"We started showing clips from the film only ten days ago and now ‘Inside The Bubble’ is ranking as one of iFILM’s top 5 documentaries of all time" said iFilm's Vice President of Content Roger Jackson.

According to iFilm, the unreleased doc has already bested OutFoxed, Enron, and Going Upriver, and continues to climb.

USA, 2004, 98 minutes, English
East Coast Premiere

SPOTLIGHT FILM
Featuring John McCain, Gore Vidal, William Kristol, Chalmers Johnson, Richard Perle

He may have been the ultimate icon of 1950s conformity and postwar complacency, but Dwight D. Eisenhower was an iconoclast, visionary, and the Cassandra of the New World Order. Upon departing his presidency, Eisenhower issued a stern, cogent warning about the burgeoning ""military industrial complex,"" foretelling with ominous clarity the state of the world in 2004 with its incestuous entanglement of political, corporate, and Defense Department interests.

Deploying the general's farewell address as his strategic ground zero, Eugene Jarecki launches a full-frontal autopsy of how the will of a people has become an accessory to the Pentagon. Surveying the scorched landscape of a half-century's military misadventures and misguided missions, Jarecki asks how—and tells why—a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people has become the savings-and-loan of a system whose survival depends on a state of constant war.

Jarecki, whose previous film, THE TRIALS OF HENRY KISSINGER, took such an unblinking look at our ex-secretary of state, might have delivered his film in time for the last presidential election, but its timing is also its point: It does not matter who is in charge as long as the system remains immune from the checks and balances of a peace-seeking electorate. Brisk, intelligent, and often very, very human, WHY WE FIGHT is a powerful and shattering film. - Diane Weyermann (Sundance Catalogue)

Who Gets to Call it Art?
USA, 2005, 80 minutes, English
World Premiere

Cast: David Hockney, Frank Stella, James Rosenquist

Producer/Director: Peter RosenBR>
Executive Producers: Karl Katz and Cathy Price>
Co-Producer: Sara Lukinson>
Editor: Jed Parker

WHO GETS TO CALL IT ART? The consensus in this kaleidoscopic ride through the ragged, jagged art scene of post-war America is that the late Metropolitan Museum of Art curator and historian Henry Geldzahler fills the bill. A legend in his own mind but also in the hearts of the artists whose works he championed, Geldzahler was instrumental in raising consciousness about the vibrancy of contemporary American art. As this documentary attests, his landmark and somewhat controversial exhibition New York Painting and Sculpture 1940-1970 shaped not only the Met’s future but the art world’s as well. The works from Henry’s Show, as it came to be known, are now considered masterpieces of twentieth century art. For Geldzahler, there was no mold or idea that art needed to fit into, and he maintained a lifelong interest in—and affection for—the new and unfamiliar. Offering testimony to his exuberant nature and discerning eye are artists who participated in creating that brash creative style, like David Hockney, Frank Stella, Larry Poons, James Rosenquist and Mark di Suvero. - Herma M. Rosenthal

Favela Rising
USA/Brazil, 2005, 78 minutes, Portugese with English subtitles
Non-Premiere

Director: Jeff Zimbalist, Matt Mochary

Proof again that “music hath charms to soothe the savage breast” comes from this uplifting, gritty documentary about a man and a movement that symbolize hope and possibility in the midst of poverty and despair. Set in the shantytowns that rise helter-skelter above Rio de Janeiro, FAVELA RISING moves to a decidedly Brazilian beat in telling the story of Anderson Sá and the growth of AfroReggae, the pulsing music and dance that became the springboard for social change. Born in Vigário Geral, one of Rio’s most violent favelas (slums), Sá aspired to little beyond rising to drug kingpin. But in 1993, after police massacred 21 residents in retaliation for the killing of four officers, Sá sought a new antidote to the drug warfare and outside oppression that controlled his community. Through the success of AfroReggae, which marries reggae, soul and hip-hop with politically charged lyrics, Sá and his activist bandmates have been able to establish programs in dance, percussion, theater, literacy and healthcare for youth, offering an alternative to gang involvement. - Herma M. Rosenthal

We spent the past 3 days in a whirlwind of films, panels, meals and parties that collectively are the Hamptons Film Festival.

Arriving Friday, i was taken by the extrordinary spirt and energy of this 13 year old festival. A surprising humber of friends from the film world were milling about the Huntting Inn where the industry check in and lounge was headquartered.

After two weeks of amost non-stop talk about politics, we determeined that we'd see a mix of fiction and non-fiction, and try and let the issues part of our brain take a rest for a bit. Of course filmmfestials don't realy work that way - and the mix of our friends innvitations, tickets availbe and weather conspired to send us out of the rain and into series of screenings that were not entirely planned for. That's often how you end up where you should be.

