MikeArrivesTCM17

Michael Douglas Got Booted & Suited Up for TCM 2017, Like You Were There

by Quendrith Johnson, Los Angeles Correspondent

While he has nothing on the elder Douglas, Golden Era Legend Kirk Douglas at almost 101 years old, TCM celebrated the life and career of Hollywood youngster Michael Douglas during a taping of “Live From the TCM Classic Film Festival” on April 8 at the famous Montalban Theatre during the eighth annual festival. MichaelD17

Host Ben Mankiewicz said beforehand, “Michael Douglas has been part of our collective Hollywood consciousness his entire life. From chasing bad guys through the streets of San Francisco to playing an iconic bad guy in Gordon Gekko, Michael has stayed not only relevant, but vital. To say that I’m looking forward to discussing the career of an actor who played Liberace 38 years after producing One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is a huge understatement.”

Mike3shotTCM17
Just take a scroll through these absolutely iconic Michael Douglas portraits and think back on the guy behind the red rows of seats in A CHORUS LINE, and all the other movie credits on this legendary resume, being the life’s work of Michael Douglas, to date of course. MikeArrivesTCM17Like the old man, he will likely last a century, hopefully. Congratulations to the actor, producer, director, and Academy, as well as audience, favorite Michael Douglas.MikeFitting17

There’s great footage of their chat on TCM’s website, but we’ve got these photos — truly works of art — that really set the tone for a classic time had by all at the recent Turner gala celebration. MikeShowTCM17

You’ll learn more about that from TCM’s post-dated official news announcement below.

MikeTCMExec17Left to right: Charlie Tabesh, Senior Vice President Programming and Production; Turner Classic Movies; Pola Changnon, Senior Vice President, Creative, Brand and Marketing, Turner Classic Movies; Ben Mankiewicz. Host, Turner Classic Movies; Jennifer Dorian, General Manger, Turner Classic Movies; Michael Douglas; Genevieve McGillicuddy, Director, TCM Classic Film Festival

Here’s Official Rundown from TCM

Turner Classic Movies (TCM) previously announced that legendary actor Michael Douglas would attend the 2017 TCM Classic Film Festival for a pair of major events. On April 8, Douglas sat down with TCM host Ben Mankiewicz for an in-depth interview about his career at the legendary The Ricardo Montalbán Theatre as part of the annual Live from the TCM Classic Film Festival series. In addition, the Oscar®-winning icon participated in a discussion following a screening of the 1979 thriller The China Syndrome, which he produced and starred in opposite Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon.

TCM added screen legends and beloved icons to its impressive lineup for the 2017 TCM Classic Film Festival, which took place April 6 – April 9 in Hollywood, including:

·        Best in Show (2000) – cast members from Christopher Guest’s acclaimed mockumentary – Fred Willard, John Michael Higgins, Jim Piddock and Bob Balaban – were on hand to discuss the hilarious comedy about the eccentric characters competing at a national dog show.

·        Bob Newhart – the Golden Globe® and Emmy® winner was selected to introduce a screening of Hell Is For Heroes (1962).

·        John Landis, Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker – attended a 40th Anniversary screening of their irreverent sketch comedy The Kentucky Fried Movie (1977) and participated in a conversation about the film.

·        Dick Cavett –Emmy-winning television personality was set to introduce screenings of Monkey Business (1931), the first original film production from the Marx Brothers, Way Out West (1937) and sit down for a conversation in Club TCM.

In addition, the 2017 TCM Classic Film Festival presented a number of rare screening events that celebrate cinema’s ability to immerse viewers in the film experience, including:

·        Nitrate Films – this years festival showcased the history of cinema and highlight the institutions that work hard to protect original nitrate prints for contemporary audiences to experience, including Academy Film Archive, George Eastman Museum and the UCLA Film & Television Archive. Lineup included: Black Narcissus (1947), The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934), Laura (1944), and Lady in the Dark (1944) all shown at the Egyptian Theatre. Nitrate projection made possible through support of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, Turner Classic Movies and The Film Foundation in partnership with the American Cinematheque and the Academy Film Archive.

·        Cinerama – a screeing of the very first film made for the ultra-widescreen process – the aptly titled This is Cinerama (1952) – in its original format presented at ArcLight Cinemas’ Cinerama Dome.

·        Speedy Accompanied by the Alloy Orchestra – a screening of the Harold Lloyd comedy Speedy (1928), with original music by the famed Alloy Orchestra.

·        Those Redheads from Seattle in 3D – the world-premiere restoration of the rarely-seen musical Those Redheads from Seattle (1953), presented in its original 3D format.

Previously announced events and appearances include Oscar® winner Sidney Poitier for the 50th anniversary opening-night screening of In the Heat of the Night (1967); Mel Brooks for the 40th anniversary screening of his Hitchcock spoof High Anxiety (1977); actress Lee Grant for screenings of Detective Story (1951) and The Landlord (1970); and actor-director Peter Bogdanovich for screenings of The Last Picture Show (1971) and What’s Up, Doc? (1972). Grant and Bogdanovich were interviewed in the Festival’s central gathering point, Club TCM. And legendary father and son filmmakers Carl Reiner and Rob Reiner were honored with a hand and footprint ceremony at the TCL Chinese Theater IMAX®.

Complete bios for each of the artists appearing at the 2017 TCM Classic Film Festival and for film descriptions, please visit the festival’s website: filmfestival.tcm.com

The 411 on 2017 TCM Classic Film Festival

For the eighth consecutive year, thousands of movie lovers from around the globe descended upon Hollywood for the TCM Classic Film Festival. The 2017 festival that took place Thursday, April 6 – Sunday, April 9, 2017. Over four packed days and nights, attendees were treated to an extensive lineup of great movies, appearances by legendary stars and filmmakers, fascinating presentations and panel discussions, special events and more.

TCM host Ben Mankiewicz served as official host of the TCM Classic Film Festival, with TCM’s Tiffany Vazquez introducing various events. The festival’s official hotel and central gathering point for the eighth consecutive year was The Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, which has a longstanding role in movie history and was the site of the first Academy Awards® ceremony. Screenings and events during the festival were held at the TCL Chinese Theatre IMAX, the TCL Chinese 6 Theatres and the Egyptian Theatre, as well as other Hollywood venues.

This year’s festival theme? Make ‘Em Laugh: Comedy In The Movies. From lowbrow to high, slapstick to sophisticated comedies of manners, the 2017 TCM Classic Film Festival showcased the greatest cinematic achievements of lone clowns, comedic duos and madcap ensembles.

Why We Love Turner Classic Movies (TCM)

Turner Classic Movies (TCM) is a two-time Peabody Award-winning network that presents great films, uncut and commercial-free, from the largest film libraries in the world highlighting the entire spectrum of film history. TCM features the insights from Primetime host Ben Mankiewicz and Saturday daytime host Tiffany Vazquez, plus interviews with a wide range of special guests and serves as the ultimate movie lover destination. Currently in its 22nd year as a leading authority in classic film, TCM offers critically acclaimed series like The Essentials, along with annual programming events like 31 Days of Oscar® in February and Summer Under the Stars in August. TCM also directly connects with movie fans through events as the annual TCM Classic Film Festival in Hollywood and the TCM Classic Cruise, as well as through the TCM Classic Film Tour in New York City and Los Angeles. In addition, TCM produces a wide range of media about classic film, including books and DVDs, and hosts a wealth of material online at tcm.com and through the Watch TCM mobile app.

TCM is a division of Turner, a Time Warner company, Turner creates and programs branded news, entertainment, sports, animation and young adult multi-platform content for consumers around the world. Turner brands and businesses include CNN/U.S., HLN, CNN International and CNN.com, TBS, TNT, TCM, truTV, Cartoon Network, Boomerang, Adult Swim, Turner Sports, Bleacher Report, FilmStruck, Super Deluxe, iStreamPlanet and ELEAGUE.

Connect with TCM for Next Year’s TCM Event & Right Now via App on iOS and Android
Website: www.tcm.com

Facebook: www.facebook.com/tcmtv
Twitter: twitter.com/tcm | twitter.com/tcmpr
TCM Store: shop.tcm.com

Download TCM app to watch now; available for iOS and Android Platforms (Google Play).

Bonus Feature – Graphiq Visualization of Michael Douglas Movies

# # #

Hiroyuki Sanada, Ryan Reynolds, Director Daniel Espinosa, Olga Dihovichnaya, Rebecca Ferguson, Ariyon Bakare  and Jake Gyllenhaal seen at Columbia Pictures World Premiere of "Life" the movie at SXSW 2017 on Saturday, March 18, 2017, in Austin, TX. (Photo by Eric Charbonneau/Invision for Sony Pictures/AP Images)

LIFE is Already Scary, Now It’s A Scarier Reynolds & Gyllenhaal Movie, Thanks

by Quendrith Johnson, Los Angeles Correspondent

What is it with ‘ripped from the alt-news headlines’ movie plots lately? KONG: SKULL ISLAND has a hollow earth slash reptilian b-story, even a CIA mind control “Monarch” reference on a briefcase. Now LIFE, starring Ryan Reynolds and Jake Gyllenhaal, has a waterborne microbe from Mars mass-extinction horror twist.

Ryan Reynolds and Jake Gyllenhaal seen at Columbia Pictures World Premiere of "Life" the movie at SXSW 2017 on Saturday, March 18, 2017, in Austin, TX. (Photo by Eric Charbonneau/Invision for Sony Pictures/AP Images)

Ryan Reynolds and Jake Gyllenhaal seen at Columbia Pictures World Premiere of “Life” the movie at SXSW 2017 on Saturday, March 18, 2017, in Austin, TX. [Photo by Eric Charbonneau/Invision for Sony Pictures/AP Images]

While scary stories about hostile life on Mars is a running theme since B-movies in the 50’s, this one has some actual science to back it up.

LIFE, directed by Daniel Espinosa, touts the fact that the producers and writers consulted with “astrobiologists and space medicine experts,” one of whom is Dr. Kevin Fong. “Space is an extreme environment, like any of the extreme environments we’ve attempted to conquer in the 20th century – deserts, polar ice caps, our highest mountains,” Fong explained. “What we know about extreme environments is that you can’t go there for long and it’s not without penalty. You come back literally less than the person you were.”

“It’s hard enough to stay alive up there on a routine mission when everything goes right.  When things start to go wrong, people start to die off pretty quickly.” These cheery words underscore his experience as an astrophysicist and MD who’s worked on NASA’s Human Adaptation and Countermeasures Office at Johnson Space Center in Houston, meaning he is a medical expert on keeping folks alive and kicking in space.

No offense to the astro-geniuses, but frankly movie stars can explain a movie better.

Cast and crew of "Life" seen at Columbia Pictures World Premiere of "Life" the movie at SXSW 2017 on Saturday, March 18, 2017, in Austin, TX. (Photo by Eric Charbonneau/Invision for Sony/AP Images)

Cast and crew of “Life” seen at Columbia Pictures World Premiere of “Life” the movie at SXSW 2017 on Saturday, March 18, 2017, in Austin, TX. (Photo by Eric Charbonneau/Invision for Sony/AP Images)

In typical Jake Gyllenhaal extreme-character mode, he plays International Space Station denizen David Jordan, who’s already clocked 473 days afloat in outer space. “It was a beautifully paced, terrifying script.  It’s a fun idea. You think you know where it’s going, and then it evolves into something where you really, really don’t,” he added. “The life form is literal, but it’s also an incredible metaphor for what can happen. Curiosity is one of the most important human traits, but I think searching too far can be full of hubris. In that way, the life form is a repercussion for that kind of curiosity.”

