MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

Groupthink: how Robert Greenwald sees his distrib model

smiley632834570.gifActivist director Robert Greenwald is optimistic about social change as his doc WAL-MART: The High Cost of Low Price opens in the UK, he tells the Telegraph’s Marc Lee. Most notable are his observations about his grassroots distribution model: “The film has achieved what it has [in leading WAL-MART to announce potential changes], says Greenwald, because of its connection to a growing social movement, one that its mould-breaking distribution tapped into. “That took a huge amount of effort… And it is not a model to make money. We had 750,000 people at 8,000 screenings, but they didn’t pay nine or 10 dollars each to see the film: a church bought one copy and showed it to 300 people, a student dorm bought one copy and had 50 people see it. However, from the point of view of reaching people, it is absolutely great. Would I have preferred to see it go straight to TV? No, I wouldn’t. When people see the film in a group, their mindset is different. There’s going to be discussion afterwards, and, in some cases, they are going to take action.” Reviewing the pic in the FT, Martin Hoyle writes: “Greenwald’s method is to let the interviewees talk. Far from a bunch of disgruntled ex-workers (or Wal-Mart’s imaginative term “associates”), the flood of speakers ranges from small-town family firms bulldozed out of business by the leviathan, to Wal-Mart managers of 17 years’ standing…


The society that prides itself on private enterprise subsidises Wal-Mart to a whopping degree in medical care and food stamps for poorly paid employees. Judges have used words such as “corruption” and “lying” of apparent cover-ups. An activist ex-employee describes one manager as resenting “people like you”. She asked what he meant: A woman? Black? “Two out of two isn’t bad,” he laughed… Progress is a fine thing, but this is regression in everything but the naked profit motive.” [A link to the movie’s site here.]

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Movie City Indie

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon