Hollywood Vampires and D.C. Draculas

Rosario Dawson”s Horrifying Movie Choice

Rosario Dawson (“Sin City”) was apparently shocked by the graphic cruelty displayed in her latest movie, “Descent.”

The film is another addition to the Hollywood dung heap of flicks that focus on suffering, torture and cruelty while packaged as entertainment.

“Descent” includes a brutal rape scene in which Dawson portrays a victim who eventually goes after her attacker and with the help of a friend imposes an even more vicious form of revenge.

“It was horrifying for me to watch it,” the actress tells the World Entertainment News Network and acknowledges the need to warn people of the dreadful content before they line up at the box office.

“But it’s also really amazing how much the affect is. It really humanized a lot of us who are part of this experience because it brought up a really deep conversation that most of us don’t ever want to talk about,” she adds.

Torture flicks humanizing? Next she’ll be telling us that mindless flicks boost the IQ.

‘Invasion’ Déjà vu

It all started in 1955.

Author Jack Finney penned a sci-fi novel called “The Body Snatchers,” in which seeds from outer space invade the planet, take folks over while they’re asleep and grow evil body doubles in creepy plantlike pods.

The tale so captured the public’s imagination it’s been made into a movie four different times.

First it was “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” Then it was “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” for a second time. Third time it was simply “Body Snatchers.”

Now another cinematic installment is about to hit the theaters. For a change of pace, it’s called “The Invasion.”

It stars Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig and once again hits on some timeless social and political themes—individualism vs. conformity, personal freedom vs. social control, human compassion vs. callousness.

Guess every couple of decades we need a movie reminder to keep us from becoming dreaded “pod people.”

Hollywood’s Hidden Villains

Check out this brilliant piece by Nick Cohen in The Observer:

Screens that flicker and fail to challenge

In Die Hard 4.0, a cyber-terrorist paralyses the eastern seaboard of the United States. The lights go out all over New York, roads are gridlocked and airports closed, and a panicking citizenry hears rumours of anthrax attacks.

If this sounds a touch familiar, the writers and director are careful to emphasise that resemblances to 9/11 only go so far. The criminal mastermind isn’t an Islamist, but Thomas Gabriel, a deranged computer genius. When the US government refuses to fund his research, he cries ‘one day you will be sorry you spurned me’, or words to that effect. Gabriel doesn’t have a political motive for throwing the nation into chaos. He wants to steal billions of dollars to satisfy his wounded pride, not destroy the Great Satan. Indeed, Gabriel insists to Bruce Willis that he’s a patriot of sorts who has ‘done America a favour’. If he hadn’t revealed the weaknesses in the computer defences to the authorities, ‘some religious nut job’ trying to bring an apocalypse might have found them instead.

What specific types of ‘religious nut jobs’ want to bring apocalypse to the United States, the Die Hard team don’t say, and their silence is everywhere in Hollywood, and at first glance baffling.

The global mayhem since 9/11 has not affected film in America, nor television in Britain, to anything like the degree a reasonably well-informed media buff would have predicted on the day. Hollywood has produced documentaries, from Paul Greengrass’s poignant United 93, which recaptures the uprising by passengers against their hijackers, to Michael Moore’s seedy Fahrenheit 9/11, which portrays Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as a happy land of playful children and blushing lovers. But when we turn to Hollywood fiction we find that the ‘war on terror’, or whatever it is we’re meant to call it these days, has barely shown its face.

The absence is all the more perplexing because before 9/11, when there had been no serious Islamist assault on America, Middle Eastern villains were so common in films Hollywood faced plausible charges of anti-Arab racism. In Back to the Future, Executive Decision, True Lies and dozens of others, Arabs were off-the-peg bad guys. Yet after 9/11, the stereotypes weren’t fleshed out with an all-too-real psychopathic ideology, but abandoned.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times Andrew Klavan, a Hollywood screenwriter of a conservative bent, blamed liberal nervousness. ‘In order to honestly dramatise the simple truth about this existential struggle, you have to depict right-minded Americans – some of whom may be white and male and Christian – hunting down and killing dark-skinned villains of a false and wicked creed. That’s what’s happening, on a good day anyway, so that’s what you’d have to show. Movie-makers are reluctant to do that because, even though it’s the truth, on screen it might appear bigoted and jingoistic.’

