Hillary Clinton (speaking earlier today in Greensburg, Pennsylvania): “I think that what we have to wait and see is what happens in the next three months. There’s been a lot of talk about what if, what if, what if. Let’s wait until we get some facts…over the next months millions of people are going to vote. And we should wait and see the outcome of those votes.”
N.Y. Times columnist David Brooks (in a 3.25 column called “The Long Defeat”): “Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Politico‘s Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.
“Five percent.
“Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of r√É∆í√Ǭ©sum√É∆í√Ǭ© padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting ‘blue dress’ and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.
“For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.
“For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring.”

My favorite scene from Bonnie and Clyde (’67), the special edition DVD of which is in stores today. Speaking of stupid, I’m guessing I’ll probably hem and haw another year or two before I discover and then write down the name of the software-for-dumbasses that’ll make it easy to capture and transport frame-captures from DVDs, instead of my current method.

My favorite Gene Hackman/Buck Barrow dumbass line: “You know what they say. It’s the face powder that attracts a man, but it’s the baking powder that keeps him at home.”

Stream‘s Eric Kohn summarizes and comments about the Harvey Weinstein-produced Superhero Movie vs. the rage and the rebellion of the Fanboys contingent.
“Dismayed that The Weinstein Company was tearing up a paean to what many fanboys considered to be a variation their own story, the real fanboys turned to their best resource — the internet,” he says. “At Stop Darth Weinstein!, visitors are greeted by [the] Weinstein Company head honcho dressed up as Darth Vader, and threats from the fanboy community that if Fanboys doesn’t get a proper release. they’ll boycott TWC’s upcoming release of Superhero Movie!, which is targeted at their demographic
“The Weinstein Company has listened to the outburst of anger, kinda. Various news stories cite a press release from the company explaining that they’re considering releasing two versions of the film (one with the cancer, one without). Both versions will see a DVD release — and the possibility of two theatrical releases is a ‘maybe.’
“Obviously, “maybe” isn’t enough for the diehard supporters of the original cut. ‘[The Weinstein Co.] appears to have completely MISSED THE POINT OF OUR ENTIRE BOYCOTT!,’ screams an administrator on the main page of Stop Darth Weinstein. “The reason we’re boycotting your studio is because you have taken Fanboys away from the Star Wars fans who made it and given it to a director who has publicly declared his hatred for Star Wars fans! Against the wishes of the original filmmakers and your entire target audience, you have mutilated the original story to turn it into a movie that ridicules Star Wars fans!”
The reference is to Fanboys director Steve Brill, hired to reshoot several scenes in the film, which was originally directed by diehard Star Wars fan Kyle Newman with help from several cohorts. The poster goes on to say that the fanboy boycott of Weinstein Company’s films will continue.”

“No, I went to 80 countries, you know. I gave contemporaneous accounts, I wrote about a lot of this in my book. you know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things — millions of words a day — so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement.” The fourth time on this topic, in fact.

On one level this Chapter 27 one-sheet is fairly off-putting. Who wants to spend a whole movie with the creepy fat guy who killed John Lennon? (Who, by the way, is portrayed in the film by a guy with too-dark hair, which I found hugely annoying.) It also suggests an extra-intense commitment by the marketers for Peace Arch, the film’s distributor. They must know what this one-sheet is saying to people. Hardcore, man.

A friend who passed along PDF copies of the scripts for Pineapple Express, which I’ve read, and Tropic Thunder, which I haven’t, shared a short opinion. “I think the Pineapple Express script is funny — if a bit underwhelming — but Tropic Thunder is surprisingly primitive,” he said. “It’s a really uninspired execution of a terrific premise. Here’s hoping they improvised some better material on set. In an odd coincidence, the final acts of both scripts are very similar. Strange.”
I don’t want this to turn into a huge spoiler thread by those who’ve read both, but is there any kind of consensus among readers? Without divulging anything particular, I mean. Write me privately if you wish.

The Reeler‘s (and not, in this instance, Defamer‘s) Stu VanAirsdale reported an hour ago that another New York City film critic — the Village Voice‘s Nathan Lee — has been whacked for “economic reasons.” Lee was a Voice staffer for a grand total of 18 months.

“My employment at the paper ends immediately,” Lee said in an e-mail earlier today. “Someone else, alas, will be tasked with specifying the precise shade of periwinkle frosting atop the cupcakes in My Blueberry Nights. And so I am, as they say, ‘looking for work,’ though presumably not as a staff film critic as such jobs no longer appear to exist.”

“Yeah, I’m writing something. I’m going to direct it at the end of the year. And no, I haven’t told anyone what it is yet. It’s a comedy and a drama [book adaptation]. Think Thank You for Smoking, but instead of political it’s corporate.” — a quote from Jason Reitman to MTV, posted earlier today. I’ve always been under the impression that Thank You for Smoking was both political and corporate, as the two being are obviously linked in all walks of life. A good portion of it was obviously about the corporate culture of the tobacco industry. Reitman probably means the new film won’t have any Senator characters or scenes of Congressional testimony.

“Most men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and continue as if nothing happened.” — a Winston Churchill quote used by educator-consultant Pamela Gerloff at the start of a 3.23 essay about how really big thoughts and moments, like those contained in Barack Obama‘s Philadelphia speech last Tuesday, are waved off or attacked by most listeners, for the most banal and petty of reasons.

In a 3.31 New Yorker piece called “Out of Print: The Death and Life of the American Newspaper,” Eric Alterman notes that in a recent episode of The Simpsons, “a cartoon version of Dan Rather introduced a debate panel featuring ‘Ron Lehar, a print journalist from the Washington Post.’ This inspired Bart’s nemesis Nelson to shout, ‘Haw haw! Your medium is dying!’ “‘Nelson!’ Principal Skinner admonished. “But it is!” came the young man’s reply.

IlIustration by Gerald Scarfe

“Nelson is right,” Alterman writes. “Newspapers are dying; the evidence of diminishment in economic vitality, editorial quality, depth, personnel, and the over-all number of papers is everywhere. What this portends for the future is complicated.” But Alter comes up with a tight and sobering assessment later in the piece.
“We are about to enter a fractured, chaotic world of news, characterized by superior community conversation but a decidedly diminished level of first-rate journalism,” he says. “The transformation of newspapers from enterprises devoted to objective reporting to a cluster of communities, each engaged in its own kind of ‘news’ — and each with its own set of ‘truths’ upon which to base debate and discussion — will mean the loss of a single national narrative and agreed-upon set of ‘facts’ by which to conduct our politics.
News, in short, “will become increasingly ‘red’ or ‘blue.’ This is not utterly new. Before Adolph Ochs took over the N.Y. Times, in 1896, and issued his famous ‘without fear or favor’ declaration, the American scene was dominated by brazenly partisan newspapers. And the news cultures of many European nations long ago embraced the notion of competing narratives for different political communities, with individual newspapers reflecting the views of each faction. It may not be entirely coincidental that these nations enjoy a level of political engagement that dwarfs that of the United States.”
Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post (which just surpassed the Drudge Report in readership), tells Alterman that the online and the print newspaper model are beginning to converge: “As advertising dollars continue to move online — as they slowly but certainly are — HuffPost will be adding more and more reporting and the Times and Post model will continue with the kinds of reporting they do, but they’ll do more of it originally online.”
She predicts “more vigorous reporting in the future that will include distributed journalism — wisdom-of-the-crowd reporting of the kind that was responsible for the exposing of the Attorneys General firing scandal.” As for what may be lost in this transition, she is untroubled: “A lot of reporting now is just piling on the conventional wisdom — with important stories dying on the front page of the New York Times.”