Filed under: Action & Adventure, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Exhibition, 20th Century Fox, Movie Marketing, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Remakes and Sequels, ComicCon

They're claiming that none of their films are ready yet, but is that the real reason 20th Century Fox has decided to pull out of next week's San Diego ComicCon? The studio was previously scheduled to hold a "star-and-filmmaker-studded panel" next Friday in the main hall, featuring exclusive first looks at films like Aliens vs Predator, Jumper, Babylon A.D. and Hitman. While practically every other major studio (Warner Bros., Paramount/Dreamworks, Lionsgate, New Line, Sony Pictures, Universal and Walt Disney) still have plans to appear, Fox has officially pulled out. Or have they? According to The LA Times, the studio was reconsidering that decision yesterday afternoon -- meanwhile, ComicCon organizers were scrambling to fill their much-coveted slot.

This hasn't been the greatest of weeks for Fox. Earlier, there was a whole big stink going on in Chicago over Fox's apparent snub of some film critics when it came to invites for advanced screenings of their films. From what I understand, The Chicago Film Critics Association has instituted a boycott against Fox releases. The boycott won't affect reviews; instead, they'll be staying away from additional coverage like features, interviews, etc ... Personally, I'm a bit peeved as well after finding out yesterday that the only Simpsons Movie screening happening in the New York City area (that I'm aware of) is taking place the night before the film will be released. And, as far as I can tell, the same goes for the rest of the country. So, while I usually like to have a day or so to sit with a film before I review it, I now have a few hours.

Whether or not this ComicCon pull out has anything to do with the aforementioned boycott -- I don't know. I do know, however, that Fox has become a major player when it comes to fighting movie piracy (they're one of the studios who wanted to ban advanced screenings in Canada), and so perhaps it's not a question of whether their footage is ready -- but, instead, has to do with them being afraid that same footage will be on YouTube within the hour. Oh, and I should note that Fox Atomic will still be attendance ... handing out raffles, or something. Yay! Raffles!

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Documentary, Independent, Celebrities and Controversy, Cinematical Indie

In an age when fansites, blogs and message boards make talking about film as lively and slippery as a bucket of eels, strident critics of films can make their voices heard more loudly than ever; in a bizarre turn of events, though, it seems that a fierce critic of Asger Leth's documentary The Ghosts of Cité Solei is actually posing as the filmmaker himself.

In a story at GreenCine's Daily blog, David D'Arcy tells how last Friday a vehement critique of The Ghosts of Cité Solei titled "Leni Riefenstahl Goes to Haiti" was mailed out from the e-mail address 'asgerleth79' via a well-known free e-mail domain to a number of recipients. D'Arcy contacted the Asger Leth, who explained that he had no link to the e-mail -- and how his documentary's gripping examination of life in Haiti's slums, which is fiercely critical of ex-Haitian president Aristide, has earned the attention and activism of pro-Aristide activists.

Leth's calm about this latest salvo in the campaign against his film: "They want to discredit the film as much as they can, but they're pissing up against a hurricane ..." It's also worth noting that the e-mailed review, credited to Charlie Hinton of the Haiti Action Committee, also turns up on the IMDB boards for The Ghosts of Cité Solei, suggesting a fairly concerted campaign against Leth's film. The piece doesn't offer if the real Leth is pursuing any legal action (I can't imagine how the real Leth would even begin to try and track down the impostor), but it's certainly a bizarre tale of identity and politics in film. ...

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Comedy, Drama, Independent, Celebrities and Controversy

Well, it's not like feminist icon Germaine Greer would be the first person who was angry about their big screen representation. Judging by Greer's comments in the U.K. newspaper The Guardian, it proves that after all these years, she hasn't lost her ability to talk tough. The center of the scuffle is the film version of Richard Neville's memoir, Hippie Hippie Shake. The book recounts his time as editor and regular contributor of the counter-culture publication Oz Magazine, a magazine that ran from 1963 to 1973. She originally declined to participate in Neville's book, which was first published back in 2005, and now she seems to be equally unhappy with the film adaptation. Greer wrote in her piece to The Guardian, "You used to have to die before assorted hacks started munching your remains and modelling a new version of you out of their own excreta." Taking it a step further, she goes on to take a shot at Neville, saying he was "one of the least talented people on the London scene in the 60's" -- ouch.

The film is being directed by Beeban Kidron (Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason) and was adapted by Billy Elliot scribe Lee Hall. Back in May, Monika confirmed that Sienna Miller and Cillian Murphy had signed on for lead roles. Playing Greer in the film is model-turned-actress Emily Booth, and in talking about the film Greer doesn't let Booth off the hook either, saying that the actress should get "an honest job." Shooting for Hippie Hippie Shake is set to start this September, and in the end, Greer might have ended up giving the film a little free publicity -- I'll admit I'm now curious to see what all the fuss is about.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Animation, Comedy, Celebrities and Controversy, Family Films, Politics, Comic/Superhero/Geek

Never a stranger to taking controversial stances, The Guardian is stirring up some heated debate by accusing the Simpsons character Apu Nahasapeemapetilon of being a "crude racist stereotype." Writer Manish Vij says "Culture-vulture Simpsons fans have felled entire forests in arguing that he's a parody of a stereotype, rather than the stereotype itself. But the plain fact is that most viewers are laughing at Apu, not with him. They're enjoying the simple pleasures of a funny, singsong brown man with a slippery grasp of English." Vij takes major issue with 7-Eleven's recent Kwik-E-Mart makeover promotion (which Erik told you about here), as well. 7-Eleven employees at the converted convenience stores are, as Vij puts it, "being asked to don Kwik-E-Mart costumes with Apu nametags, come to work under banners mocking their ethnicity, and bid customers goodbye with the phrase, 'Thank you, come again!'" He closes the article by saying, "Today, we expect American companies to promote racial tolerance. Yet like an outbreak of a long-dormant virus, 7-Eleven is spending millions of dollars to push a crude ethnic stereotype well past its sell-by date. It's tin-eared and unconscionable. The company should cancel Apu and issue an apology."

Now, I could definitely argue that The Simpsons is, and always has been, satire. It makes fun of anything and everything, and though it's certainly poked fun at race relations over the years, I've never seen anything on the show I'd consider racist. The Apu character talks with an exaggerated accent, but it's an animated comedy show -- everybody does. And it's certainly an equal opportunity offender. Everyone on the program is a stereotype, and those stereotypes are frequently addressed, exposed, disproved, and mocked. Stereotypes exist on The Simpsons to provoke the viewer, as all good comedy should. Fat Tony could offend sensitive Italians, Groundskeeper Willie could offend sensitive Scotsmen, Bumblebee Man could offend sensitive Hispanics, and so on. But I hardly think the intent of The Simpsons' writing staff is to spew hate.

I have to disagree with Vij about Apu being crude and racist. If anything, he's one of the more intelligent and positive presences in Springfield, and I find the author's comparisons of Apu to "minstrel shows" and "Jim Crow America" to be really pushing it. But the 7-Eleven thing is sort of a grey area for me. I haven't visited one of the revamped stores, so I don't know how the "Apu" issue is being handled, but it certainly sounds like potentially dangerous turf. What do you think? Is Mr. Nahasapeemapetilon an offensive racist caricature? Is this a serious issue or much Apu about nothing?

Permalink | Email this | Comments