The Toronto Globe and Mail‘s Guy Dixon on the likely actor- celebrity attendees at the Toronto Film Festival, which won’t be confirmed until the official announcement about everything is posted online on Wednesday, 8.22.

There was a screening the other night at Raleigh Studios — the Fairbanks room — of an anamorphic (2.35 to 1) film, except that it started without an anamorphic lens attached, hence the image was horizontally compressed with an aspect ratio of 1.85. I spotted this within a few seconds, of course, and ran out and told the guy in the projection booth, who quickly found another guy who ran into the booth and went “oh, Jesus” and screwed on the right lens and then popped in the right aperture plate.

But the first couple of minutes were screwed up as a result and the delicate starting-off vibe was shattered. I was a projectionist in Connecticut in the late ’70s, and I’m presuming this happened because someone didn’t put the right instructions on the film-can labels that always tell the projectionist which lens to use, and what aperture plate to use, and what the correct aspect ratio should be. Crap happens and life is imperfect, but it went further than that.

The lamp being used for the projector didn’t have enough candle power (i.e., foot lamberts). The careful lighting in the darkish, shadowy scenes in the film we were watching — captured by an absolutely first-rate dp — wasn’t well represented. I’d seen the film once before, and the beautiful values I saw simply weren’t there. The shadowed elements looked murky, muddy.

And the the focus wasn’t even 100%. It was okay, maybe 85% or 90% satisfactory, but I was saying “this isn’t good enough” to myself over and over. I was imagining the filmmakers going to all kinds of trouble to light these scenes just so and then making sure the final master looks exactly right in post, and then a few months later some media people go to see their film at Raleigh and they encounter projection that diminishes all that effort by a good 15% or 20%.

It’s a regrettable fact that movies frequently don’t look as good as they should in mainstream commercial cinemas. But when they’re being shown to editors and journalists they should look as good as they possibly can and should unspool perfectly — no hiccups, speed bumps, “uh-ohs.” Maybe I’m a little pickier than most, I’ll admit that, but still…

This is obviously not about the film that was shown (which I’m not going to disclose), but about an absolute need for the very highest projection standards for media and industry screenings.

Finally got hold of Nick Broomfield‘s British cell, called him this morning to talk about Battle for Haditha, he said he was just getting on a plane for Berlin and to call back when he arrives.

Discerning moviegoers of both genders are probably down with the idea of Scarlet Johansson playing a pilates instructor and would-be singer who has an affair with a married guy in Ken Kwapis‘s He’s Just Not That Into You, and the jelly-bellied fanboys will most likely want to catch her as an enticingly-clad femme fatale in Frank Miller‘s The Spirit (technical title: Will Eisner’s The Spirit).

Scarlett Johansson

But however The Other Boleyn Girl and Mary, Queen of Scots turn out as films, the odds are that Johansson will not be regarded as a radiant asset in either one. To play powerful period women you need that RADA (Royal Acdademy of Dramatic Arts) thing going on, and Johansson is absolutely lacking that pedigree. Period pieces work against her natural chemical leanings, or vice versa. The Girl in the Pearl Earring was all about her slightly parted lips, and nobody I know bought her in The Black Dahlia or The Prestige.

Variety‘s Anne Thompson seems to be of two minds about Jodie Foster doing Charles Bronson in Neil Jordan‘s The Brave One (Warner Bros., 9.14). On one hand she suspects that “some” will find depictions of Foster blowing away a succession of New York-area bad guys “very uncomfortable to watch,” but on the other she finds it personally “exhilarating to watch Foster embrace a power usually only accorded to male actors.”

So who’s the “some” who might have a hard time with this film? The older and somewhat older female audience, right? And, I suppose, the teenage and twentysomething girly-girls who always squeal with laughter when they sit together in bars or at any Starbucks in any state. Guys will almost certainly have no problem with this film at all. Unless it’s a problem movie in some other way.

“Women in mainstream Hollywood dramas rarely use guns,” Thomson notes. “Outside of the action fantasy realm, they don’t kill, and if they do, it’s a crime of passion involving a husband or lover. And they don’t kill repeatedly, for revenge.

