Out of Focus

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: THE TEMPERATURE AS I SEE IT

Sit back, grab a beer/cocktail/coffee/soda/juice/water, put your feet up and relax. We're going to be here for a while. I've gone back and forth about my reaction to Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and exactly what I have to say. I hope you'll bear with me, and I encourage everyone's thoughts and comments, as long as they are actually thoughts and not simple rhetoric such as "Michael Moore is a liar." As I mentioned in my post late last night, I wanted to approach the film as just that – a film. Not a polemic; not an op-ed piece; not a investigative journalism – just a documentary film, which does not mean that it needs to be balanced.

Well, that couldn't happen. September 11, 2001 is still fresh in all our memories; the war in Iraq is ongoing, regardless of any turnovers of sovereignty -- whatever that means considering that nearly 140,000 American troops are still there; and the myriad of issues addressed in this film, whether one agrees with Moore's take on them or not, are at the forefront of everything we as American citizens – and more importantly voters, because history proves that while all the latter must be the former, the opposite is hardly true – need to investigate and contemplate between now and November 2, 2004.

Still, I want to try to address the filmmaking, because the technique and artistry utilized by Moore is brilliant. I'm sorry to say I completely disagree with Filmbrain's assessment in which he says "Moore hasn't created an aesthetic around his message." Of course he has. His very ability to manipulate the laughs and tears from the audience comes from this aesthetic. Deliberately juxtaposing Bush-isms with contrary images or recreating the opening credits of Bonanza while replacing Lorne Greene, Michael Landon, Pernell Roberts and Dan Blocker with Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and British Prime Minister Tony Blair is most definitely creating an aesthetic and not just a montage. His hysterical presentation of selected members of the "Coalition of the Willing" does the same thing

But so what? That's what filmmakers do. All filmmakers, I would argue. And in fact, all filmmakers with a point to get across propagandize, whether they are documenatarians or fictional storytellers. The word "propaganda" carries a negative connotation these days due to how propaganda has often been used but that is not really a part of its definition. According to Merriam-Webster, "propaganda" carries the following three definitions:

STILL SMOLDERING -- WILL BURN TOMORROW

I just got home from the 10:05 PM show of Fahrenheit 9/11 at the Lincoln Plaza. I started writing a full critique in the form of a long post and then I just realized that along with being very tired, I need to let things settle a bit more. The post I started to write ... I scrapped it (something I never do), and I'll try again tomorrow.

But as a preface, I just wanted to note that I went into the film wanting very badly to separate the movie from the politics. It is something that I generally believe I am able to do, as I hope I managed to at least some degree in my discussion of The Passion of the Christ. But I found it nearly impossible to approach Fahrenheit 9/11 in a similar manner. Michael Moore's abilities and talents as a filmmaker are exactly the things that manipulate the audience enough to be emotionally moved by this film and therefore open up to its politics. I make no secret of my own liberal tendencies, but I also consider myself closer to the center than Moore, and I've been in plenty of political arguments discussions with people pointed far further left than myself. And while I left the theater agreeing with at least 90% of Moore's argument, there are also several moments in this film that I think unfairly manipulate the audience in a direction that it doesn't need to go; moments that are pure Bush-bashing for reasons unnecessary to the arguments and discussion at hand, but will make the audience laugh.

Anyway, I'll get back to this tomorrow when I can discuss it more coherently. Meanwhile, I also want to preface whatever I write tomorrow with one other point: aside from the David Denby review in The New Yorker, I actually stayed away from reading any criticisms either by the paid critics or by people who actually know what they're talking about when it comes to film criticism, such as fellow bloggers Filmbrain and Karen Cinecultist (except when it comes to Buffalo '66 of course, in which case they're just wrong!). I did hear plenty of commentary on the radio and TV news about the film, and if anything shocked me about the movie, it was realizing how much there was in the movie that I hadn't heard discussed; that has gone unmentioned and more importantly not refuted.

OK ... time for sleep.

NOTED THINKER COMES OUT OF HIDING FOR A VERY SPECIAL ACCESS HOLLYWOOD

Hard-hitting news-magazine Access Hollywood sent out a media alert today in order to notify the press, and therefore the world, of the show's big-time exclusive. It seems that the usually Salinger-esque John Stamos agreed to an interview that will air tonight. For the first time, Stamos answers the two questions over which we've all lost sleep: How did the greatest love this world had ever seen fail? And what does Uncle Jesse think about poor MK Olsen's recent trip to rehab due to her never gaining a pound since her halcyon days as half of baby Michelle Tanner?

Certainly, in order to keep-up the suspense, the press release offers only glimpses at Stamos gripping and emotional response. He claims he and his ex-wife Rebecca Romijn-Stamos are having a hard time being separated, but apparently, "we just needed some time apart." I think the rest of us can understand that feeling. At least, it's all very amicable and emotional: "We talked yesterday and we were both crying on the phone."

As for Mary-Kate, Stamos lends some particular insight that in no way diminishes the seriousness of eating disorders or those who have them: "I just wish her well and I know Ashley is there with her and I think she is going to be just fine. If that is the worst thing that can happen to them, they are still ahead of the game." I suppose when 18-year-old twins can afford large neighboring West Village lofts, a little thing like anorexia really isn't that big a deal.

I GUESS THAT'S AN EASY WAY TO FLIP-OFF THE MPAA

This picture comes from theater marquee advertising that the theater will not enforce the R-rating on Fahrenheit 9/11 is from Michael Moore's website. I'm sure you won't see any major chains doing anything similar (at least not officially), but it is a good reminder that the MPAA's ratings are not legally binding, and basically theater owners have the right to enforce the ratings as they wish.

MEA CULPA: CYNICISM LOSES OUT

Fahrenheit 9/11 came in first after all, pulling in nearly $22-Million at the box office, according to early estimates. That's more money in one weekend than Michael Moore's last film, the Oscar-winning Bowling for Columbine pulled-in throughout its entire theatrical run, and until this weekend, Columbine was the top-grossing documentary in history.

I was sure that White Chicks would be this weekend's BO champ simply because of being in three times as many theaters. The Wayans' Bros. comedy came in second with a perfectly respectable $19.6-Million and a per screen average of just over $7,000. Fahrenheit, meanwhile, averaged over $25K per its 860+ screens, which puts it in the same company as major blockbuster openings. (By comparison, Dodgeball's $30-Million in almost 2700 theaters worked out to $18,000 per; Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban made $93-Million its first weekend in 3855 theaters for a nearly $32K average; and when The Passion of the Christ opened with nearly $90-Million in ticket sales in over 3,000 theaters, it's average was around $27,000 per. Considering that many of Fahrenheit's screens were likely smaller art-house theaters – such as New York's Lincoln Plaza Cinemas – that's not bad company.) With Fahrenheit apparently selling-out everywhere through the weekend, it would be interesting to know what an even wider release might have meant. Did the distributors just nail the prefect number to equal demand, or had they been able to book the film on another 1000 screens, would we be looking at a $40-Million opening? That question will always remain unanswered, but we might get a little insight after the film finishes it's first full week and second weekend in theaters. It is encouraging, however, that it seems like theaters nationwide did well with the film, as opposed to playing full in NY, Chicago, LA, San Francisco and empty everywhere else. But will it draw audiences who don't already believe everything Moore is preaching? Only time will tell.

And just to finish up the line of "Aaron was wrong this weekend," neither Dodgeball nor The Terminal had terribly huge drop-offs, and in fact, the apparently mild 27% fall for Spielberg's film could indicate the movie has some legs. Of course, considering that it's a bad movie, it distresses me that it's obviously generating some positive word of mouth, but then again, at this rate, with only $40-Million after two weeks, it's going to have a tough time getting to $100-Million with the competition becoming much tougher in July, and for a Spielberg-Hanks collaboration, that might as well be a flop.

I CAN'T BELIEVE I FORGOT - WINGS OF DESIRE AT WALTER READE

Thank you to Gothamist for reminding me that the Bruno Ganz series starts this weekend at the Walter Reade at Lincoln Center. If you ever suffered through the blech City of Angels with Nicolas Cage and Meg Ryan, please do yourself an enormous favor and rush over to the Walter Reade either this evening at 6:15, tomorrow at 4, Sunday at 8:15 or Monday at 3:15 to catch Wim Wenders' masterpiece Wings of Desire. This is a brilliant, brilliant, BRILLIANT movie that should not be missed. I remember in 1990 when the critics polls about the best movies of the '80s were released, and Wings of Desire was called the second best film of the decade, following only Raging Bull. I hadn't seen the film at that point, but I did shortly thereafter and fell in love with it. It's a beautifully lyrical film, an embracing examination of life and love, isolation and loneliness. Taking place in a Berlin that still had its Wall (which almost plays its own character in the film), seeing it now may have a slightly different impact in our post-Cold War world, but that doesn't negate from the power and beauty of the overall experience. Seriously ... go see it, on a big screen, in the great Walter Reade theater. Any film lover won't be sorry.

