Father Geek here at the AICN compound in Austin, Texas with the latest from Downunder... We've got some answers from the censoring bodies down there, finally...

DO NOT CONFUSE THEIR COMMENTS & POINTS OF VIEW WITH THOSE OF AINT IT COOL NEWS... WE DO NOT APPROVE OF CENSORSHIP!

Pay special attention to the info below that can put YOU in contact with these people... use this info and express your feeling to these governing boards and do it often...

Now on to Latauro's report...

Cats" is the second worst thing that ever happened to New York City.

AICN-DOWNUNDER

Latauro here... It's the issue that just won't die; particularly when you keep prodding it with a large stick. It's the topic of the last two AICN-D columns: censorship.

Why are so many films threatened with potential declassification in Australia and New Zealand? Who are the people who keep pushing the Classification Boards with appeals?

Some of the answers to those questions can be found in this week's column. Other answers will appear in forthcoming columns. In the meantime, "Cosmo" has some info on the still-banned KEN PARK. Apparently the distributors have tried to release it as an adult DVD (where it would bear the same classification as pornographic films). This proposal, apparently, was not accepted. "Cosmo", who works at a video store in Australia, says that many people have been coming in asking for the KEN PARK DVD. Cosmo suggests trying eBay.

Is all of this kafuffle about film censorship solely an Australian thing? It seems not, according to AICN-D's New Zealand readers.

The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards is the NZ version of the Australian Family Association, and they've been pushing for declassification just as hard.

Films such as TWENTYNINE PALMS and ANATOMY OF HELL were screened after failed attempts by the SPCS to have them banned. A direct quote from their submissions: "It goes without saying that all those with proclivities to sexual deviancy and criminal intent towards vulnerable women in our society would be drawn to a depraved film like this one."

But the SPCS also pushes the other way. What happened when PASSION OF THE CHRIST was given a rating restricting it to those above the age of sixteen? The Society felt that, as it was a story about Jesus and his resurrection, the violence was less of an issue and teens as young as thirteen should be allowed to see it. "The context of the Easter Passion is well known to most NZ young persons as it is central to our country's Judeo-Christian heritage. These events as depicted undoubtedly form the most significant and influential story to have influenced and shaped Western culture."

New Zealand's Ant Timpson released BAISE MOI, KEN PARK and IRREVERSIBLE, for his film festival Becks Incredible Film Festival, and has been battling the SPCS for a long time. He sent the following links in regards to the battle (and they're well worth checking out):

http://www.becksincrediblefilmfest.co.nz/newsonline.html

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PO0205/S00216.htm

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?filmfest&1

Back in Australia, my letters to the Australian Family Association have finally yielded a response. Richard Egan from the West Australian branch of the AFA sent me copies of the AFA's submissions to the Classification Board. Without wanting to make Father Geek spend the next week of his life formatting, here are the submissions regarding the classifications of IRREVERSIBLE and ANATOMY OF HELL in full. Read through them. Discuss their arguments (and your own) in talkback.

Submission from the Australian Family Association to the Classification Review Board on the review of the R 18+ classification for Irreversible

The Australian Family Association submits the following considerations to the Classification Review Board in favour of it making a determination to set aside the decision of the Classification Board to classify the film Irreversible R 18+ and to classify the film RC (Refused Classification).

1 Sexual violence - the anal rape scene

The Board Report assesses a scene involving anal rape of a woman which runs from 45:30 minutes to 56:00 minutes, in part, as follows:

"The impact of this scene is high due to the lengthy, real time depiction of the act of sexual violation described above and the static, unedited camera work. The amount of verbal and visual detail in this scene was also considered to be a contributing factor in the Board's decision to classify the film."

The 2003 Guidelines state that for R18+ "Sexual violence may be implied, if justified by context".

Further, "The impact of material classified R should not exceed high". Material for which the impact that is "very high" should be Refused Classification.

Factors specified as making impact "higher" include "greater detail"; "accentuation techniques, such as . perspective"; "prolonged"; "repeated frequently"; "realistic, rather than stylised".

We concur with the Board that the anal rape scene is "lengthy". In our submission this scene is excessively prolonged well beyond the length necessary to "imply" the act of anal rape.

In our submission this prolonged, "lengthy" depiction exceeds the limit for R18 + classification that sexual violence may only be "implied".

