Ever the astute observer, both of movies and of real life, Roger Ebert posted on his shiny new blog today a great post wondering what Hillary and Bill: The Movie might look like. Ebert talks about great political movies of the past, especially noting two of my own faves, Barry Levinson's Wag the Dog and Warren Beatty's fantastic Bulworth (two of the best political movies ever made). He ponders what a movie -- a narrative, not a documentary -- following the private moments of Hillary and Bill Clinton, during the last days of this seemingly endless primary campaign, might look like. Ebert writes:

Yet there must have been private moments of despair. The two realists, as able as anyone to read the trends, must have spoken privately about their shrinking options. And on Tuesday night, as Hillary's double-digit lead in Indiana dwindled to very small single digits, there must have come a time when one of them said, "We've lost this thing."

What were those moments like? What kept them going between themselves? Did they encourage one another, or was there an unspoken pact not to voice the unspeakable? Was there blame when Bill had one of his unwise moments? Did their shared past, of success and scandal, enter into it, or were they absorbed in this moment?

In answering those questions, there you would find the movie.

.

Now that you know what Josh Brolin's George W. Bush will look like, you should know that you'll get to see him in action real soon -- probably sooner than you thought. The ever-courageous Lionsgate has picked up Oliver Stone's W, and plans to release it on October 17th. Of this year. That's 2008. Before the election. Notably, the movie hasn't even started shooting yet -- it goes into production on May 12th in Louisiana.

I never really thought the film would fail to find distribution, though early buzz on the screenplay has been fairly toxic. I did think there was going to be a race between when W would be finished and when Dubya would be finished -- that is, out of office. But apparently Stone is not messing around and plans to deliver the film in a few months, with Lionsgate hoping to capitalize on the furor that will surround the election.

Jeez -- maybe it's because I read too many blogs (or because I live in Pennsylvania, suddenly a battleground state), but it's barely May and I'm already tired of the election. Is W really how people will want to spend their leisure time in late October? I can't imagine, but I respect the folks at Lionsgate enough to think they know what they're doing. Incidentally: Dick Cheney remains uncast. Any suggestions?

I think it's kind of funny that in Eugene's post about T4's start date, he says: "barring some Terry Gilliam-scale disaster." I wonder if the disaster could be a long and arduous SAG strike? The New Zealand Herald (Reuters) pointed out today that the production is moving on despite the distinct possibility that the movie industry could get hit with another strike very soon.

Right now, the SAG contract expires on June 30, which could very easily become the start of another strike. (Union leaders say they hope to reach an agreement, and of course they do -- but that doesn't mean they'll get one.) Nevertheless, Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins has started filming in New Mexico this week, throwing caution to the wind.

But this doesn't mean they'll speed through it. A source told Reuters there is no intention to finish production by June 30, and that legal precautions have been taken in case the strike happens. But still -- stopping for an undisclosed period of time right in the middle of production is very far from ideal.

It seems a bit cocky to me, to go forward now rather than waiting, but what do you think?

Should T4 be moving full steam ahead regardless of the strike? Or, is this just a careless or cocky move?

With every passing story I read about border control or security insanity, I'm beginning to think that once you have any responsibility for your country's safety, you go insane. Everyday objects become suspect (like a friend harassed in the US for having a couple pictures of an ex amongst the pics he was traveling with), and sometimes, objects are given extraordinary value. I was once charged a couple hundred dollars in Canadian tariffs for a Buffy DVD that was sent to me as a gift, and had to prove that the box set wasn't worth their astronomical estimated cost. But I guess I can consider myself lucky that "Buffy" didn't make the border powers that be think the discs were porn.

Canoe reports that a new Canadian film from John N. Smith (Dangerous Minds) was held at the border because of its name: Love and Savagery. The romantic drama headed to Ireland last month to shoot some scenes, and then the footage was shipped to Montreal for processing, where it was stopped by the border patrol. Smith says: "There was a big kerfuffle and they suspected us of being involved in the pornography trade. They were insisting they were going to send it off to the RCMP lab to develop it to see if we were engaged in pornography." This created a bit of a panic as they worried about the potential damage RCMP processing would have on the footage.

Last month, James Caan quit David O'Russell's Nailed because the two had a blow up over a cookie. Russell said he should choke and cough on this cookie at the same time, while Caan said it wasn't possible. I don't see why Russell wouldn't just show him, if he was convinced it was possible. Then again, the director isn't the most rational and level-headed man out there. Nevertheless, production moves on with a new man -- The Hollywood Reporter posts that James Brolin has replaced Caan in the role, and that Kirstie Alley and Olivia Crocicchia have also signed on.

As we know, Jessica Biel is playing a woman who gets accidentally shot in the head by a clumsy worker with a nail gun. The nail hits her noggin in such a way that she begins to have wild sexual urges. But she's uninsured, so she goes on "a crusade to Washington to fight for the rights of the bizarrely injured." The naughty congressman Jake Gyllenhaal, meanwhile, takes advantage of her urges.

So we've got Brolin now as the speaker of the house who chokes on a cookie. (Coincidentally, as his son chokes on a pretzel as Dubya.) As for Alley, she'll play a veterinarian aunt of Biel's character who fails to remove the nail. (No insurance = vet treatment, I guess.) And Crocicchia, she'll play a "disgruntled youth" who helps the nailed woman fight for health care.

I am so dying to see this. If it's even half as fun as Huckabees, the production turmoil should be worth it.

Last year, smoking became an action that would lead a film to a higher rating by the MPAA. A year later, the debate is heating up once again. This time around, The Hollywood Reporter posts that the anti-tobacco American Legacy campaign is descending on the U.S. Capitol for an event this Thursday. There's no word on what this event will entail, other than some guests who include Jonathan Klein and Stephenie Foster, but the goal is to get Congress thinking about smoking on film.

American Legacy says that 1/3 of all teens start smoking because of the movies, and that "the nearly 14 billion smoking images" they say young people see has contributed to "the nation's 40,000-person tobacco-related death toll."

Okay, I can see the old days where the Rat Pack and every other cool dude and dudette on screen lit up. These days, not so much. When I was in school and university, I knew a LOT of smokers, and each and every one of them started smoking because of their immediate surroundings -- friends and family. Heck, most of them didn't even watch a lot of television or movies. I agree that smoking is a problem, but it seems like the movie industry is getting way too much of the blame -- and I say this as someone who hates smoking, is allergic, and wishes it didn't exist.

I can't help but wonder: With this push to eradicate smoking on film, will old films fall victim at some point? Will their scenes full of the smoky haze of cigs only be allowed to screen on public stations late at night like those soft-core sex flicks?

Does smoking on the big screen bother you?

In these supposedly progressive times, gender equality is one of those touchy issues relegated to the last paragraph of a trend piece nobody reads. When Katherine Heigl suggested to Vanity Fair that Judd Apatow's movies were sexist, the assertion came across like an after-the-fact shrug of acceptance. Ever the galvanizing provocateur, New York Times critic Manohla Dargis confronts the issue head-on with a thorough analysis of the gender bias in this year's summer blockbusters.

With "Iron Man, Batman, Big Angry Green Man" and other massive expressions of virility invading the box office, female roles appear to be relegated to the back of the multiplex. Dargis touches on the rumors that Warner Bros head Jeff Robinov believes no woman has been able to sell a movie since Julia Roberts (a point that Natalie Portman might contest, but not Paris Hilton) before sizing up numerous upcoming studio releases, with particular attention paid to Anna Faris, "who could be the next Judy Holliday but without the right material will, alas, probably end up the next Brittany Murphy." It's the kind of pronouncement that hits you in gut.

Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay, the sequel to the modern stoner classic Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle, hit theaters last Friday. I sat down with the film's writer/directors -- Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg -- a few days after the release of their film. In the interest of journalistic integrity (and shameless name-dropping), I should tell you that the gentlemen are friends of mine, and all around great dudes.

Cinematical: How did the Hurwitz/Schlossberg magic begin?

Jon Hurwitz: Hayden and I became friends on the Randolph High School debate team and connected over a common love of comedy. We were both obsessed with the movies of the Farrelly Brothers and the Zucker Brothers. We loved Howard Stern. We thought it would be amazing if we could actually make movies one day. But it felt like it was the most unrealistic goal of all time for a couple of dudes hanging out in a basement in New Jersey. What changed everything for us was that in high school we were known for coming up with really funny "Would you rather?" scenarios. We came up with a list of 250 that we were going to try to get published.

Cinematical: What was the best one?

JH: "If you had to be sexually abused, would you rather it be by an android or a Muppet?"

Cinematical: Muppet. It's softer.

Hayden Schlossberg: Exactly. Plain and simple. It would hurt less. That is the correct answer.

If you thought leading a revolution was easy, try filming one. In The Huffington Post, Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere discusses Steven Soderbergh's two-part Che Guevara biopic, comprised of The Argentine and Guerilla. Despite earlier rumors to the contrary, it appears that both movies will definitely screen next month at the Cannes Film Festival, where Soderbergh was warmly welcomed last year for the premiere of Ocean's Thirteen. The reception of his latest project could be even more positive, but its distribution prospects are another story: As Wells explains, Soderbergh's project guarantees to offend some people for its apparent exclusion of Che's stint as the overlord at La Cabana fortress, where he ordered the execution of over 600 political prisoners. Add to that the heavy amount of Spanish dialog and the director's insistence that the two movies should be enjoyed as a four hour-plus package, and you've got enough red flags to send even the bravest U.S. distributors packing.

Wells, who read both scripts, analogizes the project to Lawrence of Arabia. "Hey, how about presenting the two films as a single, gargantuan Lawrence of Arabia-styled deal with an intermission, running between four or four and a half hours?" he suggests, perhaps somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

Jon Stewart had it right during the Oscars this year when he ironically geeked out over Lawrence of Arabia on an iPod. If most audiences can't appreciate that movie on the big screen now, why would they turn up for something like this?

Back in January, I blogged about the BBC show The Thick of It getting the feature treatment. The film, tentatively titled In the Loop, will be set in the same world as the television show, but it hadn't been determined whether the same characters would pop up. According to the latest post over at The Hollywood Reporter, it seems that the production is going half-fresh. This is particularly noteworthy because the actors are James Gandolfini, David Rasche (United 93), and ... My Girl Anna Chlumsky. Yes, Anna his swam out of the ether and right to BBC remakes!

The film will focus on the inner workings of US and British government agencies and international relations, Chlumsky will play a State Department official, Gandolfini will play a general, and Rasche has signed on to play an undersecretary of state. On the British side of things, Peter Capaldi, Chris Addison, and Paul Higgins from the series are starring with Tom Hollander and Gina McKee.

In Bigger, Stronger, Faster, a big hit at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year, documentarian Christopher Bell takes a hard look at steroid culture and the bad rap it gets from mainstream America, tackling the Western obsession with body image. Clocking in just under two hours, Bell's sprawling overview deals with the impact of 1980's pop culture icons like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone, then dives into the gritty details of steroid usage in sports and the recent congressional hearings where baseball players were reprimanded on national television.

Bell doesn't view the issue in black-and-white terms: His own brothers, featured in the film, continually use steroids to enhance their bodybuilding careers. Contrasting the personal with the political, Bigger, Stronger, Faster diagnoses a distinctly American malady. Cinematical spoke with Bell last week in New York, where Bigger, Stronger, Faster has been screening at the Tribeca Film Festival. The movie opens May 30.

Cinematical: The movie tackles a major issue that many Americans have strong opinions about, but it also has a personal component because of your family's story. What's it been like facing the growing public awareness of the film?

Christopher Bell: It's so rewarding to hear, "Hey, you made a good movie. Thanks for telling the truth." We haven't really been criticized or attacked by anybody. There was one woman at Sundance who really upset about 'roid rage, saying that we glossed over it. I think we actually explained it pretty well.