Swung by Bookhampton for a panel discussion on Antidote for the new "Ugly American". Anthony Kaufman (fellow indiwire blogger) was provicative. the panel was Director Jesse Atlas,Producer: Eyal Dimant(AT THE GREEN LINE); Ellen Perry (THE FALL OF FUJIMORI); Academy award winning producer Geralyn Dreyfous (BORN INTO BROTHELS), and the Craig and Brent Reneau from "Off To War". The topic was broadly about how to support filmmakers looking at global subjects. What was most interesting was the fact that the films that had pre-sale deals with TV talked the most about objectivity and not having a point of view. The bottom line is - the more the funding comes from sources that don't want to be tied to advocacy, the harder it is to make films that take a stand on issues.

Then, our first screening - Welcome to California. I'm not sure what i can say about this movie. It was written, directed by, and stared Susan Traylor. And while it's clealry a deeply personal story - most of it went over my head.

Friday Night we did the circut of parties from Southhampton to Amaganset - spending time with David Leitner at Susan Barish's party to celebrate "Loverboy". From there - a jaunt with "Inside The Bubble" EP Ronald Guttman and his wife Amy to Amaganset to Stephen Talkhouse for the filmmakers party - and then back to The Star Room for another festival sponsored event. The Star room was wall to wall with terrific folks. Tom Quinn from Magnolia, Chrisopher Pizzo from Washington Square Films, hanging out Goldcrest's Seth Carmichael. It was almost 2am - and the party was just warming up... but we had a day of films the next day so we were out.

Saturday - Favela Rising. A very intersting film. We've covered the plight of the favelas in the film "Journalists: Casulties of War" so i've seen the images of the story through the eyes of Jack Youngelston who reported the story of Tim Lopes. But this film is far more intimate than our piece - shot over 8 years from the streets of Vigário, a slum that is at the center of the drug wars in Rio. From the streets comes Anderson, and the birth of the AfroRegea moment. The film is highly stylized, both in it's graphical apprach, almost like a 90 min music video. At times the art direction overwhelms the story - but the story is so extrorindary it can almost be overlooked. The crushing poverty and hopelessness of the slums seems byeond hope... and in the end the story of a series of small human scale victories seems more believalble than any sort of global story or overarching message. For me, that is the streght of this movie. A celebration of differnace that impacts a single community in a meanful way. This film was sold to HBO and Think Films.

Saturaday pm - Sag Harbor Cinema. Sold out premeir of "Who gets to call it art". This film chronicals Henry Geldzahler and his impact on the modern art world from his perch ad the Metropolitical Museum of Art. For folks who know the Modern world well, this may be old hat. But seeing Frank Stella, Andy Warholl, James Rosenquist, Larry Poons, David Hockney, Mark Di Suvero in historic footage, (and then some of them in current days) was a terrfic journey into the art world. I hand't known about Henry Geldzahler - so much like Favela Rising's central character Anderson Sa, it was intersting to see how one personal's passion can have such a profound impact on a corner of the world.

And finally - to Southhampton, the the The Parrish Art Museum for the screening of Why We Fight. I had the pleasure of moderating a panel at the Museum of TV and Radio back in the spring with the film's Director Eugene Jarecki. Back then, Jareki had shown a segment of Eisenhower's final speech - where he coined the phrase "Military-INdustrial Complex" and sounded the alarm. the brief clip Jarecki showed back in May was disturbing. In it's entirely - the film is both gripping and deeply unsettling. While Farenhight 9/11 was troubling - it left you with a sense that the problems we were facing could be changed with a single united vote to fix the country. There is no such simple solution in "Why We Fight" - instead Jarecki weaves a complex problem that suggest that our standing army and global dominance is inexorably woven into our society. After the film - Jarecki did a Q&A, and brought up Wilton Sekzer, a retired New York City cop who lost a son on Sept. 11 and petitioned the government to put his son's name on a bomb destined to be dropped on Iraq. Together the filmmaker and the father seemed both passionate and powerless. What can we do? What will change? How can we impact change. "Why We Fight" is slated for a 200 screen wide release in January. And it's pretty clear that it will generate lots of important conversations.

The Film John Kerry Refuses to See, Now one of the most Downloaded Docs of all Time

More than fourty five thousand people have downloaded clips from the as of yet unreleased film about John Kerry's 2004 Political Campaign. Internet movie site iFilm says this makes the Kerry doc one of the top 10 most downloaded documentaries of all times.

New York (PRWEB) October 21, 2005 -- John Kerry has said he refuses to watch the film documenting his 2004 failed bid for the White House, but clips from the critically acclaimed movie are red hot among Internet viewers.

The Internet movie service iFilm reports that scenes from "Inside The Bubble" - the unreleased Kerry documentary - has been downloaded 45,625 times* -- making it one of the top ten most downloaded documentaries of all time.

"We started showing clips from the film only ten days ago and now 'Inside The Bubble'… is ranking as one of iFILM's top 5 documentaries of all time" said iFilm's Vice President of Content Roger Jackson.

According to iFilm, the unreleased doc has already bested OutFoxed, Enron, and Going Upriver, and continues to climb.

iFilm LINK

Says iFilm's Jackson: "There is an element of schadenfreude about it- the trials and missteps during the '04 Kerry Campaign, is similar to watching a particularly entertaining car wreck, and has captured attention nearly a year after the election."

