Davis Guggenheim and Al Gore‘s global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, 5.26), which I saw for the second time last night, is, I strongly suspect, going to win the Best Feature Documentary Oscar in March ’07. It may or may not emerge as the year’s finest doc (nobody has a clue about anything at this stage), but what it says is so damned important and vital for the survival of the planet, and it makes its case so persuasively, that any Academy member with a smidgen of concern about the perils of global warming is going to want to give it the Oscar so that more people browsing in video stores will be inclined to rent or buy it. (Let’s face it — Truth is too much of a straight education piece to become a huge theatrical success.) Two people (an actress and an attorney) told me last weekend they didn’t want to see this film when I mentioned Monday night’s screening…”not my thing,” “naah, don’t think so.” That’s a problem…average Joe’s going from denial (“the science isn’t in yet”) to despair in a single lunge. But there’s a road beyond despair, and Gore’s film is a constructive attempt to show the way. On top of which Gore’s pitch — his “performance” — is very captivating and persuasive in this thing (much more than it was during the 2000 campaign), and he’s famous for having been a techno-geek type from way back…he’s pro-business and wants everyone to be flush (his non-Mahatma Gandhi physique tells you he’s not that radically into self-denial). Like I said last January, I’m starting to think that Gore’s entire political career, which culiminated with his run for the White House six years ago, has been about getting people to see and fully consider this slide- show lecture movie about global warming. An Inconvenient Truth is his crowning achievement…the summation of his life…the reason he was put on this earth to become a politican and a stirrer-upper and influencer of public opinion. Because if people see Truth in sufficient numbers, Gore will have done more to save this planet from ruination than anyone in his realm has ever managed. Oh, and as far as linking together the movie’s website with that Climate Crisis website that is mentioned at the end of the film, I’m told that everything will be harmonized within a couple of weeks, along with a big re-design of the Paramount Classics site.

A straight-talking, lay-it-on-the-line Paramount publicist (there are always exceptions to any rule) says Mission: Impossible: 3 is crafty and crackerjack and totally delivers…despite Paramount’s policy of deciding not to invite print or online journalists to the L.A. junket later this month, and to not let critics see it until the all-media screening on Tuesday, May 2nd — three days before the May 5th opening. Tom Cruise always conrol-freaks his way through press junkets (he’s only talking to TV interviewers) but I’m being told that even a run-of-the-mill phoner with director- writer J.J. Abrams is something less than a slam-dunk. This would normally indicate a certain “hmmm” or even an “uh-oh” factor, but the big studios are elbowing the press out of the picture every which way these days, even, apparently, when the movie ain’t half bad. Welcome to 2006! For what it’s worth, a journalist pal is also hearing M:I:3 is “really good.” (I know, I know…stuff like this means nothing.) I guess the thing to do is to search for slightly earlier reviews from Europe and Asia since M:I:3 is opening on 5.3 in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as in Hong Kong, Sinagpore and the Phillipines.

“Page Six” has stumbled upon an item that may (for a minute or two) take everyone’s attention away from the Jared Paul Stern magillah: a re-shot happy ending for The Break-up (Universal, 6.2) with costars Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn deciding to stay together at the end. The original script by Jeremy Garelick and Jay Lavender (Vaughn worked with them on the original story) had them going separate ways at the finish and “it was shot that way but test audiences hated it. It tested really…and I mean really badly,” a “source” tells “Page Six.” So Aniston, Vaughn, director Peyton Reed (Down with Love, Bring It On), and a crew went back to Vaughn’s home town of Chicago, where the film takes place, to shoot the new finale. “Page Six” quotes an e-mail from a Universal rep that apparently confirms this: “Every film can benefit from a few extra days of shooting, and The Break-up was able to return to Chicago for some quick additions that we believe will add to what we know is already an enormously satisfying movie.” (And by the way, it’s not The Break Up, as the IMDB has it, but The Break-up.) One concern: you can’t just paste a happy ending on a story. Happy endings have to be organically developed and earned. The seeds have to germinate early in the plot — they have to be hinted at, and be gradually developed. I haven’t seen or read The Break-up so I don’t know a damn thing, but I know you can’t build a comedy in a certain way and construct a plot with a certain tonal inclinations, and then turn around at the last minute and go “changed our minds…we’re taking things in a happy direction!” (A guy who’s read the script is calling this news “terrible…the script had a very good and different ending from most romantic comedies…there’s no way you can buy [Vaughn and Aniston] getting back together after pissing each other off for 90 minutes. Vaughn had dubbed it ‘the anti-romantic comedy’…not anymore, Vince…Universal has no balls.”)

