Harvey Weinstein has always prided himself on being a maverick, the go-to guy for filmmakers whose visions didn’t fit within the standard Hollywood rules. And it used to work pretty well for him. “Let me see someone break my [Oscar] record,” he boasts in this week’s FORTUNE Magazine. “I’ll be the first to give them the cup. I’ll be Bobby Hull passing the baton to Wayne Gretzky.” But both Harvey’s record and his reputation were largely cultivated on Disney’s dime, and in a post-Miramax world, success-via-audacity has proven harder to come by. Here are three signs from recent press stories that the Weinstein camp is starting to look a lot like a “real” studio”

1. Harvey Sides With Powerful Politician Over Filmmaker

One of the more entertaining segments in Sicko is a montage devoted to Hillary Clinton’s attempt to reform health care in the early 1990s. Using long-forgotten TV clips and archival photos, Michael Moore first paints the first lady as a hero, a glamorous spitfire (that hair! those suits!) who gave those grumpy old men of Congress an injection of much needed “sass.” But in typical Moore style, it’s all set-up for the real volley: not only did Hillary fail to actually socialize American medicine, but as a Senator Mrs. Clinton has become the second-highest recipient of financial contributions from health care companies.

Harvey Weinstein is not only a Clinton supporter, but a family friend. According to the Washington Post, the mogul “begged” Moore to remove the second, damning part of the montage from the film. Moore refused, and Harvey eventually gave up — but does this sound like the same Harvey Weinstein whose support Moore thanked God for when Disney wouldn’t distribute his last film?

2. Quentin’s Making Sequels

You might not have noticed this, but Hollywood makes a lot of sequels (and prequels, and (gag) threequels, and ad infinitum). This is not because fine auteurs like Tim Story and Gore Verbinski really believe they need six or eight hours spread across three years in order to tell their epic stories properly–it’s because, in accordance with simple consumer theory, the studios believe that what they were able to sell once, they’ll be able to sell again.

IMDB currently knows nothing about it, but this past weekend, Kill Bill producer Bennett Walsh told press at the Shanghai Film Festival that two Bill sequels are potentially on the way. Quentin Tarantino had previously alluded to following up with several of the Bill characters years down the road, but according to Walsh, “plotlines [have] already been written”, and production could begin in China “somewhat earlier” than originally expected.

This is all speculation, but bear with me. Imagine, for a moment, that you’re a much-ballyhooed director coming off a super-pricey failure, one your longtime friend/producer and his studio clearly see as an embarrassment. Would it be inconceivable for someone (maybe even that longtime friend/producer, who is under pressure to come up with a handful of hits, and fast) to suggest that your safest bet going forward would be to shore up commercial credibility by pushing up plans to revisit a past success?

3. The Weinstein Board is Hiring A CEO

That FORTUNE story also promises that the board of The Weinstein Company is looking for an outside CEO-type to come in and manage day-to-day operations, so that Harvey can get back to the business of supporting filmmakers. It would be a big deal if it actually happens, but who’s gonna want the job of telling Harvey (and Quentin and Kevin and Bob Rodriguez…) to reign in the spending? As Nikki Finke puts it, “Good luck finding, as one board director said, somebody who’s both a top-level CEO and would be compatible with the market and investors and the brothers.”

“I cannot help but want to know the fine print. Are the filmmakers [Susan Buice & Arin Crumley] who they say they are? Are they truly at risk financially? How did they hook up with Spout.com?” - John Bell

A little background on our Four Eyed Monsters, a buck for Susan & Arin promotion.

I met Susan and Arin at the Waterfront Film Festival in 2005. I knew right away they had something special going on and wanted to work with them again. When Arin approached me a couple weeks ago saying they were in the works with YouTube to put Four Eyed Monsters, the feature up for free, we asked ourselves a question, “Is their a way we can grow community around this movie and help fund these filmmakers?”

