Filed under: Documentary, Celebrities and Controversy, Newsstand

Departed star Leonardo DiCaprio is getting a little touchy over claims that's he's a convenient environmentalist. Over at Cannes, the actor has screen his own eco-documentary, which he wrote, produced and narrated, called 11th Hour. Of course, as soon as someone tries to be a voice in anything, questions will come to check for hypocrisy. In this case, he was asked if he took a "fuel-guzzling" jet to the Festival. DiCaprio's response: "No, I took a train across the Atlantic." Snap! Apparently, a British journalist explained that many stars say they're environmentally conscious, and then use huge-emission private jets, to which he replied: "I try to travel commercial as much as I can."

There is just something about the thought of Leo sitting next to a large, snoring man who begins to drool on him that amuses me to no end. I wonder, when can he not fly commercially? Is it a matter of whether they can wipe out the first-class section and let him sit there in peace with his entourage? DiCaprio says that the environmentally inconsistent are "all trying the best we can, truly, we really are." Now I understand wanting to better the environment, but still doing some environmentally-questionable practices -- it's a scale of means. However, it's completely valid to question whether he's doing enough.

Of course, part of the conversation turned toward Al Gore, and DiCaprio said: "This person is truly trying to relay a message to the public and the way he travels and the way he leads his life should not be splayed out like that." But shouldn't they, to some extent? We're a society testy about hypocrisy, and we like to try and fish out the genuine from those that are full of bull. Should Leo spew all that fuel from his private jet because he doesn't want fangirls molesting him and that old man drooling on him? I understand there are safety concerns, so where in the world is the Hollywood jet-setter airline? Get a saucy, decked-out plane that can take 50-100 stars from place to place instead of different jets for each person traveling somewhere. Maybe those green limo guys can look into it. Or, corral all the stars going to one area and say: "Hey, why don't we all go in one jet? It would be good for the environment, and just imagine the PR!"

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Documentary, Independent, Cannes, Celebrities and Controversy, The Weinstein Co., Movie Marketing, Politics, Michael Moore

This weekend marks the world premiere of Michael Moore's SiCKO at the Cannes Film Festival, and while we wait for the feedback -- including a Cinematical review from James Rocchi -- to come out of the French Riviera, there is an interesting note from Moore, on the filmmaker's website, that is worth reading. Following his unrestrained response to the U.S. Treasury Department, the new note is a lot more calculated and mature. Sure, he still criticizes Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, as well as the Bush Administration (it would be a shocker if he didn't), but this time he expresses his points more clearly than he did in his previous rant. If only he addressed his opposition as well as he addresses his friends (to whom this note is directed), more people might pay him respect.

One major surprise in the note is that Moore honestly thought he could make it to Cannes without a lot of noise. He claims to have been intent on keeping SiCKO under wraps and on keeping himself uncharacteristically silent, mostly because he didn't want to prematurely upset the health care industry (wasn't it too late, though?). Of course, thanks to the Treasury Department's investigation of him, Moore and the film have been given a lot of press these past couple weeks, and certainly Moore is not too upset with the publicity. The filmmaker gives a tiny bit of information about the now infamous trip to Cuba and he hints that SiCKO actually goes somewhere far scarier, though he mentions that his lawyers have advised him to say little more about the incident other than to once again assure us that he has broken no laws. Moore also states that it was his lawyers who recommended hiding a copy of the negative outside the U.S. (he found the notion that the government might confiscate SiCKO to be absurdly un-American). Stay tuned for coverage of the filmmaker's reception at Cannes following its screening on Saturday night.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Newsstand, Comic/Superhero/Geek

Perhaps we're just a tad late to the game on this one, but I simply had to add in my two cents about the brand new hot-to-trot statue of Spider-Man's main gal Mary Jane. For those who aren't yet aware of this priceless collectible, you can check it out to the right of your screen. Yup, that's Mary Jane holding her man's Spidey costume and casually bending over a wash-bucket with a pink thong riding high up on her waist. Created by comic-book illustrator Adam Hughes, the limited-edition Comiquette comes from Sideshow Collectibles and is licensed by Marvel. And if you're interested in placing Ms. Mary Jane in your living room (right next to your Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 2.1 DVDs, I imagine), then she'll set you back a crisp $125.

Not surprisingly, bloggers everywhere are all up in arms over this trashy, yet smokin' hot version of Mary Jane. Hughes hilariously describes his creation as "Mary Jane discover[ing] that her superhero husband has slipped some of his laundry into the mix, but she's not looking too displeased about Peter's naughty little transgression." Funnily enough, all the outrage has done nothing by spark a feeding frenzy; the statue (which is available through the Collectibles web site) has already sold out, with a waiting list recently added. Now here's where I get to tell you what I think. First off, who cares? The majority of folks who actually buy these statues are geeked-out males (or fanboys) who like to steal a peak at their purchase while surfing for the latest Star Trek fan art. (And based on some of the fan art I've seen, this statue is quite tame). I see nothing wrong with it; she's not naked, she's not revealing too much (unlike a certain "rain scene" from one of the films) and, quite simply, she looks good. Thoughts?

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Comedy, Documentary, Celebrities and Controversy, The Weinstein Co., Michael Moore

It has been four days since the New York Times published this article on the Michael Moore in Cuba controversy, but by Saturday I had already written on the story three times, and I figured I'd wait awhile before commenting more. The article doesn't report much that hasn't already been covered here -- Moore is in trouble with the U.S. Treasury Department because of a trip he took to Cuba for his latest film, SiCKO -- and it was actually written before Moore's rant-as-defense letter, but it does feature a response from Harvey Weinstein, whose The Weinstein Co. is distributing SiCKO this summer. Weinstein appears to be grateful for the extra publicity that the government is giving to the film, but he also addressed some concerns. He thinks the Treasury Dept. might try to have the Cuba footage removed from the documentary, and he mentions that if so, he has the resources to fight them on this.

Speaking of resources, Chris Lehane was also quoted in response to the controversy. The spin doctor, who was hired by TWC last week to provide PR assistance for the film, states that the company feels comfortable with the terms in which Moore went to Cuba. So basically it seems that TWC and Lehane are backing Moore 100% on the issue, despite the fact that the trip seems obviously to have been in violation of the law. I think that if these guys really do want more publicity for SiCKO that they should just let Moore tackle this himself. He'd probably be struck with a huge fine, which he would then publicly reject. He would be put in jail for a short sentence, and while he's behind bars, millions of curious individuals will go see his movie. Sounds good: Weinstein gets his box office and we get to rid society of Moore for at least a month or so.

In other news, Moore has issued a letter to Presidential candidate, and actor, Fred Thompson, in which he addresses the former senator's hypocritical purveyance of Cuban cigars. He also challenges Thompson to a debate, which the winner of could be decided on television a la American Idol. Moore points out that he won a big debate award in Michigan 35 years ago. Hopefully Thompson will respond to the request, at least to decline. Stay tuned for more on Moore this weekend, when he will premiere SiCKO at the Cannes Film Festival.

Oh, and just to clear up any bias I have against Moore or the film before you guys leave me more assuming notes: I think Moore is irresponsible and foolish; I don't have any right-wing agenda in thinking this (I don't feel the need to give out my actual political affiliation here); I have for the most part enjoyed Moore's movies, even when I've disagreed with them or found them to be manipulative; I very, very much look forward to seeing SiCKO.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Documentary, Independent, Deals, Cannes, Celebrities and Controversy, DIY/Filmmaking, Cinematical Indie

Remember that 700 hours of behind-the-scenes footage of Inland Empire that Chris Ullrich posted about last month? All of that was going to be whittled down into "the most current perspective on one of cinema's greatest directors and will bring to life his creative process and joy for living life to its fullest potential." The material has now been molded into a documentary called Lynch, which David Lynch is shopping around himself. Unfortunately, this time he is sans cow.

