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
Yes. I go to the movies to see entertaining movies. I don’t think anyone expects the meaning of life especially from Badigascar.
NEW YORK MINUTE?
Somebody should send that to Jeff Wells.
This reads like the rantings of someone who has read too many Hallmark cards.
Someone that expects WAY too much from cinema and the industry. An industry that pays guys like Adam Sandler and Rob Schneider 20$ mill. Relax, bud.
Reads like one of those “forward this on!” messages you get from a relative that just learned how to use e-mail.
The meaning of life? Hal Hartley explained THAT for us in “Simple Men.” To wit:
“There is no such thing as adventure. There’s no such thing as romance. There’s only trouble and desire… And the funny thing is, when you desire something, you immediately get into trouble. And when you’re in trouble you don’t desire anything at all.”
Words to live by.
Screw Hal Hartley.
The writer is correct, but do we really live in a society that over-analyzes everything? I would say that many of us spend too much time feeling and not enough thinking.
Actually, I see no reason why the meaning of life can’t be found at the movies. That is, if one intends to find it anywhere. I actually think movies (and art in general) tell us far more about humanity than our daily dealings down here in reality. Movies are our collective dreams, the way we WANT to see our successes (and our failures) – they are the noble version of life, the ordered version, the controlled-chaos version. If life has meaning, what other way of searching for it could there be than communicating our commonalities through art?
People think too much. That is why we go to the movies. To escape.
We spend too much time ‘feeling’ than ‘thinking’ jeff? What in the blue hell does that mean? You just cant come to the blog with something like that, and not explain that point further. Also, life seems to be about waiting. I kind of love the whole, “life is so short” antidote, but no one ever mentions that “waiting is the hardest part.” Choke on that, all Pilato style people!
Oh, god – If I’m going to try and find the meaning of life I will definitely not be doing it on an entertainment blog, thank you very much.
“People think too much. That is why we go to the movies. To escape.”
But some of the best escapism is when we have to think! Anything by David Lynch will show you that.
Thank you, KC. I agree that there’s a need for pure escapism. But most of the best movies are the ones that offer some substance too. Art and entertainment don’t need to be mutually exclusive.
The meaning of life can be found at any point or any time. How myopic a view on the grand scheme of things, because that’s one of the great ironies. , Jeff, has still, not explained his statement from earlier. Work that out brother. Im curious by it. Also, art, no matter how vapid, still has some sort spark in it that makes it worth something to somebody. Because no matter how much someone hates Ashlee Simpson. Somebody has been moved by her art. Since you know, it’s like, totally subjective this whole like art thing.
LDBDC, aren’t you the one always telling me to think harder to figure out your posts? All I was saying is that I don’t completely agree with the ‘don’t worry be happy’ school of thought that the writer of the greeting card sentiment up top said. I don’t think we live in a society overburdened by intellectualism, when Britney Spears is a teen role model.
Oh yeah, what the hell movie was the letter writer talking about? Mr and Mrs Smith?
I’m guessing it’s Spielberg’s “War of the Worlds”…I can definitely see someone complaining that Spielberg has to “waste time” putting commentary on the meaning of life into every one of his movies…even summer blockbusters. Jaws, Raiders, Jurassic Park…every time he makes a couple hundred million he makes a point too. I can see someone saying that his preaching ruined Minority Report…I, for one, am thankful for his ability to bring something fairly thoughtful to the masses.
david lynch isn’t showing anyone the meaning of life. if u try hard enough even madigascar will make u think. elitists trying to find the void in movies should really pick up a few books
I don’t see anything with wrong with enjoying a movie that makes you think. That hardly makes one an elitist. There’s a time and place for all types of movies. Depends on what your mood is.
thinking is fine. but going to the movies for the end of world problems isn’t what they are there for. look at the top 50 movies of all time. u find the meaning of life in any of them? no. they tell great stories.
I do hate it when movies jump from the entertaining level to the preaching level. Really ruins the experience for me.
I’d argue that you can discover a lot about the meaning of life in a good story.