That’s when we came up with the buck for Susan & Arin idea. That’s the grand-master scheme behind it. Yes, Susan & Arin are truly in debt up to their eyeballs. I talked to Arin today and he admitted they have $148 in the bank and owe money to a lot of people who helped them along the way. Neither of them has worked on anything but this feature film in the past three years and they’ve yet to turn all the social currency they’ve built into monetary currency. But we want to help them do that.

When is it time to demarcate a filmmaking “movement”? What if the filmmakers in this movement don’t want to be grouped into any kind of movement at all? And what if the films in this movement revolve around the crisis of self-definition? Could it get any worse for one of its members than to have to talk about feeling self-conscious about being in a movement?

An article in the Spring 2007 issue of Filmmaker Magazine begins by asking these very smart questions, which immediately intrigued me. The article, “What I Meant to Say,” looks quite thoroughly at the independent film movement known by many as “mumblecore.” There are several posts waiting to emerge from this article, so I hope Paul and some of the other guys will share their thoughts in the coming days. For now, just check out the article and take note of the collaboration aspect of this movement.

The article generalizes these mumblecore films as “severely naturalistic portraits of the life and loves of artistic twentysomethings.” Names like Joe Swanberg (LOL), Mark Duplass (The Puffy Chair) and Andrew Bujalski (Funny Ha Ha) are all names that bubble to the top of this “scene,” if you can call it that. (I’ll never forget stumbling across Funny Ha Ha with some friends. It was definitely unlike anything we had ever seen.) Here’s another description from the article:

The first aesthetic indicators–and, it must be stressed, not all friends of mumblecore make films like this–are improvised dialogue and naturalistic performances, often by non-actors. The films employ handheld, verite-style digital camerawork and long takes. Budgets are tiny. The plots hinge on everyday events. The stories are often obvious reflections of the filmmakers’ lives. Most characters are white and educated and pursue creative endeavors when not pursuing one another. They are sensitive. They are sincere.

So that’s mumblecore, and it’s been slowly emerging for a while now. But apparently something interesting started taking shape this year at SXSW, causing people to sit up and pay attention. The festival’s promotional shorts were co-created by eight so-called mumblecore filmmakers, most of whom also had feature-length films at the festival (most of which were made with, written with, or acted by some of the other filmmakers).

It may be hard to follow all that, but you get the idea–this is a tight group. Read the article and you’ll see all the names and how they’re intertwined. It’s quite remarkable. And it made me think that something exciting is happening, whether or not I love this style of film (and I’m not convinced, yet, that I do–I’ll get back to you after I see more). The exciting thing that’s happening, from my perspective, revolves around a shared filmmaking experience that organically draws in ideas and talents from anyone who has some to offer. It’s not about competition–rushing to finish your film first, get it to festivals, attract the most attention. It’s about the love of making movies like this, of finding a format for expression that works, and sharing with others through that format.

In the end, these films, as the Filmmaker articles says, are ultimately about “trying to communicate.” While all films are trying to communicate something, it’s often something that’s inside one person (the writer or director). What’s interesting (and rather poetic) about mumblecore, is that people are interacting and trying to communicate on the screen as well as through the creation process. That seems to be filmmaking collaboration at its best.

I thought this list of “Things Computers Can Do in Movies” was pretty funny. Apparently, I’m not the only one–it’s number one in all categories on digg right now. (Digg is a user-powered content promotion site that allows people to virally push whatever they think is most interesting or entertaining on the web at the moment.)

The list of “computer tricks” in movies was published yesterday on the Programming Blog. Check out the comments, too. People left some funny examples and additions to the list.

What I find interesting about this phenomenon–that computers can do remarkable things in movies–is that filmmakers are still exaggerating the capabilities of computers today, even in non-science fiction, non-futuristic films. I was a kid in the 80s and I remember all the fascination generated around “what computers will someday be able to do.” Most people didn’t know the first thing about computers, so they were easy to fool. Their imaginations were pliable. But now that computers are such an everyday part of so many people’s lives, it seems like movie audiences would demand more accurate portrayals of technology and its capabilities. Computers in movies should be tools that allow us to relate to characters and situations, rather than tools that leave us saying “huh?” (This, of course, doesn’t apply to science fiction and futuristic films.)

