A hilarious YouTube satire clip from a “Fox & Friends” discussion on Fox News, the subject being how patriotic movies that don’t tear down America make more money than communist/socialist/ homosexual movies. What’s funny is the wedged-in editorial commentary. Cheers to the great Dougie Zero for composing it.

Dreamgirls, a movie musical based on the ’60s and early ’70s career tribulations of the Supremes and Diana Ross (as well as Berry Gordy, Flo Ballard, etc.) has been playing fairly broadly since Christmas, and yet Ross, who went on Late Night with David Letterman Tuesday night with an absolutely massive ’70s ‘fro, says she (a) hasn’t had time to see it, (b) has “heard a lot about it,” (c) plans “to see it with my lawyers” and (d) “I would like to do is to be able to see it.”

Those are lies, no? Ross hasn’t seen Dreamgirls because she’s afraid to, or because she doesn’t want people to think she cares about how Beyonce portrays her because that would somehow mess with the above-the-fray diva image that she feels is important to project…right? Certainly not because she’s been busy. Phony, disingenuous, over.

“I just arrived in Park City tonight. Beware, it is bitter cold. Not snowing though.” — a publicist friend who wrote me at 2:30 ayem this morning.

China’s movie censor has decided not to approve The Departed for domestic release in China “due to the film’s brief mention of a Chinese plan to buy military equipment,” according to Reuters. “There is no chance The Departed will be shown in mainland cinemas because the U.S. side declined to change a plot line describing how Beijing wanted to buy advanced military computer hardware,” a Chinese government source told Reuters. “That part of the plot is definitely unnecessary. The [Chinese] regulators just cannot understand why the movie wanted to involve China. They can talk about Iran or Iraq or whatever, but there’s no reason to get China in.” Idiots.

Behold the poster for ThinkFilm ‘s Zoo, Robinson Devor‘s “horse-fucking movie” that will show at the Sundance Film Festival. One look and right away you’re reminded of Peter Shaffer”s Equus. Where do I get the feeling that Zoo isn’t quite as pregnant with ideas and metaphor? (Maybe it is.) When I think of a horse schtupping some guy and death resulting from ruptured tissue…gimme a break. Feels on some level like the new cinematic “Piss Christ.”

I’m leaving for the 2007 Sundance Film Festival tomorrow afternoon, and I plan on working it for seven full days — Thursday, 1.18 through the evening of Wednesday, 1.25. The usual three to four films per day, which may work out closer to three than four…figure 24, 25 films in all. I’ve just reviewed the party rundown supplied by an agency friend, and there are 77 parties happening over those seven days. If you attend any more than two or three per day max you’ll be baked in no time, so you need to keep it closer to one or two and even that can be a slog…it’s nuts.

Senator Barack Obama took his first solid step into the Democratic presidential race today by opening “an exploratory committee to raise money and begin building a campaign designed to change our politics,” the N.Y. Times reported today. Obama said he would make a formal declaration February 10th in Illinois. I can’t wait for the bubbas to start showing their colors when he does.

“But I did love producer Lloyd Levin‘s United 93 story: apparently the team of editors desperately trying to cut United 93‘s documentary-like coverage into some kind of shape in just 14 weeks of post-production tried to persuade [director Paul] Greengrass to give them more time. Everyone, in fact, told him to take it. [But Greengrass] insisted that they make the movie in the time they had, and that it would be better for the movie not to overthink it.” — Risky Bizblog’s Anne Thompson.

“In the end, the movie awards were dominated by Paramount — a studio flack even emailed me ‘All Paramount Grand Prix’ (and to a lesser extent Fox and Disney’s Miramax). But it’s the rule rather than the exception for the Hollywood Foreign Press Association to be susceptible to studio campaigning (all that attention, all that money, all those perks and freebies, showered on only 85 people who can barely call themselves legitimate journalists). Still, the HFPA wanted to spread around the awards to as many Big Names as possible to glam up the show and NBC’s ratings.” — Nikki Finke, Deadline Hollywood Daily.

I’ve been writing Miramax pallies about some long-awaited Peter O’Toole face-time when he finally arrives in Los Angeles, following his smashing success on the New York talk-show circuit. (And getting no reply.) The Envelope‘s Tom O’Neil has been interested in same, but he reported early this morning that a Miramax rep has told Gold Derby, “Unfortunately, O’Toole flew back to London [last] Saturday. He was exhausted after his crazy press schedule in New York and didn’t have it in him to come here. If we get the Oscar nom, he will come.” Good heavens…he was supposed to fly to L.A. and settle in and chill and take it as it comes. I don’t believe “exhaustion” was the all of it.

Here’s the Film Forum page for Becket‘s one-week booking (1.26 through 2.1), and the MPI/Slowhand Cinema site for the restored film itself. It’s really too bad that there won’t be an opportunity to see Becket (it hits L.A.’s Nuart in early February) in bigger, swankier theatres than those afforded by Landmark Cinemas or the Film Forum — it’s a cerebral “big” movie and really should be seen at the Arclight or at some other spacious, tip-top venue.

One other comment: the “Production Notes” on the Becket site [which was deactivated/shut down yesterday by MPI — brilliant move!] say that “due to massive popular demand by the public and industry alike, Becket is now brought to you by MPI, lovingly and beautifully restored with the help of the Film Foundation and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.” Let’s be clear on one thing — restoration-wise, MPI didn’t do diddly-squat. The restoration was done by Academy guy Mike Pogorzelski and largely funded by the Film Foundation — all MPI has done is make prints and handle the marketing of the theatrical release.

After every major awards show, year after year, the same thought is on everyone’s mind: “Good for this or that film (or this or that creative player) for winning — the voters have spoken. But my God, the final decisions in some respects were so clueless, so behind-the-curve, so old-farty, so off-on-their-own-island.”
I know that Children of Men, United 93, Paul Greengrass, The Lives of Others, Volver and Penelope Cruz (to name but a few) are probably going to get the shaft on Oscar nomination day (1.23), and that’s okay — not the end of the world. It’s just that they could all use the extra attention that nominations always bestow. And it just doesn’t feel right.
I have a theoretical equation in mind. How much more on-target would the Oscar show be if, say, the blue-hairs who haven’t really been in the game for the last 15 or 20 or 30 years had, let’s say, half a vote, and the active members — people caught up in the rough-and-tumble of the present tense, people half-familiar with cyber-space, etc. — kept their full votes?
Can’t happen, won’t happen….but the unhip, out-of-touch element is definitely sapping the vitality of the enterprise. Deadwood almost always gets purged in other groups and organizations — why not the Academy?