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
dan craig is the new go to guy now.
She is much too pretty to ever play those kinds of roles. No one would believe it.
Wait, wasn’t that movie out just a few years ago?
oy…
Poland is absolutely right. I would love to see the movie as described with the switched roles. That would freshen it up a great deal especially since Mostly Martha is not that great a film to begin with. They need to do something to jazz up that tired story.
It would also be an actual acting challenge for CZJ.
Sorry – didn’t know where to post this.
2 things:
1. Your TIFF roundup with your list of top 20 was good, but one thing annoyed the shit outta me. You constantly mentioned the fact that “on second viewing” or whatever you liked a movie more or you got more out of it. Man, has anyone else said how annoying it is to hear critics say that? Cause it really is. At least you pointed to the flaw in your comments about Breakfast on Pluto!
2. What’s everyone’s reaction to the trailer for The Producers. It certainly made me smile and chuckle a few times! I can’t wait! Uma looks great! And well done to Susan Stroman, who managed to get a spoken credit! Not many first-timers get THAT.
Not a fan of second viewing comments either. Not like 95% of the audience will ever pay to see a movie again let alone one they walked out of not liking.
Uma always looks great. The trailer was pretty darn good. It might be a huge movie. In terms of box office and awards.
Well that is what critics are supposed to do. See and resee movies to find out what they’re really about. Tough to get that on a 1st viewing.
Oh and I fully understand that. I figure if they can see it twice, why the hell not? But I personally really dislike (hate even) being told by critics to see a movie twice. I mean, there’s movies like Mulholland Drive or whatever that require a second viewing in order to fully grasp stuff, but I am a lowly underpaid student who sees more movies than your average person my age (20 in under a month), and does not have the money to go see any movie twice just so I can get a better grasp of the characters or notice the subtle differences.
It’s all well and good for critics to go see movies multiple times but I (and I’m assuming most others) cannot. And when I’m being told that in order to fully “get” a movie I need to see it multiple times it makes me almost NOT want to see the movie because I know I’m just gonna need to hire it out 5 months later on DVD (which is cheaper).
er… but that’s just my own personal thing.
But if I were a critic I’d be seeing movies 5 times if I wanted to.
But most people see a movie once and base their lifelong idea of that movie from that one viewing, whether it’s at a cinema or on DVD. And it’s good that David is at least saying he’s seen it multiple times and had the chance to reach those opinions.