MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Oy, Patrick

You know, Patrick

Be Sociable, Share!

106 Responses to “Oy, Patrick”

  1. Brett B says:

    I agree with you here David, but why even bother writing back to something as idiotic as Mr. Goldstein’s remarks? It just draws more attention to the whole thing.

  2. tapley says:

    Yeah, lay it down. What;s worse is he;s treading territory covered by Pete Hammond three years ago – let’s go after the bloggers, let’s chalk them up as irrelevant.
    The hypocrisy of it all is more staggering than the gall, given the Times’ penchant as of late for offering comfortable lodgings to temper tantrums.

  3. henryhill says:

    I come to MCN for the news… I stay for the pissing matches.

  4. The Premadator says:

    Poland stirs it up because he loves to stir it up. A bomber bombs, a vampire sucks, and a critic attacks. Lately, he actually seems to be mistaking entertainment journalism FOR the industry. Some readers may dig on the drama in this, but I think it’s lame.
    There’s been such an unpleasantness about this site the past few weeks. And it’s not really interesting… just another shade of AICN posters going off on how fat Kevin Smith is. So lame.
    This will be my final post on Hot Blog.

  5. tapley says:

    I fail to see where it is Poland who had his hand on the stirrer here. In fact, the very indication is a bit ignorant.

  6. Blackcloud says:

    It’s too bad Mickey Kaus of Slate doesn’t pay attention to LAT’s entertainment coverage. His puncturings of its news and editorial follies make greatly amusing reading.

  7. martin says:

    not a big fan of the oscar prognosticating either but this seems like a very silly article to be printed in the times. It’s embarassingly inside baseball. “The Big Picture” my ass.

  8. jeffmcm says:

    I like Poland a lot better when he’s ranting about movies and filmmakers than when he’s ranting about journalists and entertainment writers.

  9. Joe Straat says:

    Damn, how much can David write in a day?

  10. David Poland says:

    That’s why I rant about all kinds of things, J-Mc. Different strokes…
    Bye, Premadator.

  11. Blackcloud says:

    By the way, David, will we be finding out what that terrible movie was soon, or will we be waiting a while longer?

  12. joefitz84 says:

    I like Dave Poland when he’s writing about things that interest him. That’s why I come to his blog. If you don’t like that then why respond everyday? Start your own blog.

  13. Sanchez says:

    Let me see if I follow this.
    The guy who called Spanglish an Oscar contender is complaining about Oscar bloggers?
    That’s rich.
    Premadator, we hardley knew ye.

  14. Josh says:

    The terrible movie was…. Spanglish!
    Any journo who bitches about bloggers knows they’re missing the boat on the future of journalism and are fighting a losing battle. It’s sad to watch so many dig in and entrench and battle over a lost cause.

  15. Josh says:

    Is Premadator Pat Goldstein? Because he seems to be taking a lot of offense to this thread.

  16. jeffmcm says:

    Joe, you can be the #1 member of the David Poland fan club, unquestioningly spreading his Word around the web.
    Don’t get me wrong, I think he’s great.

  17. prideray says:

    G’night, Primadonnar. G’night, John Boy. G’night, David.

  18. joefitz84 says:

    Unlike you Jeffmcm, I’m not bitter. I come here for Dave’s perspective on film and the industry. If I had a problem with it I wouldn’t come. But he is the reason I do come. I don’t come for your arguing. Sorry to disappoint you.

  19. jeffmcm says:

    Come for the arguing, stay for the crab!
    Joe, I come for David Poland too. But I don’t think he’s an unassailable authority figure. I think he’s just a guy with some knowledge and taste. Communicating on what he’s doing is called feedback. I’m not content to just ingest what he puts out.

  20. Wrecktum says:

    Oh my. Patrick’s lost his marbles. This would be like David Brooks going apeshit about Stu Rothenberg handicapping House races. Give it up, man!
    Honestly, with a history of Best Picture winners like The Greatest Show on Earth, Around the World in 80 Days, and Broadway Melody, I don’t think the Academy should be hoisted onto the lofty pedestal that Patrick obviously wishes it were. “For anyone who loves the cinema, it’s hard not to feel a pang of sadness.” Cry me a river, OM-OscarBoy.

