I smelled a rat, but I didn't know precisely which way to turn. So I ran Phil's comment at the end of my story while trying to get Westover to respond and clear things up. I also called Bauder at his New York office and told him what I'd heard. Bauder was apparently just starting to consider the possibility that he'd been played.

Now the network has admitted the whole thing was a crock, according to a follow-up story by Bauder that appeared early Saturday morning (7.17).

"The Sci Fi Channel admitted Friday that it lied last month in claiming it was at odds with filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan and was making an unauthorized biography about his 'buried secret,' Bauder wrote. "The hoax was part of a 'guerilla marketing campaign' that went too far, network president Bonni Hammer said.

The network said last month that Shyamalan had walked away from cooperating with the filmmakers when the questions got too intimate and they went off the list of accepted interview subjects. Kahn and Greene pressed on, the story went, and made the doc without Night's cooperation.

"The Associated Press wrote about the documentary last month, and other media also ran accounts," Bauder's 7.17 story read. "In an interview, Greene described how Shyamalan's 'cooperation dried up.' A network spokesman told the AP that Sci Fi was confident it had legal grounds to air the film and would probably never work with Shyamalan again. In a news release, Sci Fi said Shyamalan had attempted to shut down production of the 'disturbing expose.'

"It was all a lie, and there is no buried secret, Hammer said Friday.

"The documentary, scheduled to air Sunday, says a mysterious drowning of a child in a lake near Shyamalan's boyhood home in the Philadelphia area had profoundly affected his life and fueled his interest in the supernatural. That's not true either, Hammer said.

"'We created a fictional special that was part-fact and part-fiction, and Night was part of the creation from the beginning,' the network chief said.

"Moviegoers walk away from Shyamalan's films not knowing what was real or not, she said, and 'we wanted to do the same thing in a special about his life.'

Villareal's suspicions developed after he watched a half-hour tape sent by Sci Fi Channel containing highlights of the doc. The tape apparently hinted in portions that it might be a mockumentary. I didn't have a copy myself. I was simply intrigued by what Bauder's story conveyed and wanted to pass it along.

"Perhaps we might have taken the guerilla campaign one step too far," Hammer said. "We thought it would create controversy and it probably went one step too far."

"This marketing strategy is not consistent with our policy at NBC," said Rebecca Marks, NBC entertainment spokeswoman. "We would never intend to offend the public or the press and value our relationship with both."

I called Westover on Saturday morning to say that his failure to respond to my questions, which I'd explained in some detail in one of my two taped messages, was, at the very least, inconsiderate.

I think it was extremely unwise for Nathaniel Kahn, whose feature-length doc MY ARCHITECT was nominated for an Oscar earlier this year, to take part in this hoax. I guess he needed the coin. I left a message for Kahn at his New York apartment on Saturday morning. There was no answering-machine reply when I called on Friday.

I would be lying if I didn't admit that this episode has totally pissed me off, and that I would love to repay the favor by trashing THE VILLAGE any which way I can. I'm not going to say it's not a good film if I think otherwise after seeing it. But I think this episode should be read as a big green light by all entertainment journalists to dump on THE VILLAGE in any way possible. You know....because it'll feel good.

Machinations

I'm amazed that a majority of critics out there are giving thumbs-up or respectful passes to I, ROBOT (20th Century Fox, opening today). I'm assuming that somebody out there would like to hear what the experience of watching it is actually like, apart from its value as a semi-thoughtful sci-fier.

You could call this riff on Isaac Azimov's "Robots" a smart futuristic cop pic in the vein of MINORITY REPORT and BLADE RUNNER. But that's that's an oversell. A film isn't necessarily the cat's meow because the story starts to come together in the second act, or because it has a theme that says "beware of rampant technology" and "machines are not your friends."

The straight shoot is that I, ROBOT is a generally underwhelming sci-fi eye-candy thing with too much cartoonish CG to give it texture or visual gravitas. The other downer is a supply of totally rote performances (the dominant one, of course, delivered by star Will Smith) that affect the flow of this film like Xanax. The more you see, the snoozier it all gets.

