The documentary will be available on DVD and download beginning in April through Virgil Films (“Restrepo,”"Forks Over Knives”) complete with extra features.

Author/philosopher Rand began writing her last and most ambitious novel – “Atlas Shrugged” – in the years immediately following World War II. Her working title for the book was “The Strike.” It was about what would happen if all the productive people in America went on strike, leaving the entitlement recipients and governmental regulators she called “moochers” and “looters” without anyone to create value for them.

The result is chaos and ultimate disaster.

The post-war years and early ’50s are generally thought to be a relatively prosperous and benign period in twentieth century American history. Yet that’s the period through which Rand painstakingly crafted her novel. When it was published in 1957, “Atlas” was widely dismissed for its “preposterous” scenario. “Atlas” was science fiction. In no way, said the critics, did it depict the real America. Not yet, Rand said. In fact, she wrote the novel in the hope she might prevent it from coming true.

Despite the criticism, “Atlas Shrugged” became a bestseller and continued to sell through the decades. Tens of thousands of copies still fly off shelves, both digital and physical, each year. And though readers occasionally noticed similarities between “Atlas”’s plot and the way things were going in America, you didn’t hear the name Ayn Rand or the titles of her novels or subsequent philosophical essays spoken very often. But readers were noticing, and little by little, as the century turned, you began to see and hear Rand and “Atlas Shrugged” referenced in the media and public discourse.

By 2008, in the wake of one disastrous administration and on the threshold of another, people who had read “Atlas” were picking it up again. Events mirrored the novel’s plot.

An ever burgeoning government churned out upwards of 5,000 new federal regulations per year. The financial system was corrupt. Wall Street was rigged, the economy melting down even as the government stooges that had created or facilitated the mess called for wider powers.

Meanwhile, the new president talked about “redistribution of wealth” and Americans having to sacrifice and taxing the rich in a time of need. And – hold on a second – hadn’t all that happened in the book?

What did Rand know and how did she know it?

“Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged” is the biography of a book and an idea. It provides a close examination of Rand’s controversial novel and the validity of its dire prediction for America.

Up-and-coming director Alex Stapleton turned the camera onto the camp master in her film “Corman’s World: Exploits of a Hollywood Rebel.”

—–

It follows Corman’s career – over half a century of cheap-as-dirt indie filmmaking – and the resulting 400-plus films that he created in that time. The film launched earlier this month, and Stapleton called BH recently for an interview about her film, Corman’s influence, and getting Jack Nicholson to cry on camera.

BH: Where does Roger Corman fit into the history of cinema?

Stapleton: I definitely think he’s part of the backbone of cinema. I think, creatively speaking as a filmmaker and director, he kind of helped – along with his compatriots – to birth the kind of blockbuster genre film experiences that we experience today that the studios are making.

I think Roger was definitely one of the pioneers in that movement. When you look at the movie “Avatar,” you look at the director and it’s James Cameron, and James Cameron [worked] under Roger Corman for years and… I think that James Cameron would probably tell you the same thing: that he learned a lot about how to put together a genre story by working for Roger.

I also think that as far as moments in cinema history, Roger has had a huge influence, specifically with the American new Hollywood movement, by finding and mentoring people like Peter Fonda, Jack Nicholson, [and] Peter Bogdanovich, starting their careers but also giving them the idea – Peter Fonda, Denis Hopper and Jack Nicholson – giving them the idea to make the movie “Easy Rider,” which is a hybrid movie of Roger’s movies “The Trip” and “Wild Angels.”

“Easy Rider” was one of the… watershed points of movies that kind of changed the game in ’69. So I think Roger’s influence can be seen creatively and also in all the talent that he’s discovered. My movie kind of deals specifically with directors, writers and actors, but Roger also started the career of James Horner, the famous composer. The line of students was way too much to encompass in my film.

BH: Several directors that Corman influenced have gone on to be the big-budget movie-makers that – as Corman said in an interview in the film – he opposed, at least as a younger man. Do you know what his thoughts are on Cameron’s work or Scorsese’s “Hugo”? Because big budget films changed the way he operated and what it was like to see his films.

Stapleton: I think he does not think it’s completely wasteful when you do come up with a movie like “Avatar” where the money is in the effects and you can really trace the money. I think where he has the major problem is when you throw money like that into a romantic comedy where there’s a boy and a girl in a room for 90 minutes, or on the street arguing or talking about their love life, and they are on again/off again throughout the movie, and its like, “There you have it, that’s the end,” and that movie is $90 million. I think that’s when he’s like, “What the hell is going on here?”

BH: Can you talk about his dirt cheap filmmaking style?

Stapleton: I kind of look at his career in two phases. There’s Roger Corman as a director, and then there’s Roger Corman the producer. As a director, I know in one year he made eight movies as a director in one year, which is insane. As a producer when he had the Venice lumber yard he was churning out movies.

The Venice lumber yard was actually a stage, a production facility that he bought, and he had a working stage there and that stage was in operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week, so they would basically build sets … and they would basically have a revolving door with two crews, a daytime crew and a nighttime crew that would come in. The daytime crew would shoot and then they would leave and the nighttime crew would use the same exact set to make a completely different movie.