  21. Blackcloud says:

    So is this now incessant and pervasive blathering (no offense, Dave) about the Oscars a sign of their continuing importance and influence, or a sign of their decline?

  22. David Poland says:

    I don’t think it is that black or white, BC.
    I’ve been talking about it for a week, but I do think that the current situation is difficult, since there are now so many of us with profile that the competition has become a bit stupid. Stories are running with fanfare that is not appropriate to the story. Of course, this is true all over the media.
    I did not feel that the Munich story was really news. It is true that Nikki missed the mark because she has not covered the awards beat and therefore hasn’t lived through Spielberg’s fickle nature. So she got excited about her “exclusive,” that was not even news to me, and ran it. That caused a response in a few other places. Then I felt a need to comment. And on and on in a circle.
    There is very little real news in the awards seaosn. But it is a profit center. So with The Envelope and MCN and Sasha’s Oscarwatch and Wells looking for ads even though he is so not into the awards game, really…. and the trades want their place… and EW… etc, etc, etc.
    13 Gurus is a lot of Gurus. Everyone wants to be first. Everyone wants to be right. Everyone wants to look nonchalant.
    My perspective for myself is that I now have to reconsider what I consider important and to behave accordingly. But oh, how those competitive juices get flowing…
    The Oscars have become less important in the short-window era. Their primary importance was that they promoted movies and generated more box office. That purpose has been reduced.
    Still, Oscar is top dog because – I think – they are 6000 or so people who are in the industry. If we could do a 2000 industry person survey for MCN, we could have an award that is not as historic, but also hugely “important.” But it’s still a popularity contest with a specific group. And as such, it is only so important.
    But all of that doesn’t mean that I am not busy building a website with my team and interested in owning the niche. Because like porn and sports, it is a mighty niche indeed.

  23. David Poland says:

    P.S. It is also a hell of a lot of fun to try to work the puzzle.

  24. Scooba Steve says:

    Shoot me if you must but I can see Goldstein’s point here. The “30 Weeks To Oscar” mentality that bloggers have (naively, I’d say) propogated plays right into the hands of the Academy Award Morlocks who have managed to turn a lighthearted month of prognosticating into a fanatical orgy of industry cannibalism. Who can forget the year when Richard Hatch… uh, I mean “Shakespeare In Love”… walked off with best picture?
    Oscar in that regard is sort of like sex: There’s a time and a place to take your clothes off… but to do so before she’s in the bedroom is unhealthy… and more than a little creepy.

  25. David Poland says:

    I have no problem with your argument Scooba.
    I have a problem when someone who has indulged in the same process and whose outlet is trying desperately to be more involved in same attacks a relatively vulnerable group for sport in a desperate attempt to argue his own legitimacy.
    The campaign started in June. And it was started by a Variety story, not me. My first awards sit-down was in July. Also not y idea. And though there are requests for more, I do a summer story, a post-Toronto story, and then start at 20 Weeks… which was originally 15 Weeks… but the season kind of settled in at taking about 20 Weeks.
    The truth is, almost everything will be cast in drying cement by Dec 15…. which is unfortunate, but real. The next nearly three months will be a long, painful jerk off.
    It owuld cost me money, but I would prefer that no one announce anything until the first week of January… that there are no award shows before the last week of January and that the season go back to being a tight 2 months. But I’m not in charge.

  26. lazarus says:

    When, oh when, will we hear the end of the Shakespeare In Love abuse? Let’s look at that important fact again:
    MORE money was spent on marketing/Oscar advertising for Saving Private Ryan than SIL.
    So we’re faulting Weinstein for daring to compete with the big guys? There are so many unworthy Best Picture winners over the years (As mentioned by Wreckum above) like Around the World in 80 Days, The Greatest Show on Earth, and more recently, Gladiator; films that had unbelievably weak scripts. Now SIL may not seem to be an important enough film to win, but it had a FANTASTIC script co-written by Tom Stoppard. It managed to be both highbrow and lowbrow, dropping references to Shakespeare minutia for the scholars and slapstick for the cheap seats–much like the master himelf wrote. And it boasted more than a handful of good-to-great performances.
    Saving Private Ryan was certainly a bigger film. To many, it’s more important. But there were TWO World War 2 films in the race that year. Many felt the other was better. If the vote split enough to cost SPR the big guy, then tough titty. Maybe if it had a halfway decent screenplay and some characters that weren’t cliched cardboard cutouts it wouldn’t have been a contest. But I don’t understand why The Little Film That Could has to take shit for SPR’s shortcomings. I’ll bet you’re the same assholes that REALLY think Star Wars deserved to win over Annie Hall.
    SPR won technical awards, the only ones it deserved. It took a best director Oscar that is definitely up for debate. So what if it didn’t sweep? Besides, SIL is still better than Chariots of Fire.