“When The Brave One debuts at the Toronto Int’l Film Festival, some will view it as a response to the countless women in film who have been assaulted by violent men, from Foster’s 13-year-old prostitute in Taxi Driver to her rape victim in The Accused, which won her the actress Oscar. In The Brave One, Foster fights back.

“I see the movie as in the great tradition of the 1970s anti-hero,” Foster tells Thompson. “Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver or Dustin Hoffman in Straw Dogs or Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion. [This is a film in which] you’re led, strategically and architecturally, through each killing. Where the line is that you wouldn’t cross becomes extremely blurry.”

“Documentaries that look back on the sins of the past are different than documentaries about the sins of the moment. We’re right in the thick of the terrors of the moment.” — HBO documentary unit president Sheila Nevins speaking to Wall Street Journal reporter Sam Schechner in an 8.17 piece called “March of the Inconvenient Truths.”

Superbad (Sony) will do much, much better than expected this weekend. Depending on who you listen to, the classic Greg Mottola-Judd Apatow-Seth Rogen-Evan Goldberg-Michael Cera- Jonah Hill-Christopher Mintz-Plasse-Bill Hader comedy will either pull in a projected $33,607,000 (about $11,400,000 was earned on Friday) or an estimated $30,300,000.

Sony’s own modest projection had been in the $25 million range, which is what I was hearing also. Fantasy Moguls’ Steve Mason was a little closer to the mark by predicting $27 million and change.

The other big news is that the fifth-place The Invasion, which opened this weekend, won’t even take in the projected best-case-scenario $10 million. One studio estimate has it topping out at $5,350,000 or about $1500 per theatre for the weekend. Steve Mason has it earning $5.7 million for the weekend. They might have done a little better — who knows? — if they’d just left the Oliver HIirschbiegel version alone and released. This movie had “wipe-out” painted on its forehead for a long time, but a failure of this dimension won’t do much for Nicole Kidman‘s quote. “She doesn’t sell tickets,” my marketing guy says.

Rush Hour 3 (New Line) will drop a bit more than 60% for the weekend, with estimates ranging between $16. 2million abd $18 million, give or take.

The Bourne Ultimatum will take in $17,763,000 for an approximate cume of $162,000,000. It could end up in the $200 million range, which would make it the biggest Bourne ever. The Bourne Supremacy topped out at $176,049,130 domestically. The Bourne Identity finished with $121,468,960.

I can let the rest go for now. (Robert Mitchum in Out of the Past: “I can let it all go.”) Read Mason’s account if you want to know how every last little film did.

“Great news for Greg Mottola: Superbad, the greatest film since the invention of the motion camera, looks to be box-office smash. The bad news: Everyone thinks Judd Apatow directed it.

“‘Some of my friends said I should get a publicist just to tell people that I directed the movie, because I’m not getting any credit,’ Mottola told us yesterday. ‘It was just surreal at Comic-Con in San Diego. I was on the panel, but all the questions were going to Judd. But he was very quick to let the fanboys know who directed the movie and that he was hands-off for most of the shoot.'” — from a New York magazine “Vulture” item by Steve Ramos.

I finally persuaded Phillip Scott Johnson, the enigmatic St. Louis-based creator of the widely admired movie-star montage called Women in Film, to give it up a little. I asked with two or three e-mails yesterday and he said very little, explaining toward the end that he doesn’t like talking about himself.

So I wrote back, “Oh, I get it….you’re looking to be the Silent Bob or Glenn Gould orCalvin Coolidge of internet YouTube maestros. The less you say, the more interesting you seem to certain people…right? I know that one. That works. It’s better than talking to everyone and being a blabbermouth, but you’re saying very, very little here. I mean, next to nothing.”

Nothing from Johnson yesterday but today he wrote back with the following:

“You nailed the thinking on not talking much. I’d rather be an enigma than a narcissist. I’m not as bad as I used to be though. Back in June when ‘Women In Art‘ was on fire I had no name, age, or location anywhere on the internet. I was completely anonymous. I was also completely insecure about being myself. A little success has eased those insecurities. I used to tell people [that] the more you know about me the less interesting I become.

