedown” of “the right-wing myth that Hollywood keeps making anti-war movies that flop, proving how out of touch the Liberal Elite are with the will of the peeepul.” This post from Leverage creator John Rogers may be that, but it also points to something I’ve brought up many times before: the whole “Liberal Hollywood will spend untold sums of money to make sure we lose the war in Iraq and turn your children into godless eco-communists!” hysteria only floats when buoyed by willful ignorance of the stratification of the film industry. Different kinds of films are made, distributed and marketed in different kinds of ways, thus lending their ultimate market performance different kinds of expectations. I know when infidel propaganda like Taxi to the Dark Side doesn’t quite do the same business as good ol’ entertainment like Hannah Montana Topless With the Jonas Brothers in 3D, it’s tempting to say that America hates Alex Gibney. Except that America doesn’t know who Alex Gibney is. Rogers, who wrote the post in response to a conversation at Big Hollywood, the new Breitbart offshoot edited by John “Dirty Harry” Nolte, first uses budget vs box office breakdowns to demonstrate that films like In The Valley of Elah and Lions For Lambs, oft cited as proof that Americans aren’t buying what Liberal Hollywood is selling, actually made a profit. He then argues that many of the anti-war films that *didn’t* turn a profit are hardly either proof of a Hollywood conspiracy against the will of the people, or evidence that all of America has voted with their wallets against this kind of cinema, because they were neither produced by Hollywood nor released wide enough for most Americans to even get a vote. To excerpt liberally from Rogers on Redacted: FIFTEEN THEATERS for Redacted, for chrissake. Here’s a quick clue — when Hollywood wants to sell something, we make it as widely available as possible for purchase. Crazy, I know. What sort of marketing mumbo-jumbo is this? …an experimental film by DePalma costing, last I heard, about $5 million, this one pops up all the time in angry screeds, but … we’re really down in the weeds here. Fifteen theaters. Grace is Gone, released in 7 theaters? No End in Sight released in 2 theaters (made a nice bit of coin in DVD)? I’m going to assume Nolte isn’t arguing that because no one went to see a movie playing in two theaters in the entire country this is somehow proof nobody wants to see those kinds of movies. It’s like arguing that because all of America doesn’t eat at Mama Luigi’s in Brockton, Mass., America hates Italian food. He isn’t that stupid. “Stupid” isn’t the right word. Most arguments that “prove” American theatergoers have no interest in the propaganda that evil “Liberal Hollywood” is trying to shove down our throats purposefully ignore the fact that most movies with any sort of real, balls-out political agenda are either produced independently of the Hollywood studio system, and/or are made for so little money that they can break even fairly easily. And this goes for liberal or conservative films — as Rogers points out, we could talk about Stop-Loss and An American Carol in the same breath as evidence that overtly political films on either side are a simple waste of resources … if we were “the sort of fuckwit who tries to derive patterns off two lousy data points.” Rogers accuses Nolte and Big Hollywood of displaying a “childrens understanding of how Hollywood runs.” I say they actually do know better, they must understand basic concepts like relative gross well enough, but deliberately pretend they don’t in order make sure their rhetoric floats. Whatever gets you through the blog, right? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/8/39252.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/8/2009 1:01:57 PM
Body: Cory Doctorow at BoingBoing is calling it “a masterful takedown” of “the right-wing myth that Hollywood keeps making anti-war movies that flop, proving how out of touch the Liberal Elite are with the will of the peeepul.” This post from Leverage creator John Rogers may be that, but it also points to something I’ve brought up many times before: the whole “Liberal Hollywood will spend untold sums of money to make sure we lose the war in Iraq and turn your children into godless eco-communists!” hysteria only floats when buoyed by willful ignorance of the stratification of the film industry. Different kinds of films are made, distributed and marketed in different kinds of ways, thus lending their ultimate market performance different kinds of expectations. I know when infidel propaganda like Taxi to the Dark Side doesn’t quite do the same business as good ol’ entertainment like Hannah Montana Topless With the Jonas Brothers in 3D, it’s tempting to say that America hates Alex Gibney. Except that America doesn’t know who Alex Gibney is. Rogers, who wrote the post in response to a conversation at Big Hollywood, the new Breitbart offshoot edited by John “Dirty Harry” Nolte, first uses budget vs box office breakdowns to demonstrate that films like In The Valley of Elah and Lions For Lambs, oft cited as proof that Americans aren’t buying what Liberal Hollywood is selling, actually made a profit. He then argues that many of the anti-war films that *didn’t* turn a profit are hardly either proof of a Hollywood conspiracy against the will of the people, or evidence that all of America has voted with their wallets against this kind of cinema, because they were neither produced by Hollywood nor released wide enough for most Americans to even get a vote. To excerpt liberally from Rogers on Redacted: FIFTEEN THEATERS for Redacted, for chrissake. Here’s a quick clue — when Hollywood wants to sell something, we make it as widely available as possible for purchase. Crazy, I know. What sort of marketing mumbo-jumbo is this? …an experimental film by DePalma costing, last I heard, about $5 million, this one pops up all the time in angry screeds, but … we’re really down in the weeds here. Fifteen theaters. Grace is Gone, released in 7 theaters? No End in Sight released in 2 theaters (made a nice bit of coin in DVD)? I’m going to assume Nolte isn’t arguing that because no one went to see a movie playing in two theaters in the entire country this is somehow proof nobody wants to see those kinds of movies. It’s like arguing that because all of America doesn’t eat at Mama Luigi’s in Brockton, Mass., America hates Italian food. He isn’t that stupid. “Stupid” isn’t the right word. Most arguments that “prove” American theatergoers have no interest in the propaganda that evil “Liberal Hollywood” is trying to shove down our throats purposefully ignore the fact that most movies with any sort of real, balls-out political agenda are either produced independently of the Hollywood studio system, and/or are made for so little money that they can break even fairly easily. And this goes for liberal or conservative films — as Rogers points out, we could talk about Stop-Loss and An American Carol in the same breath as evidence that overtly political films on either side are a simple waste of resources … if we were “the sort of fuckwit who tries to derive patterns off two lousy data points.” Rogers accuses Nolte and Big Hollywood of displaying a “childrens understanding of how Hollywood runs.” I say they actually do know better, they must understand basic concepts like relative gross well enough, but deliberately pretend they don’t in order make sure their rhetoric floats. Whatever gets you through the blog, right? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:01:57 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/8/2009 1:01:57 PMCory Doctorow at BoingBoing is calling it “a masterful takedown” of “the right-wing myth that Hollywood keeps making anti-war movies that flop, proving how out of touch the Liberal Elite are with the will of the peeepul.” This post from Leverage creator John Rogers may be that, but it also points to something I’ve brought up many times before: the whole “Liberal Hollywood will spend untold sums of money to make sure we lose the war in Iraq and turn your children into godless eco-communists!” hysteria only floats when buoyed by willful ignorance of the stratification of the film industry. Different kinds of films are made, distributed and marketed in different kinds of ways, thus lending their ultimate market performance different kinds of expectations. I know when infidel propaganda like Taxi to the Dark Side doesn’t quite do the same business as good ol’ entertainment like Hannah Montana Topless With the Jonas Brothers in 3D, it’s tempting to say that America hates Alex Gibney. Except that America doesn’t know who Alex Gibney is. Rogers, who wrote the post in response to a conversation at Big Hollywood, the new Breitbart offshoot edited by John “Dirty Harry” Nolte, first uses budget vs box office breakdowns to demonstrate that films like In The Valley of Elah and Lions For Lambs, oft cited as proof that Americans aren’t buying what Liberal Hollywood is selling, actually made a profit. He then argues that many of the anti-war films that *didn’t* turn a profit are hardly either proof of a Hollywood conspiracy against the will of the people, or evidence that all of America has voted with their wallets against this kind of cinema, because they were neither produced by Hollywood nor released wide enough for most Americans to even get a vote. To excerpt liberally from Rogers on Redacted: FIFTEEN THEATERS for Redacted, for chrissake. Here’s a quick clue — when Hollywood wants to sell something, we make it as widely available as possible for purchase. Crazy, I know. What sort of marketing mumbo-jumbo is this? …an experimental film by DePalma costing, last I heard, about $5 million, this one pops up all the time in angry screeds, but … we’re really down in the weeds here. Fifteen theaters. Grace is Gone, released in 7 theaters? No End in Sight released in 2 theaters (made a nice bit of coin in DVD)? I’m going to assume Nolte isn’t arguing that because no one went to see a movie playing in two theaters in the entire country this is somehow proof nobody wants to see those kinds of movies. It’s like arguing that because all of America doesn’t eat at Mama Luigi’s in Brockton, Mass., America hates Italian food. He isn’t that stupid. “Stupid” isn’t the right word. Most arguments that “prove” American theatergoers have no interest in the propaganda that evil “Liberal Hollywood” is trying to shove down our throats purposefully ignore the fact that most movies with any sort of real, balls-out political agenda are either produced independently of the Hollywood studio system, and/or are made for so little money that they can break even fairly easily. And this goes for liberal or conservative films — as Rogers points out, we could talk about Stop-Loss and An American Carol in the same breath as evidence that overtly political films on either side are a simple waste of resources … if we were “the sort of fuckwit who tries to derive patterns off two lousy data points.” Rogers accuses Nolte and Big Hollywood of displaying a “childrens understanding of how Hollywood runs.” I say they actually do know better, they must understand basic concepts like relative gross well enough, but deliberately pretend they don’t in order make sure their rhetoric floats. Whatever gets you through the blog, right? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/24/37595.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/24/2008 7:01:27 PM