  27. jeffmcm says:

    SPR was the second best movie of 1998, after Thin Red Line. The fact that both of them, plus the superior Elizabeth, were beaten by Harvey’s Baby, is somewhat insulting. Mostly because of the Weinstein tradition of ramming a mediocre movie down the Oscar voters’ throats, a la Chocolat, Cider House Rules, etc. I personally am not as annoyed at the movie, but rather at Harvey.
    However, the worst Best Picture winner of the last ten years was A Beautiful Mind.

  28. lazarus says:

    Chocolat was really the only film that had no business being in an Oscar race. The Cider House Rules, while a bit of a disappointment, had a pretty great pedigree. A screenplay by John Irving, great cast, formerly great director. That Irving seemed to sell out his own novel and turn it into a RomCom is a whole other argument, but it wasn’t a BAD film. Sure, in a great year like 1999 it shouldn’t have been up for Best Picture, but The Sixth Sense didn’t belong there either, and don’t even get me started on The Green Mile, a mediocre work adapted like it was the fucking bible into an overlong eye-roller. Irving shouldn’t have won for his work, but you know he was awarded because he’s just a great writer. Taylor & Payne were too unknown to take it for Election (which would have been well-deserved), and really the only person I would have rather seen winning that was nominated was Minghella for his beautiful overhaul on Ripley.
    The bottom line is, Shakespeare is leagues better than the others you mentioned. As for those also-rans, that’s his JOB. To promote his studio’s films. He also fought for Pulp Fiction, Red, The Sweet Hereafter, and The English Patient, which were all deserving of attention. Why don’t you take the other studio heads to task for putting their shit up there? Go rag on Dreamworks for Gladiator, or Warner’s for Driving Miss FUCKING Daisy.

  29. jeffmcm says:

    Harvey’s special. He has more power than any other studio head and seems to have especially bad taste.
    Plus, I liked Gladiator.

  30. EDouglas says:

    >’s why my first Oscar column of the season went up yesterday and why my predictions will be up by around that time. (I won’t have seen all the contenders until Dec 7, which is the only reason why my predictions won’t go up sooner.)
    While I’m sure I might seem like a Johnny-Come-Lately to you, David, I’ve done pretty well predicting the awards for the last five years, and writing a column for the last three. People seem to forget that I’m putting my ass on the line every week predicting box office, which is much MUCH harder.
    Hate to bring this up (again), but I’ve yet to see your name or site mentioned once on The Envelope, David. I don’t necessarily agree with some of Tom’s early predictions, but at least he’s positive and optimistic and gets a few opinions and quotes to back up his thoughts. In my opinion, that wins points over those who choose to be contrarianistic (not a word, but it should be ). Is it any wonder that Patick Goldstein is using similar tactics by attacking others rather than simply posting his own predictions? Of course, I’m sure I’m not helping matters by posting this opinion on the “Oscar race feud”…but it just seems like it would be a lot more fun if we try to make an effort to get along with our peers. 🙂

  31. EDouglas says:

    Oops…forgot that you can’t do quotes that way on this blog.
    The first quoted phrase was:
    “The truth is, almost everything will be cast in drying cement by Dec 15…. which is unfortunate, but real. ”
    The second was:
    “you dedicated the first part of your annual Oscar column to trying to make me and Tom O

  32. jeffmcm says:

    Edouglas? Are you Patrick Goldstein?
    Or Brandon Gray or Gitesh Pandya?
    I’m confused.

  33. EDouglas says:

    No…I’m E. Douglas. I know that my handle is confusing.

