MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

A.O. Krazy

Here is A.O. Scott’s piece on why we should be reading political subtext into Just Like Heaven and The Exorcism of Emily Rose.
My read? Put down the pipe, Tony. I know that every molecule of our body could be, like, an entire universe and we could just be one atom in the body of a giant… but dude, you need to mellow that harsh.

Be Sociable, Share!

10 Responses to “A.O. Krazy”

  1. Angelus21 says:

    Not every movie is a political statement. They’re movies. They’re meant to entertain first. If they fail that then whatever they do won’t matter.

  2. mutinyco says:

    Critics not using psychotropic substances would be like having to eat matzoh all year round instead of just one week. Bread needs moisture. The best enhanced criticism ever is Amy Taubin’s assessment on the Reservoir Dogs DVD — where she claims it’s really about a masochistic love story between Mr. Orange and Mr. White, and since Orange is bleeding he’s the female.

  3. Heiron says:

    David’s well-played snark aside, when Scott claims the studios “have tried to strengthen their connection with religious and social conservatives,” is this something that’s happening? Or even significant?
    And on a separate tack, what ARE some of the great undiscovered subtexts of our favorite flicks? I keep telling people the hallway hues of “Napoleon Dynamite” are eerily reminiscent of the colors of Alfred Nobel’s summer villa on Elba, and they keep telling me I’m an idiot.

  4. Joe Leydon says:

    Godard once claimed that EVERY film is a political act. Indeed, if a film doesn’t make any explicit political statement, then it is implicitly supporting the status quo. That’s a bit extreme, I’ll grant you. But is interesting to see how seemingly innocuous films of a bygone era — even something as frothy as “Pillow Talk” — can be more revealing and enlightening than most historical or anthropological overviews of the period

  5. Crow T Robot says:

    I don’t know… Ghost Whisperer… My Name Is Earl… even the Dukes of Hazzard movie… I’m certainly seeing a leaning to the red states recently.
    And yes, Speilberg seems to be on a 9/11 tear with “The Terminal,” “War of the Worlds” and now “Munich.”
    I sure do miss Bill Clinton.

  6. jeffmcm says:

    Joe L., you’re completely correct. It’s the least self-conscious movies that are often the most revealing, like an innocuous dream that reveals a patient’s subconscious.
    Thanks to Dave P for attempting to keep the dialogue at a less interesting, dumber level. Scott makes some really good points and doesn’t say anything that crazy, in my opinion.

  7. Stella's Boy says:

    I agree jeff. I kept waiting for Scott to say something really out there, but it all seems perfectly reasonable and accurate to me.

  8. joefitz84 says:

    Jeff thinks its a big right wing conspiracy. They control everything. They made hurricanes!!! Earthquakes!!! Poverty!!! Hold onto your hats!

  9. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Not to get into a Spielberg debate again, I found it extremely odd that he decided to make War of the Worlds a very Politically minded film whereas The Terminal, which by all rights should have been more of one, was left as a frothy rom-com with Tom Hanks doing a funny accent.
    It wouldn’t be hard to find 9/11 and WW2 parallels in War of the Worlds though. It’s not like they’re subtle or anything

  10. lindenen says:

    “I don’t know… Ghost Whisperer… My Name Is Earl… even the Dukes of Hazzard movie… I’m certainly seeing a leaning to the red states recently.”
    I haven’t seen Ghost Whisperer, but the other two only lean toward the red in so much as they depict red-staters as knuckle-dragging morons.

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