I agree Terence. Preaching is another story altogether, and I hate it as well. Pay It Forward anyone?
Spielberg often does a horrible job of walking that fine line between message and pure entertainment. I definitely thought he came close to ruining MINORITY REPORT with too much message near the end. Not to mention, I also thought he really hurt the impact of both SHINDLER’S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN with his knack of over-driving the message home. Looking forward to WotW though . . .
I agree. You should find more in a great story. Thats the point of a great story. It brings more to the table than whats on the surface. But movies are there to entertain first and foremost and being preached at is not fun.
Pay It Forward? I just had a terrible memory of maybe the worst movie of all time. Spacey should pay all of us who saw it.
I apologize for bringing back painful memories. Spacey certainly should pay everyone who saw it. Definitely one of my least favorite movies as well.
I don’t know about any of you but all this bad Tom Cruise press is taking away from my wanting to see War of the Worlds. His looniness is starting to really effect how I see him on screen.
One really good thing about Pay It Forward? It ended the career of Haley Joel.
No it didn’t. He was in A.I. and Secondhand Lions and he’s been in high school since.
I agree that the ending of Minority Report was marred, but if you think the ending of Saving Private Ryan was too preachy, I would submit that you didn’t really understand Spielberg’s point. Everyone complains about the bookending scenes but they were completely necessary.
I forgot that Secondhand Lions was a hit.
AI was a monster hit too and he has also grown into a real handsome guy. Get real. Face facts. That Spacey movie ended Haley Joel and we have Spacey to thank. Until the inevitable sequel to Sixth Sense.
Secondhand Lions was a modest hit and was highly reviewed. AI sputtered in this country but made money overseas and, regardless of what you think of the movie, HJO’s performance in it is very good. I never wanted to see Pay It Forward since it looked horrible and Spacey has made nothing but horrible movies since he won Best Actor. What’s your anti-Osment agenda? He’s just a bystander. You should be bashing Spacey who deserves it.
I’ve gotta agree with jeffmcm about this one. Osment is absolutely brilliant in “AI,” a film that IMHO would be remembered as a supremely dark, Kubrick-ian masterpiece if Spielberg didn’t spoil it with its “happy” ending.
i don’t think anyone is bashing osment. watching him grow up and end up on reality shows will be really funny. can someone have an intervention for spacey? career wise?
Thanks Chester. And I think the ending is more ambiguous than “happy”.
the ending of ai has to be the worst ending of all time. kubrick rolled over in his grave
i respectfully disagree.
there’s a story about the meaning of life, to get back to the original subject of this page, though.
That was not a story about the meaning of life. It was a story about how to bore and make your audience fall asleep and forget why they came to the movie in the first place. If you’re looking for meaning of life in Spielberg movies, then you already lost at sea. Without the paddle.
I wouldn’t be too quick to assume what part of “A.I.” belongs to Kubrick, and what part belongs to Spielberg. It’s my understanding that much of the conventional wisdom regarding this is just plain wrong.
No doubt that may be true, Joe, but it sure felt like the ending was Spielberg’s. If the movie had concluded 10 minutes earlier, with Osment underwater pleading for all eternity with that lifeless statue to fulfill his wish, it would have ended on a resoundingly chilling note that (correctly or not) few would doubt was Kubrick’s. Instead, SOMEONE chose to let Osment have his wish outrageously realized by an intergalactic deus ex machina – IMHO an egregious betrayal of the film’s challenging thematic underpinnings. It came across as the kind of audience-pandering choice that conveyed a lot more of Spielberg’s humanistic sensibility than Kubrick’s rueful one.
Lets play amatuer film detectives. Review each of those directors films. What in Kubricks catalog makes anyone think he would have had that ending? I don’t buy it. And anyone who has seen each of their films can easily figure out who’s influence is where.
Spielberg is obviously the one “responsible” for the whole movie, but the project was given to him by Kubrick because Kubrick realized he could never do heartwarming, and Spielberg can, and has been more adept at complicated ambiguity in the last 12 years or so. It’s not like Spielberg tore the project out of Kubrick’s dead hands and raped it.
As for the ending itself, remember that all of humanity is dead, civilization is destroyed, and the only remnant is a single-minded robotic little boy. I don’t find that a particularly upbeat finale.
If there’s a piece of film-fan conventional wisdom that I absolutely HATE (well, there are many, but here’s one)… it’s the idea that (a.) the ending to A.I. is upbeat/sappy/pure Spielbergian fuzziness and (b.) that the movie would’ve been a thousand times better if it had just ended 10-15 minutes earlier, with Osment trapped under the sea for all eternity, blah blah blah.
About (a.), as jeffmcn correctly points out, the movie ends with the human race dead, and that last little remnant of humanity — a robot boy — flickering into extinction. Totally warm and fuzzy, just like the ending to ET, except if ET’s ship took off, earth exploded, and ET found out he has cancer. Otherwise, exactly the same.
I’ll agree that maybe Spielberg’s tone for those scenes is off a little bit, and the transition into them (from the underwater sequence) isn’t great, but it’s a minor flaw in a stunning and complex movie.
As for the people who go on endlessly about (b.)… guys, if so many people can see that the underwater “ending” is “so obviously” the correct one, then wouldn’t that ending be, in fact, INCREDIBLY PREDICTABLE? I love how Spielberg-bashers will spout off about this as if they’re making some kind of great observation (even as they talk about how *obviously* the movie should’ve ended there). As if such a thing could never occur to Spielberg, or as if the last 10-15 minutes was inarguably his invention.
I’m open to arguments that the ending of the movie isn’t great (though I think it’s a pretty great movie), but to say “it should’ve ended with him underwater” is just lazy and, at this point, a cliche.
So if he was given the project and the outline and most of the script it really isn’t all him now is it? It was great til about a half hour in. Until Spielbergs ET/Hook instincts took over. You are delusional if you think that Kubrick would have ended it like that.
Jesse and jeffmcm, who here argued that the ending of “AI” is “upbeat”? I said it was “audience-pandering,” which is in no way the same thing. The ending appears to simply pay off what was presumed to be the audience’s sympathy for Osment’s android/cyborg/robot/whatever. That IMHO was a poor choice in an otherwise great film, which up until that point artfully played upon the whole notion of having any sympathy at all for a machine. I don’t think allowing Osment to find his holy grail resulted in an upbeat ending, but it sure was a cop-out.
Also, I can’t for the life of me understand how Jesse thinks leaving the Osment character underwater would have been “incredibly predictable.” Until it actually happened, how did you even know he was heading underwater, let alone to find a soulless statue?
As for “Spielberg bashers,” I hope you’re not including me in that crowd. If anything, I feel Spielberg is underappreciated for his artistry, and I think several of his less-celebrated films (e.g., “Empire of the Sun” and, yes, “”Minority Report”) are neglected masterpieces. As for “AI,” I think it’s a near-classic that falters at the finale. And, like I said above, Osment is absolutely brilliant in it. I really hope we see more of him working with top directors again in the near future.
I love the ending of AI because it’s not about what many perceive it to be. The film ends with the future robots finally being able to see LOVE in one of it’s truest form. The robots, kept recesitating humans, because they appreciated us. They loved us, They wanted to know more about us. Through David, they discovered a side of humanity they truly lacked: LOVE. If that’s pandering. If that’s selling out. Then I am a pandering and selling out asshole of the grandest order.
Okay, you didn’t say upbeat. And maybe it was audience-pandering on one level. But to me the ending is a complex balancing act where the character gets exactly what he wants but in such strange circumstances that alter the emotional effect, for me at least, of what the ending of the film means. I agree the ending is flawed in that it’s a rocky transition to get to that point. Also the robots look way too much like the Close Encounters aliens.
And Joe Fitz, nobody will ever know what the film would have been if Kubrick had been alive to stay involved with it, but I guess I am delusional because I think Kubrick knew what he was going to get by giving it to Spielberg.
