Mark Cuban Backed De Palma's 'Redacted' to Promote New Movie Distribution Business


Why does a small-budget movie like Brian De Palma's “Redacted” matter? Because of the ripple effects. The media have reported the film as "a ferocious argument against the engagement in Iraq for what it is doing to everyone involved.” Meaning the media are taking these deeply anti-war, anti-military storylines as De Palma intended, as a serious discussion of the day-to-day “realities” of Iraq.

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban (shown right, image via Pat Dollard) financially backed “Redacted,” which debuted Friday in Italy at the Venice Film Festival (blogged here), and his studio Magnolia Pictures is distributing the movie (h/t NB'er Acumen).

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Political controversial movies are nothing new to Cuban, is also financing the latest version of the 9/11 “Truther” pseudo-documentary “Loose Change" (see bottom for correction*) but the billionaire is using “Redacted” to forge a groundbreaking method of movie distribution by promoting same day availability of theater movies on Pay Per View--at the expense of the boots on the ground.

Former Hollywood agent turned embedded documentarian Pat Dollard dove into Mark Cuban's role as distributor and came up with some inside information (emphasis mine throughout):

Cuban’s company Magnolia Pictures will be bringing this propganda campaign to a theater near you this winter. According to a source close to Cuban, the decision for Magnolia to develop, finance and distribute the film was personally made by Çuban. Cuban has a full producer credit on the film, and DePalma shot it on HiDef video at Cuban’s request, in order for it to qualify as fodder for Cuban’s hi-def cable channel. So far neither he or DePalma have explained how they can be “bringing the truth of the Iraq war to the American people”, as Louie DePalma (sic) has said, when neither of them have ever been to Iraq, filmed any of “Redacted” in Iraq, or spent one minute with any soldier in Iraq. Clearly they are only bringing you their imagined propagandists’ reality of Iraq. Both had the opportunity to go, both declined.

Ah, yes, but the've read the “truth” on the Internet.

 It's all out there on the Internet, you can find it if you look for it, but it's not in the major media. The media is now really part of the corporate establishment.

I doubt the sites he visited had information from impartial sources with first hand knowledge like Michael Yon, Michael Totten, Bill Roggio or even, gasp!, some of the soldiers themselves. Why bother reading those bloggers when Counterpunch, Prison Planet or Democratic Underground are ready and willing to keep De Palma “informed” about the American Genghis Khans in Iraq.

Cuban's involvement gave “Redacted” more reach and power. With Cuban and Magnolia Pictures, it will find a ready audience in the international market. The foreign media loved it in Venice. Watch De Palma's three-minute standing ovation on YouTube to see just how much. Cuban plans to release “Redacted” through his HDNET Films, where it will find a home on Pay Per View two to three days before the theater release.

The move is supposed to break barriers and carve out a new way to release movies. According to Variety, the goal is for “Redacted” to push Cuban's Ultra HD Video on Demand into common use:

The importance of this strategy can't be overstated, [Cuban] said. All of his clients, he continued, have stressed to him "that the ability to watch movies while they are in theaters is at the top of the requests in their research" from consumers. "Because we are the only studio to own a national theater," he added, "we are in a unique position to do this." Cuban owns Landmark Cinemas.

So, “Redacted” wasn't just a movie De Palma made to “stop the war,” it's an important part of Cuban's business plans. What better way to promote his new Pay Per View distribution feature than to use a highly controversial movie to draw attention?

Obviously, Cuban and De Palma had the right to put out this movie, but bloggers have the right to expose the movie as a hit job masquerading as what De Palma called “the reality of what is happening in Iraq”-meaning a bigoted US military habitually raping and killing civilians. “Redacted” was designed to outrage people and that outrage is something those soldiers' enemies will exploit. 

 

*UPDATED with correction 09/06/07 (05:15): With media interest swirling, Magnolia's Mark Cuban said, "We are having discussions about distributing the existing video with Charlie's [Charlie Sheen] involvement as a narrator, not in making a new feature." At that time, the media reported were they were "in talks" for a deal, which turned into a certainty in much of the media. I don't know what, if anything, came of the talks, but Cuban recently stated, "I didn't finance it" about "Loose Change" on Blog Maverick, his personal blog.

I don't know whether talks just did not result in a deal or if Cuban played a game of semantics about his involvement. Either way, according to Cuban, he "didn't finance" "Loose Change." 

 

Contact Lynn at tvisgoodforyou2 at yahoo dot com


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Libs swarm towards ANYTHING

Libs swarm towards ANYTHING that reinforces their own biases. Our troops cannot afford these weak and shallow tactics anymore.

You're correct Fairlight,

You're correct Fairlight, there are a growing number of individuals who dislike those who serve in the military for whatever reason (perhaps they are afraid to go sign up themselves?) but I digress.  Unfortunately there is an audience for this garbage here and around the world.  My friends who have children in college tell me that their kids are bombarded with negativity about the military in many of their classes (three of the five are in ROTC and are belittled by most of their profs at Purdue & IU) and the other two are just sitting back and being quiet so they can pass their classes.  Celeste was telling me her son had to hear about this "fabulous movie coming out that tells the truth about the US military" while wearing his ROTC US Army uniform.  Then the guy who is a holdover from the Viet Nam era complete with requiste pony tail said "How do you sleep at night knowing that your soon to be comrades in arms do this?"  He said he slept just fine. 

There are a number of people in this country and trolls on this board who have no respect for the military and will buy this hook, line and sinker and think we need to see this garbage.  As for that idiot Jodie Foster and the Dixie Twits, I choose not to see her films or listen to their music or anyone else's who acts in a like manner.  It's my hard earned cash and I will spend it as I would like.  I don't need to support Hollywood or the music industry.  Funny, the ones who are yapping about the poor, plight of the Twits want Ted Nugent thrown under the bus because he made fun of Hill & Obama.  Liberals, will be the downfall of this country as we know it. 

My friends who have

My friends who have children in college tell me that their kids are bombarded with negativity about the military in many of their classes (three of the five are in ROTC and are belittled by most of their profs at Purdue & IU) and the other two are just sitting back and being quiet so they can pass their classes. 

BOTH my daughters attend(ed) Kent State University and insist(ed) on wearing any one of their assorted MARINES, NAVY, ARMY, AIR FORCE T-shirts they had in their collection to classes ...

Today's college-bound kids know what is sitting in wait for them in the classrooms ...

 

Re: (ed) ... My oldest daughter has graduated. The other is currently a junior (technically in her second year, but has enough credits/hours accum. to be a Junior)

Good Business

Critical acclaim usually outstrips commercial success for propaganda pieces.  The "Day after Tomorrow" is a film which comes to mind.

Movie goers want to be entertained not  propagandized when spending $10.00 for a movie.  If Cuban is buiding a business based on this movie, he made a poor business choice.

Oh, absolutely. This one

Oh, absolutely. This one has "Oscar" written all over it. They won't even have to create a new classification for it; they've already corrupted their "documenatary" category.

Hollywood liberals slay me. If someone doesn't buy a Dixie Chicks CD, they claim "censorship." They say politics should have nothing to do with art. But the see nothing wrong with awarding a movie (e.g.The Day After Tomorrow) because it reinforces their political views.

End of the Day

At the end of the day, Cuban may have an Academy Award and some very large bills. Buzz that does not come from word of mouth is very expensive to create.  

 

Few Americans view our soldiers as rapists and killers. This kind of portrayal will not pass for entertainment except among self loathing liberals and nihlistic leftists.

True, motherbelt

We have one of those broken-minded leftists right here on NB who absolutely insists that refusing to see Jodie Foster movies is "censorship."

If I refuse to see a Jodie

If I refuse to see a Jodie Foster movie because I don't like her empty-headed political views (nor am I interested in hearing about her elitist agenda) or because something that she said or did bothers me, that's my way of exercising my right to free speech and expression, as in Constitutional Amendment #1.

It hasn't dawned on these idiots in Hollyweird that their socialist, leftist "messages" are offensive and that they will be held accountable for their words and actions because there are MANY people in this country who still believe in it, in what it stands for, and has respect for our military who made it all possible.

 

motherbelt


'If someone doesn't buy a Dixie Chicks CD, they claim "censorship"

I believe they claimed censorship after record stations refused to play them.

Censorship

I believe they claimed censorship after record stations refused to play it

And how is this censorship?  It is not.

~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~

cool arrow

the owners of many of the stations refused to play the Dixie Chicks. They were denying listeners the right to make up their own minds to listen to them or not

Even if it is Censorship, so what?

Radio stations have a right to not play anything they do not want to play.

Censorship is only a problem when the government does it...al a the "fairness" doctrine or the McCain-Feingold law.

mattm

Motherbelt said it was censorship when people did not buy the DC cd and CA said radio stations that did not play them was not censorship. I was merely stating that it is censorship

}}---> Shawn

And that just means you choose words for impact rather than veracity.

It is not censorship.  You know it (I hope you're not that ignorant), but you choose to call it censorship hoping to throw hypocrisy back at us.

It's just a silly argument.

~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~

...

And I'm merely stating that even if it is censorship it doesn't matter because there is nothing intrinsically wrong with censorship, per se.  It depends on who's doing it to whom and why.

Censorship by a private radio station of a particular artist whose viewpoint the radio station opposes is perfectly valid.

This is known as freedom of speech.

Motherbelt said it was

Motherbelt said it was censorship when people did not buy the DC cd -shawn228

No, Shawn, motherbelt did NOT say that. What she said was:


Hollywood liberals slay me. If someone doesn't buy a Dixie Chicks CD, they claim "censorship."

The operative word being "claim."

Should I have to buy a Dixic Chicks CD if I don't want to?

The argument about whether the radio stations censored them has enough input and others did a good job. I'll skip that to avoid repetition.

MB, shawn must work for the

MB, shawn must work for the NYT's or CBS.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

shawn and censorship

Not buying CDs is not censorship, that is a free market boycott. A radio station not playing their music may or may not be censorship. A case where it is not...a rock station does not play their kind of music. If the radio station chooses not to play their music because of political reasons for example, then that is censorship...the key is that it is not government sponsored censorship.

Liberals tend to blur the free market and the government because in their socialist minds, the government should control everything including the market.

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

I disagree, LionKing

A radio station not playing their music may or may not be censorship.

Censorship is when the government decides who can and cannot buy a cd.  Or whether or not a radio station can play a DC song.  But when a privately-owned radio station decides not to play a DC song, it's a private decision.  If listeners don't agree, they won't tune in.  But notice how the left howled "censorship" because most loyal listeners agreed with station owners?

Concur: It drives me nuts

Concur:

It drives me nuts when idiots from the left complain that they are being censored.  Guys with bad hygiene hanging out at Anti-war protests holding signs saying "Free Mumia" or some such rot, then complain they are being censored because the local newspaper did not put their three man protest on the front page or that no one stood around to listen to his rot.

No one prevented the unwashed idiot from saying his piece while standing on a shoebox in the county square.  But no one is forced to listen to it or record it as well....

Besides, usually the media

Besides, usually the media will cover a three liberal protest. It's the conservatives who never make it on the air. Now, just who's being "censored"? 

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

- Arabian Proverb

Shawn

That is not censorship, it's free market.

Do you EVER remember the Dixie Chicks videos played on BET?  Why aren't you pointing the finger of accusation at Black Entertainment Television also?

~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~

cool arrow

I actually agreed with you until you brought up the BET comparision. DC are not their Genre and have never been played in the past. The DC were on the air all the time"on the stations that boycotted them" until they criticized the POTUS

}}---> Dixie Chicks on BET

So you believe BET has a right to censor itself while other stations don't?  Sounds racist to me.

Yes, Shawn, stations can censor themselves legally, but neither genre is censoring the Chicks.

