Film Junk Podcast Episode #221: Up and Drag Me To Hell

podcastjun1_09

0:00 – Intro
04:10 – Headlines: Bruno Meets Eminem, New Buffy The Vampire Slayer Movie, Danny Boyle Buys Slumdog Kids a House
29:10 – Review: Up
45:20 – Review: Drag Me To Hell
58:50 – Trailer Trash: Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
1:06:15 – Other Stuff We Watched: Crips and Bloods: Made in America, Global Metal, Stroszek, Hercules in the Haunted World, Blue Streak, Gridiron Gang, Pretty Wicked
1:34:00 – Junk Mail: Staggered Releases in the U.K., Favourite Documentary Soundtracks, Green Lantern Fan Trailer
1:47:58 – This Week’s DVD Releases
1:50:26 – Outro

» Download the MP3 (54 MB)
» View the show notes
» Vote for us on Podcast Alley!

Subscribe to the podcast feed:
RSS iTunes Odeo My Yahoo!



  • Goon

    who was ever saying that the ‘malfunction’ was real? I don’t think I saw anyone taking it that far. the only thing i specifically was ever saying was real was Eminem’s reaction, that it was a prank on him and that Eminem would not have agreed to how it played out.

    And all along I hypothesized that SBC told Eminem X and that he did Y, and every new report that comes out is indicating such, that Em was asked if SBC could do something with him, but that he was never given the details. Also Paris Hilton was apparently the initial target, which makes sense given the Bruno ‘fashion’ angle.

    As for “MTV wouldnt alienate…” – Burnett was the producer, awards shows usually bring in people outside the network and this stuff is put out on the fly, so in that environment I don’t think its an issue.

    Eminem wouldn’t kill anyone, all his targets have been people who would never come back at him, like ICP and Moby. This is why so many people see Eminem as a whiny little bitch.

  • Alex

    Hey Goon, who the fuck cares. Now that i have gotten that out of the way I can speak my mind.
    I went into Drag Me To Hell expecting to hate it and it completely flipped me. I loved it and my favorite part was when the goat started talking. AWESOME MOVIE.

  • Nuno

    My favorite parts were the gooey, toothless kisses. I wonder if it was a conscious decision on Raimi’s part to outdo the Spider-Man kiss.

  • Apparently the head writer for the MTV Movie Awards posted on his blog that the Bruno/Eminem thing was 100% planned and that they even rehearsed it beforehand. However, he has since taken down that blog post. Conspiracy!!!

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2009/06/the-final-word-on-eminembruno-it-was-staged-writes-head-writer.html

  • Goon

    “Hey Goon, who the fuck cares.”

    When it first broke I posted it a few places simply as something I thought funny, especially since it was happening to Eminem, who I don’t like. But since I’ve been browbeat by a couple people for being ‘so stupid’ to believe that it could even be partially real, I care a tad more than I otherwise would, but a lot less than it would appear from the amount of work I’ve done debating and checking sites.

    As for “conspiracy!” – this is what I meant to get into when I ever brought up 9/11 stuff on R3: that whenever anything that would need to be complex gets passed off as real, there is a significant amount of people who just wont buy it. And I say that not to paint doubters of the prank as 911 deniers but to just point out that its natural for people to be skeptics about anything complex, and that even if it was 100% real (including the ‘malfunction’) a significant amount of people would still cry shenanigans. I don’t know why the blog post went down, but most people who believe the prank was (partially at least) real will say its because he found out he was wrong, and most people who maintain it was 100% planned will believe its because MTV or whoever demanded it stay hush hush.

  • Goon

    “by a couple people” does not = Jay, incase there seemed to be some subtle accusation.

  • Goon

    I as well am a huge Andy Kaufman fan but if I was old enough at the time he was doing the Lawler stuff I could believe it was real.