“My grandfather was a doctor,” Gyllenhaal shared, “and Daniel and I talked about the similarities in my character to my grandfather. It’s a bit of an homage to him.”

Next some newcomers join the freaky plot, and things get terrifying as a look for proof of life on Mars backfires. Naturally the movie includes a requisite CDC, Centers for Disease Control, rep. This one comes in the form of Rebecca Ferguson, as Miranda North. “Miranda is a microbiologist sent up to protect everyone on Earth from whatever this is that we find,” Ferguson explained.

Her character puts up some “firewalls” against extra-terrestrial contamination. “The firewall is, first, the container that the specimen was in.  And then the room.  And then the station itself.  She has to do whatever she can do to protect Earth, because we don’t know what this life form is.” No, it’s not a gimmicky ‘life form,’ either.

Producer Julie Lynn nailed it best on that front. “We didn’t want the life form to be a person in a suit or a puppet. We wanted it to be something that could evolve from a cellular piece, a tiny cell. It’s not that it comes out with an intent to do harm; it is its own creature, and it is affected by what happens to it.”

Paris, France - Monday March 13, 2017: Jake Gyllenhaal and Rebecca Ferguson at the Columbia Pictures "LIFE" Photo Call at The Planetarium of Le Grand Palais

Paris, France – Monday March 13, 2017: Jake Gyllenhaal and Rebecca Ferguson at the Columbia Pictures “LIFE” Photo Call at The Planetarium of Le Grand Palais

Rebecca Ferguson spins it as a relationship game with the pathogen. “We all have our own relationship to this creature. Some of us love it, we nurture it.  Some of us want to kill it off in the beginning.  And that creates an incredible tension in the group,” she said.

Ryan Reynolds rounds it out with, “this script had such a degree of reality and a feeling of constant tension,” that he reteamed with his DEADPOOL writing pals Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, to ratchet up the stakes. Coincidentally, Reynolds also went back to the well with his SAFE HOUSE director Daniel Espinosa.

Having worked well with Reynolds, Espinosa is also super excited about LIFE. “I think the reason so many great directors have walked into science fiction is to work with the unknown — the fear or fascination with the unknown,” he said.  “We live in a world that is quite mundane, but in space, you enter an adventure – you don’t know how it looks, how it feels, what it can do to you, where it is. It doesn’t make a sound. That’s terrifying.”

Whatever the hell LIFE’s monster is in this case, the SAFE HOUSE director made it even scarier when he added that “this script felt more like a realistic science fiction. Maybe science reality.” Picture waking up ’50,000-year-old microbes’ inside crystalline hibernation on Mars, that is. Or, in movie critic shorthand, the DNA from amber plot device from Jurassic Park, but with super-freaky outer space Martian microbial goo meets Alien. Sorry for the gross oversimplification but this helps put your fears to rest, folks, because it’s only a movie. We hope. Alternative news purveyors might spin it as a doomsday scenario for planet Earth, lol. LIFE, go see it before it happens. It opens Mar. 24, brought to you by Skydance and SONY (Columbia).  Interestingly, Megan Ellison’s brother David Ellison is listed as a producer. The film has bowed in Berlin, Moscow, Paris, and at SXSW in Austin, Texas last week. [Most of the photos included are from SXSW premiere.] See their official website for showtimes and venues. Hahtag #LIFEMOVIE

Directed by:  

Daniel Espinosa

Written by:

Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick

Produced by:

David Ellison

Dana Goldberg

Bonnie Curtis

Julie Lynn

Executive Producers: 

Don Granger

Vicki Dee Rock

Cast:

Jake Gyllenhaal

Rebecca Ferguson

Ryan Reynolds

Hiroyuki Sanada

Ariyon Bakare

Olga Dihovichnaya

# # #

JAWv7Grt17

We Interrupt Our Movie Coverage for Wikileaks “Zero Year” & Recall Gibney’s ZERO DAYS

by Quendrith Johnson, Los Angeles Correspondent

“Hello World,” is usually a newbie’s first line of code in programming, but as of Wikileaks Vault 7 data dump about CIA covert hacking on Mar. 7, followed by Julian Assange’s “Press Conference” on Mar. 9, the whole world is actually reeling, as in the wake-up call: Hello World!

But fear not, leave it to the much-maligned Entertainment Journalists to tread where no investigative reporter dares to go.JAWv7Om17
Later on, the actual self-conducted Q & A that Julian Assange held via video press conference is included in a very compelling transcript form. Glean from that what you will, it’s like the ultimate star hacker interview.

For now, when you look at Vault 7 in relation to the July 8 release of Alex Gibney’s documentary ZERO DAYS about the Stuxnet virus, it all makes sense. You can read this later, linked here, but for now just stare hard at the self-released description by tricky Wikileaks itself.

Ready? Wikileaks Vault 7 is “The first full part of the series. ‘Year Zero,’ comprises 8,761 documents and files from an [undisclosed internal server at Langley, CIA HQ]. ‘Year Zero’ introduces the scope and direction of the CIA’s global covert” cyber weapons exploits. Zero Days, Year Zero, hmm.ZeroDaysPoster16
Located on the interwebs at https:// wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/ (which is not linked live here for security reasons and not to endorse Wikileaks), Year Zero alone says quite a lot.

So let’s have some fun with it. One reporting agency had a pundit on who sarcastically commended the CIA hacking team on its excellent choice of code names, such as UMBRAGE, whereby the CIA pretends to be other hacking entities by mimicking their stolen code. But they entirely missed out on Year Zero subtext.

Meaning, the bromance between comic nerds and hackers is writ large here. First, for nerd cred, “Year Zero” is also “an alternate reality game (ARG) based on the Nine Inch Nails concept album of the same name.” These internal hackers are toying with us.

As in, how about with an alternative reality game reference twist that is a clue to a shadow alternative government or deep state? But wait, there’s more. “Zero Year” is also “a year-long comic book crossover event published by DC Comics that began in June 2013 and ended in July 2014, featuring the superhero Batman.” Which is the Vault 7, Part One, start date Assange mentions, being 2013.

DC Comics describes this as “The second arc of BATMAN: ZERO YEAR is collected as the New 52 origin of The Dark Knight delves into Bruce Wayne’s past with the Red Hood Gang and his run-ins with aspiring District Attorney Harvey Dent! You won’t want to miss the moment that Bruce becomes Batman! [BATMAN #21-24].”

Red Hood Gang is so close to a hoodie reference, specifically Edward Snowden’s red hoodie he wears in CITIZENFOUR to shield himself while on the interwebs. Not to mention that if Bruce Wayne as Batman goes up against the DA, District Attorney, being the Gotham government, well isn’t that analogous to the CIA defying the actual government with their new cyber hacking superpowers?SnowCit417

Hey, if the Right Wing can have its conspiracy theories, there’s the extent of a comic book conspiracy. InfoWars and those YouTube conspiracy theorists only wish they’d seen these parallels.
Back to reality, or in Wikileaks version of reality, Year Zero must mean a year of undetectable cyber exploits by the CIA, which are now hit hard by daylight.  While the revelations may shock many around the world, Alex Gibney, the documentary filmmaker behind the Eliot Spitzer expose, already bumped up against this internet leviathan, this covert sea monster of cyber space, by landing actual ex-CIA and NSA officials on the record in his documentary about the Stuxnet virus at the center of ZERO DAYS. CIA’s brave Gen. Michael Hayden even uses his actual identity as he hints at an internecine war between spy agencies in ZERO DAYS.

Stuxnet is described in the movie as a “self-replicating computer malware (known as a ‘worm’ for its ability to burrow from computer to computer on its own) that the US and Israel unleashed to destroy a key part of an Iranian nuclear facility, and which ultimately [mutated] and spread beyond its intended target.”

Pay close attention to that “computer to computer” line, because Julian Assange will refer to an “air-gap” later, and you need to know what that is to understand the ramifications of this new class of weaponzied programs. Air-gap jumpers mean the virus can literally jump without a wire, through the ether to infect nearby computers, thus a potentially endless domino effect of digital disaster.AlexGibney16
Filmmaker Alex Gibney basically told the world about what was to come in Wikileaks Vault 7 when he categorically stated for ZERO DAYS, the following: “I started out making a small film investigating ‘Stuxnet…’ What I discovered was a massive clandestine operation involving the CIA, the NSA, the US Military and Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad to build and launch secret cyber ‘bombs’ that could plunge the world into a devastating series of… attacks on critical infrastructure, shutting down electricity… this science fiction scenario…”
And it was only Oscar short-listed for 2017, even though, pyrrhic victory, it is now vindicated as a real contender.2016-06-28 11.17.02
Symantec anti-virus whiz Eric Chien, who is in ZERO DAYS, said “when you have black motorcycles, wearing all black following you, behind you, you start to wonder.”

On why Stuxnet wasn’t part of the Snowden leak, he casually mentioned “Edward Snowden didn’t leak this because those files are stored on a different server.” Unbelievably important information, now backed up by Wikileaks Vault 7, and Julian Assange himself.
Speaking of the white-haired, self-conflicted, quasi-programming wizard from Oz, Australian-born Assange speaks here in his own words. Granted, some of his Britishisms have been converted to American English (i.e.; favour to favor).

This is the Mar. 9, transcript, presented in its entirety (typos and all), so as to honor the tradition of unedited versions, that Wikileaks trademark.

Assange tends to be long-winded and overuses the word “problematic” as a euphemism for all hell breaking loose, but it’s worth a read to draw your own conclusions about the Vault 7 data dump that is literally as important as a big budget Hollywood release in its footprint in the media.JAWv7Grt17
(Note the linked ZERO DAYS article at the end, which includes a complete 101 download on hacking terms.)

JULIAN ASSANGE INTERVIEWS HIMSELF, STREAMING ON VAULT 7

JULIAN ASSANGE: We now need a digital Geneva convention that will commit governments to protecting civilians from nation-state attacks in times of peace and just as the Fourth Geneva Convention recognize that the protection of civilians require the active involvement of the Red Cross – protection against nation-state cyber-attacks requires the active assistance of technology companies and companies like Wikileaks which can provide information about these attacks.
The tech-sector plays a unique role as the internets first responders and we therefore should commit ourselves to collective action which will make the internet a safer place affirming a role our role as a neutral digital Switzerland that assists people all over the world to be secure.

So now I will go on to some questions, first of all I confess this is one from me.

Q: Does Wikileaks have a position on this sort of material?

Well Wikileaks has a position on publishing in general – we fight for the rights of publishers to publish, we fight for the rights of sources to be protected and we fight for media accuracy.

Having obtained a perfect record in the last 10 years it’s one of our comparative advantages, but otherwise we don’t have a position on particular issues that we’re publishing about but in this case we do have a position.

We have a position because these types outside the weapons are used to attack the communication technology the journalists use to communicate with their sources and with each other. The sorts of technology that investigative reporters reporting on the national security sector reporting on war crimes use to communicate their information within their media organization and back-and-forth with their sources.

For example the New York Times has put up a tip line – it is based upon the signal protocol.

