MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Jane

I have to say… there was a lot of negative stuff being thrown around L.A. about Jane Fonda and her comeback effort in the last 18 months. There were jobs she didn’t get, diva complaints, etc.
But man oh man, this woman is a 100% pro who can work a TV talkshow like Jordan worked a basketball. Watching her with Larry King and then David Letterman, she handled every question with charm and a directness that made you believe here and never made you feel that she was evading anything.
She understands what the Democratic Party has forgotten in recent years. She owns her successes and her embarrassments and just keeps coming. How long before someone tries to get her to run for Governor against Ahnuld?
I don’t know how Monster In Law is going to be as a film, but that thing that Fonda had in the best of my memories is alive again. And is a world of almost stars, I am very happy to see her back in the saddle.

Be Sociable, Share!

29 Responses to “Jane”

  1. lazarus says:

    Before any of our stock right wing reactionaries come out to start slinging mud at La Fonda, I just would like to agree with David that she’s a class act. She stood by most of the things she said or did in the past, expressed regret at others. How many people here are mature enough to do that?
    Whatever the case, she was one of the 1970’s best actresses. Two Oscars, and a lot more deserving of them than other, more recent multiple winners (hint, hint).
    Klute. Julia. China Syndrome. They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? Coming Home. Hell, even The Morning After. Nice body of work. And nice body too, come to think of it…

  2. L&DB says:

    I second what Laz said, but add that Fonda sure the
    hell reaked of hotness. Just thinking of Barberella
    makes me smile. Good times. Good times.

  3. bicycle bob says:

    she should be in prison for treason.

  4. Stella's Boy says:

    bob’s motto = WWDCD (What would Dick Cheney do?)

  5. Terence D says:

    As someone who watched and saw Hanoi Jane openly campaign with the enemy during a conflict that we were involved in, I would have to agree. Anyone else would have gone to prison for what she did to our servicemen and our country. It is almost as bad as taking up arms with our enemies.

  6. bicycle bob says:

    stellas motto- “consort with the enemy and undermine our war effort”
    liberals. they never learn.

  7. Life&DeathBrigade says:

    Yeah she should go to jail for such a JUSTICE and
    NECESSARY war. For such a brilliant man, Robert
    McNamara had no sense of history when it came to
    the Vietmanese. What that administration and it’s
    policy did to our country and it’s servicemen. Ranks
    a bit higher than Hanoi friggin Jane.
    Only in a America could we act all British over
    a conflict. That means; we lost but somehow we
    cannot let it go. It’s over. We lost due to
    our inability to pick up a history book. It did
    nothing. The REDS were taken out, by McDonalds.
    Yeah. Let us imprision Jane Fonda. Sure.

  8. lazarus says:

    I’d like to know why Jane Fonda should have gone to jail, but Richard Nixon walks. Fonda was a private citizen who was trying to expose the lies being perpetrated by a presidential administration. She made some poor choices (which she admits!), but Nixon LIED, CHEATED, and STOLE. Who do you really think should have done hard time?
    You’re pointing fingers at the wrong person. History has vindicated Fonda’s position, not Nixon’s.

  9. Stella's Boy says:

    You sure do love war don’t you bob? It’s real fun isn’t it?

  10. L&DB says:

    Dont talk smack about Tricky Dick Laz. We all know
    in 3004 he takes over the world again! He might
    have TIME-TRAVEL TECH! BE AFRAID! TRICKY DICK
    HAS A TIME MACHINE! “IM NOT A CROOK! BUT I AM
    GOING TO MAKE SURE DEEP THROAT NEVER SPILLED!
    WEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!”

  11. Cadavra says:

    Jane’s mistake was merely posing for pictures. Had she sold weapons to the Viet Cong, as Oliver North did with the Ayatollah, she’d be a hero.

  12. RDP says:

    Nixon was pardoned by Ford for any crime he may have committed while President, so it would’ve been hard to put him in jail for Watergate at that point had anyone wanted to.

  13. bicycle bob says:

    gotta love revisionist history. who took us into vietnam? kennedy and johnson. not nixon. why doe she get blamed for it? u learn lessons though. if u can’t go in 110% then don’t go in at all. the liberals keep messing up this point.

  14. RDP says:

    The time frame of the Fonda stuff was during the Nixon administration, though (I believe Fonda’s trip to Hanoi was the month after the Watergate break-in). And her trip was tied to the policies in place at the time, which were Nixon’s. He inherited the war, yes, and one could easily make the case that Fonda’s protests were misguided and politically biased (I don’t know how likely her trip would’ve been had McGovern been president and followed roughly the same policies). But even with an inherited war, you protest the guy who’s in charge now. Doesn’t do any good to, at the time, protest that JFK got the country into the mess in the first place.
    I can see making the comparison, to a degree. Had her trip been in 1968, the comparison would be far less apt, in my opinion.
    But that’s just me, as a Republican who remembers Jane Fonda more for all that exercise stuff rather than her adventures in Vietnam.

  15. don says:

    As much as joining in this exciting political debate would make my day….I agree with David that Jane is a bright and classy woman. She was awesome on the Ed Scultz Show this week as well (www.wegoted.com).
    I’ll also say that my dad is a Vietnam Vet and he has absolutely ZERO political views nowadays. He’s your basic working American…apathetic, uninterested..unopinionated. I think he tends to skew a tad left if he skews at all.
    That being said, even he gets annoyed and downright angry at the mention of Jane Fonda and I think that she’s going to get alot of that between the conservatives and those who were genuinely hurt by what she did. It’s going to be a tough road for Ms. Fonda.

  16. teambanzai says:

    Speaking of revisionist, it was Eisenhower that started the build up in Vietnam. Kennedy and Johnson inheirted it.

  17. Joe Leydon says:

    I don

  18. RDP says:

    I guess who started the American involvement in the Vietnam war depends on how you look at it. I would think most people would consider a war to have started when U.S. combat troops hit the ground in-country, which was not until after Eisenhower left office. But certainly there were a relatively small number of military/CIA advisers in Vietnam prior to that (and you can trace some of the committment to the country back to Truman).

  19. Stella's Boy says:

    Monster-In-Law looks absolutely dreadful. I could barely make it through the trailer without gouging my eyes out or running out of the theater screaming. I can’t imagine sitting through the entire thing. That got her out of retirement? Must have been a fat paycheck.

  20. David Poland says:

    Wow… guess it makes me the dummy, but didn’t expect all of this… fascinating… one of the reasons I am happy to have this blog…

  21. Mark says:

    Hanoi Jane can come off as anything on these talk shows when she has something to push and sell. But she is a traitor to this country. You ask any guy who was a POW if they think she should be in jail. Name anyone who openly associated with the enemy like her. Please do.

  22. Joe Leydon says:

    Back last year — to be precise, Oct. 15, 2004 — David Edelstein wrote in Slate that Jane Fonda was experiencing what he aptly described as “a time-warp reaction. Fonda dropped out of acting for awhile in the ’80s and made a great return with The Morning After, in which she played a blackout drunk. But the culture under Reagan had changed. Vietnam vets, once culturally ostracized, had become deservedly more sympathetic in the eyes of the media, and everything countercultural was now unhip

  23. Jason says:

    Whatever your take on Jane’s Veitnam stunt, it’s extremely politically naive to think she could overcome her negatives and be a viable candidate for governor. Hillary Clinton would have a better chance winning in Texas than Fonda would ANYwhere, except maybe Vermont. 😉

  24. KamikazeCamel says:

    Watching her on David Letterman last night (in Australia) was a delight! She’s such a great gal to watch and when they delved into the “Hanoi Jane” stuff you could SEE how much she regretted being involved in that situation, but at least she sticks by her views and does not regret going and being a part of the anti-war movement. The fact that she campaigned against the bombing of the Delta dams and won is a testement.
    But it’s weird that people will vehemontly hate someone like Jane Fonda yet call people like George W. Bush heroes. egads. SHE’S AN ACTRESS. It’s not like she’s in charge of the free world or anything…

  25. bicycle bob says:

    regretted? has anyone ever heard her apologize for her treason? shes an actress. faking sympathy is what she does best. shes a phony and a traitor.

  26. hatchling says:

    I was really impressed with Jane on Letterman. Her regrets at posing on the gun emplacement in North Vietnam struck me as sincere. Her opposition to Bush’s dirty oil war in Iraq is brave too. She’s not flinching, and she’s not trying to pretend she’s changed. Supporting war waged for the wrong reasons is not patriotism, it’s immoral. I come from a military family, by the way. Sometimes war is necessary to defend our nation or to protect the helpless. It’s never right to wage it for political or economic gain.
    I saw the preview to Monster in Law. I don’t know if it’s good or not, and since Jennifer Lopez is a very limited actress I have my doubts, but I thought Jane was hilarious. Maybe you need a mother in law like that to see the humor.

  27. Terence D says:

    Dirty oil war? I guess there has to be some conspiracy when you are fighting for freedom and our protection. What was World War 2 fought for? Cheaper manufacturing costs?

  28. swedishchef says:

    What precisely is the war in Iraq protecting us from? And as to WWII we were perfectly content to allow Hitler to do what he liked over there until Pearl Harbor. Hollywood was admonished by politicians for war mongering whenever they tried to make a film exposing the hollocaust, in fact during hearings on the matter one senator said that ‘Hollywood jews are a bigger threat to this country than Hitler’ And in point of fact our presidents grandfather did a fair amount of business with the Nazis before the Trading With the Enemies Act was passed. Please don’t get me wrong I’m not trying to allude that Prescott WAS a Nazi, but he was more than willing to profit from the Nazi war machine however ‘evil’ it was.

  29. bicycle bob says:

    sometimes u gotta step up and protect the little people. the people that can’t fight for themselves. the people getting shot for no reason. the girls getting raped everyday. i thought liberals are all about that. i guess only when its in their best interests. doesn’t hurt that this was a place where terror was sponsored. where they attacked a defenseless country. where they didn’t listen to one un request. if they had nothing to hide, why play chicken with us? interesting

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