All these wonderful things

The Monday Brief: Exhaling the Week That Was, Sundance Advice, Toback's Extortion Charge & Varnum Goes on Hiatus

Deep breath.

After a week filled with all kinds of documentary developments, we're now settling into a week that's slightly less packed.  Today, the Sundance short films are announced and on Sunday, the Los Angeles Film Critics are scheduled to announce their 2009 winners.

Already the DC Film Critics jumped to the front of the line last night by announcing FOOD, INC. as their winner (it had earlier been revealed as one of five nominees along with ANVIL!, THE COVE, CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY and GOOD HAIR.

Another winner yesterday? Oscar shortlister MUGABE AND THE WHITE AFRICAN, which won the Best Documentary award at the British Independent Film Awards.

If you haven't been paying attention this week, you missed a humdinger, what with Sundance announcements, Gotham & IDA winners, Spirit nominations and the like.  If you missed any of it, here's a recap:

We unveiled The Horse Race and examine FOOD, INC.'s Oscar chances in light of a big week ahead, just before...

...FOOD, INC. wins the Gotham for Best Documentary and...

...is nominated for a Spirit Award in the same category, giving it the rare pre-Oscar sweep of major doc award nominations.  Others up for Best Feature include probable spoiler ANVIL!, MORE THAN A GAME, OCTOBER COUNTRY and WHICH WAY HOME.

The IDA unveils seven of its winners four days before the Friday ceremony which ultimately crowns ANVIL! as its Best Documentary Feature.  The love at the IDAs and probable love at the Spirits makes us wonder if we shouldn't reconsider ANVIL's very remote Best Picture chances.

In the midst of all this, THE COVE gets some love from the National Board of Review.

Sundance unveils a stellar competition line-up as well as a promising out-of-competition slate.

And finally, two leading Cinema Eye nominees - BIG RIVER MAN and LOOT - open at the IFC Center in NYC and a couple of cranky conservatives try to exact some kind of revenge on Al Gore and AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH and the LA Times bungles the story.

The Sundance announcements always bring mixed emotions - the excitement of a whetted appetite for what's coming next year and the knowledge that literally thousands of filmmakers were disappointed not to hear Park City's clarion call.

Filmmaker Magazine's Scott Macauley addresses those who received the form emails:

"The first thing: for a few days, forget about it. Don’t think about your film. This weekend go out to a concert, or a museum, or a park. Watch football. Probably don’t go to the movies. If you were obsessively refreshing this site or Indiewire all week to see the Sundance list, take a break from not only your film but film itself.

Next week dive back into it. And as you do so, recognize the one thing you now have that all those Sundance filmmakers don't: time. Time to take a second look at the film, screen it, refine it, finesse, or perhaps just find the right post-production vendor. Time to fine tune the DIY marketing and distribution plan that you really wouldn’t have been able to pull together by mid-January."

Faux-Outrage of the Week: Youth Culture is Killing THE HURT LOCKER

It all started with a throwaway line in a John Horn column.

You remember John Horn, the LA Times writer who we like to pick on for declaring YOUNG@HEART an unmitigated disaster (what with box office topping out just shy of $4 million).  Well, in a recent column, Horn wrote about the surprising success of Kathryn Bigelow's excellent new film THE HURT LOCKER, which - at the time - had just passed $7 million and seemed like it was eluding the box office troubles that beset other Iraq War films (both narrative and documentaries).

In the midst of praising Summit Entertainment (the upstart distributor behind the TWILIGHT franchise) for their handling the release of the film, Horn suggests a possible dark lining for his silver cloud:

"For all of the film's early commercial and critical achievements, Summit now faces a HURT LOCKER test nearly as tricky as the film's central theme of disabling Iraqi improvised explosive devices. Younger moviegoers are not flocking to the film, which could limit its ticket sales."

Something about that last line has shaken both Roger Ebert and blogger Jeffrey Wells to their very core, leading both to write hysterical, sky-is-falling screeds against young people for turning their backs on such cinematic excellence.

