MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

All About Titanic

OK, today and tomorrow I’ll be catching up on the news of the biz before firing out my “Best Of” 1997. Wednesday will be The Ten Biggest Entertainment Stories of 97. Thursday will be my personal Top Ten. Friday, the Ten Movies That I Just Didn’t Get. And the weekend edition will offer up my Worst of 1997. Check it out.
The story at the box office is Titanic, Titanic, Titanic.The box office numbers are unbelievable. So much so that I don’t believe them. After opening last weekend, reporting that almost every seat was sold at most theaters, Titanic‘s three-day total for this weekend rose $7 million to $35.6 million. That’s a 25 percent rise in business. And I say “Bull****.” Maybe the holiday weekend could account for a 10 percent rise in the numbers (to $31.4 million), but a 25 percent rise would require an additional 1,000 screens or so. And I doubt that Titanic added that many screens in this crowded marketplace. Keep in mind that there’s almost nobody in Los Angeles this week — reporters or execs — to bitch and moan about these bizarre Titanic figures. And about Miramax’s revision of their Scream 2 opening figures (down by 15 percent) without anyone in the press noticing the “mistake” before it was announced. Another “mistake” wouldn’t be surprising.
Even if Titanic added 350 screens to reach 3,000 this weekend, the per screen average would be over $13,000. Do you know how many wide-release films, other than Titanic, did over $13,000 a screen on any weekend in 1997? Four: The Lost World, Men In Black, Batman and Robin and Star Wars. And all four did it in their first weekend, with at least 25 percent more showings over the three days. You know how many pulled it off in their second weekend? None. Excuse me. One. Titanic. If you believe that.
The funny thing is, I liked the movie as I watched it in the theater. I winced occasionally, but I enjoyed it. But actually thinking about the film after seeing it creates a kind of unavoidable contempt by way of familiarity. For a review that comes close to my complaints, check out the review from the always interesting Manohla Dargis. She and I don’t always agree, but this time we are in lockstep.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon