Bill Maher and his Real Time pallies are family to me. I was just shooting the shit with Ridley Scott at the Real D screening room, but I don’t have a social clique to speak of and I don’t chew the fat with my Shenandoah Valley neighbors on my front porch and I don’t drink and socialize in Manhattan bars and cafes, which is another kind of “family” activity. All I have or had, I should say, on Friday nights was Real Time, but it’s currently on hiatus until mid January. And this is the time of year when you really value family get-togethers so I’m really not very happy about this.

This is real. Nobody’s kidding around here. There are actually people out there who will (probably) pay to wear Rag & Bone clothes borrowed from wardrobe stylings of previous Stars Wars films. (Choke, cough.) I would actually consider wearing Han Solo‘s outfit (vest, boots, tight jeans) from A New Hope — I could see myself in that.

It’s significant, I think, that at the end of this months-old Vanity Fair video that Mark Hamill talks about the joy and satisfaction of “giving Star Wars fans what they want,” or words to that effect.

Monumental, world-class cinema had never been about giving ticket buyers what they think they want because they don’t know what that is, not really. They only know what they liked before, and so an attitude of “give them what they want” amounts to a kind of creative death sentence.

It’s always been the task of first-class filmmakers (and innovators in other industries, for that matter) to deliver the next essential thing — to give the public what it will want once it sees and hears and understands what that thing is. [Video after jump.]

An hour from now (3 pm) I’ll be sitting down with Ridley Scott‘s All The Money In The World (Sony, 12.25), followed by a Scott q & a and then a sip-and-munch reception. Reactions are embargo’ed until Tuesday, 12.19, but I’m saying this again loud and clear to all responsible parties — don’t destroy or hide the Kevin Spacey footage. Please incldue it on the ATMITW Bluray.

Sony and Scott didn’t decide to re-shoot Spacey’s scenes with Christopher Plummer over aesthetic difficulties with Spacey’s performance. They did this due to understandable political reasons, but it’s not the craziest notion in the world that five or ten or perhaps 20 years hence Spacey might not be considered a total pariah, as he is now. History insists that Scott and Sony preserve Spacey’s performance and let history consider the merit of what he delivered.

Steven Spielberg‘s The Post had a big premiere last night in Washington, D.C. HE’s own Ann Hornaday, the Post‘s senior film critic and learned explorer of all things Hollywood past and present, conducted what I presume was a post-screening discussion with Spielberg, Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Bob Odenkirk and Bradley Whitford.

HE readers who recently took issue with Indiewire‘s Anne Thompson for calling All The President’s Men “sexist” should know that Streep is on the same page:

“Our history about The Washington Post [has been] largely formed by All the President’s Men, in which she doesn’t appear,” Streep said last night. “And she was responsible for the courageous stance that the reporters were able to take.

“I don’t think there’s a woman alive who hasn’t found herself at the pinnacle of her career and doesn’t feel in some way the imposter syndrome — insecurity. [Graham] was on one of the most brilliant people of the 20th century, male or female, [and] yet she still felt inadequate. I relate to that. I think many women can. And that’s a shame. That’s a shame.”

If you want a concise capturing of the Robespierre-vs.-Danton “terror” mentality out there, look no farther than Dee Lockett’s 12.14 Vulture piece about Matt Damon‘s apparent failure (in her view) to sufficiently condemn recently revealed episodes of sexual misconduct.

It is Lockett‘s assessment, in other words, that Damon has revealed a certain hedging, equivocating attitude in a 12.14 video interview with Rolling Stone‘s Peter Travers.

Just as Maximilien Robespierre felt that Georges Danton had shown too much leniency toward the enemies of the French Revolution. He doesn’t quite get it, he’s not really with us, off with his head.

Damon totally condemns Harvey Weinstein and has no issue with Kevin Spacey being sent away, but he goes too easy, Lockett feels, on Louis C.K. and Al Franken. Damon also cuts Casey Affleck a break because they’re Boston friends from way back, and in that respect Lockett may have a point.