Body: When the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announces a shortlist for one of its Oscar categories, many critics immediately focus on what titles are missing. Religulous was snubbed! Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired was punished for having a “secret” qualifying run! The Academy’s rules for eligibility must be amended! Such reactions were seen all over the web last week as awards season pundits looked at the narrowed-down list of 15 Feature Documentary hopefuls and criticized the Academy for its omissions. But the better response (which is the one SpoutBlog had) is to primarily address and celebrate the included films, not just for being contenders for the Feature Documentary Oscar but also for being showcased in general. The wonderful thing about shortlists is that they expand further the idea that it’s great just to be nominated. For feature documentaries, particularly those without a lot of media and major distributor attention, it is also great just to be shortlisted. Non-fiction film fans may now see this as an opportunity to take note of some documentaries that weren’t previously on their radar (unfortunately none of these films are actually allowed to advertise their recent achievement of being shortlisted). But the Academy Awards are, of course, still a competition. So, while we take notice of the 15 semi-finalists for the Feature Documentary Oscar, we shall also weigh their chances of being selected for the final five and predict which titles are likely to be announced as nominees on January 22. 1. Blessed Is the Match: The Life and Death of Hannah Senesh It’s a constant joke that any film related to the Holocaust is guaranteed an Oscar nomination. Obviously this is a generalization based on common trend, and not every Holocaust doc has in fact been recognized by the Academy, but if such a film is good enough to reach the shortlist, there is a very good chance that it will also be nominated. And since there hasn’t been a feature doc on the subject nominated since 2002, it’s probably time for a new one to get the spotlight. Blessed is narrated by Oscar-nominee Joan Allen and details the courageous life of Hannah Senesh, who took part in a mission to rescue Hungary’s Jews. If Hollywood doesn’t nominate this doc, it will probably at least use it as a springboard from which to produce an Oscar-bait dramatization about Senesh in the near future. 2. Trouble the Water Never mind the fact that it’s one of the best-reviewed films of the year, this is the Academy’s first chance to get behind the Katrina issue. Though some mistakenly see the Feature Documentary Oscar as primarily a category with which to showcase its favored causes rather than recognizing the actual best documentary filmmaking of the year, there is a miniscule amount of truth in the matter. It’s part of the reason that the Holocaust-doc joke is so often made, and it’s also why the films Born Into Brothels and An Inconvenient Truth were named winners, despite their being subject-over-style kinds of documentaries. Trouble the Water is a tad bit sloppy, but it has the subject matter and enough inspirational substance to receive a nomination. 3. Encounters at the End of the World This may be the Academy’s chance to make up for their exclusion of Werner Herzog’s Grizzly Man a few years back or simply honor a filmmaker who has been important to the non-fiction genre for decades. Also, with their snub of Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the Academy Documentary Branch could use this as more opportunity to distinguish and make an example out of the difference between a theatrical documentary and a television documentary (as David Poland recently pointed out, “if you are a TV doc, be a TV doc…if you are a theatrical doc, that is what the Oscars reward”). People who went to see Encounters recommended it on the basis that it needs to be seen on a big screen, which is not often said about documentaries. Other things it has going for it are a shared location with Oscar-winner March of the Penguins (even if Herzog starts the film addressing that this is not like that film) and a slight relevance to the global warming issue, which is one of the Academy’s currently favored issues. 4. Standard Operating Procedure The Academy Documentary Branch does seem to favor former nominees in their category, perhaps due to the number of documentarians who turn to fiction filmmaking after breaking out in non-fiction (maybe that explains their snub of Barbara Kopple recently after her attempt into fiction). So Morris, who was infamously rejected by the Academy with his monumental film The Thin Blue Line, and who later won the Oscar for The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons Learned from the Life of Robert S. McNamara, should be given another go. It also helps that Standard Operating Procedure is the sole Iraq War-relevant documentary in the bunch, an interesting fact given how many films dealing with this topic have been shortlisted in the past few years. Even though last year the Oscar was given to a similarly themed doc about torture and prisoner abuse, the issue is likely still one that the Academy feels strongly about. Of course, speaking of that film, Taxi to the Dark Side, its director’s latest film was not shortlisted. 5. Man on Wire This is the highest grossing (and best-reviewed) of the 15 shortlisted films, and that could mean a lot, even if it is only the fifth top grossing doc of the year. The Academy is hardly a sucker for popular documentaries, but most years since Michael Moore was honored in 2002 have seen at least one popular doc, such as Super Size Me, March of the Penguins and Moore’s Sicko. In fact, only four of the ten top grossing (non-IMAX, non-concert, non-compilation, non-reality TV-based) documentaries have not been nominated for an Oscar. The only drawback for Man on Wire could be that it features a very large percentage of re-enactment or dramatization, and even if the Academy’s rules have a greater permission for these kinds of documentaries than in the days of The Thin Blue Line’s snub, it’s very possible that members of the Academy Documentary Branch are more appreciable towards one of the films that aren’t so heavily dependent on re-enactments. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:01:27 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/24/2008 7:01:27 PMWhen the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announces a shortlist for one of its Oscar categories, many critics immediately focus on what titles are missing. Religulous was snubbed! Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired was punished for having a “secret” qualifying run! The Academy’s rules for eligibility must be amended! Such reactions were seen all over the web last week as awards season pundits looked at the narrowed-down list of 15 Feature Documentary hopefuls and criticized the Academy for its omissions. But the better response (which is the one SpoutBlog had) is to primarily address and celebrate the included films, not just for being contenders for the Feature Documentary Oscar but also for being showcased in general. The wonderful thing about shortlists is that they expand further the idea that it’s great just to be nominated. For feature documentaries, particularly those without a lot of media and major distributor attention, it is also great just to be shortlisted. Non-fiction film fans may now see this as an opportunity to take note of some documentaries that weren’t previously on their radar (unfortunately none of these films are actually allowed to advertise their recent achievement of being shortlisted). But the Academy Awards are, of course, still a competition. So, while we take notice of the 15 semi-finalists for the Feature Documentary Oscar, we shall also weigh their chances of being selected for the final five and predict which titles are likely to be announced as nominees on January 22. 1. Blessed Is the Match: The Life and Death of Hannah Senesh It’s a constant joke that any film related to the Holocaust is guaranteed an Oscar nomination. Obviously this is a generalization based on common trend, and not every Holocaust doc has in fact been recognized by the Academy, but if such a film is good enough to reach the shortlist, there is a very good chance that it will also be nominated. And since there hasn’t been a feature doc on the subject nominated since 2002, it’s probably time for a new one to get the spotlight. Blessed is narrated by Oscar-nominee Joan Allen and details the courageous life of Hannah Senesh, who took part in a mission to rescue Hungary’s Jews. If Hollywood doesn’t nominate this doc, it will probably at least use it as a springboard from which to produce an Oscar-bait dramatization about Senesh in the near future. 2. Trouble the Water Never mind the fact that it’s one of the best-reviewed films of the year, this is the Academy’s first chance to get behind the Katrina issue. Though some mistakenly see the Feature Documentary Oscar as primarily a category with which to showcase its favored causes rather than recognizing the actual best documentary filmmaking of the year, there is a miniscule amount of truth in the matter. It’s part of the reason that the Holocaust-doc joke is so often made, and it’s also why the films Born Into Brothels and An Inconvenient Truth were named winners, despite their being subject-over-style kinds of documentaries. Trouble the Water is a tad bit sloppy, but it has the subject matter and enough inspirational substance to receive a nomination. 3. Encounters at the End of the World This may be the Academy’s chance to make up for their exclusion of Werner Herzog’s Grizzly Man a few years back or simply honor a filmmaker who has been important to the non-fiction genre for decades. Also, with their snub of Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the Academy Documentary Branch could use this as more opportunity to distinguish and make an example out of the difference between a theatrical documentary and a television documentary (as David Poland recently pointed out, “if you are a TV doc, be a TV doc…if you are a theatrical doc, that is what the Oscars reward”). People who went to see Encounters recommended it on the basis that it needs to be seen on a big screen, which is not often said about documentaries. Other things it has going for it are a shared location with Oscar-winner March of the Penguins (even if Herzog starts the film addressing that this is not like that film) and a slight relevance to the global warming issue, which is one of the Academy’s currently favored issues. 4. Standard Operating Procedure The Academy Documentary Branch does seem to favor former nominees in their category, perhaps due to the number of documentarians who turn to fiction filmmaking after breaking out in non-fiction (maybe that explains their snub of Barbara Kopple recently after her attempt into fiction). So Morris, who was infamously rejected by the Academy with his monumental film The Thin Blue Line, and who later won the Oscar for The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons Learned from the Life of Robert S. McNamara, should be given another go. It also helps that Standard Operating Procedure is the sole Iraq War-relevant documentary in the bunch, an interesting fact given how many films dealing with this topic have been shortlisted in the past few years. Even though last year the Oscar was given to a similarly themed doc about torture and prisoner abuse, the issue is likely still one that the Academy feels strongly about. Of course, speaking of that film, Taxi to the Dark Side, its director’s latest film was not shortlisted. 5. Man on Wire This is the highest grossing (and best-reviewed) of the 15 shortlisted films, and that could mean a lot, even if it is only the fifth top grossing doc of the year. The Academy is hardly a sucker for popular documentaries, but most years since Michael Moore was honored in 2002 have seen at least one popular doc, such as Super Size Me, March of the Penguins and Moore’s Sicko. In fact, only four of the ten top grossing (non-IMAX, non-concert, non-compilation, non-reality TV-based) documentaries have not been nominated for an Oscar. The only drawback for Man on Wire could be that it features a very large percentage of re-enactment or dramatization, and even if the Academy’s rules have a greater permission for these kinds of documentaries than in the days of The Thin Blue Line’s snub, it’s very possible that members of the Academy Documentary Branch are more appreciable towards one of the films that aren’t so heavily dependent on re-enactments. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/3/32056.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/3/2008 11:00:39 AM
