MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Great Herzog Quotes…

From The San Francisco Chronicle

The Thai food at this Sundance party was paid for by the Discovery Channel, which sponsored "Grizzly Man." Lena Herzog, Werner’s beautiful, formidable Siberian wife, describes an agreement made a few years ago between television’s two nature giants — National Geographic and the Discovery Channel: When showing animals mating, show no more than three thrusts. "Three! " Lena cries, incensed. "Now they are censoring the animals! And," she continues, in the hushed tones of a spy, "in the last year we noticed the thrusts have been reduced to one. One thrust!"

"It’s Bush," Werner Herzog mutters.

"It’s appalling," Lena continues. "No wonder American women are frustrated. What’s worse is that no one has said anything — not a single word."

To think that this, of all cultures, would not notice.

Be Sociable, Share!

66 Responses to “Great Herzog Quotes…”

  1. Laura Bush says:

    Damn right! Why should those animals get two more thrusts than I ever got!

  2. CyborgLauraBush says:

    That’s more trust that you deserve! I AM THE

  3. bicycle bob says:

    why do they care whats on our tv’s? they watch our shows for animal sex?

  4. gombro says:

    That “three thrust rule” seems pretty standard in the US. In film, to avoid an NC-17, one can generally only have three thrusts, both sexually as well as of shots of knives or the like piercing flesh. If you look at the international cut of BASIC INSTINCT you’ll see they have more than three thrusts in both the sex scenes and ice-pick murder scene, but ONLY three in the US R version. I guess three is considered enough to convey the information, but beyond that, it’s just gratuitous.

  5. bicycle bob says:

    use ur imaginations. who needs to see more than three thrusts?

  6. Chester says:

    Bicycle Bob, I think the point is that the number of thrusts ought to be determined by artistic and narrative concerns, not by some hard-and-fast rule. (No pun intended.) Suppose for example a filmmaker needed to show that someone or some animal can keep it up and hold out for two nonstop hours. It would be pretty tough to convey that visually under this 3-strikes law.

  7. Mark says:

    No movie would be interesting if we had to look at someone or somethings member for two hours. Unless its hardcore porn.

  8. gombro says:

    The two-hour example may not be the most pertinent. On the other hand, remember, it was that rule that forced Warners to do that ludicrous computer-generated cover-up of the Orgy scene in EYES WIDE SHUT. Also, if you look at the uncut HENRY AND JUNE, WHORE, or BOXING HELENA, it’s clear that the scenes just wouldn’t have the impact they are supposed to have if cut down to three thrusts. The sense of humiliation that Teresa Russell clearly feels in WHORE, as the John bangs away in a sex act that seems more like an assault than a sex act, is, maybe, the best example.
    Having said all that, I just wish the country would get over its bad reaction to the NC-17 rating. There the rule doesn’t apply and we could all agree to leave uncut films to those who want to see them, thrusts and all. I don’t know why we can’t have a grown-up rating in this country that isn’t considered the kiss of death for mainstream films. Kudos to Fox Searchlight and the rest for having the balls to release BAD EDUCATION, THE DREAMERS, and YOUNG ADAM uncut in this country. While none of them are going through the roof, I doubt they would have done any better with a R rating. If anything the NC-17 brought out the curious.

  9. Chester says:

    Mark, very interesting Freudian slips on your part. Nowhere in my example did I ever say anyone would need to watch two full hours of intercourse in real time. I just said a filmmaker might not be able to depict two hours of intercourse if restricted by a three-thrust limit. Also, I certainly never said a viewer would ever have to see a participant’s actual member. You go, boy!

  10. Mark says:

    Just what I thought you meant there, Chest. I say let them show it all. If a grown up or even a kid can’t handle then don’t see it.

  11. bicycle bob says:

    if u wanna see more than 3 thrusts, then rent a porno.

  12. jon s says:

    bob, isn’t that like saying they shouldn’t allow more than three punches in a boxing movie (like MDB) because it’s so violent, and if you want more than that you should “rent a boxing” video?

  13. bicycle bob says:

    no. ur the one comparing it to violence. i just said sex. never mentioned violence or boxing or anything. who wants to or needs to see a 5 minute sex scene or thrusting? its not needed. stay with the convo and don’t put words in my mouth jon boy

  14. jon s says:

    I’m just saying… You don’t like sex. I don’t like violence. What if I and a bunch of pacifists made a three punch rule for boxing films or a three shots rule for war films? Isn’t that kind of the same thing? I had to sit through 9 friggen minutes of Jesus being whipped in “Passion of the Christ.” Talk about gratuitious. How about a three whip rule?

  15. Mark says:

    Comparing boxing to penetration scenes is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Thats saying something being on this blog.

  16. Stella's Boy says:

    Mark, does that count things you have said? Just curious. How about the comparison to Jesus being whipped for nine minutes? Nothing to say about that one? Just gotta do what you always do and rip someone?

  17. TheBrotherhoodOfTheLostSkeletonOfCadavra says:

    Jon S sez: I had to sit through 9 friggen minutes of Jesus being whipped in “Passion of the Christ.”
    What, you walked out after ten minutes? 😀

  18. jon s says:

    Mark, you go ahead and watch movies with consensual punches to the face, but I don’t think it makes me “dumb” to prefer watching consensual penetration instead. As for bob’s claim that I should “just watch a porno,” well, I do watch them once in a while. But as an American, I also demand my right to watch Bernardo Bertolucci’s uncut LAST TANGO IN PARIS, Philip Kaufman’s uncut HENRY & JUNE, Ken Russell’s uncut WHORE, Paul Verhoeven’s uncut BASIC INSTINCT, Nagasha Oshima’s uncut IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES, Pier Paolo Pasolini’s uncut SALO, and Stanley Kubrick’s uncut EYES WIDE SHUT all of which have more than THREE frickin’ THRUSTS! I think I should have the “freedom” to watch those in this country IN ADDITION to the pornos (and in addition to that nine minute continuous scene of Jesus’ flesh getting whipped off his back, which frankly I find far more sexually arousing than a boxing movie, but that might just be me.)
    Didn’t GW Bush use the word “free” or “freedom” something like 55 times in his inauguration address? Doesn’t that apply to freedom of the silver screen as well?

  19. WhoWouldJesusDo? says:

    I’m glad that someone has finally had the courage (if only in a paranthetical aside) to admit how erotically compelling The Passion of the Christ is. I’ve watched it a countless number of times, and I only get more and more turned on with each and every viewing.

  20. Carter Breslen says:

    I’m with Gombro and Jon. I think Bertolucci, Kubrick, Verhoeven—and for that matter Scorsese, Eastwood, Soderberg, and Lynch—should get to decide how many thrusts are necessary for there scenes, not bicycle bob.

  21. bicycle bob says:

    any filmmaker worth his salt isn’t gonna show 12 thrusts for a sex scene. why? because its not needed. they trust the audience. didn’t know we had so many porn freak sinners here. wow

  22. gombro says:

    So you’re saying Bertolucci and Kubrick aren’t “worth their salt” as filmmakers. Do you even know the scenes in LAST TANGO and EYES WIDE SHUT that we’re talking about? If you think those scenes are “porn”, you’ve never seen a porn, buddy.

  23. gombro says:

    And, yeah, it’s outragious that you think you know better than they do what they need for their scenes. Where’s your DGA card?

  24. jon s says:

    Seems like the Right’s position is “Freedom for the Iraqis”, but Americans shouldn’t be free to watch the same versions of films that people in England, Germany, and Canada get to see all the time.

  25. Ty Smith says:

    Speaking of the right wing telling people what they should and shouldn’t see, I’m wondering what Eastwood’s reaction is to Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved and the resto spoiling the ending of Million Doller Baby for their listeners and telling people not to go see it.
    Hopefully, it will make him re-think his party allegence.

  26. Mark says:

    I don’t think Eyes Wide Shut is hardcore pornography. Not when HBO plays it during the middle of the day.

