43 entries categorized "The Press"

June 27, 2008

Why Does the LA Times Hate America? (Or: How to Use Selected Box Office Numbers to Validate Last Year's Theories)

My travel from the past week has prevented me from weighing on John Horn's piece in the LA Times last week.  Titled "Documentaries lose box office muscle", it was yet another of those "nonfiction sky is falling" pieces that conveniently ignores the current success that documentaries are having at the box office in an effort to paint the genre as truly hurting:

"Critically acclaimed films about provocative subjects struggle to make money all the time, but rarely have so many lauded documentaries consistently failed to connect at the box office. The recent nonfiction returns have been so bleak that several distributors are growing wary about taking on such highbrow works, an alarming development in a pop culture universe already dominated by "American Idol," James Frey and US Weekly."

I've often quarreled with the LA Times' coverage of documentaries, but Horn's piece is truly something for the archives.  For one, he posits the curious conclusion that YOUNG@HEART - a film that is well on its way to grossing 3.5 million - is yet another black eye on nonfiction box office performance.  It's a stretch, it is, but one that Horn continues to ride into a column yesterday, in which he exclaims that YOUNG@HEART was "dead on arrival".

Although Horn gets Steve Gilula, the COO of Fox Searchlight, to go on record saying that the distributor was disappointed given the acquisition deal (which Horn pegs at 1.5 million) and marketing costs, he closes with much seriousness on a capper from Gilula that is laughable to anyone who knows the history of Fox Searchlight's dabbling in doc features:

"I believe," says Gilula, "that we will be very cautious in considering future documentaries."

Yes, that's right kids, the company that hadn't bought a doc in more than a decade (Horn erroneously calls YOUNG@HEART Searchlight's first doc pickup) is officially now "very cautious" about acquiring nonfiction.  Someone alert the media.  (To his credit, at least Horn gets one fact right - YOUNG@HEART sold at LAFF last year, not Sundance, which the Times screwed up in an article earlier this year.)

Guess who else is skittish about documentaries? Why none other than Sony Pictures Classics' Michael Barker:

"'It's unlike anything I've seen before," says Michael Barker, whose Sony Pictures Classics has released the documentary duds STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE, JIMMY CARTER MAN FROM PLAINS and MY KID COULD PAINT THAT, none of which grossed more than $250,000 theatrically. "Unless you have movie stars like Michael Moore or Al Gore associated with your film, you can't sell tickets.'"

Not mentioned by Horn is the fact that SPC picked up not one but two nonfiction titles at Cannes - James Toback's TYSON biopic (a star certainly, but not an Al Gore kinda star) and the critically acclaimed animated film WALTZ WITH BASHIR.

In short, there's lots of issues to ponder in nonfiction - what happens if we lose THINKFilm?  why are political docs underperforming?  are there better avenues for release than the classic multi-tiered theatrical/dvd/cable model? - while still acknowledging that docs overall are having a much better than average year (In keeping with his meme, Horn fails to mention EXPELLED, U23D or SHINE A LIGHT in his piece).  And even a newspaper in the shadow of the mighty studio system - where $50 million can be a massive bomb - should know better than to call YOUNG@HEART DOA.

June 26, 2008

"All these wonderful things indeed" - Jeffrey Ressner Responds

We wrote yesterday about the curious article by Jeffrey Ressner at Politico.  Seems Mr. Ressner didn't care for us questioning his journalistic bona fides.  Grab yourself a Hendricks and tonic and get ready for some grade A-minus outrage directed at yours truly:

"I'm reminded of that scene from Annie Hall, in which Woody Allen pulls Marshall McLuhan out from behind a movie theater standee to answer some dolt in line who is going on and on about McLuhan's theories.

To quote a line from that scene -- you know nothing of my work.

I usually don't waste my time answering hacks, but your entry today was so boneheaded and wrong and false that I have no choice but to address it.  I guess blogs are like assholes -- everybody's got one.

I was particularly struck by your statement: "Ressner never admits in the piece that he invited the hand-picked crew."

I never "admitted" it because it's not true. I didn't "invite" anyone to the movie. There was no "hand-picked crew."  The only thing that is even remotely accurate about this sentence is the spelling of my name (thanks, by the way, for that.)

The people quoted in my piece were not "my guests."  I came alone to the screening -- none of the people quoted in the piece were "brought" by me. As far as I know, they all purchased their tickets with their own money.  My "absolutely nonsensical piece of criticism" does not exist -- I interviewed the conservatives and the movie's director, then quoted a trade review and another comment about the film made by blogger Jeff Wells.

There are so many inaccuracies and falsehoods in your dumb blog posting that it would take me another half hour to go over them all, and life is too short.

My number is listed in the phone book. If you were any sort of honest writer or decent reporter, you could have called me up to ask me anything at all about my story and I would have been happy to answer your questions. You could have also emailed me, because I read the emails that are sent to me at my Politico email address linked in the story.

All these wonderful things indeed.  "What the hell is up with Jeffrey Ressner's article at Politico" you wrote. You could have asked me, but instead you decided to make things up and write an article based on your own imagination and zero facts.  Even your fucking headline is wrong, you ignorant tool."

I should stipulate that Mr. Ressner is correct on at least one point.  My sources (yes, I have them) agree that the Republican operatives in question had their tickets in hand as they waited outside the screening.  However, more than one person told me that the GOP'ers greeted Ressner when he arrived, he entered the screening with the group and they all sat together during the film.  All coincidental, I have no doubt.

June 25, 2008

LAFF 2008: Why Did a Reporter for Politico Bring Republican Operatives to a Screening of BOOGIE MAN

Festival coverage sponsored by Indiepix.

They say that no publicity is bad publicity, but what the hell is up with Jeffrey Ressner's article at Politico entitled "Atwater doc makes conservatives groan", a bizarre piece of constructed outrage wherein Ressner, a former reporter for Time Magazine, brought a handful of Republican operatives, including former McCain adviser Mike Murphy and Matt Drudge-confidant Andrew Breitbart, to a LA Film Festival screening of Stefan Forbes' BOOGIE MAN and then recorded their disappointments with the film.

The problem: Ressner never admits in the piece that he invited the hand-picked crew.  Yet, he describes the public LAFF screening variously as follows:  "after seeing the documentary with a conservative crowd, including (Murphy), it seemed to us that the movie would make the GOP mad" and "some in the crowd groaned and hissed, angry at how the film used Democrats of dubious distinction to make its anti-GOP points and how it tarnished Republicans as racists".  Who is this "conservative crowd" who "groaned and hissed"?  Why, Ressner's guests, of course.  Talk about convenient!  It seemed to us, indeed.

And what is the gist of their grief?  Seems that Forbes had the unmitigated gall to interview Democrats - even some who were friendly with and liked Lee Atwater - about the controversial political operative.  Yes, that's right, the conservatives that Ressner brought to the screening would have preferred a film that didn't have anyone criticizing Atwater.  They wanted a puff piece.  Or so Ressner, with his absolutely nonsensical piece of criticism, would have us believe.

"Several conservatives in the crowd found fault with director Stefan Forbes’ choice of Atwater attackers, from Clintonista Terry McAuliffe, who pontificates about morality in the back seat of a chauffeured vehicle, to several strongly biased liberal writers. “What impressed was the director’s deft use of Joe Conason, Terry McAuliffe and Eric Alterman as objective voices to drive the narrative,” sniffed Drudge Report contributor Andrew Breitbart, founder of the news website Breitbart.com."

Of course, Forbes doesn't set up that trio to be objective voices.  They are introduced as liberal Democrats who sometimes admire and sometimes deplore Atwater's actions.  And, in sheer screen time, they are dwarfed by numerous Republican friends, co-workers and adversaries - including Ed Rollins, who worked with and then feuded with Atwater, as well as Tucker Eskew, an adviser to George W Bush and a friend and co-worker of Atwaters.  Eskew often gets the last word in the film, including several pointed jabs at liberal orthodoxies.

So why the mock, completely constructed drama?  Probably couldn't have anything to do with Politico's drive for controversial headlines - particularly those that might draw a link from Drudge or traffic via the website's deal with Yahoo.  That would be too simple, right?  I guess we'll just have to chalk it up to bad writing and imaginative reporting.

May 03, 2008

Isn't It Time for DA Pennebaker to Finally Come Clean?

Once upon a time, we used to talk politics here on a far more regular basis.  But in the midst of the bitter, mostly ridiculous back and forth between Hillary "Beer and a Shot" Clinton and Barack Obama, we've pretty much stayed out of it.

Imagine our surprise today, however, when all of the political tongues were wagging over a piece of YouTube video, culled from DA Pennebaker & Chris Hegedus' Oscar nominated THE WAR ROOM that purported to show then-and-now Clinton adviser Mickey Kantor calling the people of Indiana "shit" and "white niggers". 

Purported because the "subtitles" at the bottom of the screen told the viewer that Kantor had used the offensive language to describe a state that is soon to go to the polls (and fairly essential to HRC's continued argument of viability). 

