The Screengrab : an american carol

Movieguide, Wall Street Journal Detect Anti-Communist Trend at Box Office; Iron Man Praised for His Faith in the Free Market

Phil Nugent — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:30:00 GMT

In an editorial in The Wall Street Journal, a publication that often inspires readers to compare what's in its highly esteemed, award-winning news coverage to what's being professed on its op-ed page and come to the conclusion that somebody's nuts, has published an analysis of the state of the movie business by Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission, and someone named Tom Snyder, who I'm guessing is neither the late, much-missed host of the Tomorrow show not the guy who did Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist, but really, who the hell knows anymore? If there's one thing I've picked up on in the course of doing this job, it's that life's full of surprises, put it that way. Anyway, Baehr is a big wheel with Movieguide, a family-values organization that promotes better living through morally correct movies or something. Part of his op-ed amounts to a press release announcing that Movieguide recently "held its 17th Annual Faith & Values Awards ceremony", where they saluted such entertainments as Fireproof, "which received a $100,000 Epiphany Prize for the Most Inspiring Movie of 2008, sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation." Even more valuable was the information we released in our Report to the Entertainment Industry, a detailed survey of what kinds of movies made money last year, and why. Regular readers of the Screengrab will immediately recall that we did our best to cover the Fireproof experience, because we, too, want to "help families who want to find movies and TV shows that stay within the perimeters of biblical principles", to use Baehr's pithy phrasing, and because opportunities to update readers on the state of Kirk Cameron's career don't come along every day. But the most exciting news to come out of this year's Movieguide report on the state of the art is that Baehr and company have figured out how to keep the entertainment industry solvent in these perilous times. (If you can keep Kirk Cameron solvent, you can do anything.) "With media conglomerates, from Time Warner to Disney to News Corp., reporting big losses," write Baehr and Snyder, "few can afford to ignore proven recipes for box-office success. And when it comes to movies, what succeeds is capitalism, patriotism, faith and values...Once again, family-friendly, uplifting and inspiring movies drew far more viewers in 2008 than films with themes of despair, or leftist political agendas. Sex, drugs and antireligious themes were not automatic sellers, either. Among the 25 top-grossing movies alone, 14 out of 25 had strong or very strong Christian, redemptive and moral content, and nearly all had at least some such content."

These results are based on a close examination of "more than 250 major films from Hollywood studios and independents for their social, political, philosophical, moral and religious content. When all the information -- categorized by dozens of criteria -- is in a database, we calculate which movies took in the most money at the theatrical box office in America and Canada in 2008." We have no doubt that the good people at Movieguide have gone about their work with great devotion and seriousness of intent. But in their efforts to connect with the money changers of Hollywood, they may have come too close to embracing that time-honored but morally dubious practice known as Hollywood accounting. For instance, Movieguide makes a point of claiming that movies with "anti-Communist" messages made a hell of a lot more money this past year than the usual flood of high-profile commercial releases that nakedly proselytize for Communism. If you spend any of your time listening to the right nationally broadcast conniption fits, you will of course agree that, barely ten years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the threat of a Communist takeover of the West is a major issue, one that demands that filmmakers take sides. And as Movieguide sees it, Americans would much rather see anti-Communist movies. As proof, it offers a list of what it terms anti-Communist message movies--An American Carol, Fly Me to the Moon, City of Ember, and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull--and notes that, as a group, they "averaged $71.8 million at the 2008 box office in America and Canada." Compare that to the group's list of pro-Communist propaganda movies--Che, Gonzo, The Children of Huang Shi, Trumbo and Vicky Cristina Barcelona--which "averaged a measly $7.9 million in 2008." However, as Jim Emerson points out at his great film blog Scanners, the "average" $71.8 million figure for the anti-Commie films seems to have been arrived at by spreading the wealth around and giving An American Carol and City of Ember, which cost, respectively, $20 million and $55 million, and which each took in about $7 million, some of the credit for Indiana Jones's $317 million gross. (I confess to never having heard of Fly Me to the Moon before. Turns out it's a Belgian-made 3-D animated feature that cost $25 million and had a domestic gross of $12 million, though it managed to make enough worldwide to cover its costs.) By contrast, the standout film on the "pro-Communist" side of the roster, Vicky Christina Barcelona, was made for somewhere between $15 and $20 million and has grossed more than $85 million worldwide. Many people, some of whom invested in An American Carol, would say that this counts as profitable, but apparently Movieguide feels there is a special kind of math that is "within the perimeters of biblical principles" and another kind that is not.

Then there is the problem of how Movieguide defines its terms. A certain round peg-square hole quality can be felt. For instance, why is City of Ember, a children's fantasy film in which the corrupt mayor (Bill Murray) of a dying city is seen stockpiling canned goods for his own selfish use while the people he is meant to be governing do without, specifically "anti-Communist"? Movieguide simply says that it must be because it's a movie in which "a tyrant steals from the people", which could just as easily (and just as weirdly) justify calling it a veiled attack on Boss Tweed. Similarly, in what way is Vicki Christina Barcelona pro-Communist? It is true that it features a character who identifies as a political leftist, and it is true that although this character's life is a self-destructive mess, at no point is there a scene where he is struck by lightning. Similarly, the basically apolitical (and largely unseen) The Children of Huang Shi, which is set in China during the Japanese invasion, features a swaggering, charismatic Communist Chinese guerrilla fighter played by Chow Yun-Fat. Put all this together, and you might be forced to conclude that Movieguide thinks that it's a dangerous political act to ever have a Communist character played by somebody hot. But then you remember that they approve of Cate Blanchett's Commie dominatrix with Louise Brooks bangs and that theory gets shot to hell.

The politics of Movieguide and the Journal's op-ed page are no secret, but if you'd never heard of either one, you wouldn't have any trouble guessing what they are from their attitudes towards certain movies. These are people who, faced with an admiring portrait of a genuine hero like Milk, only see the "licentious content"; who think that the documentary Gonzo must be pro-Communist because its hero, Hunter S. Thompson, didn't approve of the Vietnam War or Richard Nixon; who see the humanistic, one-world attitudes of The Visitor as an expression of "anti-Americanism." (These are also people with so little sense of history that their list of liberal-minded dirty movies includes an adaptation of Brideshead Revisited; that noise you are hearing is the sound of Evelyn Waugh trying to claw his way out of his coffin so that he can get his hands around their throats.) Risible as all this is, it's also kind of annoying, because this is a time when a changing economic reality might make it possible, and desirable, to have a real discussion about the morality of the movie culture, and how that culture might enhance its own profitability by addressing people's actual concerns on a real-world level instead of wasting more and more money on thinner and tawdrier fantasies. So it's frustrating to see more of these silly circle jerks whose sole purpose is to give the jerkers a chance to claim solidarity with what they think is the core of the mainstream culture and cite its "success", whether that success is real or imaginary, as evidence that tomorrow belongs to them. Among the other movies that Movieguide sees as on their side is the animated feature Bolt, which is about a dog that has spent its life performing in a TV show and bounds out into the real world believing that it actually has super powers, and which is said to embody "such moral values as loyalty, sacrifice and doing the right thing," values that you might think transcend politics but that Movieguide identifies as constituting specifically "conservative content". I guess if you think that An American Carol provides a blueprint for financial success, it's only natural that your idea of a moral example would be a delusional dog on a power trip.

"Big Hollywood": Big Disappointment

Leonard Pierce — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:30:00 GMT

2009 has seen the dawn of a shining new star in the blogosphere: Andrew Breitbart's 'Big Hollywood' website, meant to be a one-stop shopping destination for right-wing conservatives who just can't get enough of complaining about those damned west coast liberals and the commie propaganda spewed in their so-called 'entertainment'. Most conservative blogs and websites focus on news and politics, and tend to give the entertainment industry a wide berth aside from occasional bitching. Why? Well, largely because every time they piss and moan about the terrible smut coming out of the dream factory, someone usually points out that people seem to like movies and TV, and since conservatives are such advocates of the marketplace of ideas, why don't they just make their own movies and let the public decide? This is a recipe for disaster, of course, because conservatives tend to be really, really bad at this sort of thing. (Examples: the Left Behind movie, An American Carol, the post-9/11 career of Dennis Miller.)

However, there's just no shutting these people up, so along comes Andrew Breitbart -- who, last year at the Conservative Political Action Conference, I heard make the frankly absurd claim that a well-known actor friend of his was afraid to admit that he supported our troops overseas because he was afraid such a sentiment would get him blackballed. (He didn't say what actor it was, but I strongly suspect it was Genius Club star/exxxtreme Christian Stephen "Stevie B." Baldwin.) Big Hollywood is meant to be a format for writers, filmmakers, artists, actors, and other people allegedly shut out of the Hollywood establishment by its left-wing pashas to sound off about the cruel disenfranchisement they've experienced. But, perfectly in keeping with the public expressions of a movement that simultaneously claims to be downtrodden and oppressed by liberal chicanery and naturally morally right, beloved by the ordinary Joe, and inevitably triumphant, Big Hollywood also frequently claims that conservative values are on the upswing in the entertainment business, that no one wants to see those crummy left-wing anti-war movies, and that the heartland is just dying for movies that will reflect their true values. This contradictory pose of the persecuted majority is nothing new, but Breitbart and his compatriots over at Big Hollywood are more shameless than most in assuming it.

The not-so-curious thing about Big Hollywood, though, is that contrary to its stated purpose, it hardly seems to have any new voices of conservative Hollywood posting there at all. Instead, we get the same old tired Scaife Foundation recipients that we've been hearing bitch about the evils of Hollyweird for the last decade, recycling the same old crap about how liberals are out of touch with American values, and how their favorite movies must be conservative, because they're conservative, and they like them. Among other abominations, the site has recently treated us to right-wing blogger Iowahawk engaging in flat, unfunny satire; pointless old geezer Burt Prelutsky on how the blacklists weren't so bad after all; Greg Gutfeld on how we should make propaganda films to terrifiy Muslims; Bill Willingham on how superheroes aren't pro-American enough; Ben Shapiro on how Lost is the most conservative show on TV; and, of course, endless condemnations of Che, global warming 'alarmists', homosexuals, and any movie star who expresses an opinion that isn't conservative.

It should be no surprise who have been watching the intellectual bankruptcy of new-movement conservativism these last 10-15 years that what purports to be an advance guard for a new cultural revolution is a totally fraudulent excuse for the usual suspect to collect another wingnut welfare check.

DVD Digest for January 6, 2009

Paul Clark — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:00:00 GMT

This week brings a cavalcade of crap from the lean seasons of 2008. But if you’re willing to wade through it, there are treasures to be found.

DVD of the Week: The best news in a relatively slow week is the much-anticipated arrival of two very different films by the great British director Michael Powell. For years, fans of Powell and his longtime collaborator Emeric Pressburger have yearned for a DVD of one of their greatest films, 1946’s Stairway to Heaven, also known as A Matter of Life and Death. Finally, the film has arrived in a new pressing from Sony, complete with an introduction by longtime Powell fan and friend Martin Scorsese and an interview with film scholar Ian Christie. But wait, there’s more! Paired in the set with Stairway is Powell’s late-period film Age of Consent. I have yet to see the film, which by most accounts is fairly minor Powell. Yet how can one possibly resist a movie that stars James Mason and a luscious young (and often-nude) Helen Mirren, set against some lovely Australian settings? Not me, that’s for sure.

This week’s most notable recent releases on DVD are a pair of 2008’s highest-profile pot-themed movies- David Gordon Green’s Pineapple Express (Sony, also Blu-Ray) and Jonathan Levine’s The Wackness (Sony, also Blu-Ray). Also this week is the fiction debut of documentarian Jessica Yu, Ping Pong Playa (Image, also Blu-Ray), plus a quintet of shame: Nicolas Cage in Bangkok Dangerous (Lionsgate, also Blu-Ray); Vin Diesel in Babylon A.D. (Fox, also Blu-Ray); Pacino and DeNiro cashing their paychecks in Righteous Kill (Anchor Bay, also Blu-Ray); Disaster Movie (Lionsgate, also Blu-Ray), the latest in the seemingly deathless cycle of cut-rate parodies from the Friedberg/Seltzer team; and the right-wing spoof/jeremiad An American Carol (Universal). Whew.

This week’s big TV on DVD is Battlestar Galactica Season 4.0 (Universal). And in Blu-Ray only news, this week sees the release of Peter Jackson’s King Kong (Universal), the pigskin drama Friday Night Lights (Universal), and Season 1 of Showtime’s Dexter (Paramount).

Dennis Hopper Beats Joe The Plumber To Death With Pipe

Andrew Osborne — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:00:00 GMT

Okay...I'll admit that headline is a tad negative and misleading. But isn't that what campaign season's all about?

Besides, according to the terrorist-and-fact-loving elitists at The New York Times, Joe isn't really a plumber and he isn't actually named Joe. In fact, based on photographic evidence, he may even be Michael Chiklis.

And Dennis Hopper, despite a history of crazy behavior like almost but not quite blowing himself up with dynamite, doesn't really go around like Frank Booth randomly bludgeoning people he doesn't agree with (or even people who symbolize people he doesn't agree with)...

...but, surprisingly, the annoying hippie nutjob turned annoying neo-conservative also won't be voting for McCain this Election Day, no matter how many folksy plumber stories the Republican candidate pulls out of his funny Maverick hat.

In other words: Dennis Hopper's turning Blue, and we don't mean Velvet.

Yes, despite his recent turn in David Zucker's alleged comedy, the liberal-bashing An American Carol, and despite voting "Bush" not once, not twice, but four times in as many presidential elections, Hopper recently told reporters, "I pray God Barack Obama is elected."

Regarding his reasons for the change of political heart, the one-time easy rider cited the many lies of the current administration...

...but since he made the statement while he was in France(!) receiving that nation's Order of Commander of Arts and Letters, it's entirely possible he was lying.

(Hey, when in Rome...)

Related Stories:
Screengrab Review: An American Carol
Will Barack Obama Be America's Next Great Black President?

The Screengrab Highlight Reel: Oct. 4-10, 2008

Scott Von Doviak — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:00:00 GMT

Hi, folks. I'm Lance, the Screengrab's monkey intern, and I'll be handling the Highlight Reel this week. Frankly I asked for this opportunity to address you today because I'm simply sickened that a few bad apples have once again set back my community's efforts to be taken seriously. Folks, it's hard out here for a chimp. Yet we've got these bozos in Japan running around with bottles of Jager for a handful of magic beans. Now it's true that I'm not compensated monetarily here at Nerve, but that's because it's an internship, fer crying out loud! Soon I'll be an editor here, and I'll be able to put an end to insulting stuff like this Top 25 Leading Men list. I keep asking the Screengrabbers, where is the list of top leading monkeys? They keep saying they'll get around to it, but I see them laughing when they think I'm not around. Sure, they'll throw me a bone by reviewing Me Cheeta: My Life in Hollywood, but they treat it as a joke! Believe me, folks, there are statues of Cheeta where I come from.

Anyway, I guess I've got to pretend that some of the stuff these clowns wrote is worth reading, so here are your highlights of the week:

New Reviews: Ashes of Time Redux, Fireproof, An American Carol

When British Comics Attack: Simon Pegg vs. Ricky Gervais

Mark Wahlberg Talks to Animals (ha ha, very funny)

Ozsploitation! Razorback (more like pigsploitation, if you ask me)

Special Election Year Report

Dylan in the Movies

How Not to Interview Faye Dunaway

Nick Nolte Does His Own Stunts

Fargo's Marge Grills Sarah Palin

Gordon Gekko's Speechwriter Clarifies

Screengrab Review: "Fireproof"

Leonard Pierce — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:15:00 GMT

The second in my weekend mini-festival of movies made by and for people who hate people like me is Fireproof. So widely is former TV star/religious fanatic/banana enthusiast Kirk Cameron associated with the movie that the theater I went to here in South Texas was advertising it as "Kirk Cameron's Fireproof". As a thesis statement, this is something I'm eager to put to the test, but just the way it was phrased...is Kirk Cameron really that much of a draw? Seeing the movie so advertised -- and I later discovered this theater was far from the only place where the movie was thus billed -- was, for me, akin to seeing a marquee reading "Bounthanh Xaynhachack's Appaloosa". (It's also not entirely accurate: Cameron didn't write or direct the film, and may not actually know what writing and directing are, as his claim that he was unable to kiss the female lead in Fireproof because she is not his wife suggests that he doesn't actually know what acting is.) Still, like I said, this movie isn't made for me. If there are lost millions for whom Kirk Cameron is a legit box office draw -- and the crowded house in the theater suggested that there just might be -- then for tonight, I would be one of them.

In Fireproof, Cameron plays a firefighter who is gradually falling out of love with his wife, played by Fireproof's Erin Bethea. (Cameron's downright Dukakasian appearance when decked out in fireman gear that looks a size too big for him makes one question why it was chosen as his character's fictional profession, until you gradually realize that it's so they can cut to an occasional action-packed fire rescue as respite from the constant relationship yackety blap. That's right, Christian males: this is a chick flick.) The reasons are murky, though it's clearly implied that it's mostly her fault for getting on his nerves: Cameron is relentlessly misogynistic in the movie, and seems to want to repair his marriage out of a sort of bloody-minded sense of obligation than because he actually cares for his wife. In order to patch things up with the missus, Fireman Kirk decided to follow the teachings of a book called The Love Dare (originally just a made-up gimmick for the movie, now actually available as the producers sensed the presence of additional fleece on the flock); in the end, he learns to conquer his indifference and hostility and grudgingly love his life partner again.

The biggest problem with Fireproof isn't that Cameron's character, who is named Caleb Holt and acts like it, is an unlikable jerk. (We're constantly assured by the movie that he is a good person, generally by way of rescuing people from fires instead of just standing around watching them burn to death, but nothing in his behavior towards his wife, his family, his friends, or anyone who isn't actually engulfed in flames manages to convince you that he's not irredeemably schmucky.) The biggest problem is that the movie is deadly dull. One of the biggest problems with any message movie is that the message is generally thought by the filmmakers to be more important than the movie part, and that's the case here in spades. Why should any of us give a shit if Caleb and Catherine can save their marriage, when the script gives us no reason to care about them and the actors give us no reason to like them? Say what you will about An American Carol (for instance, you could say it sucks), but at least it wasn't boring.

Fireproof actually has a few things going for it: it's more professionally made that what you might expect from a film directly marketed at a Christian audience, insofar as it has actual production values and looks like something a studio might conceivably make. Its acting is bad, but it's bad by virtue of being empty, dispassionate and boring rather than by virtue of being the work of incredibly incompetent actors. And its message isn't as noxious as we're used to from Christian filmmaking; there's no screaming diatribes against abortion, evolution or voting Democrat. Its biggest problem is that if you watch it in a theater that's been freshly painted, it will have lots of competition for the dullest thing in the room. The reason that smirky reviews keep mentioning the odd bit of lunacy (like the unforgettable moment when Caleb punishes his computer for getting him hooked on internet pornography by smashing it with a baseball bat) is because those are the only scenes that manage to capture your interest for any measurable amount of time.

Related Posts:

Screengrab Review: An American Carol

Kirk Cameron Fights Fires for God, Makes a Few Bucks At It

Screengrab Review: "An American Carol"

Leonard Pierce — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:45:00 GMT

This week, as the election nears, I decided to treat myself to two movies that I ordinarily wouldn't see under any circumstance. Not just because they looked terrible -- although they did -- but also because they were movies that, in a very literal sense, were not made for me. These movies are less artistic endeavors than they are salvos in the culture war, and if they were aimed at me, it was not as a consumer, but as a target.

But hey, so what? I go see a lot of movies that aren't really meant for me. I've reviewed Tyler Perry movies, which aren't meant for me. I've reviewed Disney animated movies, which aren't meant for me. I'm a big fan of Stan Brakhage, and his movies weren't really made for anyone. I'm a professional, damn it, and as a professional, I can take whatever to the other side in the culture wars dish out. The first tasty bowl of arsenic: David Zucker's An American Carol.

The film, as you may know from Phil Nugent's earlier piece on it, is a high-dudgeoned but low-minded spoof in which a stand-in for Michael Moore (portrayed by a stand-in for Chris Farley) is interrupted in his quest to ban the Fourth of July by a visitation by three ghosts, who attempt to dissuade him from his wicked anti-American ways. Why wasn't his movie released at Christmastime? Why would anyone want to ban a calendar day? Why would you send John F. Kennedy to attack a prominent liberal? I figured if I started asking myself questions like that, I would just go insane. Instead, I focused on whether or not the movie was actually funny. I hope I will be believe when I say that, all ideological considerations aside, it wasn't. It's not that you can't be funny from a specific political point of view; in fact, satire (which, really, An American Carol is too dumb to qualify as, but still) depends on a moral standing ground from which to attack. It's that these jokes lack any kind of universality, humanity or relatability: the only way you can think it's funny is if you agree with where it's coming from. Or, to put it another way: the new, right-wing David Zucker believes it's funny to have Michael Moore slapped around by Bill O'Reilly. If you happen to agree, you might be modestly amused; if you don't, the joke will fall even flatter than it actually does. The old, non-political David Zucker knew better: he just thought it was funny when people get slapped.

Above and beyond the question of its partisan demands, though, is the fact that An American Carol just isn't very funny, even if you're a conservative. Its jokes are lazy, obvious, and predictable even by the subzero standards of modern farce, and while moviegoing audiences have proven time and time again that they'll go to a movie that critics don't like because they genuinely enjoy it themselves, there's very few people who will go to a movie out of spite, which is really the only reason to see An American Carol. This is evidenced by the fact that with half the country or more still self-identifying as conservative, the movie completely tanked at the box office; as Phil reported, though, Zucker and a few of his far-right pals are claiming that its disastrous performance is due to some kind of liberal conspiracy. If I can be allowed one moment of ideology, that's the great strength of the paranoid right: if you succeed, it's because America loves your values; if you fail, it's because liberals sabotaged you. All I can say is, they did a hell of a screw job on this one.

Hollywood Conservatives Face 'New McCarthyism', Goblins, Unicorns

Special Election Year Report: Unfunny Conservatives Battle Racist Chihuahuas at the Box Office

