What a surprise. Reuters has reported that The Vatican really doesn't like The Golden Compass. They're not the only ones, since this massive-budget film has been flopping around like a fish gasping for breath since it came out; however, they are the ones leading the religious charge. It's, obviously, not the film's cinematic shortcomings that are making waves, but rather, its religious commentary. This is the same content that was toned down by Chris Weitz in an attempt to make this a more palatable film to everyone -- as if they hadn't thought about the potential controversy when the project first came to be.
The Vatican newspaper, l'Osservatore Romano, has printed a long editorial ranting about the film, pretty much describing it as if it were an example of torture porn, rather than fantasy, calling it "the most anti-Christmas film possible," and that "when man tries to eliminate God from his horizon, everything is reduced, made sad, cold, and inhumane." These are the most religion-specific quotes coming out of Reuters' piece. The writer must be living one heck of a film-free life if this is not only the most anti-Christmas film made, but even possible! It's no surprise that they wouldn't be happy about the film, but statements like that just take the whole argument to a new level of ridiculous. It's one thing to comment on the aspects of a film that diverge from the church's beliefs. It's another to take exaggeration to new heights. Then again, we're in a world where one short peek at a nipple creates monumental fuss.Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments
By now, anyone who follows movie news on an even semi-regular basis knows about the lack of William Shatner in the next Star Trek movie. The original Captain Kirk has been all kinds of vocal about this fact, which recently led him to a spot on Cinematical'sLame in 2007 list. Now, even though production is well underway, Sci Fi Wire says that there's still a chance. It seems that Roberto Orci, the co-writer of the latest installment, says that the first Kirk could still get a spot in the film, but that it's less of a possibility. Considering the fact that it didn't sound like much of a possibility to begin with, aren't we talking about almost none from almost none?
Although Orci says that they're still trying to find a way, they've struggled with the Trek sticklers and how to deal with Kirk's death in Star Trek VII. Now things are further complicated by the writers' strike -- they can't make script changes until the whole thing is settled. To me, it seems like they're just trying to appease Shatner as much as possible, although I don't see why. The way everyone is talking, you'd think that they're trying to figure out how to write a vampire into an historic war drama or something.
If they want to have Shatner at least pop up, without being able to write it into the script, they could always have Kirk look in a mirror, or some reflective surface and see Shatner, and what Kirk will become. Back when they could still mess around with the script, it wouldn't have been hard for Spock to muse about what his life would be like had Kirk not died, or the Vulcan seeing the different crew members morphing into his once-friends. Or heck, even a daydream where he talks with an imagined Kirk about whatever his role is in the film. But the "possibility" will probably just sit there until the production is finished, and when the Enterprise zooms onto the big screen once again, it will be without Shat.Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments
UPDATE: The Daily Variety story was incorrect; the MPAA actually rejected a trailer for Taxi to the Darkside, and not the poster. Here's the Variety clarification: "The MPAA did not approve a theatrical trailer for Alex Gibney's documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side" that contained scenes with nudity and images that the org deemed inappropriate for all audiences. ThinkFilm has not yet officially submitted the one-sheet art referenced in a Dec. 19 story, but Daily Variety failed to indicate that it was the trailer that was rejected and not the one-sheet artwork."
ThinkFilm is prepping an appeal to the MPAA, but this one doesn't concern a film's rating. It's about a poster. The poster art for Taxi to the Dark Side -- a documentary about the pattern of torture practice that is on the short list for Academy Award consideration -- is causing a stir due to its depiction of a hooded man being led by American soldiers. The original news photo was taken by photographer Shaun Schwarz, and had been censored before -- when the military erased it from Schwarz' camera. (He later retrieved it from his hard drive.) Variety is reporting that the MPAA has officially rejected the poster, and if ThinkFilm goes forward with the marketing, they could have their "R" rating revoked. Taxi to the Dark Side is due for release on January 11th.
An MPAA spokesman says "We treat all films the same. Ads will be seen by all audiences, including children. If the advertising is not suitable for all audiences it will not be approved by the advertising administration." Alex Gibney (Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room), the film's writer, producer, and director says, "Not permitting us to use an image of a hooded man that comes from a documentary photograph is censorship, pure and simple. Intentional or not, the MPAA's disapproval of the poster is a political act, undermining legitimate criticism of the Bush administration. I agree that the image is offensive; it's also real." I've got to side with Gibney on this one. This isn't horror movie imagery cooked up to sell tickets, this is really happening in the world today. And considering the explosive subject matter, I feel the poster is tastefully done. What do you guys think?
As was expected, Hollywood's two major awards shows are starting to feel the sting of a prolonged strike, and if both sides do not make a deal before The Golden Globes and Academy Awards air, expect utter chaos. Last night, the WGA denied wavers from both the Hollywood Foreign Press (Golden Globes) and AMPAS (Oscars) that would allow writers to prepare material (in the case of the Globes) and clips from old Oscar telecasts as well as films (for the Oscars). AMPAS has not yet asked for a waiver to use writers to help pen their telecast, but it's believed the WGA will deny it once that happens. Additionally, a final decision to picket outside the Globes has not been made, but if the WGA do picket, there's a chance actors and actresses will not cross the picket line.
What does this mean for you, the viewer? Well, it potentially means that both awards shows will turn out pretty horrible. In the case of the Globes, if the writers were to picket, a good amount of stars would not show up. And the show's script would have to be written by non WGA members (the guy who cleans up the bathroom?). Oscars? Well, Jon Stewart's opening monologue would go something like this: "Um ... yeah." Here's part of a statement from WGAW President Patric Verrone:
"Writers are engaged in a crucial struggle to achieve a collective bargaining agreement that will protect their compensation and intellectual property rights now and in the future. We must do everything we can to bring our negotiations to a swift and fair conclusion for the benefit of writers and all those who are being harmed by the companies' failure to engage in serious negotiations."
The signatories producing the Golden Globes and the Oscars are West Coast signatories. The WGAW's Board of Directors concluded, reluctantly, that granting exceptions for the Golden Globes or the Academy Awards would not advance that goal."
Here's my question to you: Knowing all this, will you opt to not watch the telecast or will you tune in regardless of who shows up and who's writing the script?
Over the years, lots of news has come out about lusting directors wanting more than just a read-through during casting calls. This is nothing new, but it may be surprising to hear about it regarding Helen Mirren. The Guardian reports that in a recent television interview, she spoke harshly of director Michael Winner (Appointment with Death) and a casting session back in 1964 -- a few years before she even had her first feature role in Herostratus.
She says that he treated her "like a piece of meat," and asked her flaunt her body and spin for a casting session. "I was mortified and incredibly angry. I thought it was insulting and sexist, and I don't think any actress should be treated like that -- like a piece of meat -- at all." The director-turned-restaurant critic, meanwhile, has an entirely different story, or at least, he seems to think so. He shared his version of things over at The Mail, and it is, well, interesting.
In his story, she was an actress with "sagging bosoms" who refused to wear a bra. Her then-agent supposedly was at a loss, so she convinced Winner to help try and convince her. But even after this whole story about how he was just trying to be of help, he said: "Now I don't mind that Helen looks back on those days as humiliating, but I'll tell you something else, Helen: even after that period, for years after I still asked girls to stand up away from my desk so I could get a good look at them." Okay, Winner, thanks for sharing.
Really, it's not like Mirren shied away from racy fare. She isn't complaining about sexist troubles when she read to star as Caesonia in Penthouse's Caligula, or as a prostitute in Hussy. If she isn't complaining about a Guccione production, that says something.* We'll never know what happened for sure, but at least its an entirely strange story for the weekend.
*Edited thanks to the catch by Rich. You're absolutely right!
At first glance, the screenwriter who gave the world Troywouldn't seem like the natural choice to adapt a literary novel of childhood joy and adult challenges. But David Benioff isn't just the writer behind brawny action films like Troy and the upcoming Wolverine: Origins; he's also a novelist, who adapted his own book for Spike Lee's brilliant, overlooked 25th Hour. After screening The Kite Runner at the closing night of the Mill Valley Film Festival, Benioff spoke with a roundtable of journalists in San Francisco about collaborating with novelist Khaled Hosseini, the challenge posed by certain cultural differences and the combination of brute force and finesse required to fit an epic novel onto film. Cinematical's questions are indicated.
I guess I'll start with the obvious question, which is: Given that this is a film about a culture completely different from our own, how instrumental was it having (author Khaled Hosseini) on-hand to support you?
David Benioff: It was a great help, and I think I got really lucky, because I've had friends working on adaptations where the relationship between the screenwriter and the novelist is ... tense. And sometimes you have a writer who writes a book and sells the film rights and says "Thank you for the money ..." and just doesn't want to be involved -- and sometimes they want to be so involved -- I can think of examples, like the Sahara guy. (Clive Cussler).
But in this case, Khaled (Hosseini) was both very supportive, but very understanding that the movie was going to be very separate from the book. And he was a great resource; I mean, I could do as much research as I wanted and read books about Afghan history and so on, but I'm not from there, I'm not a Muslim, I didn't grow up in Kabul ... and to be able to call Khaled or e-mail him -- it was mostly a lot of late night e-mails -- and then to wake up in the morning and to have a response from him, a very detailed response from him, explaining what the movie theaters were like in Kabul in the '70s, or what the protocol would have been in a certain situation ... it was a great resource. It was incredibly helpful, and I think it made the script much better than it would have been otherwise.