Except - at least to this viewer - it seemed pretty obvious on first viewing that at least the "white niggers" comment was an incorrect subtitle - either a mistake or a fabrication. 

Now, true or not, you may be asking yourself why in the world would anyone care what Kantor - one of a hundred advisors to Hillary Clinton - might have said more than 15 years ago?  Why indeed.

But this didn't stop nearly every political site from Drudge to ABC News to Huffington Post from jumping on this shocking non-controversy and posting the clip from THE WAR ROOM with many bloggers insisting that they were attempting to get an audio expert aboard to more closely examine what Kantor said (nevermind that you could have asked a halfway decent lip-reader and realized that he never says the word "nigger", which - take a look in the mirror - requires a pretty specific mouth movement).

Begged Joe Aravosis at the liberal Americablog:

"I'm asking some other audio experts to do their own enhancing - anyone out there a super-duper audio expert? If so, please email me."

A reader at Talking Points Memo, took the matter into his own hands:

"I spent a little time this afternoon capturing the audio source from the War Room from the longer clip available on YouTube, the clip that Politico linked to this morning.  I captured the audio in digital audio editing software, amplified it, then ran noise reduction to lower the background hiss.  That's all I did.  No adding or enhancing sounds, just working to make the existing sound louder and clearer."

Meanwhile, the aforementioned Ben Smith at Politico, who did as much or more than anyone in pushing the Kantor kerfuffle by dedicating a breathtaking four separate posts (complete with updates - here, here, here and here), got the scoop from the great man himself:

"I just spoke to DA Pennebaker, the director of THE WAR ROOM, who said his film had been doctored to produce a widely-viewed YouTube clip...

'(Kantor) does not say that. He does not say that,' said Pennebaker, after viewing the clip.

He said the initial expletive referred to the anticipated reaction in the Bush White House to the fact that Ross Perot's polling numbers were holding strong.

'What he says is he’s surprised Perot’s numbers are holding,' said Pennebaker in a brief phone interview. "He says they must be shitting in the White House."

The second expletive, he said, appeared to have been entirely fabricated, with new audio dubbed onto the original movie.

Pennebaker appeared surprised and amused by the video."

Surprised and amused.  How dare he.  Does he not know that this is "the most important issue of the day?!?!!?"  At least a few of the readers posting at Politico would have none of Pennebaker's excuses.  Behold now as a number of great internet geniuses call DA on his shit:

"No way. I have obsessed over this thing for several minutes now. Kantor and Pennebaker are full of it. The audio is muffled but clear. In fact, Pennebaker's excuse makes no sense. Kantor said it."

"Can somebody please make a run to Blockbuster to verify the language"

"I can't believe, really, that you'd call that audio "inconclusive." Maybe you had your speakers on a really low volume or something. Now the director is probably trying to spare the Clinton campaign the trouble, I dunno, but it's pretty evident what Kantor said."

"SPIN PENNEBAKER, SPIN. I have never read a more tortured explanation than this brown-nose, a## kissing gofer has come up with."

"If people believe what Pennebake and Kantor is saying then I have some great property to sell you on Mars."

"OMFG, yes, I am suppose to believe Pennebaker! BWHAHAHA, Yes, typical Clinton brush off, 'he was amused'"

"I guess we will have to wait for Pennebaker to post the original unedited footage."

"You can tell this is potentially harmful when Clinton supporters, including Pennebaker, make elaborate excuse. He says 'they must be sh''ing in the White House'??? Ah, no. That's not what he said at all. It was clear. The audiophiles will determine if the rest was dubbed."

"Well, If that is the case; Why doesn't the director post proof on you tube ? With all those mikes and cameras filming. We can solve this mystery....Show us another angle of audio of the scene. Every movie has several takes.."

"Nice try, Mr. Pennebaker!! Why does it have to be Obama's Team, could of been the Republicans. Let's see if Mr. Pennebaker goes on Cable TV and straigten this out, or if Cable TV will mention this, I doubt it."

"So I guess that the self serving denials of Kantor himself the documentary's director (who is a Clinton lackey) prove that our ears are lying to us."

"Sorry, Pennebaker, but I've seen the film and the the YT clip, and Kantor clearly says this. In fact, it's probably YOU who have doctored the scene in your little mockumentary."

"If the original movie and the youtube tape are the same and Pennebaker says that the tape is doctored does that mean that Pennebaker doctored the tape?"

"Let's see here...Pennebaker is on board with the Clinton group and since he says it's been doctored that should be the end of the story? RIGHT and let's sell some bridges to the American people.......we are suppose to just believe the Clintons group? Are you friggin nuts?"

"i am also highly skeptical of pennebaker's statement that this was doctored....as i just read that he is working on a sequel to the "war room" to catch up with what carville, stephanopoulos, & co. are doing all these years. not saying he's lying, but you gotta admit, since he's basically depending on these guys to be on board for his next documentary, he would have a very definite financial incentive to stand behind them. just saying....i'd rather have a team of unbiased experts take a look at this video, and not rely on the statements of some director who is obviously friendly with the clinton camp."

I too am highly skeptical of this "Pennebaker" fellow - if that is his real name.  Who is he anyway?  Some kid who just started posting stuff on Current?  Good thing he somehow hitched his star to James Carville, cause that's where the serious documentary money is.

But I digress.  In addition to the joys of revisiting one of the great documentaries of the 1990s, seeing clips from THE WAR ROOM always startle me because it reminds just how young and completely in the tank George Stephanopoulos was for Bill Clinton. 

And that in and of itself reminds that the oft-declared high-mindedness of journalists - which was on display last weekend in the NY Times tsk-tsking of Errol Morris for paying some of his subjects - is so much bunk.

Which brings us to tonight's Anderson Cooper 360, wherein the former host of The Mole, informed:

"We don't know who released this tape...and frankly we debated even airing this story tonight, but we think it's important that you know the facts.  This thing is all over the internet.  And the facts really about not just this video but how dirty tricks, those smear campaigns, ugly and slanderous, are part of the political season, and how truths are twisted into lies."

See, CNN agrees.  It doesn't matter where the thing came from, what the person's motivation might have been (although fearless Ben Smith just emailed the guy through his YouTube account - funny how that works), the fact is that "this thing is all over the internet". 

Hey, ABC's Charlie Gibson already is on the record agreeing with this standard when he asked Barack Obama about not wearing a flag pin because "it is all over the internet". 

Yes, these are the journalistic standards that we filmmakers are supposed to be looking to for guidance.  No thanks.

But since it's out there, literally "all over the internet", we feel obliged to call out Pennebaker and his obvious shilling for the Clintons.  DA, don't you think it's time that you came clean?

April 10, 2008

Oh No, Not Again: The LA Times Goofs on Young@Heart Sale

We've written previously about the LA Times' sometimes tenuous relationship with writing about nonfiction, so couldn't help but take note of yesterday's story by Paul Brownfield about YOUNG@HEART:

"'Young@Heart,' which was picked up for distribution by Fox Searchlight after it screened at the Sundance Film Festival, is a making-of concert movie; we watch as the singers -- in their 70s, 80s and 90s -- prepare for their latest tour, bending their minds around Sonic Youth's discordant 'Schizophrenia' and the Talking Heads' 'Life During Wartime'."

Of course, the film was not picked up after it screened at Sundance (although maybe that's a better narrative for the folks at Fox Searchlight), it was picked up after it screened at the LA Film Festival, pretty big news at the time, not just for the big sale at LAFF but also because it marked the first doc acquisition for Fox Searchlight in a decade.

Strange that no one at the LA Times, a sometime sponsor of the LA Film Festival, would know that.

January 29, 2008

One Day Nanette Burstein Would Like to Direct a Feature Film (and Other Insanities Courtesy of Premiere.com)

Every once and a while (far too often for my tastes), there's a press piece on the state of documentary filmmaking that is written as if the author is examining the unknown tribes of New Guinea.

Such it is with the jaw-dropping, eye-rolling profile of the genre now at Premiere.com by John Clark headlined "The Plight of the Documentary Filmmaker", which boggles. Read with mouth agape as Clark treats the reader to the following bromides:

"With the possible exception of Spurlock, who is very much a part of his films (see Super Size Me), these filmmakers' faces are generally not well known, which, with the possible exception of the Oscars, makes Sundance the only time they get to be in the spotlight. (But even Oscar nominees in the documentary category are often quickly forgotten.)"

"To really make it as a doc filmmaker you have to be a Michael Moore or Ken Burns — that is, a brand name peddling a familiar product."

"A Burns film takes on a Big Subject — like, say, America — by tackling a slightly lesser one (The Civil War, Baseball)."

"(L)ike most of these filmmakers, Burstein has had to do other things in the meantime. She's exec produced TV shows (Film School), directed commercials, and is part owner of a New York City literary watering hole, the Half King, along with writer Sebastian Junger and others. And while she'd love to direct feature films, she doesn't seem the least bit bothered by the sort of scattershot life she leads as a documentary filmmaker."

"The bottom line, of course, is that these films are cheap to produce."

"Alas, once the festival is over, these filmmakers are thrown out into the cold, cruel world of audience indifference."

