MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

A Line of Bulworth

Fox has put the oft-delayed Warren Beatty film, Bulworth, right in the path of Godzilla, telling Beatty and the media that opening on the same day as the mega-monster-movie is a show of support for the film. It seems unlikely. Bulworth will get minimal attention from a press corps drawn to Godzilla like moths to a light bulb (or lemmings to a cliff). And history offers no more support. Last year, Warner Bros. pit Addicted to Love with Meg Ryan and ironically, Godzilla star Matthew Broderick, against The Lost World. It did draw $11.5 million, but much of that was probably dino-droppings from disappointed sell-out victims. Hardly a summer smash. Fox’s very own Out to Sea took on Men In Black and drew only $5.9 million. If Bulworth stiffs, the release date makes it Godzilla‘s fault. Not Fox’s and definitely not Beatty’s. If the movie is nearly that clever, it will be worth watching.
CHANGING FACES: Eddie Murphy will be putting the prosthetics back on for his next two films. The Nutty Professor II, a sort of Mr. Klump Goes To Washington, will start shooting in September. Before that, he’ll co-star with Martin Lawrence (no, he’s not in jail) in Life, a comedy about two lifers who break out of prison in their very old age. Eddie seems to have gotten the message: audiences like him a lot better when his ego is covered in latex.
CROSSING THE DIVIDE: Amistad, which chronicles one of the worst moral crises in American history, will serve as a unique export to other troubled countries, as the U.S. Information Agency is planning special screenings in 73 countries, including 18 African nations. Unfortunately, the screenings are meant for “high government officials in the host countries, intellectual and cultural leaders, journalists, members of the diplomatic community, resident Americans, and others.” That leaves, as usual, the real people out of the loop, some of whom may actually be descendants of those sold into slavery in the U.S.
KNOWLES KNOWS: Harry Knowles has gone from an underground net phenom to an Entertainment Weekly regular, but the first significant evidence of Hollywood’s success in its efforts to co-opt him turn up in the ads for the disastrous Burn Hollywood Burn. Knowles’ glowing review blurb, his first in a national campaign, is twice the size of those by the other hack reviewers Disney dug up for the ad. What makes this significant is that Disney and Burn Hollywood Burn was also the first paying advertiser, one of only two ever, on Knowles’ Ain’t It Cool Web site. Tick, tick, tick. (That’s the 15-minute stopwatch, Harry.)
READER OF THE DAY: From Nathan H: “In America, what sells a movie, first and foremost, is the advertising. Next comes the people in the movie, then word-of-mouth. The Lost World was a bad movie, but the promotional hype had you believing that it was the second coming of Jurassic Park. BANG! A $90-plus million opening, but a relatively quick fall after that. It wasn’t anything special, but the marketing had you believing it was, so you went.”

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