  34. Melquiades says:

    I forget what else was nominated that year, and I’m sure something that wasn’t nominated was my favorite film of that year, but anyway… Shakespeare in Love was a better film than Saving Private Ryan. Period.
    95% of Saving Private Ryan was extremely effective. But the bookends were pure driven shit. They took an excellent movie and made it practically mediocre. If you trimmed the cemetery scenes, it may well have been the best film of the year. As it is, it’s a horrible disappointment.

  35. Lota says:

    Goldstein is boring. The end.
    Too much talk about nothing in most pre-Oscar talk since most of the “good” movies won’t be acknowledged until 5 yrs after eligibility most likely.

  36. jeffmcm says:

    I’ve said it before on this blog, but: the bookend scenes in Saving Private Ryan were absolutely essential to the purpose of the movie. They’re widely misunderstood to be sentimental gunk, when in fact they only _resemble_ such. Take a closer look and you’ll realize that the whole point of the movie lies in that final dialogue exchange in the cemetery.
    The idea that a frothy romantic comedy would be superior in any way except as light, escapist entertainment is…well, the words fail me.

  37. jeffmcm says:

    The final shot of SPR ie widely misread as well, and equally as important to the movie’s rhetorical construction. (Since you may not have been paying attention, it was bright light blaring through a very thin American flag).

  38. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    “The idea that a frothy romantic comedy would be superior in any way except as light, escapist entertainment is…well, the words fail me.”
    As a film lover, it deeply saddens me to read what you just wrote Jeff. I can understand that you dislike Shakespeare in Love or whatever your feelings are towards it, but I would have hoped that you (and any other film lovers for that movie) could understand that “light escapist comedy” can be JUST as good any important movies (well, “important” can be used so loosely these days). What makes Saving Private Ryan so much better than Shakespeare In Love other than your obvious bias towards important sounding movies? Does SPR show us what it was really like on the front line, or whatever? Well, Shakespeare In Love gave us a lighthearted romp through Elizabethian England.
    Does Shakespeare In Love not deserve ANY respect for being one of THE best written films of the last 20 years (trust me, I studied the film for a whole year, it is an excellent example of screenwriting at its finest).
    It’s people saying things like what you said that really upsets me. So what if Shakespeare In Love wasn’t about war and death and the human spirit (or whatever you wanna call it), it was an expertly made film that was extremely well put together, with great performances and was a great time in the cinema.
    If you can’t appreciate a movie because it is “light, escapist comedy” then I really do feel sorry for you.
    There are people going around calling King Kong a classic. Sure it is, but it certainly ain’t anything remotely important. Same goes for many other movies. It just happens that the Academy liked Shakespeare in Love and rewarded it thusly.
    And, yes, SVP had more advertising money behind it, it had grossed more money than SIL, it had the team of Spielberg and Hanks behind it, AND that was at the time of Dreamworks’. The fact that Shakespeare in Love won actually goes to show that the Academy liked Shakespeare much more than some people think. If they really did reward the biggest, most moneyed up movie Private Ryan would have indeed won.
    Blah. And that’s the end of that.
    Sorry, but that topic really irks me. Romantic Comedies/chick flicks/etc have just as much a right to be rewarded for being great as the constant barage of war films do.

  39. Krazy Eyes says:

    I agree with Melquiades in that I thought the bookends in SPR were crap. Great movie otherwise. And isn’t it possible that Spielberg could have retained his “rhetorical construction” and still not made it resemble “sentimental gunk?” It might have been a better film.
    I thought Shakespeare was fantastic as well and worthy of the best picture honor even if it didn’t have all the baggage of being a “big” film.
    IMO, the only oscar travesty for Shakespeare that year was Gwyneth Paltrow beating Cate Blanchett for best actress.

  40. Blackcloud says:

    Dave, thanks for the thoughtful response to my half-serious question.
    “Now SIL may not seem to be an important enough film to win, but it had a FANTASTIC script co-written by Tom Stoppard.” More tp the point, it had a fantastic script co-written by Shakespeare, since the end is just Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare is the greatest crutch around. To my mind, they cheated, which is why I’d have voted for SPR, even though it is a more flawed movie than SIL.
    Elizabeth sucked.

  41. Terence D says:

    Shakespeare in love better than Saving Private Ryan?
    It wasn’t even better than A Thin Red Line. It shouldn’t have even been nominated. Any movie where Ben Affleck is the best thing going in it?

