By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Good Golly

Posted Tuesday, September 27th, 2005 - Comments Off on Good Golly
Be Sociable, Share!

They’re not showing the new film, but the building of a campaign begins here after NYFF….
“The Museum of Television & Radio
Presents
Good Night, and Good Luck:
Murrow from McCarthy to Monroe
September 21 to October 23 in Los Angeles
October 7 to November 6 in New York
New York, NY and Los Angeles, CA—In conjunction with the release of “Good Night, and Good Luck”.— George Clooney’s theatrical film about the confrontations between iconic CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow and the Communist-baiting junior senator from Wisconsin, Joseph R. McCarthy—The Museum of Television & Radio presents Murrow’s original “See It Now” television programs that inspired the film, captivated the nation during the jittery “duck-and-cover” days of the 1950s, and helped legitimize television as a medium and an essential source of information for Americans. To give viewers a look at the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings themselves, The Museum will also be screening Emile Antoine’s 1964 documentary “Point of Order,” which distills almost 200 hours of the gavel-to-gavel television coverage of the hearings. And, as a bonus, the Museum presents a look at Murrow’s lighter side, with highlights of his “Person to Person” interviews with Marilyn Monroe, Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra, Lauren Bacall, and Humphrey Bogart.
“Good Night, and Good Luck: Murrow from McCarthy to Monroe” will screen in Los Angeles Wednesdays through Sundays at 1:00 p.m. from September 21 through October 23, and in New York Tuesdays through Sundays at 1:00 p.m. from October 7 through November 6. The screening schedule is as follows:
More info

Be Sociable, Share!

Posted in Note Pad | Comments Off on Good Golly

Comments are closed.

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