The word "implied" is not included in the List of Terms, and therefore must be understood in its usual dictionary meaning. The online edition of the Macquarie Dictionary gives the meaning of "implied" as "indicated, or suggested by implying; tacitly understood". "Imply" is defined as "to indicate or suggest, as something naturally to be inferred, without express statement".

"Implied" should not be confused with "simulated". To simulate is "to make a pretence of". While (presumably) the actress playing Alex is not actually anally raped, the depiction of this scene does more than "indicate or suggest" that she is being anally raped. Anal rape would be "implied" if there were, for example, a brief camera shot suggesting by the body positions of the attacker and the victim that anal rape was occurring. The prolonged, lengthy depiction of the anal rape does not merely "indicate or suggest" that it is occurring but expressly puts the anal rape before the viewer. It is quite clear what is being done to Alex.

At the end of the rape the assailant rolls off Alex and his still erect penis is seen briefly. (Some commentators suggest this is a digitally created penis - it doesn't seem relevant if this is so.) This explicit depiction of the erect penis at the conclusion of a prolonged depiction of anal rape further counts against any possibility of concluding that the rape is merely "implied".

As well as being prolonged the anal rape is "repeated". We concur with the Board's description that "the rapist is seen to thrust into her repeatedly". In our submission by being "repeated frequently" the impact of the anal rape exceeds high and cannot be accommodated in the R18 + classification.

The Board finds the scene to be a "real time depiction of the act of sexual violation". Again we concur. This "real time depiction" makes the anal rape scene "realistic, rather than stylised" thus increasing its impact beyond high.

On the Classification Board's own assessment, with which we concur, the anal rape scene had a significant "amount of verbal and visual detail". This detail includes the repeated thrusts, the verbal and physical abuse and the shot of the assailant's erect penis at the conclusion of the rape. Greater detail is, according to the 2003 Guidelines, one of the factors that can increase the impact of a scene. In our submission the verbal and visual detail in this scene is such as to increase the impact beyond high to very high.

The 1996 Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Videotapes more expansively stated that for the R18+ classification "Sexual violence may only be implied and should not be detailed."

Our Association was informed by the former Attorney-General, the Hon Daryl Williams in a letter dated 26 March 2003 [copy already supplied] that "there are no changes to the classification standards in any of the classification categories in the Combined Guidelines [i.e. the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2003]".

In our submission this public assurance by the Attorney-General obliges the Classification Review Board to interpret and apply the 2003 Guidelines with reference to the more explicit statements in the 1996 Guidelines. The 1996 rule prohibiting "detailed" sexual violence must be understood as implied in the impact test that "the impact of material classified R should not exceed high".

It is impossible to conclude that a scene of sexual violence which has such an "amount of verbal and visual detail" can pass the test that "sexual violence should not be detailed".

Accentuation techniques, such as perspective, can increase the impact of a scene. The Board describes the scene as using "static, unedited camera work". Other reviewers have noted that the camera views the rape from a fixed position on the ground. In our submission this use of perspective heightens the impact on the viewer - enlisting the viewer as a voyeur - so that the impact exceeds high.

The repeated thrusts as the attacker anally rapes Alex, accompanied by his prolonged and repeated physical and verbal abuse involve the viewer intensely in this depiction of a purposefully debasing, abusive, demeaning and degrading assault on a young woman.

The National Classification Code requires classification decisions to "take account of community concerns about the portrayal of a person in a demeaning manner".

According to the List of Terms in the Guidelines "demean" means "a depiction, directly or indirectly sexual in nature, which debases or appears to debase the person or the character depicted." In our view the anal rape scene clearly portrays Alex in a demeaning manner.

The 2003 Guidelines require that if a film contains "gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of sexual violence" the film is to be Refused Classification.

In our view the anal rape scene is a gratuitous (Macquarie: being without reason, cause, or justification) depiction of sexual violence. The prolonged, realistic, detailed, depiction is not justified by the context or the story line. Anal rape - as rape of any kind - is an outrage. The viewer does not need to see it in "real time" and with a significant "amount of verbal and visual detail" for the film to convey this outrage.

In our submission the anal rape scene is exploitative (List of Terms: appearing to purposefully debase or abuse for the enjoyment of others and lacking moral, artistic or other values.) The anal rape scene clearly debases Alex and the attacker appears to enjoy her being debased and abused. Neither moral (rape is a violation) or artistic values (conveying the horror of rape to the viewer) or any other value require or justify the prolonged, lengthy, detailed depiction of the debasing rape of Alex in this scene.