Maybe, but Hollywood’s alleged political correctness was not in evidence before 9/11 and, in any case, Bruce Willis is a gung-ho American conservative, not a comrade of George Clooney. A hard-headed liberal might say that the real reason for the down-playing of the conflict is that Hollywood is a global business. American television can show Islamists in 24 and other thrillers because it sells primarily to the domestic market. Movies must sell everywhere and a world which is appalled by the second Iraq war and will not pay to see America venerated – and nor will many Americans for that matter.

I’m sure there’s truth in that argument too, but it misses how dislocating the war on terror seems when viewed from the comfort of the rich world’s democracies. From the 9/11 atrocities on, the dimmest citizens could be in no doubt that forces were swirling around the globe that would murder them without restraint. Yet after 9/11, they haven’t been murdered in significant numbers. I don’t mean any offence to the bereaved of the attacks on London and Madrid, but when set against the astonishing scale of the Iraqi massacres the casualties have been tiny. The rich world is coping with a relatively low level of violence, while all the time knowing that fantastic violence remains possible.

This leads to a frantic desire to appease and deny. To pretend we’re the ‘root cause’ of the threat or say that the it has been manipulated by cynical politicians would be natural responses in normal circumstances. After America and Britain launched the second Iraq war on the worst intelligence since the US military dismissed the possibility of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, a global outbreak of wishful thinking and conspiracy theory was inevitable.

You can see this better in BBC dramas than in Hollywood films. The 2006 series of Spooks, for example, showed Islamist suicide bombers taking over the Saudi Arabian embassy. Nothing too far-fetched in that; real MI5 agents are running themselves ragged as they try to close down terror cells. The BBC’s novel twist was that its fictional MI5 agents discovered that the Islamists weren’t Islamists at all, just Mossad agents in disguise engaged in the perennial Jewish conspiracy.

Meanwhile, the actor playing Guy of Gisborne in the BBC’s reworking of Robin Hood for the 21st century explained that the old story was now about ‘the perpetuation of terror’ by the powerful. ‘It’s almost in the bad guys’ interests to keep Robin alive – like the modern situation with terrorists. Guy and the Sheriff need him as a scapegoat, to keep fear in the hearts of the people’.

I’m not sure if he meant that Robin and his Merry Men were Osama and his Merry Islamists, but the BBC certainly wanted viewers to believe that the government was the real villain, hyping up the threat to justify placing the British under the iron heel of the national security state. See through that lie, and we could relax.

The BBC’s logic is absurd when I write it out on paper but it makes psychological sense on the screen. Given the state of unrealised fear we live in, it feels reasonable in London and Hollywood to avoid provoking enemies we rarely see. Better to ignore them instead or blame them on the government or Jewish conspiracies and then, with luck, they will leave us alone, and confine their bombs to the poor world.

It would be nice if that were true.

Steven Spielberg Crumbles under Heavy Hillary Lobbying

Hillary Clinton’s people have been going after Hollywood director Steven Spielberg in a big way.

Ever since the Left Coast showed the love for Barack Obama, the Clinton camp has been in lobbying overdrive.

Last February, Spielberg, David Geffen and their partner Jeffrey Katzenberg co-sponsored an Obama fundraiser that roped in a whopping $1.3 million.

For weeks Clinton staffers have had their sights set on Spielberg, partially because of the director’s fondness for Hillary’s hubby. They were resolute. They had to get an early endorsement to avoid the impression that the entertainment industry had gone gaga for Obama.

They basically nagged the director, repeatedly pleading for him to declare his support for the New York Senator. He may even have received a call from his old bud Bill Clinton.

If Spielberg had endorsed Obama, it would have been viewed as a rejection of Hillary, much like Spielberg’s partner Geffen has publicly affirmed.

In a statement released through Hillary’s campaign, Spielberg said that he had become familiar with the Democratic candidates and that he was convinced “Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to lead us from her first day in the White House.”

The grab for Hollywood cash is of great interest to Democrats who in the 2006 election cycle received 63% of the $23 million donated, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The media are filled with stories about how Hillary has now won the Tinseltown money battle.