Then there was a series he did in the 90’s called the Bloodfist movies and that movie was reincarnated so many times (laughing). It was a movie when kickboxing was really big in the 90’s and it was kind of like a spin-off of the Jean-Claude Van Damme films. The first one is like a revenge film set in LA. And then Roger would go, “Let’s change the set and let’s set it in Europe.” It was like the same movie being remade over and over and over again, and I think the last one they did was set in space. And then he would depict the same movie and cast women in it instead of men. So he was definitely pumping out a lot of movies.

BH: It’s interesting that both your documentary “Outside In” and “Corman’s World” focus on underappreciated, independent artists who operate in a non-traditional way. And the Nike “Be True” campaign that you’re working on seems to have that theme as well.

Stapleton: Its interesting. I guess that’s what’s going on in my subconscious mind. I guess I have a tendency to tell the story of the underdog. I’m attracted to those stories. Actually, the title of “Comran’s world,” when I first got started with the movie, was called “The Underdog” because it was before he won the [honorary] Oscar. When I pitched him the idea, I sent him a track by Sly & The Family Stone called “Underdog” and I gave him this whole idea about how I was gonna shoot a trailer set to the song “Underdog.” (laughing) I don’t think he was too happy with that, because I don’t know if he views himself as the underdog.

But yeah I definitely like those stories. I probably feel like an underdog myself sometimes. Because I’m a woman and a black woman. There’s not a lot of black female directors, I guess, so maybe there’s some sort of connection I have to the underdog athlete or movie maker or whatever.

BH: So what are you working on now? I heard you have a Corman-esque picture of your own in the works.

Stapleton: I’m currently juggling two documentary projects. I’m doing a series profiling interesting women as part of the whole YouTube channel thing that has been started.

I have the “Outside In” project I’m working with Roger Gastman – he was the curator with the show art in the streets. We’re doing a television series, a six-part, one-hour series that’s going to trace the history of street art graffiti. So it’s expanded into a bigger project. And the Corman-esque movie is still in development. It is a science fiction intergalactic love story I guess you could call it. It takes place with an alien and an earthling. I’m really excited about that. It will be a quickie movie, but fun, with the old-school spirit of Corman movies from the late ’70s, early ’80s.

BH: Is there anything that you learned from Corman or making “Corman’s World” that you’ll incorporate into that film?

Stapleton: Yeah, I mean a couple of things. I never had a chance to go to film school. Making this documentary was kind of my film school-slash-graduate program all in one. I didn’t know how to do anything when I started, so it was definitely a film school for me from the ground up. Roger was like, “When you get started on your first narrative feature you can’t take five years to make that.” So I’m like, “Thanks, Roger. (laughing)”

BH: You got Jack Nicholson to cry on camera. What was that like?

Stapleton: It was the longest interview. It was the Holy Grail interview from day one, because he doesn’t do them. It took two years from the first letter that went out until I was actually sitting down with him. It lasted for hours. It was the longest interview I conducted, with the exception of Roger and his wife, spending time with them.

So it was amazing, and I think that at the end of the day, I was at the right place at the right time. He had a lot to say about Roger and to Roger, and I just happened to have a camera there and picked it up. It was very intimate. I always keep a very small crew size, so there were only two other people in the room besides myself and Jack, and I think he felt very comfortable. We had spent so many hours together by the end of it that he just got very emotional and worked up. So that’s what happened.

BH: Corman’s movies have always had a sort of B-movie feel, and that’s part of their charm. He obviously recognizes that his films are campy, but it seems to be the goal he’s embraced.

Stapleton: Oh yeah. I mean I think he is very, very aware. The only one really that has no camp at all, being “The Intruder,” if anyone said it was campy I think that would be very offensive to him. But beyond that, he’s not in denial that he puts camp all throughout his movies and has since the very beginning. And he loves it. It’s actually harder than one would think to pull it off in a good way, to pull off comedy and genre and slap it all together in an entertaining less-than-90-minute experience with no money, so (laughing) he’s the master at it.

I’ve been looking around for answers, but all I hear is noise. Everyone is pointing fingers at the Left or the Right, blaming Hollywood or Capitol Hill. Time is flying by too quickly for petty arguments. My children’s future won’t wait. I’ve got to do something now.

Here’s my hunch: Could it be that we have simply forgotten what made us such a great nation in the first place? So many people are waiting around for our leaders to come up with a grand plan to save our nation. But is that really how America got started? What if things actually work the other way around? What if real change doesn’t start at the top but at the bottom? What if the best place to begin transforming our country is not the Oval Office but the dinner table?

For the past year and a half, I’ve been making a film called “Monumental,” and I am thrilled to announce that it’s coming to theaters on March 27. We are creating a live, one-night national event in 500 theaters where audiences can experience a monumental moment together. Then we will release the film in theaters in select cities, while providing helpful new resources to families, churches, and schools who want to go further with what they’ve experienced in the film. 

In the film I retrace the footsteps of our Founders from England to America in the hope of discovering our true “national treasure.” I wanted to listen to them, to learn from them. Our forefathers knew we were a forgetful people, that someday we would lose our way as a nation. So they left us “maps” that would guide us back to the source of America’s success. What I discovered is amazing! This is one of the most important journeys of my life. America is worth fighting for, and so are our families. We can still be a “city upon a hill,” but we need to work together. With God’s help, we can turn this thing around. It’s been said, “Footprints in history are not made sitting down,” and I couldn’t agree more. I hope that our children will mark this moment as the turning point when we stood up, came together, and reclaimed the true national treasure of America.

—–

In these trying times, this story of one man’s unrelenting efforts to succeed can serve as an inspiration to many. I know “His Way” inspired me. After learning how Jerry cold-called Elvis Presley’s Manager, Colonel Tom Parker, every day for an entire year for the right to take Elvis on tour (for the first time in nearly a decade), I decided to roll the dice and take my own film out on the road to build an audience. Concluding our interview with Douglas McGrath, director of the documentary “His Way,” we talked about more of the film, including the amazing segments on Weintraub’s experiences with Elvis Presley and Colonel Tom Parker and Frank Sinatra.

KW: How did you go about choosing which stories or chapters to cover or not cover from the book?

DM: Well, I didn’t do it that way. I didn’t think of them in terms of chapters. I just thought of them in terms of stories. But, I knew we’d have ninety minutes, an hour and forty-five maybe at most and I just thought, there’s no way to go through everything. I just thought “I’m going to ask about all the stuff I liked the best and the things that were really the big tent poles of his life.” So, I thought I’d better go with the things that really tell us, without repeating it, what his magic was. And the Elvis story is emblematic of his whole career, you know, that tells you how he started with nothing, he persisted. He won the contract, so to speak, the right to take him. He almost blew it. When you think of 20th Century entertainment, particularly musical entertainment and particularly male musical entertainment — you know, you have Elvis and you have Sinatra. Those guys are the big tent poles in that story.

KW: Jerry’s relationship with Frank Sinatra seemed much more direct than it did with Elvis. His relationship really was with the Colonel (Elvis’s Manager). Did you have to approach the Elvis segment any differently than you did from the Sinatra segment or in trying to work a connection between the two as a bridge?

DM: Oh no, that is a very good question. I don’t remember consciously doing that. You know, we came to the Elvis story first, because in my memory of his life, I worked through it in order so he could kind of work it in order. Sometimes if you’re telling a story about your childhood or some early part of your life, certain feelings come along with these stories that can then add to the overall feeling of what you are talking about. But [with] the Elvis stuff, he was a different guy. Meaning when he came into Elvis’s life, he was “aspiring” at that point. He had some clients, he was successful, meaning he could pay his bills and he was married and had a nice life. But, he was not by any means, what he became and he knew that this was his way out. But when we came to Sinatra… which I knew is the next big seismic event in his professional life… he [Jerry] was then a different person.

He had chased Elvis, but Sinatra came to him. Now nobody was confused about anything in that situation. Sinatra was still tough, extremely powerful and I’m sure a fairly terrifying person to work for, because he had a temper and knew what he wanted and had been a huge star and a big success for, by that point, 30 years or something . And while he wanted Jerry’s help, he was hardly a helpless and frail creative person looking for tough guidance from Jerry. And the Madison Square Garden Concert (“The Main Event,” 1974), Jerry really had to talk him into it. Really had to talk him into it. I think the reason Jerry flew to Las Vegas so quickly when Frank called and sounded so upset [and depressed] was I think he (Jerry) thought, “Oh. I could lose him.” A smart manager will hear something like any kind of qualm in a client’s voice. A smart manager gets on it. A lot of them don’t. Which is why people change managers. But, Jerry knew that was “his guy” at that point.

KW: Does that come from growing up as he did [in the Bronx and Brooklyn] and being able to shake a guy’s hand and knowing if he is a good guy or a bad guy?

DM: I think you’re right. I think you’re right. He does have a very good sense of people and I remember Matt Damon saying this to me and I felt it as well… when he first meets you and shakes your hand, you can feel it for one second, he looks at you very intensely and you think, “I think he just X-rayed me.”

KW: Do you have a favorite Jerry Weintraub story yourself?

DM: Every time I try to pick one, I think of another one. There are so many that are so good. But that Elvis story is just amazing. The persistence to call the Colonel for a year, the hilarious business when the seats aren’t sold (at a Miami FL matinee) and he has to get the convicts to come take the chairs out… but I also love when the Colonel takes him into that electrician’s booth and with the suitcases of money. When he tells the story about the Colonel pouring the money on the table and whacking it with his cane. That’s yours, that’s mine… are we good? It just tells you that that it is a whole different part of show business that doesn’t exist anymore. It’s still got a foot in the “Carnie” world. That’s probably my favorite.

KW: Do you think there are more “Jerry”s out there or there’s still room for them?

DM: There must be because there’s no reason there shouldn’t be but I will say the business used to be comprised of more people like Jerry and now it isn’t. You know, that kind of renegade, non-corporate, non-business school, non-film school, come to it out of passion, bootstraps, hard work, gift-of gab, full force personality. I don’t run across many people like that. Maybe to be fair, maybe there were never a lot of people like that. I don’t know. But, there sure aren’t a lot of people like that now. There certainly a lot of people who approach it in a more systematic way with their foreign sales estimates and all their numbers that they run.

KW: The spreadsheets.

DM: Yeah, the spreadsheets and all the things that don’t connect to the thing that makes him so winning. Which is to say, a genuine passion for movies or music or the artists that he’s working with. That you don’t feel so much anymore. And I think we’re the worse off for it too. Look what he did with that passion.

KW: And what are the upcoming projects, if you can talk about anything?

DM: I am making a TV pilot with Nathan Lane. He was in my film “Nicholas Nickleby.” We’re casting now and we’re going to shoot in December (2011). It’s a funny and kind of touching half-hour single-camera comedy.