The anal rape scene, in our submission, is an offensive depiction of sexual violence because the material causes outrage and extreme disgust. The detailed, prolonged and repeated physical and verbal abuse of Alex unnecessarily provokes this outrage and extreme disgust.

Because the anal rape scene is a gratuitous, exploitative and offensive depiction of sexual violence it should result in accordance with the 2003 Guidelines, in the film being Refused Classification.

2 Sexual violence - other scenes

At 24:00 minutes in the scene in which Marcus and Pierre smash the face of a man with a fire extinguisher, the patrons of the sado-masochistic gay sex club "the Rectum" appear to be sexually excited by the violence and the killing. While Marcus and Pierre are not sexually motivated this act of violence in the context of this particular sex club can be considered an act of sexual violence.

Further at 24:30 minutes a club patron breaks Marcus' arm while threatening him with rape. This is an act of sexual violence. During this scene, another club patron appears to be masturbating, sexually aroused by the violence.

These scenes of extreme violence connected with sexual arousal, and sexual activity such as masturbation are also, in our submission gratuitous, exploitative and offensive depictions of sexual violence that cannot be accommodated in the R18 + classification.

3 Violence

We concur with the Board that the scene involving the smashing of the man's face with a fire extinguisher is visually graphic, accompanied by realistic sound effects and made the centre of focus through the medium shot camera work. In our submission these elements, as well as the amount of detail shown in each shot of progressive damage to the man's face as it is repeatedly smashed, heighten the impact of this scene beyond high to very high, so that it exceeds the impact permitted in the R18 + classification.

This scene is a gratuitous, exploitative and offensive depiction of violence with a very high degree of impact that requires that this film be Refused Classification.

4 Sexual activity - the real thing

The 2003 Guidelines state that "Sexual activity may be realistically simulated: the general rule is 'simulation, yes - the real thing, no." The Macquarie defines "simulate" as "to make a pretence of".

There are several depictions of sexual activity including masturbation and fellatio which are clearly not a "pretence" or simulation but the "real thing".

The Board's report contains descriptions of several scenes in the film involving actual sex:

- "another man is seen briefly masturbating"

- "At 19:30 minutes, there is a brief depiction of actual fellatio on a television monitor"

The Board cites the "general rule" but fails to discuss how these scenes of real - not simulated - sexual activity can be accommodated within this rule. The Board may be relying, as the present Attorney-General suggests in his letter to us of 3 March 2004 on the view, stated by the Classification Review Board in its decision on Romance, that while the "general rule is simulation, yes - the real thing, no" this "provides the Board with a discretion in certain limited instances to permit explicit depictions of sexual activity within an educational or artistic context within the R 18+ classification".

The Association considers that this view of the Guidelines is incorrect and invites the Classification Review Board to reconsider the meaning of the statement "the general rule is 'simulation, yes - the real thing, no'".

The Macquarie gives as the first two meanings of "general" the following definitions: 1. relating to, affecting, including, or participated in by all members of a class or group; not partial or particular: a general election. 2. common to many or most of a community; prevalent; usual: the general practice.

In our submission the more natural meaning of "general" in this context is the first definition, i.e. "not partial or particular". The Association submits that this rule is called "general" in the Guidelines because it applies universally rather than partially. It conditions the statement that "sexual activity may be realistically simulated" not by extending it to cover "limited instances" of actual sex but by explaining it.

This interpretation is strengthened by the succeeding statement in the 1996 Guidelines that "Nudity in a sexual context should not include obvious genital contact". The Classification Review Board decision on Romance ignored this rule. However, it was noted and followed in the Classification Review Board's decision to classify Baise-Moi as RC.

Our Association raised with the former Attorney-General our concern that the dropping of the "obvious genital contact" rule from the 2003 Guidelines would allow the inclusion of actual sex in the R18 + classification if classification decisions misinterpreted the "general rule" to allow exceptions involving actual sex. We were advised in his letter of 26 March 2003 in the following terms:

"The R classification has not changed. The separate sentence, 'nudity in a sexual context should not include obvious genital contact' has been removed as this provision is already covered by the general rule in the sex guidelines, "sexual activity may be realistically simulated. The general rule is "simulation, yes" - the real thing, no"'. When making classification decisions about nudity in a sexual context that includes genital contact, the Board applies and has always applied the general rule. The general rule will ensure that there is no change in classification standards in the R category."