It's now up to you to vote for most asinine. Personally, I go for the thought that one day, Burstein may get to tackle a feature! Boy, howdy, wouldn't that be great! But I don't want to influence the voting.

(h/t MCN)

August 21, 2007

Harvey's Got A Gun (and What's Going on with John Anderson?)

Film writers from coast to coast - well at least Eugene at indieWIRE and MCN's David Poland (or as we call him in my household: the Elevator Man) - are agog at Harvey Weinstein's latest bit of bluster, namely his prediction of the consequences if a certain actress from a certain film is not invited to the Kodak Theatre next February.  The film is Todd Haynes' Bob Dylan Biopic I'M NOT THERE and the actress is (likely to be nominated for ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE) Cate Blanchett:

“I may be jumping the gun,” Mr. Weinstein said, “but if Cate Blanchett doesn’t get nominated, I’ll shoot myself.”

Poland quickly posted at MCN:

The First Rooting Interest In Next Year's Oscars Established

But Poland also notes something else - the general tone of the NY Times article wherein Harvey makes this suicidal promise:

WeinsteinCo Opens A Movie In Exclusive Release (4 Screens)... Paper Of Record Gives Up 1100 Words Documenting This Earth-Shattering Event... Next, 2500 Words On Harvey Editing A Finished Film

The article in question is from John Anderson, an esteemed film writer by most people's estimation, who nonetheless has had a string of supremely questionable pieces this year.  First was his PR promo for MANUFACTURING DISSENT, which swallowed wholesale the premise that two longtime documentary filmmakers were somehow unaware of the controversies surrounding Michael Moore's filmmaking (I wrote about it all here).  Second was an unbelievable and bizarre attack piece against Jennifer Venditti's sensational BILLY THE KID, in which he wrote that:

(A)nything beyond a casual, surface reading of the film reveals an appallingly callous act of exploitation.

Numerous bloggers jumped on that piece, including Agnes Varnum, who responded to the above:

That is an alarming accusation, and one I feel compelled to rebut on behalf of Billy, if I may be so bold. Bear with me for a moment...

For Mr. Anderson to call Billy’s story a “freak-show” and say that films that chronicle such people “make audiences happy they’re not the subject of the film” says more to me about him as a viewer than it does about the movie or Billy.=

 And now this article, in which a platform release is described as if it's the latest form of exhibition magic:

Imagine you’re a film distributor, handling an experimental movie by one of the country’s most iconoclastic directors. The subject is an enigmatic occasional recluse who is being portrayed by four actors, an actress and a 13-year-old boy. Where do you open that film?

If you’re very lucky, you get to book it at Film Forum, perhaps the most exclusive art-house cinema in Manhattan.

Now what do you do with a movie that stars Cate Blanchett, Richard Gere, Christian Bale and Heath Ledger; whose subject is Bob Dylan; and whose director is the Oscar-nominated Todd Haynes?

Same answer. Same film. Which is what’s making the planned Nov. 21 release of “I’m Not There,” Mr. Haynes’s rumination on Mr. Dylan’s lives and times, something of a curiosity.

In addition to Film Forum, the film’s distributor, the Weinstein Company, will be opening the movie in just three other theaters, one more in New York and two in Los Angeles, giving it the kind of debut that might be afforded a Mexican documentary.

First off, unless that Mexican documentary is directed by one of the Three Amigos, I doubt that it would get to open at Film Forum, Lincoln Plaza, the Arclight and the Landmark (ahem, not the Westside Pavilion any longer) simultaneously, but in any case, Anderson treats this release strategy like some kind of major revelation, as Poland rightly notes.  How soon we forget that BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN opened in only five theatres.  Where was in depth NY Times piece about Focus' surprisingly slow rollout.

But, more to the point, I'm not the only one who has been wondering about John Anderson's judgment of late, and this article certainly isn't going to do anything to quell the questioning.

August 20, 2007

What the Hell is Wrong With the LA Times?

It's not been a good summer for reporting on documentary issues in the Los Angeles Times.  It began with a one-two punch of anti-Michael Moore articles - one of which was a little more than a PR campaign for a movie that has received mixed reviews at best, the other a flat out attack piece which was factually errant as it compared Moore's profit-participation to actors rather than filmmaker/producers.  (I wrote about both articles - as well as (surprise) a decent Times article on nonfiction - here.)

Recently, Gina Piccolo, who also wrote the earlier article that gave wide birth to the filmmakers behind the anti-Moore film MANUFACTURED DISSENT, delved further into an issue that Moore represents to many - the blurring of lines between fiction and nonfiction.  In fact, continuing from her previous piece, Piccolo takes aim at the SICKO director in her opening line:

BEFORE Michael Moore, before reality TV, documentary was a high-minded genre that aimed to educate, not entertain.

Yes, that's right, from the folks that brought you GREY GARDENS, WOODSTOCK, DECLINE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION and DON'T LOOK BACK, we bring you the sober, depressing and un-entertaining stylings of our early documentary forefathers and mothers.  Not until Michael Moore came along was it thought that documentaries should instead be mindless fun.

But I digress.  What Piccolo goes on to describe is an internal struggle for documentary filmmakers.  This struggle is not over which filmmaking tools will best serve the film or the subject or the artist's personal style.  No, this struggle is entirely a commercial consideration:

(W)hen a quiet little film about Antarctic birds can pull in more than $125 million worldwide, documentaries have proven they can appeal to the masses, competing for box-office dollars right alongside Hollywood blockbusters. Entering that arena creates a new dilemma for ambitious documentary filmmakers. On the one hand, they want a theatrical release, because that's the tried-and-true path to a broad audience and a high-profile career. On the other, if they stray too far from real life, they risk losing the social and cultural caché of a documentary. A feature film telling the same story just doesn't pack the same wallop.

That's led to the rise of hybrid films that regard documentary as an art form that sculpts the facts and isn't bound by them. Cleverly scripted and staged scenes are used to amp up plots. Actors portray non-actors. Film stock is distressed to pass for archival footage. And real life merges so seamlessly with dramatization, and often social activism, that it's not always clear what's fact and what's fiction.

Later, Piccolo attempts to define her terms:

"Documentary" has increasingly become an umbrella term as filmmakers move away from the naturalistic or observational techniques of the cinéma vérité movement. The sub-genres -- including "nonfiction film" and "mockumentary," "fable" and "faux-doc" -- are as varied as filmmakers themselves.

Now, maybe Piccolo has this paragraph on good authority - although it reminds me of the New York Times famous story of "Grunge Speak", which was actually a hoax concocted by Sub Pop's Megan Jasper - but I've never heard of "fable" used as a "sub-genre" of "documentary".  More correctly is that some (such as myself) prefer to use "nonfiction" as a larger umbrella term so as to include films that use "created elements" or "strong points of view". 

Piccolo is correct to note that some (particularly those outside the nonfiction community) have marked dramatized pieces as documentaries - witness the disturbing win at the Film Independent Spirit Awards earlier this year by Michael Winterbottom's THE ROAD TO GUANTANAMO as Best Documentary.  But I've yet to see someone quantify mockumentaries such as the Christopher Guest films or faux-cumentaries (non-humorous stories told in a documentary style) like last year's BROTHERS OF THE HEAD as nonfiction nor as documentaries.

But the lines that Piccolo and others draw - particularly when she invokes BILLY THE KID, Jennifer Venditti's amazing film about a teenage boy in New England - suggest a world of documentary debate straight out of 1987.  Are we really still talking about whether or not the options are Al Maysles' vérité purity or nothing at all?  Hell, even Piccolo acknowledges (in a departure from her provocative opening line) that nonfiction filmmakers have been affecting events since the start:

There is a long history of ambiguity in documentary film. Documentary pioneer Robert Flaherty staged and scripted scenes depicting Eskimo life in arctic Canada in his 1922 film, "Nanook of the North."

"None of the guys in the 1930s had much trouble with scripting events," said Bruce Davis, the academy's executive director. "After cinéma vérité, it became bad form to affect the event that you were reporting on."

Worst of all is the headline that some LA Times worker slapped on the piece:

Some documentaries send truth down a slippery slope

Yep, if it weren't for the god damned Flaherty, we'd all be paragons of virtue.

But even more insulting than that headline was the piece that the Times ran leading up to this week's DocuWeek.  If you thought Piccolo's piece reeked of the 80s, wait 'til you get a load of the two lede grafs in Elina Shatkin's relic:

Often relegated to the mustiest corner of the filmmaking world, the documentary genre takes center stage at DocuWeek, an annual showcase of nonfiction filmmaking.

Hosted by the International Documentary Assn., the event is designed to help documentaries, already a tough sell for many theater owners, meet the increasingly stringent requirements for Oscar consideration while raising the genre's profile among the public.

The only musty corners here are those of Elina Shatkin's brain where upon she discovers such hoary chestnuts.   Seriously, what in the fuck is she talking about?  What musty corners?  Sundance?  The sparkling new Landmark Theatre in West LA?   