Weintraub first managed musical acts ranging from The Four Seasons to The Moody Blues, then promoted artists such as Led Zeppelin, John Denver, Bob Marley, Bob Dylan, Kiss, Aerosmith and Queen. He also promoted the “comeback” tours for Elvis Presley, then Frank Sinatra. Weintraub’s movie producing credits include “Nashville,” “Oh God!,” “Diner,” “Cruising,” “The Karate Kid,” “National Lampoon’s Vegas Vacation,” “The Karate Kid” (2010), and the 2001 remake of “Ocean’s Eleven,” as well as “Ocean’s 12″ and “Ocean’s 13.” He appeared in all the “Ocean” films as well as “The Firm.”

“His Way” is the first documentary feature film directed by Douglas McGrath. McGrath is an actor/writer/director whose past directing credits include “Emma,” “Nicholas Nickleby,” “Infamous,” and “I Don’t Know How She Does It.” In my opinion, “His Way” is pound for pound and frame for frame the most entertaining and inspirational documentary of this past year. “His Way” was shot and edited for nearly ten months and culled from approximately seventy hours of interview footage.

KW: You took an autobiography and turned it into a documentary film. That doesn’t seem like it is usually done very often.

DM: It wasn’t quite as direct as that. Graydon Carter [Managing Editor, Vanity Fair] had called me and asked if I was interested in making a film about Jerry and Jerry’s book was not out at that point. So I read Rich Cohen’s piece that he had done for Vanity Fair and said, “Boy, this guy sounds like quite a character.”

I was going out to L.A. and I said to Graydon … I should meet him. I said, “you know, it would be great if I could read it [Jerry’s book] and then we could meet.” But, Jerry always being Jerry, thinking what is the best way for things to work and what is the right order for them to work in… he brought the manuscript to me himself. Meeting him first and hearing his own speaking voice allowed me to read the book in a more informed way. Meaning I could really tell what kind of person it was that was writing that book. So when I was making the film … I wrote out all the kinds of questions I wanted to ask him, but I didn’t really use the book in the way that I’ve had other films of mine and adapted novels for the screen. I used it sort of as a springboard for conversations.

KW: And what was that experience for you, moving from narrative film into documentary for the first time?

DM: Well, I cheated a little bit in that. I kind of knew the structure I wanted. By which I mean I had this idea early on that I would ask everyone early on to finish the sentence, “Jerry Weintraub is…“ And so I wanted to start the movie with a lot of people saying what they thought Jerry Weintraub was. So everybody I interviewed, the Bushes, Brad Pitt, didn’t matter… I said I want you to finish this sentence for me however you can. “Jerry Weintraub is…” and we got a lot of great stuff. I knew I wanted to start that way and then I knew I wanted to get into his personal life, where he was from, what world produced him. I just wanted to kind of follow that arc. So, I just kind of asked questions knowing that was my shape. It wasn’t kind of an outline, but it gave me a general idea. When we were out at his house in Palm Desert, the thing that knocked my socks off were those moving glass doors that open at the beginning of the film.

KW: It’s an amazing shot.

DM: I just thought, “That is how the movie has to start.” Because I noticed that he had all these monograms. And I thought we’ll do a series of monograms and then we’ll end and reveal him at these doors which are opening without his touching them. And which reveal what appears to be the whole world at his feet. I thought that is a good way with just pictures to tell us, that this is a guy if you don’t know him, who might have an interesting story. So in that way, I had that much narration in my head. And then, I knew that people would speak to certain sections of his life.

KW: Were there some particular challenges with this type of story that maybe, you wouldn’t encounter with narrative or even a different type of non-fiction subject?

DM: Well, that’s a very good question. Compared to narrative … with a documentary you have to be careful. Because it’s like quicksand if you’re not careful. You can think deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper into a subject depending on what you are writing about. You think of those guys who did that wonderful “Hoop Dreams” or obviously, bigger things like “The Civil War” or “Shoah”… you think, “Oh my God, I know how to get into it, but I don’t know how to get out of it.”  I wanted to tell the story of this guy, whose greatest job of salesmanship was selling himself. And I could see that pattern early in his life. He just talked his way into jobs, he talked his way into relationships. He was successful doing that because he had a very appealing personality and a very astute understanding of other people’s personalities and I saw that there’s a journey there.

He wasn’t poverty-stricken, but he was not wealthy. He started out in a comfortable life, but then only built up from there. And he learned from his Dad. And I thought, I want to trace that journey and then I want to take … what most people knew about him, which was his professional success and I wanted to show how there was an application to his personal life as well. That he had some impossible successes in his professional life and then he managed to do the same thing in his personal life with Jane (his wife) and Suzy (his girlfriend). And you know, I have a section of the film where a lot of other guys go … “I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t do it.”

KW: I love the one of Barbara Bush and President Bush. It’s classic…

DM: Barbara Bush is practically the funniest person in the movie.

KW: Really?

DM: Sometimes, when we first showed the film … when it first came out … the line she says, “I’d kill George Bush if he did that” gets possibly the biggest laugh in the entire movie. .

KW: It is a good mix of people and when you go to the Bushes, they are like the grandparents in that situation. I thought it was hilarious too.