This statement seems to require that the "general rule" be read as including the provision, without exception, that "nudity in a sexual context not involve obvious genital contact". In our submission "genital contact" includes any contact with male or female genitals whether by a person themselves (masturbation) or by another person. It should not be read as meaning "genital to genital contact" as that would, absurdly, allow actual depictions of anal intercourse but not of vaginal intercourse.

The interpretation of the "general rule" as always prohibiting actual sex is the only interpretation compatible with the former Attorney-General's assurances in his letter of 26 March 2003 as cited above.

Furthermore, if the Classification Review Board does not clearly exclude actual sex from the R 18+ classification it is hard to see that there is any longer a firm boundary between R18+ and X films.

The X 18+ classification is defined as "material which contains real depictions of actual sexual intercourse and other sexual activity". Any film which meets this criteria must be classified X (or if it has other elements prohibited in X must be Refused Classification).

As the Classification Review Board concluded in its decision to classify the film Baise-Moi as RC and to refuse it classification as R18 + "To do so would have meant that the R restricted classifciation would be able to contain material not permitted (i.e. sexual violence) in the X restricted classifciation which is a more restricted category. The Act states that the classifications are listed in ascending order with R (restricted) appearing in th4e list prior to X (restricted)."

5. Concluding comments

The Australian Family Association submits these considerations in favour of the Classification Review Board making a determination to set aside the decision of the Classification Board to classify the film Irreversible R 18+ and to classify the film RC (Refused Classification).

The Association makes this submission not merely in support of what it sees as a correct classification of this particular film but because aspects of the Classification Board's report on its decision on Irreversible appear to set an unwelcome precedent in expanding the interpretation of the 2003 Guidelines for R 18+ films to accommodate detailed sexual violence, actual sex in a context of sexualised violence, and nudity involving obvious genital contact. It is our view that the expansive interpretation of the Guidelines in this way is not justified by the words of the Guidelines themselves, and certainly contradicts the public assurances given by the former Attorney-General that "there are no changes to the classification standards in any of the classification categories in the Combined Guidelines".

This expansive interpretation also leads to the misclassification as R 18+ of films that should be classified as RC because they "depict ... matters of sex ... [and] violence ... in such a way as to offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should be classified RC".

ANATOMIE DE L'ENFER (ANATOMY OF HELL)

Submission to the Classification Review Board on the review of the R 18+ classification for Anatomie de l'enfer

The Australian Family Association submits the following considerations to the Classification Review Board in favour of it making a determination to set aside the decision of the Classification Board to classify the film Anatomie de l'enfer R 18+ and to classify the film RC (Refused Classification).

1 Depiction of child sexual abuse

The Board's report notes that:

"At 26 mins a flashback scene is presented . three young boys kneel and watch a young girl take her underwear off in a clump of bushes. A brief image of the girl lying naked is shown in a medium shot. One of the boys uses the arm of his spectacles to implicitly penetrate the girl. What appears to be vaginal fluids is visible on the implement".

The majority fails to explain how this scene can be accommodated within the R18+ classification.

The minority (in our submission correctly) identifies this scene as warranting an RC classification for its gratuitous and exploitative depiction of child under 16.

The Guidelines state that a film will be refused classification if it contains "depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive depictions involving a person who is or who looks like a child under 16 years."

Depiction is not defined in the List of Terms so it has the usual dictionary meaning of "representation". The scene, as described by the Board, clearly is depiction of child sexual abuse, namely the vaginal penetration of a female child by an implement.

As noted by the minority, the juxtaposition of this scene with a scene involving explicit digital penetration of a woman's vagina with the man subsequently exhibiting vaginal fluids on his fingertips heightens its impact.

This scene, like any depiction of a naked child in a sexual context, is exploitative and offensive. It must be classified as RC.

2 Sexual activity - the real thing

The 2003 Guidelines state that "Sexual activity may be realistically simulated: the general rule is 'simulation, yes - the real thing, no." The Macquarie defines "simulate' as "to make a pretence of".

The Board's report contains descriptions of several scenes in the film involving actual sex. There are several depictions of sexual activity including masturbation, digital penetration and fellatio which are not a "pretence" but the "real thing".

