HBO, FX Lead Critics’ Choice TV Awards — But … 
Hammond On Cannes: A New Day Comes To The Fest As HBO and … 
Cannes: Lionsgate Acquires U.S. On Guillaume Canet’s … 
Toronto Fest Lands World Preem Of Godfrey Reggio’s … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Man Of Steel’ 
Former Digital Domain CEO & Auditors Sued For Fraud By … 
Fox Acquires ‘Narc’; Zac Efron Attached To Play … 
ABC’s ‘Nashville’ Undergoes Production … 
CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults … 
Mike Lobell Adds Cast To ‘Eisner,’ Plots … 
Sony Shares Rise On Report That It Will Consider … 
Alki David Agrees To End Name Games With Aereo And Barry … 
Next-Gen Xbox One Unveiled With Content Including … 
UPDATE: Apple CEO Challenged For Moving “Crown … 
ESPN Layoffs Could Reach 400 As Part Of Latest Disney Cuts 
Cannes: Weinstein Co Acquires Keanu-Reese Sci-Fi Pic … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’ Up … 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Wolverine’ 
Ang Lee Departs FX Pilot ‘Tyrant’ 
How Many Times Does Seth MacFarlane Have To Say No To The … 
Cannes: Stanley Weiser To Script ‘Three Graves … 
EXCLUSIVE: Universal Pictures has dropped plans to finance and distribute Memphis, the Paul Greengrass-directed film about the final days and assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. The studio has halted progress on a film scripted by Greengrass and produced by Scott Rudin. Universal picked it up last month, with plans to put the picture in to production in June so that it could be ready for release around MLK Weekend, 2012. Why has this happened? The studio confirms that it halted the movie, but attributed it to timing and scheduling, and an uncertainty the film could be pulled together in time for next February.
I’ve heard another factor put pressure on the picture: the MLK estate was highly critical of the project, and exerted pressure on the studio to call it off. I’ve heard that Andrew Young, former confidante of the civil rights leader, reached out to Universal personally to register his objections. Now, I’d heard similar whispers when Lee Daniels was trying to make the MLK project, Selma, which seemed about to get underway last fall when The Weinstein Company stepped up as financier, but didn’t get off the ground. The family, I’ve heard, made it known that it might go public with its displeasure over Greengrass’s script, which could have hurt the film’s theatrical prospects. Whether this is because the film goes in controversial directions, or because the estate has thrown its lot in with the Ronald Harwood-scripted MLK film at DreamWorks (which paid for the rights to use Dr. King’s copyrighted speeches) is anyone’s guess. All I know is that Rudin and Greengrass are now looking for another backer to keep the film on track. That is eminently possible considering Greengrass’s track record with non-fiction features. Since moving away from documentaries, the British former helmer has made two, and both were superb. He directed Bloody Sunday, about the massacre of Irish civil rights protesters by British soldiers in 1972, and United 93, a real-time account of how passengers on that plane overpowered hijackers of the flight and caused it to crash in a field in Pennsylvania before the hijackers could reach D.C. The latter won Greengrass a Best Director nomination for a film that was financed and distributed by Universal. Memphis would have been Greengrass’s first film at Universal since he directed Green Zone and dropped out of directing a fourth installment of The Bourne Identity.
Loading ...
I heard Universal legal was having serious clearance issues with some of the ‘factual liberties’ taken in the script, so this would synch with that.
I’ve heard on good authority that the decision was actually made by COMCAST. Universal had to bring the decision to the CEO of COMCAST, who was afraid the King estate would create controversy for the company (which they would, no doubt, as they are being paid well over 7 figures for the “authorized” movie). Ironic (and sinister) that a movie about a great populist leader of the 20th century came down to a decision in a corporate boardroom.
The reason is always money. The MLK estate is vested in the DreamWorks project, and Greengrass’s film would steal it’s thunder. It always comes down to money, folks. Remember that.
But they’ve already been compensated by Dreamworks? So if it’s money alone, why would they bother?
why is everybody interested suddenly in doing MLK films? why not do an Obama film instead, Greengrass?
Because who cares about Obama – he’s too recent, need to go through his first term (and hopefully last) in office.
Thank God. All due respect, who the hell is Greengrass to do an MLK picture. We, black people, are not a topic. If two white men decide to an MLK picture with no black involvement, no interviewing of the living Civil Rights icons, without even speaking to his heirs, then, yeah, that is big fucking problem.
I don’t want to racialize this, but imagine if a black producer, black writer, black director woke up one day and said, “we’re going to do the Golda Meir Story. Or the Winston Churchill Story. Or the Elvis Presley Story” I can hear the howls from every quarter. “How dare a group of black do the Elvis story, why what do they know about Elvis.”