Says America's favorite film critic in a posting entitled - get ready for it, "THE GATHERING DARK AGE":

"If I mention the cliché "the dumbing-down of America," it's only because there's no way around it. And this dumbing-down seems more pronounced among younger Americans. It has nothing to do with higher educational or income levels. It proceeds from a lack of curiosity and, in many cases, a criminally useless system of primary and secondary education. Until a few decades ago, almost all high school graduates could read a daily newspaper. The issue today is not whether they read a daily paper, but whether they can." (emphasis his)

Wells goes even further:

"Excuse me? The Young and the Empty are paying to see big-studio CG crap but they're steering clear of a genuinely cool, gripping and seriously thrilling film that is unquestionably among the year's best and which runs circles around the filmmaking chops of Michael Bay and Stephen Sommers? And the youth of the nation can't be bothered? There's really and truly something wrong with these guys, honest to God. A deficiency in their souls."

Balderdash.

The Monday Brief: Thompson at indieWIRE, THE COVE Debuts and Michael Moore Threatens a Docu-Retirement

We're gonna try a bit of an experiment, a new feature here at the blog called The Monday Brief. 

What is it?  In short, it will be a recap of some of the news of the weekend, some of the items that we missed or couldn't get to from the previous week(s) and a bit of a riff on what we're thinking and talking about.

How long will it last?  Hard to say.  We're gonna try to keep it regular, although our filmmaking job will continue to take top priority, so we can assume that there will also be Commando Mondays (sans Briefs).  But we're hoping this provides an outlet for stories that seem to deserve more than a headline and maybe something less than a full blog post, plus a bit more stream of consciousness (which will likely get us into a spot of bother).

In any case, thanks for coming along for the ride.

Today is the day that Anne Thompson moves her column Thompson on Hollywood over to indieWIRE and, at press time, there's already a significant amount of content, including posts about THE HURT LOCKER's Oscar hopes, a few wrap-up pieces from ComiCon and a look at the disappointing year Universal is having.

As we wrote earlier this year after it was announced that Variety had given her the pink slip:

"Few are able to balance coverage of studios and indies as well as Thompson does.  And, true to her being a real reporter, she has better sources and a more inquisitive mind than nearly anyone who writes about the industry on a regular basis."

I should add that she's one of a handful of folks who pays a good deal of attention to what's happening in the documentary world.  It's great to see Thompson pair up with indieWIRE and it will be interesting to see how the partnership plays out.

Peter Scarlett Out at Tribeca; Varnum Departs Re:sources

The film world, still reverberating from the shock of Geoffrey Gilmore's Sundance-for-Tribeca trade, had been wondering this past week how long Tribeca Festival Director Peter Scarlett would remain at the helm.  Today, the answer came:

"The term ‘The Seven-Year Itch’ always evokes that famous still of Marilyn Monroe standing on a NY subway grating with her skirt blowing up around her thighs,” Scarlet said in a statement today. “But as my 7th Tribeca Film Festival loomed, I realized simply that it’s time for me to seek new challenges. I’m enormously grateful for the terrific experiences I’ve been able to share with colleagues and viewers here, and I’ll never stop being grateful to Martin Scorsese, Robert De Niro and Jane Rosenthal for having invited me along for such a glorious ride. I wish them and the Festival all success."

The NY Post's Lou Lumenick wonders who's next:

"(W)as Scarlet pushed or did he jump? Whaddya think? I have no idea, but would anybody be surprised if Tribeca's executive director Nancy Schafer and lead programmers David Kwok and Genna Terranova have their resumes out?"

Meanwhile, Agnes Varnum (who's own doc it out site is a personal favorite), announced today that she was stepping down from the Tribeca Film Institute's Re:sources Blog:

"It’s with mixed feelings that I tell you this will be my last post here at Resources for the time being. I had a great time doing this blog. Reading other people’s thoughts and ideas and putting my own spin on it, alerting folks to new grants, programs and studies they may not have heard of, and on occasion, thinking about the art of filmmaking, are all pursuits I enjoy. But it was also a frustrating experience because talking about policy and technology issues to filmmakers is a little like banging one’s head against a wall...