But with Obama backers like George Clooney, Lawrence Bender, Geffen, Katzenberg and Oprah Winfrey, it’s way too early to say where the most Hollywood dough will eventually go.

Michael Moore’s ‘Sicko’ Stunts

In a transparent move to promote his “Sicko” film, Michael Moore showed up in Sacramento, California, and testified at a briefing hosted by former actress of “The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis” and current state senator Sheila Kuehl to advocate a so-called universal health care system. The event was followed by a rally and screening of Moore’s film.

“I’d like to see executives of these companies in a perp walk in handcuffs,” Moore muttered.

Then the frustrated filmmaker granted the town of Bellaire in his home county the privilege of paying $40 per ticket for a sneak peek at his movie and, for an additional sixty bucks, the chance to attend a party where he autographed film posters, surgical gloves and bandages. The money went to the Democratic Party.

“I am anticipating the onslaught of attack,” Moore told reporters at the event.

In a kind of comical karma, Moore’s “Sicko” film has been pirated. The public can now view the thing for free thanks to its wide availability for downloading on the Web at no cost.

Ironically, in 2004 Moore told a Scottish paper, the Sunday Herald, he was happy that people engaged in copyright violations.

“I don’t agree with the copyright laws and I don’t have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they’re not trying to make a profit off my labor. I would oppose that,” Moore said.

“I do well enough already and I made this film [“Fahrenheit 9/11”] because I want the world, to change. The more people who see it the better, so I’m happy this is happening.”

More words for Moore to eat on the eve of his “Sicko” release.

On another Moore hypocritical note, I reported a while back on how filmmakers Debbie Melnyck and Rick Caine had set out to film a biography of someone they truly admired. However, while producing “Manufacturing Dissent,” the two made a discovery that their hero, Michael Moore, was far from the person, or for that matter the professional that they had imagined.

During their movie making experience, Melnyck and Caine learned about Moore’s fabricated persona; in particular that he did not grow up in working class Flint, Michigan, but in Davison, a wealthy nearby suburb.

They discovered that Moore was not removed as editor of Mother Jones for political reasons as he has claimed, but was fired for bad editing. They learned that Moore shot footage of himself and interspersed it with other events to imply things that never actually happened (such as Moore asking Roger Smith, former CEO of General Motors, a question at a shareholders’ meeting).

The most devastating information unearthed, though, is that Moore actually did speak with then-GM chairman Roger Smith, whose supposed evasion is the central premise of “Roger & Me,” but withheld the footage from the film. (Premiere previously reported this but “Manufacturing Dissent” actually displays footage of Moore interviewing Smith.)

“Anybody who says that is a (expletive) liar,” Moore told the Associated Press when confronted with the charge at his Michigan “Sicko” sneak preview.

Moore also admitted that he had “a good five minutes of back and forth” with Smith at a 1987 shareholders’ meeting, as reported by Premiere magazine in 1990. But Moore claims that was before he began working on “Roger & Me” and had nothing to do with the film.

By evading interviews with Melnyck and Caine, Moore and his staff behaved like the corporate targets that Moore despises. At one event, the filmmakers’ soundboard was unplugged while other reporters were allowed to tape. At another event, a staffer kicked the filmmakers out of an arena and threw their camera to the ground.

An indication that the makers of “Manufacturing Dissent” had a serious change of heart about Moore was revealed in the tagline used to market the film. It read: “Michael Moore doesn’t like documentaries. That’s why he doesn’t make them.” A slogan that appeared on movie posters also conveyed their dampened sentiments: “It’s Never Been so Hard to Get Michael Moore in Front of the Camera.”

Because the criticism of Moore came from self-described “progressive liberals,” who were originally motivated by their admiration for Moore before they reluctantly concluded that he was not what he appeared to be, the mainstream press actually treated the film more favorably than similar polemic material from the Right.

Moore’s talent has been to bring humor, a brisk pace and controversy to the documentary genre. “Manufacturing Dissent” demonstrated that Moore also brings fabrication.

Can we expect Moore of the same from “Sicko?”