Already a tough sell for many theater owners?  Too bad that Ms. Shatkin didn't have the benefit of this weekend's box office, wherein three very different films - THE 11TH HOUR, KING OF KONG and MANDA BALA (SEND A BULLET) all opened well in limited release.

And it would be wonderful if it were only the LA Times who've been talking nonsense about nonfiction, except that two other major papers - the Wall Street Journal and the San Francisco Chronicle - both ran stories recently about nonfiction that displayed a shaky (at best) grasp for the subject.

The Journal's piece - headlined "March of the Inconvenient Truths" (ha, get it?) - opens with this:

With last summer's "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore managed to bump global warming to the top of the national consciousness -- and sell over $24 million of U.S. tickets. Now Leonardo DiCaprio is betting he can repeat the feat.

Mr. DiCaprio hosts, narrates and partly funded "The 11th Hour," a documentary out today that paints a bleak picture of humanity's prospects unless environmental policy is shifted almost immediately. It's just one of an unusual number of politically motivated documentaries slated to hit theaters in coming months, from a Darfur film featuring Don Cheadle to "Taxi to the Dark Side," which uses the death of an Afghan taxi driver to examine U.S. detention policies.

But America's stomach for such sobering fare may be starting to flag. Ticket sales this year for documentaries are down about 25% to roughly $27 million compared with this point last year -- and Michael Moore's "Sicko" accounted for all but about $3.7 million of that, according to Media by Numbers. By contrast, at this time last year, documentaries other than "An Inconvenient Truth" had racked up about $13 million at the box office.

First, is Leonardo DiCaprio seriously "betting he can repeat" INCONVENIENT TRUTH's 24 million at the box office (never mind its impressive opening weekend on a handful of screens)? 

But the serious flaw comes in graf #3.  Comparing last year, wherein 5 high profile films (all of which ended up doing more than 1 million at the box office) were released before the end of June, to this year, in which nearly all of the anticipated docs are being held (for various reasons) to the late summer and early fall, is a false comparison.  Additionally, the film with the most steam right now may be NO END IN SIGHT, which certainly discounts reporter Sam Schechner's hypothesis that "America's stomach for such sobering fare may be starting to flag".

Then in today's San Francisco Chronicle, there's an all-over-the-map report on fair use laws related to a new, Sean Penn-narrated documentary called WAR MADE EASY.  Strangely, a piece about fair use of archival news reports in a documentary manages to include lengthy passages about whether or not putting NBC's upcoming Bionic Woman remake on the web might result in piracy (I shit you not) and not a word about the Center for Social Media's defining work in the realm of fair use and copyright law.  Stunning.

You're free to click over to the story and see if you can make heads or tails of where the Chronicle's reporter is going with all of this, because I was and still am baffled.

Perhaps the most interesting thing I learned in the Chronicle article is that apparently, just like in the grand old days of theatrical documentaries, films are still having their premiere runs at the Roxie Cinema in San Francisco.

The problem with each of these pieces is that they rely on outdated themes - debates over "creation" in documentary, the documentary as box office poison, fair use completely undefined.  Given the trans-formative nature of the past decade in documentary, it's dispiriting to have major media outlets - particularly the LA Times' summer of shame - trying to drag the reality of the business of documentary filmmaking back to the proverbial - with apologies to Robert Flaherty - ice age.

August 01, 2007

Olbermann's Worst Persons: Julianne Cho and the NYC Mayor's Office

Although I've been out of the country, I've been following the controversy over the new photography and permit regulations proposed by the NYC Mayor's Office.  Congrats to Jem Cohen for leading this charge and to Anthony Kaufman, Eugene Hernandez and Agnes Varnum for their reporting and advocacy on the issue.  (And here's a NY Times piece from a few days ago.)  But as much as this issue means to filmmakers (particularly docmakers), I was kind of shocked to see that it made it to Keith Olbermann's left of center nightly news and opinion program, Countdown, with the Mayor's Office being named tonight's "Worst Persons in the World":

But our winner, Julianne Cho, Associate Commissioner of the Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting for New York City. 

She's written an email indicating the city's pushing for new rules that would require any group of two or more people who want to film, videotape or take still pictures in a public place in New York for 30 minutes or more have to get a city permit and have to get a million dollars in liability insurance.

If it is a group of 5 people and a tripod, the time frame drops to ten minutes.

And even though the new regulations don't mention any exemptions, the city claims this would not affect amateurs or tourists.

Of course it won't.

There's still a Constitution of the United States, Miss Cho, and these rules are so obviously in violation oof so much of it, Alberto Gonzales wouldn't try to sneak them past anybody.

Julianne Cho and the Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting for the City of New York - today's Worst Persons in the World!


July 21, 2007

Word of the Week: Embargoes (or How to Alienate Authors, Critics & Studios)

There's been much abuzz this week over the issue of embargoes, wherein a media outlet (whether print, television, online or telegraph) tacitly or explicitly agrees to withhold certain information - for example, a review or an interview - until a specified date.  Breaking the embargo (or even bending the embargo) has, in recent years, been more of an issue as some outlets have been more and more willing to ignore the specified dates. 

For most of the week, the embargo swirled around a battle between the movie studio Fox and online journalists, who believed that Fox had unfairly targeted them - denying them access to advance screenings of films - in an effort to clamp down on embargo breaking.  David Poland wrote about this extensively earlier this week, offering suggestions on how Fox could make the whole screening process more uniform and, ultimately, more fair for critics, and by today it seemed that Fox and the rebel critics in Chicago who launched the intifada had reached a kind of quiet peace.

Later, the issue was the new Harry Potter book and the decision of two major media outlets - the Baltimore Sun and the New York Times - to bust embargoes and review the film in the days before the release of the final book in the series.

On Keith Olbermann's Countdown program, Sun book reviewer Mary Carole McCauley made the curious claim that she didn't really break the embargo, see, because she (and the Sun) never agreed to the embargo in the first place.  They got their copy when someone's order was filled in advance in error.  Since they didn't get a copy from the publisher and since they hadn't agreed to the publisher's embargo, the Sun felt no qualms about running the review a day or two early.

Potter author JK Rowling was upset:

I am staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish purported spoilers in the form of reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children, who wanted to reach Harry’s final destination by themselves, in their own time. I am incredibly grateful to all those newspapers, booksellers and others who have chosen not to attempt to spoil Harry’s last adventure for fans.

The Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar (and self-proclaimed Potter geek) was outraged:

What is your problem, New York Times? No WMD rumors to plaster on the front page, no Jayson Blair to make things up for posterity, no Alessandra Stanley to mangle TV show names? I'm mad so I'm lashing out, but come on: How on earth could you run a review of the last Harry Potter? To do so, you had to break an industry-wise embargo — and not just any embargo, an embargo that is almost tantamount to a public trust at this point, given the worldwide hype about Harry Potter and the excitement and intense emotion generated by — finally — the end to this epic series.

But, hey, you're the New York Times, boldly going etc. Why should you care about honoring a book that's been over a decade in the making just for the sake of getting a two-day jump on the competish? You've done it before, with Bob Woodward and Carly Fiorina, buying both books at some super-secret bookstore where they apparently have no qualms about selling embargoed books to customers who have no qualms about buying them and then writing about them in the paper of record in defiance of millions of wide-eyed and breathless readers. Editor & Publisher reports that "the Times explained that it bought a copy in a New York City store" — just like when they scooped WaPo on Woodward's embargoed book and spilled the beans on HP CEO Fiorina's memoir. That was last October; then I asked, rhetorically: "Where is this bookstore and are they stocking the next Harry Potter?" Well, I guess we have our answer.

But the most ridiculous item in this saga came today, in the increasingly more woeful (at least from a columnist perspective) Los Angeles Times, this time from "media columnist" Tim Rutten who decided to boil down the kerfuffle into this hoary chestnut:

Fair enough. (Rowling)'s the author, and she's entitled. The fact of the matter is, though, that both Kakutani and the Sun's Mary Carole McCauley are accomplished critics whose reviews scrupulously avoided giving away anything that could be considered a plot spoiler. Even the most passionate Potterites could read their pieces without fear of compromising their pleasure in this new book.

So what's the fuss really about?

Like most these days, it's about money.

Well, thank God, Rutten has gotten to the gist of the matter - the fact that it's all about money.  But wait, exactly whose money is Rutten talking about?:

Here it's necessary to distinguish between the newspaper critics and the cyber crooks, who may have posted sections of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" on the Web. That's theft, and if we don't protect the intellectual property of even fabulously wealthy creative people like Rowling, they'll have less and less incentive to produce the things that entertain and delight us. Her publishers are right to go after these looters with laptops with every lawyer they hire.

Embargoes on reviews and discussions are another matter. All the outrage surrounding this particular book notwithstanding, contemporary publishers impose these blackouts not in the interest of readers but to protect the carefully planned publicity campaigns they create for books on which they have advanced large sums of money.

This is the economic imperative that leads publishers to withhold the contents of even nonfiction manuscripts that contain news that the public has a vital interest in knowing.

It's also why newspapers, including this one, routinely break those embargoes without any pang of conscience. Our first and most compelling obligation is to our readers' right to know and not to the commercial interests of publishers.