Things imploded at Hollywood Elsewhere on Monday. Several dribs and drabs and strands of this and that (including my second exposure to David Guggenheim and Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth , in the early evening), and I didn’t feel like writing a single damn thing. Stuff happened, things emerged, but you need more than just material. You need the will . Without that…nothing. I think that’s a universal metaphor all around.

It’s common knowledge that Lauren Weisbeger, former Vogue slave and author of the book, “The Devil Wears Prada”, that’s been adapted into a fashion industry comedy-drama of the same name (20th Century Fox, 6.30), modelled her magazine-boss villain on Vogue editor Anna Wintour. And now Women’s Wear Daily ‘s Jeff Bercovici is passing along remarks taken from a W interview with Meryl Streep, who plays the Wintour character, Miranda Piestley. “I thought [Weisberger’s book] was written out of anger…she seemed not to have an understanding of the larger machine to which she had apprenticed,” Streep is quoted as saying. “So she was whining about getting coffee for people. If you keep your eyes open [in that situation], you’ll learn a lot. But I don’t think she was interested.” The script, which I read and wrote about early last January, is “a Manhattan fast-lane chick flick about the rigors of working for an Anna Wintour-like Boss from Hell.” Anne Hathaway (Brokeback Mountain) plays Andy, the college journalism major hired to be Priestley’s junior assistant as the film begins. My only complaint, I wrote, was that I’d like to see a Hollywood confection some day “that doesn’t trot out the same old bromide that demanding, high-paying, high-pressure jobs are bad for your soul and especially your relationship with your sweet laid-back boyfriend (played in the film by Adrian Grenier).” Streep’s Priestley character is definitely Anna Wintour-ish and then some for the first 75 or 80 pages, but she gradually becomes more vulnerable and human and mellowed-out towards the end. (The draft I read was over a year old — 3.14.05 — with the latest contributor being Aline Brosh McKenna (Laws of Attraction) Previous revisions were by Peter Hedges (About a Boy), Howard Michael Gould, Paul Rudnick and Don Roos. Directed by David Frankel and produced by Wendy Finerman, Prada opens two and 2/3 months from now and there’s still no website for it.

“When did Oliver Stone stopped being the guy willing to ‘spit out some hard political truths’? Go back and watch his 1998 TV documentary on the downing of TWA Flight 800. Oh right, sorry…you can’t go back and watch it. ABC/Disney killed it. But any kid with a webcam knows how to get footage out into the world. In the age of the internet the line ‘the corporations won’t let me show you what I’ve shot’ is hard to buy. So where’s the film, Ollie? I haven’t trusted him to come up with any hard truths since.” — Christian Oates, Seattle, WA.

Memory Lane

April has barely begun and the media drumbeat over the year’s two big 9/11 films, both produced with the upcoming five-year anniversary in mind, is already pretty loud.
Press screenings for United 93 are beginning this week, stories attempting to gauge the public’s interest in seeing this and other 9/11 presentations are running (the Wall Street Journal and Newsweek ran theirs on 4.7 and 4.10, respectively), and we’ll be hearing more and more about Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center next month when a 20-minute reel from the 8.11 Paramount release is shown at the Cannes Film Festival.

Nicolas Cage as Sgt. John McLouglin in Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center (Paramount, 8.11)

The 9/11 anniversary isn’t for another five months, of course, but I’ve been thinking about another startling event that happened in Manhattan nearly five years ago — a panel discussion on Saturday, October 6, 2001, at Alice Tully Hall called “Making Movies That Matter: The Role of Film in the National Debate.”
I reported on this right after it happened and I’ve mentioned it since (most recently in a WIRED item around noon on Sunday, 4.9), so why dredge it up for the third or fourth time? Because what panelist Oliver Stone said that day is, to me, still bang -on-the-head thrilling, and I’ve been wondering what’s changed in the four and a half years since…if anything?
< ?php include ('/home/hollyw9/public_html/wired'); ?>
It’s Sunday, it’s sunny outside, birds are chirping and I’m just going to run this piece again. (Most of it.) It’s a portrait of what’s been happening in this town for a long time, but the precision and candor in Stone’s rant still resonates.
Stone tried to describe the mindset and inclinations of corporate-run Hollywood as he saw it back then. Has the situation abated, remained the same, gotten worse or what? Read this through and think about it. I’m asking.
I’m repeating what I said in the WIRED item, but this sure was a long time ago, especially considering the apparent repositioning that has happened inside Stone himself, who was obviously more than a bit of a firebrand on 10.6.01 and now look at him, the director of a 9/11 pic about a couple of Port Authority guys who got buried under the fallen towers…a film that’s starting to sound, frankly, like it may be a head-in-the-sand emotional comfort blanket disguised as a rescue thriller.

Before the ’01 debate: Lumumba director Raoul Peck, essayist Bell Hicks, director Oliver Stone, New Line Cinema honcho Robert Shaye, political writer Christopher Hitchens, former Universal Pictures chairman Tom Pollock, indie producer Christine Vachon (Boys Don’t Cry, Storytelling), former Universal Pictuers chairman Tom Pollock (almost completely hidden), and HBO executive Colin Callender.

I’m not saying World Trade Center won’t be a well-crafted or emotionally affecting drama. (Alexander aside, Stone is still a top-notch filmmaker). And who knows? Maybe it will contain echos and undercurrents that will add dimension to what screenwriter Andrea Berloff believes it is (“a boy-down-a-well saga’). But read the following and tell me Stone hasn’t trimmed his sails just a tad.
“Say what you will about Oliver Stone’s political views, but he’s a master at whipping up a crowd,” I began. “This was plainly evident during a panel discussion he participated in last Saturday at New York’s Alice Tully Hall called ‘Making Movies That Matter: The Role of Film in the National Debate.’
“The same brio that has enlivened many of Stone’s politically driven films, including JFK, Born on the Fourth of July, Platoon, and Nixon, was in full force during the sometimes brawl-like, HBO-sponsored discussion.
“Stone’s chief nemesis during the discussion — which also included some volleys from from political writer Christopher Hitchens, former Universal Pictures chairman Tom Pollock, indie producer Christine Vachon (Boys Don’t Cry, Storytelling), Lumumba director Raoul Peck, and political essayist Bell Hooks — was New Line Cinema chairman and CEO Robert Shaye.
“It fell to Shaye to articulate the status-quo views of corporate Hollywood, which elicited not only the wrath of Oliver but occasional groans from the audience. Much of what Shaye said was fair and sensible, but it was no match for the sweep of Stone’s oratory, which occasionally vaulted past the concerns of the entertainment industry to include speculation on the whys and wherefores of the 9/11 disaster.

“The central issue was whether Hollywood’s increasing reluctance to finance films with a strong political undercurrent (particularly in the wake of the World Trade Center attack) was being caused by a corporate-driven aversion to anything that isn’t essentially banal or superficial, as Stone asserted, or whether the main impediment to the funding of risky and/or controversial films is ‘the tyranny of talent,’ as Shaye put it, referring to astronomical fees demanded by actors and certain high-profile directors.
“Stone launched into one of his hardest-hitting points by recalling the relatively modest financing that gave birth to Born on the Fourth of July, his Oscar-winning 1989 drama about Vietnam veteran Ron Kovic that starred Tom Cruise.
“‘We struggled to make it,’ said Stone. ‘We had fights. The picture cost $16 million, and then it went to $17 or $18 million, and we fought for that extra two million like crazy.
“‘But this was 1989 — and there’s been no significant inflation in the United States since then,’ he continued. ‘Why, in 2001, does a picture that was done very tightly in 1989…[would] that picture today cost $60 to $80 million? With the marketing costs added in, which are inflated, putting it into the $90s…advertising and television…we’re talking a $100 to $135 million event.
“‘This would no longer be a movie, but an event. And someone like Tom Pollock would say…’Born on the Fourth of July? I’m not going to make that for $130 million!’ Because [this kind of film] can’t work any more in a system that has gone bananas .’