  27. gombro says:

    No it’s not, and it never was. It still got partially censored in the US due to the “three thrusts and you’re out” rule, while everyone else in the world got to see Kubrick’s version.

  28. bicycle bob says:

    obviously i’m not a porn super fan like gombro but i think i can tell the difference between a kubrick film and a jenna jameson film. theres a reason for a rating system. i know u libs wanna be “artists”. be lucky u have the freedom here to make porn films. the iraqi’s will have that too. u think they would ahve the freedom to see eyes wide shut if their lovely dictator was still in power?

  29. jon s says:

    Hey bb, considering you’re so gung-ho about the war I’m wondering why you don’t enlist. Put yourself out there for world freedom. (You know they’re not free in North Korea. Let’s invade there too.)

  30. Stella's Boy says:

    I also love how chicken hawk warmongers like bob claim that we’re freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and giving them democracy. As if people like bob give a f*ck about the Iraqi people and their well-being. As if they lose sleep over the fate of innocent Iraqi children. Who are you kidding? There is absolutely no reason to believe that you care at all about the Iraqi people.

  31. bicycle bob says:

    sorry to disappoint u but i did serve. protecting wussies like u is all the thanks i do need. no problem.

  32. bicycle bob says:

    libs like u deep down don’t care about others or freedom for everyone. ur all a bunch of hypocrites. when push comes to shove u would rather roll over and give up and pray no one attacks us and everyone starts liking us. thank the good lord ur ilk aren’t in control and probably never will be. liberalism is now looked at around the country like the joke it is. when libs can’t even say they’re liberal, u know its bad. if people like u were around in 1942, u would have begged us to get out of ww2. “we can never beat the japs. we really don’t care about the french and the poles. we should strike a deal with germany”. people like u make me sick.

  33. jon s says:

    “people like u make me sick”
    Then quit coming on here and talking to us all the time.
    “if people like u were around in 1942, u would have begged us to get out of ww2.
    Sorry, but it was the most liberal US president EVER, FDR who DECLAIRED war on the Germans and the Japanese. The Japanese attacked us and as the Germans were their allies, declaring war on Japan meant, automatically that we were at war with Germany.
    Iraq has never attacked us, bub, I mean bob. The 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. By your logic we should be attacking Saudi Arabia right now. Why aren’t we? Because Bush is friends with them, that’s why. Yet it was Saudis who flew those planes. This is why Bush makes us sick. DON’T YOU RIGHTIES KNOW ANYTHING!!!!!

  34. jon s says:

    And in case Rush hasn’t told you yet, there were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all. Bush lied to us when he said there were. That’s been proven.

  35. Stella's Boy says:

    bob, since you didn’t counter any of my points, I can only conclude that I’m right in assuming that you care nothing about the fate of the Iraqi people. You don’t care at all about “freedom for everyone.” Don’t make me laugh. And who looks at liberalism as a joke? Insane freaks like you and the extreme Christian right? That is fine by me. Go right ahead. I would rather be dead than think like you folks.

  36. gombro says:

    So bob, you’re a veteran. I respect that. What do you think of Bush cutting benefits for veterans and closing veteran’s hospitals all over the country? The liberals are outraged by that. Why aren’t you guys mad at Bush for doing it? I guess it’s a small price to pay to keep gay people from getting married, huh?

  37. bicycle bob says:

    its too bad liberals aren’t like fdr now. now they follow kennedy anywhere he goes which is right off the cliff
    no one is cutting benefits for vets. i assume u believe everything u read in the times. right?
    and 54% of the country think liberalism is a joke. when was the last time libs controlled the house? senate? they’ve won 3 out of the past 10 presidential elections. anytime a candidate comes out and says “yes i’m a liberal” he loses in a landslide. look at ur boy kerry. he his his liberal image from anyone and everyone and he still couldn’t dodge it.