“I’ve given two real interviews –one to ABC and one to the first blogger to figure out my name and location (i.e., a woman in Paris). Today I talked to ABC again. I believe they are going to feature Women In Film this Tuesday on a show called I-Caught. I gave them permission to use my real name this time. They briefly showed Women In Art on their first show two weeks ago but only called me Eggman.

“Nobody in St. Louis has spoken to me. So far, nobody here really knows who I am except friends and family. Only two of my co-workers even know I make videos. My boss doesn’t have a clue.

“I have been contacted by a lot of people all around the world but I generally either don’t respond or just say thank you. I’ve been contacted by television stations, print media, museums, film festivals, choreographers, universities… all sorts of people. Actually I was just contacted by CNN today and agreed to allow them to feature me on a show about user-generated internet content later this fall.

“My background: 40 years old, single, economics major with an MBA in finance. I work in corporate finance as a financial analyst/ database administrator. It’s boring, uncreative, and I generally don’t like it very much. I’ve been ‘artistic’ all my life. My mother is an artist. She does greeting cards, cartoons, and paints. I’ve dabbled in all sorts of things throughout my years — music, photography, art, videos — always as a hobby though. I actually used to make videos about 10 years ago with VHS technology and shared them with friends but it was hard to do given the limitations of the technology.

“While not a professionally trained artist or film-maker, I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on both topics. I’m a big fan of history in general including art and film history. I feel that Women In Art and Women In Film reflect my knowledge of both topics.

“Last summer I bought my first modern computer and finally got internet access at home. In September I logged onto YouTube for the first time and became immediately obsessed with it. I started trying to create my own content. I also did daily research on the industry of on-line videos — particularly YouTube.

“I’ve probably created about 40 different videos since then. Tried all sorts of different things — anything I found mildly interesting, [and] most of which are generally not that exciting and didn’t catch much buzz. I took most of them down once Women In Art got big back in May because I had art critics trying to analyze everything I did. Most were simple videos I made on a Saturday afternoon just to try new stuff out. Three months ago I had 10 subscribers to my YouTube channel. Today I have over 3000.

“I created both these videos with morphing software that cost less than $100. This was the first software I ever purchased and the first software I made any serious attempt at learning. Both took about two weeks each to make. I made Women In Art in early April and the “first” Women in Film in early May.

“After one month on YouTube Women In Art had 800 views. On the night of May 24th, I put a link up on digg.com in an attempt to get it noticed. This is a site where people post links to their favorite news stories and videos. I gave it the title “Amazing — Watch 500 Years of Art in 3 Minutes!!!” When I went to sleep it had 3 diggs and I thought “Oh well, I tried…better luck next time” When I woke up on May 25th it was on the front page top spot. It literally caught fire from there. In the next three weeks it was viewed 3 million times and was the most blogged video in the world.

“A couple of days after Women In Art got big I realized that I had to take down Women In Film. It was getting a lot of hits also and some of the comments pointed out the obvious — it was all caucasian. I knew in my heart it was racist by exclusion so I took it off the internet. I felt bad and didn’t want to be labeled a racist artist. I thought that version was gone for good until I realized a couple of weeks ago that one person had saved the original and left it on the internet. On top of that, it had gone viral. That was the version you saw first. I was upset and asked the guy to remove it. He completely understood my concerns and took it down.

“At first I was just going to shelve Women In Film and never re-release it. After a month I decided to redo it. But even after redoing it, I knew it would still be controversial. But then I thought ‘is controversy really such a bad thing? After all, I’m just reflecting what Hollywood put out there at various points in time.’ Yes, it could still have far more diversity in it. For example, I wanted to include Diahann Carroll and Michelle Yeoh but I just couldn’t find good enough high-resolution pictures of them. At some point, you have to decide that this is the list and this is what I’m going with.

“The modern stars where the hardest. There are so many good ones I left out and a few that I put in that perhaps don’t rise to the level of the other actresses (I won’t name names).

“Recently I bought some professional video software and want to try some new things with it. I don’t want to be labeled a one-trick pony so I want to move beyond the morph. Like I said before, I don’t want to get too caught up on looking back at what I’ve already done. It’s fun to be praised but it’s is also distracting and keeps me from focusing on creating new things. I need to use this as a stepping stone towards future success. We shall see. I figure the worst thing I could do is to not try at all. I’ve already come up with something that people seem to like. Surely, with some effort, there are other things out there waiting to be created.

