Above: A scene from Michael Moore's new untitled documentary

These days it seems like everyone wants to take a bite out of the vampire universe and suck that sucker till its bone dry. While filmmaker Michael Moore isn't exactly moving on to the world of fiction, he tells USA Today -- who premiered the first image from his upcoming untitled film (see above) -- that his new movie takes the whole vampire mythology in a new (and topical) direction. Moore says, "The movie is not going to be an economics lesson; it's going to be more like a vampire movie. Instead of the main characters feasting on the blood of their victims, they feast on the money. And they never seem to get enough of it."

Moore, of course, is talking about those greedy Wall Street men and women whose bad choices and investments helped shove this country into a recession that so far has cost thousands of jobs and forced some of the most hard-working Americans to give up their homes because they can no longer afford the mortgages. While Moore admits that his films will always be a little bit funny regardless of the topic, this time he claims moviegoers might leave the theater asking ushers for "pitchforks and torches." Hmmm ... does the man really eat that much? (Insert smiley face with a wink)

The Untitled Michael Moore Film (which I think he should call Why Are People So F**king Greedy?) will hit theaters on October 2nd.

Michael Moore's next documentary-slash-editorial doesn't have a title yet, but it has a release date: October 2nd, 2009. As its distributors cannily note, that's a year and a day after Congress approved the $700 billion Wall Street bailout.

The movie is about the financial crisis, and Moore is not mincing words. Describing the project in this Reuters story, he says that he made the movie to find out why "the wealthy" "systematically set about to fleece the American people out of their hard-earned money." Well then -- it's good to know he went into the filmmaking process with an open mind.

I don't have a problem with overtly political documentaries, though my personal fondness for capitalism will probably make this movie a tough sit for me. I do think, though, that Moore is most interesting when he is more curious than polemical: it's no coincidence that his best film is the ambivalent, conflicted Bowling for Columbine. Given the amount of news coverage the subject has gotten, and given that we know pretty much precisely what Moore will say, I'm just not sure how much use there is for an angry, breezily edited two-hour look at the financial crisis.

But: populism rarely fails. As with Moore's last few films, look for Untitled Recession Documentary to be the rare doc to receive a semblance of a wide release this fall.

Errol Morris is probably the highest-profile working documentarian after Michael Moore -- and since Moore is more of a video essayist than a documentarian, Morris is, in truth, number one. He's also one of the rare documentary filmmakers who embraces the genre as cinema rather than mere journalism. His movies are always visually interesting, and never straightforward.

That bodes well for Morris's upcoming maiden voyage into narrative cinema: a yet-untitled dark comedy about the good old days when people thought that cryonics was our best bet to cheat death. The movie, focusing on 1960s efforts to freeze people for later reanimation by future scientists armed with incredible technology, will be written by Zach Helm, who wrote Stranger than Fiction and wrote and directed the lovely Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium.

Documentary filmmakers transitioning to narrative features isn't anything new of course. This weekend's State of Play, for example, was very competently directed by Kevin MacDonald, who not only began his career making documentaries, but actually made one about Errol Morris. And of course we all remember Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.

While MacDonald seems to be focusing on fiction these days, I can't imagine Morris will ever abandon documentaries altogether. But if his narrative effort is half as formally original and visually exciting as most of his docs, I won't complain if he does.

[UPDATE! Our old friend Christopher Campbell reminds me in the comments that Morris has already made one narrative feature, that I forgot about and now need to run out and see. So this will be his second.]

[Variety]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our friends over at the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre sent in this video of their top performers re-enacting famous sketches as if [insert famous filmmaker] directed them. Which sketches with which directors, you ask? Well, we have Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" as directed by Wes Anderson, Monty Python's "The Ministry of Silly Walks" as directed by Michael Moore, and The Kids in the Hall's "I'm Crushing Your Head"? as directed by Quentin Tarantino. This is a fantastic idea; I almost wish some of them went on a tad longer than they did by introducing other elements.

Not long ago, during the election, someone else did something similar by creating attack ads as if they were directed by famous filmmakers (the Wes Anderson commercial for John McCain was brilliant, by the way). Check out this new video from those crazy cats at the UCB below, then maybe throw them some ideas for where they can go next with this idea.

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

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

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

By now we all know that Michael Moore doesn't make documentaries like our grandfathers did. He's a master of polemics, using his films to rail against corporations, guns, governments, insurance companies, and whatever else riles up his David vs. Goliath sensibility. When his most recent project was announced in May, it was described as a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 that would "tackle what's going on in the world and America's place in it," as pointed out by The Hollywood Reporter. Now, however, THR says the film will focus on "the global financial crisis and the U.S. economy."

Moore is still "feverishly shooting" and it's hoped the film will be ready for release next spring. At first blush, though, it sounds like he decided to make the mid-project adjustment in reaction to (or in anticipation of) the Democrats' victory. Without Bush to bash, and without the Republican Party in control of Congress, how much mileage could he get out of criticizing U.S. foreign policy with a new President steering a (presumably) different course?

Unlike many documentary filmmakers, Moore appears to start with a conclusion on his projects and then search for footage to back it up. Documentarians often say they don't really 'find' their film, or discover the story, until they're knee-deep in editing, but it doesn't sound like Moore works that way. Which doesn't mean his films lack meaning or substance or entertainment value, just that they're more like personal essays than traditional docs.

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

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

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

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

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

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