Film Director Steven Rosenbaum says the intense demand on the Internet points to a larger story: "We have always known that the Internet is a terrific place to engage in political discussion and debate, but the response to the film tells us the American public clearly has unresolved issues about 2004 - and the documentary touches that nerve."

"Inside the Bubble is great example of how a compelling documentary film can gain traction with an audience via the Internet" says Jackson.

"The election of '04 dramatic material- and "Inside The Bubble" is a ride audiences never forget" said Rosenbaum. "The characters, the pressure, and the missteps are all amazing fodder for a documentary filmmaker. In large part because of the unusual access we were afforded, viewers get to see the campaign from the inside out."

iFilm most downloaded documentaries of all time:
1. Fahrenheit 9/11(2004): 1,541,536
2. Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price (2005): 94,688
3. Occupation: Dreamland (2005): 84,473
4. Inside Deep Throat (2005): 69,852
5. Uncovered: The War on Iraq (2004): 49,489
------------------------------------------------------
6. Inside the Bubble (unreleased): 45,625
------------------------------------------------------
7. Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005): 38,607
8. Outfoxed (2004): 38,137
9. Going Upriver (2004): 24,274
10 This Divided State (2005): 14,449

For More Information:
=============

www.InsideTheBubble.net

PRESS INQUIRIES:
Amy Sabo: (212) 750-7381

FOR iFILM:
Melisa Zukerman (310) 407 0361

*10/21/05 - 8am

This Sunday Cspan's Chief Political Editor Steve Scully spends the better part of his hour long "Road To The White House" on a look "Inside The Bubble." It's on 6:30pm, 9:30pm, and 12:30 Sunday.

The show is unusual in a number of regards. First of all - i continue to be amazed at how each viewer of the film brings so much of their own feelings about the '04 race to the movie. It's almost as if the film is a Rorshach test that brings back up emotions, feelings, frustrations, and passions of 2004.

From a pure cinematic standpoint, that's a good thing. And in terms of the film triggering dialog - it's certainly done that. It's happening in waves.

Phase #1. The conservative media world jumps on board. To be expected, a film critical of a Democrat made by a self-professed supporter is red meat for Fox, Conservative Bloggers, and Republican talk radio. It also is a useful opportunity to change the conversation while Delay is indicted, Bush's poll numbers are falling, and his Supreme Court Nominee is being assailed by the religious right.

Phase #2. Blogs The "Unofficial" Kerry Blog authored by Pamela Leavey. And The Democratic Daily arrived in force and bounced around with all kinds of criticisms that the film was 'boring' and 'had no access.' This was before the film was in the hands of anyone - and it sent us into a bit of tizzy trying to get copies in the hands of mainstream media.

Phase #3. Political Pundits. ABC, The Observer, Slate, Boston Pheonix, and a bunch of other bloggers. What's funny about this is that half the 'reviews' hadn't even seen the film. While it's weird to have your film reviewed based on 3 min. of clips on line, and a hastily written press release - all that buzz tended to fuel the storyline that the film was in some way a 'kerry killer.' Clearly folks who've seen the film don't feel that way. But reviews like the Boston Pheonix represent the strange bipolar take that folks have about the film. While the article suggests that the film " At some points, Inside the Bubble actually humanizes Kerry" the headline "Requiem for a candidate" tends to skew readers before they've engaged the entire article.

Phase#4: Kerry's response. Now things get weird. In Boston on Wednesday, reporter Joe Battenfeld asked Kerry at a press Conference if he planed on seeing Inside The Bubble. Kerry responded that he wouldn't see it because "He knows what happens." While the web site Poets For Kerry loved that answer, the press was quick to pick up on it, and it was on the AP wire within about two hours.

Now the film takes on a new context. It isn't boring, or unimportant. It's the film John Kerry won't see. Why? Is it truly possible that he knows everything about '04 he needs to know? The whole handling of the film mirrors the way the campaign handled swift boats - ignore, dismiss, downplay, and try and change the subject. It didn't work. We know that now. Democrats want a full and open discussion about '04. As i've said before, John Kerry wasn't the only loser in '04. American families with sons and daughters overseas lost. The environment lost. Hurricane victims lost. Free Speech lost. The Supreme Court lost. This is not simply an issue of John Kerry and his political future - it's a battle to regain and reenergize the heart and sole of the Democratic Party. And that won't happen in the dark. And it won't happen without understanding '04 far more fully than we do now.

Click here for link to ifilm clips

From Poetsforkerry.com

they wrote us a POEM. It's so cute.

"Inside the Bubble"

In the morning,
wiped clean of yesterday’s mud,
a journalist asks John Kerry,
“Will you see the instant replay?”

There is a thin film
all around the question,
round,
with a reflection of the light
from a window far above.
Inside, everything is upside down.

Kerry’s face won’t be seen there,
only his heels as he moves forward,
knowing from experience that the bubble persists
for just as long
as the pressure is the same from inside and without.
It’s with a sharp response
that the perfect, quiet sphere
disappears.

