Via Reuters:

“We all know we’re going to die every moment of every day,” [director Abel Ferrara] told reporters after a press screening of the movie in Venice. “What you do in the meantime is what life is all about.”

News footage, including a real interview by environmental campaigner and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, makes clear that the cause of Earth’s demise is man-made.

“This film is about man’s destruction of the Earth,” Ferrara said.

“It’s on us. It’s our responsibility. We did it. This isn’t an accident, or an act of God as they say in the insurance claim. This is an act of man.

“That’s a nightmare. That’s part of the anguish. There’s a lot more further advanced civilizations than ours that have bit the dust … it’s not like: ‘Oh my God, this could never happen’.” …

Asked whether Gore was officially attached to the film, the director said he had “reached out” to the former U.S. vice president and that he was “definitely pro,” although he had not seen it.

Ferrara is responsible for two of my favorite films of the ’90s: “Bad Lieutenant” and “King of New York.” Twenty years later, both still resonate thanks to two amazing central performances that bring to life complicated characters living in Ferrara’s thematically-driven world. Because of the explicit subject matter, these aren’t films I would recommend to everyone, but if you want to learn how to deliver a compelling character study to the screen, you won’t find better examples. The key to their success, however, is the word “theme.” There’s no agenda at work, nothing preachy, no divisive message. Of all directors, you would think Ferrara would know better.

When you create a fantasy world where Al Gore’s nonsense, lies and hypocrisy are proven correct, how does that add to your story?  

When it comes to similar movies, there was nothing partisan or political about “On the Beach.” The scenario there was a very real possibility in a world of mutual assured destruction. As far as a more recent example, ”The Road” did this exactly right. We had no idea what caused the end of the world. You filled in your own blank, you brought your own worldview to the story and in turn the story both fulfilled and challenged that view. Even the openly liberal 1983 television film “The Day After” was wise enough to avoid laying blame for nuclear Armageddon on anyone.

Ferrara’s central idea fascinates me. People dealing with that kind of inevitable is a terrific concept and character device. Unfortunately, I have absolutely no desire to live through the sucker punch of a childish and phony “told ya so” from Al Gore. 

Not because it’s liberal, but because it reeks of  lousy storytelling.

In particular, Romero has revisited the zombie film in quite a few movies over the years, usually providing the press with some serious intellectual/social/political commentary his latest film is supposed to make. So it is once again with his new film, the Venice Film Festival entry Survival of the Dead. Reuters reports that Romero, age 69, said his new film deals with questions about when it’s right to go to war: 

“I wasn’t looking at Iraq and saying, well, lets make a movie about Iraq,” Romero told reporters on Wednesday. 

“It’s much more about man’s underlying inability to forget enmity, forget their enemies even long after they’ve forgotten what started the conflict in the first place. 

“I think that part of the problem is that nobody looks at both sides of any issue, it’s automatically: I’m on this side or I’m on that side.” 

There’s nothing dishonorable in being a hack filmmaker; truly accomplished hacks can make enjoyable movies. But hack filmmakers with big ideas just become increasingly worse bores as the years wear on. Their vapid nattering reminds one of . . . zombies.

A quote from Oliver Stone’s soccer body, Hugo Chavez:

“The question is not whether the Israelis want to exterminate the Palestinians. They’re doing it openly,” Chavez said in an interview with Le Figaro[.] …

“What was it if not genocide? … The Israelis were looking for an excuse to exterminate the Palestinians,” Chavez said, adding that sanctions should have been slapped on Israel.

It must’ve been the “sugar tits” comment that made Mel Gibson a pariah in Hollywood, because Hugo’s defaming the Jews and Hollywood still loves them some Hugo.

Yes, it looks as though unless Ahmadinejad, the ghost of Joseph Stalin or the surviving members of the Weather Underground show up to steal his thunder, Hugo Chavez (whose Indian name is “He Who Rides Little Girl Bike“) is the toast of the 2009 Venice Film Festival.

The hoopla surrounds Oliver Stone’s latest documentary “South of the Border,” which the the L.A. Times describes as a “counterpoint to the prevailing U.S. image of Chávez … as a bellicose dictator-cum-comic opera figure.”

I’m still unclear how one is supposed to represent a bellicose dictator-cum-comic opera figure as something other than a bellicose dictator-cum-comic opera figure, but rest assure Oliver — Can I play soccer with Uncle Hugo?– Stone gave it the old college try; the same Oliver Stone who portrayed the Abraham Lincoln of the Middle East and his Vice President as warped and sinister.

Meanwhile, in a land where enabling evil is considered a bad thing, events are unfolding that probably won’t be found as a helpful update in the “South of the Border” DVD release:

Tens of thousands marched through Venezuela’s capital on Saturday to protest what they call growing authoritarianism by President Hugo Chávez.

And you can practically see The Beautiful People, hands over ears, chanting nanananaIcan’thearyounanananaIcan’thear you… over the news that Chavez will “democratize media ownership” through the closing of up to 100 radio stations “biased against the Chavez government”:

Infrastructure Minister Diosdado Cabello closed 34 radio stations in July, saying the government was “democratizing” media ownership. …

Venezuela will pull the plug on 29 more radio stations, a top official in President Hugo Chavez’s government said[.] …

The powerful Chavez ally has threatened to close over 100 stations in total, part of a long-term campaign against private media that the government says are biased against Chavez’s government.

What a relief that perverting the language could never lead to something like that here in America.

Michael Moore’s “Capitalism: A Love Story” premieres at the Venice Film Festival today. Reuters has most of the details, the usual-usual from the 55-year old mega-millionaire. But buried below the usual-usual is the real story — a point of agreement with we right-wingers:

Amid the gloom, Moore detects the beginnings of a popular movement against unbridled capitalism, and believes President Barack Obama’s rise to power may bolster it.

Well, let’s hope Ted Kennedy’s enjoying his day on the slopes because Mr. Moore and I just found some common ground.

Here are the other bullet points. To save you time, the following words are not used together in describing the film: ”personal” and “responsibility” — “taxes” and “too high” — “Michael Moore” and “gave all his wealth to the federal government.”   

1. “Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil,” the two-hour movie concludes. “You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy.” …

2. The bad guys… are big banks and hedge funds which “gambled” investors’ money in complex derivatives that few, if any, really understood[.] …

3. [L]arge companies have been prepared to lay off thousands of staff despite boasting record profits. …

4. [R]egulation has been changed to favor the few on Wall Street rather than the many on Main Street. …

5. [E]ncouraging ordinary Americans to borrow against the value of their homes, businesses created the conditions that led to the financial crisis, and with it to homelessness and unemployment. …

6. Moore interviews priests who believe that capitalism is anti-Christian, because it fails to protect the poor and encourages greed.

And one final point of agreement:

Moore drives a truck up to some of the biggest banks in New York and, through a loud speaker, demands they give back the hundreds of billions of bailout dollars to the country.

Though entertaining, Moore’s films have never been at all persuasive. Whether it was the reelection of George W. Bush or a push for socialized medicine, Moore’s a gift from above for our side — who, like Oliver Stone, is so clownish and anti-intellectual he’s become a national punchline.

May Michael Moore live forever and never stop making movies.