It's Chicago in the year 2035. Society is heavily dependant on robots manufactured by a monopolistic concern called U.S. Robotics, and as things begin the market is starting to be penetrated by a more highly developed robot model called NS-5.

But the understanding that robots have been programmed to be docile and compliant is suddenly called into question when an NS-5 model called Sonny (played by an unseen guy named Alan Tudyk) is implicated in the death of the ground-floor inventor of robot technology (James Cromwell), who, of course, this being a totally predictable film, has an attractive scientist daughter (Bridget Moynahan).

The investigator is Detective Del Spooner (Smith), a typical hot-dog malcontent with an absurdly obsequious and unobservant boss (Chi McBride) whose shaved head has all kinds of strange lumps and growths under the skin.

Spooner has a basic animus towards robots, for a reason eventually revealed. There's a notion that Smith's history may be a significant aspect down the road. He may even be revealed as a robot himself. But once Bruce Greenwood, the Pill to Terminate All Pills, turns up as the head of U.S. Robotics, you know where this is heading. You know that a mention of "ghosts in the machine" is going to happen eventually, and the robots are going to turn bad....big hoo-hah.

I suppose I should be grateful there are a couple of surprises along the way (Sonny turns out to be like Rutger Hauer's "Roy" in BLADE RUNNER), but I don't have the energy to express this right now.

Will Smith is Will Smith is Will Smith, and his smirky, cocky, smart-ass attitude routine (exactly the same in I, ROBOT as it was in INDEPENDENCE DAY, WILD WILD WEST, BAD BOYS 2, et. al) is starting to feel almost malevolent. He's got a great physique and a winning smile, but all I'm getting from him these days is a King Kong-sized ego.

I'm saying this loud and clear -- no more villain roles for Greenwood in big-budget studio films. That still-as-a-statue posture of his, those perfectly tailored executive threads, his aerobicized features and beady little eyes, that part-in-the-middle hair style....it all spells slumber. Back to Canada and Atom Egoyan with him.

And I found Moynahan bothersome as Smith's scientist ally-girlfriend. She starts crying too quickly in a scene with Smith, and I was thinking, "Oh, here we go...the female lead showing us she's got strong emotions underneath a buttoned-down exterior." Bullshit.

And I didn't like all the flying around. Everyone flies in action films these days. Not like Superman, of course...like Batman. Downward. Everyone has wings and wires and hard drives keeping them from crashing into the pavement and suffering horrible impact trauma. And nobody complains about this except me. Just think....from here on no hero in a big-studio action film will ever die from a fall.

It started with Michael Keaton using his aerodynamic leather cape during jumps from the tops of buildings in the first BATMAN movie. And then came CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON and it was all over. Wire madness ruled.

Alex Proyas didn't direct this film...not really. The guy who piloted DARK CITY, THE CROW and GARAGE DAYS is pretty much unnoticable. The real shapers and painters of I, ROBOT are Smith and his agents and the suits at Fox who wanted to kiss his ass... along with the toady-ish screenwriters, Jeff Vintar and Akiva Goldsman.

When FAHRENHEIT 9/11 exploded a few weekends ago, some guy said that one reason was that it's not just another pre-fab big-studio thing, and that people are really tired of the same old gruel. I, ROBOT is exactly the kind of film he was speaking of.

There's no believing any of it, really. The visuals say "CG" in every frame, and that's not the idea. If the texture and the technology are right, you're supposed to just go into the film and forget the particulars.

The gritty, rain-soaked atmosphere of BLADE RUNNER was futurism with funkitude. The world of MINORITY REPORT had a cleaner, brighter tone, but there was enough in the way of invention and particularity to sell itself as something real. The failure of the I, ROBOT team to even try to measure up to these two left me cold early on. It felt like Playstation 2.

You don't need this movie in your life. You really don't.

Mystery of Castle Keep

If you keep up with DVD websites, and especially with the first-rate reviews of Glenn Erickson on www.dvdtalk.com, you know all about the big CASTLE KEEP brouhaha. But in case you don't....