Anyway, here are my favorites from the list. Check out the whole list for fun, if nothing else. Enjoy, and let us know which computer scenes in movies are your favorite.

Things Computers Can Do in Movies

2. You never have to use the space-bar when typing long sentences.

5. High-tech computers, such as those used by NASA, the CIA or some such governmental institution, will have easy to understand graphical interfaces.

6. Those that don’t have graphical interfaces will have incredibly powerful text-based command shells that can correctly understand and execute commands typed in plain English.

7. Note: Command line interfaces will give you access to any information you want by simply typing, “ACCESS THE SECRET FILES” on any nearby keyboard.

9. All computers are connected. You can access the information on the villain’s desktop computer even if it’s turned off.

11. All computer panels operate on thousands of volts and have explosive devices underneath their surface. Malfunctions are indicated by a bright flash of light, a puff of smoke, a shower of sparks and an explosion that causes you to jump backwards.

14. You may bypass “PERMISSION DENIED” message by using the “OVERRIDE” function. (See “Demolition Man”.)

15. Computers only take 2 seconds to boot up instead of the average minutes for desktop PCs and 30 minutes or more for larger systems that can run 24 hours, 365 days a year without a reset.

16. Complex calculations and loading of huge amounts of data will be accomplished in under three seconds. Movie modems usually appear to transmit data at the speed of two gigabytes per second.

24. Most computers, no matter how small, have reality-defying three-dimensional active animation, photo-realistic graphics capabilities.

25. Laptops always have amazing real-time video phone capabilities and performance similar to a CRAY Supercomputer.

26. Whenever a character looks at a monitor, the image is so bright that it projects itself onto their face. (See “Alien” or “2001″)

27. Searches on the internet will always return what you are looking for no matter how vague your keywords are. (See “Mission Impossible,” Tom Cruise searches with keywords like “file” and “computer” and 3 results are returned.)

Our regular guest writer, Dodd (moviedodd at spout.com), tells us what’s the latest in movie rating news, and shares his mixed feelings about the proposed changes. Dodd is finishing up a Master’s degree in Film Studies at Ohio University.

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about the current film rating system implemented by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Filmmakers have raised hell about it all on their own for the past few years, but now the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated has served as an expose on the selective standards of MPAA members. The film seems to have had an affect already. Since its release, MPAA head honcho Dan Glickman has admitted to the organization’s vague guidelines for what sets an R picture apart from an NC-17 one, and that proper actions would be taken to fix that problem.

It seems that Glickman was not just throwing words around for publicity purposes. According to a recent Variety article, Dan Glickman has announced that the MPAA is developing a “hard R” rating, which is not to be confused with the original “soft R.” In other words, films like Little Miss Sunshine, with its occasional F-bomb and sex joke, will be branded with a regular R. However, movies with blood-spurting decapitations, hardcore sex scenes, and f**k thrown into every sentence will be awarded the new, hard R rating.

Not only will there be a new R-rating, but the NC-17 rating may be eliminated. The hardcore rating limits film distribution and advertising on television, so the organization wishes to lump anything that is extremely graphic in nature under the new hard R-rating, with hopes that audiences, exhibitors, and advertisers will embrace it more than the much-feared NC-17.

I feel a little torn on this issue. Apparently, the new hard R-rating is the result of parents complaining that their children are being exposed to graphic content in R films. First off, the film is rated R, which means that the content is not appropriate for those under 17. Parents who choose to allow minors to watch these films have been warned to be cautious. Secondly, R-ratings currently contain little descriptions indicting the nature of the content–anything from drug use to angry sex to graphic conversations. Finally, if these descriptors prove to be too vague, there is a wealth of information about the graphic content of movies on the Internet, from movie reviews to the MPAA’s website to Yahoo’s Movie Mom. Therefore, my question is whether or not a new R-rating will stop parents from complaining. Teens will be teens, and they will always figure out ways to see hardcore content. While the rating system is useful, it will never magically babysit kids.