With all the excitement this week over the news of Guillermo del Toro's confirmed role in the director's chair for the two Hobbit movies, it's a little refreshing to find a dissenting opinion, if only to keep the excitement from getting to exaggerated. Salon's Andrew O'Heir doesn't take kindly to the news in his Beyond the Multiplex blog, structuring his argument against the latest report in a calculated manner. First, O'Heir quotes from an interview he did with del Toro at Cannes in 2006, where the director stated his disdain for "heroic fantasy." It's quite possible that he has changed his stance on this, and not just because of The Hobbit: As recently as a few days ago, he was spotted at a protest staged by HETFET (Humans for the Ethical Treatment of Faeries, Elves and Trolls), which may or may not have been a publicity stunt on his part.

The rest of O'Heir's piece holds water. He thinks the franchise has been ensnared by greed and too many people are in charge. Reflecting on Peter Jackson's expansive power, O'Heir questions the director's comfort with handing the story over to another filmmaker ("It smells of George Lucas") and predicts an incoming conflict. He likes del Toro's work, but worries that the director might be working in somebody else's back yard. "We've got one of the true cinematic visionaries of our age, spending four years of his life in a universe created by another one," he writes. "It's just too many cooks in the kitchen."

What do you think? Is del Toro getting in over his head?

A documentary always needs a skillful hand and eye to bring it together, otherwise the subject can easily get lost in the layout and presentation of the film. However, the true magic behind a documentary is often luck. No matter how much planning and careful crafting go into the film, there is always a degree of fortuity involved -- that your subjects will be cogent and engaging, or that the story unfolds in a cinematic way. This luck is what made The Ghosts of Cite Soliel so insanely gripping, and why this new documentary by Eric Bergkraut, Letter to Anna -- The Story of Journalist Politkovskaya's Death, is worth your time.

The benefit of making documentaries about current or recent media figures who have passed away is that there is a fountain of information to choose from -- video clips, interviews, memoirs, family members, friends. They allow for a deeper and more personal look at the subject, and free the filmmaker from having to make educated guesses based on old sources skewed by translation, agenda, and lost bits of information. But rarely, if ever, do we see a documentary about someone who has passed away where their interviews speak directly to the theme of the film. In the case of Letter to Anna, Bergkraut is fortunate enough to have hours of interviews with slain journalist Anna Politkovskaya from his previous documentary, Coca: The Dove from Chechnya. These conversations not only infuse the film with a definite sense of who she was, but also allow us to learn about Anna's passions and personality directly from the source.

I opened my email this morning, and had an update on the Steve Kurtz case that made my entire day. Kurtz, as you may recall, is the subject of the film Strange Culture, which has been on the fest circuit since Sundance 2007. Kurtz and his wife, Hope, had been involved in a group called the Critical Art Ensemble, which had won numerous awards for its bio-art exhibits, and has been commissioned to perform in prestigious cultural institutions around the world.

The nightmare started for Kurtz when Hope, his wife of 27 years, died suddenly of heart failure while they were in the midst of preparing for an exhibit on GMOs in the food supply. As a part of the exhibit preparations, they had some harmless bacteria in petri dishes, microscopes, and other scientific materials (all of which are commonly found in college and even high school labs) in their home.

Darned politics! It's always getting in the way of our entertainment. This year, there were Oscar worries due to the writers strike. Next year, there is going to be some presidential interference. Unless you've been living on a remote island under a rock, by now you should have caught on that there's a presidential race a-brewing to figure out who is going to replace Dubya in the White House. Whatever person gets picked will have their inauguration on January 20, 2008.

That's the day that the 81st Annual Academy Award nominees were going to be announced, like they are every year, on a Tuesday in mid-January. To completely avoid a showdown, The Hollywood Reporter posts that the Academy will ignore tradition next year and announce the nominees two days later -- Thursday, January 22 at 5:30 am, PST.

So, the Oscar schedule for next year is as follows:

December 1 - Credit forms are due.
December 26 - Nomination ballots are mailed.
January 12 - Ballots are due back.
January 22 - Nominees are announced.
January 28 - Final ballots mailed.
February 2 - Annual nominees luncheon.
February 7 - Scientific and tech achievement awards given.
February 17 - Final ballots due.
February 22 - Fancy-garbed actors and notables flock to the Kodak Theatre for the awards.