The director is shopping the doc to international buyers at Cannes -- all areas but North America, which likely means that he will take on the distributing task once again. Interestingly enough, whoever directed the film is a mystery. The person is credited as "blackANDwhite," and is said to be someone who lived and worked in Lynch's home, hoping "to present to the world the unique experience of being with David Lynch for a prolonged period of time, watching him as he creates on a day-to-day basis." According to Eric Bassett of Lynch's Absurda -- it is not Lynch himself who directed the documentary.

I wonder if that means it could be a family member, since it's pretty revealing to let someone come in to film you 24-7. That being said, Lynch must be prepared for the revealing aspects of such a shoot, since Bassett says that it "shows some rough stuff that I'm pretty shocked David let out. There are a lot of problems on the set. David admits he has no idea what he's doing sometimes." I'm wondering if these are Huckabees-level problems, or just general chaos? It'll probably be eons before we can see this, but in the meantime, a half hour of footage called Lynch 2 will be included on the Inland Empire DVD, which comes out on August 14. As for the other hundreds of hours of footage -- I wouldn't be surprised if bits get released here and there, on Lynch's site or his future DVDs.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Documentary, Celebrities and Controversy, Exhibition, Home Entertainment

The Scientologists are not happy. However, they've got a different Hollywood spokesman leading the revolt this time. I guess crazy ol' Tom Cruise is needing a break from his role as Hubbard poster boy, and John Travolta has taken the torch. He's trying to get the BBC to stop a documentary they are doing on the Church of Scientology, after the reporter got into a yelling tirade. Travolta has written to the channel's execs as part of a campaign that has sent 100,000 copies to MPs, civil servants and business leaders, as well as throwing the clip up on YouTube.

In the footage, BBC journalist John Sweeney is screaming at Tony Davis, because the Scientologist accused him of giving easy interviews to critics of the organization. Raising his voice just a smidge, Sweeney ranted: "You listen to me. You were not there at the beginning of the interview. You were not there. You did not hear or record all the interview." The journalist has since apologized and describes the outburst as "a fine example of how not to do it. I look like an exploding tomato and shout like a jet engine." For 6 months, Sweeney has been researching Scientology, and he says that his efforts have resulted in spying and hotel invasions that he likens to be rougher than his time in Chechnya, where he lost his voice but not his mind.

I'm thinking that would make an even better documentary than just talking about the creative vision of L. Ron and all those personality profiles. Can you see it? John Sweeney -- a man torn loose from sanity due to the pressures of Scientologists. He is tortured at the hands of Hollywood thetan-fighters, in an environment more challenging than Chechnya. Eh, one can dream. In the meantime, the BBC doesn't seem fazed by the efforts and the documentary -- Scientology & Me -- will air tonight on the BBC.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Drama, Celebrities and Controversy, Exhibition, Western

You must be warned: Seeing gay cowboys can be very, very dangerous to your health. The Chicago Board of Education has been named in a lawsuit last Friday because a substitute teacher showed an 8th grade class Brokeback Mountain last year. The 12-year-old girl and her grandparents are looking for approximately $500,000 in damages because the girl suffered "psychological distress" upon viewing the Oscar-winning film. According to the girl's father, Kenneth Richardson: "It is very important to me that my children not be exposed to this. The teacher knew she was not supposed to do this."

Apparently the substitute, Ms. Buford, shut the door to the class when screening the film, saying: "What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class." When she closed the kids in and let the film air, Richardson claims that his young granddaughter was traumatized to the point that she had to undergo psychological treatment and counseling. (And to think the most troubling thing I ever had to see from a substitute teacher were some icky bikini pictures from one of her summer vacations.) This is the second round of complaints from the family, who previously objected to curse words in reading material: "This was the last straw. I feel the lawsuit was necessary because of the warning I had already given them on the literature they were giving out to children to read. I told them it was against our faith."

So, this is more of a religious thing than a question of over-all suitability. Personally, I'm surprised that any of the kids could stay awake long enough to get to the risque scenes, after all the picturesque time in the rolling countryside. While it was definitely a questionable move for Ms. Buford, I'm thinking that the Richardsons better get their grandkid some blinders. If some telling, but not graphic, scenes result in psychological instability, the world is going to drive her crazy in no time. Or, is this a Saved! situation?

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments