MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

YOU HAVE TWINS, MR. ZEMBIC!

Thank God we are going to get a big screen treatment of the story of Brian Zembic, the moron who had 38C implants in order to win a $100,000 bet. Yes, it was true. No, I did not offer him the $100,000. The movie rights were picked up by Fox Searchlight, so maybe they can use the searchlight to find this guy’s brain. Maybe this is Fox’s idea of a reverse There’s Something About Mary. They’ve said they see Mary as a guys movie that is made fun for women since it centers on a woman. Maybe 38Cs For 100Gs (my title) will be a woman’s film that has breasts, breasts, breasts for the boys.
READER CORRECTION: As long as we are already focused on baring boobs, Ethan C wrote in about a mention I made last week (THB 7/30): “Jamie Pressly‘s Playboy layout was about five or six issues ago. Really, Dave, you call yourself an entertainment reporter? Where’s your research?” He was kidding, so don’t write about him being a jerk. As for me, I’ve stopped reading Playboy in recent years. I actually did care about the articles, and they aren’t what they used to be. So, thanks for the heads up, Ethan.
A COMEDY?: Here is The Hollywood Reporter’s description of Kathleen Turner‘s role in Prince of Central Park: “She will play a woman who befriends a runaway foster child; together, they conquer their personal demons and rid New York’s Central Park of a drug-dealing gang.” Produced by Steven Seagal‘s production company, this could be an interesting action drama, right? Nope. Here’s a little more of the description: “The $7 million family comedy is based on the long-running Broadway and off-Broadway musical.” Nothing funnier than drug dealers, runaways and personal demons.
HAPPY WITH EVER AFTER: I’m beginning to see the kind of mail about Ever After that I saw about Deep Impact. People like it. They really, really like it. (Each letter starts, “You were too hard on Ever After…”) So, maybe it’s going to find its legs. Then again, maybe not. Another Drew Barrymore film (really her legitimate adult actress coming-out party), Boys on the Side, stiffed when it hit theaters in the post Oscar-release period a couple of years ago. I felt BOTS was a better film and, Whoopi Goldberg would have gotten a nomination had Warner Bros. released the film in time for consideration. But it was also Matthew McConaughey‘s introduction (still one of his best performances) to the studio film and the home of great dramatic performances by Mary-Louise Parker and Anita Gillette. Some felt it was maudlin or heavy handed, but I think it was a wonderful movie.
DIRECTING FOR DISNEY: I got the following letter from someone named Zoo Station when I suggested that Nancy Meyer has weak directing skills and proved it on The Parent Trap, even though I liked the movie overall (THB 7/31). “Since this is a Disney movie, you can’t blame the director. They’re basically told what to do with very little freedom. It’s basically the producer’s and studio’s fault. This is why you don’t see Spielberg directing one of these movies. These are films that beginning directors have to start with. That was pretty mean of you to say that ‘Nancy Meyer is a poor director’ when EVERY film takes many people to make it a good film or OK film. I highly doubt Spielberg did every little thing on Saving Private Ryan. He had help, and it could have been an OK movie instead of a great one. Also, Out of Sight is a good movie but not great.”
Well, first, you are welcome to your opinion on Out of Sight, as are those who love it and those who hate it. As far as blaming the studio for the way Nancy Meyer directed The Parent Trap, with all due respect, that is patently absurd. Let’s dump the Spielberg analogy from the top. Yes, if Janusz Kaminski (his Ryan cinematographer) sucked, the movie would worse, but he works for Spielberg. He isn’t out there freelancing. A good crew allows the director to execute his vision. And make no mistake, Spielberg doesn’t write or do everything else on a set, but his movies are his vision.
For better or for worse, film is a director’s medium. This brings us to Disney. The studio is infamous for pre-production notes. The reason why is because they understand that once the film starts shooting, they have almost no control at all. That’s the way it is. If the dailies are hideous, they can fire someone. That’s about it.
Meyer earned this directing job by being half of one of Disney’s big-money teams. She and husband Charles Shyer (who has been the director of the team to date) are writers first and adapted the original Parent Trap themselves. So, if there was studio interference, it was likely in that stage. And in post. I’m sure Disney wasn’t too thrilled to have a kids movie that runs 127 minutes. But again, I would say that Meyer/Shyer have enough juice at the studio to protect their baby.
There are certainly cases of films where it is not the director’s fault. And not just at Disney; not by a long shot. Francis Ford Coppola has worked for hire and you can tell. The script never quite works because he just doesn’t care. Lots of the “flash” directors have very little script sense, so their movies look great but make little sense, unless they fall into a great script. (See: The Great Ridley Scott vs. Tony Scott Debate.) And there are “savior” gigs, like John Frankenheimer being called in on the Brando/Kilmer version of The Island of Dr. Moreau after the original director (I forgot who it was) got fired.
You could tell, by watching Kilmer’s performance particularly, that the film was out of control and that no one could have saved it. But, all in all, the director is in charge. The writer-director is in almost absolute control. So, to blame anyone but Meyer for the directorial lapses in The Parent Trap is just wrong. If you want to make an argument that I was “mean,” make the one that says, “don’t abuse a first time director for not being fully formed.” That’s reasonable. But how many first-timers get to “try things out” on a major studio release? Not many.
READER OF THE DAY: From Chuck F: “Yes, definitely sell out. Heap on the moronic pull-quotes like a starving man piling on the food at an all-you-can-eat joint. Do anything to get your name in ads for movies that no-one will remember six weeks in the future. Or you could just keep up the good work.”

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