Cinematical

It's so heartwarming to see rival studios playing nice with each other, even if it's only for purely financial reasons. It's especially good when the result of their cooperation is that a film by Danny Boyle (pictured) will get the theatrical release it deserves.

Slumdog Millionaire, about a Mumbai street kid who strikes it rich on an Indian game show before having his knowledge called into question, will premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival next week. And now it'll hit multiplexes, too, on Nov. 28, thanks to a deal hammered out this week between Fox Searchlight and Warner Bros.

The film was originally part of Warner Independent Pictures' slate. But that division got shut down earlier this year, and Warner Bros. was left to deal with its leftover movies. It's like Warner Independent was a slightly irresponsible young adult, and Slumdog Millionaire was one of its children. Then Warner Independent died penniless in the gutter, and the child's grandmother, Warner Bros., being the only living relative, got custody. And Nana Warner Bros. loves the kid, thinks it's a great movie that people will enjoy, but ol' WB is on a fixed income and can't really support it. WB has kids of its own still living at home, for crying out loud.

So WB sidled up to Fox Searchlight, the dashing playboy son of billionaire Twentieth Century Fox, and struck up a relationship that involves Fox Searchlight paying for the film's marketing and distribution. Nobody has any illusions about this arrangement -- there's certainly no romance involved -- and they all live happily ever after. I just hope Fox Searchlight's dad doesn't find out, considering mean old Twentieth Century Fox is busy suing Warner Bros. over Watchmen. It's a pretty thorny situation, but hey, you gotta do what's best for the kids. It takes a village, right?

As Eric wrote yesterday, the upcoming dark comedy Towelhead is facing a protest from an Islamic group because of its title, which is perceived as derogatory and a racial slur. Not only is the film's distributor, Warner Independent, sticking by the title, but they have issued a press release containing lengthy, candid, and sometimes even moving responses to the controversy from: 1) Alicia Erian, the author of the original novel; 2) Alan Ball, the director of the film; 3) Warner Independent itself; and 4) a group of theologians.

Erian makes pretty much the same argument as Eric did in yesterday's post: that the title serves to highlight the racism its protagonist must contend with. She notes that her novel has been in print for three years and this is the first protest she has received. She also makes the excellent point that "[r]ealistically speaking . . . [people who are likely to use terms like "towelhead" to refer to Muslims] are neither the audience for my book, nor for the film. They will continue to use whatever language they wish whether or not a movie called Towelhead is released." Yes.

Ball refers to his own experience facing discrimination as a gay man, and argues that forbidding hateful words only increases their power. The distributor offers an apology but claims to stand by Ball and Erian in the name of free expression of ideas. The scholars note that this is one of the few films to show Islam in a positive light, and call the title "a thought-provoking and difficult term that needs to be deconstructed." You can read the whole thing over at David Poland's blog.

So there you go. I agree with the responses on the merits, but I really like the public relations tack Warner Independent has taken here. Honest discussion and argument are so much better than mindless PR spin -- and better PR, too.

One of the more controversial and polarizing films at this year's Sundance Film Festival (and last year's Toronto fest) was Towelhead, a dark and uncomfortable comedy about a 13-year-old Lebanese-American girl living in Texas during the first Gulf War. It was directed by Alan Ball, who showed with American Beauty (which he wrote) and HBO's Six Feet Under (which he created) that he has a knack for finding humor in the sinister corners of suburbia.

The film is set for limited release on Sept. 12 (here's Cinematical's review from Toronto), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is calling on Warner Bros. to change the title before it comes out. A press release from the Greater Los Angeles Area office of CAIR said, "The word ('towelhead') is commonly used in a derogatory manner against people of the Muslim faith or Arab origin." Furthermore: "The use of such a derogatory term by a major film studio will serve to increase its acceptability in public discourse."

Really, CAIR? "Towelhead" is a slur? Then I wonder why the filmmakers would use it as a title -- unless -- you don't think -- nah -- could it be that the whole point of the movie is that this girl is trying to find her identity, and that "Towelhead" is one of the epithets she has to deal with while living in a redneck town during the Gulf War? Could it be that one of the movie's messages is that slurs like that are unacceptable? Could it be that only the most bigoted and idiotic of viewers could come out of it thinking, "I'm gonna start sayin' 'towelhead' more often!"?

It wasn't that long ago that documentaries carried the stigma of being educational first and entertaining second. As with foreign-language fare, an audience for them lingered on the fringe, and an industry was willing to offer them their very own awards, but they really weren't terribly high-profile box-office prospects... that is, until the '04-'05 summer successes of Fahrenheit 9/11 and March of the Penguins made it seem perfectly okay for audiences to see, and for studios to market, a film without so much as one measly explosion in it.

But then along comes American Teen: a film openly marketed as - and arugably assembled to be - anything but a documentary that finds itself underperforming in its current limited runs (it goes wide this Friday). Last May, I witnessed a group of young women leaving whatever indie they caught at Washington D.C's Landmark E Street Cinema as they approached the film's poster and wondered aloud if someone was remaking The Breakfast Club, with a tone that suggested neither horror nor concern, nor any great interest in the big, fat what-if scenario placed before them.

What I wonder now is, at what point did we begin to craft documentary filmmaking specifically to the masses, and then what happens when the masses simply don't show?

This week's marquee indie release is being marketed as a twisted tie-in to the US Open golf championship. At least, that's the conclusion I draw from the DVD cover for Michael Haneke's US remake of his own Funny Games. Naomi Watts and her big tear have been relegated to the back. James Rocchi declared it "a great movie ... cruel, cold and darkly thrilling." DVD features are non-existent, unless you consider a full-screen version to be an extra.

Erik Davis called Zak Penn's poker mockumentary The Grand "one of the best ensemble comedies of the past 20 years." That ensemble includes Woody Harrelson, Michael McKean, Chris Parnell, Cheryl Hines, Ray Romano, Dennis Farina, Werner Herzog and David Cross. DVD features include alternate endings, deleted scenes, poker player profiles, and an audio commentary with Penn, writer/executive producer Matt Bierman and actor Michael Karnow.

To round out our trio of enthusiastic recommendations from Cinematical critics, Scott Weinberg was seriously geeked out by The Signal, "one viciously fun little genre flick ... fast-paced, disturbing and slick." The plot? Everyone turns into "raving homicidal lunatics." David Bruckner, Jacob Gentry, and Dan Bush directed. DVD features are generous, including an audio commentary with the directors, deleted scenes, a short film, and six "making of"-type things.

Other releases of interest include The Wayward Cloud, Summer '04, The Ballad of Narayama, Young Yakuza, Human Lanterns, and the smashing Invisible Target, which I reviewed with great enthusiasm.

This week is overflowing with potentially interesting indie DVD releases. What Would Jesus Buy?, an entertaining documentary directed by Rob VanAlkemade and produced by Morgan Spurlock, asks a very serious question in comedic form. As I wrote in my review, the film follows Reverend Billy and his Church of Stop Shopping Choir on a trek across America as they deliver an anti-shopping, anti-materialism, pro-Christmas message, bolstered by the trappings of fundamentalist religion. The DVD from Arts Alliance America includes deleted scenes, an 8-minute public access show featuring Reverend Billy, the Choir and Morgan Spurlock, and printable lyrics of the Choir's customized Christmas carols.

Theodore Braun's doc Darfur Now "is solely about the power and the conviction" of six people who have made a difference in Sudan, according to our own Christopher Campbell. "If there's one flaw with the film, it's that it almost conclusively portrays the Darfur problem as no longer a problem." One of the film's producers is Don Cheadle, who also appears along with George Clooney. The DVD from Warner Independent includes additional scenes and an introduction and commentary with Braun.

Woody Allen may not be thought of nowadays as an "indie" auteur, but, really, how many directors enjoy his creative freedom? I admire his untiring work ethic, but many of his recent films feel half-chewed, and Cassandra's Dream is no exception.

I have to hand it to the wardrobe people for Steven Soderbergh's The Informant since it's not easy making a guy who normally looks like this look like such a schlump. The Bad and Ugly have posted some behind-the-scenes photos for the comedic thriller, and even though there is nothing earth shattering going on, they are definitely a step up from the other pics floating around out there.

The Informant is based on the true-life novel by Kurt Eichenwald. The story revolves around Mark Whitacre (Damon), a rising star at the agriculture conglomerate, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). At the urging of his wife (who had threatened to go to the FBI), Whitacre spilled the beans to an agent that he had been involved in a price-fixing scam with other major corporations over the food additive, lysine. As if that wasn't enough of a story, it was later revealed that Whitacre (one of the most high profile, whistle-blowers in history) was suffering from Bipolar disorder and had defrauded millions from ADM.

For such serious subject matter, it came as a bit of a surprise when casting announcements first went out for the film and the list was chock-full of comedic actors (including Scott Bakula and Tony Hale). Soderbergh later confirmed that the film was going to be a "dark comedy", which makes sense because Damon is a pretty funny guy, and a great straight man. Soderbergh has just begun filming on location in Decatur, Illinois and there is no official release date, but The Informant is expected to arrive in theaters in 2009.

I've been hankering for a good crime flick with a women in the lead for a long time (I can't be the only one who thinks that Catherine Zeta Jones' pregnant drug runner deserved way more screen time in Traffic). But, in the grand tradition of most crime movies, women are relegated to the sidelines as either 'the downfall of the anti-hero', or, 'sexy punching bag' -- neither of which is very flattering, but hopefully that will change with Queen of the South. Variety reports that Eva Mendes has signed to star in the big screen adaptation of Arturo Perez Reverte's crime novel, La reina del sur (Queen of the South).

The story is being touted as a "female Scarface," and centers on a woman who flees to Spain when her drug-dealing boyfriend is murdered. Once she arrives, she starts her own narcotics operation to finance revenge against her lover's murderers -- and quickly becomes top dog. Joining Mendes in the cast are Josh Hartnett and Ben Kingsley in as-yet unnamed roles.

News of the flick first surfaced last year, with Mendes, Jennifer Lopez, and Penelope Cruz on the short list for the role, but in the end Mendes won out. Personally I would have liked to see Lopez take on the role (it's been too long since we had the chance to see her be a bad ass), but I guess in a pinch Mendes will do.

Do you think Warners made the right choice with Mendes? Or is there anyone else out there who would have liked to watch Lopez 'tussle' just one more time?

Near the end of last week, Defamer spread the rumor that Picturehouse, once the indie arm of New Line Cinema and currently dangling from the edge of the hulking entity known as Warner Bros., has its days numbered. Now that New Line is history and Warners, like many studios, has faced increasing cutbacks, it may give short shrift to the shingles responsible for handling artier fare. Along with Picturehouse, this also includes Warner Independent Pictures, whose recent release slate includes David Gordon Green's magnificent Snow Angels.

Defamer suggested that Picturehouse president Bob Berney might wind up at WIP or head up a new, currently anonymous company. On Friday, Variety's Anne Thompson put it in more coherent terms: It appears quite likely that WIP and Picturehouse will merge together as a single company, with current WIP president Polly Cohen working alongside Berney. Whatever happens, let's just hope that the final result still leaves room for the sharp selection of independent and foreign titles that Picturehouse has handled since its birth three years ago. Defamer points out that Marion Cotillard's unexpected Oscar win for La Vie en Rose matters less than the flop of Run, Fatboy, Run, while the John Simpson-directed horror film Amusement might get dumped on DVD. It was just last year, however, that the company helped edgy fare like The Orphanage and Rocket Science get the sort of release most studios would never try. Let's hope that bravery lives on, somewhere.

You know those kinds of movies that you want to see, but you also know that it won't be a fun time at the movies? Well, that is exactly how I felt after watching the theatrical trailer for Towelhead. The film is based on Alicia Erian's novel about a young girl adjusting to her new life with her strict Lebanese father in Houston, Texas.

Summer Bishil stars as the young protagonist, Jasira, whose budding sexuality is either ignored or fetishized by the men in her life. Aaron Eckhart stars as a friendly neighbor who quickly degenerates into someone who should maybe have one of those 'meetings' with Chris Hanson; and the cast also includes Toni Collette as an understanding neighbor, and Maria Bello as Jasira's self-centered mother.

The book caused a stir when audiences were little shocked by the frank sexuality in the book (Jasira is a 13 year-old girl). I don't know if they made Jasira a little older in the film, but there is still plenty in the story to freak out conservative audiences. The film originally premiered at the 2007 Toronto Film Festival and at Sundance under the name, Nothing is Private. I guess they figured the movie is bound to offend people anyway, so why not keep the original title?

Six Feet Under's Alan Ball wrote the screenplay, and Towelhead marks his directorial debut. Some early reviews for the film were positive, but, I'm still curious to see if mainstream audiences will be lining up for what looks to be an equally funny and disturbing film. Towelhead is scheduled for limited release on August 15th.

Vadim Perelman -- whose second feature, The Life Before Her Eyes, opened last weekend -- is "the kind of guy who would've flourished in the indie drama-happy '90's," writes Steve Zeitchik for The Hollywood Reporter. "Now he's caught between the prestige world and the indie one." Zeitchik is referring to the fact that both of Perelman's films have been small, niche-oriented releases, even though they've included movie stars (House of Sand and Fog starred Ben Kingsley).

Zeitchik thinks that Life is "representative of the cold climate for indie drama, even the more ambitious kind," explaining why it was released in-house through Magnolia Pictures rather than getting a deal with a larger distributor. I have a lot of admiration for Perelman after witnessing the devastating climax of House, and Life suggests that he prefers to stick with downbeat narratives. Movies with depressing narratives are never alluring to distributors, and even those bold enough to pick up such titles have a hard time getting them out there. Consider Warner Independent Picture's low key release of David Gordon Green's brilliant-but-depressing Snow Angels earlier this year.

... and the chicks for free? Having just tackled 21, the MIT card counting story starring Jim Sturgess, The Hollywood Reporter has posted that screenwriter Peter Steinfeld is going back to the world of easy money, but this time, it's even easier. He's going to adapt a lottery scam memoir published last September called Money for Nothing for Warner Independent Pictures and Maguire Entertainment. Yes, that's Tobey's company, which is really racking up the projects lately.

This time around, Steinfeld takes on the story of Edward Ugel. There are two sides to this coin. On the one side, there's Ugel's addiction to gambling. On the other is his job -- one that doesn't require a great brain and intricate math, but rather the ability to be convincing.

Working for a company he calls The Firm, his job is to go to lottery winners and convince them to take a smaller, lump-sum payment from his company, while the business then takes in the rest of the coin. Where 21 preyed on rich casinos, Ugel's job is to prey on the poorly educated and impulsive winners. However, THR also says that he then pocketed "a good chunk of change for himself in the process." Big money and gambling addictions -- you can imagine how this will play out.

Let me just say right up front that I hope Tobey Maguire and company will be making some changes to the feature version of Lori Gottlieb's infamous Atlantic Monthly article, Marry Him! The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough. Variety reports that Maguire's shingle, Maguire Entertainment, along with Warner Independent, have purchased the rights to the NPR's host advice on love and marriage. First, Gottlieb will adapt the story into a book for the publishing arm of Warners and then Maguire will adapt that book into a big-screen romantic comedy.