Lockett is essentially saying that Damon needs to be schooled and maybe bitch-slapped around because he hasn’t quite picked up the Rose McGowan flag.

But if you watch the video and read Damon’s actual quotes, he doesn’t sound immoral or ethically blinded. He sounds to me like a sane, honest and reasonable guy. Note: I’ve mashed some of Damon’s quotes together. Some aren’t posted in the sequence in which they were spoken.

Damon #1: “We’re in this watershed moment [about sexual misconduct], and I think it’s great…totally necessary. We’re so energized to get retribution, we live in this culture of outrage. [And right now] we’re in the bar fight stage of this thing, and that’s fine because that rage is deserved. But then what?”

Hollywood Elsewhere’s favorite 2017 foreign-language pic, Andrej Zvyagintsev‘s Loveless, is among the nine just-announced finalists for the Best Foreign Language Feature Oscar.

Two contenders that I didn’t care for — Angelina Jolie‘s First They Killed My Father (Cambodia) and Robin Campillo‘s BPM: Beats Per Minute (France) — didn’t make the cut. (Here are my negative responses to the Jolie and the Campillo.)

The other eight nominees: Sebastian Lelio‘s A Fantastic Woman (Chile); Fatih Akin‘s In The Fade (Germany — my positive review); Ildiko Enyedi‘s On Body and Soul (Hungary); Samuel Maoz‘s Foxtrot (Israel); Ziad Doueiri‘s The Insult (Lebanon); Alain Gomis‘ Felicite (Senegal); John Trengove‘s The Wound (South Africa); and Ruben Ostlund‘s The Square (Sweden — here’s a chat I did with Ostlund).

Loveless director Andrey Zvyagintsev during Hollywood Roosevelt chat during AFI Fest; pull quotes from Loveless one-sheet.

I’ve disliked the idea of Gary Ross‘s Ocean’s 8 (Warner Bros., 6.8.18) from the get-go, and I mean intensely. George Clooney‘s Danny Ocean has an “estranged” sister named Debbie (Sandra Bullock) and so, being competitive and all, she’s decided to mastermind her own audacious heist, only this time with the assistance of seven lady thieves (Cate Blanchett, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, Rihanna, Mindy Kaling, Sarah Paulson, Awkwafina) with the usual eccentric character traits. The plan is to rip off something of value (presumably not cash) from Debbie’s ex-boyfriend (Damian Lewis) on the night of Manhattan’s annual Met Gala. Original Ocean’s trilogy costars Matt Damon and Carl Reiner perform cameos but not Clooney. The idiotic brother-sister thing is like Steven Soderbergh deciding to make Clooney’s character the son of Frank Sinatra‘s Danny Ocean, Sr., who masterminded the 1960 Las Vegas casino heist. Something about the poster…hell, the whole enterprise is whispering “caveat emptor.”

Director Richard Thorpe is primarily known as “the guy who didn’t get it.” Reason #1 was because Thorpe was fired off The Wizard of Oz after two weeks of shooting, one reason being dissatisfaction over his decision to dress Judy Garland in a glossy blonde wig, which made “Dorothy Gale” look inappropriately older and even sexy. Reason #2 was Thorpe’s direction of this scene from Jailhouse Rock. For some odd reason Thorpe decided to allow a homely guy (heavy horn-rimmed glasses, Brylcream hair) stand next to Judy Tyler as Elvis Presley sang “Treat Me Nice”. Look at him clapping along. What was Thorpe thinking? Directing is about visual composition as well as guiding actors, and Thorpe nearly destroyed this scene by allowing “four eyes” to seriously distract.

In a just-posted Variety interview with Elizabeth Wagmeister, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson says he’s seriously considering running for U.S. President. Before this interview Johnson has only admitted to flirting with the possibility — now he’s getting specific.

