Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Angela Ismailos' GREAT DIRECTORS proves good, chatty fun for film buffs

The first thing to get out of the way regarding GREAT DIRECTORS, the new documentary from first-time film-
maker Angela Ismailos, is: Why these guys and gals? Out of all the film-
makers living and working today, these are the "greats"? The answer is (mine, anyway): Why not? The ten filmmakers Ms Ismailos (shown below) tracks down around the world and interviews  -- chattily but never cattily -- have all made, if not "great" movies according to everyone's standards, at least very, very good films now and again.

If I had to append the word great to any of the ten personages that Ismailos has corralled, it would hang only on David Lynch (below) and Agnès Varda (two photos below) -- with Bernardo Betolucci and maybe Catherine Breillat occupying the "very nearly" category.  And yet every other filmmaker among the remaining six has done some fine work in his or her career, and so I am pleased to be able to learn more about them -- as I have done by watching Ismalos' movie.

Probably the single biggest surprise among these ten is the inclusion of John Sayles (pictured at the bottom of this post).  But, again, why not?  Mr. Sayles has done some fine work over the decades since his Return of the Secaucus Seven burst upon the scene, making him maybe the grand-daddy of the American independent-film movement.  I've never missed a Sayles movie, and I hope (unless I predecease him) that I never do.  So good on you, Ms Ismailos, for including him.  (Plus, what Sayles has to say about class in America, and how he separates the "money" work from the "love" work is worth hearing.)

Back to Mr. Lynch: His words about the making of Eraserhead, how midnight movies played into its success, and the advent of Mel Brooks -- yes! -- in his career is as surprising as it is fascinating.  And it should make all of us grateful anew, in an entirely different way, for Mr. Brooks.

Bertolucci (shown above), on the other hand, talks (among other things) about his debt to Pasolini and the first meeting he had with that late, great Italian director.

Want some British politics with your art?  The documentarian invites us to get to know Stephen Frears (above) and Ken Loach (below).

And though "great" and "Frears" have never left my lips in the same sentence, I've admired much of this filmmaker's work, too (especially, of late, his rather dumped-upon Chéri). And now I know something more about the why and how his films have appeared.

As for the sweet and charming Mr. Loach, he fills us in on a few things, including his banned-by-Britain documentaries. Though I have not appreciated his last couple of films to land on our shores, I would very much like to see those documentaries. And because of their being mentioned in Ms Ismailos' movie, maybe we shall.

Catherine Breillat (above) talks about her history a bit, and of the influence that Ingmar Bergman's work (who knew?!) had on her at quite a young age.

Todd Haynes (shown at right), for whom -- and this should come as no surprise -- Fassbinder was an influence, talks about getting around the current homogenized version of "gayness," while Richard Linklater (below, and another surprise on the "great" list) speaks interestingly of his "white privilege," even though his family has no money.  And finally, it's bracing to encounter a director, Liliana Cavani (shown in the penultimate photo below) who has remained somewhat out of the critical loop over the past couple of decades, now back again and speaking up and out.  I'd like to have heard even more from her, actually.

One of the strengths of Ismailos' movie is its very informality.  She was able to put these filmmakers enough at ease to get them to chat easily.  If no bombshells are dropped in the course of the film, we at least have a chance to see and hear some of our "heroes" and "heroines" as they looked and sounded at a particular time in their lives.

So.  Is Great Directors anything close to definitive? Not at all. But I would hope that Ms Ismailos does not expect it to be.  I'm awfully happy to have seen it, and in fact, would welcome another and even another round of interviews with a package (or two) of ten more filmmakers -- until this woman feel that she's come close to exhausting the well of all the many good and important directors working today.

Great Directors, (via film distributor Paladin, the letterhead of which features neither a phone number nor a web address!), opens Friday, July 2, in New York City at the Quad Cinema, and on July 9th in Los Angeles at the Nuart Theater.  Further dates and cities may be on the calendar soon,  followed by, one hopes, a DVD release.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

PLEASE REMOVE YOUR SHOES: straight-to-video debut offers unvarnished look at today's air travel safety (and lack of it); Q&A w/ two smart DIY filmmakers

Why is an extremely important documen-
tary about air travel safety in the age of Jihad going the straight-to-video route? We'll have one possible answer at the end of this post, when we briefly Q&A the film's director, co-writer, producer and editor Rob DelGaudio (with one question answered by executive producer Frederick Gevalt). Meanwhile, here's why you should check out, as soon as possible,
PLEASE REMOVE YOUR SHOES -- which makes its DVDebut this Thursday, July 1.

Mr. DelGaudio (shown below) weaves together quite an assortment of history, events and talking heads (full bodies, too) concerning the old FAA, its newer counterpart the TSA, the people who lead it and those who labor under them.  The picture isn't pretty and the news isn't good.  I do wish that the movie lifted off a bit sooner than it does; there are a few too many shots of aircraft, airports, comings and goings in the beginning, when all we want to do is be immersed in the movie's content.  Hold out five minutes, however, and things really get interesting.

From the Pan-AM Locherbie explosion 22 years ago (about which we learn that U.S. Embassies had plenty of warning but, like many of the various people and agencies involved in the events of 9/11, they didn't bother to share, circulate or pay proper attention to the information) to the rather too-close relationship between the FAA and the airline industry and all the bogus "testing" for safety that the airlines and government have engaged in since the demise of the World Trade Center, DelGaudio and his writer Rocco Giuliano amass enough evidence of stupidity and out-and-out wrong-doing to shock an audience into anger and action.

The filmmakers nail that peculiar attitude of officials that seems to say: "The more I know (and the less you know) makes me more powerful."   They also show us how, when testing for better safety showed worse results, the answer was to simply terminate the testing.  The movie is a lesson in how government works (or doesn't).  More important, the film does not come across as an invitation for "tea partiers" to scream "down with government" -- but rather as an intelligent plea to fix these problems while we still have the chance.

Consequently DelGaudio and Giuliano have corralled a group of ex-Federal Air Marshals, agents, and whistle-blowers (like Franklin Puello, above, a former TSA screener training supervisor and retired NYPD undercover detective) to explain what has -- and still is -- going on regarding air travel and safety.  One of these fellows, Bogdan Dzakovic, presented the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (the government agency created in part to protect whistle-blowers) with a 40-page indictment plus 500 pages of evidence of wrong-doing which resulted in -- yes -- his being demoted, after a couple of decades of faithful work, to doing entry-level tasks that a kid out of high school might be assigned.  "The TSA," notes retired FAA security agent Steve Elson, "always focuses on the 'threat du jour'," while terrorists, of course, move on to creating new threats. We also learn about the Federal Air Marshal dress code, a brilliant means of unmasking our air marshals to the terrorists.

The Steven Bierfeldt incident -- carrying money in that metal box for Ron Paul -- has its time in the sun again.  We also learn how the FAA tipped off it employees to upcoming Red Alerts so that they could look better at their security jobs.  And what happens when newly-recruited Air Marshals are unable to pass to TPC test?  No problem: Just get rid of the test!  Brian Sullivan (shown below), the retired FAA special agent who narrates the film, tells us that what air passengers receive now is nothing more than “an elaborate façade of security.” Or, in the words of Air Marshal P. Jeffrey Black, "a kind of security theater: bells and whistles to make you feel safe. But you're not."

And yet this important and worthwhile movie will leave you less frightened, I think, than angered once again at the failure of our elected officials and government agencies to even remotely get the job done right.  The film ends with a pointed quote from, of all people, James Thurber.


Although Please Remove Your Shoes will be available on DVD beginning July 1, it is as of now for sale only, rather than rental.  That's one of the questions TrustMovies takes up in his Q&A with director Rob DelGaudio below.  TrustMovies' questions appear in boldface and DelGaudio's answers in standard type.

First off: I am wondering why a film this good and important does not have a theatrical release?

The feedback we have received from prospective distributors is that they felt the film was, and I do quote here, “too scary.” We’ve also been told the film is too critical of government, which I find particularly odd and scary in its own right. Frankly I’m mystified, as is Fred Gevalt, the executive producer and driving force behind the film’s existence (he personally funded it) and the rest of our team. Two million people a day get on commercial airplanes in the US. They all pass through TSA checkpoints, they all have witnessed or experienced the travesties, and as we have seen in various comments, postings, and blogs, the anger and disdain for the agency is pretty much universal. Our feeling is that this makes for quite a large audience base, and our hope is that at some point a distributor who understands the degree of public anger about the topic will realize the film’s potential.

