May 5, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
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
SPOILER ALERT!
Well, there hasn’t been a thread here about the whole Limbaugh-Medved controversy regarding “Million Dollar Baby.” If you don’t already know, they have fronted a campaign against the film, claiming it is pro-euthanasia.
Anyone agree with that? Also, on what I consider a lesser note, anyone think they had a right to spoil the movie’s plot twist for their listeners? Anyone else care to discuss?
Personally, I’m again reminded that Arthur Miller died today. I wonder if these same people would protest acknowledged classics like “Death of a Salesman” as pro-suicide or “The Crucible” as pro-witchcraft. I guess, using that logic, it could be argued that “The Passion of the Christ” was pro-crucifixion.
Not really, though seemingly neither do you. Nothing other than tossing lies and slander around message boards, that is.
Good, so you just tried to bring up a discussion that many people won´t even be a part of because there is a spoiler in your post.
Anyway correct me if I´m wrong, but I think the academy got it right with the nominees for best director.
I think the best picture nominees are movies that make the academy feel proud of themselves (finding neverland) ; the acting nominees may not be very good actings, but definetly are characters that make the academy feel proud of themselves (giamatti is too depresed and bardem wants to die and cheadle saved people and eastwood got over his problems.
But I think the directors that are nominated are the best choices. And dont underrate Mike Leigh, who knows? he might be this years Roman Polansky, Imelda could be Adrian Brody and it is a very good screenplay I gotta say.
I will, in 4 minutes (LA Time) will the Midwest Region of the Ultimate Film Fanatic TV show.
Can I talk about me?
N
The directors nominated are the best choices? Really? With the exception of Scorsese, I’d argue that Zhang Yimou belongs on this list before any of the others. You could say the same thing about Almodovar and possibly Michel Gondry. They were wise to get rid of Marc Forster to make way for Mike Leigh, but they definitely weren’t too daring this year, considering they nominated both Fernando Meirelles and Almodovar in the last two years.
I’d say ANY year without a foreign language nominee for director is a suspect one. And I’ll be saying the same thing next year when Wong Kar-Wai is ignored yet again.
Stunningly visuals does not a great director make.
Sure it constitute one of the components, but Zhamou
makes films about as interesting as the three month
old people in a dentist off. But laz, do you not
find it funny that you demand a FOREIGN director
to be a part of any Best Director category. Yet
you treat Leigh as if he were an American! There
you go; one foreigner in the category!
Unless you are speaking of non-English directors
then that would just be funny.
The above aside; TV a much better entertainment
medium since the late 90’s than Cinema. Discuss
among yourselves.
Hey, Paris Hilton’s theatrical film debut is less than three short months away! What’s more important than that?!?
Seriously, I will say that I finally saw “Ray,” and it is only a good movie DESPITE Taylor Hackford. That film was helmed with all the precision of, well, Ms. Hilton’s video. Wipe cuts? Who the hell still uses wipe cuts?!? (George Lucas doesn’t count, as he never should).
And would Jamie Foxx have gotten his “Collateral” nomination if it weren’t for “Ray”?
I saw Ray tonight also and… meh. It was definitely better than Finding Neverland! But… yeah. Man, it felt like it was SO long. Like, they threw in SO much yet it also felt like so little. I’m sure there’s more to Ray Charles’ life than what’s in this movie.
And after 2 hours of the movie going it’s weird and wacky pace (with equally weird and wacky flashbacks that were done poorly in my opinion) the movie suddenly turns into Requiem For A Dream-lite and then it ends with nothing more than a quick prologue and some bad graphics. It sure was strange…
And for the record only Scorcese from the Oscar top 5 directors would be in my Top 5 (however I have not seen Vera Drake, it only got released yesterday). Scorcese, Gondry, Raimi, Mann and Von Trier are my top 5. With Alfonso Cuaron just missing out. He definitely made all the difference me thinks between the poor Harry 1 and 2 and the excellent and spellbinding number 3.
And on the note of foreign directors, next year they may very well nominate Rob Marshall and consider it a foreign nominee purely cause his movie is in a different language (right?). Memoirs of a Geisha being the movie in question.
Something to talk about? How come you yourself have yet to even mention the horrible new format for the Oscars?? Is it because you think its not worth writing about or do you agree with it? I’m hoping we get something from you next week on the subject.
Saw ‘Hitch” last night..surprised me…Ms. Menedes was amazing…the big problem was the ‘we gotta split the couple up in the third act’ part
I guess I should mention the format shift… the truth is, I have no idea whether it will suck or be great… and neither does anyone else. I prefer to see everyone go on stage… the idea that some honors are more important than others is not cool and they probably should include, say, Best Actor in the seated group if they want it to feel legit.
That said, I will wait and see what these well-intended people actually do on Oscar night before taking a strong position. I also think that every song should be sung by its on-film singer/musician and I would love to see each score nominee conduct the orchestra to a two minute clip package from their film.
Josh, Paris Hilton can be briefly glimpsed leering in what seems like a rave scene in THE CAT IN THE HAT and was cut out of a scene in WIN A DATE WITH TAD HAMILTON because of you-guess-what.
Clarification: I did not include Mike Leigh as a foreign LANGUAGE film director this year, unless you consider the British dialect of English foreign. That’s why I used those words. The prejudice I’m talking about is against other languages; British directors haven’t had a problem getting nommed or winning over here.
I’d say that Zhang Yimou is far from just a visual stylist. If you’ve only seen Hero and HOFD you’re doing yourself a disservice. To Live & Ju-Dou, just to name a couple, are brilliant films that are pretty down to earth in terms of style. While I thought the screenplay for HOFT was extremely weak, he still manages to direct his actors well and gets to the emotional heart of the film.
With all the films that are released around the world every year, how could one disagree with what I suggested? There’s NO WAY the five best films, achievements in directing, or performances are all from english language films. With all the strides made in recent years to overcome the language bias, it seems we took a step back this year. Don’t get all smug about Catalina Sandino Moreno getting acknowledged; that should have been automatic. One foreign language acting nomination, and one for screenplay. That’s pretty sad. And I’d argue this has been a STRONG year in the foreign film department. In what other year would Javier Bardeen have failed to at least get a nomination? Or Rodrigo de la Serna?
Actually, the Academy voters have gotten flak in the past for being a bunch of “Anglophiles,” so don’t discount the bravery it takes for nominating ANYONE who isn’t a native-born American. No kidding: As far back as the year Olivier won the Best Picture for “Hamlet” (1948), there were protests throughout Hollywood and in trade papers because the Oscars were going “non-Americans.” I’m not saying that’s the only reason why “All the King’s Men” won the very next year — but it’s possible.
Also: I’m going way out on a limb here, but I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of Academy voters are not bilingual. (Hey, I’d bet some of them struggle to speak and read English, but that’s a topic for another discussion.) So it only stands to reason that they’re gonna vote most often for films they most fully understand. I agree, there are swell performances given by actors in French, Spanish, Japanese, etc. But there is something to the argument that, if you must read subtitles to understand what soemone is saying, you’re unable to fully appreciate all their nuances of his or her performance. I’m not saying this is good, I’m not saying this is bad, but it is a factor, I’m sure.
A good point, Joe, about the subtitle factor. Of course, a great actor can sometimes do more with non-verbal acting than with certain lines. Minimalism is definitely used to great effect in much Asian cinema. Hell, how much dialogue is there in a Wong Kar-Wai film, especially subtracting the voiceovers? How much in Ozu? Or in Kurosawa?
If this prejudice is something that we can acknowledge even due to understandible and legitimate factors, why recognize foreign cinema at all then? Every country has their own film awards, so is it even necessary? I understand that these films do benefit financially, regardless of how small the scale, but it seems so patronizing. Maybe aside from the best foreign film award, they shouldn’t even be ELIGIBLE in any other category. That way we won’t have to discuss these alarming oversights every year. How many foreign language performances have even won? Two? Sophia Loren for Two Women and Roberto Bengini’s embarassing upset? I was cheering with everyone else when Almodovar won for his Talk to Her screenplay, but it shouldn’t be such an aberration.