Lincoln Center’s Alice Tully Hall

“Stone was greeted by a passionate, sustained round of applause. Who doesn’t feel that films like Born on the Fourth of July, for which Stone won a Best Director Oscar and Cruise was nominated as Best Actor, are in woefully short supply these days?
“‘And this ties in to the Arab situation,’ Stone went on. ‘Why have we gone, in a non-inflationary era, to a [place] where our corporations have become huge over the last 10, 12 years? We’ve let them go. There’s been no trust-buster around. Teddy Roosevelt is long dead. And these media corporations have conglomerated themselves into six principal fiefdoms run by barons…they’re bigger than barons. They’re kings.’
“Stone was referring to Sumner Redstone who runs Viacom, which owns Paramount; Barry Meyer of Time-Warner, which owns Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema; Rupert Murdoch of Fox Newscorp., which runs 20th Century Fox; Mel Harris of Sony Pictures; Michael Eisner, the chairman/CEO of the Walt Disney Company; and Jean-Marie Messier of Vivendi, which owns Universal Pictures.”
[Note: Today’s media barons are Viacom’s Redstone, Newscorp’s Murdoch, Richard D. Parsons of Time-Warner, Sony Corp.’s chairman and CEO Howard Stringer, Disney CEO Bob Iger and Jeffrey R. Immelt, CEO of General Electric, which owns NBC Universal.]
“And these six companies decide,” said Stone. “Rupert Murdoch says ‘I would not make JFK,’ or Mike Eisner says ‘I would not do a film on Martin Luther King, Oliver, [because] there’s gonna be rioting at the gates of Disneyland’…you know, this is bullshit!”

“Gales of applause greeted this one, with some scattered yelps and cries of ‘right on!’
“‘These six people have control of the world and that’s what the new world order is,’ he explained. ‘Six men are deciding what you’re seeing in film, and they own all the small companies…it’s hard to find one that’s not owned by one of these huge companies buying new companies, so it’s a dilemma. There’s a control of culture, ideas, everything.
“Now, within reason, they let [filmmakers] do certain things, and that is far better obviously than, say, the Arabs where they don’t let you do anything, and I agree it’s relative. But we are in a dilemma. We have too much order.”
“‘And I think the revolt on September 11 was about order,’ Stone went on. “It was about fuck you, fuck your order…it was an eruption of rage about this. And is it time perhaps to reconsider the world order? Is it time to wonder why the banks have joined the movie companies and all the corporations, and where this is all going?”
“Hitchens, who writes for The Nation and Vanity Fair , bridled at the use of the term ‘revolt’ and said the September 11 massacre ‘was not a revolt. It was a state-supported mass murder using civilians as missiles. It was an attack on civil society and civilization.’ This drew vigorous applause, albeit slightly more subdued.
“Shaye said, ‘I disagree with Oliver about this. I think he’s talking about an era and the studio system of 30 years ago. I will tell you, and Tom Pollock will back me up on this, that this is a tyranny of talent right now, and I don’t know what Oliver gets for directing a film, but I know what a lot of other people get, and it’s way too much. I do know that the last guys to get paid, believe it or not, are the studios that put up the money, and…’

Robert Shaye (r.), co-chairman and co-CEO of New Line Cinema (pictured with Michael Lynne (l.)

“At this last remark, Stone shuddered and flopped back in his chair and looked up at the ceiling as if to say, ‘Did he just say that? I give up!’ Torrents of laughter. The hall was jumping.
“‘And if there’s a tyranny, it’s a tyranny of talent,’ Shaye concluded, drawing muted sneers and guffaws.
“Pollock, who was running Universal’s movie division when Born on the Fourth of July got made, said the go-ahead happened ‘because Oliver Stone was willing to make it for no money, and Tom Cruise was willing to make it for no money. The film was successful, they made a lot of money, and so did Universal, but it would not have been made had they not done that.
“‘Controversial films can still get made,’ said Pollock, ‘but films cost what they cost because most of the people who make them want to get paid as much as they can. They want control, but there is still that trade-off of money for control. We are in an oligarchy now where the large companies control what we see…yes, Rupert Murdoch has a political agenda, but by and large Rupert Murdoch is only interested in money.
“‘The problem with the six guys running the six companies is, they want to take no risks at all,’ he concluded. ‘They want movies that entertain only, if they can be marketed. There was little room before September 11 to make political movies inside the system. There’s less room now. It isn’t that it’s not going to happen. But it is going to be harder. And to that extent, Oliver is right.’
“Shaye said that New Line Cinema ‘started out in my apartment on 14th Street. We made our way in the world. We started out with Sympathy for the Devil. Talk about political…give me a break. And you know why it made money? Because the Rolling Stones were in it, not because Jean-Luc Godard had anything particularly profound to tell the world.’ Random hoots and snorts greeted this one.

“‘It’s a little disenchanting,’ Shaye continued. ‘The truth of the matter now is, right now, that with high-definition and video and stuff like that you can make a good movie for not very much money. The great thing about the entertainment business and the movie business is that when a movie’s good, you attract people. People talk about it, the whole word-of-mouth thing…the quality of a movie is a self-fulfilling mechanism.”
“Stone jumped back in. ‘Thirty years ago, Bob said before. That’s when he got started. It was all…it was another world. [But] nobody here has answered that question why, between ’89 and 2001, everything has become so uniform…what’s basically happened in the last 10 years is that the studios have bought television stations. And why?’
“Referring to the so-called ‘syn-fin’ legislation passed under the Clinton administration a couple of years ago that allowed studios to own more TV stations, Stone asked, ‘Why did that telecommunications bill get passed at midnight? It was basically a division of the world by a few media moguls and it was a giveaway and it was done at midnight and it’s a disgusting thing. To own TV stations is the basis upon which movie companies today have to exist. And that’s changed everything. There are only so many television stations. Each one has their big build-up and that’s their base of operation.
“‘And Bob [Shaye] knows it because he sold his little movie company to Warner Bros. for more money than I could ever dream of making,” Stone continued. He acknowledged that certain high-profile directors, such as himself, are well paid for helming big-studio films. But the majors these days “don’t need a top director, they feel. Just make the movie. Because for them it’s all about marketing and about subject. That’s what they think.
“‘So there’s no ‘left’ point of view. It’s not financially interesting for them to make a movie with a director who costs more money…they’d rather go with a marginal director. It’s all about product…movie product…and it’s all about this new world order.

“‘And the Arabs have a point. Whether it’s right or wrong, there’s an objection to the way the world is going. There’s a lot of hate and revolt in that state. It may continue and although the shoe may drop on the other foot the next time, the point is they’re objecting to something. And I say that we’re not dealing with that objection on this stage today. There was a breakdown in the ’90s, in the system, the world system, the world banking system…it’s the new world order, and it’s about order and control, but this control comes with a cost.
“‘One of the most banal ways for censorship to operate in America,’ Stone continued, ‘is to drive out thought by explosions of People magazines and celebrity culture and…our culture is focused on Sarah Jessica Parker and kind-of inane, superficial stuff…it just becomes the noise, the white noise of our society.”
“Turning to Pollock, Stone said, ‘I don’t want to pick on you, Tom, but you’re ignoring the banks, you’re ignoring television, you’re ignoring the size of this thing, and you’re saying this thing is okay because that’s the way of the world because capitalism will go that way.
“‘The so-called ways of capitalism are not inevitable,’ Stone exclaimed. ‘It’s changed historically. Teddy Roosevelt changed the direction of it. Franklin Roosevelt changed the direction of it. Everybody in Hollywood says, ‘Well, what can I do about it?” These six companies have taken over just like the oil companies, and it’s wrong, wrong, wrong because they’re subverting political will.'”

Ales & Stouts

Obsession

The last truly exceptional hunt-for-a-serial-killer movie was David Fincher’s Se7en. And the next one, I’m fairly convinced, is going to be Fincher’s Zodiac (Paramount, 11.10).
I’m basing this on a recent read of James Vanderbilt’s script, which runs 150-plus pages. This persuades me that what I heard last week is true: Zodiac is going to be a three-hour movie, or close to it.

Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo in David Fincher’s Zodiac (Paramount, 11.10)

Scripts never really tell you that much, but reading Zodiac planted an idea that Fincher is again pushing the thriller boundary. Not just in the tradition of Se7en but also Alan Parker’s Angel Heart, another chasing-a-monster film that ended with something pretty startling.
Zodiac is based on two best-sellers by Robert Graysmith, “Zodiac” and “Zodiac Unmasked: The Identity of America’s Most Elusive Serial Killer Revealed“, which are first-hand accounts about the hunt for the Zodiac killer who terrified the San Francisco area in 1968 and ’69.
The chief Zodiac hunters in Fincher’s film (as they were in actual life) are Gray- smith, a San Francisco Chronicle cartoonist at the time (Jake Gyllenhaal), and a blunt-spoken, never-say-die San Francisco detective named Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo).
Toschi is understood to have been the real-life model that Steve McQueen based his tough-nut San Francisco detective on in the 1968 Peter Yates film Bullitt.
And of course, the Zodiac killer was the model for Andy Robinson’s psycho killer in Dirty Harry , the 1971 Don Siegel-Clint Eastwood classic…right down to the Zodiac claim about wanting to kill a busload of school children.