I sure hope so. What was the genesis of the film – how the idea for it began, and with whom?

The film was conceived of and initiated by Executive Producer Fred Gevalt, a retired publishing executive and pilot with three decades of flying experience: a typical entrepreneur, whose idea of “retiring” really means “what’s next.” As an aviator and a concerned citizen, he was angered by the methods and attitudes of the TSA, and the erosion of individual rights in the nation’s pursuit of “security.” As a Vietnam vet, and like most people who have served in a combat zone, he understands the principles of duty and felt compelled to act. He also felt, given his means, a documentary to be the best tool to reach the widest audience and, ideally, to initiate a re-assessment of the TSA; a debate which in turn he hoped would also lead to a renewed examination of the nation’s willingness to accept far-reaching government “anti-terror security measures” at the expense of individual rights.

Once I and co-writer Rocco Giuliano became involved, we pushed to keep the film grounded in the classical documentary form of non-partisanship and to simply present the facts and let the audience decide.

How long did it take you to make the movie – start to finish – including getting the idea(s) in order and the script?

Fred began the documentary in the summer of 2008, crisscrossing the country with his daughter Emelie, then added co-producer Lorraine Pouliot in the fall, to conduct about 25 hours worth of background interviews on HDV. Rocco and I were brought on board at the start of 2009 and we began by working from transcripts of those preliminary interviews to craft a shooting script. We narrowed the story down to the perspectives of our main cast of six aviation security agents and a passenger on flight 327, then designed visuals around their comments and transition narration. We had a fully realized draft of the script by the end of February, which is essentially, in terms of structure and flow, the same as what we ended up with in the final cut of the film.

We re-shot all the interviews, breaking them down into segments and filming them at various locations appropriate for the subjects - in Las Vegas, LA, Boston, New York, and Washington D.C. We also did additional interviews with five new people to round out the content in LA and Washington.

We had 32 days of principal photography from May through July and six days of pick-ups in the late fall of 2009. The film was shot by Joe Figucia, and assisted by Jesse Hubbell on audio, both of whom I believe did a tremendous job. We were a small crew with minimal equipment (like most docs) but neither of them ever let up in terms of working to get the best looking (and sounding) shots possible in the (always) short time we had. The film was shot on DVCproHD with a Panasonic HDX900.

How much time did it take to edit everything you had gathered down and into what we now see on film? And was this the most difficult part (I think it would be for me)?

The edit came together over the course of four and a half months, between September ’09 through mid January ’10, and in a very straight-forward manner, with great give-and-take throughout the process. Though I have not done a feature-length film before I have been doing short format work for a long time, as has Rocco, so we just had at it like we would any project – tell the best story from the material you have in hand.

Rocco and I worked from new transcripts to create a rough paper edit as the footage was being input to my Avid system. He and I worked closely throughout the edit to constantly shape and refine the content, then share it with Fred to get his input. And Fred, even though he was new to the process, proved to be very astute at recognizing when we started to drift off message and at making broad brush suggestions that would often lead to new and better solutions - a true Executive Producer. The composer, Thomas DeRenzo (whom Fred had actually selected and retained in the fall of 2008), began feeding us tracks early on, so I could develop the right interplay and pacing of all the elements. As we progressed, I asked a small number of associates whose insights I greatly valued to view cuts and be brutally honest with us, which they were, and as result the film was strengthened.

February and March 2010 was spent doing visual effects and sound design. The final color-correction was done in April.

What was its total cost (if you are comfortable with telling me)?

Like all films money was an object, and in our case it was real money spent from the savings of one man’s nest egg which was built up through thirty years of hard work. So I felt an extra burden to spend it wisely and make sure it would show up on screen (and through the speakers). Fred is the keeper of the finally tally, so please feel free to contact him.  (Editor's note: I did, and below is Fred's answer.)

Hi James: I'm perfectly comfortable "telling" you, but less than enthusiastic having the number published. Everybody in this business wants to find out this number -- before production, during production, the underwriters, press, subcontractors, etc. Essentially I wouldn't care, except that if anyone wants to second guess the number before a buy, I don't want to remove all the mystery.

