MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Going Sideways In Santa Barbara

After rushing back to L.A. from Toronto, a happy distraction was in order. And this weekend, it came in the form of a jaunt to Santa Barbara for a Sideways mini-junket set around the Santa Barbara premiere of the film near where they shot most of the film.

Fox Searchlight set us up at the Bacara resort on the beach, preemed at The Arlington Theater, one of the few giant screens left in Southern California, and partied with wine from the many wineries seen in the movie. Very few people spit their wine into the pots.

The way this film plays, it is suddenly turning into this year’s highest potential “Lost in Translation,”
that is, “the small movie that might” work out as an Oscar contender. One thing we know… it will not qualify for the Independent Spirit Awards because it is too expensive. But there is a long way to go.

In both Toronto and Santa Barbara, Virginia Madsen and Thomas Hayden Church have proven themselves to be the kind of talkers who can charm the folks, a critical atrribute for wannabe nominees.

On the other hand, Paul Giamatti, who is clearly the star of this story and the best known of the candidates in awards circles, has been M.I.A. at both Toronto parties and in Santa Barbara. It could well be that he, understandably, does not want to get caught up in the hype only to have his heart broken as the endless buzz around American Splendor might well have affected him last year.

But a film like Sideways – truly great and truly intimate – cannot afford to miss a trick on the road to Oscar. Like an underdog sports team, they need to take advantage of every opportunity, steal a base here and there, and fight the whole way if they are going to get their just desert wines.

But the race has a new serious contender on the map…

Be Sociable, Share!

5 Responses to “Going Sideways In Santa Barbara”

  1. ZO says:

    hey dave, same great stuff as the Terminal and the Rundown???

  2. David Poland says:

    Better than both, though I would still argue for the merits of the other two. It’s always amusing how people hang onto one or two points of disagreement as though anyone’s taste matches exactly with anyone else’s. Besides, after my rave about Sideways, it was the best reviewed film at Toronto. So put that in your smart ass and smoke it.

  3. BrotherhoodofSteel says:

    Talking smack about the Rundown? Have you met Thunder and Lightning yet? Maybe you should. That has to work on somebody.
    I kid, but I will personally not stand for the slagging of one fine action film. Seldom are action films that fun or presented in a fashion where you actually get shots longer than 2.7 seconds.
    It’s a fun flick that you have to be one hell of an uptight wanker, in my view, not to enjoy.
    Different strokes and all, but Im taking a stance. It’s Midnight Run in a bloody jungle, with a hot dame, and a funnier kidnapped victim. Nothing wrong with, hold, ERNIE REYES JR.
    End of RUTTIN Line.
    PS: I would defend the Terminal, but the changing of the story just sort of, put a brother out. Sort of the same reason I did not go see Open water since people becoming shark food not as good as people possibly faking their deaths to start a new life.
    And Sideways just cant suck because it has Giamotti in it. But I feel that way about Ben Stiller as well. So what do I know?

  4. bicycle bob says:

    now the terminal was god awful
    tom hanks needs to make bachelor party 2

  5. JT says:

    David…PLEASE no comparisons to “Lost in Translation” for “Sideways.” I am currently getting into the novel and after the incredibly overpraised and underwhelming LIT last year, i would hate to think that “Sideways” is going to be a letdown.
    As for PG missing the parties and premieres, maybe he’s busy or maybe, like Sean Penn, just doesnt want to do the pandering thing. There are worse sins one can make and one could hardly blame him. PG’s work in AS last year was the highlight of acting in a film that was so perfect, the kind of perfect most films can only dream of. It deserved the praise heaped on it and deserved to be the LIT of last year. Oh well, there is no accounting for the taste of the voters and the masses, for that matter.

The Hot Blog

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