Michael Moore »

Following a solid opening in only four theaters last week, Michael Moore's latest documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, is going nationwide tomorrow. And in true Michael Moore fashion, he wants to share it not only with ticket buyers, but with the people for whom he made the film: the jobless and homeless of America. So for Thursday night only, theaters in ten cities will give free tickets to anyone who shows up, no questions asked. Spread the word.

"To kick off the national release of Capitalism: A Love Story, I've asked the studio to offer a number of screenings in the nation's hardest hit cities -- the ones with the highest unemployment rates and highest foreclosure rates -- where those who've lost their jobs or who are in foreclosure (or have already been evicted) may attend my film free of charge," Moore said in a statement. "They've agreed, and so tonight (Thursday), the night before our opening day, ten cities will grant you free admission if you have fallen on hard times."

Publicity stunt or no, Moore's heart seems to be in the right place. He's not just bringing the free screening to major metropolitan areas, but places like Elkhart, Indiana, a manufacturing city that had an unemployment rate of 18 percent just last spring.

If you live in one of these cities and have fallen victim to economic woes, lost your job, struggle with foreclosures, or know anyone who has, check out the list of participating theaters and be Michael Moore's guest tonight:

Cannes has La Croisette and the world premieres and the yachts and the red carpet mishegoss, but Venice is no slouch when it comes to excellent directors and exciting premieres (and oh yeah, the parties). This year's line-up has plenty to offer cinephiles from around the world. And for you betting types, take note that Abel Ferrara and Werner Herzog will both be there; Herzog will be showing his "re-imagining" of Ferrara's Bad Lieutenant, which so incensed Ferrara that he wished dire bodily harm upon Herzog and star Nicolas Cage.

I'm also particularly excited about Alex Cox showing Repo Chick, a sequel to his fabulous 1984 film Repo Man. Other super-cool stuff includes Steven Soderbergh's The Informant! with Matt Damon and his creepy mustache, Grant Heslov's The Men Who Stare at Goats, starring George Clooney, and [REC 2], the sequel to the Spanish horror film from Jaume Balaguero. Michael Moore with also be there with his new film, Capitalism: A Love Story. And audiences will finally get a look at the long-awaited Cormac McCarthy adaptation, The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen.

Ang Lee, who himself has won two Golden Lions at prior Venice festivals, is heading up the jury.

The full list is after the jump. Let us know what you think about the line-up and what you're eager to see.

What distinguishes a "documentary" from a "narrative feature"? You might as well say, what distinguishes Michael Moore from Brad Pitt? Moore has made three of the top five grossing docs since 1982; the other two featured penguins and global warming. We tend to associate "documentary" with "truth," though the "facts" presented are often disputed, and some highly-regarded "documentaries" have staged some or all of their content. Ronald Bergen in The Guardian argues that "there has always been 'cheating' in documentaries." He concludes: "Isn't it time we drop the word 'documentary' for good?"

Filmmaker Frederick Wiseman is cited in the article as a "leading figure" of Direct Cinema, whose proponents "believed the camera could record the truth unobtrusively. But even Wiseman recognised that there is no pure documentary but all film-making is a process of imposing order on the filmed materials." Yesterday I watched part of Wiseman's The Store (1983) at AFI Dallas, and his skills as a filmmaker are evident: capturing a Neiman-Marcus salesman casually mention a $45,000 price tag, saleswomen being led through "finger calisthenics" and practice smiles, the opening and closing of elevator doors to signal location and time changes. Even if none of the footage was staged, Wiseman decided what to include in the finished film and in what order it would appear. We don't know what he may not have been permitted to shoot.

Some people think a "documentary" sounds like medicine: good for you but not fun to watch. I think the term itself has created a ghetto that keeps people from seeing great movies. What do you think? Is the term "documentary" archaic and out-of-date? Has the line between documentary and fiction become blurred beyond recognition? Is it time to drop "documentary" from our cinematic vocabulary?

400 Screens, 400 Blows is a weekly column that takes an in-depth look at the films playing below the radar, beneath the top ten, and on 400 screens or less.

Every year critics are subjected to who knows how many dozen documentaries; most probably don't bother to see them all, and others will be reluctant to admit that most of them are the same. Oh, the subjects are different. One may be about war in Asia and one will be about war in Europe and another is about politics in the U.S.A., but they're the same in structure and tone and rhythm. We usually get the big three: talking heads, stock footage and photographs, and sometimes some "re-creation footage."