Phil Nugent — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:00:00 GMT

Jean-Luc Godard once said that Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 had surely done its part in getting George W. Bush re-elected. You may disagree, but if an investigating committee of impartial wise men were formed to rank every statement of a political nature that Godard has ever issued in descending order of just how deranged they sound, it's doubtful that the sneer at Moore would make the top hundred. (Maybe not the top five hundred.) Moore said back in 2004 that he hoped that his movie would have an effect on the election, and maybe it did. (How he though that he might inspire some effect that was hurtful to Bush by making a movie specifically designed to comfort those who already agreed with him one-hundred percent while confusing anyone on the fence and pissing off and galvanizing everyone on the other side is a question for a different investigating committee of impartial wise men.) To hear them tell it, David Zucker and the other conservative Hollywood players who worked on An American Carol would like to have an impact on this year's election but are having trouble breaking through that gosh-darn media filter. Zucker, who will probably always be best known, especially at the rate he's going, as part of the team that wrote Kentucky Fried Movie and went on to create Airplane! and the Police Squad/The Naked Gun franchise, has weighed in on political matters before. A few years ago, he produced and directed a series of political ads, including the one above, which chastises the Democrats for being too soft to dictators and terrorists, and the one below, which compares James Baker and the Iraq Study Group to Neville Chamberlain. Basically, the spots look a lot like what you might get if a smart new comedy troupe were to fantasize about what would result from one of the Airplane! guys got it into his head that he was a political satirist. Politically and historically, they're garbled all to hell--for instance, you might get the impression from the first one that Zucker thinks that the Clinton administration's negotiations with North Korea had resulted in Kim Jong Il developing his own nuclear weapons and the Bush administration's refusal to talk to that government had cowed them, instead of the other way around--but you do get to see an overweight Madeleine Albright impersonator in a bad dye job split her skirt. As the Drudge Report noted at the time in an exclusive report on a screening for political insiders, "One GOP strategist said 'jaws dropped when the ad was first viewed. "Nobody could believe Zucker thought any political organization could use this ad."

An American Carol stars Kevin Farley--Chris's brother--as a Michael Moore-like filmmaker who, after a setback with the failure of his latest cinematic diatribe Die, You American Pigs!, tries to regain his rad-lib street cred with a campaign to ban the Fourth of July. To set him straight, he is visited by a vision of John Kennedy and then by the ghosts of George Washington (Jon Voight), General George Patton (Kelsey Grammar--and if you were forced to pick out one role best associated with George C. Scott that could also be a good fit for Sideshow Bob, wouldn't this be the one to jump out at you?), and an angel of death, played by a typecast Trace Atkins. The all-star cast also includes Leslie Nielson, who Zucker must keep stashed in a safety deposit box between films, as well as James Woods, Dennis Hopper, Robert Davi, Paris Hilton, Kevin Sorbo, Gary Coleman, and Bill O'Reilly--as "himself", thank God. (Really, does anyone want to see Bill O'Reilly stretch himself as a performer?) Considering what's known about the movie, including its trailer and the stuff you just read here, it doesn't strike me as shocking that it didn't do well in its first weekend. Especially since the movie wasn't screened for critics, meaning that the first real reviews didn't start dribbling in until the day after it opened. This is a well-known sign of a stinker, one that moviegoers have learned to pick up on. It should be noted, though, that Zuvker has explained that in this case it was a protective measure, meant to shield the film from liberal critics who would never judge it fairly. (Full discolsure: This writer's politics are probably closer to Michael Moore's than to Jon Voight's. However, I once had to kill a blog that I had worked on for a over a year because of the flood of comments from people wishing me a slow, painful death after I wrote there that I had problems with Michael Moore's work and suspected that his farts do not smell like sweet honey. Also, though basic human sensitivity keeps me from describing my actual reaction to the news that Chris Farley had died, I can say that it was not anything like, "Oh, if only he has an equally unfunny, lookalike brother who can some day continue his mission on Earth!")

The filmmakers might have been expected to react to the collapse of their box office hopes in any number of ways. They might have re-thought the no-press-screenings rule, for instance, or maybe regretted not having asked Kevin Sorbo to do full frontal. Maybe even regretted not having asked Kelsey Grammar to do full frontal. (Dennis Hopper and Gary Coleman hardly need to be asked.) But instead, they have floated the notion that a kind of voter fraud is going on: At a page at the movie's slow-moving web site (was it designed by John McCain?) they wrote: "We have had heard from numerous people across the country that there has been some ticket fraud when buying a ticket for An American Carol this past weekend. Please check your ticket. If you were in fact one of those people that were "mistakenly" sold a ticket for another movie please fill out the form below. Hold on to your ticket so we can have proof. If you have noticed other irregularities with the theatres in your area please let us know in the comment section below. For instance, Rated R film rating (when in fact we are rated PG-13), posters not being up, not being listed on the marquee, image or focus problems, sound issues, etc. Please email us a picture of your ticket stub to fraud@americancarol.com.") The page has since been taken down, indicating either that liberal hackers are making mischief or the filmmakers' lawyers gave them a pep talk explaining such arcane concepts as "baseless charges", "talking out your ass", and "sue you back to the Stone Age." (Meanwhile right wingers on-line are keeping the spirit alive. Still you'd think that the director of BASEketball and My Boss's Daughter would be better equipped to shrug off failure; it's not as if he hasn't had some practice at it. Then again, maybe even Ed Wood would have trouble processing the information that his labor of love got its ass kicked by Beverly Hills Chihuahua. It can't help that a recent article in Slate tagged Beverly Hills Chihuahua as an implicitly conservative movie that uses racist images of Mexico and Hispanic dogs to, confusingly, peddle a message of tolerance, brotherhood, and hitting on the landscaper. Take it away, Lou Dobbs!