Kerry makes the jab without shifting his glance,
saying,
“I lived it. I think I know what happens.”

IP promises video-to-go as next big media wave

By Diane Mermigas
CHICAGO -- While cable, satellite and telephone rivals attempt to outdo one another's bundled services and broadcast and cable networks duke it out in primetime, Internet Protocol video providers and content aggregators are about to deal them all a major competitive blow.

The long-anticipated unveiling of powerful, portable IP video devices like Apple's video iPod, expected this week, and Sony's PlayStation 3 in the spring will significantly advance the steady assault on old-line media business models begun by Internet content managers America Online, Yahoo! and Google.

Consider these devices the Trojan horses of new media. They will take the Internet bypass to the critical next level by making video-to-go as affordable, accessible and ubiquitous as audio and data. They will move video from a tangible purchased or rented product to a downloaded virtual product, whose minimal production costs will mean higher margins for content providers.

Simply put, Apple and Sony are in a position to build differentiated IP video models by being first out with branded portable video players supported by related virtual video software and stores that deter piracy, in much the way iTunes supports Apple's wildly popular iPod.

The implications of Google, Yahoo! and a revitalized AOL morphing into the next generation of video aggregators on their massive user base and nimble infrastructure also cannot be overstated. There is a widespread perception on Wall Street that Google and Yahoo! especially are on track to become cornerstone, innovative video aggregation, search and management services akin to what has been cable's more narrowly cast service function, supported by advertising and subscription fees.

However and wherever it comes, rapid consumer adoption of IP video anywhere, any way, will further erode media, entertainment and telecommunications company stock prices as well as their core revenue, profits and all-important free cash flow.

Not only are major media conglomerates at risk but also cable, satellite and telephone providers who have been furiously battling one another with faster high-speed Internet access, products and services that barely acknowledge the threat of wireless, universal IP video from sources other than themselves.

Ready or not, dominant gatekeepers -- from cable and satellite operators to telephone companies and television networks -- are about to confront a new competitor: open-sourced, real-time, stored digital video on handy Internet-connected devices that play by a different set of rules.

The ensuing transformation of the video value chain will be driven by how rather than what content is consumed. As new video outlets proliferate and existing distributors are squeezed, content owners and aggregators increasingly will resort to ways of more directly connecting with subscribers, users and advertisers. Recent direct-to-consumer online initiatives by Hollywood film studios, television news and sports organizations and entertainment TV networks will soon intensify.

As a result, the media landscape will be decidedly different by decade's end, bringing prosperity to flexible, innovative players.

However, based on current trends, few of the existing gatekeepers, who have monopolized the distribution of content and communications for decades, are prepared to aggressively or constructively respond to this little-understood video value chain "disruption," according to a bold report released last week by investment banking firm Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co.

The report, which provides some clarity to a chaotic media marketplace, cites Apple, Skype and Vonage as companies that have built "strong business models based on Internet protocol technology, 'riding over the top' of networks built and managed by cable and telecom service providers."

As bandwidth rates increase, compression technology improves and storage becomes less expensive, the barriers insulating video services from this phenomenon will collapse. IP-based video services -- or open systems that send video directly to consumers using the public Internet -- is the last big step to achieve an everything-on-demand marketplace.

"While many cable investors fear the telecom service provider entry into video services, we believe that the real long-term threat will come from Internet-based content aggregators," analysts Alan Bezoza and Brian Coyne say. "We anticipate a drastic change over the coming years in the way that video-based media is created, aggregated, distributed and consumed."

How drastic? Cable systems could be rendered "dumb pipes," better at providing high-speed bits rather than video applications unless they become effective IP video aggregators (such as the nation's two largest cable operators, Comcast Corp. and Time Warner, are aiming to do). IP video has the ability to "gut" network programrs' lineups, threatening traditional television's core advertising revenue.

By some measures, consumers already are there. The analysts point to on-demand services MovieLink, StarzTicket, CinemaNow, Viacom's CBS News and CBS SportsLine and regular IP video initiatives by Web giants Google, AOL and Yahoo! As such services multiply, "a significant amount of video subscription revenues will migrate away from cable operators' closed networks toward on-demand-based Internet delivery," they say.

If cable and telecom providers fail to adopt Internet-based video applications and business models similar to those of Google, Yahoo! and AOL, "their place within the new value chain will become limited to data transport."

"With new video distribution businesses, consumers may begin to drop their existing cable and satellite services (in favor of) a completely online service, in the same way many have already dropped their land-line phones from traditional telecom service providers in favor of voice-over IP or wireless voice services," analysts Bezoza and Coyne wrote.

That could happen sooner than you think. Don't forget that even the world's largest, most prestigious newspapers feel helpless to halt what they perceive as their industry's freefall into digital-age obscurity during the same few years Apple's iPod has revolutionized how music is sold and consumed.

What is stunning about all of this is the scarce mention that the emerging transformation of the video value chain is getting anywhere: neither from industry executives nor analysts and press.

