controversy Tagged Articles at Cinematical

By Brian Salisbury

As if a massively disappointing delay in release date wasn't bad enough, the upcoming Wolfman remake has suffered yet another setback. Dread Central, by way of Cinemusic, is reporting that legendary film composer Danny Elfman is off the project and Paul Haslinger will be taking his place. Technically the word is that "scheduling conflicts" are to blame, but if you buy that nonsense I have a case of werewolf repellent I would love to sell to you. The film opens in February and I am honestly supposed to believe that Elfman plumb forgot he had a previous engagement? Or that he wouldn't be in the final stages of putting the music together anyway? The damn thing was supposed to come out this week. No, this reeks of studio politics and publicity malarkey.

Read more at HorrorSquad!

Advertising company The Foundry is in hot water with Disney over a risque booze ad using Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs that shows the princess in bed with her little friends as the obviously nude and rumple-haired "Ho White" blows an after-sex smoke ring. According to the British publication Telegraph, "the loveable dwarfs Sleepy, Happy and Doc are rebranded Filthy, Smarmy and Randy - supposedly to represent different types of drinkers." (I'm wondering why Grumpy is still grumpy, but perhaps it's because he's off at the other end of the bed? I digress.)

Disney was rather displeased with this ad for Australia's Jamieson's Raspberry Ale, which uses an "anything but sweet" tagline. (The official website is down.) The agency claims that it's had "a little bit of contact" with Snow White license-holder Disney, but I have a feeling it's been more than a little. I mean, Disney releases those classic DVDs every, what, five years and then closes the vaults once again?

Generally North American advertisements are more prudish when it comes to sex, so while the general US consumer (like, say, me) might find this ad stupid and sexist, it seems the greater concern is the copyright issue. However, It's highly unlikely that Disney would have licensed the image of Snow White to be used for this ad campaign, anyway.

However, slutty Snow White costumes for Halloween? I guess Disney licensed those! (Ahem, see below ...)

The latest trailer for Disney's The Princess and the Frog is out, and it has me feeling all sorts of confused. It's pretty, and it looks kind of cute, but there are several aspects of it that make me distinctly uncomfortable. And I'm not the only one.

There have been a lot of switcheroos behind the scenes to make Princess more PC, but the rumble in my tummy says that the (mostly white) critics will be picking it apart scene by scene. So far just the trailers are getting people talking. I agree with /Film's Brendon Connelly that the character of the firefly, who seems to be obsessed with his big, glowing butt, is one of the more troublesome characters. Movieline is concerned about Mama Odie the witch doctor, while Katey Rich over at Cinemablend "is tempted to give it a pass." And Jezebel has quite a few discussions about the movie, like why it took so long for Disney to make a black princess, why she spends most of the movie as a frog, and many other dialogue-generating questions.

Let's not even begin to discuss the questionable video game that lets girls "play & move to music, cook New Orleans cuisine, and try on multiple outfits with Tiana & her friends," and "collect Mardi Gras beads to trade for new dresses, fabrics, ingredients and recipes." Sigh.

Plenty of talented black actresses were gunning for the part of Disney's first leading lady of color (the role eventually went to Anika Noni Rose, who was nominated for both a Grammy and a SAG Award for her work in Dreamgirls). And Oprah, that arbiter of all things good that makes Middle America's white middle-aged ladies feel okay about voting for Obama and reading The Color Purple, is in it. I can just see some Disney exec chomping on a cigar and thumping his fist on his desk, red-faced, yelling, "But Oprah is in it! Oprah!"

You know that old saying: "There is no such thing as bad publicity"? Well, Sacha Baron Cohen's newest film, Bruno, certainly seems to be putting that theory to the test. Cohen's latest has only been in theaters for a week now, but Bruno has galvanized audiences over whether or not the guy has finally crossed the line. Which line? We have no idea -- but there's gotta be some sort of line, and he has to be close to crossing it. Now a cinema in Navan, Ireland, has taken matters into their own hands and they're warning patrons about the "particularly vile" film when announcing show times during a hilarious pre-recorded message over the phone -- and they're not the only ones who feel that way about Cohen's latest creation.

Since its July 10th opening, critics and fans of Cohen's work have been weighing in on the shock comedy, and the bad news is that most of them haven't been as enthusiastic for the British comedian's antics this time around. Having seen the film I can honestly say that, yes, it is everything you think it is going to be. Bruno is silly, surprisingly smart at times, and not for the squeamish (here's Todd's take on the flick), but vile? I think that might be going just a tad too far.

Now, I've got nothing against disclaimers, and I'm all for audiences being a little more educated about what they're going to see at the theater rather than waiting until opening night and launching complaints about their offended sensibilities. But here's the thing: when does a disclaimer become a 'slam'? If I were an exec at Universal, I don't think I'd be too jazzed about my latest film being introduced with a caveat which basically states: 'Everyone hates this movie and you probably will too'. Would you?

After the jump: Watch and listen to Diamond Cinema's full disclaimer...

Another day, another snafu on the ol' political correctness front. It seems that adoptive parents and adoption agencies are up in arms because of a line in the trailer for Warner Brothers' forthcoming thriller, Orphan: "It must be hard to love an adopted child as much as your own."

A full ABC News report has parents calling for the studio to remove the line from the trailers, which it did, despite the fact that the trailer can only play before other R-rated films. But that's not enough, because apparently, the film itself can be and has been taken as one big campaign playing up the stereotypes and exploiting the fears of adoption.

I can't speak for everyone, but I'd like to think that any potential parent who finds themselves scared off from real-world adoption because of something they saw in a heavily exaggerated movie probably do not have the proper judgment to serve as a parent in the first place. As for the effect that line and the whole premise might have on adopted kids specifically, I really can't speak to that, as I don't know how exposed to the film's marketing they'd be if watching appropriate channels and seeing appropriate movies.

What are your thoughts? Over-reaction? Just right reaction? Or are we simply overdue for this summer's next big controversy?

[Thanks to Shock for the heads-up.]

Danny Boyle, who snapped up a Best Director Oscar for last year's Slumdog Millionaire, has signed on with Fox Searchlight and Pathé Pictures for three more movies. The two companies were also behind Slumdog and its overwhelming success and have also had to deal with the ensuing fallout over what has (or in some cases, hasn't) happened to its young stars. (You can read some previous Cinematical posts on the Slumdog situation here, here, and here.)

According to the Los Angeles Times, "the director already has identified a possible initial production under the first-look deal, a drama about Aron Ralston, the American mountain climber who amputated part of his arm when it was pinned in a 2003 back-country hiking accident." However, Slumdog Millionaire's Oscar-winning screenwriter Simon Beaufoy told the Telegraph something a little different. The UK paper reports that Beaufoy is adapting Suketu Mehta's book Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found.

"It was only decided a couple of weeks ago, but I will be writing the script for Danny... Maximum City is a non-fiction work, so it will be a huge challenge to find the story in it. It is a wonderful book and I used it in my initial research for Slumdog. There are some great characters in the book, but no stories, so my job will be to get the fictional out of a non-fictional story."

So, which will it be for the director? And since the controversy over the fates of Slumdog's two youngest stars has never been fully addressed by the studios or Boyle to the satisfaction of movie-goers, would it be all that wise for Boyle to return to Mumbai for the setting of his next movie?

Finally, someone at the Punisher: War Zone premiere asked Lexi Alexander the big question -- what the hell was all that "taking your name off the film" talk? Give a hand to SciFi Wire for doing so.

Alexander's answer managed to confirm and deny the post-ComicCon drama that surrounded Punisher: War Zone. "No, no, I never was going to take my name off the film. Let me say this. Harry Knowles [of Ain't It Cool News] is one of the greatest people I know. He's a great supporter of mine. I'm his biggest fan, not because he supports filmmakers, [but] because I think he fights for film ... I think in this case, what happened is when the first trailers came out, I think he knew and he's been told there was kind of trouble. So he wrote, "F--k, they should have just let her do it, and she was pushed aside." [That is] true. He did write the right thing, and he stood up for me and for this film. I think that each Internet site that took it on brought it to a new level ... [What Knowles wrote] really is the correct thing. I was never fired, and I never wanted to take my name off. "

What Knowles wrote (if I have the right piece) was this: "Lexi Alexander has been kicked to the curb -- part of that treatment was her "honeymoon" from Comic Con. However, there's more totally awesome wedding gifts that Lionsgate has given the blushing bride. She's off the movie and wrapped up in a non-disclosure clause - so we won't be hearing from her anytime soon, UNLESS THINGS CHANGE RADICALLY." That explains the deafening silence -- though I'm curious how one can be "pushed aside," yet remain unfired. However that works, it's clear Alexander kicked ass, made the Punisher she wanted, and is getting rave reviews from the film geeks for her trouble. There's nothing like a happy ending.