    The Borat/Pam Anderson stuff was clearly fake as I watched it happen. I think it was understood it was there so the film could have an ending and while him chasing down a woman and bagging her was funny, it’s that he did it during a signing in front of all those people that makes it work. If it turns out that I’m wrong and Eminem was 100% involved it’s no big deal because I can appreciate having the wool pulled over my eyes.

  • voted on podcast alley, wrote a review on itunes

    let Reed do whatever he wants; its comedy gold and it adds to the variety of the website.

  • Thanks Rus. We will continue to give Reed free reign for the most part. We learned long ago that you can’t force anything with him… you just gotta let it happen. ;)

  • I think on the slumdog millionaire issue there needs to be a release of the financial agreements with the actors. I’m a indy filmmaker and there are different levels of agreements that allow filmmakers to pay actors less on smaller budget films and then the actors have rights to revenue if it is a hit – and this is in the US. The problem with the current state of the slumdog children involves the fact a independent film (15 million budget for an international picture, multiple locations and actors) now has worldwide gross of $352,849,545! No one can address this issue intelligently without addressing the fairness of the labor contracts involved with the children. I know a trust was set up, but the children are still living in slums and at jeopardy of police raids and removal?! From the outside it appears they didn’t receive the type of compensation that western actors would receive from back-end profits. Likewise, with the success of this film, and the unusual circumstances, – the original agreements should probably be ripped up and a better situation found.

  • “give this kid a house and f*ck the other kids of India” – Jay

    That’s bullshit Jay and you know it. The success of this film is directly proportional to the personality and ability of the child “actors”. Stop being so obtuse.

  • Rus: Are you saying that the creators of Slumdog Millionaire are responsible for the well being — beyond production — of the people they featured in their film? If so, where does it stop? And regarding that quote; it was made in regards to the media coverage of the whole thing. Those conditions have existed LONG before the film came out, and the people freaking out only seem to care about their beloved young Jamal and Latika. The coverage has NEVER gone beyond that.

    The kids were paid and they apparently have a lot more money coming to them when they finish school. I think that’s fair. As for the rest of the issues they face, look at the Indian government and the American/UK governments I suppose.

  • Goon

    I agree with Jay. It’s nice if they can spare more funds to their actors, but its kind of just sentimentality that makes people focus on just saving these few kids and ignoring not just everyone else in India, but the dozens of other minor characters in Slumdog.

    I’m interested though to find out if/how people get money after the fact when small films hit it big. I’m pretty sure Jon Heder only got like a thousand dollars for playing Napoleon Dynamite originally.

  • it all relates to my first comment. this was a independent film made under independent film agreements and the trust seems to be flawed if the children are being put in jeopardy daily. what were they paid? if it is similar to western rates, their daily rate probably wasn’t enough to move the family out of the slums. it appears any additional profits are in the trust. your attitude that there is no issue just doesn’t seem realistic. if the children don’t survive till the day they receive monies the trust is flawed. I think the filmmakers are realizing this with the house purchase. This doesn’t relate to any other child in India, nor the government, it relates to child actors in this film that did an amazing job and that job was in large part the reason it has made $352,849,545!

    name me another situation like this – could it be that this is a first time issue, therefore, it needs to be reevaluated?

  • Goon

    I don’t think this is a first time issue. A lot of indie or small studio films end up becoming something like blockbusters, from Clerks to My Big Fat Greek Wedding to Napoleon Dynamite, Little Miss Sunshine, etc. But since they include people you may recognize or who have ended up having careers afterward, or since they’re North Americans, we don’t really bat an eye or assume as said on the show that everything is fine for their lives afterward.

  • From People Magazine:

    “The producers of Oscar-winning Slumdog Millionaire are hoping the change the lives of some real life children living in Mumbai slums.

    On Thursday, the filmmakers announced they would donate of £500,000 (about $742,000) to create a five-year program aimed at providing healthcare and education for children in conjunction with Plan, an international children development organization.

    “Having benefited so much from the hospitality of the people of Mumbai it is only right that some of the success of the movie be ploughed back into the city in areas where it is needed most and where it can make a real difference to some lives,” Slumdog’s director Danny Boyle said in a statement.

    In addition to the £500,000, a separate trust, called the Jai Ho Trust, has been established to look after two of the film’s child stars – Rubina Ali (youngest Latika) and Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail (youngest Salim) – and ensure that they receive an education and have housing provided for them.

    “Slumdog Millionaire has shown audiences around the world a snapshot of what life is like for one in six people on the planet,” Plan UK’s chief executive Marie Staunton said in a statement. “Education really is the key to breaking the cycle of poverty so we will focus the funds on getting children into school, keeping them there and ensuring they are healthy.”

  • Goon – this isn’t anywhere similar to the examples you give

    Jay – thanks for the follow-up, what is the date? did they rework/add to the original deals, probably. fair enough. It is good they ponyed up, there are plenty of examples were corporations would not, or, go through legal channels to avoid it as long as possible.

  • At the Q&A at TIFF — WAAAYYY before the Slumdog craze — Danny Boyle mentioned that they had set up a trust fund for the kids that would be accessible once they finished school. The reasoning being they wanted to ensure the actors would actually finish their education, and also they didn’t want to put the money in the hands of the parents, risking alienatation from the rest of their peers/neighbours/family, or possibly even putting them in harms way. I think that’s totally reasonable. In the meantime, I believe he said they were paid well above the recommended wages by the Indian film commission.

    If you want to get an idea of how the prospect of a film company handing out money in a poor village can wreak havoc, watch Carmen Meets Borat.

  • The article was from April, but the process is apparently a lengthy one.

    Of course, many people are simply writing the whole thing off as damage control. Seems to me that since the success of the film, and the subsequent issues the kids have faced back home, they decided to modify their plan slightly.

  • but the additional community outreach and other payouts are after those dates/original agreements (neither of us nor the public has the facts) agian it is a fluid issue, there is no right answer. it’s o.k. to revisit the issue if new factors come about, i.e., the stars having their homes bulldozed, or, a film based on slums in India exceeding the producers expectations by 100 times! The filmmakers could never have predicted this outcome and wrote their agreements that way. Truth be told, if the film failed the child stars would not be in jeopardy from thieves, it’s all related.

  • Carmen Meets Borat is not the same thing. We can’t forget we are talking about children here. The prime village “actors” in Borat are adults and not scripted roles. Children and adults have different standards in every aspect of legal and governmental control.

  • I was talking about the trust funds being held back so the parents couldn’t get to them and to avoid peers/neighbours/family from causing trouble, thus Carmen Meets Borat is a good example of how the prospect of money from a film company wreaks havoc in a poor village.

    Didn’t mention anything about the children.

  • Another thing that is relevant to an actual film discussion is the fact that this Slumdog issue is directly related to the film’s success. What I mean by that is the ONLY way this film does what it does critically and financially is if the filmmakers choose to film real evirons and real occupants of those environs. Danny Boyle is a master filmmaker at this film style but he is only as good as the real locations and interactions of his environment. We as an audience enjoy the piece and feel the experience because of this. The filmmakers knew this and capitalized on this in more ways than one. I’m not saying its wrong and I’m actually glad they did it this way. But that being said, it makes issues related to the children and people of those environs much more of a topic for debate. To summarize: Slumdog is a product of its environment, these issues relate to the filmmakers obligation to that environment.

    To head Jay off at the pass, narrative film and documentary film play in different ballparks in terms of story structure, buget, industry standard residuals.

  • ProjectGenesis

    Man, Jay and Rus are totally in Thunderdome right now!

  • Two comments enter. . . .and that’s about it.

  • from my quick research I found this:

    http://topnews.us/content/24930-slumdog-s-jai-ho-trust-comes-forward-rescue-film-s-child-star-rubina-ali

    It appears my original thoughts are correct:

    1. There is an ISSUE here.
    2. The trust, and other ways to help the children, is a fluid issue being changed as needed.