DM: I loved having the Bushes in the film and, what I really knew I wanted to do once they had agreed to be in it was… unlike everyone else who I knew I was interviewing as single subjects. I never wanted anybody coupled up because I wanted their individual thoughts about Jerry, except in President and Barbara Bush’s case. They’d been married for 65 years. I knew they would have the give-and-take and the push-and-pull of an old married couple. And by our standards the standards of “His Way”… that’s an action sequence for us. That’s as much explosive power as we’re going to get. And their dynamic between the two of them just killed me.

Stay tuned for Part II, in which Douglas talks about the rest of the film, including the amazing segments on Jerry’s experiences with Elvis Presley, Colonel Tom Parker, and Frank Sinatra.

Lucas, the visionary behind the ‘Star Wars’ franchise, insists on tweaking the original trilogy every time it hits a new media platform. And with each change, longtime ‘Star Wars’ fans rise up in near unanimous fury.

Alexandre O. Philippe, the director of the new DVD ‘The People vs. George Lucas,’ is starting to believe Lucas relishes the negative attention.

“Some of the things Lucas does to this day make me wonder … I feel like he’s enjoying triggering reactions from his fans. I see no other good reason for him to do what he does,” Philippe says. “The changes [to the franchise] are ridiculous. I don’t know of a single fan who says, ‘Yeah, that makes sense.’”

‘The People vs. George Lucas’ investigates the love/hate relationship between Lucas and a galaxy of ‘Star Wars’ faithful. They adore Lucas’ space opera and the colorful characters inhabiting it, but they despise how he won’t let the films exist in their original form. And don’t get fans started on Jar Jar Binks, the comic relief introduced in 1999’s ‘Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace.’

‘George Lucas’ showcases the nuttier side of the modern fanboy, but it also tackles meatier themes like a director’s responsibility to the public and if a beloved movie belongs to the filmmaker or the culture at large.

Philippe says the ‘Star Wars’ films had a “profound” impact on him as a child, and while he floated away from the franchise as a young adult it always remained in the back of his mind. So when Lucas re-released the original ‘Star Wars’ movies in Special Editions – complete with enhanced special effects and small but significant story edits – fans like Philippe blew a galactic gasket.

The latest insult? The just-released Blu-ray edition of ‘Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi’ adds an awkward “noooo!” to Darth Vader’s dialogue during the climactic battle between Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) and the Emperor (Ian McDiarmid). It’s one of several tiny tweaks found in the Blu-ray editions that have fans hopping mad.

It’s the reason why Philippe created ‘The People vs. George Lucas’ in the first place.

“I’ve always kept track of what was going on in the world of ‘Star Wars’ and George Lucas. And it soon became crystal clear the dysfunctional relationship that established itself between George and the fans.”

The documentary filmmaker in Philippe realized he had a topic worthy of a full-length picture. But he had no idea how much work lay ahead of him when he put out an open call for fans to send their thoughts on Lucas and the franchise. What they got was an avalanche of content testifying to the love people still share for all things ‘Star Wars.’

“The richness of the footage we received was amazing – Lego, Claymation, puppets, Grindhouse films,” says Philippe, who also spent months scouring YouTube for other ‘Star Wars’ fan footage.

The Blu-ray editions of the six ‘Star Wars’ films hit the market after ‘George Lucas” theatrical release, but Philippe says the ‘Return of the Jedi’ tweak epitomizes where Lucas has lost his artistic way.

“It really ruins a perfectly fine scene in terms of tone. That’s what George Lucas does over and over again,” says Philippe, who refused to buy the Blu-ray edition but saw the changes online. “If Lucas isn’t actually joking here, and he’s serious about those changes, he’s a filmmaker who has completely lost touch in the fundamental notion of tone … and his relationship with the audience. When you’re creating a dramatic moment and people laugh, you know your tone is off.”

Philippe fears the creative fires in Lucas’s belly have long been extinguished, but he still has hope that the ol’ Lucas might some day return.

“Maybe he just doesn’t get it, but then the guy is so brilliant, so capable of hitting that perfect emotional note,” he says.

‘Star Wars’ fans may never be satisfied with the ever-evolving franchise, one set to get a 3D makeover in the months to come, but Philippe says Lucas’ work speaks for itself.

“I don’t think George Lucas owes us anything. If all he ever did was [the original] ‘Star Wars’ that would be an accomplishment of a career,” he says.

The “music” network is prepping a new documentary focusing on the youthful Occupy Wall Street movement.

Now the network said it will use its Emmy-winning True Life documentary platform to air True Life: I’m Occupying Wall Street on Saturday, November 5 at 6 PM ET/PT. MTV said it embedded cameras with three people at the protests for a two-week period to “capture the day-to-day realities” of the protesters as the movement gains visibility — even among MTV’s target youth demos.

Deadline serves up a five-minute preview of the upcoming special. Does the clip focus on the group’s political demands? Their crush of slogans and prime directives? The fact that they’re interfering with the lives of many New Yorkers?

Nope, nope and nope.

It’s all about the Occupiers tidying up “their” turf. Wake me when ‘Beavis & Butt-Head’ is back on. Let’s hope the special has more to share than a few shaggy twentysomethings occupying push brooms and bull horns.

And don’t expect a fair and balanced look at the movement. MTV’s own Rock the Vote campaign proved to be anything but fair to the GOP, and it’s doubtful the new doc will showcase any of the more alarming elements of the Occupy throng. C’mon, MTV. Surprise us.