I started this blog back when most filmmakers weren’t even sure of how to create community online. Even just two years ago, the tools were rougher and the knowledge was just trickling in from the new media communities. Geesh, who says new media anymore? That’s how far along things have come in a short period of time. I’ve done what I set out to do here."

For my purposes, Varnum's personal site (which continues) was always the better read, but that's probably because I am not attuned to tech stuff in ways that I probably should be (I tend to hope that the folks I rely on won't mind my asking to be led through the processes for the third, fourth and fifth times).

And while Varnum's exit won't cause the reverberations that Gilmore and Scarlett's moves have made, the constant flux at Tribeca - just days before the festival announces this year's line-up certainly puts a question mark on the festival.

Variety Axes Vet Anne Thompson, Fest Editor Mike Jones in Layoff

Monday, Variety announced that it was laying off 30 employees, with editor Peter Bart claiming, "The modest staff cuts will in no way compromise the editorial integrity of Variety or Daily Variety."

By late afternoon, however, it was clear that the two most visible and trusted Variety reporter/bloggers - particularly to those of us in the indie film community - were amongst those let go: veteran reporter Anne Thompson and Variety.com Film Festival editor Mike Jones, an indieWIRE and Filmmaker Magazine veteran.

Thompson, who wrote her Risky Business blog for The Hollywood Reporter before she decamped for Variety and launched Thompson on Hollywood, is particularly bewildering.  Few are able to balance coverage of studios and indies as well as Thompson does.  And, true to her being a real reporter, she has better sources and a more inquisitive mind than nearly anyone who writes about the industry on a regular basis.

In a posting on her blog announcing the news, Thompson held out hopes for the continuance of her blog:

"Variety and I are in talks about continuing to host the blog, but I am also fielding other interest. For the past few months I have been actively involved in a web start-up which is in stealth mode; details will be available soon. And I will continue teaching film criticism at USC and hosting Sneak Previews at UCLA Extension.

And then there's that book...

Stay tuned. The blog isn't going anywhere."

As of early Tuesday morning, Jones had yet to post on his The Circuit blog about the layoffs.

Update: Tuesday night - As Ray Pride notes in the comments, Jones posted his farewell this morning and it's a beaut:

"The blossoming depression is now an inevitable part of all small talk.  Hard to even call the talk small.  Yet in the wake of a 70,000-plus job loss yesterday, the magnitude of what the country faces threatens to make the individual story smaller.  It's important to remember the stories above this drone of newspaper statistics and bad news avalanche.  The news will get worse.  We'll rely on filmmakers and artists to make some sense of it all, or to at least shift our gaze.  Which is frankly just as good.
 
And that task is the film festival's job -- to put up stories in that great black box, on that giant screen, with that enveloping sound system, and under the influence of a room full of moody strangers.  All without a pause button.  Film festivals are cinema's art gallery and in an economic crisis it is a cheap temple to worship at.  For me, it's the best worship around."

David Hudson to Depart GreenCine, Launch The Daily at IFC.com

A huge piece of film blog news comes across the transom just before the Christmas break - David Hudson, who for the past five+ years has been an essential daily stop for film lovers at GreenCine Daily, will depart his current home for a new blog, The Daily, to be launched at IFC.com.

Aaron Hillis, omnipresent film critic, writer and principal at Benten Films, will take the reigns at GreenCine come the new year.

Here is Hudson's farewell announcement at GreenCine and here is Allison Willmore with the welcome wagon at IFC.