But as Bezoza and Coyne adeptly point out, the open IP video networks unfolding and devices such as the video iPod (and PS3) have the capacity to rapidly erode the competitive "moats" that have protected traditional media's food chain supply. One such moat is the closed-end networks cable and satellite operators have to thwart digital piracy while protecting intellectual property rights and content value. Another is the broad content distribution that supports conventional advertising models that have made broadcasters, cable and satellite the premiere video gatekeepers. Even as their own IPTV services evolve, these traditional gatekeepers already are caught "in the crosshairs of new video distribution models based on open IP-based video delivery" in a more freewheeling, unfamiliar competitive arena.

It's the Internet's power to deliver such on-demand personalization and customization that traditional media distributors are trying to figure out how to emulate. Once a universally employable digital-rights management technology as a driver, the video content value chain will move from a "push everything" business model to one where consumers "pull selectively," and that has significant implications for all media and entertainment players -- most especially those in television, the analysts say.

Certainly, it isn't too soon for the fiscal budgets being prepared for 2006 to begin reflecting some kind of proactive response to the changes afoot. If nothing else, forward-looking executives in the traditional media businesses should be focused on mandating the creation of new IP video operating systems, business models and Stage 1 efforts right beside much of the historical and much of what is soon to become obsolete.

Diane Mermigas can be reached at dmermigas@hollywoodreporter.com.

Requiem for a candidate
Reliving the John Kerry campaign at the movies
BY ADAM REILLY

LIKABLE SUBJECT At some points, Inside the Bubble actually humanizes Kerry.

Inside the Bubble, a new documentary about John Kerry’s failed 2004 presidential campaign, hasn’t hit theaters yet. In fact, it doesn’t even have a distributor. But judging from the buzz that’s developing around the film — which debuted at the New York Television Festival last week — that should change soon. Late last month, New York Daily News gossip columnist Lloyd Grove hyped it as "potentially devastating," and quoted an unnamed source who said it could be "the silver bullet that kills Kerry’s presidential chances for 2008." The Note, ABC’s heavily trafficked political Web site, gushed that "there are almost no boring scenes in this film," and praised the Kerry-focused segments as "quite revealing."

Kerry partisans have been less kind. The Unofficial John Kerry Blog (kerryblog.blogspot.com) suggested that Inside the Bubble should be retitled The Snore Room — an unflattering reference to The War Room, the 1993 Clinton-campaign documentary — and dismissed its director, Steve Rosenbaum, as "a shill [for] the infamous Swift Liars and the red elephants." (Rosenbaum says he votes Democratic.) They’re not the only skeptics. Recently, John Dickerson, Slate’s political correspondent, lamented the film’s focus on second-tier operatives and the corresponding absence of top advisors like Bob Shrum and John Sasso, each of whom barely shows up over the course of almost two hours.

For the most part, this debate is good news for the filmmakers, since it pumps up public awareness of their project. But it’s a bit perplexing for prospective viewers. Is Inside the Bubble a critical masterwork that will end all talk of a second Kerry nomination? Or a frustratingly insubstantial piece of fluff?

Split the difference, and you’ve got your answer. In the end, Inside the Bubble is both a flawed and compelling film — which is only fitting, since John Kerry was both a flawed and compelling candidate.

First the bad news. Anyone who watches Inside the Bubble in hopes of seeing the nominee and his inner circle planning or processing pivotal campaign moments — Kerry reporting for duty at the Democratic National Convention, Kerry windsurfing off Nantucket, Kerry noting that he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it, Kerry whupping George W. Bush in the first presidential debate — will be deeply disappointed.

Take the case of the DNC and Kerry’s ill-advised military salute. Ideally, we’d witness Kerry and his closest aides immediately before and after (think Shrum and Sasso high-fiving behind the curtain, or Kerry pulling an Eric LaSalle as he walks offstage). Barring that, we’d see footage of the media and advance types who serve as Inside the Bubble’s stars — spokesperson David Wade, communications director Stephanie Cutter, senior press wrangler Jim Loftus, traveling chief of staff David Morehouse, and Kerry aide and confidant Marvin Nicholson — reacting moments later, or reassessing months afterward with the benefit of hindsight. Instead, we’re forced to settle for Vanity Fair media critic Michael Wolff (who, oddly, is the sole voice of independent analysis or reflection in the film) recounting how dismayed he was when Kerry made that particular gambit. Wolff can be an engaging commentator, but he’s not the subject of this documentary. And learning his thoughts doesn’t increase our sense of immediacy or deepen our understanding of the internal workings of the Kerry campaign. Regrettably, this weakness pervades the entire film.

There is a silver lining here for Kerry and his boosters, however — namely, the absence of piercing insight also means that no fatal flaws are revealed. Granted, there are times when Kerry looks bad. One example: at a sparsely attended press conference on an airport tarmac, the senator simply ignores a question from Globe reporter Glen Johnson about Bush’s stem-cell-research record, an episode that suggests the senator’s reputation for arrogance and aloofness is at least partially deserved. But there’s no damning moment, no shot of Kerry reducing a low-level aide to tears, or mocking evangelical Christians, or wondering aloud if Howard Dean should have been the nominee.