Some may ask why it should even be necessary to do so.  The reasons are plentiful.  Those who do not study the past are doomed to repeat it.  The human experience is intrinsically connected to the search for meaning, from which our collective purpose can be divined. In short, by seeking to understand, we become that much closer to each other and to God.

But there is a greater reason still.  You’ll find much of it contained in David Milch’s discussion of his intriguing (though flawed) HBO series John From Cincinnati.  Mr. Milch postulates that the media has abdicated its moral responsibility (fans of Big Journalism have known that for some time), and that television has created a surrogate existence for us, detaching us from emotional reality.  Specifically:

I think that the media have infantilized the expectations of the audience because of the lack of some sort of transcendent informing vision. I believe that the surrogate existence that is provided by television has come to supplant the genuine emotional life of the populace…the assault on the collective sensibility of 9/11 was such as to give the audience so much fear that the only way that they could be placated was with a television series [The Iraq War…which had] everything to do with the habituation of the viewing public to the shaping of human experience in distorted forms for which the media is responsible…we wanted to be narcotized in our reaction to the assault on the World Trade Center…There is a different drama which is enacting itself in our country right now and it has to do with a failure to acknowledge the necessary moral and imaginative predicate that has become an entirely virtual existence, which is, you know, people spend more than half their waking hours watching television. Just think about that for a second. That has to shape the neural pathways…”

In other words, Neo, “free your mind”.  We must reconnect with the emotional reality of our existence, and the emotional reality of 9/11.  Regrettably, we have indeed become narcotized to it — because we understandably want to be.  That alone permits our enemy to make further gains towards destroying us.

Thus, there is a necessity to find ways of reinterpreting the 9/11 experience into something we can make emotional sense out of.

But there’s a problem.  As I’ve written before, there are considerable obstacles when attempting to depict true evil in film.  Some horrific events so transcend the bounds of reason, or even reality, that they are literally impossible to put into words.  How, then, could they put into pictures?  Ah, but such is the power of art — high art, that is, not popular art.

It can be done, but it won’t be easy.  How will we recognize it when it happens? As per my article, “Does Hollywood Create Art?“, we will recognize it when it has its own form rather than merely a shape; when it elicits a response as opposed to a reaction; when it expresses emotion rather than creates simple emotional associations; and if we truly find ourselves in the work as opposed to see ourselves reflected in it.

Although, thus far, only documentary films about 9/11 fit these criteria, I do believe a few filmmakers have the ability to tackle the subject.  I’ll get to those in a moment.  In the meantime, I consider it vital that every American seek out films, books, music, and television that strives to be high art concerning 9/11.  I personally have seen very few.  It is vital not simply to bear witness, and to let our tears mingle with those who have suffered, but to further get our hands around this unspeakable event and contextualize it.

In the meantime, I urge you to see these two extraordinary documentaries that are worlds apart from each other.

9/11: The Documentary 

Two French filmmakers, the Naudet brothers, had intended to make a film about life in a NYC firehouse, Battalion 1.  They found themselves doing that on September 11th.  One of them was filming at the firehouse when the battalion was called in to assist.  They went along.  What follows is an extraordinary account of these heroes at the scene as everything unfolded.   You got into the depths of the WTC along with them.  You hear firemen’s accounts of that day.  You witness some events you have never seen before.  You will be moved like never before.

Man on Wire 

This is not actually a film about 9/11 at all.  Yet the events of that day inform every second of the film.  It tells the exuberant and thrilling tale of how Frenchman Philippe Petit, and a small group on cohorts, arranged to string a wire between the Towers in 1974 — so he could perform a high-wire walk between them.  The film is so expertly constructed that it unfolds almost like a heist movie, complete with the plan, suspense, things going wrong, and the most colorful mastermind you’ve ever seen.  It is totally engaging, funny, charming, and utterly delightful.

The reason why you must see this movie, in regards to 9/11, is because it never makes a single mention of the Towers’ destruction.  This is a movie that demonstrates the unlimited power of the human spirit.   It speaks to mankind’s ability not merely to dream, but to transform those dreams into a reality.  It is a reality not of fire, death, and rubble, but a reality of creation, of beauty, and of inspiration.

For me, Man on Wire accomplishes all the things that high art does. You will love it.

It is, for good reason, the best-reviewed movie at Rotten Tomatoes, earning a perfect score of 100 from 145 reviewers.

Where to from here? 

Can any other cultural experience achieve what needs to be achieved in regards to 9/11?  I believe so.  We’ve seen glimmers of it.   Bruce Springsteen’s The Rising comes close.  There may be books or symphonies I am not aware of.   As for filmed entertainment, I think only someone like Terrence Malick or David Lynch might be able to accomplish it, amongst a few others.

Despite detractors like our own John Nolte, Mr. Malick’s Tree of Life is arguably a masterpiece.  More to the point, it creates an impressionistic experience — of memory, of life, of emotional reality — in a non-linear narrative that accomplishes far more than any traditional storytelling method would have.  I’ll write more on this film when it comes out on DVD, but the approach Mr. Malick takes with that film, as well as with The Thin Red Line is arguably the only approach that could ever work in regards to 9/11.

I’m not hopeful.  Hollywood doesn’t spend money on movies like that.

Our first Theater-Size (27x41) poster - "hot off the presses." (Actually - hot off Kinko's large-format printer.)