I hope you understand....sorry, I'm not just doing this because I'm trying to be coy. I do know that I got great value from Rob DelGaudio and his crew, and that from other documentary producers I've talked with, we were about at their expense level, but got a much better technical product. The other relevant thing, which Rob told you, is that the project has taken me two and a half years to date, with almost a full year of filmed interviews on my part before I met Rob. So if it helps, I guess I spent about a third of the project so far on that first year.

This seems like a labor of love for most of you concerned with the film, including many of the people you interview, particularly the whistle-blowers. Are all (any?) of them managing to work and earn a decent living again, I hope?

While the big picture goal of the film is to truly help bring about change in our aviation security system, and in the way that government creates and oversees bureaucracy, I think all on our team would agree with this sentiment: that we feel honored and humbled to have had the opportunity to help tell the stories of these six men. None of them are the type not to get on with it, regardless of the obstacle, which was the big mistake of their various superiors – I don’t think they had any idea at all of the caliber of these guys who toiled beneath them. So yes, they all have carried on, though Bogdan Dzakovic probably has suffered the most from the system; he is the only one of them still actively working in aviation security full-time. The way he was, and still is, marginalized by TSA management is beyond shameful, and all the proof we need to demonstrate that while nothing has changed, something desperately needs to be changed.

Is there anything else that you yourself would like to say, and that we writers/journalists always fail to ask you? If so, here’s your chance to soapbox and say it.

First and foremost, thank you for taking an interest in the film and writing about it. Its exciting to see something which we have toiled on for so long find the audience we instinctively knew existed. We hope the film will prompt people to think, talk, and make their voices heard to their elected officials. If you measure national security as a function of confidence and economics, the TSA efforts actually reduce our security as a country. Jeopardizing our civil rights is a poor tradeoff for an expensive answer to aviation security that really doesn’t even work in its own right.

I am a filmmaker, not a security expert, but I have been fortunate to spend many hours speaking with a number of very informed people who are. They all say the same thing: Abolish the TSA. Let’s fix aviation security in a moment of relative peace and quiet, not after the next terrorist attack.

I just went on Netflix and typed in the title and it appears that Netflix does not have it. What about Blockbuster? I think you MUST get it out there for rent somehow. A lot of people, particularly these days, can’t afford to buy DVDs, but they will rent. Can you tell me if this is possible? And from where? And also, can they buy the DVD via Amazon -- or only from your site?

We are in negotiations now with a couple of distributors for DVD, digitial, and VOD, but until then, copies can be ordered from

(All photos come courtesy of the film-making team.)

Monday, June 28, 2010

Hackford/Jacobson's LOVE RANCH: 3 fine actors ground a movie of mini expectations

Helen Mirren, Joe Pesci & Spanish co-star Sergio Peris-Mencheta are the best 3 reasons to visit LOVE RANCH, the new movie from director Taylor Hack-
ford (shown below) and writer Mark Jac-
obson.   One of those based-on-fact movies in which very few of the facts (at least, as shown in the film) will surprise you, this is a story that, even if you've little acquaint-
ance with Las Vegas brothels, should have you feeling a bit been
-there, done-that.

Mirren (below) and Pesci play Grace and Charlie Bontempo, the owner-operators during the late 1970s of Nevada's first legalized brothel -- that "ranch" of the title.  Into their harried lives (he's a sleaze, she's overworked, and everything from cancer to the IRS is dogging them) comes a Latin American boxer named Armando (Peris-Mancheta) whom Pesci hopes to shepherd back to the championships.

Everything is laid out capably, if obviously, by the screenplay. There's a little too much coincidence afoot -- such as last-minute arrivals/departures geared to goose the suspense factor.  They do -- again, rather obviously -- but they also dilute credibility.

Hackford -- always good with actors -- gives the threesome their rein and they plow ahead with skill and feeling.  Mirren may at first seem a little too staid in this role (her accent is good, if generic), but it soon appears that there is reason for her holding back, and as the actress begins to breathe more freely and lets go, you're with her all the way.

It's good to see Pesci (shown at left) again, too. Absent from the screen (except for The Good Shepherd) for more than a decade, the actor seems in excellent form, and his energy level certainly belies his age.  The real find of the film, how-
ever, is Señor Peris-Mancheta (below).  He provides most of the surprises -- and a lot of the heart.  Initially a rather typical braggart, the actor slowly allows his character to open up, and by the finale he's been it/done it all, from sweet and sexy to brave, powerful, foolhardy, naive and heartbreaking.

One of Hackford/Jacobson's smartest moves is keeping the newly formed pair at arm's length for about half of the movie.  By the time they really connect, we're ready for it, and they are, too.  And this connection, because of its build-up and the manner in which it happens, is made all the more believable.  Among the supporting cast, only the brothel-ettes played by Gina Gershon, Taryn Manning and Scout Taylor-Compton get enough time to register, but Bai Ling (below and just to the right of Mirren) really does need to tackle the role of a nun, perhaps.  This over-the-top slut number -- which she does very well but far too often -- is growing tiresome (I should think for her, as much as for the audience.)

Mirren's many fans will probably line up for the movie -- if only to see what she's capable of doing next.  (For a riper and even more versatile version of the actress, you must watch her fun fiasco Shadowboxer, with Cuba Gooding, from 2005. Now that's a very naughty Miss Mirren indeed).

Love Ranch, from E1 (though you'd never know it, as nothing about this film seems to appear on the E1 website) opens Wednesday, June 30, in New York City at  the AMC Empire 25 and Landmark's Sunshine Cinema.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

The man (no!) and his music (yes!): Vikram Jayanti's PHIL SPECTOR documentary

THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY OF PHIL SPECTOR? If that title sounds a bit grandiose, wait till you get a load of the movie's subject. A couple of weeks back, in an interview by TrustMovies with French actress/writer/director Agnès Jaoui, the star talked about the depressing experience of discovering that art you love with all your soul has been created by a piece of worthless (except for some amazing talent) trash. Today's post covers just such a situation -- and movie -- about a fellow who's a great artist and a really lousy person (perhaps he should spell it Specter).

How lousy? Try this: Sticking a gun inside the mouth of your girlfriend and pulling the trigger. Mr. Spector is now in prison for that little move. On the other hand, he's got a lot to feel grandiose about, as this film makes absolutely clear by giving us many of his greatest hits, in or near their entirety. Early on, Spector excelled as songwriter and performer: "To Know Him Is to Love Him," sung by the Teddy Bears trio, of which he was a member (see above, right), and "(There Is a Rose in) Spanish Harlem," still one of the greatest of odd love songs. But it was as a music producer that the man's genius came to fruition.

Documentarian Vikram Jayanti, shown at right, has given us a mind-bending, ear-and-eye-filling movie that manages to enfold into a single entity psychology, history (complete with headline news), music criticism -- and the music itself. At one point in this documentary, Spector mentions in passing that "the Motown sound" was good, but nowhere near as good as his own. He's so right: I recently listened to an old Supremes album and was shocked to realize how simple and rather rinky-dink is the musical accompaniment to the vocals of Diana and her girls -- nothing like the rich, vibrant, soulful, swelling stuff that Spector, with the help of his artists, managed to produce again and again. In the history of American popular music, no one before or since has equaled the accomplishments of this man. Seeing and hearing the full-length version of "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'," sung by The Righteous Brothers on an ancient television show, makes that assessment more than clear. And that one song -- great as it is -- doesn't begin to cover the Spector spectrum, the high point of which, for some (not me), will be his production of the Beatles' "Let It Be" album.

And then there's the man. During his initial trial (he had two) for the murder of Lana Clarkson, Spector gave Mr. Jayanti full access for what looks like a very long, cover-as-many-bases-as-possible interview, during which the the music promoter/producer spills his guts in ways that seem alternately crazy (was he high, perhaps?) and fox-like. His fairly consistent jabs at one, Tony Bennett, begin to approach the hilarious, and he's seems to have it in for Buddy Holly and Marty Scorsese (with some justification, where the latter is concerned), as well.

Then there's his "looks." Has any celebrity ever managed to appear this crazy this often? Probably. But seeing Mr. Spector in full array historically, including his "Jewfro" hairdo (Jayanti has gathered together a wealth of great old footage) makes it difficult to imagine anyone else outdoing him. There are times during this documentary when the man reminded me, from certain angles, of Joan Rivers -- had she never had a face-lift. Most of the time, though, he's a ringer for the recent Anna Massey.