The MSM censors itself daily.  That doesn't mean they are censored by the Government.

~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~

CA

'So you believe BET has a right to censor itself while other stations don't? Sounds racist to me."

????????. I don' know where you are going with this CA? I said that BET has never played the DC in the past, why would they play them now?

Just like a hard station or Christian music station would not play them either

}}---> It was your argument Shawn

You used the word censorship to incite rather than to inform.

If I choose not to say "Jesus is Lord" as a response to your post, and choose instead to say "you don't know what you're talking about", I am practicing self censorship.  Nothing wrong with it.

When a radio station chooses not to play the Chixies, they are practicing self censorship but they are not censoring the Chixies who still have the right to play and sell their music.

~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~

Just because people decide

Just because people decide not to attend a concert does not mean someone is being censored. 

 

Shawn, radio stations make choices every day

and it's not censorship.    It's knowing what their particular audiences want or don't want to hear.

What about crude or vulgar recordings?  Should listeners have the right to not listen to them?  Are you claiming that not playing them is censorship?  Before you say crude or vulgar is "different", libertarians and others would say NO recordings should be held from the playlist.  

RJ

Just like the point I made to CA. These radio stations played the DC in the past. You are right about radio stations having the right air what they want, but I believe it is censorship. Also there are decency guidelines that radio and tv have to follow or they will be fined just like the Clear Channel affiliates for airing a certain Howard Stern episode.

Well, isn't that special, Shawn?

You "believe" it to be censorship, ignoring that radio stations decide what to play for their particular audience, based on what they determine is best for their business.  

You can join Leon, who "believes" in his very own meaning of the word "ally." 

And I pre-empted your decency argument.  Try to keep up.   ;^>

rj

K RJ looks like I am not going to win any debates here this morning. Dan the Man just called me a troll. That is the 2nd time in less than a week someone called me that. Maybe I should stop talking politics for a while and concentrate on my movie thread. For the record I do not agree with Leons stance in Iraq. Gotta go to work. As always RJ it has been a pleasure, have a good day.

Hey shawn

As someone who "believes" in his own definition of censorship, you're in good shape.  All you have to do is click your heels together three times and say "I believe....I believe....I believe I'm not a Troll."  

Before you know it, you'll be back in Kansas.   ;^>

P.S.  My point is, that just because a poster calls you a troll (I've been recently called a Troll, too) doesn't mean you are one.

}}---> Bye Shawntroll

Doesn't he work at We B Trolls in Vermont somewhere?

~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~

cool arrow

I never said I was leaving CA, just said I would not talk about politics for a little while. You have a nice day.

}}---> Shawn

Gotta go to work. As always RJ it has been a pleasure, have a good day.

Sorry for the misinterpreting your farewell as a farewell.

~A double minded man is unstable in all his ways~

RJ

lol........I think that might have been a compliment.

Shawn i did not call you a

Shawn i did not call you a Troll, I said "Stop being Trollish".  Get your facts right and stop acting so Trollish. Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.  In other words you are taking on Troll Like Qualities

I just watched a movie

I just watched a movie shawn of the dead, I think it might have been named after you.  The fact is it is not censored by the governmnet it is censored by the free market.  The audience did not want to listen to teh DC traitors.  You are oviously not a CM fan or know nothing of the base that listens to country.  The mere fact taht their records and conerts took a nose dive shows the radio stations were right and they knew their audience.  Stop being Trollish.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

}}---> Shawn of the Dead

I particularly liked the soundtrack featuring the Dixie Chicks "I'm Not Ready To Make Sense"

~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~

Technically censorship only

Technically censorship only applies to governmental action.  In this case there was no governmental action either way.

For instance, If I decide to rent the Kennedy Center with my own money and have a show which solely comprises of me mooning the audience, it would not be censorship for groups to decide not to support my "Artistic Display."

(Actually, me mooning the audience would be better than most so-called "Performance Art' shows the left is so fond of today.)

Misconceptions

  • Are you suggesting that when the Dixie Chicks release a record, radio stations are required to play it, so the audience can make up their own minds? Or that if they played the Dixie Chicks once, that obligates them to play all Dixie Chicks-music, forever after?
  • Are radio stations required to play whatever is sent to them? If I send them my karaoke tape, is that a legally compelling contract?
  • And since when do I have a "right" to be presented with music to decide whether I like it or not?

This is a misconceived notion of rights and what censorship is.

KC -

Program/music directors decide who/what gets played on several criteria:

 

1) Does it fit FCC standards

2) Does it fit the station's format

3) New or Existing artist

     a. is the song any good

4) does the music director like the song

5) does the program director like the song

6) does the radio station's biggest sponsor (ad buyer) like the song/artist

7) if after NOT playing the song, is the station getting swamped by telephone calls from listeners for the song to be played

 

In the case of the French Hens, after NOT playing their songs ... country radio stations were not swamped with callers demanding they be played.

 

Let's not forget the coffee

8) The DJ hasn't accidentally spilled coffee on the CD
(Bad memories of my single effort at DJ'ing at a charity event. )

'If someone doesn't buy a

'If someone doesn't buy a Dixie Chicks CD, they claim "censorship" .........        eh-hemmm ... I actually WORKED in radio ... It IS NOT censorship for a radio station NOT to play an artist or a song. Stations are privately owned. They set up a format. (Rap ... Rock ... Oldies ... Country) In addition to the French Hens out of the country diatribe against the President, they followed it up with publicly insisting they didn't give a lick about their "fans", and that the fans weren't needed (para phrasing here) and they could find new fans anywhere (I believe they set out on a Canadian tour shortly after the slam) ... Hence, country music radio stations who know the loyalty of fans (and I worked in a country music radio station for the bulk of my career) decided that when the Hens made the disparaging remarks about their fans ... country music fans ... country music radio stations decided the French Hens no longer fit into their stations' format ... especially after the majority of calls to radio stations, by listeners/fans, were against the Hens. To play the Hens' music would mean the radio stations would be taking the chance listeners would either switch stations, or shut off the radio ... Sorry, but that's $$$$$ to the radio business. (And as much as some TV stations and supporters of controversial programs LOOOVE to say "Don't like it, just turn it off ...", THAT is THE most asinine statement that can be made about a business that's foundation is built on ratings/listenership/viewership/CONSUMERS)*  It's BUSINESS. The Hens know full well it's business. They made the business decision to POOP all over their fans (and fan base, I will add), and it cost them. Censorship would have been if, after the French Hens had made their anti-Bush remarks, the President (or FCC) had banned the radio stations from playing their music.

*The same goes for the movie business.  We are told if you don't agree with it or don't like it for any reason, don't pay your money and see it ... Well hell, that's exactly what consumers have been doing ... and the movie industry has dropped sharply and lost tons and tons of money ... So, the public/consumers took their advice and stayed away ... and NOW they are screaming "censorship"??!!!!!????!!!!!

Which is still a choice

Which is still a choice made by station managers based, usually, on the desires of their listener base. Denying someone a forum is not censorship.

Besides, only government can attack the 1st Amendment. The 1st says, "Congress shall make no law..."

Everything else is private choice...you know...'the People'.

 

Why is it that lefties believe that 'the people' noted in the 2nd are different than the 'the people' mentioned elsewhere in the Bill of Rights?

Note to San Fran and other

Note to San Fran and other neo-commie enclaves:

 `the people' IS the people ... NOT The People's Republic OF ...

Is there a logician in the house?

What do they call it when people argue from a small segment of whatever it is you're talking about and make conclusions about the overall thing?  From the specific to the general?

To argue that a few bad apples discredit an entire policy is so fallacious that to persist in it, especially in such an emotionally charged medium as film, has got to be considered slanderous and perhaps even treasonous.

Cuban is yet another

Cuban is yet another example of an ego grown so big that he feels it's necessary to try to influence others to his way of thinking - and, oh, make some money at it, if at all possible...

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

- Arabian Proverb