Well, we can argue all day long about what the Academy could or should so, but the fact remains that, it’s their game, they make the rules. That someone like Isabelle Adjani can be nominated TWICE for her performances in “foreign-language” films indicates that Oscar voters aren’t entirely blind (or perhaps DEAF would be an more appropriate word in this context) to the achievements of “foreigners.”
And of course, the above should read “a more appropriate,” not “an more appropriate.”
Lazarus who said “ANY year without a foreign language nominee for director is a suspect one. ”
How so? Is it not possible that there are five yankee directors who did the best job in a given year? I am not saying this year, becasue I think the last couple of years there have been many dull films, definitely.
However, some forget that the Oscars are an American awards ceremony, just like the French have their Cesars and the British their BAFTAs. There are many deserving who get left off every year, yeah many of them foreign, but academy members are only supposed to vote for things they’ve actually seen. You can guess many haven’t seen some of the more obscure foreign movies,and there are many older members who, unless something is on their doorstep, they won’t be viewing it. Many Academy members don’t go ferreting out the smaller movies released in the US every year (more all the time). It’s up to the distributing studio to promote them.
The Oscars doesn’t have a world-wide award recognition responsibilty, so whenever a great performance in a foreign movie or one the makers of it get a nomination like Merielles for City of God, I am always relieved and very surprised. I think City of God was the best movie of last year but I know only a handful of people who even heard of it.
you’re pretty jumpy for a dead guy Lazarus.
Part of me agrees with your statement that we don’t have a responsiblity to recognize foreign cinema with our awards. That’s why I suggested we make them ineligible for every other category. It would relieve the burden on the voters, and make all this bitching unnecessary. The only reason we do is because the Oscar is the only award that really carries any weight internationally–it’s watched in a slew of other countries. Conversely, no one in the U.S. gives a shit if some actor won a Hong Kong Film award. The only other prize that might help a film is the Palme d”Or from Cannes. But I’ll bet that Oscar nominee stamp is nice currency overseas. even if it loses some value with the exchange rate.
I do think academy members have a responsibility to use their own judgement and see what’s out there, but do they get the opportunity and how much effort is a 70- yr old going to make? They aren’t all gung-ho like Clint.
I think making anything worldwide ineligible however is a mistake. The interest in foreign movies amongst the general public is a good thing, and increasing.
how anyone can forget Paris’ breathtaking cameo in Zoolander is completely beyond me.
Well Million Dollar Baby for all its the good it is is pro-Euthanasia. Sucks, but that it the moral. When you can’t fight no more….
Ok, I know this is already further down on the blog and not everyone will read it…but I have something that is worth discussing. Every year, if we’re lucky, there’s one famously terrible oscar misstep that happens before the awards. While everyone is ranting and raving about Chris Rock (yawn)….here’s mine. The most audacious misstep this year…can anyone guess…well, here’s the quote…
“It’s very scary to go out on the tightrope alone… and I don’t really like to make declarative statements in the heat of a still developing Oscar season… but here I go…
The only movie that can keep The Phantom of The Opera from winning Best Picture is The Aviator.
Breathe.
Let me say it again. This is not about locking in a nomination. This is not a guess because the film is one my favorites, so it’s got to happen. This is a film whose buzz has come, so far, 100%, from a handful of people who saw it in long lead screenings and have been pissing on it ever since. But they are wrong.
The Aviator is the only movie still little seen that has the size and the potential weight to kick Phantom out of a Best Picture win. It could do it two ways… it could beat The Phantom outright or it could create a split in the voting for the two big Old Hollywood pictures and allow a smaller film to sneak in through the back door. So it’s not 100%. But anyone who thinks The Phantom Of The Opera isn’t being nominated is, well, to be kind, just wrong.
I was expecting that the film would be pilloried by critics… and some will shriek. I would now estimate a Rotten Tomatoes response in the high 70s, a little lower for “The Cream of The Crop” perhaps. But the negatives will be for what the movie is, not for how the movie was made.
But I can say this… it delivers on its aspirations. And even if you are not a Lloyd Webber fan, if you let yourself get into it, you will be drawn in.
To put it in Oscar terms, if Chicago was the new millennium answer to Cabaret, The Phantom of The Opera is the new millennium answer to Oliver. 11 nominations, 5 wins, including Best Picture.”
Dave, thanks for delivering. I printed your posting…it’s up on the wall of my office and everyone who reads it laughs. Now that the Phantom is clearly not going to win the best picture oscar…maybe a question to you…what the hell were you thinking? The film has 35% on rotten tomatoes…35%. After you posted this there were some vague rumblings from you about certain people who wanted to bring this film down. How about a reality check….it’s mostly thought of as a terrible film. And now, whenever you love a film…or make a prediction, you will be the guy who said that Phantom of the Opera was the one to beat for best picture. So..do you still stand by the proclamation that this is a best picture film and ‘certain people’ brought it down. That whoever posted a review from your screening might have held a grudge. Or can you just admit that you were wrong? And it’s not just the critics that disagree with you. The film so far has made only slightly more money domestically than Racing Stripes. Curious here to see you respond.
Yes he was wrong, we all know that. But he still the person who first locked Charlize last year.
Why are you attacking him?
Hmmm, let me clarify.
This is an attack: You lying, flithy scumbag!!!!
This is a question: “You made an outrageous claim…what were you thinking and what is your point of view now that it is clear you were wrong?”
Got that?
I still don´t like you.
he made a prediction. it was a guess. why don’t u relax. we all know phantom is a stinker. who cares what david predicted months ago. he recognized the error and laughed at it. do the same
Mex, why are you attaching meeeeeeee??????????????
Seriously, before this gets off track, let me say that I like Dave Poland alot. I think he’s one of the better film journalists covering the field these days. He did a great thing by setting up these film screenings. Why I am posing this Phantom of the Opera question is because I like him. When he makes another proclamation I want to be able to take it seriously and not have to say, ‘well, he’s the guy who said Phantom was the film to beat’. I mean, apparently he was the guy who called Charlize Theron, but then again, I saw that film before I knew who Dave Poland was…and before I read any reviews for the film, and I said and thought the same thing…oscar performance. Didn’t take a genuis to see that. But it takes something else to see the misery that is Phantom of the Opera and say, ‘Best Picture’. I just want to give Dave a chance to speak.
Oh, and I don’t like you either Mex. Never had. Never will.
You know, if Dave — should I call him Dave2, so people won’t think I mean Dave Poland? — is going to throw people’s predictions back in their faces, I sure hope he doesn’t read my original review of “A Perfect World.” The one in which I wrote of Kevin Costner’s performance: “The Oscar season has officially begun.”
I wish you had been right about that Joe. I love A Perfect World and Costner is excellent in it.
I was joking, relax. Yes, the Phantom sucks and when I saw it it surprised me that David had said it had any chance at wining Best Picture.
Oh and by the way, the nomination this terrible movie has for art design is not deserved at all. I mean its the first time I had thought during a movie its sets look like sets.
A Perfect World is very underrated. Deserves more credit.
Mark, we agree! How about that? Seriously, though, I think A Perfect World is far, far better than M$B.
Just curious: Anyone know of other on-line chat roooms, bulletin boards, or whatever, where the Oscar discussions have been as, well, ANIMATED as here?
Stella, I am in shock!! Costner is pitch perfect playing against his usual charming self. And Eastwood is well Eastwood. Plus the kid was great.
Who else saw Million and was floored by the first 2/3? I seriously thought it was better than Rocky than “it” happend. Don’t want to ruin it. It did make it a really good film and probably(most likely) an award winning movie but I was not too happy. I had visions of sequels and Mr. T and Maggie in Russia.