“And that’s my story….”

Okay, let’s make that eight (as opposed to the previous count of seven) Iraq movies with the addition of Lionsgate’s The Return, a road movie about three Iraq War veterans (played by Rachel McAdams, Tim Robbins and Michael Pena) from director and co-writer Neil Burger (The Illusionist). It only finished filming in late June, and a Lionsgate publicist just told me it’s not on the company’s upcoming release slate. Figure sometime in ’08 but forget December ’07, as the IMDB has it.

Written by Burger and Dirk Wittenborn, the story allegedly” revolves around three soldiers — Collee (McAdams), T.K. (Pena) and Cheever (Robbins) — who return from the Iraq War after suffering injuries and learn that life has moved on without them. They end up on an unexpected road trip across the U.S., with Collee on a mission to bring her boyfriend’s guitar back to his family because he saved her life, T.K. seeking confidence to face his wife after a shrapnel injury that threatens his sexual function and middle-aged Cheever planning to hit the casinos in a desperate effort to pay for his son’s college tuition.”

So the total Iraq-Afghanistan count is now twelve — eight Iraqs (The Return, In The Valley of Elah, Redacted, Stop Loss, The Hurt Locker, Imperial Life in the Emerald City, Grace is Gone and Nick Broomfield‘s Battle for Haditha), two Afghanis (Lions for Lambs, Charlie Wilson’s War) plus The Kingdom (Universal, 9.28.07) and Rendition (New Line, 10.12.07).

There’s a fighting-in-Fallujah project that I haven’t yet included in HE’s ever-growing list of Iraq-Afghanistan movies (now up to eleven) called No True Glory: Battle for Fallujah. It’s off the roster because it appears to be, for now, a Harrison Ford development project because there’s no director attached.

Nonetheless, a 5.13.07 L.A. Times piece by Dorzou Daragahi that was mainly about Nick Broomfield‘s Battle for Haditha said that No True Glory is “set for 2008 release.”

The Ford Fallujah project is based on Bing West‘s 2006 book of the same name, with a screenplay by Robert Munic. The two Fallujah battles, in April and October of ’03, represented the largest sustained U.S. military engagement since the Battle of Hue over thirty years earlier in Vietnam. Ford would play General James Mattis, a name that presumably signifies “valor” with some, but which does not yet ring a bell on this end.

The tally of eleven, one more time — two Afghanis (Lions for Lambs, Charlie Wilson’s War), seven Iraqs (In The Valley of Elah, Redacted, Stop Loss, The Hurt Locker, Imperial Life in the Emerald City, Grace is Gone and Nick Broomfield‘s Battle for Haditha), plus the Riyahd shoot-em-up thriller that is Peter Berg‘s The Kingdom plus Gavin Hood‘s Rendition (New Line, 10.12.07), which is about U.S. counter-terrorism efforts.

As I wrote earlier, “My understanding is that Marc Foster‘s The Kite Runner is more or less on its own nativist Afghani plane and therefore not really part of the club.”

3:10 to Yuma “is a tense, rugged redo of a film that was pretty good the first time around,” writes Variety‘s Todd McCarthy in an 8.16 posting. “Reinforced by a strong central premise, alert performances, a realistic view of the developing Old West and a satisfying dimensionality in its shadings of good and evil, James Mangold‘s remake walks a fine line in retaining many of the original’s qualities while smartly shaking things up a bit.

“A Western these days needs to be more than a solid, unfussy programmer to break out of the pack commercially, but this Lionsgate release should be able to generate moderately good theatrical returns prior to a solid home entertainment life, where casual viewer curiosity will be well rewarded.”

So Mangold has kept the solid cool stuff from the 1957 version and pizazzed it up in a smart and engaging way for today’s audiences…cool. McCarthy’s is a thumbs-up review, but the terms “pretty good” and “moderately good” in the first graph don’t exactly convey cartwheeling enthusiasm. I’m reminded of that old Dean Martin joke in which he said he’s cut back on the carousing and only drinks moderately — “I have a case of Moderately in the trunk of my car.”