Cinematical: Obviously, you have a very good relationship with Mr. Hosseini -- and this is not asking you to speak ill of the book -- but what in the book made you roll your eyes, thinking "God, I don't know how you bring this to the screen?"
DB: I don't know if there's a moment, particularly, or just the length of certain sections. For me, when I was reading the book, I was completely captivated by the childhood scenes in Kabul and then felt maybe a slight loss of momentum in the American scenes. You know, many of the (American) scenes I actually love -- and many of them are in the movie -- but I felt like I had to compress that. There's no way to keep as much of the early childhood stuff as we did keep from the book and keep as much of the American things without the movie veering into (a length of) three hours and 30 minutes.
So for me, it was really compressing the American scenes in the center section there, and a lot of compression at the end; at the end of the book, after the climactic fight with the Assef in the Taliban compound and they flee into Pakistan -- then a whole other plot starts, where they're trying to deal with immigration, and dealing with an INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) official, and that was never in the script. It was really a decision partly because of time, and partly because I felt like once we had the climax, having another 45 minutes of story time post-climax ... I felt like I would be wriggling in my seat. It just felt like, structurally, it would be a mistake.
Just the other day, Christopher Campbell posted that Mary Steenburgen and Sissy Spacek had signed on to play two of the moms in next year's holiday pic, Four Christmases. The movie stars Reese Witherspoon and Vince Vaughn as a couple who try to see their four divorced parents on Christmas day. This latest piece of news isn't who the other father is (Robert Duvall is playing Vaughn's dad), but rather some rumored trouble on the set between the two stars -- who play the couple that's supposed to be sticking together.
According to the Daily News' Gatecrasher, the screen couple definitely haven't been getting along, and won't be the follow-up to Vince's romance with past co-star Jennifer Aniston. Just like her production company's moniker (Type A Films), Reese is coming to set ready to put in lots of work, while Vaughn wants to be laid-back. "Vince rolls onto set in the morning looking like he just came in from a night out, while Reese will arrive early, looking camera-ready. Then, Reese tries to force Vince into blocking out each scene and running through their lines as Vince tries to convince her that he's an ad-libber and wants to play around and see where the scene goes."
So far, however, this clash hasn't stopped production, but the source also says that Vaughn sometimes looks like "he just wants to kill her." Honestly, I can see both of their points. I'm sure it must be aggravating for Reese to have to fight to get cooperation in how she prepares, just as it's probably infuriating to Vaughn to deal with a Tracy Flick-type and not be able to just go along as he wants. Hopefully it won't lead him to the fate of Matthew Broderick in Election. We'll have to wait 12 months and see whether we can spot all that anger in their characters; if the rumors are true, we'll see just how good the two actors really are.
Just how strange are the Golden Globes? Is Atonement a sure-fire, dead-lock Best Picture winner, or has it stumbled with the Academy before the race was even begun? Did Francis Ford Coppola "cut his own throat" with the release strategy for Youth Without Youth? And, speaking of cutting throats, will Sweeney Todd seduce the Academy, or have its hopes been washed away with the arterial spray?Joining James this week is David Poland, the critic, blogger and raconteur behind Movie City News as well as the wildly contentious, always insightful The Hot Blog. Listen in this week as James and David talk about the BFCA nominations from the inside, discuss the tarnished-yet-telegenic schizophrenia of the Golden Globes, and much more! And finally -- new this week on for The Rocchi Review -- you can listen directly here at Cinematical by clicking below:
Born in Afghanistan in 1965, Khaled Hosseini left in 1976 as his family was relocated to Paris as part of his father's work for the diplomatic service. It was fortunate timing; while preparing to return to Kabul in 1980, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan plunged the nation into decades of chaos some would suggest it has yet to emerge from. Gaining political asylum in America, Hosseini's family moved to San Jose, California; after attending medical school, Hosseini worked as doctor in Los Angeles -- and wrote his first novel. Not only was The Kite Runner published, but it was on the New York Times best-seller list for over two years, and eventually printed in over 42 languages. Now, after years of development and no small share of controversy, The Kite Runner has come to the silver screen; after screening the film for the closing night of the 30th annual Mill Valley Film Festival, Hosseini spoke with a roundtable of journalists in San Francisco about the challenges of adaptation, the genesis and possible fallout of the film's controversial scene of sexual assault and his own memories of Afghanistan. Cinematical's questions are indicated.
Cinematical: What did you learn about the process of movie making going through this experience?