  42. Scooba Steve says:

    You know last night when I was writing my post I was THIS CLOSE to taking out the “Shakespeare In Love” line. And now I feel like the guy who stepped on the bug and came back to the present only to find it changed everything.
    But way to defend the bookend scenes in SPR jeffmcm. Most misunderstood 4 minutes in Spielberg’s oeuvre. Bully for you!

  43. bipedalist says:

    Scuba writes:

    Shoot me if you must but I can see Goldstein’s point here. The “30 Weeks To Oscar” mentality that bloggers have (naively, I’d say) propogated plays right into the hands of the Academy Award Morlocks who have managed to turn a lighthearted month of prognosticating into a fanatical orgy of industry cannibalism. Who can forget the year when Richard Hatch… uh, I mean “Shakespeare In Love”… walked off with best picture?
    Oscar in that regard is sort of like sex: There’s a time and a place to take your clothes off… but to do so before she’s in the bedroom is unhealthy… and more than a little creepy.”
    First off, if that is your idea of good sex you have got to be a very boring lover. Only in the bedroom when the clothes are off? Secondly, if you’re referring to the clusterfuck before Oscar season as “creepy” because you’re not rushing to strip in the bedroom (lights off, eyes closed too?) you’ve got it all wrong. Everyone knows the lead-up is the best part – that’s when all scenarios are still possible – when a little film like Hotel Rwanda can still come up from behind. Come on, look at the big picture.
    Secondly, Shakespeare in Love DESERVED to win. It was the FAR better film that year and one of the better choices AMPAS has made.

  44. Me says:

    I love it that we’re still debating whether SPR, SIL, Elizabeth or a Thin Read Line should have won (though, I am also fond of Life is Beautiful). And then there are all the others that weren’t even nominated: The Truman Show, American History X, Hilary & Jackie, Out of Sight…
    Taking a look at the movies that might be up for the award this years, I can’t even find the energy to care.

  45. Joe Straat says:

    How does Elizabeth suck again? I’m sorry, I thought what I saw was a brilliant movie that looked great, made what normally would be a stuffy costume drama emotional, made the politics intriguing, and has my personal favorite Geoffrey Rush performance.
    I need to see Shakespeare in Love and Saving Private Ryan again for those. SiL I remember was pretty good, though the referential humor was a bit forced. I love the running lines that went something like, “It all works out in the end.” “How?” “I don’t know. It’s a mystery.” It’s been too long since I’ve seen Private Ryan all the way through. I’ve watched scenes of it on TV and I was absorbed, but I remember not be as happy with the whole as I was the parts when I first saw it.

  46. Blackcloud says:

    “How does Elizabeth suck again?” Let me count the ways. Actually, let me not, since I’d be here the rest of the year, and I have better things to do. I’ll give one example. If the real Elizabeth had been the clueless dolt she’s presented as at the beginning of the movie, she’d have lost her head long before the first time we see Cate Blanchett. Everything in the movie is off, off, off. I have a rule about historical movies: if the movie’s good, I don’t care how much they mess up the history; but if it sucks, I’ll kill ’em for screwing up the history. And boy do they screw up the history in Elizabeth.
    I liked Life is Beautiful, too, but I wish Benigni hadn’t lightened things in the second half. He should have kept up the straight ahead farce.

  47. ShadowKnows says:

    I’m sure it’s true that Goldstein’s column is motived by a desperate need to seem legitimate as New Media overtakes Old Media. But this quote from Goldstein struck me:
    “Too often the Oscar bloggers aren’t analyzing the art of the movies but simply the academy’s reaction to them, and only then in terms of supposed Oscar voter quirks and prejudices.”
    He’s right. We should all be talking about which movies are great. Not which movies stand a chance of winning.
    Since we’re rehashing SPR vs. SIL, let’s look at that year in movies. 1998. Out Of Sight came out that year. Soderbergh’s comeback movie. Since 1998 I’ve watched, enjoyed, and thought about OOS a good deal more than either SPR or SIL.
    It’s great for a whole lot of people that Oscar is, as DP says, a $50 million dollar business. But a great movie is worth more than that to me. Next year, this year’s Oscar campaigns will be a memory. Two years after that this year’s Oscar campaigns will be a forgotten memory. The movies will be all that’s left.
    Which brings to mind a blog topic – not for today, but for sometime between DP’s ‘it’s all over’ date of Dec. 15 and the first week of January, so every movie that’s being even casually and hypothetically mentioned will have been seen or out of embargo or whatever needs to happen: Which 2005 movies will we be talking about, in terms of actual high movie quality, in 2012? (The 7-year difference obviously coming from the SPR vs. SIL year of 1998)