  • Phil G

    Maybe I missed something, but I don’t really understand Rus’ arguement here. He seems to be saying that since they filmed this on location in the the actual environment/conditions these kids live in that somehow the producers are MORE obligated to the actors and that environment. Does that mean that if they had decided to replicate the environment in the studio but used the same actors they would not be as obligated to the actor and community?

    “the ONLY way this film does what it does critically and financially is if the filmmakers choose to film real evirons and real occupants of those environs.”

    This is a statement that cannot be proven one way or the other. It’s may be true that part of the impact of the film comes from the use of real locations, but it is of course impossible to say what the impact would have been if they had chose a different way to tell the story.

    I frankly do not understand what the debate is. From a business point of view, the producers have no responsibility what so ever to anyone above and beyond what they have already done. Services were rendered under contract and everyone was paid accordingly.

    Morally, maybe you have a point that more should be done. However, as Jay has already pointed out, even before SLUMDOG became such as success the producers were already taking it upon themselves to go above and beyond what was needed.

    Say we accept Rus’ arguement at face value. If what is being done is inadequate, what should be done?

  • Yes, it is my belief that the film’s success is directly proportional to the real environs and real actors used, which, makes this issue singular and more of a loaded issue. Yes, you are right it can’t be proven, but in your minds eye you could imagine a Slumdog with studio sets, real actors, etc. Very different film.

    On the business side, I was just thinking about this as I drove back from a meeting. The worst thing that could happen from a business perspective is if something tragic happened to these children. This film is an Oscar winner and has a long life ahead in sales and showings. The last thing the business people behind the film want is one of the children being raped, killed, sold, etc. You can’t come back from that type of negative publicity.

  • Phil G

    I’m sorry, dude, I just wrap my mind around your logic on this. I’m really not trying to be argumentative.

    Forget the fact that your claim that the movie is successul primarily because of the real location and real actors. (I think you mean non-actors, because I’m not sure what the fuck a real actor is. As opposed to a fake actor?) This is nothing more than supposition on your part. You’re right, it would be a very different film: better/worse; more or less succesful; more or less critically acclaimed we’ll never know.

    How long are the producer’s responsible to these kids and the community? In perpetuity? Where does it end, and how much is enough? You seem to be saying that the kids and community should benefit in direct proportion to the success of the movie and that somehow the producers are more responsible just because the movie happened to be a success. I just think that is insane. If the movie would have been a box office turd, the responsibilty of the producers would end and the kids would be fucked. For your argument to to be consistant, I think the producer’s responsibility should be the same no matter how much the movie has made or will make.

    Any movie is going to be affected if something tragic happens to one of the actors. What makes this movie any different? It seems that since we are talking about doe eyed, cute as hell little kids that take great photos for the media to publish it’s more of an issue than it would ordinarily be.

    And perhaps I am way more cynical that I should be, but if one of the kids were rapped, killed, or sold I tend to believe it would be better for the business of SLUMDOG and not harm it in the least.

  • This whole thing started as a reaction to Jay’s view on the podcast about the Slumdog issue brought up by Sean.

    I was clearly making the case that a real issue did exist and that issue is unique to any other film. If someone wants to show me an example from the film world that is similar to this film and all the variables involved; I’d welcome the wisdom.

    I really don’t have to solve the issue since my view has always been its unique and deserves care and consideration from the filmmakers. It appears from recent news stories I’ve read online they are doing that. I feel they were blindsided by the bulldozing of the one star’s home.

    As far as your last statement about an act of violence against one of the CHILDREN helping the film – that isn’t the world I live in, nor, do I want to think about that type world.

  • J D

    Why the FUCK are you tarking about that COCKSUKER Eminem who give’s a SHIT?

  • ELbaGalante

    Valuable ideas , Talking of which , if your company wants to merge two PDF files , my business partner encountered piece of writing here http://goo.gl/23pCef