  38. Stella's Boy says:

    bob, you are flat-out wrong. It isn’t anyone’s opinion that Bush is cutting benefits for veterans and closing veteran’s hospitals. That is fact, plain and simple. He has done it and is doing it. You are a textbook sheep, even as you strangely accuse liberals of following Kennedy anywhere he goes. Anything Bush does you support, no questions asked. You are a blind loyalist. Calling your arguments weak would be much too kind. You ramble incoherently and pull things out of your ass and often don’t make any sense at all.

  39. Mark says:

    Libs just never learn. It is funny how they are becoming wildly irrelevant and becoming a minor party. They seem to be against freedom for all, blacks in high positions, hispanic in power positions. I guess its only good if THEY are the ones doing it and not those filthy, dirty, conniving, lying Republicans. It is only going to get worse with Dean taking over. Thank you for that one by the way. It gets better and better. Libs have become peaceniks who believe in social programs for everyone and hiugher taxes for everyone. Pretty much against what most of the country wants. What happend to the days of strong leaders like FDR and Truman and Kennedy? Guys who believed in a strong military and weren’t afraid to show force to do what they believed in? The Democrats now would give our military might away to make sure we were loved by the French and the Arabs.

  40. gombro says:

    FDR believed in taking care of people in THIS country, not in taking over the world the way Bush does. If you think FDR is so great, what do you think of Bush trying to undo FDR’s wonderful social security program–the most successful government program in history? It’s utterly crazy for you to be talking like you respect FDR when he was more left-wing than ANY other president. He was practially a socialist, and yet Hannety convinces you bozos that the old Democrats were good. It’s just the recent ones who went too far left. Exactly the opposite, my friends.
    And sorry, bob, unless you’re making over a million dollars a year, Bush doesn’t give a rat’s ass about you. He sends servicemen, just like yourself, to die in Iraq cuz he want his oil company buddies to have access to cheap oil. Then, patriotic, lower income recruits come back to this country with hands shot off and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and all the rest.
    You know, John Kerry is a REAL man in terms of the military. He was a war hero in Viet Nam and came back with three purple hearts. Your guy Bush weaseled his way out of fighting, and now he’s sending young kids to die just so his buddies can get rich. It’s appauling that you can’t see how you’ve been fooled by that crowd of immoral hypocrits.
    But like I said, hey! What does it matter? You military grunts will get killed, the country will go bankrupt due to the Red Ink Republicans in Washington, but it doesn’t matter to you because at least they TALK like John Wayne, stand up to “fags”, and tell you you can keep your guns no matter what. As for Rice and Gonzales, so what if Bush found a couple of bad apples of different races who will do his bidding? Doesn’t mean he’s really helping racial minorities.
    You keep talking about how 50 something percent of the voters vote GOP, well noone ever said the majority was smart.

  41. jon s says:

    Hey Gomby. They cant read anything that long. You need short statement written out like bullet points for them to be able to follow you, like this.
    * Bush lied to us.
    * There were no WMDs.
    * The War is about Bush getting rich.
    * The poor recruits are dying in Iraq to make him richer.
    * We are less safe than ever from terrorists.
    * Quit waving the flag and open your eyes.

  42. Mark says:

    Typical response. Bush didn’t lie. I guess hes the CIA, intelligence agencies across the world, Congress, and the UN now. Cause they all said the same thing about Iraq and weapons. And sorry defeatists but that wasn’t the only reason we went in there. We went in for numerous reasons. Maybe you should read why we went in there instead of repeating the Liberal mantra.

  43. Mark says:

    Ask Kerry’s fellow veterans how much of a “Real” military man he is. Running from battles. Shooting himself. Writing false reports on his wounds. Lying about battles he fought. Cambodia? Speaking out against his fellow troops? Meeting with the enemy on foreign soil? He should have been hung as a traitor. Maybe thats why over 250 of his fellow warriors spoke out against them. But hey he could solve everything by showing his 180 form. Which he still hasn’t done. A real military man.

  44. SRCputt says:

    I have never understood why so many gung ho military types back a guy who used his daddy’s connections to avoid combat by joining the National Guard, and then couldn’t even honor that commitment.

  45. bicycle bob says:

    not everyone that leads serves in combat. especially in this day and age. we take more pride in someone serving than someone lying about their service. those kerry stories have been around for years. i also didn’t hear any liberal say it was a bad thing when clinton didn’t even join the national guard and ran to oxford. i thought u were the party of pacifism anyway? why wouldn’t kerry just embrace his pacifism and run with it? instead he tries to run on a pro military position when the guy left his fellow soldiers and spoke out against them? theres a reason he got less than 10% of veterans votes

  46. SRCputt says:

    I am not going to give Bush credit for serving when he joined the Guard to avoid going to combat, and because he hasn’t been truthful about his record.
    Clinton never was gung ho about fighting a war. That’s a big difference between him and Bush.
    Painting the Democratic party as the party of pacifism is a bit simplistic. After all, Democrats were president for the start of WWII and the amplification of Vietnam.
    I’ve seen nothing from Kerry’s comments that show him to be a pacifist. He spoke out against the Vietnam War, not the soldiers.

  47. jon s says:

    You know Mark and bob, I shouldn’t even argue with people who get all their “news” from right wing radio and ignore the real news. If you guys can’t listen to the real news, and have to get all your “info” from lyers like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannety, you’re not even worth debating.
    Just the other day, Rush Limbaugh was caught lying (for the thousandth time), this time about the percentatge of people on the minimum wage. He said it was 70%, turns out it was less than 45%. When the “error/lie” was caught and reported, he didn’t offer a retraction, he didn’t counter with more prove. He just moved onto another lie. And it’s those types who feed you all this garbage about Kerry shooting himself (another thing that has been proven over and over again to be a lie.)

  48. jon s says:

    That above comment should be ‘the percentage of peope on minimum wage who are teenagers living with their parents.”

  49. jon s says:

    …and its less than 35% on mimimum wage who are teenagers. D’oh!

  50. bicycle bob says:

    the point is the democrats used to be a party with a strong military and defense background. ww2. they used to not care what everyone thought. they did what was rigtht. now they have become the anti war, anti military party. and in this day and age thats not going to endear u in any national or even state elections. dean being ur leader isn’t gonna help u.

  51. jon s says:

    The points are:
    * the US didn’t used to preemptively attack other countries.
    * The US didn’t used to torture people.
    * The US used to be respected and looked up to by the whole world.
    * The US used to follow the Geneva Convention.
    * The US used to take care of its veterans.
    * Republicans used to be the party of fiscal responsibility.
    My, how things have changed.

  52. jon s says:

    By the way….

  53. Stella's Boy says:

    Not everyone that leads serves in combat? How convenient for you and all the other Bush lovers out there. Way to spin bobby. And can you at least not lie, please? Is that too much to ask? The Dems are not anti-military. That is ridiculous, even coming from you.

  54. Mark says:

    What you don’t get is that we were attacked. Why shouldn’t we act preemptively? Maybe if Clinton took action in the 90’s and got them first we wouldn’t be in this war now. Isn’t that interesting? Peace freaks kill me.

  55. Lota says:

    I’ve worked directly with many of these people in DC I know what they spend. Republicans spend just as much as Dems, if not more per budget, albeit on different things. Check the GAO if you don’t beleive it. You can check on any DC rep or senator as well as on the running of each branch and administration of budgets. If someone were helping themselves to your atm card everyday and not proving that they HAD to spend it on items for your “health, wellbeing and necessities” and buying themselves the equivalent of rolexes, you;d cancel the card wouldn’t you. The average person is much more concerned with getting an iPod unfortunately.
    I didn’t vote for Bush. His deputies misspelled the name of a dear family friend’s 19 yr old son (who was blown up in Iraq), an EASY-TO-SPELL name, when it was featured on TV a few weeks ago (photo op for Bush’s Race to the White House). The fact that someone in his admin couldn’t check a very common name before a national telecast says it all. But Bush is a deeply religious Christian who invokes the Lord, thank goodness for these saving graces. I feel safe.
    And the Inauguration. They can’t afford to give boys and girls decent armor (which the soldiers gave Rumsfield hell for as he deserved), but they can afford to have a big party with taxpayers footing much of the bill. They don’t tell you the bill for all the extra security, cleaning and transport–not included in the Inaugural Ball Bill they announce in the press conferences. We’re talking Millions more. The FBI doesn’t know how to call The NIA or CIA to report serious security violations prior to 9/11 but they have damn good cleaners and interior decorators in the White House. Just what we need. Yesiree.
    Cracks me up when folks who voted Republican think their representives somehow spend less money by virtue of being a Republican. Talking about swiping the Swag.
    Hollywood lost the election for Kerry, and Bush will now lose the country, every last goddam penny of it.

  56. jon s says:

    Mark Wrote: “What you don’t get is that we were attacked. Why shouldn’t we act preemptively?”
    What an idiot you are, Mark. WE WERE NOT ATTACKED BY IRAN. We were attacked by Al Qaida. Most of them were Saudi Arabians. Al Qaida and Saddam weren’t even allies. Saddam and Bin Laden hate each others guts. We might as well have attacked Cuba or China as Iran. Hell, by your logic we might as well attack France and take them over. The fact that people as uneducated as you are can vote really makes me sick.

  57. Peppersdad says:

    As a full fledged Liberal I think it is time we took a look at ourselves and saw what is real. We are losing the country. We have lost the populace. We have lost our ambition. We have lost our way. It is over for us.

  58. jon s says:

    Nice way to yet again dodge the issues, Mark, with one of your cheap tricks. (Prentending to be Peppersdad.)
    America has lost its way. But it’s not the liberals fault. Blame it on Karl Rove and the other fascists in the White House.
    But you know, all is not lost. It’s NOT over for us liberals (yes, I’ll use the word.) The Republicans in the House and Senate are getting fed up with the Bush administration as every issue of the Washington Post shows. They’re not going to go along with his Social Security shell game, and they are strarting to question what he’s done in Iraq. The latest polls show that over 50% of the country think the war in Iraq was a mistake. Soon Bush will be seen as the lame duck that he is, and you dittoheads will look like the gullable sheep that you are.
    It’s not too late for you either, Mark, to practice what you preach. bob’s done his time in the Armed Forces (he says). Why don’t you enlist? Or like Bush and Cheney, are you too chicken to put your money where your mouth is?

  59. Gary says:

    Doug Herzogs a fuckin faggot, that guy couldnt pick a hit show if it crawled up his diseased asshole. anyone that thinks this guy is amusing is out of there fuckin minds.

  60. jon s says:

    Er… The quotation is from Werner Herzog, not Doug Herzog. And it’s “their minds,” not “there minds.” Looks like the syphilis has gotten to your brain, “Gary.”

  61. Ty Smith says:

    For God’s sakes, who’s this idiot Gary? Personally, I’d rather be a smart gay person than an idiot hetero like Gary. Smart “faggots” succeed in life while idiot straights wind up bitter and alone working at the One Hour Photo.

  62. Gary says:

    ok man, your just jealous cause i know who doug herzog is and u dont.

  63. gombro says:

    ok man, your just jealous cause i know who werner herzog is and u dont.

  64. jon s says:

    Hey Gary Einstein, it’s “YOU’RE just jealous,” not “your just jealous.” Buy a dictionary! (and learn who the fuck Werner Herzog is.)

  65. Ty Smith says:

    Honestly, Gary… Can’t you write a two-line sentence without making a childish spelling error? Are you drunk?

  66. prehuman says:

    i’m two years too late, but i felt i had to say something.
    there is a HUGE difference between a phonographic film and a sex scene within a film.
    every shot in a pornographic film is SEX or setting the viewer up for sex. i don’t mean making love, i mean fornication for the purpose of AROUSAL.
    a good film maker uses the sex act as a representation of something within the plot to add more substance to the story. although the sex may be PORTRAYED as meaningless between the characters, it does not mean that the sex scene it’s SELF is meaningless to the story. a good film maker makes you feel what is appropriate for the story he is trying to tell.

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