Not against Trump in 2020, of course — that would require serious courage, which Johnson apparently doesn’t have — but in 2024 when the electoral playing field will be relatively free and clear. If you ask me Johnson has revealed himself here as a political showboater — an ostensible good guy who wants to help but not if it requires growing a pair. He sounds, in fact, like an opportunistic coward.

Johnson totally contradicts himself in the interview, talking about his own Hollywood power, self-interest and movie-starring being more important for now than trying to change things in Washington, at least in a 2020 sense.

“I care deeply about our country, and I care deeply about our people,” Johnson says. “Decency matters and being a decent human being matters, and character matters, and leadership matters.”

And yet Johnson tells Wagmeister that a 2024 run “would be the realistic consideration” because he has more movies and more millions to make before he tries to restore big-government decency and character.

“Realistically, as we go into 2018, when you look at my slate as we’re developing and shooting into 2019 and 2020,” Johnson says, “[and] the slate goes deep into 2021, so it feels like the realistic consideration would be 2024.”

Jumping into the ’24 campaign would require speaking and fundraising commitments starting in early ’23, at which point Johnson would be 50 to 51 years old. He was born in May 1972.

I’m not misinterpreting or misquoting in the slightest way here. Johnson really has told Wagmeister that while he has serious arguments with Trump and that he’s giving serious thought to running because he cares about the U.S. and wants to restore a climate of decency and character, he can’t see running in ’20 because of existing commitments to make and produce a few more films.

On top of which Johnson expresses himself like a fence-straddling candy ass, saying stuff like “the best thing I can do is continuing to listen and learn as much as I can” and “watch our presidency and…how every new development is handled.” He says that he’s “hopeful that our leaders exhibit poise, perspective and the ability to bring our country together during these tough times — which I don’t feel our presidency is currently doing — so that’s where I’m at.”

What kind of Pollyanna bullshit is that, Dwayne? You’re “watching” and “listening” and still trying to decide if Trump is an authoritarian jackass and orangutan who cares only about attracting media attention and fortifying his own business empire? You’re not sure about who and what Trump is?

A couple of hours ago the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 to kill net neutrality. Yes, this has actually happened. The internet was more or less a level-playing field in the ’90s and during the Dubya and Obama administrations. That’s over now — it’s no longer considered a utility like water or electricity, the big guys are running the shots, and bit by bit consumers are going to have to adapt to increasing effects of corporate authoritarianism.

It won’t happen overnight, but things are gradually going to become more and more benignly Orwellian and less open-rangey. The Obama-era regulations that prohibited broadband providers from blocking websites or offering preferential treatment to bucks-up interests are history. The rules that until today stood against the all-but-complete corporate takeover of online content and to some extent discourse have been tossed.

BREAKING: FCC commissioners vote 3-2 decision to repeal Obama-era Internet protections #NetNeutrality pic.twitter.com/ldReqQMWjG

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) December 14, 2017

In a 11.29.17 N.Y. Times piece, columnist Farhad Manjoo wrote that “when the rules go, the internet will still work, but it will look like and feel like something else altogether — a network in which business development deals, rather than innovation, determine what you experience, a network that feels much more like cable TV than the technological Wild West that gave you Napster and Netflix.”

FCC chairman and Trump lackey Ajit Pai said killing net neutrality “would gradually help consumers because broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast could offer people a wider variety of service options,” according to a 12.14 N.Y. Times piece by Cecilia Kang. “We are helping consumers and promoting competition,” Pai said in a speech before the vote. “Broadband providers will have more incentive to build networks, especially to underserved areas.”

Killing net neutrality is essentially about allowing corporate forces to make more money and, if they choose, to selectively discourage or suppress certain forms of content or discourse. This is a huge, huge deal, and most U.S. citizens are still saying, “Uhm, what exactly does net neutrality mean again?”

Dominic Eardley: “So with the Disney swallowing of Fox, I guess we’re all in store for even more bland industrial hamburger patties posing as cinema?” HE: “Yup. Andre Malraux, ‘Man’s Fate.'”