I underestimated the sheer amount of labor it takes to shoot the seemingly simplest scene, just the amount of work that goes just into setting up a scene and how each member of the team has to do their job exactly right, otherwise the whole thing falls apart. It's very labor intensive. It's also very monotonous. It's exciting in a way, but -- you're doing the same thing over and over and over again. So there's a sense of monotony. I underestimated how exhausting it was. The hours are very long and physically it's very demanding. I don't know how some of these guys do it for 10, 20, 30 years, especially the crew. It's a lot of hard work. How involved were you in the process?
I was kind of a cultural consultant, a story consultant. Maybe the best way to illustrate it is with an example; I went to L.A. and sat in an office with the producers and we looked at hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pictures that a scout had taken around the world. And they wanted me to kind of chime in and say if there was any locale that could be used to as stand in for 1970s Kabul. And we looked at Turkey and Tunisia, Morocco and India, Pakistan, but western China, the minute those pictures started coming up, I said, 'This place.' So they went out there and the Afghans who have seen the film are startled at the resemblance.
So that kind of thing - questions about dress, about food, about the way a home is decorated, a variety of things of that nature. But I didn't write the screenplay. Obviously, David (Benioff) did. I read the screenplay and we all kind of chimed in our ideas and David wrote another draft, but really it's his creation.
How do you feel the film captures Amir's betrayal of Hassan, the scene where the boy is attacked? From the work you had do creating that scene, how do you feel about seeing it on screen?
I think the scene was shot tastefully. I think in other hands, it could have really been exploitative, kind of graphic, and I don't think there's any need for that. When the boy walks out of the alley and you see the droplets of blood in the snow, I always feel this incredible moment in the audience where they go, 'Oh!' Suddenly, it elevates the film to another level. The stakes are raised at that moment. It's really a devastating moment.
There's a piece of video being hosted over at Slashfilm that came from a Youtube guy who digitally messed around with the sound levels on Sofia Coppola'sLost in Translation, and claims to have uncorked the movie's biggest secret -- what is being said to Scarlett Johansson by Bill Murray in that famous final scene. I'm not going to give it away here, but I'm not even sure this spoiler is legit -- even amplified as best it can be, the words still require subtitles for you to follow along and it doesn't even seem like that's what Bill Murray is saying. The first part is especially a stretch I think, although I'd probably guess the last part is more or less accurate. And I will concede that it does seem like something that Murray's character would say and something that Coppola would write -- it's not, as some expected, Murray telling Johannson what he had for lunch or anything.
Lost in Translation was not my gateway film into Coppola -- for me, it was Marie Antoinette, so for me, this isn't some major cinematic mystery that I was dying to solve in the first place. I'm more concerned with the how and why Marie Antoinette got completely shafted at the Academy Awards and I look forward to the day when the Academy makes up for that huge mistake. Coppola will one day be recognized as a chip off the old block and hopefully, she'll also have more productive years and less time in the cinema wilderness than her pops. Check out the Lost in Translation video after the jump ...
What a surprise. Reuters has reported that The Vatican really doesn't like The Golden Compass. They're not the only ones, since this massive-budget film has been flopping around like a fish gasping for breath since it came out; however, they are the ones leading the religious charge. It's, obviously, not the film's cinematic shortcomings that are making waves, but rather, its religious commentary. This is the same content that was toned down by Chris Weitz in an attempt to make this a more palatable film to everyone -- as if they hadn't thought about the potential controversy when the project first came to be.
By now, anyone who follows movie news on an even semi-regular basis knows about 
UPDATE: The Daily Variety story was incorrect; the MPAA actually rejected a trailer for Taxi to the Darkside, and not the poster. Here's the Variety clarification: "The MPAA did not approve a theatrical trailer for Alex Gibney's documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side" that contained scenes with nudity and images that the org deemed inappropriate for all audiences. ThinkFilm has not yet officially submitted the one-sheet art referenced in a Dec. 19 story, but Daily Variety failed to indicate that it was the trailer that was rejected and not the one-sheet artwork."
As was expected, Hollywood's two major awards shows are starting to feel the sting of a prolonged strike, and if both sides do not make a deal before The Golden Globes and Academy Awards air, expect utter chaos. Last night, the WGA denied wavers from both the Hollywood Foreign Press (Golden Globes) and AMPAS (Oscars) that would allow writers to prepare material (in the case of the Globes) and clips from old Oscar telecasts as well as films (for the Oscars). AMPAS has not yet asked for a waiver to use writers to help pen their telecast, but it's believed the WGA will deny it once that happens. Additionally, a final decision to picket outside the Globes has not been made, but if the WGA do picket, there's a chance actors and actresses will not cross the picket line. 
Over the years, lots of news has come out about lusting directors wanting more than just a read-through during casting calls. This is nothing new, but it may be surprising to hear about it regarding 
Just the other day, 
.jpg){kind=spacer}
There's a piece of video being hosted 