When he relives his own "old times," Spector can seem less mean-spirited and occasionally thoughtful and fun. Hearing him talk about being on top -- "Sometimes I was so brash in those days, I could strut sitting down!" is a delight. And then he'll deliver a number like this: "My artists could easily have replaced each other because it was always the production that carried the songs."  Replaced each other? Darlene Love? Sorry, Phil, but I don't think so.

Fortunately, thanks to Jayanti's brilliant notion of juxtaposing murder trial and music (those are the Crystals, above, whom Spector made popular with "Da Doo Ron Ron"), thus combining man and art, psychology and critical assessment (which comes in the form of subtitles shown over the performance, so that no spoken words interfere with the music), we return again and again to Spector's achievements -- both brilliant and wretched. And though I walked out of the theater on air -- high on the Spector sound -- I still think Jayanti ought to dedicate this movie to Lana Clarkson. And I hope Agnès Jaoui gets to see it.

The Agony and the Ecstasy of Phil Spector opens this Wednesday in New York City at Film Forum. Check the schedule of performances here. I hope the plays across the country wherever popular music lovers reside -- which means just about everywhere.

Photo credits: 

Top, left: Photofest; top, right: Associated Press

The Teddy Bears (c.1958), from left to right: Marshall Leib, Carol Connors and Phil Spector, Courtesy of Photofest.

Photo of Vikram Jayanti, courtesy of

photo of Phil Spector, courtesy of VixPix Films.

photo of Phil Spector with Jew-fro, courtesy of Photofest.

the young Phil Spector (c. late 1960s/early 1970s), courtesy of Photofest.

The Crystals -- from left, Patsy Wright, Delores Kennibrew,
Lala Brooks and Barbara Alston -- (c. early 1960s),
courtesy of Photofest.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

On-Demand: MADE IN CHINA --Judi Krant & Dan Sumpter's shaggy dog tale

If you've ever been particularly taken with the idea of novelty items -- from the Slinky to the Pet Rock -- and how these are created and marketed, then MADE IN CHINA may be the film for you. Even if you don't give a rat's ass, there's still some odd fun to be had from this very DIY-looking piece of low-definition video from co-writer/
director (her first film) Judi Krant (shown below) and newcomer co-writer/co-star Dan Sumpter (who is indeed sumpin!). What the movie lacks in star quality (a rather one-note performance from lead actor Jackson Kuehn, although that note is not without its occasional charm) and glamor (DIY has rarely looked cruddier), it somewhat makes up via the goofy and bizarre.

Mr. Kuehn, below, plays a young man named Johnson, who has invented a "humorous domestic hygiene product" (let your imaginations race!) that he dearly wants to take to market.  But how?  As many such items are made in China (a title lurks there, don't you think?), off he goes eastward, over the objections of his mom and sis, with his young-life savings in tow.

As is clear from the first frame, this fellow does everything wrong; so away from the USA, it only gets worse. He has arranged for a marketer in China to help him out, but the fellow appears to have taken the money and run. With a little suspect luck he happens upon a rather dapper man who knows the Chinese marketing ropes and agrees to get Johnson's foot in the door.  Adventures ensue.

These include being fitted for a quite unnecessary suit....

Meeting a pretty young girl on a train...

Getting the poop kicked out of him by two young ladies whose apartment he has unknowingly invaded...

and getting deeper and deeper into the world of that marketing maven, played by Mr. Sumpter, above, with leg, and below, with turban, reciting Hamlet's "To Be or Not to Be" soliloquy in Man-
darin. (Yes, but you will have to see and hear it to believe it).

Sumpter, whose first film this is, seems a natural actor and pretty damn versatile, too. He goes from an utterly dapper man-of-the-world to sad-sack creep and back again, stopping at several short sharp characterizations along the way.  Somebody grab this guy and put him to work!  As he also co-wrote the script, it would appear there's talent aplenty here.

I wish Made in China were better. Even at 87 minutes it seems too long, relying on lazy charm and situation to do the work that better plotting, dialog and craftsmanship might have managed more smartly.  But it's still fun and different.  And yes, as you'll suspect as the movie meanders along, you're going to have to wait until almost the end to discover what that humorous-domestic-hygiene-product entails.

Made in China (that's one of the prettier, less grungy shots, above) has begun its run via IFC-On-Demand, where it will screen for another three months. To check its availability in your area,
simply click here.