The Board cites the "general rule" but the majority claim that "the words "the general rule" allows for depictions of actual sexual activity in special circumstances, such as taking into account the matters set out in section 11 of the Classification Act. The majority of the Board implies that the "general rule" permits depiction of actual sexual activity provided this is depicted in "a serious tone" and "is not intended to be titillatory to the viewer".

The minority are of the view that "the film warrants RC as it contains a number of explicit depictions of actual sexual activity that exceed the R classification.

The Association considers that the majority's view of the Guidelines is incorrect and invites the Classification Review Board to reconsider the meaning of the statement "the general rule is 'simulation, yes - the real thing, no'".

The Macquarie gives as the first two meanings of "general" the following definitions:

1. relating to, affecting, including, or participated in by all members of a class or group; not partial or particular: a general election.

2. common to many or most of a community; prevalent; usual: the general practice.

In our submission the more natural meaning of "general" in this context is the first definition, i.e. "not partial or particular". The Association submits that this rule is called "general" in the Guidelines because it applies universally rather than partially. It conditions the statement that "sexual activity may be realistically simulated" not by extending it to cover "limited instances" of actual sex but by explaining it.

This interpretation is strengthened by the succeeding statement in the 1996 Guidelines that "Nudity in a sexual context should not include obvious genital contact". The Classification Review Board decision on Romance - which was the first to argue that actual sex could be permitted in the R18+ classification - simply ignored this rule. However, it was noted and followed in the subsequent decision of the Classification Review Board to classify Baise-Moi as RC.

Our Association raised with the former Attorney-General our concern that the dropping of the "obvious genital contact" rule from the 2003 Guidelines would allow the inclusion of actual sex in the R18 + classification if classification decisions misinterpreted the "general rule" to allow exceptions involving actual sex. We were advised in his letter of 26 March 2003 in the following terms:

"The R classification has not changed. The separate sentence, 'nudity in a sexual context should not include obvious genital contact' has been removed as this provision is already covered by the general rule in the sex guidelines, "sexual activity may be realistically simulated. The general rule is "simulation, yes" - the real thing, no"'. When making classification decisions about nudity in a sexual context that includes genital contact, the Board applies and has always applied the general rule. The general rule will ensure that there is no change in classification standards in the R category."

This statement seems to require that the "general rule" be read as including the provision, without exception, that "nudity in a sexual context not involve obvious genital contact". In our submission "genital contact" includes any contact with male or female genitals whether by a person themselves (masturbation) or by any part of another person or by any object. It should not be read as meaning "genital to genital contact" as that would, absurdly, allow actual depictions of anal intercourse but not of vaginal intercourse.

The interpretation of the "general rule" as always prohibiting actual sex is the only interpretation compatible with the former Attorney-General's assurances in his letter of 26 March 2003 as cited above.

Furthermore, if the Classification Review Board does not clearly exclude actual sex from the R 18+ classification it is hard to see that there is any longer a firm boundary between R18+ and X films.

The X 18+ classification is defined as "material which contains real depictions of actual sexual intercourse and other sexual activity". Any film which meets this criteria must be classified X (or if it has other elements prohibited in X must be Refused Classification).

As the Classification Review Board concluded in its decision to classify the film Baise-Moi as RC and to refuse it classification as R18 + "To do so would have meant that the R restricted classification would be able to contain material not permitted (i.e. sexual violence) in the X restricted classification which is a more restricted category. The Act states that the classifications are listed in ascending order with R (restricted) appearing in the list prior to X (restricted)."

3 Sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent

The Board's report indicates that there are several depictions of sexual activity accompanied by fetishes. These include application of lipstick around the genitals and anus of a sleeping woman (33 mins - close-up); sexual activity involving menstrual blood (44 mins; 52 mins; 62 mins); vaginal penetration with objects (long handled garden tool at 46 mins; stone dildo at 59 mins).

In our submission, in addition to some of these scenes involving actual sex with obvious genital contact, each of these scenes involve a "gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depiction of sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent". Such depictions require an RC classification.

4 Explicit depiction of sexual violence

Some of the acts, such as the vaginal penetration with a long handled garden tool, are also explicit depictions of sexual violence even if the results of the violence are not shown. The woman does refer to this incident as indicating "that the man wanted to ill her". According to the Guidelines sexual violence "may be implied". This depiction of sexual violence should warrant an RC classification.