But, as far as white people doing our stories, that’s been going on for 75 years. We’re a carcass to be picked over at will.
It’s not right.
I’ve written before and been criticized, but it’s true: If someone wants to do the Cesar Chavez story, you should start with a Latino writer and/or director. It doesn’t mean you will end up there, but you start there. Hoping that that man or woman would, maybe have some deeper insight, than a white male.
If it’s the Gloria Steinhem project, wouldn’t you at least start with a woman writer or director?
As I said before, you may end up with the usual hacks, but you start with someone who might feel the thing having lived through the thing.
But the arrogance of two white men sitting in a room and saying, “Hey, let’s do King, baby,” and never reaching out to the very people who marched with him is an obscenity.
Bravo. Go do another action adventure movie, Paul. Leave us and our stories alone.
You want to do an African American project, then reach out to an AA writer or director. Maybe, just maybe that AA might bring something deeper to the table having once discriminated against.
Well said… Honest Abe. Very well said…
Can you tell me what intrinsic value separates a white writer/director from AA writer/director? Do they interpret the same event differently just because of their race/color? You may say cultural differences, and they are not necessary qualities of becoming a valid storyteller of a historical event.
What an utterly stupid post – I couldn’t care less if some black producer or director decided to do Elvis or Churchill biopics. Black people don’t ‘own’ the Martin Luther King story. Racism works both ways, and it seems this country can never quite move beyond it.
Hell, yeah!!!
And only hindus should do movies about Gandi, only italians should do movies about Spartacus, only egiptian chics should do movies about Cleopatra, and only jews should make movies about Jesus.
Heil to racistic-nationalistic uptightness.
Yes, exactly. And The Good Earth shall only be attempted by Asians, and Nanook of the North by Eskimos, and Hamlet by the Danish.
This is the same racist garbage that sabotaged Norman Jewison’s attempt to film Malcolm X: whites can’t possibly understand “black” history and issues. Hilarious. So can all “white” projects now, with white characters, have zero participation by blacks, because they can’t possibly understand “white” issues?
Your thinking is frightening. I wouldn’t think twice about a black filmmaker tackling Elvis or Golda Meir. But according to you, the director must match the gender/race of the lead character of a movie. How absolutely moronic and backwards-thinking.
so basically an African American can never write, produce or direct a movie about white people? well that is just dumb and sets the civil rights movement back 60 years
I see your point, in regards to not getting the estate’s approval like Dreamworks did. But are you against that project as well? Because you have Suzanne de Passe producing, who is black, but then you also have Spielberg producing and Ronald Harwood writing, who are both white. So how do you judge, does de Passe suffice and pass your test?
Also, were you against Spielberg directing THE COLOR PURPLE, like many were at the time, and/or AMISTAD?
Or does the quality of the person come into play, i.e. Spielberg is the man (despite INDY 4 and producing TRANSFORMERS crap); he has proved himself by making THE COLOR PURPLE and while AMISTAD could have been a whole lot better, it was a worthy effort with some terrifying scenes. So is he ok to tackle another primarily black story, or latino story or some other ethnicity?
Is the fact that Spielberg and Harwood are both Jewish come into play? The Jewish people have been discriminated against and suffered like other races (not comparing atrocities here), so might they have more insight into an MLK story than a Brit (Greengrass)?
Was it ok for Scorsese to make KUNDUN, or should only a Tibetan have made that film? Was it ok for Stephen Daldry to make THE HOURS about 3 women (Daldry reportedly bi-sexual); Todd Haynes (who is gay) to make SAFE or FAR FROM HEAVEN, both with central female characters? Does sexuality come into play – does a gay man have more insight into a women’s story than a straight man? Ok for Clint Eastwood to make BIRD? What about Fernando Meirelles making CITY OF GOD – he’s a white Brazilian telling a story about black Brazillians? In my opinion, these are all top notch films.
Again, to some extent I get what you’re saying, but where do you draw the line and how exactly do you judge? In this case maybe it’s not so much a racial thing as they should have gotten the estate’s approval. When Todd Haynes did I’M NOT THERE, he got Bob Dylan’s approval, who has never approved a biopic over the years, but liked Haynes’ take, and his previous films (Dylan is a cinephile) so did.
Excellent response to Abe. Let’s also not forget Ang Lee- according to Abe, Ang would only get to direct or be in the room for Crouching Tiger, but forget about his other work like Brokeback or Sense and Sensibility… The fact is, and Abe needs to hear this, sometimes it is actually ESSENTIAL for an outsider to approach a subject so they can see the truth of a character, warts and all. Great storytellers find a way to that truth, and the only requirement for that is being a human being with talent and courage to go deep into the human condition.
Exactly.
And yet whenever a foreign director makes a movie about America all the reviews seem to say, “Only an outsider could bring objectivity to this subject.”
You ARE racialising this. You are clearly an idiot. Black people do not have a monopoly on this story. Get over yourself.
Way to miss the point. We are pushed to the side as it is, and then aren’t even given consideration for our own stories.
What an incredibly racist and arrogant post.
So why then does the black community has such a beef with inadequate presence of blacks in movies and awards, subsequently? By your logic non-blacks should not make movies with black actors or about black people, so why this constant outcry about not enough black representation?
Are you demanding segregation again?
I seriously disagree. There is a tendency to mystify and/or romanticize our own. I find myself always interested in seeing how someone different sees what I see. I may not agree with it, but it is interesting nonetheless. A good story is universal in its reach and a biopic is more so. If a film’s truth can only be pulled out by an artist of the same race/gender as the subject then it is not a story worth telling.
“If two white men decide to an MLK picture with no black involvement, no interviewing of the living Civil Rights icons, without even speaking to his heirs, then, yeah, that is big fucking problem.”
How does the fact that they’re white have anything to do with them not doing sufficient research? You clearly have no point.
A) You haven’t read the script so you don’t know what you’re talking about.
and
B) Black people don’t own MLK. If you’re proposing racial ownership of historical figures, then no black director should ever be allowed to make a film about a white historical figure either, so I suppose it’s correct that Lee Daniels didn’t make his film ‘Selma,’ because that film involved LBJ.
What a load of crap, pure racism from HonestAbe. MLK does not belong to black people what a fucking insult!
“You want to do an African American project, then reach out to an AA writer or director.”
My favorite African-American actress is Charlize Theron. Is she racially qualified to direct it, in your opinion, should she choose to do so?
You’re coming off pretty racist in this discussion. Maybe that’s just the way you are. No reparations for you!
Oh, right. It’s not about money…it’s about color…
Please spew your racism on other boards. Thank you.
Abe’s post is a good example of why racism still exists in America. It’s just the little things that idiots say and do that continue to create tension in this country.
A white man directed “Ray” and guided Jamie Foxx to an Oscar, so I think Jamie would disagree.
sooooooo, what about the smackdown put on the Lee Daniels MLK project?
Curious if this film will make MLK an actual human being. This almost christ like figure created around him is a little sad. Not only does it ignore his flaws, but it ignores all the other great people who worked with him.
“The family, I’ve heard, made it known that it might go public with its displeasure over Greengrass’s script, which could have hurt the film’s theatrical prospects. Whether this is because the film goes in controversial directions, or because the estate has thrown its lot in with the Ronald Harwood-scripted MLK film at DreamWorks (which paid for the rights to use Dr. King’s copyrighted speeches) is anyone’s guess.”
Really? It’s anyone’s guess as to whether they don’t want a film that they have no financial interest in to go forward? Yeah, that’s a real head-scratcher.
So basically all the cool projects at Universal never actually get a green light????
What a drag for Greengrass, who is such a huge talent. Might have to just publish it as a book so that story gets out there at least.
-Greengrass
They are punishing him for walking away from the Bourne franchise. They can’t get Damon to return as Bourne without Greengrass and since Paul doesn’t want to direct another sequel they no longer need him. He’s moving on in his career which is good for him artistically but commercially he’s badly in need of another hit. Green Zone lost money and they were angry that he talked Damon into doing that instead of another Bourne movie.
The Greengrass Memphis script was so much better than Selma. It’s a shame to hear that it’s being held up. I think the controversy theory makes sense because in telling the better story, Memphis pulls no punches with the King chatacter. I’m sure that the Estate, (with zero grasp on which will make the better film) only has the King portrayal in mind, Siding with the less controversial portrayal.
That’s not true. I was at an event in which guest speaker Suzanne DePasse mentioned that they were going to be accurate in their portrayal of Dr. King. Suzanne and Spielberg are producing the Dreamworks one together.
Too bad about SELMA. That’s a really solid and moving script.
I’ve dealt directly with the MLK estate and they insist that their clearance policies are in place to protect the integrity of his legacy. Then, once the price for the rights gets high enough, suddenly context wasn’t such an issue.
Whole experience grossed me out.
good for fucking you… i don’t hear anyone complaining about the money it costs to get rights to the kennedys or the hearst family or elvis, so who gives a shit about your experience. commerce talks. you with your bullshit, should walk.
The whole MLK industry (i.e. the family) is a pack of mooches, seeking to whitewash whatever is necessary in order to maximize their revenue as they pickpocket MLK’s corpse.
Je$$e Jack$on uses the same model to loot the dupes out there.
HOW DARE WHITE MAN MAKE FILM ABOUT MLK!!!!! WHITE MAN BAD!!! ONLY TYLER PERRY SHOULD DIRECT MLK FILM!! WHITE PEOPLE’S ARE TEH BAD!
LOL…It is time to demystify these “gods” and see them for what they really were/are…HUMAN! MLK, CHE, REAGAN, MANDELA, CLINTON, LINCOLN, WASHINGTON, GATES, EVERY POPE…the list goes on and on and on.
No it isn’t. Shut up.
Any project that trashes a Republican in Hollywood gets greenlit right away, HBO has 2 of them coming. I’m still waiting for the no holds bard Clinton’s bio, not going to hold my breath waiting for that.
“Primary Colors” (1998) directed by Mike Nichols.
Primary Colors wasn’t enough for you? Or does that just not support your theory that everyone is out to get Republicans?
MLK is not about the GOP. His life experiences occurred at a time with SOuthern Democrats were for segregation. Am I missing something here? Or are you just promoting an agenda?
How much clout can the MLK estate still have?
Wow…someone needs to go back and re-read the “I Have a Dream” speech. I coulda sworn King was talking about and stood for racial equality – you know, skin color not mattering and all of us being equal…..Way to marginalized MLK’s plight. Don’t tell me a white dude like me understands King better? Wow……You really need to come on down off of that high horse, cuz I think you misplaced your passion…..
honest abe = couldnt be more racist.
its exactly that attitude that has us where we are today. get over it and join humanity. this is’nt about black vs white vs something else, these are human issues.
on a side note: there is something called “talent” that is helpful in getting work. It actually works better than the color of ones skin. research it. they have books on it.
Honest Abe is right. Spike Lee has to direct every black bio pic. I am surprised it is not a law. Sometimes people forget we are a minority and not 50% of the population. All biopics must be directed and written by the people who they are about. Ghandi – despite the Oscars should have been written by Svanntara Revintusa. Same with Patton.
United 93 was a great film. If Paul Greengrass applies that level of detail and accuracy to a story of MLK’s last days, it will include at least 3 extramarital affairs. How do you think the MLK estate feels about that?
Let me try to respond to all this venom.
1. My complaint is partly racial, but more, much more importantly, respect. The Civil Rights Movement is sacred. It’s not a topic. Greengrass, if he wanted to do this right would’ve spent a year interviewing the living members of the movement, reached out to the King estate, etc. He did none of those things, trust me.
2. I at no time in my post say that only black artists can do black projects. What I said is that black writers aren’t even hired these day for black projects (look through the archives on Deadline). And if black writers aren’t hired for black projects and they aren’t hired for general market projects, oops, that means they’re never hired–except for buffoon comedies.
3. As I said, wouldn’t it in this day and age be an insult to women if the Gloria Steinhem movie was being made with 4 male producers, a male director and male writer. If I were woman, I’d boycott that. There’s no one in that chain to say, “You know, a woman wouldn’t say or do that.”
4. I have no problem with Taylor Branch being involved in a Civil Rights movie or project. He’s white and has spent half his life writing about the Movement. But this Memphis is another example of Hollywood arrogance that two multimillionaire white men can just expropriate our icon to win an award with no black involvement or outreach whatsoever.
And the obscenity of rushing into production so Scott and Paul can release the movie on King’s holiday in 2012 is almost too much to bear. Is nothing sacred?
Dr. King marched so that we could be enter the mainstream, to get the jobs that we had been prevented from getting. And now 44 years later, the heirs of the struggle aren’t hired to write about it. That makes sense. In other words, we’re back in 1964 when white men get all the (writing) work and blacks are thought of as unqualified.
As I said before, I would start with someone who might be more emotionally connected to the material. If it didn’t work out you could always go to the usual hacks, white men.
For the record, love Steven, but hated Color Purple. Wish it hadn’t been made. It is part of long line of movies, Precious included, that show black men as monsters.
The rest of you I won’t dignify with a response. Some of you are functional illiterates and shouldn’t be on this site.
Nice backpedaling there, Abe, but you’ve already outed yourself as racist. Back to your cross-burning, Adolph.
Wrong dumbass. Honest Abe is the perfect liberal who believes in affirmative action. You know like Barack Obama who only got elected because of the color of his skin and not the content of his character to quote MLK.
If Barack Obama were a white guy named Barry Obrien who was just a first term senator from Illinois he would have been crushed in the primaries. He only got elected because he’s half black. 2008 was our first affirmative action election.
The majority of Americans voted for a guy who wasn’t qualified to be president because they felt it was time for a black man to win the presidency. Hillary was far more qualified and so was McCain.
You and honest Abe are both racists. Replace race with sexuality and you will see the fundamental problem with your argument.
Funny how all topics on the Internet, up to and including the earthquake in Japan and the melting polar ice caps morph into some kind of right-wing, racist screed against Obama.
Funny how being Black is now an ADVANTAGE in the USA. Who knew?
Shut up.
Ah, the Hitler comparison. Knew it wouldn’t be long.
This site gets a large part of its traffic from right wing sites so I would not expect them to get your point. These same people will defend a movie involving an Asian story line such as Akira being done by an all white cast while attacking any change in character from being white to a person of color like say in Thor or the Avengers, etc. The reality is that they have as their agenda to label you and not really listen to your points. You actually make some good ones. Some of them I disagree with. Some I agree with. But you make the mistake of assuming your audience here is interested in a deeper discussion of race.
Let me put it to you this way: Even if the site did not have conservative sites feeding into the traffic, the reality is that Hollywood is not interested in the role it plays as far as on going issues like race or sexual orientation or I would add women. It claims to be about money, but its really about a small group of people doing what they want on projects and an overall risk adverse mindset. This is not per se a problem, but it is one when you are dealing with minority groups or groups who have less power.
The only thing that keeps me going is that I know that even the best people of color in the industry face these same problems so I don’t let it stop me.
Abe- If an AA producer (Oprah?) wanted to put up the money and make the film, nothing is stopping her or any number of successful, wealthy AA producers/filmmakers from doing their own film.
A lot of these comments are overblown! I think the point is that if ANY filmmaker (white or black) is going to make a film about one of the the most iconic figures in African-American history it’s critical that you get the story RIGHT! And working with the family and other notable civil-rights leaders of the ’60′s (like Andrew Young) is advisable.
Artistically the filmmaker must make certain judgment calls to tell the story through their eyes but I think having some level of buy-in is important. History book, articles and other historical semi-fact are good but folks like Andy Young know the real deal (good and bad). Also, if MLK’s name was going to outrightly tarnished it would not be a good thing for the filmmaker or the studio. No one is saying MLK was perfect, but in the black community you don’t talk bad about three things: Jesus, Mama and MLK. Now THAT is the truth!
It reminds me of this direct, I believe it was Lars Von Trier, who a few years ago caused a controversy because he said he could make a movie critical of America without coming to the U.S. I imagine several of the people posting comment here would find that problematic for its arrogance. The same should be true of not doing what it takes to do the best film you can by going to the sources for insight. It does not mean painting a rosy picture. It just means avoiding believing one can know a subject without fully digging into what the subject is about.
Anyone who wants to know what this is really all about should pick up a copy of Ralph Abernathy’s autobiography, which discusses the last couple days of King’s life in extraordinarily explicit detail.
There is a book about MLK by a young African American woman causing a great stir. Anyone know the name of it?
Legal departments are such wusses these days.
Can’t wait to see how the world reacts when and if George Lucas’ first film since Revenge of the Shit comes out. (Oh, no, did I misspell that? If the anagram fits.) “Red Tails” is about the Tuskegee Airmen but it is written, produced and directed by fat, rich white guys. Yeah, directed by, since the Bearded One took it away from Anthony Hemingway. Uh-huh, he took it away from the token black guy he hired in the first place.
Course, if you go to his properties up north, good luck finding anyone who’s black, Hispanic or, weirdly for SF, Asian. A bunch of middle-aged white guys and white nerds who love raping Star Wars.
This idea of white men making movies about noble black men is stupid.
Hampton Sides wrote a fabulous book about the strange life of James Earl Ray, with particular emphasis, obviously, on the events leading up to and including the assassination. In contrast to the MLK story, the Ray story has rarely if ever been told on film and would make for an infinitely more interesting movie than yet another stab at portraying the “real” Martin Luther King. I suspect that Greengrass would do a fine job with this rich material, and, as a bonus, no one from the “Ray estate” would gripe about a mischaracterization.
Maybe a director from Memphis – Craig Brewer and Ira Sachs come to mind – would be better equipped to set the atmosphere. Captured most egregiously by Ms. Kyra Sedgwick’s comically awful southern accent on The Closer – is that supposed to be a joke? – Hollywood does an almost unanimously awful job of painting the South and southerners.
I’d be interested in seeing the film you talk about. Made with a down-to-the-bones Southern understanding. Brewer’s gift with theatricality would be my choice of the two, too.
…nothing against Greengrass…
I agree. Brewer or David Gordon Green.