Having read the article, I'll just say that I hope I never run into Gottlieb in person because it would probably end with me being slapped with a restraining order. Some highlights from Gottlieb's article include: "Don't worry about passion or intense connection. Don't nix a guy based on his annoying habit of yelling 'Bravo!' in movie theaters. Overlook his halitosis or abysmal sense of aesthetics. Because if you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go" and "...in reality, we aren't fish who can do without a bicycle, we're women who want a traditional family." In other words, keep your mouths shut ladies because you don't want to end up an old maid.

Faced with the prospect of checking out several new releases or luxuriating in a new print of Jean-Luc Godard's Contempt, audiences overwhelmingly chose Godard's 1963 classic. Playing at a single location (Film Forum in New York City), Contempt earned $13,100 over the weekend, according to estimates compiled by Leonard Klady of Movie City News. Distributor Rialto Pictures has the film booked at Film Forum until March 27, and then perhaps will tour the print, though no details are provided on their site.

Indie holdovers also did better than the newest offerings. David Gordon Green's Snow Angels (Warner Independent) made $8,666 per screen at three theaters in its second week out, per Box Office Mojo, while Oscar winner The Counterfeiters (Sony Pictures Classics) pulled in $6,263 per-screen at 72 locations in its fourth week. Ira Sachs' Married Life (Sony Pictures Classics), Gus Van Sant's Paranoid Park (IFC) and Jacques Rivette's The Duchess of Langeais (IFC) also performed well; the first two in their second week of release, and the latter in its fourth week.

Michael Haneke's remake of his own Funny Games (Warner Independent) did very little business, grabbing just $1,800 per screen at 289 engagements, which is disappointing since our own James Rocchi called it "a great film ... it's hard to say which Funny Games stirs up more -- your guts, or your brain." Meanwhile, Bill Maher's Sleepwalking (Overture) was right behind at $1,640 per screen at 30 locations. In the review by Cinematical's Jeffrey M. Anderson, he concluded: "Worst of all is that title, which is exactly the kind of title that filmmakers should stay away from if they want to avoid a fairly obvious one-word film review."

(Funny Games opens in theaters this weekend; below is Cinematical's Review from the 2008 Sundance Film Festival.)

Michael Haneke's remake of his own Funny Games is a great movie. It's also a great film. It's also a great piece of commentary on film. It's hard to say which Funny Games stirs up more -- your guts, or your brain. There's a line about how the film criticism of Manny Farber "played both brows against the middle." Funny Games smashes lowbrow violent entertainment and highbrow thoughts about violent entertainment into each other, hard, over and over again until the resulting wreck of bone and flesh and blood glistens like a sharp-edged gem. It gives you what you want and asks why you want it in the first place, and it does both those things superbly. It is cruel, cold and darkly thrilling.

The Farber family (played by Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Devon Gearhart) are getting away from it all to their lakeside vacation home. They're going to relax, meet friends, play golf and enjoy good food and good music. But they're not going to get to do any of those things. Two polite young men (played by Brady Corbet and Michael Pitt) drop by; they're guests of the neighbors, and the neighbors sent them over to borrow four eggs. Watts is glad to help. But the eggs break, and they'd like to borrow another four. Watts is less glad to help, but still polite. And then second set of four eggs are broken, and then it's not about the eggs at all, and politeness becomes irrelevant. Which, really, it is in the first place. Soon the Farber family is bound and frightened and hurt, and the two young men stay cool and courteous and curious, proposing games and posing probing questions. Roth chokes out a simple question: "Why are you doing this?" Pitt's answer is simpler: "Why not?" Pitt spools off a long series of complex and contradictory rationalizations for his associate's part in events that are rapidly going out-of-control for the Farbers, closing by noting that " ... he's jaded and disgusted by the emptiness of existence. It's hard." None of it is true, and what would it matter if it were?