5 Conclusion

This film should be classified RC due to its depiction of child sexual abuse, actual sexual activity, sexual violence and sexual activity involving fetishes.

The line of decisions by both the Classification Review Board and the Classification Board, beginning with the Review Board's decision on Romance, which allow for depiction of actual sex are incorrect. They are incompatible with the precise rule that "nudity in a sexual context must not involve obvious genital contact". Although this has been dropped from the 2003 Guidelines public assurances by the Attorney General that the substance of the Guidelines was not changed in the 2003 revision require that the 2003 Guidelines be interpreted in the light of this rule.

So those are the submissions made by the Australian Family Association.

Since I started posting on this issue, there's been one overriding question from film fans opposed to the banning of films: "What can I do?"

To answer this question, I would like to quote from the AFA website:

What can one person do? You might be surprised! Politicians and newspaper editors really want to hear what real people think, so let's tell them, often!

AUSTRALIAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION

• www.family.org.au
• info@family.org.au
• austfamily@connexus.net.au
• NATIONAL OFFICE
• 582 Queensberry Street
• North Melbourne, 3051
• Ph: (03) 9326 5757
• Fax: (03) 9328 2877

SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS (NEW ZEALAND)

• www.spcs.org.nz
• admin@spcs.org.nz
• The Secretary,
• SPCS PO Box 13-683, Johnsonville.
• Tel: (025)262-6579
• Fax: (04) 478-9662

DEPARTMENT OF THE AUSTRALIAN ATTORNEY-GENERAL

• http://www.ag.gov.au/
• ag@ag.gov.au
• Attorney-General's Department Central Office
• Robert Garran Offices
• National Circuit
• BARTON ACT 2600
• Tel: (02) 6250 6666
• Fax: (02) 6250 5900

NEWS

* More info on the John Hillcoat-directed/Nick Cave-scripted gothic western. Titled THE PROPOSITION, the film will shoot next month with Guy Pearce in the lead role. Producing duties are being taken by Chris Brown, who was recently named Independent Film Producer of the Year at this year's Screen Producers Association of Australia conference.

* The 1906 film THE STORY OF THE KELLY GANG, the first feature film made anywhere in the world, has been selected for UNESCO's Memory of the World Register. Established in 1992, the Register is designed to protect the world's most significant footage.

* This is less news, more amusing: "Tubbs Monster" was chatting with some local crewmembers who had recently worked on STAR WARS EPISODE III. "As we all know Mr. Lucas has quite the fondness for his digital cameras, however he apparently became quite peeved when it became clear that an 'underwater sequence' would have to be shot on film due to no underwater HD cameras existing. So we will have one scene in the movie shot on film, the rest digital." A few years ago, I heard the same story in regards to EPISODE II. Something to keep in mind next time Lucas says that film is dead.

AWARDS AND FESTIVALS

MONTREAL WORLD FILM FESTIVAL

Aussie film A MAN'S GOTTA DO, written and directed by Chris Kennedy, has been selected to play at the festival held at the end of this month.

BOX OFFICE

Very little to get excited about this week at the cinemas. So this is what people went to in the meantime:

This week's top grossers are:

• 1. MAN ON FIRE
• 2. WHITE CHICKS
• 3. I, ROBOT
• 4. FAHRENHEIT 9/11
• 5.THE CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK

RELEASED THIS WEEK

Richard Kelly puts on a stupid extended edition suit, Ben Affleck acts as a man whose career has gone down the toilet, the latest in a series of franchise face-offs comes out, and a lengthy end credit sequence with a bit of film attached at the start gets a wide release.

Annnd here are the newest...

• DONNIE DARKO: DIRECTOR'S CUT
• JERSEY GIRL
• THE PRESIDENT VS DAVID HICKS
• WALKING TALL

NEXT WEEK

- David Twohy signs Dexter Fletcher for THE ADVENTURES OF KINGSLEY, the first in a fourteen-part saga based around a character from BELOW

- Warners test the water by leaking plans to have Kyle Glass playing the title character in DC comic adaptation GREEN ARROW

- Jennifer Love Hewitt signs on to play a woman who discovers that her father was fired from directing a film about a woman who discovers THE GRADUATE was based on her family in UNTITLED UNTITLED TED GRIFFIN FILM FILM

Peace out,

Latauro

AICNDownunder@hotmail.com