One much-discussed segment seems, at first glance, to approach that level. It comes in the second presidential debate, when Kerry criticizes the current tax parameters for small businesses. As the owner of a timber company, Kerry notes, Bush himself can be defined as a small-business owner under the existing federal tax code.

After Bush laughs this off — "I own a timber company? That’s news to me! Need some wood?" — we watch Hillary Clinton roll her eyes in the audience and see Kerry’s staffers looking dumbfounded ("What the fuck was he talking about?" Morehouse mutters). Coming on the heels of Kerry’s virtuoso showing in the first debate, these scenes remind us of one of Kerry’s worst attributes: his unfailing ability, whenever he had an opportunity to build momentum, to undercut himself with some painful public gaffe.

Except that that’s not the whole story. As FactCheck.org reported later, back in 2003, Bush identified himself as a part owner of LSTF, a company that produces trees for commercial sale. Hillary’s eye-roll notwithstanding, Kerry didn’t fuck up here. Instead, Bush dodged a valid criticism by slipping into his faux-everyman persona, something the president has always done maddeningly well. Inside the Bubble should make this clear. But it doesn’t.

All that said, the film is stronger and more engaging than its harshest detractors would suggest. To begin with, it drives home the grim realities of high-level campaign work — the anxiety, the monotony, the claustrophobia, the exhaustion — in an unexpectedly visceral way. The three main characters, Loftus, Morehouse, and Nicholson, have radically different temperaments: Loftus is voluble, Morehouse is an even-keeled family man, Nicholson is a joker with a dry sense of humor. But by the end of the film, we see each of them pushed to their physical and psychological limits.

More significantly, the film occasionally humanizes Kerry, and even casts him in a noble light. With the jockeying for ’08 already under way in earnest, it’s hard to find anyone excited by the prospect of a second Kerry run. The right candidate could have beaten Bush, or so the thinking goes, and Kerry simply wasn’t the right candidate. As a corollary to this point of view, there’s plenty of lingering anti-Kerry resentment. Why did you wait so long to fight back against the Swift Boat Veterans? Why, even after it became clear there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, did you say that had you known that at the time you still would have voted for the war? And why did you wear that stupid barn jacket?

So it’s a bit of a surprise to see Kerry emerge — to the extent he emerges at all in Inside the Bubble — as a genuinely likable figure. Again, the lack of interviews with Kerry is a huge hole in the film, but when we do see Kerry, he’s usually behaving winningly. Three days before the election, Kerry talks with Cutter, his press secretary, about the number of Senate bills he’s been credited with passing. Kerry seems to think the Globe is selling him short, and he wants her to rectify the situation. This shot, too, has been much discussed, in large part because Kerry’s Senate record was MIA for essentially all of the campaign. But the most striking aspect of this exchange is Kerry’s gentleness: the candidate can’t afford any last-minute gaffes, but he makes his point quietly and respectfully.

In yet another scene, Kerry sits in a locker room at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, waiting to do a satellite interview that’s plagued with technical difficulties. At one point, he talks to himself in Italian; at another, he jokes about the stench in the room. But what really stands out in this particular shot is the loneliness of the candidate. Kerry blinks into the klieg lights, laboring to amuse himself and his handlers and then switching into full interview mode (complete with full interview smile) as soon as the satellite connection is made. Along the way, we can see the fatigue set in, both emotional and physical. And we feel an unexpected surge of sympathy for this talented, accomplished, infuriatingly self-destructive man, who came so close to delivering us from Bush but who couldn’t get the job done. For that alone, Rosenbaum deserves a great deal of credit.

Adam Reilly can be reached at areilly@phx.com.

Related Links

Inside the Bubble.net
The film’s official Web site. Includes footage of several TV appearances by director Steve Rosenbaum.

Inside Inside the Bubble
A critical take by John Dickerson, Slate’s chief political correspondent.

The Unofficial John Kerry Blog
Back-and-forth on the film from the Democratic segment of the blogosphere.

October 11, 2005
AP, BOSTON --A new documentary about Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign, warts and all, is making the rounds in New York and Washington. But its leading man has no plans to see it.

Latest local news
"I lived it," the Massachusetts Democrat told reporters with a laugh on Tuesday. "I think I know what happens."

"Inside the Bubble," shot by two filmmakers given extensive behind-the-scenes access, includes lengthy scenes in which a press assistant goes on an expletive-laced tirade as he tries to arrange to have a pony placed in the room of another Kerry aide as a surprise birthday gift.

Kerry is also seen passing time by speaking Italian while waiting for a round of television interviews, and complaining about a media depiction of legislation he sponsored.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., is also caught rolling her eyes after Kerry accused President Bush of owning a timber company during one of their debates. Clips from the film will be shown on C-Span this Sunday.
------
On the Net:
"Inside the Bubble": http://www.InsideTheBubble.net

Carville: Dems need stronger narrative to win
By Elizabeth Gibson
October 07, 2005

The problem with Democrat campaign speeches is 'litany,� and they need more narrative like Winnie the Pooh stories, political consultant and pundit James Carville said.