Body: My version of The Godfather would open with a voice in the darkness saying, “I don’t believe in America. The American Dream is a once-beguiling fairy tale; show’s over, y’all.” But The Dream is still real to many people, and the violence that powerful private interests have done to it in the last century pains them like a kidney punch. Gonzo journalism pioneer Hunter S. Thompson was one of the wounded, and so is Alex Gibney (Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, Taxi to the Darkside), the far more straight-laced director of the entertaining documentary Gonzo: The Life and Work of Hunter S. Thompson. They share a proprietary sense of outrage over abuses of power they’ve witnessed in their times. For them, America’s Nixons, Enrons and Bush-Cheneys have desecrated the church, the front lawn. For all their passionate trouble-making, there’s no denying that Gibney and the late Thompson, two white males who came up through America’s hallowed institutions (Thompson through the U.S. Air Force; Gibney through Yale), are insiders. When I went to interview Gibney about Gonzo, I remembered the film’s procession of leathery right-wingers and elites, former Thompson nemeses, who have warm, friendly things to say about “Dr. Gonzo” now that he’s dead, now that his caricature as a gun-toting drughead has endured beyond his politics. I wondered if, in the end, being inside got the hole dug any better than chucking rocks from outside. STEVEN BOONE: On the way over here I was reading the introduction to John Steinbeck’s The Pearl, and the person mentioned that, with the publishing of The Grapes of Wrath, Steinbeck had his greatest fame, his greatest success. With that, you’d think he would have found some comfort, but he was actually a bit in despair that he was being embraced by the very elite forces he was critiquing. Of course, you have Hunter Thompson with his downward spiral… For you, with this recent run of success, is there any kind of… ALEX GIBNEY: Despair? (laughs) SB: (laughs) Well, regret…? Second thoughts? “Where do I go from here?” AG: I have to be honest with you. I haven’t experienced that. I haven’t reached that kind of– I mean, first of all, okay, I won the Oscar. I feel great, believe me. Walking around with that statue, you feel like Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings. But I feel like there’s so many other interesting things to do. One of the salvations is to keep having a next project to do and you focus on that, even as you’re looking back. So you don’t spend all day looking your name up on Google. SB: Well, I do, but– AG: (laughs) But not all day, maybe 12 or 13 hours. SB: (laughs) Right. But I look at your body of work and I see a certain political conviction behind it. AG: Right. SB: It’s critical, but it is from the perspective of an insider, sort of like your colleague Charles Ferguson with No End in Sight. You came up through Yale, you came up through UCLA, you have your Oscars and your Emmys. You have your… sanction from certain institutions. Does it complicate matters for you going forward? AG: I understand what you’re getting at and I think it does, to some extent. The danger part always comes with celebrity, you know? You end up going out on the circuit, to some extent and then you get comfortable hanging around with other celebrities and then suddenly– it’s like being an insider journalist in Washington. Hunter talked about that in the campaign trail book [Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72]. He said, “I’m just gonna blow in here and blow out. I don’t have to worry about being here four, five, six years from now, trying to play a game, make sure that this person’s comfortable, that person’s comfortable.” It’s a little bit easier when you go in and out. But I do think, you know, I’ve had great opportunities. I’ve had a private school education, I went to a good university, I went to a good film school and I know a lot of powerful people. It turns out that that is a good advantage for me because I tend to do films about the perps rather than the victims. When you try to get inside and see what’s going on with the people who are committing these grand crimes, it helps to have access to those connections, sometimes because otherwise you don’t get in the door. But the question is, at some point, do you become one of those people? (laughs) SB: That’s the question. AG: That’s the question. Well, you’ll see. You’ll be my judge, and you’ll let me know. (laughs) SB: But do you ever feel that inner conflict, with maybe posing a certain question or, I don’t know, just bringing a bad vibe into the room…? Have you ever felt yourself back away because, “Hey, this is a nice guy, a decent person.” Sort of like when Hunter Thompson was in the car with Nixon, said he was a pleasant guy to talk football with. AG: Right. Well, you you always have to kind of separate. One of the big things I’ve learned is… My sister in law once said it: “Everybody’s nice.” And you sit with people in a room and sometimes they’re total assholes and you say, “Well, fuck them,” right? But sometimes they’re very nice and solicitous and charming and it is true: When you get close, your tendency is not to–almost kind of a Stockholm Syndrome takes over. But you realize that there are a lot of nice people out there who do horrible things. SB: How do you contrast yourself with other filmmakers at your level of success dealing with similar subjects– let’s say Michael Moore or Nick– AG: Everybody’s got their own style. Everybody always asks me about Michael. I always say that Michael does his own thing. There’s no illusion when you go see a Michael Moore film. You know it’s a Michael Moore film and you’re getting what you get. The only people that piss me off are the one that try to hide stuff, pretend to be doing one thing and doing something else. SB: Like who? AG: Well, um… Trying to think now… There was, a number of years ago, somebody doing a film about the civil rights movement and they actually faked some archival footage of the movement. They did a re-creation but they intercut it freely with actual footage from the events. SB: Whaa? Fox News? AG: No, no. It was on HBO. And there was a big hue and cry over it because it wasn’t like a re-creation where you know the filmmakers shot this with actors. That I have a real problem with. SB: Well, I was a little uncertain at some points in Gonzo. Actually, I’m pretty sure that when we were listening to audio tape of Thompson and his attorney on the road to Vegas that what I was seeing was a re-enactment. AG: Right. SB: But it was pretty slick. AB: It was. Two things I’ll say about that. First of all, we’re trying to do some fun stuff like Hunter did, like claiming Muskey’s high on this drug called Ebogaine. This kind of tall tale telling. But at the beginning of the film, you see this photograph of Hunter with a gun pointed at a typewriter. Zoom into his hand, where it hard-cuts to a real hand firing the gun. I think its a clue to the audience, you know, “Buyer beware, there’s gonna be some wild stuff.” We’re going to be playing around. Even with that [road trip] sequence, which I love… We shot it with actors who look a lot like Hunter and Oscar. We had the audio tape and we’d go out and shoot Super 8, kind of a home movie. But the deeper into that home movie you get, suddenly you start to see the action from three or four different angles, and you gota be thinking, “This is not a home movie.” SB: Sort of mirroring Hunter’s techniques, sliding in and out of reality. AG: That’s right. SB: Drawing out the people who are really reading closely. AG: Right. There’s a moment where it’s ambiguous. That’s okay, as long as you resolve that moment at the end. SB: It kind of reminds me of a documentary I saw a few years back, How to Draw a Bunny, about the artist Ray Johnson. AG: Oh, I heard about that one. Was that a good film? SB: It’s a good film, and in style it’s playful and kind of a series of stunts in the way that Johnson’s work was. [A moment of giddy Netflix chitchat ensues, and then:] SB: What would Hunter Thompson have to say about these times we’re living in now, or can you speak for him? AG: I don’t know if I can, but he got very depressed when Bush won in ‘04 and not long after that he committed suicide. I think it’s too much to say that that’s what drove him to suicide. There are lots of other factors that are not so pretty. But I think he would say that we’re seeing the triumph of fear and loathing over that other part of the American character, this sense of idealism. Bush represented to him that aspect of the United States that goes back to its inception. At the same time, he was a big Bobby Kennedy fan and big McGovern fan. I think he’d be an Obama guy now. He would say, “Here’s somebody who understands the need for a prime actor in the theater of American politics. A “together Hunter”–as his wife says– not the drug-addled drunk. The other Hunter would have something to say about it. SB: Would you be with him on that Obama support? AG: I am. I like Obama and I think he does speak to a better possibility. My only concern is, will he end up being… Will he make too many compromises once he’s in power? But you know he’s been through the rough and tumble of Illinois politics, so I’m sure he knows better than I how to navigate that stuff. He stirs peple’s idealism in a way that few people have done in the last 30 years. SB: That’s what ties you to Hunter in my eyes. I view it with a little bit of awe, this kind of idealism underneath it all. Far from cynicism, it’s an idealism that’s been abused– a real sense of connection to America as a concept, American values. AG: At least that possibility. Not always the reality, but at least the dream. He was always obsessed with the American Dream. I share with Hunter the love of that novel The Great Gatsby. The green light at the end of the dock. It’s destructive because there’s the illusion of mobility and possibility that can be very damaging. That’s why [Thompson] set the death of the American Dream in a casino, where it seems like you can roll the dice and win the big one and then you’re the rich man who gets the penthouse, when in fact you’re always playing against the house and the house always wins. At the same time, that green light at the end of the dock is also a sense of real possibility. There are moments when America makes good on that myth. You can get angry when people abuse that myth and only pretend that it’s so, but you can also celebrate that, from time to time, it’s for real. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:00:39 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/3/2008 11:00:39 AM My version of The Godfather would open with a voice in the darkness saying, “I don’t believe in America. The American Dream is a once-beguiling fairy tale; show’s over, y’all.” But The Dream is still real to many people, and the violence that powerful private interests have done to it in the last century pains them like a kidney punch. Gonzo journalism pioneer Hunter S. Thompson was one of the wounded, and so is Alex Gibney (Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, Taxi to the Darkside), the far more straight-laced director of the entertaining documentary Gonzo: The Life and Work of Hunter S. Thompson. They share a proprietary sense of outrage over abuses of power they’ve witnessed in their times. For them, America’s Nixons, Enrons and Bush-Cheneys have desecrated the church, the front lawn. For all their passionate trouble-making, there’s no denying that Gibney and the late Thompson, two white males who came up through America’s hallowed institutions (Thompson through the U.S. Air Force; Gibney through Yale), are insiders. When I went to interview Gibney about Gonzo, I remembered the film’s procession of leathery right-wingers and elites, former Thompson nemeses, who have warm, friendly things to say about “Dr. Gonzo” now that he’s dead, now that his caricature as a gun-toting drughead has endured beyond his politics. I wondered if, in the end, being inside got the hole dug any better than chucking rocks from outside. STEVEN BOONE: On the way over here I was reading the introduction to John Steinbeck’s The Pearl, and the person mentioned that, with the publishing of The Grapes of Wrath, Steinbeck had his greatest fame, his greatest success. With that, you’d think he would have found some comfort, but he was actually a bit in despair that he was being embraced by the very elite forces he was critiquing. Of course, you have Hunter Thompson with his downward spiral… For you, with this recent run of success, is there any kind of… ALEX GIBNEY: Despair? (laughs) SB: (laughs) Well, regret…? Second thoughts? “Where do I go from here?” AG: I have to be honest with you. I haven’t experienced that. I haven’t reached that kind of– I mean, first of all, okay, I won the Oscar. I feel great, believe me. Walking around with that statue, you feel like Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings. But I feel like there’s so many other interesting things to do. One of the salvations is to keep having a next project to do and you focus on that, even as you’re looking back. So you don’t spend all day looking your name up on Google. SB: Well, I do, but– AG: (laughs) But not all day, maybe 12 or 13 hours. SB: (laughs) Right. But I look at your body of work and I see a certain political conviction behind it. AG: Right. SB: It’s critical, but it is from the perspective of an insider, sort of like your colleague Charles Ferguson with No End in Sight. You came up through Yale, you came up through UCLA, you have your Oscars and your Emmys. You have your… sanction from certain institutions. Does it complicate matters for you going forward? AG: I understand what you’re getting at and I think it does, to some extent. The danger part always comes with celebrity, you know? You end up going out on the circuit, to some extent and then you get comfortable hanging around with other celebrities and then suddenly– it’s like being an insider journalist in Washington. Hunter talked about that in the campaign trail book [Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72]. He said, “I’m just gonna blow in here and blow out. I don’t have to worry about being here four, five, six years from now, trying to play a game, make sure that this person’s comfortable, that person’s comfortable.” It’s a little bit easier when you go in and out. But I do think, you know, I’ve had great opportunities. I’ve had a private school education, I went to a good university, I went to a good film school and I know a lot of powerful people. It turns out that that is a good advantage for me because I tend to do films about the perps rather than the victims. When you try to get inside and see what’s going on with the people who are committing these grand crimes, it helps to have access to those connections, sometimes because otherwise you don’t get in the door. But the question is, at some point, do you become one of those people? (laughs) SB: That’s the question. AG: That’s the question. Well, you’ll see. You’ll be my judge, and you’ll let me know. (laughs) SB: But do you ever feel that inner conflict, with maybe posing a certain question or, I don’t know, just bringing a bad vibe into the room…? Have you ever felt yourself back away because, “Hey, this is a nice guy, a decent person.” Sort of like when Hunter Thompson was in the car with Nixon, said he was a pleasant guy to talk football with. AG: Right. Well, you you always have to kind of separate. One of the big things I’ve learned is… My sister in law once said it: “Everybody’s nice.” And you sit with people in a room and sometimes they’re total assholes and you say, “Well, fuck them,” right? But sometimes they’re very nice and solicitous and charming and it is true: When you get close, your tendency is not to–almost kind of a Stockholm Syndrome takes over. But you realize that there are a lot of nice people out there who do horrible things. SB: How do you contrast yourself with other filmmakers at your level of success dealing with similar subjects– let’s say Michael Moore or Nick– AG: Everybody’s got their own style. Everybody always asks me about Michael. I always say that Michael does his own thing. There’s no illusion when you go see a Michael Moore film. You know it’s a Michael Moore film and you’re getting what you get. The only people that piss me off are the one that try to hide stuff, pretend to be doing one thing and doing something else. SB: Like who? AG: Well, um… Trying to think now… There was, a number of years ago, somebody doing a film about the civil rights movement and they actually faked some archival footage of the movement. They did a re-creation but they intercut it freely with actual footage from the events. SB: Whaa? Fox News? AG: No, no. It was on HBO. And there was a big hue and cry over it because it wasn’t like a re-creation where you know the filmmakers shot this with actors. That I have a real problem with. SB: Well, I was a little uncertain at some points in Gonzo. Actually, I’m pretty sure that when we were listening to audio tape of Thompson and his attorney on the road to Vegas that what I was seeing was a re-enactment. AG: Right. SB: But it was pretty slick. AB: It was. Two things I’ll say about that. First of all, we’re trying to do some fun stuff like Hunter did, like claiming Muskey’s high on this drug called Ebogaine. This kind of tall tale telling. But at the beginning of the film, you see this photograph of Hunter with a gun pointed at a typewriter. Zoom into his hand, where it hard-cuts to a real hand firing the gun. I think its a clue to the audience, you know, “Buyer beware, there’s gonna be some wild stuff.” We’re going to be playing around. Even with that [road trip] sequence, which I love… We shot it with actors who look a lot like Hunter and Oscar. We had the audio tape and we’d go out and shoot Super 8, kind of a home movie. But the deeper into that home movie you get, suddenly you start to see the action from three or four different angles, and you gota be thinking, “This is not a home movie.” SB: Sort of mirroring Hunter’s techniques, sliding in and out of reality. AG: That’s right. SB: Drawing out the people who are really reading closely. AG: Right. There’s a moment where it’s ambiguous. That’s okay, as long as you resolve that moment at the end. SB: It kind of reminds me of a documentary I saw a few years back, How to Draw a Bunny, about the artist Ray Johnson. AG: Oh, I heard about that one. Was that a good film? SB: It’s a good film, and in style it’s playful and kind of a series of stunts in the way that Johnson’s work was. [A moment of giddy Netflix chitchat ensues, and then:] SB: What would Hunter Thompson have to say about these times we’re living in now, or can you speak for him? AG: I don’t know if I can, but he got very depressed when Bush won in ‘04 and not long after that he committed suicide. I think it’s too much to say that that’s what drove him to suicide. There are lots of other factors that are not so pretty. But I think he would say that we’re seeing the triumph of fear and loathing over that other part of the American character, this sense of idealism. Bush represented to him that aspect of the United States that goes back to its inception. At the same time, he was a big Bobby Kennedy fan and big McGovern fan. I think he’d be an Obama guy now. He would say, “Here’s somebody who understands the need for a prime actor in the theater of American politics. A “together Hunter”–as his wife says– not the drug-addled drunk. The other Hunter would have something to say about it. SB: Would you be with him on that Obama support? AG: I am. I like Obama and I think he does speak to a better possibility. My only concern is, will he end up being… Will he make too many compromises once he’s in power? But you know he’s been through the rough and tumble of Illinois politics, so I’m sure he knows better than I how to navigate that stuff. He stirs peple’s idealism in a way that few people have done in the last 30 years. SB: That’s what ties you to Hunter in my eyes. I view it with a little bit of awe, this kind of idealism underneath it all. Far from cynicism, it’s an idealism that’s been abused– a real sense of connection to America as a concept, American values. AG: At least that possibility. Not always the reality, but at least the dream. He was always obsessed with the American Dream. I share with Hunter the love of that novel The Great Gatsby. The green light at the end of the dock. It’s destructive because there’s the illusion of mobility and possibility that can be very damaging. That’s why [Thompson] set the death of the American Dream in a casino, where it seems like you can roll the dice and win the big one and then you’re the rich man who gets the penthouse, when in fact you’re always playing against the house and the house always wins. At the same time, that green light at the end of the dock is also a sense of real possibility. There are moments when America makes good on that myth. You can get angry when people abuse that myth and only pretend that it’s so, but you can also celebrate that, from time to time, it’s for real. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/4/17/27402.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 4/17/2008 12:01:10 PM
Body: Filmmaker and former Marine JD Johannes is selling a compilation DVD called Outside the Wire on his website. The DVD contains three short documentaries that Johannes shot himself whilst embedded with troops in Iraq (a trailer is embedded above). On a blog on the site, Johannes positions his “pro-victory, pro-troop” films in opposition to docs like Body of War and The Ground Truth. “Actually going to Iraq, living down in the dirt with the grunts and making documentaries about what is happening on the ground appears to be a rather novel concept, but I think the best way to understand Iraq is to see it from 5′10″ off the ground,” he writes. Fair enough. But wait––there’s a gimmick! Johannes is trying to sell 2,900 copies of his DVD in six weeks, in order to match the domestic box office gross of Brian DePalma’s fall flop Redacted. I haven’t seen Johannes’ movies, and I’m certainly not opposed to as many views of the war as possible getting out into the market place. In fact, I’ve argued previously that the reason why films like Lions For Lambs and Stop-Loss are so disappointing creatively and commercially is due to a homogeneity of perspective––the anti-war choir really doesn’t need to be pandered to anymore. But what is a little illogical to me is that Johannes has chosen Redacted as the target to beat. Redacted, a film widely panned by critics and pundits from all points on the political spectrum. Redacted, whose box office gross was potentially diluted by its day-and-date release on VOD and DVD. Redacted, instead of an actual documentary, such as Iraq in Fragments (also shot independently, by a cameraman/director, on the streets of Iraq) or Taxi to the Dark Side or The War Tapes (which, to my mind, is as honest a documentary about troops on the ground in Iraq as is conceivable, being that it was shot by the troops themselves), all of which grossed many times more than Redacted’s pitiful $65k domestic. Isn’t this setting the bar a bit low? I don’t argue that grossing $65k through direct DVD sales would be a victory for the usual independent filmmaker, but Johannes has higher aspirations. “My thesis is this: If it can be demonstrated that a pro-troop, pro-victory documentary can succeed in the market place by beating the domestic box office gross of an anti-war film like Redacted the money loving side of Hollywood will back a pro-troop movie.” I wish him luck in his endeavors (after about three weeks, he’s 34% of the way to his goal, according to the “Beat Hollywood!” graph on the sidebar of his site). I just don’t see how “beating” Redacted––a film no one in Hollywood or elsewhere was impressed with––will make much of an impression. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:01:10 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog4/17/2008 12:01:10 PM Filmmaker and former Marine JD Johannes is selling a compilation DVD called Outside the Wire on his website. The DVD contains three short documentaries that Johannes shot himself whilst embedded with troops in Iraq (a trailer is embedded above). On a blog on the site, Johannes positions his “pro-victory, pro-troop” films in opposition to docs like Body of War and The Ground Truth. “Actually going to Iraq, living down in the dirt with the grunts and making documentaries about what is happening on the ground appears to be a rather novel concept, but I think the best way to understand Iraq is to see it from 5′10″ off the ground,” he writes. Fair enough. But wait––there’s a gimmick! Johannes is trying to sell 2,900 copies of his DVD in six weeks, in order to match the domestic box office gross of Brian DePalma’s fall flop Redacted. I haven’t seen Johannes’ movies, and I’m certainly not opposed to as many views of the war as possible getting out into the market place. In fact, I’ve argued previously that the reason why films like Lions For Lambs and Stop-Loss are so disappointing creatively and commercially is due to a homogeneity of perspective––the anti-war choir really doesn’t need to be pandered to anymore. But what is a little illogical to me is that Johannes has chosen Redacted as the target to beat. Redacted, a film widely panned by critics and pundits from all points on the political spectrum. Redacted, whose box office gross was potentially diluted by its day-and-date release on VOD and DVD. Redacted, instead of an actual documentary, such as Iraq in Fragments (also shot independently, by a cameraman/director, on the streets of Iraq) or Taxi to the Dark Side or The War Tapes (which, to my mind, is as honest a documentary about troops on the ground in Iraq as is conceivable, being that it was shot by the troops themselves), all of which grossed many times more than Redacted’s pitiful $65k domestic. Isn’t this setting the bar a bit low? I don’t argue that grossing $65k through direct DVD sales would be a victory for the usual independent filmmaker, but Johannes has higher aspirations. “My thesis is this: If it can be demonstrated that a pro-troop, pro-victory documentary can succeed in the market place by beating the domestic box office gross of an anti-war film like Redacted the money loving side of Hollywood will back a pro-troop movie.” I wish him luck in his endeavors (after about three weeks, he’s 34% of the way to his goal, according to the “Beat Hollywood!” graph on the sidebar of his site). I just don’t see how “beating” Redacted––a film no one in Hollywood or elsewhere was impressed with––will make much of an impression. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/4/17/27401.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 4/17/2008 12:00:53 PM
Body: Filmmaker and former Marine JD Johannes is selling a compilation DVD called Outside the Wire on his website. The DVD contains three short documentaries that Johannes shot himself whilst embedded with troops in Iraq (a trailer is embedded above). On a blog on the site, Johannes positions his “pro-victory, pro-troop” films in opposition to docs like Body of War and The Ground Truth. “Actually going to Iraq, living down in the dirt with the grunts and making documentaries about what is happening on the ground appears to be a rather novel concept, but I think the best way to understand Iraq is to see it from 5′10″ off the ground,” he writes. Fair enough. But wait––there’s a gimmick! Johannes is trying to sell 2,900 copies of his DVD in six weeks, in order to match the domestic box office gross of Brian DePalma’s fall flop Redacted. I haven’t seen Johannes’ movies, and I’m certainly not opposed to as many views of the war as possible getting out into the market place. In fact, I’ve argued previously that the reason why films like Lions For Lambs and Stop-Loss are so disappointing creatively and commercially is due to a homogeneity of perspective––the anti-war choir really doesn’t need to be pandered to anymore. But what is a little illogical to me is that Johannes has chosen Redacted as the target to beat. Redacted, a film widely panned by critics and pundits from all points on the political spectrum. Redacted, whose box office gross was potentially diluted by its day-and-date release on VOD and DVD. Redacted, instead of an actual documentary, such as Iraq in Fragments (also shot independently, by a cameraman/director, on the streets of Iraq) or Taxi to the Dark Side or The War Tapes (which, to my mind, is as honest a documentary about troops on the ground in Iraq as is conceivable, being that it was shot by the troops themselves), all of which grossed many times more than Redacted’s pitiful $65k domestic. Isn’t this setting the bar a bit low? I don’t argue that grossing $65k through direct DVD sales would be a victory for the usual independent filmmaker, but Johannes has higher aspirations. “My thesis is this: If it can be demonstrated that a pro-troop, pro-victory documentary can succeed in the market place by beating the domestic box office gross of an anti-war film like Redacted the money loving side of Hollywood will back a pro-troop movie.” I wish him luck in his endeavors (after about three weeks, he’s 34% of the way to his goal, according to the “Beat Hollywood!” graph on the sidebar of his site). I just don’t see how “beating” Redacted––a film no one in Hollywood or elsewhere was impressed with––will make much of an impression. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:00:53 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com4/17/2008 12:00:53 PM Filmmaker and former Marine JD Johannes is selling a compilation DVD called Outside the Wire on his website. The DVD contains three short documentaries that Johannes shot himself whilst embedded with troops in Iraq (a trailer is embedded above). On a blog on the site, Johannes positions his “pro-victory, pro-troop” films in opposition to docs like Body of War and The Ground Truth. “Actually going to Iraq, living down in the dirt with the grunts and making documentaries about what is happening on the ground appears to be a rather novel concept, but I think the best way to understand Iraq is to see it from 5′10″ off the ground,” he writes. Fair enough. But wait––there’s a gimmick! Johannes is trying to sell 2,900 copies of his DVD in six weeks, in order to match the domestic box office gross of Brian DePalma’s fall flop Redacted. I haven’t seen Johannes’ movies, and I’m certainly not opposed to as many views of the war as possible getting out into the market place. In fact, I’ve argued previously that the reason why films like Lions For Lambs and Stop-Loss are so disappointing creatively and commercially is due to a homogeneity of perspective––the anti-war choir really doesn’t need to be pandered to anymore. But what is a little illogical to me is that Johannes has chosen Redacted as the target to beat. Redacted, a film widely panned by critics and pundits from all points on the political spectrum. Redacted, whose box office gross was potentially diluted by its day-and-date release on VOD and DVD. Redacted, instead of an actual documentary, such as Iraq in Fragments (also shot independently, by a cameraman/director, on the streets of Iraq) or Taxi to the Dark Side or The War Tapes (which, to my mind, is as honest a documentary about troops on the ground in Iraq as is conceivable, being that it was shot by the troops themselves), all of which grossed many times more than Redacted’s pitiful $65k domestic. Isn’t this setting the bar a bit low? I don’t argue that grossing $65k through direct DVD sales would be a victory for the usual independent filmmaker, but Johannes has higher aspirations. “My thesis is this: If it can be demonstrated that a pro-troop, pro-victory documentary can succeed in the market place by beating the domestic box office gross of an anti-war film like Redacted the money loving side of Hollywood will back a pro-troop movie.” I wish him luck in his endeavors (after about three weeks, he’s 34% of the way to his goal, according to the “Beat Hollywood!” graph on the sidebar of his site). I just don’t see how “beating” Redacted––a film no one in Hollywood or elsewhere was impressed with––will make much of an impression. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/2/10/24944.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 2/10/2008 9:20:58 PM
Body: Even though the writers have apparently settled on a deal to end the strike, there is still a great deal to fear on the Oscar broadcast set for Feb. 24, that can be summed up in three simple words (two if you hyphenate correctly):Oscar-winner 'Norbit'.That's right. While many wrestle with the fact that their favorite films have been left off the nominee list (I understand, though don't agree with, the love-fest called Juno, but even my friends who are the most ardent supporters of the film agree that it has no place in the Best Picture and Best Director category) a film that was universally loathed like 'Norbit' has a shot at earning the most coveted trophies in the biz.Here to give you an edge on the office ballots, I have opted to fill this column with a handy guide to this year's nominees, chock-full of winner predictions. (Plus, you can check out some of the shorts on your computer, links provided, free of charge. You're welcome!)Best picture“Atonement”“Juno”“Michael Clayton”“No Country for Old Men”“There Will Be Blood”Winner: “No Country for Old Men. A sweeping 86 wins from various awards programs, coupled with the Academy's love for the Coens, means the “Old Men” should have a lot of life in them on Oscar night. Best Director“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” Julian Schnabel“Juno” Jason Reitman“Michael Clayton” Tony Gilroy“No Country for Old Men” Joel Coen and Ethan Coen“There Will Be Blood” Paul Thomas AndersonWinner: The Coens again will be awarded, not only for this film, but for their decades of impressive contributions to cinema, whereas the runner-up, Anderson, seems to be just beginning his remarkable run.Best ActorGeorge Clooney in “Michael Clayton”Daniel Day-Lewis in “There Will Be Blood”Johnny Depp in “Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”Tommy Lee Jones in “In the Valley of Elah”Viggo Mortensen in “Eastern Promises”Winner: Daniel Day Lewis. Of the film's 45 award wins, the majority have gone to Lewis, whose Daniel Plainview could have easily been the embodiment of evil, were it not for the actor who shades the character with the tiniest sliver of humanity. Best ActressCate Blanchett in “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”Julie Christie in “Away from Her”Marion Cotillard in “La Vie en Rose”Laura Linney in “The Savages”Ellen Page in “Juno”Winner: Christie. Winning nods from coast (New York, D.C.) to coast (San Francisco, San Diego), to all parts in between (Arizona, Houston, Phoenix), as well as a BAFTA from overseas, Christie is a lock. Best Supporting ActorCasey Affleck in “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”Javier Bardem in “No Country for Old Men”Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Charlie Wilson’s War”Hal Holbrook in “Into the Wild”Tom Wilkinson in “Michael Clayton”Winner: Bardem. Who knew a bowl-cut could be so bad-ass? Bardem's emotionless killing machine is the embodiment of evil in “No Country.” Best Supporting ActressCate Blanchett in “I’m Not There”Ruby Dee in “American Gangster”Saoirse Ronan in “Atonement”Amy Ryan in “Gone Baby Gone”Tilda Swinton in “Michael Clayton”Winner: Blanchett. Unless her two nominations this year cancel each other out, Blanchett is the best thing in an otherwise decent, but rather convoluted movie. Best animated feature“Persepolis”“Ratatouille”“Surf's Up”Winner: “Ratatoille.” Unless the Academy chooses to show its indie credibility with selecting “Persepolis,” the little guy should go to Pixar's latest masterpiece, and one of its most technically lavish and emotionally mature works in its canon. Best documentary feature“No End in Sight”“Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience”“Sicko”“Taxi to the Dark Side”“War/Dance”Winner: “No End in Sight.” My only hope is that an Oscar win will bolster this film's chances of being seen, since it is far and away one of the most insightful documentaries concerning the war in Iraq out there. Art direction“American Gangster”“Atonement”“The Golden Compass”“Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”“There Will Be Blood”Winner: “There Will be Blood.” Only because “No Country for Old Men” didn't make it, the Academy will toss “Blood” a bone here. Cinematography “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” Roger Deakins“Atonement” Seamus McGarvey“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” Janusz Kaminski“No Country for Old Men” Roger Deakins“There Will Be Blood” Robert ElswitWinner: “There Will Be Blood.” For true cinema geeks, this is the most exciting category of the evening. Deakins, whose work in “Jesse James” is nothing short of poetic, adequately captures the harsh dust bowls in “No Country.” But in “Blood,” there are entire stretches of time where not a word is uttered and we can drink in the sumptuous images captured by Elswit. Costume design“Across the Universe” Albert Wolsky“Atonement” Jacqueline Durran“Elizabeth: The Golden Age” Alexandra Byrne“La Vie en Rose” Marit Allen“Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street” Colleen AtwoodWinner: “Atonement.” After sweeping up at the BAFTA awards last weekend, the period piece that is perhaps more notable for its costume over its content. In particular, Kiera Knightly's green dress in act one may cinch the prize alone.Best documentary short subject“Freeheld”“La Corona (The Crown)”“Salim Baba”“Sari’s Mother”Winner: “Sari's Mother.” Look for director James Longley's tale of a mother in Iraq trying to get health care for her young AIDS-afflicted son to take the prize. It helps that he's earned such prior praise with his doc “Iraq in Fragments.' Editing“The Bourne Ultimatum” Christopher Rouse“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” Juliette Welfling“Into the Wild” Jay Cassidy“No Country for Old Men” Roderick Jaynes“There Will Be Blood” Dylan TichenorWinner: “No Country for Old Men.” Perhaps more than any other technical category, “No Country” earns its stripes for its near-perfect slicing. Foreign language film“Beaufort” Israel“The Counterfeiters” Austria“Katyń” Poland“Mongol” Kazakhstan“12” RussiaWinner: “Beaufort.” In a rather weak field, “Beaufort” is the only film that seems to be making any critical waves. And if Borat had done enough to sully the name of Kazakhstan, “Mongol” has been doing a bang-up job on its own. Makeup“La Vie en Rose”“Norbit”“Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End”Winner: “Pirates.” So help me, Rick Baker has been a pioneer in real-life visual effects, but if he walks with one for transforming Eddie Murphy into a gargantuan shrew, I'm out, man. Game over. Original score“Atonement”“The Kite Runner” Distributed by Paramount Classics) Alberto Iglesias“Michael Clayton”“Ratatouille”“3:10 to Yuma”Winner: “Michael Clayton.” Where the hell was Jonny Greenwood's eclectic, haunting orchestration for “There Will Be Blood”? Because of some lame technicality, it was left off. None of the other candidates here are even in the same league, but Clayton's is the only score that I can still recall after seeing the film, so it gets my vote. Original song“Falling Slowly” from “Once”“Happy Working Song” from “Enchanted”“Raise It Up” from “August Rush”“So Close” from “Enchanted”“That’s How You Know” from “Enchanted”Winner: “Falling Slowly.” Sure, there's overwhelming odds that “Enchanted” could pick it up here, and it deserves some love, but more for a nomination for its lead Amy Adams, not in its cheeky, but slight, soundtrack. Best animated short film“I Met the Walrus” (trailer)“Madame Tutli-Putli” (full film)“Même les Pigeons Vont au Paradis (Even Pigeons Go to Heaven)” ( full film)“My Love (Moya Lyubov) for Natalie” (Channel One Russia) (full film, part 2's link is provided after film)“Peter & the Wolf” (BreakThru Films)Winner: My Love. Like a Renoir painting come to life, this is one of the most lavish 2-D animated films in quite some time.Best live action short film“At Night” (clip)“Il Supplente (The Substitute)” (full film)“Le Mozart des Pickpockets (The Mozart of Pickpockets)” (full film)“Tanghi Argentini”“The Tonto Woman” (trailer)Winner: “Il Supplente.” Comic gold and a great punchline.Sound editing“The Bourne Ultimatum”“No Country for Old Men”“Ratatouille”“There Will Be Blood”“Transformers”Winner: “No Country for Old Men.” It could be a toss up with “There Will Be Blood,” but I have a feeling that the cold thud of Javier Bardem's pneumatic air gun gives it a slight edge. Sound mixing“The Bourne Ultimatum”“No Country for Old Men”“Ratatouille”“3:10 to Yuma”“Transformers”Winner: Transformers. Kevin O'Connell and Greg P. Russell have a combined 32 nominations in their career. It's time Oscar paid them for their labor for their work literally making heavy metal. Visual effects “The Golden Compass”“Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End”“Transformers”Winner: Transformers. Was there a part of this film that was not a visual effect? “Compas” flopped, “Pirates” sailed off with the trophy last year, plus, wouldn't it be cool to have a statue that morphed into a robot that would blow up screenwriter Diablo Cody's prize?Adapted screenplay“Atonement” Christopher Hampton“Away from Her” Sarah Polley“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” Ronald Harwood“No Country for Old Men” Joel and Ethan Coen“There Will Be Blood” Paul Thomas AndersonWinner: “No Country for Old Men.” This one will be swept up in the Coen fever that will take hold on Oscar night, though I think “Blood” will have a longer shelf life with repeated viewings. Original screenplay“Juno” Diablo Cody“Lars and the Real Girl” Nancy Oliver“Michael Clayton” Tony Gilroy“Ratatouille” Brad Bird“The Savages” Tamara JenkinsWinner: Diablo Cody for Juno. I think the Academy members have a stake in the merchandising of the T-shirts, since the entire script seems ready to be ironed on to the front of clothing, line by agonizing line.
]]>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:20:58 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog2/10/2008 9:20:58 PMEven though the writers have apparently settled on a deal to end the strike, there is still a great deal to fear on the Oscar broadcast set for Feb. 24, that can be summed up in three simple words (two if you hyphenate correctly):Oscar-winner 'Norbit'.That's right. While many wrestle with the fact that their favorite films have been left off the nominee list (I understand, though don't agree with, the love-fest called Juno, but even my friends who are the most ardent supporters of the film agree that it has no place in the Best Picture and Best Director category) a film that was universally loathed like 'Norbit' has a shot at earning the most coveted trophies in the biz.Here to give you an edge on the office ballots, I have opted to fill this column with a handy guide to this year's nominees, chock-full of winner predictions. (Plus, you can check out some of the shorts on your computer, links provided, free of charge. You're welcome!)Best picture“Atonement”“Juno”“Michael Clayton”“No Country for Old Men”“There Will Be Blood”Winner: “No Country for Old Men. A sweeping 86 wins from various awards programs, coupled with the Academy's love for the Coens, means the “Old Men” should have a lot of life in them on Oscar night. Best Director“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” Julian Schnabel“Juno” Jason Reitman“Michael Clayton” Tony Gilroy“No Country for Old Men” Joel Coen and Ethan Coen“There Will Be Blood” Paul Thomas AndersonWinner: The Coens again will be awarded, not only for this film, but for their decades of impressive contributions to cinema, whereas the runner-up, Anderson, seems to be just beginning his remarkable run.Best ActorGeorge Clooney in “Michael Clayton”Daniel Day-Lewis in “There Will Be Blood”Johnny Depp in “Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”Tommy Lee Jones in “In the Valley of Elah”Viggo Mortensen in “Eastern Promises”Winner: Daniel Day Lewis. Of the film's 45 award wins, the majority have gone to Lewis, whose Daniel Plainview could have easily been the embodiment of evil, were it not for the actor who shades the character with the tiniest sliver of humanity. Best ActressCate Blanchett in “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”Julie Christie in “Away from Her”Marion Cotillard in “La Vie en Rose”Laura Linney in “The Savages”Ellen Page in “Juno”Winner: Christie. Winning nods from coast (New York, D.C.) to coast (San Francisco, San Diego), to all parts in between (Arizona, Houston, Phoenix), as well as a BAFTA from overseas, Christie is a lock. Best Supporting ActorCasey Affleck in “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”Javier Bardem in “No Country for Old Men”Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Charlie Wilson’s War”Hal Holbrook in “Into the Wild”Tom Wilkinson in “Michael Clayton”Winner: Bardem. Who knew a bowl-cut could be so bad-ass? Bardem's emotionless killing machine is the embodiment of evil in “No Country.” Best Supporting ActressCate Blanchett in “I’m Not There”Ruby Dee in “American Gangster”Saoirse Ronan in “Atonement”Amy Ryan in “Gone Baby Gone”Tilda Swinton in “Michael Clayton”Winner: Blanchett. Unless her two nominations this year cancel each other out, Blanchett is the best thing in an otherwise decent, but rather convoluted movie. Best animated feature“Persepolis”“Ratatouille”“Surf's Up”Winner: “Ratatoille.” Unless the Academy chooses to show its indie credibility with selecting “Persepolis,” the little guy should go to Pixar's latest masterpiece, and one of its most technically lavish and emotionally mature works in its canon. Best documentary feature“No End in Sight”“Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience”“Sicko”“Taxi to the Dark Side”“War/Dance”Winner: “No End in Sight.” My only hope is that an Oscar win will bolster this film's chances of being seen, since it is far and away one of the most insightful documentaries concerning the war in Iraq out there. Art direction“American Gangster”“Atonement”“The Golden Compass”“Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”“There Will Be Blood”Winner: “There Will be Blood.” Only because “No Country for Old Men” didn't make it, the Academy will toss “Blood” a bone here. Cinematography “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” Roger Deakins“Atonement” Seamus McGarvey“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” Janusz Kaminski“No Country for Old Men” Roger Deakins“There Will Be Blood” Robert ElswitWinner: “There Will Be Blood.” For true cinema geeks, this is the most exciting category of the evening. Deakins, whose work in “Jesse James” is nothing short of poetic, adequately captures the harsh dust bowls in “No Country.” But in “Blood,” there are entire stretches of time where not a word is uttered and we can drink in the sumptuous images captured by Elswit. Costume design“Across the Universe” Albert Wolsky“Atonement” Jacqueline Durran“Elizabeth: The Golden Age” Alexandra Byrne“La Vie en Rose” Marit Allen“Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street” Colleen AtwoodWinner: “Atonement.” After sweeping up at the BAFTA awards last weekend, the period piece that is perhaps more notable for its costume over its content. In particular, Kiera Knightly's green dress in act one may cinch the prize alone.Best documentary short subject“Freeheld”“La Corona (The Crown)”“Salim Baba”“Sari’s Mother”Winner: “Sari's Mother.” Look for director James Longley's tale of a mother in Iraq trying to get health care for her young AIDS-afflicted son to take the prize. It helps that he's earned such prior praise with his doc “Iraq in Fragments.' Editing“The Bourne Ultimatum” Christopher Rouse“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” Juliette Welfling“Into the Wild” Jay Cassidy“No Country for Old Men” Roderick Jaynes“There Will Be Blood” Dylan TichenorWinner: “No Country for Old Men.” Perhaps more than any other technical category, “No Country” earns its stripes for its near-perfect slicing. Foreign language film“Beaufort” Israel“The Counterfeiters” Austria“Katyń” Poland“Mongol” Kazakhstan“12” RussiaWinner: “Beaufort.” In a rather weak field, “Beaufort” is the only film that seems to be making any critical waves. And if Borat had done enough to sully the name of Kazakhstan, “Mongol” has been doing a bang-up job on its own. Makeup“La Vie en Rose”“Norbit”“Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End”Winner: “Pirates.” So help me, Rick Baker has been a pioneer in real-life visual effects, but if he walks with one for transforming Eddie Murphy into a gargantuan shrew, I'm out, man. Game over. Original score“Atonement”“The Kite Runner” Distributed by Paramount Classics) Alberto Iglesias“Michael Clayton”“Ratatouille”“3:10 to Yuma”Winner: “Michael Clayton.” Where the hell was Jonny Greenwood's eclectic, haunting orchestration for “There Will Be Blood”? Because of some lame technicality, it was left off. None of the other candidates here are even in the same league, but Clayton's is the only score that I can still recall after seeing the film, so it gets my vote. Original song“Falling Slowly” from “Once”“Happy Working Song” from “Enchanted”“Raise It Up” from “August Rush”“So Close” from “Enchanted”“That’s How You Know” from “Enchanted”Winner: “Falling Slowly.” Sure, there's overwhelming odds that “Enchanted” could pick it up here, and it deserves some love, but more for a nomination for its lead Amy Adams, not in its cheeky, but slight, soundtrack. Best animated short film“I Met the Walrus” (trailer)“Madame Tutli-Putli” (full film)“Même les Pigeons Vont au Paradis (Even Pigeons Go to Heaven)” ( full film)“My Love (Moya Lyubov) for Natalie” (Channel One Russia) (full film, part 2's link is provided after film)“Peter & the Wolf” (BreakThru Films)Winner: My Love. Like a Renoir painting come to life, this is one of the most lavish 2-D animated films in quite some time.Best live action short film“At Night” (clip)“Il Supplente (The Substitute)” (full film)“Le Mozart des Pickpockets (The Mozart of Pickpockets)” (full film)“Tanghi Argentini”“The Tonto Woman” (trailer)Winner: “Il Supplente.” Comic gold and a great punchline.Sound editing“The Bourne Ultimatum”“No Country for Old Men”“Ratatouille”“There Will Be Blood”“Transformers”Winner: “No Country for Old Men.” It could be a toss up with “There Will Be Blood,” but I have a feeling that the cold thud of Javier Bardem's pneumatic air gun gives it a slight edge. Sound mixing“The Bourne Ultimatum”“No Country for Old Men”“Ratatouille”“3:10 to Yuma”“Transformers”Winner: Transformers. Kevin O'Connell and Greg P. Russell have a combined 32 nominations in their career. It's time Oscar paid them for their labor for their work literally making heavy metal. Visual effects “The Golden Compass”“Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End”“Transformers”Winner: Transformers. Was there a part of this film that was not a visual effect? “Compas” flopped, “Pirates” sailed off with the trophy last year, plus, wouldn't it be cool to have a statue that morphed into a robot that would blow up screenwriter Diablo Cody's prize?Adapted screenplay“Atonement” Christopher Hampton“Away from Her” Sarah Polley“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” Ronald Harwood“No Country for Old Men” Joel and Ethan Coen“There Will Be Blood” Paul Thomas AndersonWinner: “No Country for Old Men.” This one will be swept up in the Coen fever that will take hold on Oscar night, though I think “Blood” will have a longer shelf life with repeated viewings. Original screenplay“Juno” Diablo Cody“Lars and the Real Girl” Nancy Oliver“Michael Clayton” Tony Gilroy“Ratatouille” Brad Bird“The Savages” Tamara JenkinsWinner: Diablo Cody for Juno. I think the Academy members have a stake in the merchandising of the T-shirts, since the entire script seems ready to be ironed on to the front of clothing, line by agonizing line. http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/1/7/23606.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 1/7/2008 4:00:34 PM
Body: An email from AJ Schnack reveals that he, in partnership with the Toronto Film Festival’s Thom Powers and Indiepix.net, are launching a new range of awards for “excellence in non-fiction filmmaking.” Prompted in part by general disappointment in the doc community over the Oscar shortlist, a panel of twelve film festival directors have produced a short list of 15 films, which will be eligible for nominations in nine categories. There are four films common to both the Oscar shortlist and this new list: Lake of Fire, No End in Sight, Sicko and Taxi to the Dark Side. The nominations, and the official name of the awards, will be announced at a press conference at the Sundance Film Festival, which you can be sure the Spouties will try to attend. In the meantime, you can peruse the panel, the shortlist, the categories, and AJ’s blog post about how the awards came to be. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina
]]>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:00:34 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog1/7/2008 4:00:34 PMAn email from AJ Schnack reveals that he, in partnership with the Toronto Film Festival’s Thom Powers and Indiepix.net, are launching a new range of awards for “excellence in non-fiction filmmaking.” Prompted in part by general disappointment in the doc community over the Oscar shortlist, a panel of twelve film festival directors have produced a short list of 15 films, which will be eligible for nominations in nine categories. There are four films common to both the Oscar shortlist and this new list: Lake of Fire, No End in Sight, Sicko and Taxi to the Dark Side. The nominations, and the official name of the awards, will be announced at a press conference at the Sundance Film Festival, which you can be sure the Spouties will try to attend. In the meantime, you can peruse the panel, the shortlist, the categories, and AJ’s blog post about how the awards came to be. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/1/7/23604.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/7/2008 4:00:23 PM
Body: An email from AJ Schnack reveals that he, in partnership with the Toronto Film Festival’s Thom Powers and Indiepix.net, are launching a new range of awards for “excellence in non-fiction filmmaking.” Prompted in part by general disappointment in the doc community over the Oscar shortlist, a panel of twelve film festival directors have produced a short list of 15 films, which will be eligible for nominations in nine categories. There are four films common to both the Oscar shortlist and this new list: Lake of Fire, No End in Sight, Sicko and Taxi to the Dark Side. The nominations, and the official name of the awards, will be announced at a press conference at the Sundance Film Festival, which you can be sure the Spouties will try to attend. In the meantime, you can peruse the panel, the shortlist, the categories, and AJ’s blog post about how the awards came to be. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:00:23 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/7/2008 4:00:23 PMAn email from AJ Schnack reveals that he, in partnership with the Toronto Film Festival’s Thom Powers and Indiepix.net, are launching a new range of awards for “excellence in non-fiction filmmaking.” Prompted in part by general disappointment in the doc community over the Oscar shortlist, a panel of twelve film festival directors have produced a short list of 15 films, which will be eligible for nominations in nine categories. There are four films common to both the Oscar shortlist and this new list: Lake of Fire, No End in Sight, Sicko and Taxi to the Dark Side. The nominations, and the official name of the awards, will be announced at a press conference at the Sundance Film Festival, which you can be sure the Spouties will try to attend. In the meantime, you can peruse the panel, the shortlist, the categories, and AJ’s blog post about how the awards came to be. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2007/12/21/23050.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 12/21/2007 4:15:21 PM
Body: The MPAA has rejected a proposed one-sheet poster for Alex Gibney’s documentary Taxi to the Dark Side. The original design incorporated an image from a news photo, of a hooded detainee flanked by two soldiers. The MPAA says since they won’t allow hoods on posters for torture porn, they can’t allow similar imagery to promote a torture doc. Distributor ThinkFilm plans to appeal. Brad Pitt is in talks to replace Heath Ledger, who was previously cast opposite Sean Penn, in Terrence Malick’s upcoming drama, Tree of Life. There are still few details to report about the project itself, although I guess we can reasonably deduce that whatever character Ledger was going to play has suddenly become about 14 years older. Midwestern exhibition chain Marcus Theaters has declined to book Sweeney Todd on any of its 49 screens, on the grounds that Paramount is asking for too much money for the prints. This seems like a late-game decision, considering the film is scheduled to open semi-wide on Friday, but Paramount says the release will be unaffected. Nancy Buirski is stepping down from her role as head of the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival, in order to create and manage “a fund to incubate and produce independent docus and fiction films.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina
]]>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:15:21 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog12/21/2007 4:15:21 PM The MPAA has rejected a proposed one-sheet poster for Alex Gibney’s documentary Taxi to the Dark Side. The original design incorporated an image from a news photo, of a hooded detainee flanked by two soldiers. The MPAA says since they won’t allow hoods on posters for torture porn, they can’t allow similar imagery to promote a torture doc. Distributor ThinkFilm plans to appeal. Brad Pitt is in talks to replace Heath Ledger, who was previously cast opposite Sean Penn, in Terrence Malick’s upcoming drama, Tree of Life. There are still few details to report about the project itself, although I guess we can reasonably deduce that whatever character Ledger was going to play has suddenly become about 14 years older. Midwestern exhibition chain Marcus Theaters has declined to book Sweeney Todd on any of its 49 screens, on the grounds that Paramount is asking for too much money for the prints. This seems like a late-game decision, considering the film is scheduled to open semi-wide on Friday, but Paramount says the release will be unaffected. Nancy Buirski is stepping down from her role as head of the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival, in order to create and manage “a fund to incubate and produce independent docus and fiction films.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/documentary/MemberTagFilms.aspxdocumentary
Number of films tagged: 402