Columbia TriStar Home Video has made an appalling decision to release this 1969 anti-war film on DVD in a "flat" pan-and-scan version, despite the fact that director Sydney Pollack and his cinematographer, the late Henri Decae, shot it in widescreen scope (i.e., 2.35 to 1). The misbegotten disc will be released on Tuesday, July 20th.

CASTLE KEEP is not LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, but this is an outrage all the same -- a truly offensive (not to mention bizarre) act of corporate indifference.

The top dog at Columbia TriStar Home Video, Ben Feingold, declined to get on the phone yesterday and explain why, but CTHV's exec vp of worldwide marketing Alison Eiggers did. She basically said that ColTristar "made this decision to get the broadest distribution of CASTLE KEEP that we could," but that negative feedback over the pan-and-scan release has persuaded them to "look at coming back with a widescreen version for subsequent release."

I e-mailed Sydney Pollack about this on Monday, and he wrote back the following: "I'm of course upset to have the film released in a pan-and-scan version. It was filmed by a great cameraman, and was completely designed for the scope ratio. Each shot was composed to take advantage of the information and graphics of that ratio, so it's a real disappointment to have it butchered up this way.

"I'm happy that it's being made available," he added, "but I don't really understand why this pan-and-scan version is preferable to them. It's almost unheard of these days for DVD distributors to lop off the sides of widescreen movies."

Some DVD companies release films in pan-and-scan and a widescreen or matted format on a double-sided disc or "flipper," but no one puts out pan-and-scan DVD's these days. Videotapes do this, of course. The early laser discs did this. But DVDs, never....until now.

And the really weird part is that Columbia TriStar wasn't forced to go with a pan-and-scan version because of a lack of decent elements to work from. They had a perfectly acceptable widescreen version to work with all along, according to Columbia's archive and film restoration guy, Grover Crisp.

CASTLE KEEP isn't a great film, but it's a trippy thing...surreal, funny, oddly touching. I saw it on LSD a long time ago and it spooked me out. It made me laugh in the strangest way. I was howling here and there, but at the same time really amazed at the quirky but earnest tone of it. And I'll bet if and when I see it again it'll go down almost as well. (I'm not suggesting that anyone should follow my example, by the way.)

It's set near the end of World War II, in Belgium's Ardennes forest. A platoon of U.S. troops, led by the one-eyed Major Falconer (Burt Lancaster), take refuge from battle inside a beautiful medieval castle owned by a Count (Jean-Pierre Aumont) with a beautiful wife named Therese (Astrid Hereen).

The platoon is supposed to be preparing for a coming German attack, but something about the fanciful, hidden-away atmosphere inside the castle prompts them to mainly indulge in fantasies, role-playing and philosophical reveries. Lancaster agrees to try and impregnate Therese, at the urging of the impotent Count. A grunt played by Peter Falk spends all his time in the kitchen, cooking bread. Another played by Scott Wilson indulges a fascination for a German Volkswagen. Al Freeman, Jr., playing an aspiring novelist, and Tony Bill, a boyish private, also partake in distractions.

Sitting around and talking about deep stuff may sound like a lame premise for a film, but trust me, it's something else. Especially on acid.

I spoke to Crisp on Monday about why Col TriStar Home Video might have decided to release a pan-and-scan version. One reason would have been if the negative had been lost, or if the separation masters were gone also, along with any interpositives. It's 35 years old, this film, and elements for older features have been lost or mislaid before.

But "none of this is true," said Crisp. "I wouldn't know anything about why they're putting out just a pan-and-scan version. I don't work for the home entertainment division. I just supply the stuff, and there's nothing wrong with this film. We made a scope transfer about a year and a half ago, along with the flat transfer. We have the negative, and the [scope] transfer was made from a band new interpositive."

Eiggers said the pan-and-scan decision was basically intended to appeal to the home- video viewers who are used to pan-and-scan VHS and have recently come over to DVD.

"We're getting a broader base these days, and as DVD becomes more of a mass product you have an emerging consumer base that is more interested in pan-and-scan versions," she said.

Okay, I replied, but why not just issue a "flipper" DVD with both the pan-and-scan and widescreen versions on the same disc? Eiggers said that expense was a factor in doing this as well as a marketing call not to alienate the new-to-DVD crowd. "Some people get confused flipping discs over and trying to decide which side to play," she said.

Hey, to be a good marketer you have to be sensitive to the needs and confusions of your customers....right? The only wrinkle is that people with DVD players who get confused over which side of a disc to put in the tray are....well, you know...a couple of cards short of a full deck.

"Our intention was never to blow off a segment of the DVD public," Eiggers said. "If we make a decision like this [or to release a 'flipper'], one way or another we get feedback from one sector or another. But we didn't expect to get this kind of feedback, and now that this is happening we're looking at releasing a widescreen version down the road."

CASTLE KEEP is 105 minutes long. There is no difference whatsoever between releasing it in a 1.33 to 1 pan-and-scan version, which lops off just under half of the original image, and releasing it at a length of about 52 minutes, with the first 26 minutes and the last 27 minutes taken out. Both destroy the audience's ability to fully understand and absorb what CASTLE KEEP is all about.

Shun the pan-and-scan KEEP. Buy copies and burn them in effigy outside DVD stores. Urge your local DVD retailer to return them to the distributor. It's not just the movie, it's the principle, although the movie is damned interesting and deserving of everyone's respect. The ghost of Henri Decae will thank you.

Killer Divas, Part 2

Wednesday's "Killer Divas" story was about recently revealed letters and memos from the late director John Schlesinger that reportedly claim that Madonna's demands and tempestuous behavior during the making of Schlesinger's final film, THE NEXT BEST THING, led to his suffering a heart attack after the film wrapped.

The story also included an oft-repeated story that Marilyn Monroe's histrionic fits and tardiness on the set of THE MISFITS in 1960 may have exacerbated Clark Gable's frail condition and led to his November 1960 fatal heart attack.

Yesterday a seasoned journalist friend told me that Barbra Streisand, no stranger to willful behind-the-scenes behavior, gave director Martin Ritt a rough going-over during the making of NUTS (1987). The experience didn't kill Ritt, who was 72 or 73 at the time (he went on to make STANLEY AND IRIS with Robert De Niro and Jane Fonda before passing away in December 1990), but my friend contends that his collaboration with Streisand was a doozy.

I'll say it again: directing can be like professional boxing, to some extent. It's a younger man's game because you're going to get slugged, and you've got to be agile enough to bob and weave, as well as strong enough absorb the blows. It seems only natural that directors in their 70s may feel a bit more bruised and weary after this experience than their younger counterparts.

It should also be said that Streisand's performance in NUTS is one of her best ever. Crafting a top-notch performance can sometimes be a very trying thing, and if you're going to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs. What am I saying? I don't know what I'm saying. Life is hard, doing good work is harder, and you only have so many times at bat.

Keep, Pan-and-Scan, etc.

"The comments about the pan-and-scan DVD of CASTLE KEEP from Alison Eiggers, the Columbia Tristar Home Video marketing executive, convey no understanding whatsoever about the audience for DVD's.

"The 'emerging consumer base that is more interested in pan-and-scan versions' will not be buying or renting CASTLE KEEP in any format. Those are the people who will be in line next weekend at Blockbuster to rent their copy of STARSKY AND HUTCH.

"Older movies that are released on DVD, with the exception of a handful of megahits like the STAR WARS trilogy or Disney titles, do not sell well at all on DVD. Video stores do not carry them and mass retailers like Walmart or Best Buy do not usually stock them, unless they are priced so low that they can be dumped in a bargain bin. The only people who seek them out are film buffs who are invariably interested in seeing the movie in the way it was originally made.

"And yet the selling of the CASTLE KEEP disc is a bit of a con job on the STARSKY crowd. Take a look at the artwork on the front and the blurb saying that 'the action is furious' on the back, and it's clear Columbia/Tristar is obviously trying to appeal to consumers who are unfamiliar with the film and might be tempted to take a flyer on it if they think it is a typical DIRTY DOZEN-style World War II action film. These very same consumers will probably resent the fact that they were misled into buying the DVD in the first place and could well swear off buying any more titles unless they already know exactly what the movie is about.