Morning Deal Report of the Living Dead

Scott Von Doviak — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:00:00 GMT

We take no blame for the fact that Beverly Hills Chihuahua debuted at the top of the U.S. box office with a whopping $29 million weekend take. It’s true that I am the proud owner of a Chihuahua-American, but he wanted nothing to do with what he perceived as a showcase for offensive stereotypes. Eagle Eye was second with $17.7 million, and Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist took in a finite $12 million for third place. Blindness didn’t attract many eyes and finished outside the top 10, but both Bill Maher’s Religulous and the conservative coalition’s An American Carol made the lower reaches of the list, with Maher’s documentary boasting the higher per-screen average.

George Romero can’t seem to stop making zombie movies. He’s already shooting an as-yet untitled film – we fearlessly predict the word Dead will be in there somewhere – in Ontario. “Plot involves inhabitants of an isolated island off the North American coast who find their relatives rising from the dead to eat their kin,” Variety reports. “The leaders of the island feud over whether or not to kill their reanimated relatives or preserve them in hopes of finding a cure.” That’s a no-brainer, gang.

Screengrab It Girl Kat Dennings will team up with Woody Harrelson and Sandra Oh for the oddly-spelled Defendor. “Written by Peter Stebbings, who also is making his directorial debut, the film centers on a regular guy (Harrelson) who believes he has a secret superhero identity. Dennings will play a teenager he befriends, while Oh is cast as his psychiatrist,” says The Hollywood Reporter.

Related:
Screengrab Review: "Religulous"
George Romero Runs the Voodoo Down

Trailer Review: Slacker Uprising

Paul Clark — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:00:00 GMT

Michael Moore’s cinematic efforts couldn’t manage to vote the Republicans out of the White House in 2004, but that hasn’t stopped him from trying again. With Slacker Uprising, Moore trains his camera not on the sitting president or his party, but rather his own efforts to mobilize the youth vote in the last presidential election. Of course, there’s something strangely self-aggrandizing about Moore making a movie about his unrelenting commitment to incite America’s youngsters to political activism, but there’s always been a self-congratulatory air in Moore’s films, and at least Slacker Uprising seems to more or less acknowledge it. But while I’m not sure that celebrating the ultimately futile efforts by the Left to sway the election in its favor will serve much of a purpose this time around, it’s hard to fault Moore’s plan to make the movie available as a free download in order to get it seen by the maximum amount of interested people. Of course, it's quite possible that the movie will suck (word from Toronto last year wasn't great), much less make a difference in this year's election. But in a movie season that will also see the anti-Michael Moore spoof/jeremiad An American Carol, I’d say he’s at least entitled to a rebuttal.

The Screengrab Highlight Reel: August 24-30, 2008

Scott Von Doviak — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:00:00 GMT

My fellow Americans, I am here to humbly accept your nomination of Recapper of the Week in Screengrab! I think we all know it is time for a change. No longer can we sit by, complacent, while the screenwriter of Showgirls turns to Jesus. No longer can we allow Robert Downey Jr. to badmouth The Dark Knight. No longer can we stand by while good men like Phil Nugent and Andrew Osborne face-off over Judd Apatow and Pineapple Express!

No, my friends, this is a time for unity. A time for us to gather together and marvel at the World’s Greatest Animated Shorts – Parts One, Two, Three, Four and Five! We must respect the Screengrab Fall Preview Picks of Andrew Osborne and Leonard Pierce, as different as they may be, as equal planks in our broad platform.

Some will tell you Guy Ritchie is caught up in the zeitgeist of slaggery. Some will insist that Fascination and Meet the Spartans are actually watchable movies. Some will wonder when Robert Zemeckis went bad, or why Terrence Howard would record an album, or under what circumstances David Lynch met Devo.

We don’t have all the answers! But we do know that That Guy is Bob Hoskins! We do know that Sukiyaki Western Django is some fucked-up shit! We do know that An American Carol is coming out whether we like it or not! And if we all stick together we can survive anything, even RocknRolla or a sequel to The Strangers !

God bless the Screengrab, and let’s make it a Wet Hot American Summer!

Trailer Review: An American Carol

Paul Clark — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:00:00 GMT

I’ve heard some conservatives speaking of “the humorless left,” but if this trailer tells me anything, it’s that humorlessness can be found on both sides of the aisle. How else to explain this laugh-free, broad-as-a-barndoor jeremiad against America-hating liberals, embodied here in the person of a Michael Moore surrogate played by Chris Farley’s little brother Kevin? Granted, Moore kind of brings this upon himself, but I think that’s part of the problem- Moore’s tactics have become pretty embarrassing even to those who agree with his politics, so not only is it all too easy to single him out as a symbol of left-wing America, but it’s fairly inaccurate as well. But then, cheap shots are this trailer’s stock in trade- liberals hate America and deserve to be repeatedly socked in the face on for ideological reasons, while only conservatives truly love and respect what this country stands for (could the Trace Atkins song in the trailer be any more on the nose?). All of which goes to show you that there are few things more depressing than an unfunny comedy, especially one populated by has-beens (Kelsey Grammer, no doubt trying to rustle up funds for his next misbegotten Broadway show), crackpots (Jon Voight), and all-around attention whores (Bill O’Reilly). And this guy directed The Naked Gun? How the mighty have fallen…

Hollywood Conservatives Face "New McCarthyism", Goblins, Unicorns

Leonard Pierce — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:30:00 GMT

One of the favorite activities of the modern movement conservative is to claim that, since not every single aspect of the culture panders to him, he is being discriminated against. Having never actually experienced any actual discrimination -- unlike, say, black people -- the right-winger seems to believe that it is an oppression too heavy to be borne that he is sometimes made aware of things that he does not personally enjoy. Liberal arts classes in college taught by liberals? Discrimination against conservatives! Some people don't adhere to the tenents of the Southern Baptist Convention? Discrimination against conservatives! Young people listening to the rappity-hop music? Discrimination against conservatives!

This week has seen a big push in one of the favorite such complaints of the movement conservative: that, because of the preponderance of liberals in Hollywood, conservatives are being discriminated against in Hollywood. Jason Appuzzo, founder of the late, unlamented Libertas Film Festival, was one of the biggest purveyors of this ridiculous myth; Brent Bozell is another. But in the last ten days, we've seen an op-ed by Jon Voight in the right-wing Washington Times in which he blamed American liberals for the murder of millions by the Cambodian dictator Pol Pot, and claimed that "if, God forbid, we live to see Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way". The editorial was widely scoffed at, and conservative gadflies, who mistake being made fun of for being blackballed and having your entire career destroyed, immediately came crawling up from the cellar to complain about "establishment entertainment journalists expertly wielding the tools of the New McCarthyism". So says Andrew Breitbart (who, earlier this year, I heard peddle the absurd notion that Hollywood celebrities are afraid to say they support our troops in Iraq, lest they face censure at the hands of the liberal bosses). While conservatives almost universally react to liberal opinions on the part of entertainers with some variant of "shut up and sing" (witness the widespread hostility the Dixie Chicks faced a few years ago), let one of their own get laughed at for mouthing of some ill-conceived right-wing talking point, and we're witnessing the vile fascism of "a town that doesn't embrace free speech anymore". Breitbart's commenters are even worse, claiming that "the old McCarthyism was harmless compared to the new". (Those who wish to compare and contrast may note that Mr. Voight currently has three films in production, and starred in one of the most successful films of 2007, as opposed to, say, Dalton Trumbo, who spent a year in prison because of the blacklist, or Hanns Eisler, who was more or less forced to leave the country and ended up in the hands of the Soviet East Germans, or Alvah Bessie, who never worked in her chosen profession again, or Canada Lee, Bartley Crum and John Garfield, who all died because of the horrible after-effects of coming under McCarthyite scrutiny.)

Meanwhile, the Weekly Standard featured a cover story entitled "Hollywood Takes on the Left", in which David Zucker outlines his difficulties and frustrations in making An American Carol, his long-promised conservative comedy. Zucker, too, complains of a "new McCarthyism" in Hollywood, designed to keep Republicans out, and frets that "conservative films are almost illegal in Hollywood". Even if one ignores the fact that movie studios are owned and run by capitalist multimillionaires who are hardly hostile to the core principles of conservativism, this absurd sense of pseudo-oppression fails for one simple reason: audiences tend to like or dislike movies based on whether or not they're entertaining, not based on their ideological bias. (After all, as conservatives love to remind us, liberal anti-Iraq War films have been duds at the box office.) If Zucker's film fails, it won't be because of some mythical Hollywood liberal mafia; it will be because the movie is preachy instead of funny, and audiences don't like preachy.

Luckily, because of the freedom of speech people like them denied victims of the blacklist in the 1950s, Zucker, Breitbart, Voight, and their ilk are welcome to complain all they like about how terribly oppressed they are; that they actually do so is all the evidence you need of the moral bankruptcy of the modern conservative movement.