Number of people who tagged: 127

Number of times used: 496

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:11:06 GMT402127496Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/prison/MemberTagFilms.aspxprison
Number of films tagged: 2437

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 167

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:02:27 GMT243762167Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/torture/MemberTagFilms.aspxtorture
Number of films tagged: 571

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 104

]]>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:51:19 GMT57143104Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/power/MemberTagFilms.aspxpower
Number of films tagged: 606

Number of people who tagged: 39

Number of times used: 104

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:43:55 GMT60639104Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/military/MemberTagFilms.aspxmilitary
Number of films tagged: 1651

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 96

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT16513096Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/army/MemberTagFilms.aspxarmy
Number of films tagged: 868

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 77

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT8682777Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/government/MemberTagFilms.aspxgovernment
Number of films tagged: 1063

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 126

]]>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:39:36 GMT106321126Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/injustice/MemberTagFilms.aspxinjustice
Number of films tagged: 382

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 14

]]>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:34:09 GMT3821414Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cabdriver/MemberTagFilms.aspxcabdriver
Number of films tagged: 224

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 13

]]>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:02:48 GMT2241013Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/afghanistan/MemberTagFilms.aspxafghanistan
Number of films tagged: 105

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 17

]]>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:03:25 GMT105817Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bush/MemberTagFilms.aspxbush
Number of films tagged: 14

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 14

]]>Sun, 15 Feb 2009 07:00:12 GMT14614Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/warcrimes/MemberTagFilms.aspxwarcrimes
Number of films tagged: 150

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 5

]]>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:03:28 GMT15045Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/w/MemberTagFilms.aspxw
Number of films tagged: 10

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 10

]]>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:41:23 GMT10310Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/tribeca2007/MemberTagFilms.aspxtribeca2007
Number of films tagged: 114

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 115

]]>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 05:53:45 GMT1142115Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bush-administration/MemberTagFilms.aspxbush-administration
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 2

]]>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:42:35 GMT212Tag