sexploited

In any society which incorporates free speech, it is a certainty that arguments as to the limits of that speech will take place. For the industry of cinema, there are no special releases from this universal truth. What responsibility does the historical action film have to represent events within factual truth? Should the documentary filmmaker attempt to establish an argument, or present only objective truth? As an audience, is it our job to observe films with a discerning eye, or should we have the privilege of checking that discernment at the door, trusting the filmmaker not to betray the trust that comes with suspension of disbelief?

A new argument has been brought to the forefront with the attempt at production of a film portraying the story of Jaycee Dugard, the California native who was abducted at age eleven and held for eighteen years by convicted rapist Phillip Garrido and his wife. That argument is this- what right should a person have to their own story? Should an individual, a private citizen, have the right to block their narrative from being told against their consent?

Let's look at this example of the Jaycee Dugard story further. The filmmaker is Shane Ryan, who has made a career out of several films focusing on themes sexploitation and violence. Some previous credits include the trilogy of films titled Amateur Porn Star Killer, the 2009 horror film Vaginal Holocaust, and his 2006 self-focused documentary, Big Boobs, Blonde Babes, Bad Blood.

This article is not meant to be a general criticism of Ryans' artistic style or choice of content, there is certainly an audience for this style. If there's a profit margin to be made and no one suffers, then let the first amendment reign.

But in this case, we have a specific person whose life will be put back in the limelight against her will, being made by a filmmaker whose reputation suggests that its' form would be exploitative in nature, although he has publicly stated that is not his intent. The tentative title of the film says much by itself- Abducted Girl, An American Sex Slave.

In a statement made to etonline.com, Nancy Seltzer, the families representative, stated, "If and when Jaycee and her family think it is appropriate, their story will be told by them, in a forum of their choosing with the respect and thoughtfulness they so deserve. Anyone else speculating about the details of such a personal hurt, for financial gain, is exploitive, hurtful, and breathtakingly unkind."

And unkind it may be. But Ryan is also completely within his legal rights to produce this film, with or without the Jaycee or the family's consent. Deals are often made between Hollywood studios and individuals, both public and private, for what are called "life story rights". But this is essentially a misnomer. What is actually being made is an agreement for the subject not to sue the filmmaker for defamation or violation of privacy rights, which are the only rights granted to citizens, public or private. That being said, in a medium as abstract as film, it is very easy for a subject to at least allege defamation. So to protect themselves, studios will often negotiate for these rights, but that by no means gives them exclusive privileges to the story, and is by no means a requisite to produce a film.

Is the letter of the law ethical? Ryan could change the names of the characters in his film, but it would still clearly be the story of Jaycee Dugard. We see a similar formula applied every week in the hit television series Law and Order, a show which makes a practice of basing their episodes off the most recent headline or gratuitous police beat story.

But equal problems arise if we grant an individual personal rights to their story. If that were the case, even if the Dugard family wanted, badly wanted, their story to be told, it could be blocked Garrido, not because it is slanderous or defaming, but simply because he does not want the story told. We can clearly see other ramifications this could have on the industry, putting a major burden, if not killing altogether, the ability to create satire or films that contain political commentary. If we extend these rights to the families of the deceased, it could be almost guaranteed that historical nonfiction such as Frost/Nixon or Good Night, and Good Luck would rarely see the light of day. Even concerning the lives of private citizens, not public individuals, we would be greatly compromising the freedom of speech, and the possibility of stories that would be in the public benefit to be told being negated.

And yet, here we have a young girl, who has already endured a life most of us could never imagine if we dared, who will have her story created for someone else's profit, possibly in an exploitative fashion, without her consent. As long as the events portrayed are factual, there is little they could litigate against even after the films release. Shane Ryan's personal ethics aside, should our legal system support his ability to produce this film? It is the unfortunate burden of the first amendment that it must extend to all philosophies, but it seems that somewhere there lies a compromise where a victim of kidnapping and rape should have the opportunity to begin leading a normal life, and if she chooses, keep her private suffering precisely that- private.

Daylight Fades Teaser Trailer

lobbying to lobby

As he announced to the website Politico.com earlier this month, Dan Glickman, the current chairman and CEO of the MPAA, does not intend to remain in his position after his current contract expires in September of 2010.

The chair of the MPAA acts as Hollywood's top lobbyist to Washington, supported by all six of the major studios in an act of self-rating and regulation dating back to the early twenties. Glickman has used his position of the last five years to push a campaign of anti-piracy on behalf of the studios, with mixed results. While a trend of gearing support towards in-company lobbying groups has grown within all of the "big six" in recent years, the chair of the MPAA is still the most respected position in Washington with regards to the film industry, and its successor will undoubtedly be at the forefront of any political debates to arise during their tenure. Although nearly a year remains for Mr. Glickman, a few key suitors have already come into discussion. Let's take a look at a few of the frontrunners:

1) Richard Bates

A former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Richard Bates has been one of the chief lobbyists for Disney since 1993. Some other studio executives might be concerned with a lack of neutrality in this regard, but the fact remains that many on Capitol Hill (especially those for which Disney has made campaign contributions) are more likely to cooperate with someone they've associated with in the past. Also, among the main frontrunners, Bates is the one with the most direct experience in the field of lobbying for the film industry. This, along with the support of the Disney studio behind him, could give him the leg up he needs to take the position.

2) Harold Ford, Jr.

With his present lobbying efforts, Ford has quickly emerged as the early front-runner for this position, which is ironic considering his lack of experience in the realm of southern California. But in the realm of connections in Washington, Ford is untouchable. Ford served in the House of Representatives from 1997 to 2007, representing the city of Memphis in Tennessee's 9th congressional district. After losing a senate race to Chattanooga mayor Bob Corker in 2006, Ford began teaching public policy at Vanderbilt University and was appointed the chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council. Although he doesn't have any direct experience with the film industry, Fords' enthusiasm to take the position, along with his extensive political resume, will be a formidable match for any other candidates.

3) Arnold Schwarzenegger

As the Governor of California since 2003, as well as a major actor that has been in the Hollywood system for a few decades now, there's little doubt Schwarzenegger is very qualified to take over the role as chief of the MPAA. With a largely conservative record, including efforts against copyright infringement, it is very likely that he will continue the efforts of anti-piracy that Glickman started.

The only question is whether the Governor is actually interested in the position. Though term limits prevent him from seeking election again, it is rumored that Schwarzenegger is more interested in a senatorial campaign in 2010 than taking over as chief of the MPAA. Although, this would be a much safer bet for him than attempting a run at the senate, and if he does begin lobbying efforts, his star power and Hollywood experience could all but guarantee him the position.

inglorious

only a handful of directors in cinematic history, let alone the common era, can boast as endearing a fan base as that of quentin tarantino. the significance of this base is that it contains within it not only the average teen to twentysomething moviegoing audience, or even that the base should extend beyond to the infrequently attending. in the theatre i attended, the youngest was about age eight or nine, the oldest, an elderly couple in their seventies. both applauded during the credits.

rather, the outstanding techniques of tarantino's style, a focus on cinematic history and celebration of genre deconstruction appeal to an audience of both renowned critics and the common guru, those who we rely on for the opinion of the film, making that base especially influential. it could be argued that without fail thus far, even the least entertaining of his library (consisting of anywhere between six to nine now, depending on which guru you ask) wouldn't suffer more than a b-. and yet, i would argue that a filmmaker whom even i place on a pedestal has not been able to top his best works with his latest release, and for all its merits, will leave his deepest supporters ultimately frustrated- but the average moviegoer ultimately very satisfied. this is the dichotomy that begins to exist in a fanbase when one approaches greatness.

on a sidenote, i first feared the social ramifications of regularly attending the cinema with my mother, but it was not nearly as horrifying as my nightmares in high school made it out to be. in fact, accompanying ones mother to a casual social function seems to strike a tone of endearment with the elusive creature known as "the female"... i must study this phenomenon further. but this was not my motive! actually, varying your audience to one with tastes you would regard as unlike your own can assist you in separating ultimately unsatisfying films for the superior counterparts. in time, she will learn of better health documentaries than food, inc., and i will learn about better drama than terminator: salvation.

and as i said before, two such disparate audiences leaving at least somewhat satisfied from a film is ultimately a rare experience. mom did not care for the violence one iota, but found the performances to be very endearing and the story to be quite entertaining. she was especially amused by tarantinos ultimate disregard for world history, a piece i felt i should have expected. for my part, i felt the film lacks no outstanding lead performances, subtle genre homage for the discerning fan, or meticulous attention to detail both in design and shooting.

but at its core, the film seems to lack any pure motive or message, the way the ideas of redemption or revenge rang through in his most renowned works, kill bill and pulp fiction. and although i fear to walk the line of heresy with the next statement, it seemed at moments the director was relying on his familiar gimmicks almost as a crutch, not stretching the limits of his previous achievements in cinema language and violence-as-art. finally, the film does not live up to it's advertisement as a war epic, feeling much more like a play on the tactical espionage films of the postwar era.

so yes, while one of the best of the summer, i must give tarantino ultimately, finally, a thumbs down. not because it is bad, its good, and you'll probably like it. but it's quentin tarantino. he's supposed to be the greatest, and i know my fellow tennessean has more true gems waiting. the best one, hopefully the next one.

who watches?

It isn't often a $55 million opening is considered a box office disappointment, and it's even less often such an opening could come off the adaptation of a cult-centric piece such as Watchmen, the Hugo award-winning graphic novel known for its deconstruction and moral examination of the now more film than comic-based superhero genre.

Whatever the complaints concerning the cinematic interpretation, the impact made by the source material at the time of it's release cannot be understated. Is vigilantism acceptable, at all or under extreme circumstances? How would our society handle the assimilation of true-to-life superheroes? What makes one persons moral foundation worthy of admiration, while another is rejected as being cruel or unjust? These were the questions writer Alan Moore wanted to face when he first wrote the twelve-part series over twenty years ago. What resulted was a complete deconstruction and deep examination of a genre many thought strictly limited in its scope or ability to narrate a meaningful story.

It is not particularly surprising that the cinematic rendition of this genre finds itself very much in the same position that it's hand-drawn counterpart did in 1986. Public interest is certainly as high as ever. The investment by studios to promote even the most obscure of licenses is evidence enough of the public's promise to guarantee a return.

Yet, most films of the genre leave with an enormous sense of deja vu, with little more changing between the stories of Iron Man, Batman, the X-men and Spiderman besides the villains they face. As these films attempt to delve further into the mythology of their characters with spinoff films and a prequel/sequel blitz, they run the risk of leaving an enormous "so what?" in the minds of their audiences.

Watchmen is the answer to that "so what?", but it is ironic that the filmmakers would find themselves struggling with some of the basic mistakes which its source material fights so hard against. That is, a strong narrative will outperform a CGI and explosion sequence every time. In its' three-hour run, Watchmen is in a constant battle with erratic pacing, a crapshoot in the performance of its actors, and a desperate effort at every turn to convey the magnitude of the story, while still including enough over-the-top sex and violence to appease the modern teen-or-twentysomething the comic book genre has taken as its foundation.

Throughout the films struggle to live up to the expectations it created, however, several high points exist that could be taken as gold standards. Visually, Zack Snyder has created a masterpiece to rival or even surpass 300, and has all but ensured for himself rights of first refusal for almost any superhero license he wishes to attempt in the future. Actor Jackie Earle Haley performed what is surely the films most fascinating and complex character, Rorscach, in incredible fashion, providing a lynchpin for the overwhelming narrative. Choices made in the editing room also stand out, most notably the introductory scenes which provide a background and pretext for the rest of the film, as well as choices for the soundtrack, which help reflect the time period of the alternate universe as well as setting very particular moods for each scene. Some of the most choice moments in the film come in letting visual moments and musical accompaniment blend together like chocolate and peanut butter.

In the end, Watchmen faced the enormous task of being a great comic book film, as well as a great drama and moral odyssey, and in the end ended up being very good at both, but not quite enough to set it apart from its peers in either category. Nevertheless, with almost no competition for the remainder of the month, there is little doubt the film will post a significant profit for Warner Bros. (and Fox, however legitimate their claim), and with blessing of being assured to never be a good film plagued by a unnecessary sequel, Watchmen will likely be recorded as one of the original visionaries of the genre, and its themes will likely be revisited by its descendants for as long as the genre remains marketable.