Matt Drudge is linking to an Irish Times report on a documentary called Not Evil Just Wrong, which Irish filmmakers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer claim “is the film Al Gore and Hollywood don’t want you to see.” The film purports to reveal “how extreme environmentalism is damaging the lives of ordinary people,” and the filmmakers have set up a PayPal account in the hopes of raising money for distribution. As the copy reads on their website, they’re “asking ordinary Americans to be part of cinematic history by making sure a documentary that finally tells the truth about their lives is shown across the nation.”
The trailer, embedded above, suggests that the Not Evil is typical reactionary propaganda, full of ominous music, quickly edited collapses in logic (such as when one man’s concern over the potential closing of an unidentified factory is followed up by an expert warning that “100s of millions of people would die”), and provocative but unfounded statements like, “They want to go back to the Dark Ages and the Black Plague!” But you know … that’s fine. Everyone should be allowed to make over-the-top, aggressively partisan cinema if it that makes them and their friends feel better about what they believe, right?
But it’s the PayPal campaign rankles, if only because of the extreme amount of cash involved. …Read more
The doomsday scenarios in movies can be pretty outlandish, but some of them are actually plausible. After all, in world where pirates have tanks, Hollywood doesn’t need to stray far from reality for a good yarn.
Below the jump, we put five doomsday movie scenarios to the plausibility test. If you’ve always secretly thought Waterworld was a work of dead-on global warming prophecy, read on.
A new Val Kilmer film, The Steam Experiment, is currently filming in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I got a chance to visit the set the other night, and while I wasn’t able to talk to star Val Kilmer, I did happen to record a video of Armand Assante spilling a martini all over himself (see above).
In the film, Kilmer plays a disgraced science professor with an extreme theory about how global warming will turn the general public into homicidal maniacs. In an effort to get the local paper to publish a story about his theory, he imprisons six innocent people in a steam bath and slowly turns up the heat until his demands are met. Armand Assante plays the tough detective who’s trying to thwart the diabolical plan.
I’ve lived in Grand Rapids for most of my life, and the movie thing is a new development. The state recently passed some very attractive tax incentives in hopes of luring productions to the state. As the Michigan news site Mlive.com reports, “Productions that spend $50,000 or more in Michigan are eligible to receive up to a 40 percent refundable tax credit.” These are reportedly the best tax incentives in the country. It seems to be working, as 50 films have been approved to film here so far this year.
Elliot Gould said a few words Friday night before a BAM screening of Little Murders, the 1971 film based on Jules Feiffer’s play, which Gould starred in and produced for first-time feature director Alan Arkin. The event came towards the midpoint of a retrospective at the Brooklyn theater dedicated to Gould’s 70s-era peak, and the actor seemed humbled by the thought of so many snapshots of an era lined up for quick consumption. “It’s my life,” he said wistfully. Then, with a little wave of a hand and a vigorous shake of his head, he corrected himself: “Well, it’s all of our lives, isn’t it?”
Gould noted that he’d “probably never” seen Little Murders “with a real crowd”–when the film was released in the States in February of 1971, Gould was in Sweden shooting The Touch for Ingmar Bergman, and thanks to its disappointing box office, it didn’t have much of a life for a while. Not that Gould took time out at the time to dwell on its failure. After the screening, Gould’s answers to questions from both the audience and moderator Bruce Bennett continually circled around a kind of “fear” the actor experienced at the peak of his career. After a 1970 TIME Magazine story in which he was anointed both “the urban Don Quixote” and “a star for an uptight age”, Gould worked constantly because he was afraid that if he stopped to catch his breath––or picked the wrong project and fell on his face––his allure would cool off and he wouldn’t be able to find a job.
Just when I thought I had a grasp of what kind of movies are sure to get a sequel or two, and which ones won’t, all my assumptions are being turned upside down. Spider Man? Sure. Pirates? Of course. But a sequel to An Inconvenient Truth? And one for Hal Hartly’s Henry Fool (which, incidentally is one of my favorite films)? Go figure.
Yes, it appears to be true. We’re going to be treated to a sequel of an informative (if slightly slow) documentary about global warming, and another for a high quality film with very little action and rather unpleasant characters. For An Inconvenient Truth Part 2 (I know, it gets your heart beating faster, doesn’t it?), director Davis Guggenheim is scheduled to meet with Paramount next week, so it’s too soon for details. (Will the original film’s star, Al Gore, agree to a sequel? The suspense…)
For the Henry Fool sequel, Hartly made Fay Grim, which picks up seven years later and focuses on the Parker Posey character by the same name. Somehow, Hartly manages to take a movie based entirely in a Queens neighborhood, and move its sequel to Paris, where the CIA also plays a role. Not your typical sequel (but I can’t wait to see it–check out the trailer at Spout).
So do these new developments tell us anything about the future of the sequel? Probably not. Some of the best documentary sequels (although most people don’t call them that) have been around for a while–director Michael Apted’s Up Series (28 Up, 35 Up, etc.), which he began filming in 1963. (Apted began chronicling the lives of 14 seven year olds that year, following up with “sequels” every seven years after.) It’s a brilliant series, but it hasn’t shifted the way most studios think about doing sequels. Neither did Smoke or its sequel (of sorts) Blue in the Face, another example of an atypical movie sequel set. No, it seems the decision to make your average sequel is generally all about what made a lot of money the first time around and might have enough buzz surrounding it to sustain another go. Wouldn’t it be great if the decision to create a sequel was based on the story, and whether it was worthy of another go?
