The Brisbane Times
Hollywood heavyweight Harvey Weinstein has revealed plans to expose the National Rifle Association in a new movie starring Meryl Streep, saying "they're going to wish they weren't alive after I'm done with them”.
The Miramax Films and The Weinstein Company co-founder's straight-shooting comments went to air on Howard Stern's popular radio show in the US on Wednesday.
Weinstein has since confirmed to Deadline that the movie will be titled The Senator's Wife. Thewebsite reports that Weinstein will focus on the NRA's behind-the-scenes influence in Washington, which helped defeat a bill that would have secured tighter gun control in the US.
Weinstein is a known supporter of President Barak Obama, who tried to introduce the legislation following the shooting deaths at Sandy Hook Elementary School and Aurora theatre in 2012.
Advertisement
Weinstein told Stern the film wouldn't be a documentary but a “big movie like a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”, referring to the 1939 classic about one man's impact on a corrupt Washington.
Weinstein revealed his plans when Stern asked if he owned a gun.
“I never want to have a gun… I don't think we need guns in this country, and I hate it, and I think the NRA is a disaster area," Weinstein said.
“I shouldn't say this but I'll tell it to you Howard, I'm going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and we're going to take this issue head on.”
Weinstein said the movie would do so much damage to gun manufacturers that their stocks would “crash and burn" upon its release.
Weinstein needs his ego deflated. Even with Meryl Streep in the movie, this looks like a flop, presuming it gets made.
ReplyDelete"Hollywood heavyweight Harvey Weinstein has revealed plans to expose the National Rifle Association in a new movie starring Meryl Streep, saying "they're going to wish they weren't alive after I'm done with them”."
ReplyDeleteYes, look how well that worked for Michael Moore. I'm not seeing how what Weinstein is doing is any different than the shots taken in other similar films,
Bowling For Columbine
Runaway Jury
Liberty Stands Still
Elephant
Lord of War
"This production cycle usually takes three years. The first year is taken up with development. The second year comprises preproduction and production. The third year, post-production and distribution."
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film
Not looking like anything coming very soon, assuming they find financing for it.
"Assuming they find the financing?" Are you joking. Do you know the films this guy has been involved with in the past?
DeleteYou mean like the Piranha movies? While his track record will help, if the plot sucks, no money. As they say, that's show biz.
DeleteLike Pulp Fiction, to name just one.
DeleteOr that film soon to replace Sophies Choice as a climatic masterpiece, "Piranha 3DD", I wonder does the "DD" mean it is extra 3 dimensional....
ReplyDeleteHow about Harvey puts up all the money to get this turn floating....... That will show how dediacted hrs is to this load of retarded crap.
But I must say he sure likes violence in his films......
Sin city
Sin city 2
True Romance
Pulp Fiction
Things to do in Denver when your dead
The crow city of angels& salvation
Scream 1,2,3,4,5
Night watch
Copland
Jackie brown
Equilibrium
Kill bill 1,2 & soon 3
Grindhouse
Deathproof
Inglorius Basterds
Piranha, 3D & 3DD so good they slipped over 2....
Seal team 6
Django unchained
What a sack of gun loving rehard HW is..... When it makes him money.....
"When it makes him money....."
DeleteIn fairness, based on his comments in the media, would suggest that he has experienced an epiphany in regards to violence in his films. Whether he's being truthful will be determined in his future actions.
I agree that his financing the project with his money would be an indication of his dedication to the project. The changes in his philosophy might not be apparent immediately since films are generally projects that occur over a period of years, and he might be legally committed to projects already in progress.
It will be interesting to see if he can find backers for this film.
"Weinstein told CNN's Piers Morgan on Friday night that he can't in good good conscience advocate against on-screen violence while promoting movies that some claim revel in it. He promised to steer clear of such projects in the future.
"I can't do it," Weinstein said. "I can't make one movie and say this is what I want for my kids, and then just go out and be a hypocrite."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/17/showbiz/harvey-weinstein-movie-violence/index.html
If what the gun loons say (gun violent TV, movies, videos have no correlation with real gun violence) is correct, then why complain that he makes violent movies? They have nothing to do with gun violence, right?
ReplyDelete"If what the gun loons say (gun violent TV, movies, videos have no correlation with real gun violence) is correct, then why complain that he makes violent movies?"
ReplyDeleteActually, in the NRA's statement following the shooting in Newtown commented directly, that they felt that violent video games, movies and music must have an adverse effect on people.
"And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.
Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here's one: it's called Kindergarten Killers. It's been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn't or didn't want anyone to know you had found it?
Then there's the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."
But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?
In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year."
http://articles.courant.com/2012-12-21/news/hc-full-text-nra-statement-from-dec-21-press-conference-20121221_1_insane-killer-press-conference-prosecutions
I take a firm stance on all rights. Just because I don't like a given movie doesn't mean that I want it banned or even not watched. It's the responsibility of each one of us individually to recognize the difference between movies and real life, just as it's our duty to be responsible for all of our actions.
DeleteBesides, Natural Born Killers is supposed to be social commentary, at least from what I've heard. And I know of no way to ban that movie, without also banning .
I know I'm not talking about what you're recommending, Sarge. I just find the NRA's position on this to be wrong. We don't defend one right by sacrificing another.
Who's buying this stuff?
DeleteGreg,
DeleteI happen to agree with you in regards to banning movies of other speech. I just wanted to address the inaccuracy of Anon's statement. I'm sure there is someone who will disagree with me here, but I made it through the era where almost everyone smoked on TV and there was lots of shooting.
I even recall when everyone got the vapors because Murphy Brown was becoming a single mother. The answer the people freaking out was she's a fictional character. And I happen to agree. Though for some reason, they seem quite adept at having pretty much eliminated tobacco use on camera. But that's another debate.
If Mr. Weinstein wants to attempt to salve his conscience by changing what films he makes, that is his choice. I wish him luck.
I do believe that something has changed in our world that has cheapened life and thought for others' worth that was there before. Not all that long ago, according to Laci and company, we had a higher percentage of households with guns, fewer gun laws, but school shootings were so very rare, or nonexistent. So the question is, what has changed? Once you discover that, you can start to think on what to do to make effective changes.
Actually, I suspect that we just didn't talk about violence in the days gone by. Shootings were local matters that didn't make the national news.
Deletehttp://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/
The fact is that as Stephen Pinker tells us in The Better Angels of Our Nature, the world is getting less violent. Perhaps our love of violent movies and games is replacing our need for actual violence. Of course, Aristotle said something about catharsis some 2,300 years ago.
An interesting article, and you may be quite correct in regards to just not paying attention. There does seem to be the perception of an increase of violent crime and gun crime in particular in spite of documented evidence that violent crime is declining over the long term.
DeleteI can but hope that the cycle in the first graph in the article doesn't start another upward swing.
It's kill happy gun loons buying this garbage. Which makes it easy for them to envision themselves doing actual killing. And killers have said they learned from violent media.
DeleteAh, so you're agreeing with the NRA's assertion Anon?
DeleteI'm agreeing with what killers have said to cops and prosecutors. That's first hand evidence, not opinion.
Delete