"For what it's worth, CASTLE KEEP currently ranks at number 7102 on Amazon's DVD best-seller list, so Columbia/Tristar hasn't done a very good job of reaching that emerging consumer base regarding this movie.

"Unlike the emerging consumer base that Columbia/Tristar is trying to reach, I do purchase a number of vintage films on DVD and I regularly check lists of upcoming titles to see what will be available. Deciding which ones to add to my library is not always a fast or easy process . Fortunately, thanks to you and Columbia/Tristar, my decision about whether to purchase CASTLE KEEP has just become a lot easier." -- Steven R. Silver

"Any decision to release a film without it's proper OAR (original aspect ratio) intact is, of course, both bogus and lame. But the shit turds at Columbia have made a small habit of doing this with their titles from time to time. They pulled the same crap last year with Keith Gordon's fantastic A MIDNIGHT CLEAR and a few other titles.

"Do they really think a full-frame version of CASTLE KEEP will sell more copies at Wal-Mart than a widescreen? Does Columbia expect hordes of people to be chomping at the bit to buy a 35 year-old Burt Lancaster film? They're deluded.

"It only shows yet again that marketing research is lowest common denominator- influenced cow dung. The only people who want to own CASTLE KEEP are older film buffs who saw it back in its day, or people like me who love to explore cinema of yesteryear, but neither group will tolerate a cropped film! Fix CASTLE KEEP and win back a few hearts and minds, Columbia, and fix MIDNIGHT CLEAR while you're at it." -- Red Death 614

Next...

"I'm really really saddened to hear that you're moving on, Jeffrey. I can't tell you how much I've enjoyed your Hollywood Elsewhere column. I'll look forward to it until late August, and after that, I just don't know what I'll do. When I found your column I felt like I'd finally found something I'd look forward toreading, unlike so many blogs about movies, or sites that are really hit n' miss. Man, I just don't know what to say.

"If you continue to write about movies online somewhere else, please drop me a line and let me know where you've landed." -- Bryan, Miracle Mile district, Los Angeles.

Wells to Bryan: Thanks, man, but there's no "if." A lot of people have written me to say they're sorry, etc., but I'm not bailing or moving to Italy or Nicaragua. I'm going to take the column somewhere, somehow....I just haven't worked out the details. All that'll happen in late August is that I'll announce a new URL location and that'll be the place to go....easy. It's still a frosty world out there, and it always will be, but if you keep hustling something always turns up.

Faster Faster

"I liked your call on MTV-style editing in action films. If editing techniques get any faster there are going to be a lot of people dropping to the carpets and having a fit. Action-film editing is increasingly becoming a cinematic equivalent of strobe lighting -- quick, unpleasant, and only for particular tastes." -- Martin Stanley

"One movie that never fails to drive me actually crazy with its quick-cut editing is MOULIN ROUGE. It had to be edited by someone with ADD. You never get the chance to focus one image for more than two or three seconds, if that, and every time the movie starting sucking me in, they would cut again to some useless image having nothing to do with the narrative, and i'd be gone again. Damn it, Baz...slow the hell down!" -- Beth Ausband.

Wells to Ausband: I've said this a couple of times before, but the first 20 minutes of MOULIN ROUGE was, for me, a SCANNERS experience. The cutting was so insanely jumpy and frantic I felt as if my head was actually going to burst. I was sitting in the theatre with a very concerned look on my face. Something very, very wrong was happening up there on the screen. My nervous system knew this before my head had put it into words.

"I hate frenetic cutting in music videos, but at least they're just music videos -- they don't have to make sense. But movies do. And yet I loved the cutting in Guy Ritchie's SNATCH. It was tricky and you had to be on your toes to follow it, but it worked fine. Same with CITY OF GOD. I'm sorry to hear there is some of it in THE BOURNE SUPREMACY because I'm really looking forward to that film a lot. I hope that it's only in a few places, as you have stated in your article. " -- J. Smith