Alec Baldwin's starring in a movie, but he doesn't want you to see it.
He also shot and produced the film, but he's withdrawn his name as director.
The movie in question, "The Devil and Daniel Webster," is a updated remake of the 1941 classic. It will be screened at the World Cinema Naples Film Festival at 6:30 p.m. today and 1:45 p.m. Saturday.
But Baldwin's hoping no one shows up to see it. He calls it "toxic waste" and "one of the dirtiest movies ever made."
"I want your readers to know that ("The Devil and Daniel Webster") has no relation to my creative process," he says. "... Due to the litigation involved in the making of this film, that's not my film. That's one film Alec Baldwin does not want you to see."
He feels so strongly about it that he phoned the film festival's executive director, Pat Berry, several times on Tuesday, when he discovered the film would be screened at World Cinema Naples. As of mid-Thursday, Berry was still planning on screening the film.
"We have a whole event planned around it," she says.
Baldwin, who is currently starring in "Twentieth Century" on Broadway, is not expected to attend.
Because the film festival incorrectly lists Baldwin as the movie's director in its material, Berry agreed to make an announcement before each screening, informing audiences that he did not direct the movie.
"We weren't aware (of the situation) until he called us," Berry says. "Basically, there's a legal battle going on, and we are caught in the middle.
"He's very passionate about it. I said, 'This doesn't have anything to do with me; we're just a tiny first-year festival here. We just want to show the movie.'"
But the movie in its current state doesn't reflect Baldwin's vision for the film, he says.
"The Devil and Daniel Webster" was supposed to be Baldwin's debut film as a director.
It stars Sir Anthony Hopkins, Jennifer Love Hewitt and Dan Ackroyd, as well as Baldwin. The original movie, based upon a book by Stephen Vincent Benet, is about a farmer who sells his soul to the devil. After seven years of good crops and wealth, the devil returns for the man's soul. The farmer then gets Daniel Webster to represent him in a court battle with the devil.
In Baldwin's remake, his character is a writer, who sells his soul to the devil (Jennifer Love Hewitt) for literary success. Hopkins plays the lawyer who defends him.
The story of what happened behind the scenes of the "The Devil and Daniel Webster" remake is a plot worthy of Robert Altman's "The Player," or a Bruce Wagner Hollywood novel.
According to Jon Cornick, Baldwin's co-producer, "Alec and I and our company, El Dorado Pictures, partnered with a company called Cutting Edge Entertainment. Cutting Edge was our financial partner. They had all of the fiduciary responsibilities: raising the money, making sure the money's there. Anything that had to do with the raising of the money for the film was their responsibility. And our soul responsibility was the creative aspect of things."
Cornick says a man saying he was a New York banker signed a letter on behalf of an investor who said he was pledging $5.5 million to the movie. But the money was never transferred.
"During the course of filming, the money was so tight that we had to cut back on some production value in the film," Cornick says. "And as of today, there are still many vendors who have not been paid on this movie. Many vendors.
"When we finished principal photography, we were then going through the process of editing the film, which is called post-production. And Alec and I demanded that all of the vendors and people involved in the film be paid in full. ...We demanded that they show us that they had the money to complete post production. Alec and I felt it was unethical to work and start the post-production process without the financial guarantee that people would get paid. At that time, they could not produce the money. And so Alec and I told them that we couldn't work on the film."
The financial parties came back and produced a settlement agreement with El Dorado Pictures.
According to the new agreement, if they defaulted twice again on the financing, Baldwin was contractually able to remove his name from the movie as director.
"There is no director listed in the credits," Cornick says. "And the reason why is because the movie that exists today is one that Alec and I have never seen. And therefore, it is not a movie that Alec directed. When you make a film, there are many aspects that go into it that wind up being what you see, besides the writing and the casting and the shooting of the movie. ... Making the movie is also done in the editing room in post-production, that's where you put all your pieces together."
Cutting Edge Entertainment no longer exists, Cornick says.
And as for Berkman, the bank vice president who sent the letter from the Bank of New York promising to provide millions?
The FBI discovered the New York banker was no banker at all.
"He wrote a fraudulent letter on Bank of New York stationery," Cornick says. And the other man did not have a bank account with the Bank of New York at the time he promised the money. Both men have been indicted in the state of New York and are awaiting trial.
The FBI officer in charge of the case refused comment, stating office policy. A voice message left with the FBI's press department was not returned.
"This is a highly unusual film in that there was a high-profile actor making his directing debut; there was a cast of bankable actors in the film, and yet, the movie just basically self-destructed," says Michael Fleming, a Daily Variety reporter who has been following and writing regularly about the movie's travails. "When people work on films like this, a lot of times they take deferments, work for less than they would on a big budget studio film. It's a labor of love. And when stuff like this happens, it poisons the well."
"I know Alec had very high hopes for this movie, and it was a real kick in the teeth for him, and a big disappointment. I'm not surprised he pulled his name off the movie. A lot of directors do that. They're not going to be held to the mercy of someone's edited version that's different than theirs."
Baldwin says the finished product bears no resemblance to the film he set out to make seven years ago.
"What a spiritually demeaning thing to have happen to creative people," Baldwin says. "They have the distinction of making the only film with Anthony Hopkins that's going straight to video."
Ironically, the original 1941 film "The Devil and Daniel Webster," had its own set of problems. According to Mark Deming in "All Movie Guide": "While a critical success and a favorite of film buffs, 'The Devil and Daniel Webster' fared poorly at the box office; it was eventually released under five different titles and clipped to 85 minutes in hopes of winning a larger audience, though it was restored to a 107-minute length for release on home video."
"This is certainly one of the stranger movies I've written about, with this whole entire (situation)," Fleming says.
Features editor Ralf Kircher contributed to this report.