At a speech sponsored by the Northwestern College Democrats Thursday evening, Carville told the audience that Democratic candidates can�t succeed by shouting out to every group in a crowd. Instead candidates should tell stories with the three elements of any good story � setup, conflict and resolution.

�No Kumbayah crap,� Carville said.

College Democrats brought Carville to speak in Cahn auditorium with funds from the $60,000 allotted by the Student Activities Finance Board for the group�s fall speakers.

Jenna Carls, president of College Democrats, said the group decided to bring Carville after polling about 50 students in the spring.

The organization will use the remaining funds to bring another speaker later this quarter, Carls said.

All 1,000 available tickets for the free event were taken by 1:05 p.m. Tuesday, according to the Norris Box Office. Tickets went on sale Sept. 23, the same day as NU�s Activities Fair. During the past few days, College Democrats worked to spread the word by placing more flyers and sending more messages to campus listservs, Carls said.

Carville helped lead Bill Clinton to victory in the 1992 presidential election. He has also worked on several foreign campaigns and co-hosted CNN�s �Crossfire� for more than two years before the network canceled the show in June.

At NU Carville focused on what Democrats need to do to reclaim the presidency. The vocal impressions of President George W. Bush and former presidential candidate John Kerry and Carville�s bouts of shouting in his southern accent had the audience alternatively giggling and freezing in silence.

In addition to breaking away from a laundry list of special interests, Carville said, Democrats need to learn that a candidate who can�t campaign can�t succeed.

�If you�re not competent in campaigns, you don�t have a chance to be competent in government,� he said.

Using Al Gore as an example, Carville said being a smart candidate is not enough.

�It�s actually possible to be wise, right and strong,� he said.

But Carville added that no one in Washington likes anyone who is right too often. Howard Dean�s accurate assessment about the failure of the war in Iraq helped kick him out of the running for president despite his passion, Carville said.

In the same way that intelligence and accuracy can�t stand alone, strength without accuracy is a catastrophe, he said. His example: the Republican administration.

�If we just had mediocracy I�d be the happiest person in the world,� Carville said. �You put political hacks in an important position and there are consequences.�

Weinberg freshman Amy Weiss said the College Democrats achieved their goal of exciting students with Carville�s speech.

�I�ve been a big James Carville fan for several years,� she said. �And I�ve been at school, so I feel so out of touch with current events. I feel I�d be interested in anything he�d talk about.�

But it�s not all about party spirit, Carville said.

Democrats need to bring their causes together and work for them actively, he said. For example, the political consultant suggested taking the specific issue of racial affirmative action and helping those of all races with income-based affirmative action.

If Democrats try to single out every issue, they�re back to litany, Carville said. He also said Democrats just can�t say �no� to causes from gay rights to abortion to the poor.

�Sometimes the problem with being a Democrat is being a Democrat,� he said.

The New "Inside The Bubble" website has been launched at

www.InsideTheBubble.net

In addition, a mail list has been established to respond to the many
requests for information regarding distribution, dvd's, and festival
opportunities for the film.

http://insidethebubble.net/maillist/?p=subscribe

And Air America Host David Bender, said on his program Politcally Direct - "Inside The Bubble is a film everybody should see if they care about this Democracy."

He called the film a "Remarkable New Documentary" and went on to describe the film as "Capturing extraordinarily well" the drama of the campaign trail.

Bender went on to say "Jim Loftus is a Star. He should work again in a campaign that would appreciate him"

I know i've been blogging on the Kerry film for a bit, and i'll get back to films and tech shortly. Want to blog about WeMedia at the Media Center conf last week (very interesting)

but for now two things:

www.InsideTheBubble.net (new web site for the movie).

and this weekend - Air America (Sunday at 2pm) David Bender Show, also BBC, and some other media...

that's it.

Movie premiers always draw an unusual mix of celebrities, but last Sunday may break the mold. The arrival of Soprano's super-mobster and amazing e-street band member Steve Van Zandt started the evening off with a bang.
Here he is with Producer Rob Barnett before the screening.

folks at the New York Television Festival found themselves putting
chairs in the aisles as the first public screening of the "Inside The Bubble" which is always a good sign.

The film - which screened for industry members on Thursday, played at
the Chelsea venue to a packed house of New York Political luminaries, as well as unusually large Washington contingent, in town for the film. But lurking at the back of the theatre - this notorious New Yorker. Can you name her?

Yes, you get 2 points if you guessed Linda Trip's pal Lucianne Goldberg. Really - truely an honor.

Among other well known (and more photogenic) political Attorney General Candidate and Attorney General Candiate Mark Green,? who's son Jonah has a credit in the movie for additional video.

But the surprise for both the audience and filmmakers alike was the 6' 8"?
Marvin Nicolson,? Kerry's Chief Aid,? who slipped in after the lights went
down.? Marvin is one of the four major characters in the film, and plays
a major role both in the film and within the Kerry team.?

