By MCN Editor editor@moviecitynews.com

CONTROVERSIAL FILM “BANANAS!*” RETURNS TO LOS ANGELES FOR ONE TIME SCREENINGS ON JUNE 23, 2010

OSCILLOSCOPE LABORATORIES PRESENTS THEATRICAL SCREENING AT THE DOWNTOWN INDEPENDENT THEATER ON EVE OF FILMMAKER TRIAL
LOS ANGELES, CA The polarizing documentary BANANAS!* returns to Los Angeles for a one night theatrical screening engagement on the eve of the trial between DOLE Food Company and filmmaker Fredrik Gertten. Both filmmaker Gertten and his attorney Lincoln Bandlow will be in attendance to discuss the film following each screening on June 23 in downtown Los Angeles.
After last year’s highly controversial screening at the Los Angeles Film Festival amid threats of lawsuits, Dole Food Company sued director Gertten and his production company WG FILM. However, Dole withdrew the lawsuit after Gertten’s home country, Sweden, and its Parliament signed a petition demanding Dole withdraw the lawsuit on the basis of freedom of speech. Next Thursday, June 24 following the Los Angeles screening, Gertten will have his day in court against Dole, fighting a SLAPP motion.
“One year later after the turmoil at last year’s LA Film Festival, I am glad that the public can see the film that Dole Food Company didn’t want anyone to see,” said filmmaker Gertten. “We are pleased that our US distributor Oscilloscope Laboratories is screening this film for the public at this time before the DVD comes out, so that everyone can see for themselves. With Chevron coming on down on my fellow filmmaker Joe Berlinger for his film CRUDE and Dole suing us for BANANAS!*, it’s become even more difficult for documentary filmmakers to defend ourselves and continue to make non-fiction stories about those who have been wronged. Despite all of Dole’s effort to halt our film, to date we have screened at over 50 festivals worldwide and sold the film to over 10 countries for television and theatrical exhibition.”
DOUBLEbanana490.jpg


These special screenings of BANANAS!* take place on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 at 7PM and 9PM at the Downtown Independent Theatre located at 251 Main Street in downtown Los Angeles, CA 90012.
The film has screened with critical acclaim in theaters and on television in Sweden, France, England, Germany and other countries. BANANAS!* is a multi-layered courtroom drama delving into the global politics of food, the dynamics of First and Third world nations, and ultimately, human rights at the basest of levels.
Directed by investigative journalist Fredrik Gertten, BANANAS!* focuses on a landmark and highly controversial legal case pitting a dozen Nicaraguan plantation workers against Dole Food Corporation and its alleged use of a banned pesticide with a probable link to generations of sterilized workers. Juan “Accidentes” Dominguez, a Los Angeles-based personal injury attorney, leads the charge in this classic David vs. Goliath story, at times both infuriating and inspirational, of workers and their families as well as the culture of global, multinational business. Cameras inside the court and interviews with Dominguez and the plaintiffs take the audience directly to the story.
Experts and companies all over the world have followed this case. If Dominguez is successful, it could rock the economic foundations of Dole and would open the US courts to other global victims of US-based multinationals. It would represent a new day in international justice and allow for new opportunities for many other cases of a similar nature.
For more information on the screening and the history of the film, please go directly to the film website at www.bananasthemovie.com or to www.oscilloscope.net for distribution information.
###
Your review and coverage of this film screening is requested. Please contact us if you would like a DVD screener and press notes.
Filmmaker FREDRIK GERTTEN and attorney LINCOLN BANDLOW are available for interviews.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

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