  48. Crow T Robot says:

    Good Golly Miss Molly… the “Shakespeare” vs “Private Ryan” grudge match again. Someone should start peace accords between the two.
    That said, it’s a lot of fun. Can I play too?

  49. bicycle bob says:

    the only reason people are talking about shakespeare is because it robbed private ryan of its oscar. if it didn’t win no one would even remember it.

  50. Hopscotch says:

    Looking back both SIL and SPR have their faults. But that was also the year of Life is Beautiful, one of the most over-praised pieces of schmaltz ever rewarded. That guy beat out Hanks! Nolte! Norton!
    But that was also the year of Rushmore, Big Lebowski. Both of which got nada. Out of Sight is a fun movie with a great ending, but it’s not award-level good. I think the Truman Show was much more deserving.

  51. bipedalist says:

    Someone writes:
    “‘Too often the Oscar bloggers aren’t analyzing the art of the movies but simply the academy’s reaction to them, and only then in terms of supposed Oscar voter quirks and prejudices.'”
    He’s right. We should all be talking about which movies are great. Not which movies stand a chance of winning.”
    That is assuming the Academy vote for the best films – NEWSFLASH – They don’t! Why do you think people predict the Oscars? They are predicting how the Academy will vote on the year’s slate of films. Argh!

  52. ShadowKnows says:

    As owner of a Life Aquatic red cap and frequenter quoter of Lebowski-isms “”New shit has come to light!”) I’m sort of kicking myself for not mentioning either Rushmore or BL. I’d have been happy had TS won that year. I guess I mention OOS because it is indeed a fun movie with a great ending, elevated to something greater by Clooney and Lopez’s chemistry and Soderbergh’s ultra-confident handling of his first blatantly commercial material. Directors who make exclusively commercial films rarely get at the heart of it the way Soderbergh did in OOS. For me at least.

  53. ShadowKnows says:

    My point was all that prediction comes to nothing in the end. Oscar voters most surely do not vote for the best films. How else could we explain the ascendency of Beautiful Mind or Chicago (or for that matter, Oliver! winning the BP oscar over 2001). It would change the face of film if the Academy did routinely vote for films based on quality alone. Until then, I still say the discussion of movie quality can go on forever, while the awards predictions have a shelf life and are ultimately silly and frequently made only to fill a perceived void or win a perceived contest.

  54. Hopscotch says:

    I think it’s more of a “under the spell” thing. Chicago won because at that time it was perceived as hip and fun… Beautiful Mind was touching and moving… Shakespeare in Love was also touching, funny but it had a great twist on the world’s most famous love story…
    I didn’t buy any of those movies, but the Academy was under that spell. Most of them are not young and cynical. They’re old and they fall for that stuff.

  55. James Leer says:

    My way of thinking is that no matter the genre, if it’s just about as perfectly made as can be and genuinely effective, it’s award-worthy. “Shakespeare in Love” could scarcely be better for the sort of movie it is. Ditto “Out of Sight,” which is pure pop pleasure. It’s a shame that so many people have subscribed to the theory that Oscar films must be capital-I Important…it’s the same way of thinking that has kept directors like Hitchcock and Scorsese unrewarded for some of their best films. Think of how much more fun the Oscar categories would be if brilliant comedies and impeccable thrillers could get into the race!

  56. ShadowKnows says:

    in the spirit of JL’s comments, IMO The Devil’s Rejects and Thumbsucker are both award-worthy – a great exploitation film and a great teen film, respectively. I don’t feel bad mentioning them prior to the 12/15 perceived-end-of-year because, well, they’re The Devil’s Rejects and Thumbsucker.

  57. BluStealer says:

    How can we take anyone seriously who named Spanglish as their Oscar leader after seeing it?