There you have it in a nutshell.  It's about the money that the publisher might lose.  Why newspapers are brave defenders of the "right to know!  Never mind all that clamor from media outlets about a federal shield law, never mind all that came to light in the Valerie Plame affair over reporters' constant withholding of key facts so that they could continue to court administration sources.  The public doesn't need to know who leaked a CIA agent's identity!  They need to get a review of the new Harry Potter book!

It's their fucking right!

And what is missing from Rutten's miserable excuse of a column?  How about any acknowledgment that the Baltimore Sun is, like the Times, owned by the Tribune Company? 

But worse is Rutten's fact-less assertion that those upset by the breaking of the embargo should really be upset with the publisher.  After all, he says, the embargo is all about the publisher's desire to enhance profits.

But what of the newspapers?  Could it possibly be that the Sun and the Times broke the embargo to enhance their sales?  To drive traffic to their websites?  To garner headlines?

Rutten's right, it is about money.  But it's not the publisher's money at stake (does anyone really think that the reviews affect the sales of Harry Freaking Potter), it's the dwindling reach and sales of newspapers.  Rutten knows better, but fails to mention that the papers, in having a "get", an exclusive, have a monetary stake.  It's dishonest reporting and he should know it.

And after a series of faulty media reports by the LA Times on Michael Moore, it's clear that the paper, already a bit of a laughing stock in Los Angeles, needs to keep columnists like Robert Scheer and Al Martinez and rid themselves of the likes of Tim Rutten.

July 11, 2007

Postscript to the Michael Moore Discussion: The Email CNN Doesn't Want You to See

I had no intention to turn this into an all-Michael Moore blog, but the hits, as they say, just keep on coming.  This time it's CNN providing the fodder.

The other day I wrote:

The funny thing about all of this is that no nonfiction filmmaker gets put to the scrutiny that Michael Moore does.  It was big news last week when CNN did a fact check of SICKO (yes, that's right, CNN is so confident in it's own fact checking, that it's starting to outsource) and declared it "Mostly Accurate".

Cut to last night and the live, televised (pick one) showdown, smackdown, heated exchange between Michael Moore and Wolf Blitzer.  CNN aired a repeat of a report by CNN's medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta which questioned figures that Moore uses in SICKO.  Moore is livid, which depending on who you're reading these days, was either a triumphant moment (see Agnes Varnum) or the rantings of a crazy person (see birthday girl Karina Longworth).  Both have YouTube of Moore's appearance up if you haven't seen it already.  Moore has lengthy repsonses at his own site.

More interesting to me, however, is what was posted tonight on the Huffington Post - an email from two weeks ago sent by a member of Michael Moore's staff to Sanjay Gupta's producers.  The email is in response to a fact check request sent by CNN in which the network asks for verification on the very points that Michael Moore now says were completely wrong in Gupta's piece.  Moore's staff not only corrects CNN, but they also provide sourcing:

20070711moorestory11
20070711moorestory2 20070711moorestory3 There is much to say about what this email proves.  It certainly validates what I wrote above - that no nonfiction filmmaker is scrutinized in the way that Moore is.  Hell, no journalist is scrutinized the way Moore is (oh, but if they were).   

But beyond this - and beyond the fact that Gupta got certain things wrong about the movie (his own facts were wrong) - the larger point is that there's really not much daylight between Gupta's numbers and Moore's numbers.   Gupta says $6096 v. $200, Moore says $6,697 v. $229.  It seems that they are just looking at differing reports, but certainly not evidence of anyone falsifying information.

Yet CNN and Gupta claim the following:

""No matter how much Moore fudged the facts--and he did fudge some facts..."

I disagree with Karina, I don't think this is an olive branch, this is a declaration that Moore can be ignored because he "fudged some facts".   But what facts did he famously fudge?   And why did Gupta ignore the email from Moore's people - sourcing and all - which proved he was basing his numbers on actual factuals?

Was it because it was a better story, along the lines of the "Moore is not a journalist" trend?  Was it because, as Moore infers, Gupta is bought and paid for by his sponsors?  Was it laziness?  Either way, if he's right about nothing else (and even if his appearance last night bordered on the wild-eyed, which I'm not saying it did), CNN has plenty to answer for.

July 06, 2007

Tour de France: On Eve of Cycling's Biggest Race, Eric Matthies on the Doping Scandals

For the past year, little has been certain in the sport of cycling.  One year ago, on the eve of the start of the 2006 Tour de France, it was anticipated that Italy's Ivan Basso was the heir apparent to 7-time victor Lance Armstrong.  But just before the start of the Tour, Basso, along with several other prominent riders, was implicated in the Puerto Scandal and was barred from riding in the race.  Then, after what many had called the greatest comeback in the history of the Tour, 2006 champ Floyd Landis' win was thrown into doubt when doping tests came back positive.

For the past few months, new scandals have arisen.  Basso, once thought to have been exonerated, joined Armstrong's Discovery Channel team, only to leave the team when new facts came to light and Basso was forced to admit his involvement.  Nearly every day, a new rider is under suspicion or has been suspended.  The question isn't who will win this year's Tour, but, more to the point, who will even get to ride in it?  (I'll be rooting for Thomas Voeckler.)

My friend, Eric Matthies, and I have been talking a lot about the upcoming Tour.  I must admit that my feeling over the past year is that the riders were getting screwed over, that the strange actions of the testing labs and the non-sensical results and sloppy evidence handling, were at least implied evidence of some kind of nefariousness.  Unfortunately, recent developments have not tended to support my conspiracy theories.  Eric, meanwhile, has spoken from a more informed POV, and so I asked him to write something about the doping scandals for the blog.

In addition to being a fine person to talk over sports scandals (and a committed cyclist), Eric is a filmmaker.  His first doc short, Ayamye, which he co-directed with partner Tricia Todd, has been screening in the traveling Bicycle Film Festival, after premiering earlier this year in Santa Barbara (there's a YouTube interview with both of them here).  Eric and Tricia just completed principal photography on their new documentary feature, a year in the life of "The Father of Rap", legendary R&B/rock and roll musician Andre Williams.  Furthermore, he writes the Human Powered Transport blog, where he will no doubt be keeping tabs on the latest news regarding this year's Tour de France.

Here's Eric lengthy look at the doping scandals, complete with a long list of links for further investigation:

-----------------------------------------------

“The teams are no longer made up of sportsmen, but of professionals who take all the measures necessary to do their work” – Willy Voet, 1999

“It's perverse, but the doping system is just, because everyone dopes. Cycling without doping is only just when really no one is doping any longer.  The logic is you adjust your performance level to the rest, because everyone is doing it. In cycling, you live in a parallel world.” - Jorg Jaksche, 2007.

Despite the air of suspicion, the tumultuous accusations of doping and the amnesty-seeking confessions of washed up heroes, I will watch and enjoy the Tour de France this year.  I can now approach this, and the enjoyment of all sport, with a veil lifted.  Regardless of the arguments made by sanctioning officials that all possible means to ensure fair fights are taken, I know the truth.  I will watch le Tour with amusement, placing private bets with myself as to which rider is on which combination of drugs, who has not planned their ‘preparation’ correctly or grew impatient and boosted the load, who is boomeranging from too much of a ‘charge’ earlier in the season, who had what injection on a particular stage.  It will be fun, this new way of viewing the race, guessing at the true science behind each thrilling feat of human endurance.  With the assurance that all but a few in the field are equally prepped and charged, I will know that the terms are level.  Perhaps not the ‘level’ that is portrayed by the public face of the riders and the media but an even field just the same.

Think of it like this:  In motor sport, all aspects of the vehicle are regulated by set limits and controls that each team must adhere to.  Doing so means keeping the fuel mixture right up to the numbers issued by the governing body, tuning the engine to the maximum allowable outputs, trimming the aerodynamic bits of the car to the exact millimeter specified and so on.  In cycling it is no different, save for the fact that the engine is a human being.  A cyclist is prepared for his racing schedule by a network of doctors, directors, soigneurs and mechanics.  In addition to deciding the routes, planning the training rides and maintaining the bicycles this team also tunes the racer’s body to meet the limits set by the sanctioning organizations.  To ensure the racer’s endurance, stamina, output and recovery certain treatments are used; some permissible, some not and some that fall in grey areas.  The UCI, National teams and in small part the Olympic Committee determine not only what medicines are allowable but in what amount these substances are permissible in the body.  Additionally they measure various chemical levels and have set limits based on naturally occurring results in control tests.  The most famous of these is the hematocrit, or red blood cell levels of the riders, which has been capped by the UCI to limit at 50.  Blood balance determines oxygen levels in the blood and relates to muscle endurance, power output and recovery.  Natural levels would run around the 40’s, so it behooves the athlete and his or her team to ensure that they are raised and a maximum level is maintained.  Before this limit was set, riders frequently boosted their hematocrit levels to 60 or above.  Many died, which I will discuss shortly. 

The drugs EPO, Aranasp and newer experimental medicines are what do the work.  These are treatments with very important real-world applications in saving the lives of cancer and kidney disease patients.  They are quite expensive and also require much more than a simple injection to work.  Because they thicken the blood, running risk of clots and heart failure especially during rest, a body under preparation with a drug like EPO requires observation and balance.  This comes in the form of perfectly legal medical operations such as intravenous drips and the spinning of the blood in a centrifuge to track the hematocrit levels.  An athlete on a course of EPO must also be awakened periodically through the night to prevent the pulse rate from slipping so low as to cause risk of seizure or heart failure.  In this century it has come full circle as newer methods of extracting, modifying and then re-introducing the athlete’s own blood have once again become the standard practice.

These are not operations that can be done cheaply or single-handedly and of course this is where the team doctors and soigneurs come into play.  A soigneur is the masseur but much more; they are the riders’ confidants, psychologists and nutritionists.  They also transport, store and administer the drugs, usually with the cooperation of the doctors and often within an organized program set up by the team from the top. On lesser teams, perhaps it is the riders themselves who independently seek particular doctors and soigneurs known for their ‘programs’.  Many of the sought-after masseurs in this odd profession are shaman, magicians, charlatans and occasionally, innocently, just a damn good pair of hands. Willy Voet was one of these men, whose famous border crossing with a car full of dope led to the Festina Scandal of the 98 Tour.  Willy broke the chain of omerta – the code of silence - after only four of his sixteen days in prison.  For his honesty he received a 3-year ban and never returned to the sport.  He wrote a book on his experiences, outlining not only the drugs employed to prepare racers, but also the methods used to hide them, to cheat urine tests and to avoid detection.  Perhaps most spectacularly, he revealed that he and his fellow support team workers were also quite often ‘charged up’.

Jorg Jaksche, recently defrocked (in the same Puerto scandal that nabbed Basso) cycling saint, has come forward recently with some interesting statements.  Instantly, his peers, who once celebrated him as a gentleman of the peloton, turn against him with the old refrain; he’s telling tall tales for the money.  Among the highlights: "Yes, I did dope, but I never overdid it, I never took artificial hemoglobin or stuff like that, where you can get an allergic shock. And you calm yourself by saying that a guy who does bodybuilding takes 16,000 units of growth hormone a day, and I only took 800 units once in a while for regeneration. Then you think: Well, it's not that much after all.”

In light of the recent murder/suicide of a prominent pro wrestler, Jaksche’s statements are worth considering.  In the murder case, ‘roid rage is widely discussed as the cause, compounded when the deceased athlete’s doctor was charged last week with prescribing 10 month quantities of steroids to the man every month.  In a less-reported story, but one closer to cycling, an Eastern European world champion of the track hung herself the same week as the Benoit incident.  In this case too, the effect of steroids on the mental state are considered contributors to the tragedy.

In 1998 the courses of EPO to prep for a major tour cost at least ten thousand dollars.  Not the kind of money most journeyman cyclists could afford.  Certainly not the kind of money that, once spent, he could afford to lose by blowing a piss test.  If you factor inflation, it’s hard to believe that individual athletes are self-funding these programs.  In the Festina team of the late 90’s, a pool was created into which everyone’s winnings went.  The drugs used were individually tracked in a journal and the riders were ‘billed back’ from the slush fund before the year-end divvying of the pot. Some of today’s elite level professional outfits are rumored to have comprehensive doping programs built into the package – a team sponsorship with added bonuses.  Until the cycling and sporting press chooses to ask hard questions of the top moneymen funding the teams, very little light will be shed on this element of the debate.  Voet’s book has been out since 1999 in his native Flemish and translated to English in 2001.  It has been a best seller, yet the clear facts it presents are almost never quoted in today’s press when covering modern cycling controversies such as Floyd Landis or the Puerto affair.

“(The riders) had no idea precisely how the EPO was going to be delivered to them…To calm his charges, (The Director Sportif) called Spain, then put down the receiver and reassured us; ‘It’s coming in tomorrow by plane.’” – W. Voet, 99

Might not any of the long-time journalists covering cycling, who have no doubt read Voet’s book (if not seen these truths with their own eyes), mentioned this quote in the summer of ‘06, when the Spanish police cracked the blood doping ring known now as Operacion Puerto?  If nothing else, it shows a historical connection between nefarious doctors in Spain and the primary scandal in the sport.  Well, they didn’t.  Even today, publications support and defend suspected and convicted dopers while their editor issues snarky blog postings that insinuate a much more detailed knowledge (wink, wink) of the cheating.  Why not tell the truth, print names and send out the investigative pit bulls to tip the can?  Well, then they’d not get all the gravy; the free trips to Europe, the insider/cool-guy status, the expensive bikes to test and keep and, most importantly, the fat paycheck for keeping up the illusion of an honest sport.  It’s telling that the man Voet fingers as the money man - the financial connection to the suppliers of the drugs used by the French national team - was also the team's publicity man. 

In the current case of Floyd Landis, much was made early on that the drug he had tested positive for, testosterone, would not have contributed to his astounding comeback victory on Stage 17.  Domestic pro Joe Papp, himself busted and serving a two-year suspension for doping, outlined in court exactly how he had used testosterone and other drugs to achieve just such remarkable results.  These products are not always used to enhance a spectacular performance but rather to recover fully and quickly from a maximum exhaustive effort the days before.  Willy Voet knew it for twenty odd years and published accounts of its use and successes in his book last decade.  So quickly we are willing to forget, dismiss and ignore.

Landis has now come out with a book, co-written by a journalist who covered his hearings without ever announcing her participation in writing the novel.  The principal issue with this apparent lack of concern for journalistic integrity are statements made in the book that don’t match transcribed testimony from the courtroom.  Fair and balanced reporting indeed.  Around the same time, Irish journalist David Walsh has published an incendiary book detailing allegations of a deeply embedded organized doping program within American cycling.  Of course, he is vilified, particularly in the press whose noses are most browned by their kissing up to the king US cycling, himself a widely accused doper.  Witnesses involved with both the Landis and Armstrong cases find themselves smeared and tainted in the racing news with nary a balanced question asked.  Given the voracity of attention given to the content of Walsh’s book, look for the tide to turn as major sporting news outlets swoop in to do what our own press will not: that is, practice investigative journalism.

In recent times a small number of professional cyclists have dared to speak out and ignore the code of silence about drug use.  While most of them did this after getting busted for doping, they have taken various routes to trumpet their truths about cheating.  Some have written books, others created websites; all have spoken to the media.  To a man they have been portrayed as crybabies, rabble-rousers, sore losers, sellouts and out-right liars, primarily by the cycling press.  With the current retroactive confessions of high-profile racers in Germany, the trials of fallen champions in Italy, America and Spain and last week’s raids in Belgium these outspoken men don’t look like such crackpots to me. Jaksche in particular might be the loudest voice actually heard, as his accusations cover a decade of top-flight teams now accused of engaging in well organized doping.  About Telekom he says: “It was a well-established system. Godefroot didn't want to prevent doping, but he wanted to prevent inept doping."

Tragically, many cyclists – and no doubt athletes of other stripes as well – have died as a direct result of doping.  How many heart attacks of people between the ages of 24 and 38 does it take to arouse suspicion?  Apparently many more than the thirty or so who have succumbed thus far.  In the 60’s and 70’s it was amphetamine abuse, which continues on to this day and famously claimed Tom Simpson as he struggled up a French mountain road in the 1967 TdF.  Gradually steroids, pain killers, EPO, Human Growth Hormones, cortisone, testosterone, synthetic stimulants and other dangerous blends entered the panoply of substances used to gain advantage in a race.  EPO was probably the quickest to be accepted among this new lot as it replaced blood packing –the extremely risky practice of oxygenating or thickening the blood by training at high altitude, extracting and storing it, then re-introducing it to the body before a race.  Taking injections to achieve the same result seemed much less dangerous but in the early days before the drug’s full effects were known, its abuse could prove fatal.  Tour de France winners like Alex Zulle and Bjarne Riis regularly stomped up the cols with hematocrit levels of 60 or more, later admitting it was due to the EPO they were hoovering into their bodies.  Sadly, lesser-known names like Mauro Gianetti, Joachim Halupczok and many others are now in the grave for trying similar methods to achieve the same results.  The controversial doctor doom to the cycling pros – Michele Ferrari, himself investigated and implicated in numerous doping scandals - once famously claimed that EPO was no more dangerous than orange juice.  (He now advises on his website on how you can learn to "ride faster, longer, higher".)  The irony has certainly been lost on the families of the fallen.

My attention turns back to the respected sports journalists. I find it’s not so much that I want them to ask questions and speak to the obvious; it’s the lack of interest in what’s not clear that is at the crux of the issue.  When Greg LeMond states ‘No one owns me” the inference is that others are bought – who?  And by whom?  Lance Armstrong is very careful to say ‘I have never tested positive’ but he is less direct in answering weather he has taken banned substances.  This apparent contradiction is never thoroughly questioned; when it is the reporter often finds himself sued into submission.  Why is the random screening for drugs conducted after a race, when all empirical evidence points to more accurate results if testing is in the morning, before the start as well as at the finish?  Much of the illicit history of doping that can be researched tends to circle through Belgium, yet our own National Junior development team goes to no other country for elite training camps.  The company that invented EPO and Aranasp sponsors the largest race in North America, yet they do not test for these illegal stimulants in any of the screens at their own race.  This fact is reported, and then followed up by little more than articles praising the sponsor for supporting education programs about proper use of their medicines. 