Zodiac is partly about the thrill and fascination of the hunt (the scores of hints and clues that pile up are more and more fascinating as the story moves along), and partly about how the complex, seemingly never-ending nature of the case makes Graysmith and Toschi start to go a bit nuts.
Is there such a thing as being too determined to stop evil? At what point do you ease up and say, “I’ve done all I can.” Is it always essential to finish what you’ve started? Should never-say-die always be the motto, even at great personal cost?
Zodiac isn’t just about sleuthing. Deep down I think it’s a metaphor piece about obsessions wherever you find them, and how the never-quit theme applies to heavily-driven creative types (novelists, painters, architects, musicians) as much as cops or cartoonists or stamp collectors or baseball-card traders.
Zodiac and Se7en have at least a couple of things in common: both are heavily focused on the bottled-up emotions and personal frustrations of their two main protagonists, and both films end on a note in which the “crime doesn’t pay” motto doesn’t exactly ring out from the belltower.

Zodiac director David Fincher during filming; laughing Gyllenhaal in b.g.

Let’s just say it: these are two catch-the-bad-guy movies in which the good guys try like hell, but they can’t quite manage to be McQueen or Eastwood in the end.
Partly because the up-and-down life of a cop generally isn’t that heroic or simple. And because Fincher would probably have trouble staying awake if somebody forced him to direct a Bullitt or a Dirty Harry.
Fincher and screenwriter Andrew Kevin Walker ended Se7en with a mind-blowing twist in which the killer won and the good guys lost, and in such a way that the final fate of the killer didn’t matter as much as the fact that his vision (which had a certain moral foundation) ended up being fulfilled.
The more I think about Se7en, the more certain I am that it was and is a truly brilliant cop thriller. Not just in the way the story was put together and paid off, but because it echoed a certain clouds-are-forming, it’s-all-starting-to-rot-from-within attitude…a kind of geiger-counter reading of the despair in the air in 1994 and ’95, when Se7en was made and released.

I attended a Writers Guild event last night that celebrated the 101 Greatest Screenplays ever written, and bless their hearts but the WGA voters were blind as bats for not including Se7en.
I’m not going to spill the Zodiac finale in any detail, but anyone who’s read even a little bit about the the hunt for the Zodiac killer knows the culprit was never charged or convicted, although his more ardent pursuers were convinced that he was a pudgy alcoholic and an ex-school teacher named Arthur Leigh Allen, who died in 1992.
The script uses a substitute name instead of Allen’s. It wouldn’t be that big of a deal to mention it, but I’m trying to go lightly here.
Graysmith is the best part Gyllenhaal has ever had, and I’m including Jack Twist in this equation. If he does it right he’ll generate a lot of heat for himself, and I can’t see how he wouldn’t.
Graysmith is a very strongly written guy with a lot of struggle and frustration inside, and the pressure on him just builds and builds. The coup de grace comes at the end when Graysmith delivers a spellbinding 12-page oratory that ties up all the loose ends. (I was reminded of Simon Oakland’s this-is-what-actually-happened speech at the end of Psycho.)

Downey, Gyllenhaal

Robert Downey, Jr. has several good scenes as a Chronicle reporter named Avery. It seems at first as if he’ll be a prominent costar along with Gyllenhaal and Ruffalo, but nope. Anthony Edwards, as Toschi’s partner, has a smaller role than Downey.
Dermot Mulroney, Chloe Sevigny, Ione Skye, Donal Logue and Brian Cox have supporting roles. The IMDB says Cox plays famed San Francisco attorney Melvin Belli, but my script doesn’t even have Belli in it.

There’s a 4.9 Time story, written by Richard Corliss and reported by Clayton Neuman and Rebecca Winters, about the various 9/11 films, and it includes these comments from Andrea Berloff about World Trade Center (Paramount, 8.11), which she wrote the screenplay for: “It’s a boy-down-a-well saga with no politics. This is a small story. We’re in the hole with these two guys for practically the whole movie. You don’t want people leaving theaters slitting their wrists. I don’t think the world is ready for the Towering Inferno version of 9/11. I don’t know how you would make that movie.” I don’t want to see an Irwin Allen 9/11 movie either, but Berloff’s description of World Trade Center doesn’t sound much like a film directed by Oliver Stone, does it? “In the hole,” indeed.