MISCELLANEOUS MISCELLANY: BECAUSE IT'S JUST TOO HUMID FOR ANYTHING MORE IN-DEPTH

I'm fluctuating right now as to whether or not I should go, as planned, to the Ted Leo show at the South Street Seaport this evening and brave the humidity and expected scattered thunderstorms. I've been looking forward to this show for a couple weeks, but I just don't think I can handle being wet and uncomfortable for four or five hours today. DEVELOPING ... (like you care ...)

If it does rain, that double-feature Friday bill of White Chicks and The Chronicles of Riddick is looking strangely appealing, especially since I think I can see both without contributing to either box-office gross!

Meanwhile, my prognostication is that White Chicks will top the box-office this weekend and both Dodgeball and The Terminal will suffer somewhere around 50% drops in weekend gross. Dodgeball has been experiencing pretty good word of mouth, so it may sustain a bit better, but with a similar audience checking-out White Chicks this weekend, expecting more than $15-M would be difficult. And what about Fahrenheit 9/11, you ask? It will probably shatter most individual theater records (as it did at both NYC venues on Wednesday), and it should be a landslide winner of per screen average. But with only 865 screens, it might have a hard time breaking the Top 5. The "experts" are predicting about a $10-15 Million opening weekend.

I've stayed away from discussing this week's Senate passage of ridiculous fine hikes for broadcasters who air what five political appointees (a/k/a the FCC) determine to be "indecent" or "racy" content. The whole subject is just too aggravating. This new bill indirectly amounts to government censorship, and the only senator who shouldn't be completely ashamed of himself is Louisiana Democrat John Breaux who had the balls to vote against the bill. You see, the fine hikes were attached to a Defense Dept. authorization bill which basically had to be passed. Of course, the relatively conservative Breaux is also the guy who sponsored legislation to get the indecency rules expanded to cover broadcast and satellite, i.e., privately owned entity that should under no circumstances have to face the same restrictions deemed necessary for the "public airwaves."

There's better news from Washington today, though, as .a federal court put a stay on the new rules created by the FCC to relax restrictions on media ownership consolidation. Apparently, the three-judge panel didn't think that Michael Powell and the FCC provided enough explanation as to why this rule change was not only necessary but also beneficial to the media world. With companies like Clear Channel gobbling-up entire media sectors whenever possible and the co-president of Viacom (then-CBS head) censoring Super Bowl ads, it really is helpful to put some kind of restrictions on what Powell and the Bush Administrations cronies are allowed to buy and control. I'm fascinated to eventually read the FCC's spin as to how allowing any company to own 4 out-of-ten major media outlets in any market is good for diversity of opinion and independent voices. (Sorry ... rant over.)

With 2004's midpoint arriving next week, Variety has an interesting story today examining the potential Oscar race ... so far (via Yahoo!). Much of the piece deals with the potential of this year's two hugely controversial films, The Passion of the Christ and Fahrenheit 9/11, receiving Best Picture nominations. I have yet to see Fahrenheit 9/11, but there is no way Passion deserves a best pic nod. Staying away from anything political or religious or controversial and just looking at its qualities as a movie, the film just is not that good. The technical aspects are superb (especially Caleb Deschanel's camerawork), but the movie is boring, heavy-handed, pretentious and overdone in every way. Personally, my pick for best of the year remains Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

And finally, as we head off into this sticky Friday afternoon (and no, still no decisions on my part), there are plenty of interesting bits of tid regarding casting and production. For example:

• "Fox 2000 is remaking the Irwin Allen-created Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea." Because we definitely need more big-budget, special-effects laden remakes. Bright point: the script is being written by Justin Haythe who also wrote this summer's The Clearing, starring Robert Redford, Helen Mirren and Willem Dafoe. Maybe it won't be any good, but for a movie to attract that kind of cast, there had to be something interesting in the script. And as Spider-Man 2 seems to be proving according to early reviews, having a real writer script an action movie isn't necessarily such a bad idea.
  
• Vince Vaughn plans to produce and co-star as Racer X in the long-in-the-works live-action Speed Racer film. EXCELLENT! On so many levels.
  
• Jason Schwartzman will join Will Ferrell and Nicole Kidman in the big screen adaptation of Bewitched. I'm not one to think that there really needs to be a screen adaptation of the great but corny '60s sitcom, but at least they're casting the shit out of it. Kidman is a fine choice for Samantha, and Ferrell is an inspired selection as Darrin Stephens. I can't think of anybody who could be better than Shirley MacLaine as Endora, and both Michael Caine and Kristen Chenoweth are set as well. Schwartzman plays Darrin's agent. Agent you ask? Well apparently, the Ephron sisters have changed things up a bit. According to an IMDb plot summary, Ferrell plays an actor looking for a career-comeback by playing Darrin in a Bewitched adaptation. His costar is Kidman, who's non Samantha character actually happens to be a witch. And hilarity ensues. I think Nora Ephron is a much better writer than director, and sadly, she is helming this pic. I guess we'll see next summer how over-the-top it is.
  
• Continuing their trend of coming up with brilliantly creative names such as Coco for their newborn daughter, Courteney Cox and David Arquette have announced the name of their new production company: Coquette! I look forward to the remainder of their clever, imaginative and ground-breaking productions.

And SCENE! Have a great weekend everyone.

WE INTERRUPT THIS PROGRAM FOR ... UHM ... SPORTS

So I don't spend a lot any time blogging here about sports, but the fact is that I'm a pretty big fan, particularly of football and baseball, and especially of my San Francisco 49ers and San Francisco Giants. During football season, you can usually catch me going to a sports bar to watch every Niners game, no matter how crappy they're getting, and during Spring and Summer (and hopefully early Fall!), I'm often watching Giants games on my TV or computer. (Thank you modern technology!) I think I've become even more of a fan since moving to New York because following the teams makes me feel closer to San Francisco, the city where I was born and lived until I left for college over (sigh) a decade-and-a-half ago.

So why do I bring this up tonight? Well, next to the Giants winning the World Series (so close ... so damn close ... one day please!), and the Niners winning the Super Bowl (old hat, but it's been so long now and I fear the current drought will continue for some time), and the Warriors winning the NBA Championship (hahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha), the thing I love the most in all of sports is watching the Giants beat the Los Angeles Dodgers – they're just evil, you know? (Yeah yeah, LA lovers. We all know you're sick, so your comments are worthless here.) The Dodgers losing is often good enough, but watching the Giants beat them is better. Watching the Giants sweep them in a four game series in San Francisco for the first time since 1975 while taking a 2.5 game lead in the division and cementing that sweep with a dominating 9-3 trouncing while not having the best (and only dependable) starter appear in the series is better than I could have ever imagined.

Here in New York, nobody can see beyond Yankees-Red Sox or maybe Yankees-Mets. But out West, Giants-Dodgers carries some weight, far more than the local Giants-A's rivalry does. (Although I should note that even rabid Giants fans don't chant "Beat LA" when the team is playing someone else like I witnessed the Fenway fans doing for no apparent reason while I was at a game there ... against the Tigers.) I don't think this Giants team is going very far this year, at least not without the team making some major moves, but I'll be following until the bitter end, and no matter what happens, this little four-game series will remain a bright spot for the entire season.

GO GIANTS!

MISCELLANEOUS MISCELLANY: NO NO NO NO NO ... THROW LOGIC OUT THE WINDOW

We hare most definitely falling down the rabbit hole. Item 1 is terrifying; the rest belongs in the "Completely Unnecessary" files:

• I would say "They've got to be kidding," but sadly I know they're not. "A conservative group asked federal election officials on Thursday to investigate whether television ads for director Michael Moore's anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" violate campaign finance law regulating when commercials may feature a presidential candidate." As the right-wing seems to prefer these days, if you disagree with someone, the best course of action is to try to silence them or get them fined.

• For instance, Miramax Books has bought up the U.S. publishing rights to the first two books in a new adventure series about the teenage James Bond. You know, the regular aged James Bond books kind of lost something when Ian Fleming died, such as their true voice. The films definitely lost something when the original Fleming source material began to dwindle. We really don't need the entire mythology of James Bond to be ruined by teenage escapades. And while film rights were not included in the deal, you know the Weinsteins have at least a "Young James Bond Chronicles" in the back of their head. The premise for the series involves the adventures of "the 13-year-old James Bond as he starts his school days at Eton College." Of course, maybe the first version will be so original that my fears are for naught. "First book, which will be published in spring 2005, finds the young Bond at a Scottish Castle where he discovers that the owner is conducting ominous experiments in a secret lab." Ouch! My head.

• As Jason Productshop mentioned yesterday, Chuck Palahnuik is apparently telling people that his 1996 novel "Fight Club" isn't happy simply existing as a somewhat admired David Fincher film starring Brad Pitt and Edward Norton. He claims there are now plans to adapt it for the stage. As a musical. With Fincher's help. I just wonder how they'll insert the single frame porn shot of a giant penis.