Following this year’s Giro d’Italia, three famous riders tested ‘non-negative’ for a steroid used in asthma inhalers.  Thanks to doctors' notes, the riders got a hall pass.  Sadly, at first no journalist bothered to do a simple webMD search to find that the drug in question, Salbutamol, is also an injectable steroid used to relax tightened muscles and help cut weight in seriously ill and bed-ridden patients.  Now with the on-off-on banning of Petacchi from le Tour having reached a crescendo, the facts are clearly in print.  Perhaps it is not the journalist’s responsibility to uncover controversy in these potential coincidences but it is clearly their job to maintain the mysteries and uphold the myth of sporting legend. 

It’s not just the media that is complicit in upholding this illusion.  The core fans are just as guilty.  Someone who has followed racing obsessively and read the histories has to have seen some ugly truths.  When another racer confesses or tests positive these certainly aren’t shocking revelations to the tifosi.  Yet the willingness to shutter our eyes is so great that the emperor’s new clothes are always beautiful.  This extends beyond cycling; it’s no different in home-run derbies or runs for championship cups.  When the man said ‘no longer sportsmen but professionals…’ he wasn’t just talking about the rolleurs.  Anyone who really believes that the endurance needed to play any sport at a world-class level is achieved through calisthenics and a hearty meal is seriously deluded.  The stakes are simply too high to allow the results to be up to fate and physical conditioning.  The audience is merely the catalyst for monetization in every sport; the men who fund and gamble on the teams call the shots.  If you missed the pun, the shots they call for are often cortisone, nandrolone, HGH and Aranasp.  It’s no coincidence that at least seven major on-line betting shops sponsor top-flight football and cycling teams on the world stage.  Perhaps slightly more intriguing to this line of discussion is the handful of major pharmaceutical companies who sponsor elite cycling clubs and major stops on the professional tour.  The fans accept all of this without a blink so long as there’s a summer full of races and a calendar full of championship tournaments.

Of course I have favorite racers; athletes who seem to be not only fantastic bike handlers with race winning speed but also come across in the media as sincere and genuine people.  I want to believe they are clean, and that is the fan’s conflict; the reason we are so willing to participate in the charade.  Surely our personal picks aren’t the ones cheating.  I want to believe in the Jens Voigt’s, the Michael Rich’s, the Hincapie’s and the Betini’s.  I will cheer for them but under no illusions of their saintliness; perhaps it needs to be enough that they simply never test positive.

Within the networks of teams at the elite level of cycling, many illustrious figures from the pages of doping history still populate the races.  They are racers, director’s sportif, soigneurs, managers and doctors.  You can find names from the police blotters of Europe safely ensconced with cushy positions in the sport.  Names have been named in ex-racer turned journalist Paul Killmage’s book “Rough Ride”, in Voet’s writings and in the testimonies of racers like Manzano and others.  The very records of the UCI tell the stories of suspensions, fines, conspiracies, convictions, suicides and deaths.  It’s not just the racers who are using; if one is to believe Voet, the jester’s court that keeps the whole operation running are also ‘charged’.  When that caravan of team vehicles goes careening down the road after the racers, figure that more than half the drivers are zooted out of their heads on speed, having stayed up half the night for weeks on end juicing the riders.  Lest we forget, and it bears repeating, the connection between the team and the suppliers in Voet’s story is the PR flack.  How is it possible to believe that every effort is being made to clean up the sport when factual accounts of cheating by these methods can be documented decades back in the history of the sport?  Furthermore, the very men and women proved in those histories to have cheated, doped and lied – to have perfected the systematic abuse of drugs - are for the most part still integral to the game.

As a cyclist and occasional amateur racer it’s all enough to make me hang up the cleats, or at least go puke in my shoes. Too quietly, a case is building around a series of raids in Belgium, widely suspected to involve the team of the current and previous World Champion.  A politician linked to the case has said evidence will show a deep program of doping extending through the amateur ranks and even into the youth levels of the sport.  It is doubtful that much will come out before Saturday’s launch of la Grande Boucle.

In our own country, HGH, steroids and other performance enhancing substances are widely available on-line and through mail order ads in the back of sports and health magazines.  These drugs are openly discussed, shared and used by weekend warriors and gym rats.  Celebrities endorse the same products to fight aging, ensure good looks and promote virility.  The message to the youth, in fact to the average citizen athlete, is clear – any means necessary to achieve success and fame.  Don’t worry; we’ll look the other way if we have to.  Think the kids are all right?  Look no further than the headline story about a 17 year-old track and field star that so obsessively used an analgesic sports crème she died of methyl salicylate poisoning.

I have personally turned up at a local race, discovered syringes in the parking lot and reported them to the race judges, only to be waved dismissively away.  After retrieving the evidence myself in a double plastic bag I was sneered at and told ‘junkies’ often used the lot in the night.  Perhaps, but given the current climate of our sport, wouldn’t it be prudent to investigate the situation a little more thoroughly?  Especially when the race was being contested and ultimately won by members of a team sponsored by the makers of EPO? 

Another time, at the peak of my fitness, bundled up and riding at a quick pace midway through a timed 100 mile ride in a cold drizzle, I was aggressively passed by a screaming, muscle ripped 50 year-old flying by in little more than shorts and a singlet.  Roid rage was pretty much the only explanation that I could accept.  No proof of course, but my point is that doping is not just for the professionals.  Anyone with the money to afford it and the ego to abuse it can and frequently does take whatever advantage they can.  This is promoted to us all not only in back page muscle magazine advertisements but by the very fact that our heroic cheating professionals are rarely caught and then only lightly punished.  Plausible deniability and the powerful spin of media illusionists simply excuse the offense away until the athlete can safely mount a comeback, often touting clean living and innocence despite the charges for which they served their suspensions.  These wrist slaps serve to embolden the kid who aspires to be a Tour de France champion like his heroes by using all measures necessary.

There is some fair and balanced bike-racing going on out there in the world if you know where to look.  More appropriate to say perhaps that if you’re willing to look to the fringes, you’ll find exciting competition based on the principals of speed, endurance and above all, fun. This may be construed as mocking or sarcastic; the reality is that these were the most exciting races of the year so far.  Unsanctioned street races like Monster Track *, Stuporbowl and The North American Bicycle Courier Championships featured blazing speeds, unique challenges and pretty much guaranteed that any substances being ingested were detrimental, not enhancing to the performance of the cyclists involved. 

Off-road epics like Iditabike, TransRockies, TransScotland, Chainbreaker, Leadville and others feature hard men and women from mostly privateer teams racing across gut-wrenchingly beautiful terrain without a drop of EPO in sight.  At least I hope that’s the case.  You never know, the Brooklyn bike messengers might be totally hopped up on ‘roids, but I kinda doubt it. Our cycling heroes should be regular Joe’s and Jane’s who push themselves and their machines across challenging courses against the clock, and then return to a desk at an accounting firm somewhere in middle America. 

So back to le Tour.  As I started out saying, I will watch with renewed enthusiasm this year.  Not for the spectacle of competition between hard working sportsmen, but for the circus of lies around their professional cheating.  The first thrill will be in who actually makes it to the start line at the London prologue.  From there I will watch for the mysterious bandage that may hide a condom full of clean urine to dupe the test at the end of the stage.  I will wonder aloud at the reports of viruses and colds laying an athlete low early in the race, only to see them make a remarkable attack at the first mountain passes.  When the young bucks that fought so valiantly this past spring to make selection to The Grande Boucle start to falter, I will cry ‘boomerang!’ and devour another waffle.  Who knows, one of these unknowns lucky enough to have gotten the preparation correct may win the whole bloody thing.  With the prospect of many big names and big teams yet again being struck from the rolls by raids and accusations, it could be a very open field. When each stage ends, still early in the morning here on local TV, I will walk out to the garage fueled up on sugar and caffeine and last night’s bar tab, grab my bike and as ever enjoy the ride.

------------------------------------

The 2007 Tour de France starts tomorrow with the Prologue Time Trial in LondonVersus (formerly OLN) will broadcast live every day for the next three weeks.