Here are some pointers for future documentarians. 1) Don't do that thing where, if the subject starts crying, you discreetly keep the camera rolling, and then use that footage in the final film. If your cutting is otherwise neat and smooth during the rest of the film, then if you suddenly pause over a weeping shot for the first time, it's annoyingly obvious why you're doing it (see My Architect). 2) If the police or someone else tries to make you turn your camera off, pretend to comply and leave it on. It's very cool and it gets the audience on your side (see Street Fight). 3) No fancy graphics, unless your movie is funny (see Bigger, Stronger, Faster). Animation is still cool -- see Chicago 10 and Waltz with Bashir (208 screens) -- but it could get old, fast, so approach with caution.

With the news that the musical score from The Dark Knight has been disqualified from Academy Awards consideration on the grounds that too many people were credited with composing it, outrage against the Academy's stringent, complicated rules has erupted afresh. In the interest of fueling this indignation and making the world an angrier place, let's take a belligerent march down memory lane and look at seven other controversial disqualifications.

The Jazz Singer disqualified for being a talkie. When the very first Academy Awards were held in May 1929, honoring films released between August 1927 and July 1928, everyone was talking about The Jazz Singer -- the first feature-length movie to use recorded sound in some of its talking and singing scenes. So great was the attention that the Academy disqualified the film from the inaugural Best Picture category, reasoning that its use of sound put it on an uneven playing field against the films still stuck in silence. Instead, the Academy gave Warner Bros. a special award "for producing The Jazz Singer, the pioneer outstanding talking picture, which has revolutionized the industry." It's true, too! I don't know if you've noticed, but pretty much all movies nowadays have talking in them.

Young Americans disqualified from Best Documentary category ... after it already won. Whoops. This is a sad case, and a unique one. The documentary, about the peppy Young Americans show choir, won the Oscar at the 1969 ceremony for being the best feature-length documentary of 1968. But a few weeks later, the Academy discovered that the film had screened at a theater in October 1967, making it eligible for that year's awards and not for 1968. The Academy actually took back the Oscar statues from the filmmakers, Alex Grasshoff and Robert Cohn, and gave the award to the film that had been first runner-up. When Grasshoff died earlier this year, his widow told the Los Angeles Times how heartbroken he'd been. Can you imagine?

If you happen to already be of the opinion that Michael Moore is not the lovable man of the people he appears to be, then this news probably won't be changing your feelings about him anytime soon. One month after Moore offered up free downloads of his latest documentary, Slacker Uprising, Torrent Freak reports that "In a letter dated September 25th, lawyers representing Westside Productions LLC, owner of the Slacker Uprising copyright sprang into action, demanding the removal of a torrent linking to the movie from any and all international sites."

Moore's latest was compiled of footage from his recent college tour -- a tour in which he traveled to colleges in the so-called 'swing states' to speak to students in an attempt to energize young voters. The film is a re-edited version of Moore's 2007 doc, Captain Mike Across America, which screened at TIFF in '07 to lukewarm reviews. Moore initially said the reason behind the free download was both a reward to fans who have supported him over the years, as well as a way to get out his message prior to the upcoming presidential election.

The download was offered only to those living in the US and Canada, but it didn't take long for the film to start popping up on numerous torrent sites outside of North America. Moore's lawyers inexplicably sent their letter to the DNS service (easyDNS) of one of the international sites pirating the flick, which is not required to comply with US law. A co-founder of easyDNS responded to Moore's lawyers with the following: "...Anybody with half a clue knows the net doesn't work like that. In any case, I've sent them our standard 'we're not the web host, we're just the lowly DNS service', but I did point out this seeming contradiction in Michael Moore's message vs. his lawyer's actions."

So while Moore may have every right to control how his film is distributed, maybe someone should have explained that old saying about the internet and pee in a pool.

The latest documentary from Michael Moore will be released exclusively online beginning September 23. FOR FREE. Yes, that's right, and it's a dream come true for both Moore's fans and those millions of anti-fans that despise him. For the followers it's obviously good because they don't have to wait very long to own a copy of the movie. For the enemies it's good because they can check out the movie without giving the man a dime. Or be witnessed buying a ticket.