• Oh, you want more film to stage musical adaptation news? Apparently, composer Alan Menkin (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin) is finally getting his big Broadway break. He's going to be writing a stage musical version of Leap of Faith! Leap of Faith. You know. Leap of Faith? Steve Martin? Liam Neeson? Debra Winger? Lolita Davidovich? No, Davidovich. Lolita ... never mind. Martin plays a traveling evangelist? Remember now? Except, he's really a con man. No, really. But when stranded in a small town, his cold conniving heart is warmed and cockles melted? Don't remember? Hmmm ... but it was so good. Or ... no ... actually, it was incredibly mediocre. Well, anyway ... it's going to be a musical.

• On the other hand and possibly even not unnecessary, the long in the works musical adaptation of Billy Elliott, featuring songs by Elton John, will open in London in April of next year. The film was one of my favorites from 2000, and if one has a choose a movie to adapt into a stage musical, it seems like a fairly natural choice since it already involves music and dancing. Interestingly enough, director Stephen Daldry and writer Lee Hall are revising their respective roles for this undertaking. Here's hoping for a successful translation.

DON'T YOU ... WANT TO ... KILL THE FANTA GIRLS

Ads before the previews at the movies have become ridiculous. With 10-15 minutes of coming attractions already playing before the film you actually paid to see, 5-10 minutes of TV-style commercials seem to do nothing but annoy audiences anymore. I know that I have decided to try to specifically not purchase anything sold to me incessantly. (So, Estée Lauder, screw you!) And the problem is, if you go to any movie theater regularly, you will see the same ads over-and-over-and-over again. You must now decide to balance getting there early enough to get the desired seat against walking in right around the scheduled start time (since most theaters seem to try to start the ads a few minutes before) just to miss that funny-once-not-twice AMEX Blue "The world is filled with beautiful things" spot or the never-funny-and-always-irritating Fanta commercial. (Yeah, I'm focusing on you Loews, but don't feel to comfortable Regal or AMC. You're just as bad.)

While I would tend to agree with the Movie Marketing Blog that these people have come a bit too late, apparently an organization (or at least a web site) calling itself The Captive Motion Picture Audience of America (or CMPAA because even if initials don't provide for proper acronyms, they still, you know ... lend legitimacy, even when mimicking illegitimate organizations) has decided to fight the power and attempt to convince the major theater owners to stop showing these commercials before the other commercials, i.e., previews. (Thanks Cinema Minima!)

Of course, this will never happen. Theater owners don't make their money from box office sales; they make it from concessions and now the very lucrative revenue stream of TV-style commercials ranging from makeup to soft-drinks to specials on cable channels that may have already aired but obviously had to be booked for the whole month. Generally, a distributor will retain 75-80% of a film's box office take (sometimes more) for the opening week(s), and the theater itself keeps the rest. The longer a film plays, the greater the percentage of ticket sales go to the theaters, but especially in today's marketplace, the chance of a theater getting to even a 50-50 split on the take of a particular film are slim because the scale doesn't reach that point for weeks or months, and by the time it does, the grosses aren't that high anyway. With a film like Spider-Man 2, I wouldn't be surprised if Sony Pictures struck a deal to keep 90% of all ticket sales, meaning even with the exorbitant $10+ ticket prices in Manhattan, your local Loews is actually only keeping $1 and change. That's why your concessions snack is $25!

So more power to you CMPAA, but don't expend too much energy because unless you decide to boycott movies altogether and convince the rest of this blockbuster-loving public to do so, nothing's going to change. But while you're at it, do you think you could turn your attention to the studios and convince them that overexposure of film trailers is counterproductive. There comes a point when I can't wait for a film to open, not because I'm excited to see it, but because I can't take seeing the damn trailer anymore regardless of how excited I may be for the actual movie. Spider-Man 2 is the exception: the preview running now is exceptional, and regardless of how the movie is, I never tire of it. But The Stepford Wives preview killed me. And I can't go to a movie now without seeing a bunch of CGI chase Will Smith in I, Robot, a trailer which has already been running for what seems like months, and the movie is still three weeks away. Paramount has already started to bombard us with previews for Jonathan Demme's new treatment of The Manchurian Candidate . Great director, great cast, and it looks like an interesting post-Cold War re-imagination of the story with major differences from John Frankenheimer's brilliant 1962 original. But it doesn't open for over a month (July 30), and I've already been seeing teasers and now a full trailer for a while. So leave us alone ... just a little bit. I know Paramount needs a hit and all, but do they have to place the preview before everything? Yeah, I understand the concept of advertising, but tease us, don't torture us. That's what the Fanta girls are for.