MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Anderson, Zucker and Woo?

Looks like Paul Thomas Anderson hasn’t heard the last of the comparisons between he and Martin Scorsese. Just when the GoodFellas/Boogie Nights link is disappearing, PT (as he’s now known about town) may be hooking up with Robert Evans (the producer on whom Dustin Hoffman based his Wag The Dog character) and Jack Nicholson (one of Evans’ very best friends) to make a feature. It’s the story of an eighth-generation Native American who decides he’s ready to take on Vegas with his reservation casinos. That would be Jack. I, for one, would look forward to any movie about Native Americans that’s not exclusively about being Native American. The sequel could be about the guy getting into Pro Football. Cowboys, and … you get it!
Ghost made us believe that Patrick Swayze could act. First Knight brought us a sixtysomething Arthur, a fortysomething Lancelot and a twentysomething Guinevere, but not many believed that. (I liked it! I admit it! I liked it! I’m so embarrassed!) Now, director Jerry Zucker is giving us A Course In Miracles, which follows a young priest who has lost his way on a trip around the world to investigate claims of miracles. I wonder if he reaffirms his faith? Me, I’m looking forward to the lawsuit from the ever peaceful Marianne Williamson, who wrote the eponymous smash hit book of the same title. The problem? The book is not the basis for the movie and this will wreak havoc with any book deal she may have simmering.
A Hollywood Conversation: “The guy who made Face/Off just made a first look deal with TriStar Pictures.” “Woo.” “Yeah, I’m happy too. What’s the guy’s name?” “Woo.” “No, the guy who made Face/Off.” “Woo.” “Yeah. I liked it too. And that other movie.” “Killer.” “Yeah. The best. But what was it called?” “Killer.” “Okay, so don’t tell me! I hear he’s producing.” “The Big Hit.” “I guess so. The guy can’t miss. But, what’s his name?” “Woo.” “Woo directed The Big Hit?” “Exec Produced.” “But who made Face/Off?” “Woo.” “The director?” “Yeah.”

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