On the other hand, I am happy to see the elimination of the NC-17 system. Yes, it can be affiliated with the cult disaster known only as Showgirls, but the rating has also sunk potential pictures like a rock for miniscule details. It has also locked its sights on unconventional sex rather than violence. It will be nice to see art house gems such as Bad Education not being ostracized like a sleazy snuff film.

What do you think? Does the MPAA need a new R categorization, or will people complain about it anyway? Are you ready to see NC-17 get tossed aside, or does it still serve a useful purpose?

Left to right: Scott Kirsner (Cinematech), Ry Russo-Young (Orphans), Lance Weiler (Head Trauma, The Workbook Project) and Alison Willmore (IFC News) on the future of filmmaking.

Spout invited Scott Kirsner (Cinematech), Ry Russo-Young (Orphans), Lance Weiler (Head Trauma, The Workbook Project) and Alison Willmore (IFC News) to come and talk. We like their minds and think they’re really tapped into the future of filmmaking and what the new distribution “sledgehammer” will be.

Our own Rick DeVos, Spout’s fearless leader, was interviewed and quoted in an Austin Chronicle article yesterday. The article, “The Future of Film on the Web,” talks about the overwhelming sea of content on the web, and how “The old days of a Web campaign for a film attracting audiences on novelty alone are over. …Instead, filmmakers are finding success in reaching out to online communities….”

Communities build excitement around discovering and sharing something with others, the article asserts, which is what filmmakers need to do today to make their movie stand out. This, of course, is where Spout comes in. Here’s part of what Rick has to say:

For Rick DeVos, founder and CEO of film community Spout.com, that’s where Hollywood goes wrong. “They think of community as, oh, I’ll put a message board on my Web site, and that’s building a community around this film. It’s much deeper and more complicated than that.”

Spout is a community first, a commercial entity second, and it’s powered by connections. “We’ve stolen liberally from Malcolm Gladwell’s ideas around the tipping point,” DeVos explains. “We think of our users as three components: You have the casual film consumer; you have the maven, the passionate film fan, the connector who’s tagging and blogging like crazy; and the filmmaker. We think of the maven as the way of connecting the consumer and the filmmaker. They’re a trusted voice in this sea of content.”

Ah, the age-old debate: Do you have to get a formal education to succeed in the arts? From painting and poetry to song writing and filmmaking, successful artists have done it both ways–with school and without. (Unsuccessful artists have done it both ways, too.) Either way, the bulk of the learning emerges from doing, right? And formal programs are so often lagging behind what’s really happening in the field. Of course, we all know that one of the most valuable things to gain from going through a program is connections, but are they worth the college debt? Especially considering that few people find the arts to be a lucrative career path?

As a writer, I have struggled with these questions myself, so a headline in yesterday’s New York Times caught my eye: “Where’d You Go to Film School? In My Bedroom.” The article points out how a formal education in filmmaking can seem even more pointless in “the era of miniDV digital video cameras, Final Cut Pro editing systems and YouTube auteurs with development deals.”

But now there’s something in between a formal education and the clueless dive-in-head-first approach–filmmaking tutorials offered on DVDs and CDs. On one level, it’s super exciting to think that you can gain some level of expertise and direction without wasting all the time and money on school. I’m a big fan of figuring out what your story is and then telling it, without a whole lineup of excuses that do nothing but set you back. (I’ll tell it after I get my degree, or after I save X amount of money, or after I move to New York…you know the drill.)

At the same time, while it’s important to just tell your story, maybe knowing how to tell your story is the thing you can’t learn off a DVD. Maybe you need another human being–a mentor–to ask the right questions and push you in the right way. Maybe you need someone experienced to help teach you how to weave together your narrative and the technical aspects in an engaging way. Here’s how a film professor quoted in the Times article put it:

Tom Denove, vice chairman for production in the film, television and digital media department of the film school at the University of California, Los Angeles, contended that educational software often misses the real point of making a film: the inherent power of a narrative.