If he was dead, then how did he give it to Spielberg? Any film student worth his salt knows that the ending was a Spielberg invention and not a Kubrick one. If you want to go ga ga over the ending of a crappy movie then go for it. I won’t stop you.
Thanks, I will.
Kubrick and Spielberg had discussed the project for years before Kubrick’s death, with Kubrick intending to produce and Spielberg directing. Then he died. I don’t work at Dreamworks so I don’t know what was in the treatment that Spielberg started with, but there’s as much 2001 in that ending as there is E.T.
Chester, maybe I oversimplified by using the word “predictable,” because, you’re right, it’s not something you could see from the beginning of the movie… I guess I just mean that the ending seems kind of obvious to me once he sees that statue underwater. So watching that scene, a lot of people are saying, “oh, I know how this is going to end” (even if it’s just a few minutes in advance, rather than several hours). But then Spielberg goes further.
And I think a lot of film-geek type people (and I use the term respectfully) reacted to that progression the way “normal” audiences would react to a conventional happy ending followed by a depressing or weird epilogue. Not that this is the same in content, but effect; the quasi-dark ending made a certain (small; I realize mainstream audiences hated all kinds of things about AI) film-loving segment of the audience happy, and the *genuinely* strange and ambiguous ending put them off.
A lot of those same film-geek people, I think, would chide audiences for other movies for saying similar things about a movie with a happy scene followed by a sad or ambiguous close. But when it’s a *sad* scene followed by an ambiguous close, suddenly the audience knows best?
The underwater ending, then, maybe isn’t utterly predictable, but conventional, in its own way. It’s *too* “Kubrick-esque” to be really inspired. So I’m glad the movie went further.
I am of only one opinion about the Blue Fairy ending. If the film end there, excuse me, IT’S F’ING TERRIBLE! Easily, it would turn a rather great film into utter and total shite. Since it not only does not serve as any real conclusion, but it would serve as an “hey, let’s piss on the audience for baring with this film for two hours.” ending that would easily make the film forgotten like many of the films released in that accursed year. If it ends with him staring at the Blue Fairy. It easily would insult Kubrick more than many thing the ending of AI does now. If you think Kubrick would be down with that garbage. You have a warped view of the man that ranks right up there with Sports Illustrated opinions of MJ back in the early 90s.
jeff please tell me ur just arguing to argue like usual because that ending ruined a pretty good movie. too bad no one even remembers what happend the first hour and a half.
Spielberg just needs to hire a better editor, is all! However I cringed when Tom Cruise said on Oprah that Spielberg was the best storyteller of all time.
…:|
Btw, I never said the meaning of life can be found in David Lynch movies, I was saying Lynch movies provide excellent escapism with a brain.
Spielberg is at the point where he doesn’t think he needs an editor because hes a GOD. Someone tell Steve-O that more isn’t exactly for the better.
This is what Spielberg told me a couple of years ago:
“People pretend to think they know Stanley Kubrick, and think they know me, when most of them don’t know either of us. And what’s really funny about that is, all the parts of ‘A.I.’ that people assume were Stanley’s were mine. And all the parts of ‘A.I.’ that people accuse me of sweetening and softening and sentimentalizing were all Stanley’s. The teddy bear was Stanley’s. The whole last 20 minutes of the movie was completely Stanley’s. The whole first 35, 40 minutes of the film
I have seen every single Spielberg movie and also every single Stan Kubrick movie. And I don’t believe Spielberg. I have seen the proof on screen. That said, I think the movie could have been a lot better and they missed some real good chances.
Who really cares? The movie was god awful. Ending or no ending.
No offense, TD, but if have to choose between Spielberg’s veracity and your interpretation, Spielberg will get my vote seven days out of seven. Besides, Jeff is right: The “A.I.” ending is very much of a piece with “2001.” It’s very easy for me to believe that the same guy who gave us a spookily-human supercomputer (HAL) might hypothesize that “humanity” could survive well past the end of humankind.
Both endings would have really sucked. It was just a bad, bad movie all around.
Okay, we know you don’t like AI, CBS, or anyone left of John McCain. Who or what do you like?
who likes those three except stella? ai was a disaster. really hard to defend that film. even if ur a die hard spielberg guy
Any movie that was loved by Harry Knowles, Roger Ebert, Jonathan Rosenbaum, and Armond White must have something going for it.
Sorry, I forgot Ebert didn’t like it that much.
if harry knowles likes a movie u should run from it. very fast. it means he was paid off in food, money, a producting gig, or a walk on a crappy horror movie. he has no credibility in being a critic
bi-bob, what three are you talking about? And how do you know how I feel about them? You can read my mind? Why you act like you know me even a little bit really puzzles me.
was talking cbs news, ai, and people to the left of mccain. do great comedians have to explain every joke?
and stella ur real easy to read. ur a hardcore lefty whos tastes in movies run to the elite side. its all in ur posts. did u think u were complex or what?
Yes, elite like spelling words and using capital letters.
AI was a bore of a movie 4 years ago. Time has not helped it age.
jeffrey u gonna post ur link to ur website for the love of anything haley joel? u should get on that quick.
I’ll be in shock if Stella’s Boy doesn’t like thos three. Complete shock.
Someone actually has fan sites dedicated to Haley Joel Osment?????? Say it ain’t so!!! The internet is a wasteland.
Stella’s Girl has posters of Dan Rather on her wall.
How can anyone watch CBS nowadays? Besides the crappy news quality. All they have is three CSI programs.
JoeFitz: You must be some kind of elitist. CBS just finished its highest rated season of programming in recent years, with hit shows like “Two and a Half Men,” “Cold Cases,” “NCIS,” “Without a Trace” and several others. Guess you’re too busy watching PBS and The Food Network to notice.
The highest rated network. Sure. But not in the demo’s where it counts and what advertisers want. If they could trade shows with Fox they would in a second. They’re the old network and now they’ve lost their flagship sitcom. The CSI train doesn’t run forever.
Demos? Geez, even MORE elitist talk. It’s not enough that a lot of people are watching. Now they have to be the right kind of people. Wow, I bet you drink a lot of white wine and eat brie. And listen to a lot of NPR.
Joe Fitz seems to have nothing to say except to bash his designated enemies, be they a huge television company or an individual politician or filmmaker.
And even if Fox’s demographics are better, isn’t the quality of their shows poorer? Now I’m the elitist.
hes bashing cbs. who wouldn’t bash cbs? if hes enemies with them then he can bash away. only show i watch on there is the king of queens.
That is one network that doesn’t have one brother on it. Not even one show for us.
I watch Without a Trace. Very good show. And the CSI’s are very well done too.
During the May sweeps, CBS won the month in adults 25-54 and total viewers, and led in 18-49 for most of May. (The “American Idol” finale, of course, tipped the balance to Fox.) And during the November 2004 sweeps, CBS OWNED the 18-49 demo. I know it’s a lance to the heart of you CBS-hating elitists, but the Tiffany Network is back. Meanwile, supposedly hip NBC is taking on water like the Titanic. And the hottest new show on Fox — “House” — is not exactly teen-skewing. Conventional wisdom is obsolete. Times are changing.
I wouldn’t call the CBS network young skewing. It only really has 3 shows worth watching. Survivor, CSI and Without a Trace. And leading for a little isn’t winning. There is a reason they keep making changes and dropping established shows. They are all trying for the 18-35 hits.
throwing ratings at me does nothing for me. it does nothing for cbs. all there shows are for old people. they got nothing like lost, or housewives or 24. they’re a network being carried by football and survivor. but it could be worse. they could be nbc and have nothing.
Never really got into the Survivor show. or any reality show for that matter. Prefer scripted programs.
What? You not into Beauty and the Geek and Strip Search and Blow out? You crazy. I’m only joking ya. Can’t wait to this fad is over and out
Cbs owes their number 1 status to Jerry Bruckheimer, Mark Burnett and the over 55 age group.