Oscar Loves Dreamgirls, But Not for Best Pic

 

Although “Dreamgirls” got the most noms (8) the musical was left out of the Best Picture category.

“Babel,” “The Departed,” “Letters from Iwo Jima,” “Little Miss Sunshine” and “The Queen” were nominated for every Hollywood producer’s dream award for the 2007 version of the Academy Awards.

Even after snagging a Golden Globe, the academy snubbed the Motown muscial.

The surprise flick of the awards season has to be the indy phenom, “Little Miss Sunshine,” which received an impressive four major noms: supporting actor, supporting actress, screenplay and picture. The comedy is now in position to be this year’s “Crash.”

The questions on everyone’s lips are, “Will Al Gore accept the Best Documentary award for “An Inconvenient Truth” and “What will he do when the music starts playing.?”
The 79th Annual Academy Awards are scheduled to be presented Feb. 25. Ellen DeGeneres will host the ABC telecast.

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s Homespun Holiday

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s recent vacation stands in stark contrast to the impoverished third-world countries they’ve been championing of late.

The power couple reportedly arrived at the 170-acre Caneel Bay resort in the Caribbean “with 97 pieces of luggage and a whole entourage,” a source told the New York Post.

Angelina, Brad, the kids, nannies and staff were apparently ensconced in a five-bedroom, $8,000-a-night beachfront villa that was once the private get away of Laurance Rockefeller, the developer of the Virgin Islands destination.

Now Jolie is blasting Madonna for what she calls an illegal adoption.

In an interview with Gala, a French magazine, Jolie said, “Madonna knew the situation in Malawi, where he [Baby David]was born. It’s a country where there is no real legal framework for adoption.”

The “Tomb Raider” star added, “Personally, I prefer to stay on the right side of the law. I would never take a child away from a place where adoption is illegal.”

Wonder who the public will side with–the Pop Royal or the African Queen.

Al Gore Gets the Lindsay Lohan Brush-off

 

Last month Lindsay Lohan met former veep and Oscar contender Al Gore at a posh Beverly Hills event.

A short time later Lohan reportedly sent a typo-riddled e-mail to her friends and attorneys indicating that she was seeking help with her image from the much-ballyhooed Alpha-male.                 

“Al Gore will help me. He came up to me last night and said he would be very happy to have a conversation with me. If he is willing to help me, let’s find out,” the e-mail read.

A Gore rep told “Access Hollywood,” “I can confirm for you that Mr. Gore has only met Ms. Lohan once, very briefly, at the GQ Men of the Year dinner last week. There were hundreds of other guests.”

However, apparently after promising she’d be there, Lohan blew off a personal invitation to an event that the inventor of the Internet was hosting.

Gore, a regular now on the Hollywood scene, hosted a December 2006 Tinseltown event called “Seeds of Tolerance,” which honored liberal documentary filmmakers.

The Left Coast Report guesses that now that Lohan has dissed the nation’s top pseudo-scientist, she’ll have to rely on the unadorned advice of Britney Spears.

Madonna Accused of Bribing Adoption Official

Suspicions surrounding the Malawian baby adoption of Madonna are being fueled further by reports that a government official who was working for the ministry that handled the case is now living and going to school in Britain on the pop singer’s dime.

Four months before she was granted temporary custody of Baby David, according to the London Daily Mail, Madonna reportedly committed to pay for Willard Manjolo’s living expenses and tuition fees, which were thought to be about 39,000 U.S. dollars.

Manjolo started college at Swansea University a month before Madonna left Malawi with her new baby boy.

Justin Dzodzi, a prominent attorney in the impoverished African nation, has gone on record as saying that Madonna’s financial support of Manjolo “could be construed as payment for the adoption.”

Dzodzi is among those who seek to challenge the adoption in court. Purportedly, he fully intends to bring these new facts to the attention of the Malawian judges.

“The entire circumstances surrounding the case need to be re-examined and this latest disclosure is something we would wish to bring before the courts,” Dzodzi said.

As for Manjolo, he claims that he was not involved in the adoption process and has never met the singer.

“It is unfortunate if people use their wealth to manipulate events, but I don’t think it happened in this case. Her application was considered on merit,” Manjolo said.