The industry view about Oliver Stone directing World Trade Center (Paramount, 8.11) is that apart from whatever he feels about the story or the theme or the characters, it’s basically his making-up-for-the-failure-of-Alexander movie. A Stone movie by way of a dutiful head-down attitude and an application of craft rather than any kind of fire-in-the-belly motivation. A submissive Stone, almost. Bending over backwards to make a corporate “heart” movie without even tangentially getting into his political beliefs or intuitions about 9/11, which he expressed at a panel discussion called “Making Movies That Matter: The Role of Film in the National Debate” at Avery Fisher Hall less than a month after the fall of the towers: “And I think the revolt on September 11 was about order,” Stone began. “It was about fuck you, fuck your order…it was an eruption of rage about this. And is it time perhaps to reconsider the world order? Is it time to wonder why the banks have joined the movie companies and all the corporations, and where this is all going? And the Arabs have a point. Whether it’s right or wrong, there’s an objection to the way the world is going. There’s a lot of hate and revolt in that state. It may continue and although the shoe may drop on the other foot the next time, the point is they’re objecting to something. And I say that we’re not dealing with that objection [in this panel discussion] today. There was a breakdown in the ’90s, in the system, the world system, the world banking system…it’s the new world order, and it’s about order and control, but this control comes with a cost.” This is my Oliver Stone… the nervy envelope-pusher, the Angry Guy…the confrontationist who used to challenge, dazzle, confront, dig into and take a no-holds-barred look at tough subjects. I’m saying this because screenwriter Andrea Berloff has told Time that World Trade Center is “a boy-down-a-well saga with no politics…a small story.” There’s something ostrich-y about making a 9/11 movie of this sort. From a political perspective I think it’s a little bit appalling, given what the tragedy of 9/11 was actually about and how corporate Hollywood (by way of producers Michael Shamberg and Stacy Sher) has enlisted one of the few guys in the industry who was willing to spit out some hard political truths about that day…how Hollywood has gotten Stone, of all people, to make what sounds like an emotional cottonball “there, there” movie, intended to sooth and assuage and make people want to go home and hug their kids.

Also in the 4.9 Time story is a mini-review of United 93, which Time was given an exclusive look at: “The saga of this flight makes for, in 9/11 terms, a feel-good movie,” the article reads. “Just as important, United 93…is a good movie — taut and implacable — that honors the deeds of the passengers while being fair, if anyone cares, to the hijackers’ jihad bravado. (At one point the passengers are heard murmuring the Lord’s Prayer while the hijackers whisper their prayers to Allah.) If this is a horror movie, it is an edifying one, a history lesson with the pulse of a world-on- the-line suspense film.”

“I share your feelings about The Last Temptation of Christ and I’m far from what anyone would consider a rightie fundamentalist Christian, but I don’t think the discovery of this ancient Gospel of Judas text is quite as faith-shaking or earth-shattering as you believe or hope. The legitimacy of the content by the highly- biased Gnostic group can be likened to the objectivity of an account of Ronald Reagan by, say, Rush Limbaugh, and at best it exonerates Judas from nearly two thousand years of loathing. As someone resigned to his own persecution and capture is it so blasphemous to believe that Christ turned to a close ally for assistance? Baptist and Presbyterians may believe so, but those with a more flexible attachment to the Bible, including Roman Catholics, probably won’t be running out to their local Scientology chapter for conversion so quickly.” — Chris Fontana, Philadelphia, PA.

“Not sure if you’ve heard about this, but before this afternoon’s showing of Lucky Number Slevin there was a new trailer for United 93 that should really open some eyes.” [Editor’s note: this is apparently “A Look Inside“, the alternate trailer than went online a week or so ago.] “It’s all director Paul Greengrass and the widows/relatives of some of the people who actually died in the crash of United # 93 explaining why this film is important and why it should be seen. If anyone has the right to complain about this movie being ‘too soon’ it’s the people most impacted by the deaths, and they’re in favor of the movie. I found the piece very refreshing and a terrific response to the criticisms that the regular movie trailer has run into.” — Craig Finerty