Well, in the spirit of “Colonel” Tom Parker and THE POLICE – ’78 Tour of America (in a cargo van), we have gone ahead and put together our own “Southern Tour – 2011″ for FEAR OF A BLACK REPUBLICAN.  After driving twelve hours or so, we will be having our World Premiere in Atlanta GA tomorrow at 7 PM at the Landmark Theatre – Midtown Arts Cinema.  Two days later and four hours up I-85, we’ll be screening in Charlotte NC on June 25th (Blumenthal Performing Arts Center) and then in Greensboro NC on June 26th(Carousel Cinemas at Battleground) .   These will be the first public screenings ever for our little film.  We did hope to add another city or two, but as this is our first foray into “Movie Touring”… we figured short and sweet would be smarter and safer.  

In order to make this tour happen, we are “four-walling” (renting out) two movie theaters and are renting and sharing space in a “black box” theater running a stage play.  Luckily, the space can project films and do stage plays in the same venue.  Pretty convenient, but if you ever want to do something like this, here are a few things to think about ahead of time:  Insurance and advertising.  In booking our theaters, we learned that you now have to have some type of “Event Insurance” to screen your film as an Independent filmmaker.  Ouch.  Enough said.

Regarding advertising, we learned that you cannot rely on the theaters to advertise your film as their distribution agreements with the studios essentially prohibit them from publicly advertising your film.  However, their own box office websites can include your film.  Now, I can tell you that all three venues we will be screening at have been great to us and I could not recommend them more. 

However, you as the filmmaker/producer will have to work really hard on sending press releases, calling media, creating & placing ads and creating posters and postcards (if you can afford them)… if you want people to know about your screening.  Also, you need to go old-school and send out movie postcards.  A lot of folks might say don’t do this, but I think a short hand-written note with a hand-written address still means something.  We sent over 200 postcards (and did e-mail) to all the colleges and university Political Science and History Departments in Atlanta, Charlotte and Greensboro.  Hit your niche market, right?

We’ve also been fortunate to have some allies in all this.  I would be remiss if I didn’t thank all the folks who know social media WAY better than we do and who are trying to help us promote our screening.  There are people we don’t even know trying to help us because they want to see us succeed.  That is very humbling and I hope we do succeed for our sake, for them and for other right-leaning filmmakers.  Because it would be nice if the next right-leaning filmmaker who makes a film has a lot easier time finding a distributor.  Self-distribution is controlling your own destiny, but a lot of “wheel-inventing” goes on in trying to prove that there is a market for films like ours. 

The past few months have been exciting, fun, challenging, inspiring and expensive at times – but empowering too.  In putting together “Southern Tour ’11,” I’ve come to realize that many of us (myself included) tend to forget that while there is always risk involved, but there is also the great possibility for reward too.  And that we can’t wait for “someone” to come find us and our work.  

We’d love to have some of the many Big Hollywood readers in our audiences, so if you are in driving distance of Atlanta, Charlotte or Greensboro – please join us in our first public screenings.  You can find tickets and/or check out our tour at www.fearofablackrepublican.com/screenings .

Sarah Palin IS The Undefeated.

 By the time you finish watching this superbly scripted and produced two-hour documentary about the former Alaskan Governor, if you don’t come to that conclusion, you were either asleep during the film or you still  believe that “Community Organizer” trumps true executive experience and success as qualification to serve as America’s Commander-In-Chief.

Dim the house lights…

It is 2008 and Republican Presidential candidate John McCain introduces Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate to a crowd of thousands of enthusiastic supporters.  The beautiful, poised, confident Governor takes the stage at the Republican National Convention to thunderous applause and delivers an electrifying speech with a level of charisma, wit, and passion not seen since Ronald Reagan, that catapulted this relatively unknown Alaskan Governor onto the National political stage making her almost instantly and simultaneously one of the most revered and one of the most reviled politicians in recent memory.

In stark contrast, the film then cuts over to a dramatic 3-minute montage of pure, unadulterated hatred from the left for this VP candidate which history will record as one of the most vicious campaigns to annihilate a public figure.  It was vulgar.  It was brutal.  It was violent.  It was main stream.  It was textbook Alinsky.  And yet, she is still standing…undefeated.

"Civility" from the left...

The attacks from the liberal pundits, journalists, talk show hosts, celebrities and patrons of social networking sites and the blogosphere were completely abhorrent and offensive.  So much so that the film’s writer/director, Stephen Bannon, told us at the private screening of the rough cut of the film, he would have to do a lot of creative editing to mask some of the more vulgar and violent footage to get the film to a PG-13 rating for National distribution, yet still convey the same astonishing level of the left’s pathological hatred for Palin.  If you have even an ounce of human decency or compassion, viewing this brief sampling of the almost maniacal attacks on Sarah Palin should make your blood boil.  What has she ever done to deserve this?  Does her mere existence threaten people so much they feel she must be destroyed completely before they are satisfied?

Their latest display of depravity or desperation as it were, with the release of over 24,000 of her private emails from her tenure as Alaska’s Governor, has even drawn criticism from those who would never vote for Palin).  The timing couldn’t be better, though, as we are finding (much to the dismay of the corrupt MSM) that she was every bit the dedicated, hard-working Governor depicted in Bannon’s documentary.

But then we see the words from Matthew 7: 17-20 appear on the screen almost as if to calm our souls and bring all of this into perspective.  We are reminded with this passage that this truly is a spiritual battle between good and evil…right from wrong.   Not just for Governor Palin, but for all of us…for our Nation.

“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” ~ Matthew 7:20

By the end of this film, you will know who Sarah Palin really is.

With opening credits rolling we hear a single, solitary female voice singing an a capella rendition of The Minstrel Boy (a favorite among Irishmen who fought in the Civil War), with never-before-seen home video footage of a happy, care-free American girl blossoming into a beautiful, accomplished young lady growing up in a small town tucked away in the beautiful, vast, wild, expanses of “The Last Frontier”.  As the singer concludes her song with the words “thy song was made for the pure and free and shall never sound in slavery”, the story that chronicles the political career of Alaska’s own pioneer and patriot, Sarah Palin, begins.

Mayor of Wasilla

With commentary from conservative heavy-hitters Mark Levin, Andrew Breitbart, and Tammy Bruce, conservative activists, former staffers, and others, Stephen Bannon does a brilliant job telling the story of Palin’s rise from obscurity in the lower 48 to stardom on the National political stage.  The seed was planted shortly after the Exxon Valdez disaster that Good Friday, 24 March 1989.  It was when she saw the devastation caused to the community, to the people, to the Alaskan economy that she decided “If I had a chance to serve the people, I would do so”.

As the film takes us through the fascinating journey that is Sarah Palin’s highly successful political career in Alaska, it is clear to see she has always been a tough-as-nails executive who understood her role as a servant for the people during her time as Mayor of Wasilla, as Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Chairwoman, and as Alaska’s most popular Governor.  We see her take on the Republican establishment, big oil, corruption, ethics reform, and tax reform and stare down the ugliness and smears she faced from her political foes and the mainstream Alaskan media with uncommon valor and a fierce, tenacious spirit.  She, like a Marine, always ran toward the danger instead of away from it and took on the huge issues nobody else dared to.  With every new challenge the naysayers claimed there was no way she could do the job, that she was not strong enough, that she lacked the “gravitas”, and didn’t have a good understanding of the issues.  She proved them all wrong…and remained undefeated.

She didn’t just talk the talk…she walked the walk.  When it came to fighting corruption within her own Administration, she said “In politics you’re either eating well or sleeping well”.  She always chose the latter.

With one legislative success after another and overwhelming bipartisan support, Governor Sarah Palin’s popularity was at a record high 88% according to Gallup’s empirical data — the highest approval rating on record for a sitting US Governor.  With that kind of approval rating, Sarah stated “My administration must be doing something right”.  She enjoyed those high approval ratings right up to the day her Blackberry rang and Senator McCain asked “Would you like to help me change history”?

And so began their campaign for the White House.

At the 2008 Republican National Convention

So, too, began another campaign — the one launched by the statists to destroy her.  Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals teaches its disciples that you must take a person’s strengths and “isolate them”.  And that is exactly what they did.  It was an organized strategy and the media gladly participated.  Bannon’s film, The Undefeated, reveals exactly what they “isolated” and as John Nolte, Editor-In-Chief of BigHollywood, so aptly put it, is “doing the job the corrupt MSM won’t”.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

While the 2008 Presidential election did not turn out as planned, Sarah Palin won the hearts of millions of Americans, and as Mark Levin noted, the excitement and enthusiasm generated by Palin was the beginning of the awakening of conservatives across the country — the beginning of what is now the TEA Party movement — and very reminiscent of what happened during the Reagan Revolution.  Americans were seeing for the first time since Reagan, a true conservative leader who had a heart for America and for the people.  “Ronald Reagan would have loved the TEA Party” said Levin.  Like Palin, Reagan was called an outsider that couldn’t win.  People said he was “too conservative”, “a right-winger”, “an extremist”.  And he was just what America needed.

Upon her return to Alaska to resume her duties as Governor, Palin was plagued with one trumped up ethics charge after another which cost her staff dearly.  Each charge was dismissed but rarely, if ever, reported by the media.  As the Palins were a middle-class family and had to pay their own legal fees (which had amassed to over $500,000), the intent of her opponents was to force her family into bankruptcy.  Governor Palin knew that with all the negative press and increasing opposition contributing to her declining popularity, she would not be able to pass one single piece of legislation for the people of Alaska.  She knew her constituents were paying the price and suffering simply because their Governor’s name was “Sarah Palin”.  Her decision to step down, as in all her decisions, was in the best interest of the people.  She said “Life is about choices.  You can choose things that tear you down or build you up”.  She always made the right choice for the people in spite of the harsh criticism she knew she would receive.  “Thank God Sarah refuses to accept the premise of her destruction” stated one of her supporters in the film.  Her spirit cannot not be defeated.

In the final scene, as Sarah is speaking at the 2011 Tax Day Rally in Wisconsin, her hair and glasses soaked from the falling snow but the crowd every bit as fired up as they were the day she took the stage at the 2008 Republican National Convention, Sarah Palin states with the same passion and conviction present in every single speech she delivers “We’re here, we’re clear…get used to it.  God has shed His Grace on thee.  Mr. President…Game on!”

We are left to ponder the words of Thomas Paine:  “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”

This is a must-see film that “Palinistas” will absolutely love and will allow Palin skeptics to see what the media has so successfully isolated — hidden in plain sight.  I dare you to go see it.