The 97-minute film is titled Slacker Uprising (formerly Captain Mike Across America), and it's about Moore's 62-city tour during the 2004 presidential election, as he attempts to rally young "slacker" voters. The premise doesn't sound quite as intriguing as his last election-year release, Fahrenheit 9/11 -- which may be part of the reason this one is not receiving a proper theatrical opening. But Moore also says this method is particularly to thank his fans as the 20th anniversary of Roger & Me approaches.

For everyone who's ever watched a bad movie and thought, "If this is what they produced, I wonder what they threw away?," the Village Voice has found an answer. In an amusing and fascinating article posted today, reporter Tony Ortega says he and a buddy accidentally stumbled across a recycling bin full of paper from Harvey Weinstein's office -- and not just from the office, but from Weinstein's own desk. Ortega proceeds to tell us all the juicy details he learned about the daily work of a movie mogul.

So what is Harvey Weinstein throwing away? Lots of copies of screenplays, naturally, as well as daily sheets (prepared by an assistant, no doubt) listing phone calls he needs to make or return. As you might imagine, the roster of people seeking Weinstein's attention is staggering, with actors, agents, lawyers, producers, and reporters all vying for his time. Michael Moore called him on April 25 and Weinstein didn't return the call for over a month. I'd say being able to ignore Michael Moore for a full month is the very definition of power.

Strangely, Weinstein's e-mails are printed out for him to peruse. (Maybe he gets eye strain from looking at a computer monitor? Maybe he just likes wasting paper?) There were some pretty interesting tidbits in the copies he tossed, including lots of stuff about the Weinstein-produced Project Runway, if you're into that.

If you read any part of that draft of W., Oliver Stone's Bush biopic, which hit the net a few months back, you might think it ludicrous for the film to be likened to Shakespeare. But Stone himself has done so, as part of an L.A. Times set visit interview. Lumped in with a quote in which Stone also contrasts the project to the work of Michael Moore, the Oscar-winning director's statement is in response to the film's level of seriousness: "W. isn't an overly serious movie, but it is a serious subject. It's a Shakespearean story. . . . I see it as the strange unfolding of American democracy as I have lived it."

The Times piece, which reports from Shreveport, Louisiana, where Independence Bowl stadium fills in for the Texas Rangers' Arlington Stadium, is very filling for anyone with an appetite for more W. updates. Included are a description of and dialogue from a scene between George W. Bush (Josh Brolin) and George H.W. Bush (James Cromwell), details on a "baseball-oriented fantasy" sequence, Brolin stating that he's not out to do a SNL-style caricature and admitting his initial hesitance to take on the role, a general overview of the project's coming together, and, best of all, a picture (seen, cropped, above) of Brolin as the future Commander in Chief looking like he's just had the crap beaten out of him. Also a fact I'd somehow never known prior to reading the article: Stone was "briefly a Yale classmate of Bush."

Because Michael Moore can't make enough movies to piss people off 24/7, we fortunately have people like Bill Maher, whose new anti-religious documentary, Religulous, hits theaters this fall. Of course, Maher has said that he shouldn't be compared to Moore, whom he considers to be a genius. Plus, Maher didn't direct the film, Larry Charles, of Borat, Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm fame, did. But in the same way that Al Gore is credited with An Inconvenient Truth, Maher, who hosted one of my favorite shows of the past (Politically Incorrect) and currently hosts HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher (which I've never seen, because I don't have HBO), will be continually given credit for this film. No matter who gets the higher billing, though, it's certain that Religulous is going to be hilarious thanks to the talents of both gentlemen.
Now, to help promote the film and presumably to get people either laughing or offended a few months early, Maher has unleashed a new website called Disbeliefnet.com. It seems to be part satire, part examination of the world's religions, part blog of religion-related news and part movie marketing. Movie fans might want to check out the grouping of clips/trailers from films detailing the endless suffering of Jews. Personally, my favorite gag is the "Donate Now" button that goes to a randomly chosen religion's donation form. Now I can give to everyone equally with ease.

And speaking of equal coverage, Maher and Charles' film seems to touch on all the major and minor religions of the world, bringing their "guerilla" shooting style into places cameras have supposedly never been before. But if the film doesn't focus any attention on your religion, don't worry: you can be offended about not being able to get offended. Or something.

Religious opens October 3rd.