POV's Tom Roston & THINKFilm's Mark Urman Criticize the Big Blogger-Media-Complex

The P.O.V. Blog's Tom Roston had a piece up yesterday criticizing us (although not by name) for the pieces we wrote last month about financial troubles at THINKFilm.  (You can find our original posts here, here, here and here.)  In the piece, Roston gets THINKFilm President Mark Urman on the record not so much about the state of affairs at THINK but about the speculation about the state of affairs at THINK.  Says Urman:

"If one wants to chronicle the woes, one is simply adding to them. Thus far, all the writers who purport to set the record straight do so by recapitulating all the half-truths and false assumptions only to halfheartedly refute them. I am stymied as to why so many film writers are much quicker to cover our problems than they are to cover our films."

While Roston acknowledges that Urman hasn't said much about the current state of THINK, he argues that Urman's remarks are "a fair assessment of the overall vibe that the blog-media-complex is treating THINKFilm like the latest chum thrown in the water".

Earlier in his piece, Roston ridicules the posts themselves, arguing that they were little more than gossip:

"A lot of the "reporting" on the issue has referenced unnamed sources, and there's been a notable lack of comment from Bergstein or ThinkFilm. It appears that some of the "reporters" didn't even seek comment from the subjects. And lest we forget, a lawsuit is just a legal claim, not a statement of fact. Not that I'm saying there's no truth in the matter, but I've just been bothered by how the rumors have surfaced as news when, really, there have been very few hard news stories (there's been one Variety piece) covering the situation."

Oy, where to begin? 

As Karina Longworth alludes in her own piece today, there've actually been four Variety articles about the THINKFilm situation (May 12, May 14, May 29 and June 1), the last of which notes that another lawsuit had been filed against the company by Mammoth Advertising.  This would seem to cut to the heart of Roston's complaint - hell, if Variety thinks the story merits FOUR articles, maybe there is some truth to it!

But really, the fact that there haven't been "hard news stories" about THINK's situation is a reason to doubt what's been said on those awful blogs?  Strange notion that, considering that everything that we reported in our "controverisial" "BREAKING" story was backed up less than 24 hours later by Variety.

As for Roston's contention that we didn't even seek comment from THINK, I think several points are worth noting.  First, as we've mentioned previously, we've had an off-the-record email exchange with Mark Urman.  I have given him on-the-record questions about the state of THINK's financial affairs but have yet to receive a reply.  I should also note that more than once I have been given information about THINK that I have felt was either gossip or unverifiable and have not run that information.  Finally, one should note that in Variety's most recent story, requests for comment from THINK are referred to a PR company, which gave no comment.  Even Roston himself can't get anything out of Urman on this point, as Urman's comment starts off with "Let's not get into the whole THINK thing."

But finally, Tom, if you're gonna criticize me and put ironic quotations around the idea that I've done "reporting" on this topic, then you should name me and link to the posts in question.

What's Up with all the Hostility Toward SEX AND THE CITY?

Over the past few days, I've been reading a few posts on this weekend's blockbuster top grossing SEX AND THE CITY movie.  And for the life of me, I don't understand the rage in the writing that I've been seeing.

I wouldn't say a word if this were reserved for the likes of Jeffrey Wells, who has almost cornered the market on creepy in the film blogosphere (and make no mistake, he goes after SATC with pure unadulterated crazy - "a cultural snapshot showing everyone in the world how utterly shallow and culturally nowhere mainstream American women have become"), but even some of my favorite writers (and peeps for that matter) have joined in.  It's become de rigeur to hate SATC sight unseen, and to do so with a bizarre double standard that I thought was reserved for the Clinton campaign.

Karina Longworth even posted a handy guide to the 5 Ways to Dismiss the SEX AND THE CITY Movie, which was proffered as help for those looking to articulate their "semi-rational hatred" for the film.  Number one on the list?  "The women aren't attractive!" 

Karina even points to the illustration at left that accompanied a nasty New Yorker review from professional film crapper Anthony Lane (it's really useless to call him a critic at this point, since he only serves to write outrageously about films he despises these days).  Says Karina, "A masterpiece of grotesque caricature, it’s the only piece of critique of the film that this self-professed third (or is it fourth?) wave feminist considers to be truly, maliciously misogynist."

Karina's post even merits a love letter from "Stephen" in the comments section, who writes:

"I LOVE YOU!!!!

There, finally a sane woman speaks out! Phew… good to see there are STILL some alive and well...

You’re right, people moan about these women as if they are so hot. But the truth is, that they’re just old, and pathetic. Shallow and materialistic oh and horny.

Sadly a lot of young women and troubled women find this show amazing… I guess it’s because they’re simply disillusioned and have a very distorted view on reality."

Yes, thank God that Karina has provided a buffer for Stephen from the mass of people who have been proclaiming how "hot" the SATC ladies are.  (Update: This morning Karina expands on that "somewhat tongue-in-cheek post" and wonders what the film's success might mean.)

I was alerted to Karina's breakdown of reasons to hate SATC by another good pal, Mark Rabinowitz, who offered the following in a post titled "Thank God I Don't Have to Watch This Dreck....":

"Personally, I never had even a nanosecond's thought of seeing this culturally, politically, emotionally and cinematically bereft film. Save yourself the pain and re-watch season one of BSG or a Tracy-Hepburn movie. At least you'll be getting a full dose of strong, well-rounded and developed female characters and not four nauseating ersatz women."

Add to this the stories about how men would avoid the film as some sort of macho coding ritual.  Said Variety before the film was released:

"(T)here's no escaping the fact that the movie is a chick flick with strong appeal among an older femme demo but questionable interest among others. All the magazine coverage in the world -- 63 pages in the May 23 edition of Entertainment Weekly alone -- and "Sex and the City" TV marathons haven't really moved the needle among men, many of whom suggest they'd rather be shot than sit through the movie."

The LA Times was even more direct:

"It's easier to find $2-a-gallon gas than a straight man eager to see the movie."

Now I haven't seen the film (of course not, did I mention that I'm a MAN - all caps to underline the manliness of my manhood), but isn't this a TV series that was pretty much accepted by most right thinking people as a fine piece of entertainment?  I don't remember the gnashing of teeth and the rending of garments when it aired every week on HBO after the Sopranos.  In fact, I seem to remember people watching it and thinking it to be kind of great.  And Sarah Jessica Parker was a nice little actress that we had all grown up with and wasn't she cute when she was on Square Pegs.

Now all of a sudden were offended that they like fancy shoes?  Really?  Why?  Because gas is $4 a gallon and because we're at war?  Did we suddenly get religion (or are we shamed by all the times we've secretly watched THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA on HBO)?  Did we get collective amnesia all of a sudden?

And now four perfectly respectable actresses (at least one who was considered a few years ago to be quite fetching) are too ugly to front a movie and SJP is the anti-Christ and has a horse face?

And if I'm wrong, why isn't everybody up in arms about Entourage?

Sight unseen, I'm gonna side with my pal Kim Voynar on this, who posts a fine riposte to Jeffrey Wells (along with Anne Thompson and Manohla Dargis) after his crazy-making post:

"I totally disagree with Thompson and Dargis on this one. I'm a fan of the series, loved the movie, and gave it a positive review. And while I understand the need of smart, intellectual women to bash this film (it's superficial! it's about fashion!), a lot of them are judging the movie in a way that's every bit as superficial as they assert the film and characters are.

SATC has never been about fashion or a credit card lifestyle if you look beneath its surface. It's about a group of smart, independent women who, successful as they are, still struggle with figuring out love and relationships and how to have and maintain a relationship with a man without losing who you are as an intelligent woman with a career and life of your own.

And frankly, I'm surprised that so many of these smart women don't seem to grasp that. I'd be willing to bet that most of the female film critics who bitch about SATC as being nothing more than a group of otherwise intelligent women who do nothing but talk about men do pretty much the exact same thing the SATC chicks do when they go out on girls' nights with their own friends.

The single hardest aspect of my own adult life has been figuring out how to be a wife and mother without losing myself in the process, and I know a lot of women who feel that way.

As for the male critics bashing the show -- (shrug) big surprise; why would anyone expect them to understand a movie that's not about them for a change?"

Besides, should anyone who yearns for something other than CGI-driven comic book action and post-adolescent targeted dick comedy be glad that a movie with four ugly (and don't forget old, bitterly, disgustingly old) women made a buttload of money this weekend?  Why isn't that cause for rejoicing?  And if the success of a HBO TV Show turned feature film means that someone this morning is gonna call for a Deadwood movie, well then someone buy Michael Patrick King a drink.

Young Man Yells at Blog

Begging your forgiveness for the lack of postings this week (more on that soon), but am persuaded to join the "Friday Funnies" crowd and point you to a posting over at our pal Agnes Varnum's blog.

Agnes made some fairly benign observations about the 3-year old hybrid film THE AMERICAN RULING CLASS, based on an extended trailer posted on YouTube.  Mostly, she pondered why "the film didn't make a big splash" after high profile screenings at Tribeca and IDFA, among other festivals.  To this, director John Kirby responded with full defensive gusto and, well, hilarity ensues.

So pour your coffee and settle on down with this for a bit.  Interesting questions about how one should respond to criticism of one's work, the success/failure ratio of presenting unmixed rough cuts at major festivals and the surprising use of racially-loaded epithets.  Not to mention howling at the moon o'er all the "vain fat cats who run (the) independent film scene these days".

So which are you dear reader, vain fat cat or free-thinking, English-speaking, Harper's-reading fighter of techno-fascism?

David Poland on the Trouble with Trouble

It's worth noting a piece written tonight by David Poland on his new Hot Button blog about our writing here on the travails of THINKFilm (as well as Nikki Finke's writing on the financial state of Capitol Films and the Weinstein Co.).  While Nikki gets the brunt of David's ire (no surprise there), he offers a caution for us, as well:

"There are two stories on the web today that may be 100% true… but also concern me deeply. It’s not about pulling back the curtain. That’s the job. But there is a kind of malignancy in the idea that what has always been gossip is now being published by bloggers as “news”… and then, followed up on, even without any real confirmations of anything nefarious, as a way of self-glorifying… even getting down to the “send me your complaints about people who pay you late so I can humiliate them too!” gamesmanship. But who can blame Ms Finke for her gutter urges. They have gotten her so much attention so far!

When AJ Schnack sends out a blog entry as "BREAKING," when it is, in fact, neither breaking or news, you have to wonder. Again… the unnamed sources who are trying to get paid – and there has been quiet talk that Think paid Alex Gibney off almost completely after he ran a threat through Stu Van Airsdale at Defamer –  may be telling the story 100% straight.  Or they may not. 

The reason there are rules in journalism on sourcing is not because some crazy ass sources are not sometimes right… but because once someone is smeared in the press, it is hard to take it back.

Capitol and Think may be going under. They may not. But the feeding frenzy around their troubles tends to make a lot of assumptions… some of which may be true and others which may not be."

I responded to Poland's post on his site, but the gist of it is this:

I think it would be a huge blow if THINKFilm were to bow out of the indie film world and particularly a blow to the potential of nonfiction theatrical distribution (even if the company is not as interested in docs as they were a year and a half ago).  However, no one is served (particularly filmmakers and vendors who have working relationships with THINK) to pretend that a situation is rosy (or benign) if it is becoming malignant. 

There are always rumors and people are always slow in getting paid.  Sometimes it feels like the whole indie film world is one paycheck away from boarding up the windows.  I've had the personal experience of losing tens of thousands of dollars when a distribution company went bankrupt without notice.  It was certainly not pleasant (in fact, it's a burden that continues to this day) but I don't think I've ever mentioned it here.

It's been a rough couple of weeks.  I've written two pieces - this morning's story about THINK and one about the shuttering of Discovery Films - which had not been reported elsewhere.  In both cases, I sought and received confirmation from someone who didn't have a rooting interest in the outcome before printing the stories.  If there are mistakes - or if someone has a different take - I hope you'll contribute to the discussion.

It should be noted that Variety has now gone to press with a new story that backs up my post from Wednesday morning.