Links to ponder:

Fox Sports: Book it - Doping stories will eclipse tour
Ask the Doctor: The surprising dual toll of doping
Sports Illustrated: Some athletes allowed to bend  drug rules
Marco Pantani official site
Simeoni testifies: Dr. Ferrari prescribed EPO
Wikipedia: Filippo Simeoni
Growth Hormone Schemes and Scams
Do Anabolic Steroids Cause "Roid Rage"?
Salon.com: 'Roid Rage
Pigs fed on bodybuilder steroids cause food poisoning in Shanghai
Symmetrics Cycling
Another Drug War
NY Times: Two Aides to Armstrong Doped
Winning at All Costs
Bicycling.com: Understanding the doping scandal
Cycle of Confession: As a Tour winner admits using drugs, the wall of silence is coming down 
Wikipedia: José Maria Jiménez Sastre
EPO Use in Pro Cycling
Drugs and the Tour de France by Ramin Minovi
Track cyclist Ben Karsten's tour diary
Lance Armstrong lashes out at David Walsh book charges

   



May 26, 2007

Longtime Denver Film Critic Robert Denerstein Latest to Get Axe in Ongoing Newspaper Shake-Up

From Saturday's Rocky Mountain News:

Unless you've been living in happy isolation, you know that newspapers face a cascading series of problems. Declining revenues. Declining circulation. Uncertainty about the future. No need to recite the entire litany here, except by way of noting that the words "layoffs" and "buyouts" have appeared in far too many stories about too many newspapers lately, including this one.

I've spent the past 30 years at the Rocky Mountain News, 27 of them as its film critic, and that's about to end. I've accepted what's called a voluntary separation agreement from the paper in a time when the Rocky and many other papers are contracting and reorganizing. I'm at a point in my life where it makes sense to slow down and smell the artificially flavored popcorn.

That means that my name won't be appearing regularly in the paper after today. If upon waking Tuesday, I reflexively begin the drive toward the Rocky, you'll have to forgive me - I'll be battling 30 years' worth of conditioning.

And later in the same piece:

Most critics learn to expand their tastes. I hope that's happened to me over the years. Maybe it's time to be more selective, though. I'm looking forward to being able to dismiss movies that don't drift onto my radar. I won't miss seeing every movie. It's rewarding to rip apart a bad movie and even more fulfilling to embrace a good one, but there are only so many ways to shrug one's shoulders in print. I've seen a lot of mediocre movies; my shoulders need a rest.

April 28, 2007

Paul Harrill: First Person at Virginia Tech and the Fallout From NBC's Lack of Context

I want to make special note of my pal Paul Harrill's recent posts on his blog, which is normally one of my favorite reads about film.  Paul, who participated in the film blogger panel at SXSW, is also a professor at Virginia Tech and has, over the past couple of weeks since the tragic shootings there, written a number of thoughtful and passionate posts about the situation in Blacksburg.  He also has become - I think largely to his dismay - a small part of the story.  Paul felt that some of the photographs of the killer, which were sent to NBC and later disseminated by numerous media sources, bore a resemblance to images in Chan-Wook Park's recent South Korean film OldBoy.  And in the midst of the decision by these media outlets to immediately make public - without any kind of context - the killer's photos, videos and writings, Paul hoped to give some kind of reference.   Says Harrill:

For others, the image might have suggested something else, but I am a filmmaker and I suppose I am inclined to make comparisons between images of cinematic texts, if one can use such coolly academic terminology for a killer’s self-taped imagery. Both images feature people looking into a camera’s eye brandishing a hammer and, importantly for me, both images are “revenge texts.” The fact that both images are of Asian males was largely inconsequential to me; if either person had been of a difference race, nationality, etc. I would have, I feel, made the same connection.

Paul's observation made it into several news accounts and - as is the media's wont - it suddenly became the defacto link: MOVIE INSPIRES KILLER.

More from Paul:

I thought, some readers and viewers would be perplexed by such an image, and I wanted to suggest a possible reference. Mainly, though, I wanted to use this opportunity of having the Times’ attention to tell them how I would prefer that they did not show such images in the first place. This message was included in my email to them though, perhaps not surprisingly, they chose not to acknowledge that comment. I believe that giving airtime to a killer’s ramblings does a disservice to those of us here in Blacksburg who are deeply, actively grieving; I also believe that it likely gives the killer the attention he so desperately desired. For me, sharing these images publicly goes beyond pornography.

How misguided and naive can a person be, particularly in light of the comments in my last post? I should have said nothing, done nothing, and ignored it all. I made the mistake of attempting to make sense of the nonsensical, assuming that my comment could be a simple footnote to a single still image, and above all, presuming that a person can have any control over any comment he feeds to the Media Machine.

Last weekend in the Baltimore Sun, film critic Michael Sragow tried to discount the link between the perennially popular film and the Virginia Tech massacre:

Despite that one image of Cho with a two-fisted grip on a hammer, and another self-portrait of him holding a gun to his own temple, there appeared to be no clear connection between Oldboy and Cho.

Paul Harrill, who teaches film and video at Virginia Tech, initially drew attention to the similarities between Oldboy and Cho. London's Evening Standard first announced the link, reporting yesterday that, "Police believe Cho Seung-Hui repeatedly watched the movie." But no subsequent report has confirmed that theory or suspicion. Harrill, in an e-mailed statement, expressed dismay over the snowballing story, and said he was simply making an observation. His point, he wrote, was to "initiate a conversation" about "news outlets using a mass murderer's fantasies as sick spectacle and - let us never forget - as a source of revenue."

Harrill wrote on his blog about the fall-out:

This morning I awoke to several emails and blog comments accusing me of everything from racism against South Koreans to blaming cinema for the carnage on Monday. And all day I have been courted by several major media outlets salivating for an interview with me, as if I could somehow explain the events of Monday to them by way of a movie. How sad. How absurd. The answer to all of these individuals has been “No.”

Let me be clear: My comparison of these two images was not meant to suggest in ANY way that movies, any movie, “made him do it.” Likewise, my comparison of these two images is IN NO WAY an attempt to make ANY generalizations based on racial, nationalistic, or any other sorts of lines.

The unfortunate thing is that this sideshow lost focus from Harrill's initial intent, which he outlined in a previous piece that referenced Jill Godmilow's theory of "The Pornography of the Real":

I think of storytelling as a kind of citizenship, so I don’t blame people for wanting to know the stories unfolding in Blacksburg, nor do I blame journalists for telling those stories. Still, how one gathers the facts, why you gather them, and the way you tell them can’t be separated from the story you’re telling. Sadly I’ve been witnessing firsthand how many journalists, particularly those from out of town, seem to have forgotten that common decency is also facet of citizenship. My main consolation, and it isn’t much, is knowing that the members of the media will move on to another spectacle in very short time.

There should be an intelligent conversation in this country about how the media responded to the Virginia Tech story, particularly the decision by NBC and other media outlets to air (immediately, without context and seemingly without limit) the killer's photos and videos.  There's a legitimate question to be asked here.  Did the public at large gain anything from seeing - on their television screens and splashed across the front page of the morning papers - what amounted to a publicity shot of a madman, arms splayed open, guns cocked?  Would NBC have been justified in merely describing what they had received and saying that they saw no public good in rewarding the killer's evil by publishing his manifesto (despite comparisons to the Unabomber, in which the killer at the time was on the loose)?

Slate's Jack Shafer argues that NBC and the other media were somewhat in the right but questions the filtering of images:

NBC News needn't apologize to anybody for originally airing the Cho videos and pictures. The Virginia Tech slaughter is an ugly story, but the five W's of journalism—who, what, where, when, and why—demand that journalists ask the question "why?" even if they can't adequately answer it. If you're interested in knowing why Cho did what he did, you want to see the videos and photos and read from the transcripts. If you're not interested, you should feel free to avert your eyes.

The real story here is the odd restraint NBC News showed. Cho mailed NBC News about two dozen QuickTime videos, of which the network has aired only a handful. NBC anchor Brian Williams said last night that the network is also holding back Cho photos, as well as Cho writings it deems incoherent and obscene. It seems to think that it's protecting viewers by rationing Cho material while at the same time it reruns the already released video indiscriminately.

I think Shafer's view that "you should feel free to avert your eyes" is simplistic and intellectually dishonest.  I got off the plane in Tampa last Thursday morning and there was no averting my eyes - the photograph in question was everywhere you looked - on newspaper boxes, on hanging televisions in the terminal and in gift shops.  It was impossible not to see it.

The conservative blog Hot Air agrees with Shafer, perhaps surprisingly given that NBC seems to be the current big media villain in right-leaning circles:

I tip slightly in favor of airing it because (a) I hate when the media plays paterfamilias in deciding what is and isn’t “appropriate news” for the public to see, and (b) I was honestly curious. (The National Review's Stephen) Spruiell’s** been grasping for some grander justification, like bringing the power of collective intelligence to bear on the evidence, but I think he’s just dressing up natural curiosity about the psychology of a mass murderer in some nobler utilitarian faux purpose. Which is not to say the media should be showing us crime-scene photos and pornography, etc., pursuant to point (a); obviously the feelings of the victims’ families do matter and just as obviously there are experiences so mortal and private that we recoil instinctively from images that exploit them in the interest of news. As unsatisfying an answer as this may be, I think ultimately it’s just a gut reaction about where to draw the line of decency, and so long as NBC didn’t/doesn’t show any crime scenes, I’m willing to cut them a break.

[**Note from AJ - Bringing the conversation full circle, Spruiell's post at NRO reference's Harrill's Oldboy observation.]

NBC's Brian Williams later wrote on his blog that the worst of the videos will never