Later,? hanging out in front of the Milk Studios venue, ? Little Steven,?
Marvin, ? and a collection of democratic staffers,? pollsters,? and friends
agreed that the film was accurate (maybe too accurate) - and pretty fair.?

And a good time was had by all.

Fly on the wall film dims last hope for Kerry

Paul Harris in New York
Sunday October 2, 2005
The Observer

It must have seemed a good idea at the time. Allow a film-maker to document the inner workings of your presidential campaign, recording a victorious run to the White House ending in a glamorous Washington inauguration.

Of course, the dream scenario for last year's Democratic hopeful, John Kerry, involved him winning. Instead he lost. Now the decision to allow film-maker Steve Rosenbaum to film intimate moments of the Kerry campaign has probably scuppered his hopes of running again in 2008.

Rosenbaum has now released his documentary Inside The Bubble chronicling the Kerry bid for office. The film has made such painful viewing that many Democratic insiders - especially those close to rival 2008 candidates - feel Kerry's hopes of the White House have been for ever ended.

Choice moments include Kerry pretending to interview himself and babbling in Italian as he waited for a real interview to begin, senior aides cursing and shouting at reporters, and numerous baffling lapses of organizational ability. One shot has Hillary Clinton - who supposedly supported Kerry - rolling her eyes in a cartoonish fashion after Kerry slips up in a TV debate against George Bush.

But perhaps most painful of all is the hubris that seemed to overwhelm the Kerry camp on election day after early leaks of exit polls appeared to suggest he had won. As top Kerry aide Jim Loftus hands over the data he remarks gleefully: 'They have a word for that, and they usually write it in big black print on the front of newspapers and they call it a fucking landslide.' Meanwhile another aide remarks: 'I hear they are crying in the White House.'

Bush went on to win by three million votes - the narrowest margin for a sitting president since the Second World War.

Aides to Kerry have sought to dismiss the film as unimportant and claim they denied any real access to Rosenbaum and his crew. They point out that Kerry's coffers are still flush with some of the $16 million left at the end of the election and that he still draws large crowds to speeches. Kerry press spokesman David Wade called the film 'childish'.

But there is little doubt that many Democrats (or many potential Democratic voters) will watch the film in horror. The impression is of a campaign and a candidate who did not really know where it was going or trying to say. That was in contrast to the tightly run Bush campaign, which did not allow a crew to film it. It is marked with bizarre moments such as when Loftus rants about the inability of an advance team of aides to get a pony into a hotel room for a birthday celebration. 'When I was an advance guy, if someone said "get a pony on the 10th floor of this hotel in four hours"... I would have said: "What colour eyes should it have?"', Loftus fumes.

Rosenbaum, a Democrat, has said he did not set out to attack the campaign but that he felt, despite shooting 500 hours of film, that he never got any sense of who Kerry really wanted to be as a candidate. 'We spent months with the footage under lock and key, but in the end it seemed like someone needed to pull their heads out of the sand and ask the painful question: what happened?' Rosenbaum said.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1582948,00.html

Well, here it is. Thursday night was a sell out crowd at the New York Television Festival, and after a few opening night jitters - the film went on. The venue isn't what you would at first expect, a stark white art gallery space at Milk Studios retrofitted for film and tv programs at the first year of the festival (www.NYTVF.com) but it was kind of interesting. Both the main room and the more comfy Phillips lounge provided an interesting environment - and the crowd was mix of film people, curious conservatives, and a mix of democratic campaign staff and media people. Everyone had a stake in the movie, or so it seemed. Because of a decision place speakers in the back of the house, the sound was somewhat boomy and at times hard to understand. That combined with a projection problem didn't give the audience an altogether easy viewing experience. But - to quote Jim Loftus - "The Universe Hardly Cares." The show went on, and the crowd sat tight for 82 minutes after a half hour late start. In then end, applause (which i confess I'm not sure i could bring myself to do after reliving '04 all over again.)

And the team from the film was all there - bleary eyed, but enthusiastic.
Left to right: Ronald Guttman - Exec Producer - Doug Davis, Producer, Dan Luskin - Editor, Me, Rob Barnett - Big Cheese Producer, and Kate Cunningham - Producer.

Also in attendance, Editor Waleed Zaiter, Editor, Shooter, and Mixer Pamela Yoder, and Videographer Max Rosenbaum.

Here's Ron and Doug, hanging out in the Philips Lounge with swag from sponsor TV Guide.

Among the notable comments:

- These guys look great.
- i don' t know what the campaign was so worried about.
- Boy, the Democrats are going to have to do better in '08
- It was like 'Animal House' but with airplanes
- Jim Loftus is amazing, i think he's cute (with a raised suggestive eyebrow)
- We should send a DVD to every Democrat in America.
- It made me sad, watching the movie, i forgot we lost.
- It should be called 'trouble in the bubble'
- I want my money back - from the DNC.

Clearly - a consensus (not). And i guess that is good for the movie. 20 minutes later people were in the lobby, still talking politics. Debating '04. Crystal ball gazing about '08, and feeling a sense of engagement that hasn't been in the air since November of '04.

I'm pretty proud of that.