Now Signals a good encryption system for mobile smart phones, now what’s the problem – well if you control the smart phones it doesn’t matter how good the encryption system is. So signal and telegram from that perspective can simply be bypassed by attacking the endpoints, attacking one of the telephones belonging to the source or one of the telephones belonging to the journalist.

And the New York Times has a central tip-line – one phone that all of its tips go to for the signal protocol and of course that phone can be hacked it doesn’t matter what the security system is, as a result you see the numbers coming into the coming into it and you see the messages exchanged.

So Wikileaks does have a position – we want to secure communications technology because without secure communications technology journalists are not able to effectively hold the state to account.

WikiLeaks protections for its sources, are they affected by this?

No they’re not affected not directly – why is that well because we’re specialists in this area, we’re specialists in source protection and I’ve known in general about this type of problem for a long time. So our systems are developed to not be exposed and not based on smart phones for example we have specialised cryptography that is not susceptible to these types of attacks. On the other hand are our lawyers susceptible to these types of attacks ? Yes they are – a lot of
them are susceptible to these types of attacks. Are our key security security staff ? No because we understand that, but we want to protect all our staff and the rights of journalists and sources to communicate effectively.

Ok so that’s my question now I’ll go onto the others – the question from CNN:

Q: As long as these are overseas targets isn’t it legal for the CIA to do this?

Well first of all I’d just like to .. It’s a legally important question in the United States but there are many questions that might be asked by CNN, and one that seems to defend the interests of the CIA I think is a bit problematic* to have been the first question to be asked.

Well the answer is this – unfortunately the CIA does have a history of attacking not only the political parties operating overseas we just published how the central intelligence agency issued instructions to its staff to penetrate the last French election cycle in 2012, the last French presidential election.

It has a habit of behaving badly inside the United States as well.

That’s an extensive habit going on for years. Most recently in 2014 the CIA was denounced by the US Senate Intelligence Committee because it had hacked their investigation in Congress into the CIA torture program and had used its hackers to retrieve documents that the Senate Intelligence Committee had evidencing what the Central Intelligence Agency did in terms of torture.

Why did it do that ? I mean it’s given various excuses, the answer probably is because it perceived that information would be a threat to itself as an institution. That’s how institutions behave especially intelligence institution – the CIA is the largest intelligence agency in the world by budgetary expenditure and of course it wants to maximize its own institutional power.

And key individuals also want to defend their programs or increase their roles, get themselves into a position where they can cash out and go to work for defense contractors.

What about WikiLeaks material in the first part of Vault 7 – does it demonstrate the CIA attacking targets within the United States ? That’s an interesting question the answer is not known.

There are more than 22,000 IP addresses that we have detected, internet addresses that correspond to computer systems within the United States.

Now one of the large research programs projects we have underway is to discover:

How many of those systems are attack systems that are used to relay and pass attacks from the CIA out into the rest of the world. How many of those intermediary victims – that is say an internet service provider which is hacked in order to create an attack somewhere else overseas. How many are direct victims. How many corresponding to say a visitor to the United States from a foreign country. How many correspond to joint operations between the CIA and the FBI, with the CIA providing technical support . It’s a complex question that is not resolved but there are more than 22,000 IP addresses corresponding to CIA activities in the United States.

Q: Is there proof that the CIA are involving in an internal struggle [vs NSA] – leaking as opposed to something else?

Well we can’t we can’t comment directly on sourcing. As someone who’s studied the behaviour for many years of intelligence agencies in different countries it is an unusual time in the United States to see an intelligence agency so prominently involved in domestic politics.

Now it’s a level of principle that’s quite problematic , there are arguments on the other side that obviously – if there’s an extreme government then perhaps it does call for illegal behaviour by an intelligence agency. We don’t have an opinion on whether that is the case yet or not the United States.

Wikileaks is intellectually intrigued to see this conflict occurring because it does tend to generate whistleblowers and sources on both sides of the equation.

Q: What are the implications for journalists and sources?

I explained previously these types of the technology are used to penetrate the computers and phones that journalists used to communicate with each other and communicate and protect their sources. I think that’s an incredible problem.

In response to the Edward Snowden disclosures and some others much more encryption has been used by individual companies specializing in it like with Whisper Systems, like Telegram but also included into Apple and Microsoft and other products so that is fairly effective at hindering bulk interception, which is what the national security agency’s been doing. Passively taking all the information say that flows from Latin America to North America or from North America to Europe.

But in response the Central Intelligence Agency at least has diversified to specialise on attacking the endpoints prior to encryption occurring or after decryption occurring. And say okay but that at least means that they have to engage in target in attacks which is more more expensive and might have more of an audit trail – that’s true but we have exposed the particular section of the central intelligence agency called the automated implant branch.

So that is not just to develop viruses and other attacks to put into people’s computer systems to facilitate a CIA hacker in doing that but also to automate how that is done.
So you can you can see that between an individual targeted attack which is direct and invasive and massive passive bulk interception the intermediary point which is the increasing automation of targeted attacks. Their automated enough they start to approach the level of bulk capacity intersection we’re not there yet for most countries but we are shifting significantly away from one CIA officer directing one hacker who attacks one target.
Rather we’re seeing systems developed and whole branches of the Central Intelligence Agency to automate attacks and infestations of CIA malware into targets.

Q: How do these practices by the CIA impact on members of the general public?

With android phones, iPhones, Samsung TVs etc, well in a number of ways. So you might think as a member of a kind of average person well is the CIA interested in you? We have this problem that increasing automation of these attacks means that the interest may not have to be that high.
You might be you might know someone who knows someone who say works for the French government will be the target of such an attack because they’re involved in decision-making about large French exports, and we published a previous document showing how the ODNI – that’s the oversight body for all intelligence agencies instructed the CIA to try and get hold of every single French contract valued at over 200 million dollars.
Similarly in the information we revealed about CIA attacks on the French political parties there was two instructions to try and determine where the French political parties will try and go for a more German oriented economic policy of increasing exports. Now really what’s going on is that the Central Intelligence Agency and the ODNI through who they tend to be involved in contracting is close to organizations say like Boeing and then wants to assist Boeing in unfair competition say against Airbus which the French have a stake in.

Q: About redaction, WikiLeaks has often stated they only redact in exceptional cases [i.e.; what is the policy]?

Well there’s been a lot of false reportage about what our redaction policy is. Our redaction policy is essentially the same as the Freedom of Information Act which is – we don’t react unless there are important ground to do so and then we only do so for a limited period of time until those important grounds have elapsed.
In this particular case we redacted some 78,000 pieces of information for Vault 7 part 1. That information corresponds as i said before to IP address of targets and attack machines. Well why did we redact that – well because we want to investigate which ones are targets, which ones are attacking scenes which ones were victims that were attacked to get a place hold to make another attack and if we publish them all immediately it’ll be harder to create that investigation.

Q: What is the time period that these publications relate to?

The time period is 2013 to 2016 for the part 1 publication be published on Tuesday. Other material in Vault 7 is also recent and there is some old material. Interestingly one of the key systems, attack systems developed by the Central Intelligence Agency which affects multiple computer types at once it’s called HIVE and if you look carefully you’ll see that in our publications on Tuesday there’s a reference to HIVE being first started more than a decade ago.
So the CIA has been involved in this for quite a long period of time gradually expanding its capacity as it managed to get budgetary and political pre-eminence over its chief bureaucratic and budgetary rival the National Security Agency. That’s a very interesting story about the conflict between these two rival agencies over time.
The CIA budget used to be smaller than the national security budget and it’s now something like 1.5 times the size of national security budget, as a result the CIA has been able to build its own drone air force and massively expand its hacking operation so it doesn’t need to ask the National Security Agency for favors.
And of course if you also want a favor a favor can be asked back but also a lot of the operations of the CIA conducts are a bit questionable for example that operation conducted against the Senate Intelligence Committee. Now if the CIA had no capacity that it would have had to ask National Security Agency to provide it with hackers to help it attack and try and take those documents off Dianne Feinstein and her staff.
Now it wasn’t able to, didn’t need to disclose that to the National Security Agency because it has the capacity to do it itself and the National Security Agency having been in the media so prominently especially after it’s complications in 2013 , has far more oversight and accountability for its digital operations then the Central Intelligence Agency does. It’s a real question whether in practice there can be meaningful oversight.
I don’t think there can be – I think it’s an illusion that there can be meaningful oversight although one has to try because you can’t leave a regulatory ground unoccupied because it it will simply, the bureaucratic organization will expand into that regulatory ground and occupy it.

Q: So why can’t the CIA hacking operations be effectively regulated?

Well they’re done in secret, its arcane complex technology and look what has happened with the CIA – loss of control over it’s entire cyber weapons arsenal.
So if the CIA which is certainly, it’s highly motivated to try and keep control of it – if it can’t even control its entire cyber weapons arsenal because information can flow without oversight – then what is the chance that it can control how that Arsenal is used ? It can’t, there’s absolutely nothing to stop a random CIA officer or contractor or liaison agent working for the British using that technology against whoever they like whatever personal reasons they like.
The technology is designed to be unaccountable, it’s designed to be untraceable, it’s designed to hide itself, it’s designed to to remove traces of its activity, it’s designed to throw off people looking to see where there are fingerprints that might demonstrate who authored that technology.
And that is done by collecting viruses and malware from mafia and various groups in other states and assembling them, that’s something that we published that there’s a whole section of the CIA working something called umbrage which is designed to do that. And we have quite a lot more material that talks about these attempts to throw off authenticated, sorry to throw off attribution to discover who was really behind a particular cyber attack.

Already an antivirus expert has come forward to say that a sophisticated malware that he had attributed to a state either Iran or China or Russia now he believes actually is from Central Intelligence Agency, because the type of attack system that uses corresponds directly to a description that we published of an attack system and it’s rare enough that it seems unlikely it would be independently discovered discovered.

Unless of course that China has already gotten hold of these parts of the CIA arsenal and that China is using them to pretend to be the CIA.

Q: is the CIA causing commercial damage to companies through these practices?

Yes – potentially billions of dollars of damage because if say you’re in China which is now the world’s largest economy and you run a company and you want to equip all your employees with particular phones or particular computers – do you trust that if you go and buy a dell computer or computer running Microsoft or Apple phone can you trust that it’s not vulnerable to these CIA attacks ?
Well because Apple and Dell and so on are all based in the United States where it’s understood that the u.s. government is breaching previous promises that is made which is to tell us industry about these vulnerabilities – then it starts to look like that the u.s. government and US industry is in cahoots and then you can’t trust any exports from United States.
So one report just at the time of Edward Snowden’s revelations suggested that practice by the National Security Agency of imperiling US industry would cost 40 billion dollars in exports, so this sort of behavior by the Central Intelligence Agency undermining those commitments by the Barrack Obama administration to tell US technology companies about vulnerabilities before they were exploited by foreign intelligence agencies or by cyber Mafia – that breach of promise decreases trust both in the US government but also in US exports.

Q: How do these publications shed light on the ability of the CIA to penetrate high security networks not connected to the internet?

Important question – they’re called air-gapped network so if your worried about being attacked over the internet make your machines internet disconnected that’s what most police network do for example or networks that are inside companies say like Boeing, they disconnect the network so that hackers they think can’t attack them – but the CIA has created a number of viruses one for example called HammerDrill which are air gap jumping virus.
So they sit on a computer waiting – this particular one HammerDrill sits on a computer, windows computer waiting until someone goes to burn a cd-rom, put software on a cd-rom and it jumps onto the cd-rom and infects the executable programs that you put on the cd-rom so they want to go somewhere else it then affects the other computer and starts a channel.
There’s a number of at least 30 different types of malware that the CIA has created to try and do that, some that are designed for CIA hackers and CIA agents to say pretend to go somewhere and pretend to give a presentation or use VLC a video player to play a video to give a presentation, meanwhile behind the scenes the video presentation software and it’s trojanised version of VLC goes into the computers that it’s plugged into – surveys them, infects them and ransacks the material and brings it back.
If you invite someone into your company or government department to give a presentation they put this into the presentation computer and now its infected. Similar to play a video and it’s infected, many other different things. One is even a virus scanner someone is pretending to be a computer security consultant to remove viruses from an organization and in fact the virus checking program is the CIA virus that is used to infest the rest of the computer network and retrieve information.JAWv7l17

Q: Among the list of possible targets are there any references to extremists or transnational criminals?

Not in the material that we published on Tuesday [Mar. 7] – Vault 7 part 1. No. It’s conspicuous, there’s there’s no reference to terrorism theres no reference to extremists, there are references to many other target types for example liaison agents so Allied intelligence agencies that speak to the central intelligence agency.
And the CIA has developed a menu of frequent attacks include attacking the liaison officers coming only from QCHQ or the DGSE which is a French intelligence agency who think that they are cooperating with the CIA but really the CIA is infesting the liaison agent. So they’re all there in a menu called “fine dining” it’s a list which literally describes itself as a menu of frequent attacks and attack types that is given to CIA case officers and they say yeah I want to attack and infest some agent that I control, a liaison, someone working for a foreign government department etc.
What is not there is any reference to terrorists any reference to extremists and that actually shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone , no one no one who studies the intelligence world it shouldn’t surprise them because even if you just look at the budgets that came out in 2013 to the US intelligence black-budget you don’t see anything like the majority of the body going towards extremism even though they are very strong political reasons to try and catch any operation in counter terrorism and counter extremism to get more money despite that political pressure.

Something like a third of the US the entire US intelligence budgets is described as countering various forms of extremism and the overwhelming majority is not but particularly for the CIA the vast majority of the expenditure and attack types are geopolitical. They’re about, you know similar to the information revealed about the attacking of the French election cycle – understanding who could be pals with the CIA , who could you know help out the institution in one way or another so for example spy on Airbus, that information you then pass to the US Chamber of Commerce among others which is listed in the material and US Chamber of Commerce and then adjust what is doing in order to that is Boeing and these companies are closely connected to each other.
It’s not even about what is the policy that can help us industry the most, boost US economy the most, it it’s about which elements of the US economy and or related intelligence organizations in the United States and outside the United States are best able to ask for favors because they have proximity – they have interpersonal proximity or they have institutional proximity.

Q: About the story that’s in the press with possible hacking monitoring of President Donald [Trump] and his team, do these revelation shed any light on what is possible in this regard?

Well that there were earlier Press reports that the Trump cabinet has been using a encryption system called confide where the messages disappear quite quickly it’s sort of like an extra encrypted version of snapchat. Well it doesn’t matter it’s on smartphones the software attacks smartphones, doesn’t matter what encryption you’re running on telegram or signal or confide if you can bypass that encryption you can turn on the microphones, it can monitor movements, it can activate the camera to look at photos that have been taken.

Has the CIA done that ? This material doesn’t comment on whether it has done that to the president Trump.

I suppose a question that is of interest, because there was a lot of press – there were numerous Press reports from New York Times, The Washington Post and some in Politico that people close to Donald Trump had been monitored in a counterintelligence activity. Possibly by some parts of the US government, possibly by the FBI, FBI had been mentioned, NSA had been mentioned – on the other hand it seems that many of the leaks to the media are coming from the Central Intelligence Agency based upon how they’re described.
There are a number of collaborations that are evidenced by the material that we publish between the FBI and CIA and the National Security Agency and CIA so I think there’s a real question whether that technology is being used or has been used in these types of investigations – that is a separate tech question to whether CIA officers have been pressing the button on that technology.
What is often done in the commercial industry, the commercial spying industry – if you’re in the commercial industry you can be prosecuted for hacking someone – so what happens in the commercial industry and we did a big publication we of Hacking Team where we published more than more than million emails from an Italian computer hacking contractor called Hacking Team, it sets up attack sites and it writes the software and then it helps configure it for a hacking attack and then it gives the people they’ve told it to in a government department, Intelligence Agency, Police Service – the ability to press the button so they hope to that removes them from being accountable for the attack.
They’ve just created the system to attack the actual button was pressed by different party so that’s obviously a possibility in the United States in relation to a number of different attacks. Publications don’t say anything directly about the President and cabinet but that is a general phenomenon of people creating attack systems and facilitating attacks in some way but being careful about the legalities of actually pressing the button.

Q: How many parts to the vault 7 series?

What we have a lot of material – it’s a big journalistic investigation from us, from our partners, we need more partners. So that those who engaged in journalistic excellence on reporting and material that we have published so far and there have been some good report, we will look at those people and trying to produce some of them to get them in – there is more work than WikiLeaks can do on its own that’s quite typical with some publications, so we assemble international teams to try and get as much understanding in as many different languages as possible.
And then also finally make sure a lot of the material is published so the public can also catch any angles that us and the combined journalistic have missed – in this case we have extra problem which is that we have quite a lot of exploits that is this key attack code that we want to disarm before we think about publishing it.
And to have that discussion we’re going to work with some of these manufacturers that have called for it to try and get those antidotes out there before we publish more information that can give clues to the cyber mafia or other intelligence agencies on how to do this.
There is a fair criticism I think of that methodology and we’re watching closely which is that the CIA was so careless to produce this material, this enormous cyber weapons arsenal and lose control of it at least once and that it has spread. So does the various Cyber Mafia already have it, do foreign intelligence agencies already have it. Well I think that’s a serious question , they were securing it very well so it’s quite possible that numerous people could have it also it has spread appears to have spread within a number of individuals within the US intelligence community. So how much more will it spread ?
I think it’s quite hard to control even if Wikileaks quickly doesn’t publish any of these cyber weapons I think it is quite hard to stop the spread elsewhere which might have already occurred so therefore what you want is the fastest possible antidotes, and for that to work the fastest way of course it’s just publish everything but at the moment we’re watching to see whether there is a spread, and analyze what we have, work with some of the manufacturers to create, to create antidotes to these weapons.

Q: Why is Wikileaks focusing only on problems from the United States?

That’s not true, we’ve published just in the last few months very significant collections of materials from Germany from Turkey in fact in response to our Turkish publications the Turkish government put seven Turkish journalist who has reported on our publications into prison.
A very serious situation – one of those Turkish journalists is fortunate enough that he was a foreign correspondent for Geseit which is german newspaper and so he’s getting a bit of support from Germany but the the other six are in a serious situation – completely outrageous that they’re simply reporting on what we published and the Turkish government, Erdogan’s government has abused concerns about the coup that occurred a few months ago – to crack down on reporting about corruption.
In this case the emails that were from Erdogan’s son-in-law who was the minister for energy and that’s what we published you can look them up at Baret’s Box. On Russia and China we have published hundreds of thousands of things most of them are critical about 80% critical and more than 2.3 million from the Syrian government including our Bashar Al-Assad’s personal emails.
So all cultures tend to just look at themselves and speak to themselves, they speak their own language and they’re aware of themselves and what other people say about then all what’s being published about their culture. When it’s published about another culture, another country then don’t pay attention. Of course but people raise this for you know distracting reasons to try and question the messenger because the content itself is so powerful.

Ok that’s it .

Let me just break, I’ll just break for about three minutes and see if any other questions that are really important have come in and if so i might answer them…

G’day my name’s Julian Assange , Welcome back to the Wikileaks press conference we have found some other questions from Fox, CBS, ABC and another journalists.

We’ll start first of all with CBS Jeff Pegues who asks:

Q: Why did you release the documents on Tuesday, can you comment on the timing?

We have a description of the timing in the frequently asked questions, it was as soon as we were ready but it wasn’t the weekend anymore. Those were the only factors involved – interestingly the administration says it’s going to prepare some response on cyberwar, not sure exactly when it is they said within 30 days but 30 days might have already elapsed but it didn’t play a part in our timing.
Nothing else played a part in our timing, it’s quite a you know you can imagine it’s quite a difficult effort to pull this kind of thing together. There has been also a number of attacks on our players and on even the various forms of streaming hardware that we used to create these press conferences. Secure systems are all fine, but the streaming system is insecure because it’s for the public.
It went down and we have some workaround for some parts, I’m not sure if some of the other glitches that you’ve seen today if it has anything to do with that probably not, probably just glitches.
What occurred on Tuesday was much more serious, but to be fair I mean we’re publishing an epic scoop on the CIA, the biggest in it’s history and they deserve to have a little comeback.

Ok Bryan Ross from ABC:

Q: Mr. Assange have you ever been paid by the Russian government or state funded outlet RT?

The answer is no, but quite interesting to see the ABC taking that line.
This is the largest publication of Central Intelligence Agency documents – number 1. An enormous journalistic scoop about all sorts of things that affect journalists and almost every individual within the United States and in many other countries about the in some sense the future of what it means to be a state, where is the border between one state and another ?
Borders are created by sea and land, borders are also created by one army meeting another army and then making a truce , that’s where borders come from.
On the internet there’s no borders and if there’s something like the use of force, that’s a very interesting question as to how much state computer hacking is like a use of force in some ways it isn’t in some ways it is, then obviously borders because start to become pretty mushy so enormously interesting that instead here we have a pretty sad question trying to divert from epic publication to something else.

Hillary Vaugn from Fox asks:

Q: How long do you anticipate it will take to help tech companies to issue fixes or secure devices?

What is the timeframe – that is a very important question. My experience as a computer security guy which is what I used to be in my previous profession, well some of those fixes will be fast. Ones that just affect a little part of the system with a little part that you can make a hole in and go through but the fix is just plugging this little hole, tweaking a little, distributing it, testing and distributing. Those can be issued potentially in just two or three days.
Problems that affect more critical aspects of computer code that’s in a telephone or TV or somewhere else, some of them can take a lot longer to fix. And for some systems like Android with many manufacturers possibly like those Samsung TV’s, there is no automatic update this isn’t some people have to manually try and pull something so that the only people who are aware of it can fix the problem. If you’re not aware of it,the problem is not fixed.
That’s a question journalists should be asking of the the various manufacturers involved.
It is an important question and it’s important to put pressure on those companies to make it , basically to make security something that the market cares about and they’ll respond, and they are to a degree already responding.
If they can get away with it they’ll say nothing that’s what that’s what google did initially was to just say nothing at all hoping perhaps that maybe we wouldn’t discuss it because Android is significantly more insecure than iOS – which is the software is used on Iphone. Both of them have severe problems, that are described in these CIA documents that were published but Iphone has slightly slightly less.

Another journalist says :

Q: Is it clear which countries were among the targets of the program?

Partly – we have a lot of records in this part 1 material, a lot more in the others that we’re studying that reveals tens of thousands of targets so yes many of the targets are revealed but many are also not to do with how the CIA split up the different it’s different sections and branches some of the operational branches only within that branch can be quite closely held do they know what the target are .
In other cases there’s collaboration between branches and support of one branch to another and the information about targets can spread further but as we have already stated there are more than 22,000 just in this initial batch of material, IP addresses that correspond to the United States. It’s not clear which are attack infrastructure, intermediary victims or targets.
But there’s also as we’ve stated attacks, numerous attacks on Europe and Latin America including Brazil including Ecuador and we’re still assessing which parts of the those governments and individuals have been attacked but Brazil and Ecuador are not really known for their extremists.JAWv7smrk17

Assange signs off with “Ok that’s it thanks guys, bye.”

If this isn’t a premise for movie, you really wish it was, because the unelected official unauthorized entity known as Wikileaks is really unleashed here. Plus, he implies there will be a sequel Part Two, possibly more.

Whomever gave Assange/Wikileaks the virtual keys to the kingdom at Langley, CIA headquarters, in Virginia is being sought out by any means necessary and dubbed the next Edward Snowden, and it just adds to the political chaos of the moment. So we’re even given a protagonist or anti-hero depending on which way the intel spins on the next data dump.

Luckily we have movies like Alex Gibney’s meticulously researched and prescient documentary ZERO DAYS to sort through the mire. ZERO DAYS should have won Best Documentary, only this was Oscar’s Year Zero, where everything went haywire in Hollywood too, with the wrong winner “leaked,” sigh.

In the end, all we really want is for all government, even a shadow government, to mind its own business, except in the movies, where it’s appropriate to find outlandish scenarios and world-breaking intrigue.

But this is not a movie folks, it’s happening in America right now. Maybe it’s time to pull the cash plug on some of these alphabet agencies, scrub the black ops, and ask for receipts. ZERO DAYS was released by Magnolia Pictures back in July, and can be viewed via links here.

# # #

OsborneR17

Robert Osborne: Keeper of OSCAR’s Secrets Gone Now

by Quendrith Johnson, Los Angeles Correspondent

Today, a familiar face left the Hollywood landscape as TCM host Robert Osborne, 84, died on Monday Mar.6, 2017. But he was much more than just another talking head about movies and movie stars. Osborne came to Tinsel Town from “off the farm,” as he recounted when we spoke about the Oscars history in 2011. Instead of penning a typical tribute, here’s a real inside look back at a man whose work in show business lives on. Ironically, he leaves us in the most controversial year ever for the Academy Awards as LA LA LAND was erroneously announced as Best Picture, later corrected as MOONLIGHT. In Osborne’s estimation, the only other Oscar controversy happened in 1947, exactly 70 years ago. His opinion on the two controversies, as to which one was more or less impactful — now or 1947 — would have been priceless.

The following in-depth chat is from a FilmFestivals Jan. 17, 2011 interview, when Robert Osborne (1932-2017)  discussed the Oscars history and his own personal journey on the way to becoming one of the most recognized faces to cover the Academy Awards presentation and Hollywood lore on TCM and on the red carpet.

Enjoy this look back at a man, once an actor, who became a different kind of screen legend as the charismatic and lively host of Turner Classic Movies, among other contributions to the entertainment industry as an author and Hollywood insider.

ARCHIVE: When the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences award show premiered in 1928, the industry was barely 31 years old. Known as The Official Biographer of The Academy Awards, as well as the honorary red-carpet greeter for the Academy, the man who refers to himself as “coming to Hollywood off the farm” will unveil insider moments about these films as he unspools some of the greatest pictures ever made.

Recently he gave us a private glimpse into his personal life as well as his professional path leading from his 1965 start chronicling the movies up to his present life as a man inextricably tied to the Golden Statuette.

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: Since you are the official biographer of the Oscar, how is this year different leading up to the Oscars?

ROBERT OSBORNE: It is certainly a different Oscar game now than in the years when all the stars were well-known to the public. In 1951, they all knew who Humphrey Bogart was, who Marlon Brando was, and Montgomery Clift.

It made the Oscar race very interesting because you had all these stars competing against each other. Today we have a lot of films come out with a lot of different people we’ve never really known before, or seen before. So we’re being introduced to these films [and stars], and it’s a little hard to get people excited about the awards when they don’t know quite who the players are.

For us, with programming at TCM, it is wondeful because it gives us a chance to bring out all these films. Many of which won Oscars and are nominated in categories people are not aware of — so we have this wide mix of films (with history) people are not that aware of.

Not only the famous ones, like the LAWRENCE OF ARABIA’s and CASABLANCA’s, but films that are still worth seeing and fun to see.

For us, it is like a whole month full of desserts. Great movies to resee, if you haven’t seen them before. It also gives us a chance to show films we haven’t shown before.

This year we are showing the LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING, which won the Academy Award in 2003. And we go all the way back to WINGS, which was the first movie to win an Academy Award back in 1927.

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: Was that Clara Bow?

ROBERT OSBORNE: Yes, it was Clara Bow and Gary Cooper. We have a whole mix from FORREST GUMP to PRETTY WOMAN to KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN.

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: That’s great movie. What are your Top 5 Oscar all-time favorites? I know that’s tough.

ROBERT OSBORNE: My two favorites are movies that never won any Oscars, but were certainly nominated. SUNSET BOULEVARD, and A PLACE IN THE SUN.

But as far as (winning Best Picture), GONE WITH THE WIND would be in there, FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, AN AMERICAN IN PARIS — because it always makes me feel good and lively. GODFATHER would be in there. That’s four. And maybe LAWRENCE OF ARABIA.

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: Is it true that you first came to Hollywood as an actor, and that Lucille Ball was your mentor?

ROBERT OSBORNE: I was. When I first came out to California, it turned out to be a big break for me. She had 12 people under contract. She got to know us all over a two-year period. She knew I loved to write, and old films. At that point, there was really not a lot of interest in them.

She said “you know, I think we have enough actors. Why don’t you try writing about the business? I know you would be fine as an actor, but I don’t think it will make you happy.”

She said “I think writing and researching about old films will make you happy.”

I did listen to her because there was nothing to gain from giving me advice like that. I think you have to be careful who you get advice from because they may be giving you advice to help them in some way.

She encouraged me to write a book right away, because she said “if you write a book, and you are competing for a job,  a writing job, you’ll be ahead of other people.”
BallOsborne17

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: She was so pragmatic, you know?

ROBERT OSBORNE: Very smart, too. She said “If you’ve written a book. They will realize you have the dedication. A lot of people say they want to write a book, but few have the discipline to actually do it. If you do it, you will get the job.” She had great advice like that.

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: You’ve had so many powerful leading ladies in your life. I think Bette Davis wrote the foreword to your first Academy Award book in 1965?

ROBERT OSBORNE: I learned wonderful things from her. She became a great friend of mine. I went out to California at a great time, at time when people like Bette Davis, and certainly Lucy and others, were available.

They weren’t working as much as they used to. If I had come out 10 or 15 years earlier, they all would have been very busy working on their careers. So they had time to talk to somebody like me, off the farm and coming to Hollywood.

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: What’s your favorite Bette Davis story, a personal moment with her?

ROBERT OSBORNE: The biggest thing about Bette Davis was that she was nothing like the character Margo Channing in ALL ABOUT EVE.

She was a homemaker, a very New England lady, a great friend, a cook, she liked other women. So she wasn’t competitive with women.

She could very easily sit in a living-room with a lot of people and she didn’t have to be the center of attention. She liked going to parties, all that stuff.

It got complicated later when she got cancer and wasn’t feeling well. She got very difficult to be around then. But she was such a nice lady when she was in good health, one certainly put up with that. She was great to be around. She was very bright and had good common sense. I liked her very much.

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: So far you’ve also had close relationships with the children of stars, like Pia Lindstrom (Ingrid Bergman’s daughter), and I know you are friends with Liza Minnelli —

ROBERT OSBORNE: I knew their mothers too.

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: I’m going ask you a Judy Garland story then, may I?

ROBERT OSBORNE: There was a period of one week where there seemed to be a lot of parties going on. I somehow got on this list. At every party, Judy Garland was there, and would eventually move over to the piano and start singing.

I knew she was Judy Garland, and I liked her. But it never occurred to me that — 50 years later — she would be this icon that everyone would still be talking about.

But that night, I was trying to have a conversation in the other room. To me, at this one party, she was singing so loud, I thought “God, I wish she would be quiet.”

I’d heard her singing in the living room two or three times earlier that week.

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: You should have yelled “Cut!”

ROBERT OSBORNE: What was I thinking, it was Judy Garland. Now I think I should have been at her feet.

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: Did you tell Liza that, she probably thinks that is hilarious?

ROBERT OSBORNE: No. I’ve never told her that. Actually her mother is somebody I don’t talk to her a lot about because Liza has always been very careful to not in any way tread on her mother’s legacy — or not to have anyone perceive in any way that Liza is cashing in on her mother.

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: She’s phenomenally talented, from CABARET on, so she’s got the pipes anyway.

ROBERT OSBORNE: Oh yeah. She is. She’s great. I like her a lot. But again, with people like that, I am very sensitive that sometimes the only thing people talk to her about is Judy Garland.

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: With this year’s 31 Days of Oscars, do you also make reference to what also might be in contention, like Natalie Portman and BLACK SWAN, for example?

ROBERT OSBORNE: Not too much, because the nominations haven’t come out yet. What we are talking about here is Oscar’s history. People are coming to watch CASABLANCA, not to talk about Natalie Portman.

We’re really talking about the Academy Awards process, why a certain film won and some interesting stories about those films.

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: What are some of the unknown things, you will share?
ROquote17

ROBERT OSBORNE: You’d have think of a movie…

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: How about BONNIE & CLYDE for example? That year, HEAT OF THE NIGHT won. But we remember BONNIE & CLYDE as a start of a trend. Did that seem like an unusual year?

ROBERT OSBORNE: Yes. And. You have to put that in the context of its times. When BONNIE & CLYDE came out, in 1967/68, it was a very rude picture. That was a very violent film for that time. There were a lot of people who didn’t like that movie.

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: Pauline Kael (legendary film critic) saved that movie, single-handedly championed that film, rang the bell for BONNIE & CLYDE, didn’t she?

ROBERT OSBORNE: It does have to do with the times. IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT was a very well-made film, with a distinctive actor who had never won an Oscar before. It had great acting in it.

BONNIE AND CLYDE was way too violent to be seriously considered for that time. You still had people in the industry who were making films back in the 1940’s. It was quite a jump for people.

A movie like BONNIE & CLYDE is important because it helped the advance of the screen, the kind of subjects being told.

But it’s like today. There are movies being told that won’t even get an Oscar nomination because they are considered too far out. Someday people will look back and say “why didn’t that get more attention?”

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: What’s the biggest Oscar upset of all time, in your opinion? Biggest shock?

ROBERT OSBORNE: The biggest shock was probably 1947, when Loretta Young won for FARMER’S DAUGHTER.

All the awards that year had gone to Rosalind Russell. So much so, it was such a foregone conclusion, that RKO was giving that movie a big party for Rosalind Russell at Ciro’s.  They even had big banners up saying “RKO Salutes Ros.”

This was before television. Rosalind was actually on her feet adjusting her dress at the Shriner auditorium to walk down the aisle when they opened the envelope and read the name “Loretta Young”

She was the least likely. I think they took a poll and Rosalind Russell was the big favorite, then it was Susan Hayward in SMASH UP; Joan Crawford in POSSESSED.

RKO luckily had produced Loretta Young’s film — so they wiped Rosalind Russell’s name off the cake, took down the banners!

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: In the Modern-ish era, what about MY COUSIN VINNY, that Marisa Tomei was not supposed to win?

ROBERT OSBORNE: There was a rumor went around that Jack Palance, when he read off her name, said it, but it wasn’t the name of the winner.

But that couldn’t be true.

Because they knew, the minute the Academy Awards went on television — that this being live — some mischief could happen. Someone being funny or whatever.

From the time this has been on TV, since 1953, there are two members from the polling house, standing on each side of stage, who know who the winner is beforehand.

If there is a mistake, misread, or some such thing, these two men are instructed to cue the director, walk to the center of the stage, come to the podium and say “there’s been a mistake. The winner in that category is…”

They never embarrass the person coming down the aisle.

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: As far as the name “Oscar,” how it got the name, Bette Davis was always famously known for saying that she named it for her first husband? What’s the truth?

ROBERT OSBORNE: The Oscar is a warrior, a nude statue, standing on a reel of film. She always said it looked like her husband when he got out of the shower. That he had the rear-end of Oscar.

There was a woman named Margaret Herrick, a secretary —

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: Right, I know who she was, now there’s the Margaret Herrick Library at the Academy.OsborneR17

ROBERT OSBORNE: Well, she claimed she named it for a cousin of hers. A columnist claimed he named it “Oscar” after an old Vaudeville joke, because he had gotten tired as a writer, writing about “The Golden Statuette of the Academy.”

I’ve talked to Bette about that. Whoever started it, it was around 1935, when Bette Davis won for DANGEROUS. That’s when that word came into play.

It is strange about things, you can have an idea, and once you speak the idea, somehow it gets out in the air and someone can catch it.

QUENDRITH JOHNSON: You are so right!

ROBERT OSBORNE: It’s like story ideas, never speak of it, because someone is liable to get it.

[Visualizations courtesy of www.graphiq.com.]

# # #

THE LAST WORD Poster_rgb

When Life Imitates Tart: Shirley MacLaine & Amanda Seyfried Go At It In THE LAST WORD

by Quendrith Johnson, Los Angeles Correspondent

Never start a headline with a bad pun, and never write your own obit might be two unwritten rules of journalism, but in new movie THE LAST WORD, starring Shirley MacLaine and Amanda Seyfried, a lot of rules are broken so let’s skip the logline and go straight to the press conference at The Four Seasons Hotel in Beverly Hills. The timing is key here because this takes place Friday, Mar. 3, in the wake of MacLaine’s brother Warren Beatty’s epic wrong-picture Oscar controversy and the shock death of Bill Paxton, 61, who was Seyfried’s friend and co-star on the HBO series “Big Love.”

Last_Word_JZ_3642.CR2

Selfie from THE LAST WORD cast.

MacLaine, who plays Harriet Lauler a bitter ad exec who hires Amanda Seyfried’s character to pen a loving tribute before she dies, is seated beside Seyfried, with director Mark Pellington (Arlington Road), newcomer Ann’Jewel Lee, 10, and co-star Thomas Sadoski known for the CBS TV series “Life in Pieces.” To further up the stakes, Seyfried and Sadoski met on the set of this film, and are set to become parents shortly. Plus, Amanda has brought her dog Finn to the show, which makes this event even more like a surreal Hollywood family gathering.

Every single journalist in the room has worked up a strategy for addressing the 800 pound story lead in the room. Without being so indelicate as to outright ask about either the Oscars or Paxton without ruffling the stars or overshadowing THE LAST WORD’s release, the questions veer toward the inevitable.

LastWord_BD_1070.CR2

MacLaine shoots down all comers. “That’s Warren and Jimmy Kimmel’s problem. It was horrific,” she says of the Oscar misidentified Best Picture fracas. “I don’t want to talk about it.” Her firm stance here quashed any other talk of current events in Hollywood. And right there, while she sorts out the room, you see the character she plays in THE LAST WORD in sharp relief. You don’t mess with a legend, and you’re not going to slip a fast one by Shirley MacLaine, who’s a master at shutting down nonsense. The best part is she also steamrolls the “who was your mentor,” and the “Ms. MacLaine you’re a legend” crap too.

“Joan Crawford. She was the first person to give me advice (in Hollywood). I didn’t listen to a word she said.” MacLaine smiles as she says it.

When you get up the courage to ask your not-political-political question, with a Marlon Brando lead-in from one of her memoirs about how Brando actually got her into politics over a death penalty case while she was frying an egg, as the story goes, MacLaine dodges that bullet too.

“You know I was named for Shirley Temple, a Republican? Well, I have to play both sides of the aisle.” The way she turns her gaze directly into your subtext after that moot zinger is a private moment, comical, deft.

Amanda Seyfried, Mark Pellington, and the cast turn their chins in her direction. You can’t help it. This is a woman who has survived Billy Wilder in THE APARTMENT, Hitchcock in THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY, and is an Oscar winner, six-time Academy Award nominee, as well as a Cecil B. DeMille Golden Globe Lifetime Achievement honoree. Plus she has privately endured the recent deaths of Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds, after playing Reynolds’ fictional mother to Fisher’s fictional daughter in POSTCARDS FROM THE EDGE. Meryl Streep played Carrie Fisher’s fictional account of herself as Debbie Reynolds’ daughter. The four of them were very close during the filming, now 50 percent of them are gone.ShirlMerylDbCarrieHere’s where, even in this swank Beverly Hills suite years away from the Golden Age of Hollywood that she bridges, Shirley MacLaine melds with THE LAST WORD character Harriet Lauler. As in Madison Avenue and Show Biz, both of them had to break down doors while protecting their inner selves in a world where women were either glamorized, marginalized or downright obstructed from their goals.

Later, when it’s revealed that screenwriter Stuart Ross Fink wrote the script for THE LAST WORD specifically for Shirley MacLaine, about a hard-driving ad exec (Harriet Lauler) turned surrogate mother for Amanda Seyfried’s character (Anne Sherman), this new movie becomes almost poetic and reverential.

In the opening scenes, real-life images from MacLaine’s life slip across the screen and through time in an appreciation of a woman whose career has spanned more than 70 years as an actor, performer, dancer, show pony, and hoofer. “Shirley and I had a 20-minute discussion on the psychology of pajama versus a robe,” Fink explained. “It was at that point I realized Harriet was no longer mine. She had become Shirley’s.”

“There’s no other actress who can portray a combination of bitchiness, vulnerability, humor, and empathy like Shirley.”

LastWord_BD_2293.CR2

Fink, who brought the project to director Mark Pellington (Arlington Road), is also an ad man, a creative director who worked for Fortune 100 companies. Clearly he built the story around his experience. Harriet Lauler is a once-Teflon advertising veteran in the movie. Now a broken woman, she was kicked out of a company she founded, that still bears her initials in the logo, only to become an aging control freak in a secluded life headed for the bitter end. Instead of accepting her fate as a dethroned pitch maven, MacLaine’s character decides to stage manage her exit, beginning with hiring an exceptional obituary writer to cement her refurbished reputation after she dies.

LastWord_KM_356.CR2

Nobody wants to write obits, especially not for a living or the living.

Amanda Seyfried plays the beleaguered essayist with a day job writing obits who is flung into orbit around Lauler’s ego as she re-brands herself for the afterlife. “I adore Amanda,” MacLaine said. “And Harriet in her way adores Anne, but her biggest problem has always been with people who don’t live up to their potential.”

When you realize this is a first movie for Fink, you begin to understand the complexity of molding the material to MacLaine. And that’s what makes this movie the proverbial love letter to MacLaine, now 82, while also carving out a poignant narrative about the inevitable displacement of productive people as they age. “Older people are invisible,” MacLaine will say at the press conference, “that’s what I wanted to use this movie for, to make older people less invisible.”

What makes the movie raw and strange is the interplay between Seyfried, MacLaine and her on-screen daughter played by a disapproving neurologist Anne Heche in one tiny scene, coupled with long sequences where Seyfried and MacLaine go through their personal pitched battles in the presence of new comer Ann’Jewel Lee, a 10-year-old who takes no prisoners.

Last_Word_JZ_4800.CR2

Heche slays as a bad daughter.

At the press conference, after the glittering sheen of star power wanes and Ann’Jewel Lee waits to leave, she wants you to know about “the cursing,” the f-word her character uses. “I don’t say that in real life,” she notes. “But it was just a movie. My mother said it was okay because it’s just a movie.” Just a decade in years and she’s got the wisdom to know the difference between what’s on the screen to make a point, and who she is as a young actor. Mark Pellington adds that she ad libbed a crucial scene with MacLaine, where MacLaine asks “what do you want to be” open-ended. Lee says “ya gotta be something.”THE LAST WORD Poster_rgbIn a surreal LA moment, after leaving the press conference and meeting MacLaine, who is so frighteningly gracious and disarmingly elegant in real life, Ari Shapiro’s NPR interview with the screen star for THE LAST WORD comes on the car radio. She’s parrying back and forth, doing her Harriet Lauler impression, “I know you’re looking for a headline, Babe,” she quips. And of course, Shirley MacLaine gets the actual last word.

Make the time to see her go toe-to-toe with Amanda Seyfried in this movie, because it’s really a moment for women, young and old, and the families we build when husbands, partners, boyfriends, children, and even a high-power career aren’t enough.

THE LAST WORD from Bleeker Street and Myriad Pictures, is directed by Mark Pellington, and stars Shirley MacLaine, Amanda Seyfriend, Anne Heche, Ann’Jewel Lee, Philip Baker Hall, Thomas Sadoski, and Tom Everett Scott. See their website for venues and showtimes for the release run, which opened Mar. 3, in a nationwide roll-out.

Social Tags:
#TheLastWord
#BleeckerSt
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/BleeckerStFilms
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/BleeckerStFilms
(handle: @BleeckerStFilms)
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/BleeckerStFilms
(handle: @BleeckerStFilms)
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/BleeckerStFilms

[Also see more great releases from www.BleeckerStreetMedia.com.]

# # #

JeffWinsSB17

That’s Not Just Our Opinion, Man: Jeff Bridges Aced American Riviera Award Night

by Quendrith Johnson, Los Angeles Correspondent

When the Lebowski Fest comes to Los Angeles on March 3, you’ll see why Jeff Bridges is so linked to The Dude from that movie, but last night for the American Riviera Award in Santa Barbara, folks got to see for themselves. At the Arlington Theater, moderated by The Hollywood Reporter’s Scott Feinberg, it was practically a Love-In. JeffScottThe honoree showed up with his wife of 40 years, “my sweetheart” Susan Geston, and his two children. HELL OR HIGH WATER producer Julie Yorn attended with actor Gil Birmingham from their film, who also presented Jeff with the award.

Feinberg, who is a pro at moderating star events like this, opened with “The Dude” questions which segued into Bridges admitting  “what kid wants to do what their parents do?” In alluding to father Lloyd Bridges, the son of this acting dynasty (that includes brother Beau), revealed that early success with an Oscar nod for Peter Bogdanovich’s game-changer movie THE LAST PICTURE SHOW did not assuage his personal doubts about being in the profession.

He said the issues came from “caring how you’re perceived.” But finally he came to the revelation that “the feeling of being scared never goes away, and that it’s all about changing your relationship with that feeling.”
In the sit-down with Feinberg, the Oscar winner also revealed that it was in 1975’s RANCHO DELUXE that future-wife Susan Geston rejected his early advances, but that he persisted and later got her to dance with him at her then boyfriend’s concert. Perfect move for The Dude, and four decades later, it’s still very much on.JeffWife17
Hollywood Reporter’s star moderator then waded into legendary film history territory on the topic of case-study Hollywood box office bomb, HEAVEN’S GATE. This line of questioning is more than timely, considering Bridges’ main female co-star in that picture is none other than fellow Oscar nominee for 2017, Isabelle Huppert. Huppert was also honored this year in Santa Barbara. So this year has capped a lot of full circles in the life of both actors, and certainly in their star-crossed paths in Award Season.

When Michael Cimino’s highly touted GATE opened to crickets at the box office, both critically and financially, Top 10 Lists began to sprout up everywhere for the next several decades about what went wrong with the production. Den of Geek, a fan site for excruciatingly pithy lists and sublists, has the best round-up to this day (see link below). The bullet points include “Cimino made everybody wait for the clouds to roll by,” and “The Cast Spent Six Weeks Learning How To Roller Skate.” Jeff Bridges is seen losing his lunch while roller skating, part of this storied film. Bridges recalled that the day after it opened, when reviewers flambé prose scorched the film down to its credits, his most memorable critic reaction was: “If you shave [director Michael] Cimino’s head, you would find three sixes.”
Then it was back to THE BIG LEBOWSKI, which was panned early to low box office in the US. Bridges related that it had to hit in Europe before it became today’s beloved cult hit. And of course, no surprise, Jeff Bridges has a favorite line too: “well that’s just, your opinion, man.”JeffJohnLBemem17

From there is was talk about his Oscar winning turn in CRAZY HEART, how he passed on the script initially because “the script was pretty good, but there was no music.” Luckily, doing a proverbial “film about music” was a “dream” for him. “When it’s in the dream state, you’re kinda safe, but when you try to really do it, there’s that chance of failure.” Producer T Bone Burnett, his longtime fellow musician and friend, gave him the script a second time, and said “I’ll do it if you do it.”

Then he delved into the remake of John Wayne classic “True Grit.” If it hadn’t been for the Coen Bros, also directors of Lebowski, and their unique twist on that script, Jeff might not have done it.

Finally the conversation caught up to Award Season 2017, his nominated performance in HELL OR HIGH WATER, which was originally titled “Comancheria” when it opened at the Cannes Film Festival last year. JeffScott17With a nod to his presenter of the evening, Gil Birmingham, Bridges confided that they bonded so well because Gil also is passionate about music. So they spent a fair amount of time trading guitar licks during the filming. On a heavy note, Jeff saluted Texas Ranger Joaquin Jackson, now deceased, who was his consultant on HELL OR HIGH WATER.

JeffGilIn closing, and on a high note for the evening, Jeff Bridges shared his 30 year commitment to feeding hungry children as a personal mission, and said, in Dude-like fashion, “We’re all in this together,” man.

For more information about HELL OR HIGH WATER, how to view it, see the Oscar-nominated film’s official website. Jeff Bridges Diehard Dude fans can find more about the Lebowski Fest from this link. (Editor’s Note: Den of Geek priceless Heaven’s Gate list is here, ps.)

More about SBIFF, which hands out the American Riviera Award among other tributes, can be found at sbiff.org.

The American Riviera Award was established to recognize actors who have made a significant contribution to American Cinema. Bridges will join a prestigious group of past recipients, including last year’s honorees Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, and Mark Ruffalo (2016), Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke (2015), Robert Redford (2014), Quentin Tarantino (2013) and Martin Scorsese (2012), Annette Bening (2011), Sandra Bullock (2010), Mickey Rourke (2009), Tommy Lee Jones (2008), Forrest Whitaker (2007), Philip Seymour Hoffman (2006), Kevin Bacon (2005) and Diane Lane (2004).

# # #

PaulnMel17

SPY Director Paul Feig Jumps In to Helm AFI’s Directing Workshop for Women

LOS ANGELES, CA: If you haven’t had enough of Melissa McCarthy’s spoof as White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, you can study with Paul Feig, the director who pulled some amazing performances out of the BRIDESMAIDS’s star. Paul Feig is responsible for that priceless McCarthy CIA training video in his movie SPY, and now Feig will take on The AFI Conservatory Directing Workshop for Women (DWW).

This is AFI’s filmmaker training program designed to increase the number of women working as directors and show-runners in film and television.

Paul Feig, also a four-time Emmy® nominee for TV’s THE OFFICE and GHOSTBUSTERS rebooter, will embark on a year of mentorship, collaboration and creation to make a short film or series — all in preparation for professional success in narrative directing for the participants in 2018. (Yes, we think even Jack Nicholson’s daughter Lorraine is one of his upcoming pupils.)

“To meet with this amazingly impassioned group of diverse, talented filmmakers is a dream come true,” said Feig. “I salute the AFI for their strong support of female storytellers. We need their voices more than ever.” The DWW Class of 2018 filmmakers are: Beth de Araújo, Georgia Fu, Milena Govich, Tiffany Johnson, Katrelle Kindred, Nancy Mejía, Gandja Monteiro and Lorraine Nicholson. Full bios are available at AFI’s website.

The 2017 DWW Showcase for this year’s graduating class of participants, who began their work in the program last year, will take place on April 18, 2017, at the DGA Theater in Los Angeles.

A serious champion of female creators through his film and television work, as well as through his production company Feigco Entertainment, Paul fielded questions from the incoming DWW participants in an intimate meet-and-greet on Friday, February 3, on campus. And he probably is having a LOL at McCarthy’s spicier send-up of Trump’s press rep, just a guess. Because comedy works when nothing else lands a glove, ps.

And Here’s Melissa McCarthy In that SNL Footage… Because, Wow!

The 411 on  AFI Conservatory Directing Workshop for Women

Founded in 1974, the AFI Conservatory Directing Workshop for Women is a hands-on training program committed to increasing the number of women working professionally in screen directing. The innovative and tuition-free workshop is open to women with three years or more of professional experience in the arts, providing them an immersive opportunity to learn by doing — with each participant required to complete a short film or series by the end of the program. 

DWW participants have gone on to great success, including Pippa Bianco (AFI DWW, Class of 2015), Cannes Cinéfondation Prize winner for her DWW short SHARE; Lesli Linka Glatter (AFI DWW, Class of 1983), Emmy®-winning producer/director of HOMELAND; Sian Heder (AFI DWW, Class of 2006), director of Netflix’s TALLULAH, based on her DWW short MOTHER; and Sarah Gertrude Shapiro (AFI DWW, Class of 2013), co-creator of UNREAL.PaulnMel17

The AFI Conservatory Directing Workshop for Women receives generous support from Twentieth Century Fox, Lifetime’s Broad Focus, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, Google, Comcast/NBCUniversal, the Will & Jada Smith Family Foundation, 20th Century Fox, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences, Indiegogo, Linda Hope, the Jean Picker Firstenberg Endowment, The Nancy Malone Endowment provided by The Bob and Dolores Hope Charitable Foundation and the Estate of Nancy Malone, and the many other individual supporters committed to providing opportunities for women in the media arts.  For more information visit: AFI.com/DWW. Or apply here directly, directors.

SCREENMANCER is a gathering place for people who make movies, fans of Melissa McCarthy & Paul Feig, also waiting for that Women’s Strike, “Day Without A Woman,” we’ve heard about to support equal pay.

# # #

LALA1sht16

No Shut Up And Dance Here, Ryan Gosling & Emma Stone Win Outstanding Performers

by Quendrith Johnson, Los Angeles Correspondent

Something Emma Stone says in an off-hand way when she and Ryan Gosling pick up the Outstanding Performers of the Year from Santa Barbara International Film Festival (SBIFF) on Friday night really sticks. Seated beside Gosling, her co-star and co-nominee for the acting Oscars in LA LA LAND, Stone plays with the 20’s fringe on her dress, then offers this insight: “movies make us feel less alone, I guess, that’s what they did for me.”RyanEmma17 In that small statement, you can see her whole career encapsulated. How she watched Steve Martin’s THE JERK from 1979. “I love The Jerk. It’s my dad’s favorite movie.” How she built her own world of characters. “We laughed at that movie over and over. EmmalaughsIt was a very important bonding moment. Should I be on the couch?” Ryan Gosling, who is known for not being flashy about his secret good-guy deeds like privately playing music for children in hospitals, looks at Stone with a rapt expression. But when asked about his own experiences growing up to be an actor, he deflects it with “at 15, I was all about the scratch. Making the paper.” “And he’s still like that,” Stone quips, “all about the money.”

Their chemistry is fun to watch. Emma adds that her “favorite characters have a wide-eyed nature to them.” “As a viewer I’m drawn to comedy with a hopefulness to it. It’s about being uplifted in a way by film. That’s what comedy did for me. I escaped into those characters — I can’t brush them off as just funny. Gilda Radner, John Candy, Bill Murray… Shirley MacLaine shaped me,” Ryan’s co-star from CRAZY, STUPID, LOVE shares.RyanEmmaCouch

“The films that I love the most have a combination of both – someone that can break your heart and make you laugh, and a story that can break your heart and make you laugh, at the same time.”RyanLaughs

Gosling throws a curveball in the conversation, but he’s actually serious and unapologetic. “It’s crazy that Eddie Murphy can sit at a table and play nine characters and that’s not rewarded.”

This affirmation of comedy’s power comes after he says, “as a comedian you kind of start by making your Mom laugh. Right?”

Gosling, who got his start out of Canada as a Disney Channel song and dance import before crossing over into mainstream films, reveals his far-flung odds for making it in Hollywood. “My mom had a membership to the library movie thing, because they were free. I saw Abbott and Costello, any duo film, Martin and Lewis and Danny Kaye, all of them.” He recalls that he liked teams because the action was shared and it felt real. “I’d like to do that with Emma or Steve Carell [reteam]. Anytime you can do that, it’s fun.”

He will call Emma, “Emsies” to prod her.

“Emsies? I’ve never called him Rysies,” she retorts. “Ryan can be infuriating to work with, I’m kidding.”

A flash of paparazzi lights whizz across Ryan and Emma at various moments during the evening.

“Every time I change positions, these guys take a million pictures,” Ryan notes.

And then it’s back to LA LA LAND, the realities of getting a musical made, including three months of jazz piano lessons for Ryan, two hours, almost every day. Director Damien Chazelle, already famous for Oscar-winner WHIPLASH, is on hand. Ryan singles him out.RyanEmmaDamien

“Damien, can I tell the story about how we first met?” After a wary nod, Gosling lets it slip.

“When I first met Damien, we first met at a restaurant. I tapped him on the shoulder, and he gave me this look like motherf@#%. ‘Who’s this guy to put their hands on me?’ I thought, he’s got a fight in him, that I respect, and I thought this could come in  handy later.”

On a serious note, the DRIVE actor says “I think he remembers the moment he fell in love with cinema. Damien can make you feel that.”

On Gene Kelly as an influence, Gosling nails his importance. “I liked the masculinity about him, he could dance and kick your ass. Tough and graceful. A balance.”

It wasn’t until recently in his career Gosling found out Gene Kelly was involved in every facet of show business. “I didn’t know he wasn’t just a dancer, he was a choreographer, producer, and more.” Both actors actually visited the home of Gene Kelly’s widow before making LA LA LAND. “She let us look at his archive, sort of gave us her blessing.”DamienEmma16

Damien Chazelle takes over, like a true director who has so far made the most inventive hits to come out of Hollywood in a long time. The story he tells is as awesome as the dreamer plot in LA LA LAND, now nominated for a record 14 Oscars. When he first had the idea for the musical, he told people “our dream is Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone. People said ‘yeah good luck with that.’ I guess no one is more shocked than I that they agreed to do it. That they poured so much into these roles. That Ryan learned jazz piano in three months to become a virtuoso. Emma did so much.” The movie is “effervescent and heart breaking and again they make it seem effortless. I still pinch myself that any of it happened. Really the reason I wanted you in the movie is because I think you are two of the best performers working right now.”RyanEmmaTouche

LA LA LAND will take its place in movie history at the Oscars on Sunday, Feb. 26, but it’s already taken so many awards that Ryan Gosling says “I thought making it was enough, then the next thing happened, and that was enough. All the awards are just icing on the cake.”

For more information about Santa Barbara International Film Festival, which runs through Feb. 11, visit sbiff.org.

# # #

LALA1sht16

LOL LOL Land: Hidden Gems Show #OscarSoRight, Tough Matchups & How Noms React

by Quendrith Johnson, Los Angeles Correspondent

When the Oscars streamed the announcements for the first time in their history this morning, anybody in the world got a glimpse at who AMPAS deemed Oscar-worthy for the 89th Academy Awards. The net result? You get emails from everybody and your mother about how right, or wrong your predictions were — maybe not the result the Academy expected, but announcing online is here to stay.

Meanwhile, what a line-up, and let’s create the hashtag #OscarSoRight, right now. DamienEmma16 That eliminates the need for hand-wringing over the past. To those who cry foul at the diverse mix of nominees this year? One question? Have you seen the movies?  Because LA LA Land with a record-smashing 14 nominations for a musical, matching TITANIC (1997) and Bette Davis’ insider anthem ALL ABOUT EVE (1950), is a gem, a pure unpolished gem. And HIDDEN FIGURES, FENCES, LION? Absolute movie risks that paid off. (Now we can all stop bashing Nicole Kidman (LION) for her political nod to Trump, okay? She’s an actor, not a politician.)

So here are the magic numbers that make this 89th Oscars tough to predict. For HIDDEN FIGURES, Octavia Spencer sits opposite Viola Davis for FENCES in the Best Supporting Actress category.

If this isn’t heart-stopping, you haven’t seen both movies. Viola Davis is magnificent in the August Wilson adaptation, you can see that in the trailer, frankly. Octavia Spencer is magnificent for different reasons in HIDDEN FIGURES, powerful even when she holds up a Fortran book and monologues about computer programming being the future. Sigh. IBMOct17
You want both to win, you want a tie. But when was the last time the Academy gave a tie for Best Supporting Actress or any award? Back in 1932, Frederick March and Wallace Beery, and then on April 14, 1969, Best Actress with allegedly the same number (3,030) of votes for Katharine Hepburn and Barbra Streisand. You don’t have to be a Hollywood insider to guess The Great Kate might have had a thumb on the scale. But this is 2017, and the number of members combined with the odds for a tie are close to impossible.

LA LA LAND, in order to beat TITANIC in actual wins, has to pull off all the major categories: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, but also pull off some unusual wins. Right now this movie is nominated twice in the Best Song category, and this may make the difference in unseating the “I’m The King of The World” filmmaker James Cameron for TITANIC.

On March 23, 1998, James Cameron’s sunk-ship epic won 11 Academy Awards. LALA1sht16In the Billy Crystal-hosted ceremony, that’s when Cameron made the “King of the World” proclamation mocked around the town. In all fairness, he wasn’t wrong, and backed it up with all-time BO headbanger AVATAR.

So what happens next? Stay tuned, folks. LA LA LAND is poised to tip the scales. Now imagine for a moment, just a hypothetical, that HIDDEN FIGURES wins Best Picture. The math changes quite a bit.

Is it irresponsible to pose what-ifs? Well, this is what makes Oscar and Award Season exciting. And the major stars have all made some kind of statement to the press, to fans around the globe, and of course to their publicists first. What do those statements look like hot off the wires?

Well, you saw it first here, so take a look at these reactions. Michael Shannon is one of the best actors of his generation, bar none.  Ruth Negga is a newcomer, but turned in a performance by a studied veteran in LOVING.

RUTH NEGGA – “LOVING” (Focus Features) – Nominee, Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role – Academy Awards 

“I am truly humbled by the news this morning, and I thank the Academy for this recognition, which I share with my co-collaborators Jeff Nichols and Joel Edgerton. It has been such an honor to have been given the opportunity to tell the incredible story of Richard and Mildred Loving, who serve as an inspiration that ordinary people can do extraordinary things. The Lovings fought quietly yet tirelessly, and changed the course of American legal history. Today, to be among such extraordinary women – my fellow nominees, my peers with films this year, and the legendary performers whose work of years past has long inspired me…this means a great deal to me.” – Ruth Negga, Academy Award nominee for Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role (LOVING)

RuthNegga17

MICHAEL SHANNON – “NOCTURNAL ANIMALS” (Focus Features) – Nominee, Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role – Academy Awards

“I am thrilled! Loved making this film. I would work with Tom Ford anytime, anywhere. Jake Gyllenhaal and Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Karl Glusman made it easy for me. Nice to get some good news in the midst of all the carnage, so to speak.” – Michael Shannon, Academy Award nominee for Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role (NOCTURNAL ANIMALS)ShannonNA17

In the Animated category, fine film KUBO AND THE TWO STRINGS will be “the first time an animated film has been nominated in the visual effects category since THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS in 1994,” according to their reps.

“KUBO AND THE TWO STRINGS” (Focus Features) – Nominee, Best Animated Feature Film – Academy Awards

Travis Knight: “I’m over the moon!  An Academy Award nomination is an extraordinary and cherished gift.  Two nominations is more than anyone could hope for.  Every filmmaker dreams of a moment like this.  But the truth is, I already lived my dream by making this film. Movies have always given me great joy. They enriched my life.  They inspired me to dream.  That’s the kind of film our team at LAIKA sought to make with KUBO AND THE TWO STRINGS.  A film is a slice of a hundred souls.  In this case many more.  An incredible, immense community of artists gave ceaselessly and selflessly to breathe life into this story.  I’m so thankful for their talents and efforts and so proud of what we’ve done together.  I’m profoundly grateful to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, who somehow saw fit to include us among the finest storytellers in film.  It is a tremendous honor to stand alongside them.”

– Travis Knight, Academy Award nominee as director and producer of KUBO AND THE TWO STRINGS, Best Animated Feature Film Kubo17

STEVE EMERSON, OLIVER JONES, BRIAN MCLEAN & BRAD SCHIFF – “KUBO AND THE TWO STRINGS” (Focus Features) – Nominees, Achievement in Visual Effects – Academy Awards 

“As much as Kubo and the Two Strings is an homage to Japanese culture and to woodblock artists including Kiyoshi Saito, it is also a tribute to special effects pioneers Ray Harryhausen, Willis O’Brien, Jim Danforth, and the many innovative FX artists who tell stories using in-camera effects, puppets, and human hands. We’re thrilled for the artists at LAIKA who put years into realizing Kubo. For all of us at the studio, being recognized alongside such distinguished and talented members of the VFX community is truly an honor.”

– Steve Emerson, Oliver Jones, Brian McLean & Brad Schiff, Academy Award nominees for Achievement in Visual Effects (KUBO AND THE TWO STRINGS)

The 89th Academy Award presentation will be broadcast live on Sunday, Feb. 26, 2017, and we’ve got you covered. In the meantime, view all the nominees (and future winners) at the Oscars.Oscars2017

SCREENMANCER is a gathering place for people who make movies and Oscar predictions.

# # #

20C1sht17

A24 & 20TH CENTURY WOMEN Won’t Keep The Party Polite, So See Their Film

by Quendrith Johnson, Los Angeles Correspondent

Okay, so that headline lyric is actually from Frank Sinatra about Luck being a Lady, and frankly that’s just one misconception about women that the movie 20TH CENTURY WOMEN hopes to debunk. That and every notion of gender from conception to girl power to the male gaze to reproduction. AnnetteB17This movie is not a “chick flick,” shall we say, but it is a flick about chicks/women/girls, and every other representation of — stealing from the novelist Raymond Carver here – what we think about when we think about Women. Plus there’s skateboarding in it, a huge nostalgic bonus. Yeah, but what’s the movie about?

Here’s the official rundown: “With 20th Century Women, acclaimed filmmaker Mike Mills (the Academy Award® winner for Beginners) brings us a multilayered, funny, heart-stirring celebration of the complexities of women, family, time, and the connections we search for our whole lives. Set in Santa Barbara, the film follows Dorothea Fields (Annette Bening), a determined single mother in her mid-50s who is raising her adolescent son, Jamie (newcomer Lucas Jade Zumann, in a breakout performance) at a moment brimming with cultural change and rebellion. Dorothea enlists the help of two younger women in Jamie’s upbringing: Abbie (Greta Gerwig), a free-spirited punk artist living as a boarder in the Fields’ home; and Julie (Elle Fanning), a savvy and provocative teenage neighbor. 20th Century Women is a poignant love letter to the people who raise us—and the times that form us—as this makeshift family forges fragile connections that will mystify and inspire them through their lives. GretaG17As if this film itself is not enough of a power statement for the cause, A24 has just announced it will make a donation to Planned Parenthood to honor every single person who sees the film this weekend, men and women. Meanwhile, filmmaker Mike Mills has just unveiled a clip of Greta Gerwig, Elle Fanning, and Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, being interviewed about what matters. Besides kicking asses and taking names, to use the ‘parlance of our time,’ Planned Parenthood is still recovering from brand bashing during the election. So, watch the clip below, and remember – you can either plan your parenthood or all hell breaks loose.

Here’s A24’s official word on this featurette:

[Writer/director Mike Mills, and stars Greta Gerwig and Elle Fanning, reflect on those who raise us and the times that shape us in latest video ‘Modern Women’, featuring an exclusive interview with Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards. Planned Parenthood consulted on the film and Planned Parenthood California Central Coast shared information and resources about Planned Parenthood health centers in the ’70s. Planned Parenthood also plays a crucial part in the lives of two of the main characters in the film.]

Of his fierce support of the project, writer/director Mike Mills says, “The people at Planned Parenthood were so helpful to me with the writing and pre-production of 20th Century Women. They connected me with people who worked in PP offices in the ’70s to make sure every aspect of my scenes was correct, from the language counselors used to the very particular decor and dress of the people in those offices, to the overarching philosophy and attitude of the women who worked there. It was very important to me that we capture this moment in women’s reproductive rights accurately and they were so generous and helpful to me.”20C1sht17

Mike Mills’ Golden-Globe® nominated 20TH CENTURY WOMEN opened 12/25/2016, and is showing now in a run up to the Oscar® ceremony, to broadcast live on Sunday, Feb. 26. The film stars Annette Bening, Elle Fanning, Greta Gerwig, Lucas Jade Zumann, and Billy Crudup. Mike Mills is the writer director. Find out how to see it here and A24 has some other awesome projects on their website.

SCREENMANCER is a gathering place for people who make movies and plan to reproduce.

# # #