Being one not entirely fond of controversy for controversy's sake, I cannot deny that the prospect of 'Politically Incorrect' host Bill Maher working with Borat director Larry Charles to make a documentary regarding religion in any respect and having it distributed by a studio all too proud to remind you of the hand it had in releasing Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't one that had me eager to line up around the block for it any time soon.

However, all things considered, while the new trailer for Religulous fails to dilute any notions that this thing is a lightning rod in waiting, I found myself unexpectedly consoled by the fact that Maher and Charles appear to be covering every faith and denomination that they can in making a film about the seemingly ridiculous nature of any one belief to another.

If Ben Stein can both cause an old-fashioned ruckus with his doc on the exclusion of creationist thought in public schools and rake in some relatively decent grosses while doing it, it'll be interesting to see just how much attention this film will inevitably garner come this October 3.

Prior to an hour ago, I had no idea what kind of behavior could get your film tossed out of Muskogee's Bare Bones International Independent Film and Music Festival ... but now I do. According to news sources out of Tulsa, Oklahoma, the independent horror film A Beautiful Day was scheduled to play the festival, but the filmmakers have been asked to take their celluloid and go home. Why? Cuz the "little guys" thought they could borrow some of that viral marketing from the big boys, that's why...

Apparently the guys put together a very vague trailer for their film's festival screening -- and it was so damn vague it was mistaken for a possible terrorist threat! The trailer never lets on that it's a ... movie trailer, plus it had some creepy voice-over that went a little like this: "People of Muskogee. Open your eyes. April 25th is a day you'll come to remember." Yikes. Given the current state of affairs in American high schools, it's no surprise that school officials caught wind of the clip and brought it to the awareness of various authorities.

Never a stranger to taking controversial stances, The Guardian is stirring up some heated debate by accusing the Simpsons character Apu Nahasapeemapetilon of being a "crude racist stereotype." Writer Manish Vij says "Culture-vulture Simpsons fans have felled entire forests in arguing that he's a parody of a stereotype, rather than the stereotype itself. But the plain fact is that most viewers are laughing at Apu, not with him. They're enjoying the simple pleasures of a funny, singsong brown man with a slippery grasp of English." Vij takes major issue with 7-Eleven's recent Kwik-E-Mart makeover promotion (which Erik told you about here), as well. 7-Eleven employees at the converted convenience stores are, as Vij puts it, "being asked to don Kwik-E-Mart costumes with Apu nametags, come to work under banners mocking their ethnicity, and bid customers goodbye with the phrase, 'Thank you, come again!'" He closes the article by saying, "Today, we expect American companies to promote racial tolerance. Yet like an outbreak of a long-dormant virus, 7-Eleven is spending millions of dollars to push a crude ethnic stereotype well past its sell-by date. It's tin-eared and unconscionable. The company should cancel Apu and issue an apology."

Now, I could definitely argue that The Simpsons is, and always has been, satire. It makes fun of anything and everything, and though it's certainly poked fun at race relations over the years, I've never seen anything on the show I'd consider racist. The Apu character talks with an exaggerated accent, but it's an animated comedy show -- everybody does. And it's certainly an equal opportunity offender. Everyone on the program is a stereotype, and those stereotypes are frequently addressed, exposed, disproved, and mocked. Stereotypes exist on The Simpsons to provoke the viewer, as all good comedy should. Fat Tony could offend sensitive Italians, Groundskeeper Willie could offend sensitive Scotsmen, Bumblebee Man could offend sensitive Hispanics, and so on. But I hardly think the intent of The Simpsons' writing staff is to spew hate.

I have to disagree with Vij about Apu being crude and racist. If anything, he's one of the more intelligent and positive presences in Springfield, and I find the author's comparisons of Apu to "minstrel shows" and "Jim Crow America" to be really pushing it. But the 7-Eleven thing is sort of a grey area for me. I haven't visited one of the revamped stores, so I don't know how the "Apu" issue is being handled, but it certainly sounds like potentially dangerous turf. What do you think? Is Mr. Nahasapeemapetilon an offensive racist caricature? Is this a serious issue or much Apu about nothing?