  58. ShadowKnows says:

    Who cares if PG makes a really bad prediction? The whole Spanglish thing is a rodeo clown, distracting us from his solid point, which is that predicting the Oscars has drastically overshadowed substantive discussion on the actual quality of the movies.

  59. Scooba Steve says:

    I think, ShadowKnows, the earth-shaking ‘event’ that defines this year in movies will end up being:
    Perhaps also the command of gay performances this year… the Brokebackers, Cillian Murphy, Hoffman, Huffman. Though nobody’s talking about Val Kilmer in “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” playing arguably the coolest, most charismatic homosexual in recent memory.
    If ever there was a year for Ellen Degeneres to Oscar host…

  60. I,Claudius says:

    Dave Poland once again calling the kettle black.

  61. Bruce says:

    Talking, guessing and predicting Oscar nominees in no way diminishes discussion of quality movies. It only makes it better. If you don’t like the games than who says you have to participate?

  62. Bruce says:

    When has Dave Poland ever taken shots at someone like Patrick Goldstein is doing? Poland isn’t bitter and afraid of the new technology and other writers. From all I have read and I have read a lot of him, he’s encouraging of other writers and other viewpoints and even links to them on his site. Maybe you should get your facts straight before you call him out for no reason.
    If you can’t discuss it and defend your views than you should probably keep it to yourself.

  63. ShadowKnows says:

    Last year and so far this year, when I’ve clicked onto movie-related web sites, I don’t see passionate discussion of movie quality. I see predictions and handicapping. It seems that a movie’s ability to compete during awards season becomes the reason to talk about it at all. It’s “Can it win or be nominated?” when it should be, “Is it good?” One of my favorite movie-talk moments came in 1998 (a recurring year in this discussion, which is odd because there are other years that come more readily to mind in terms overall movie quality) when Roger Ebert picked Dark City as the best film of the year. That blew me away. A sci-fi movie with Keifer Sutherland is the year’s best? Seven years later you might agree or disagree. But Ebert spoke his mind and made a compelling, eloquent case for the film. And DP did much the same for In America – he loved it and he went out and stumped for it. That’s a discussion we need, that’s a discussion we can learn from. Who’s likey to win what because of what precedent? Who cares.
    And show me the amendment in the Bill of Rights that says I have to like the games to participate.

  64. LesterFreed says:

    I don’t call a movie great if it wins an Oscar. i could care less. I wouldn’t rewatch Shakespeare in Love if you paid me. But I’d rewatch those first 25 minutes of SPR over again. Anytime. Truth be told I don’t trust the Academy to pick the “best” every year. It’s a fashion show designed as an awards show.

  65. Bruce says:

    Have you read and responded to the threads? I would say that there is more than enough quality discussion of movies, awards, industry etc in here. If you can’t see, than I can’t help you. If you mean are Roger Ebert and people like him having these discussions?
    I have no clue since I rarely go to his site or read his reviews. You seem to be putting those types on a pedestal. If you want that than read their reviews and their sites. Email them and try to engage them in discussions. I wish you luck on that.

  66. bicycle bob says:

    old media is dying a slow death. people like goldstein are making it worse by trying to deny new media even exists or by putting it down. they’re losing their influence and they can’t take it.

  67. Mark Ziegler says:

    I’d much rather go into battle with Munich as my prediction than Jarhead. That hurts.

  68. PandaBear says:

    A guy like Dave can make light of his early Phantom call last year. I don’t see Goldstein doing the same about Spanglish.

  69. I,Claudius says:

    Bruce, my dear,
    My problem with Poland is best exemplified by this quote from above: ” And I was the first to write (and rave) about that movie, as I had been for Sideways, and ultimately, The Aviator, ”
    Poland yearns to be a leader, but doesn’t have the proper discernment skills. As he confesses he was a gung-ho cheerleader for Phantom until nearly every other writer worth his salt had a mixed reaction to the film, then Dave retracted. Earlier this year, Dave, again longing to be ahead of the game, wrote rather dismissively about Brokeback Mountain after seeing it in Toronto. Now that most others are praising it and it’s up for several ISA’s, Poland is again ooh-ing and ah-ing. The guy is spineless and others in the industry consider him and Jeff Wells to be jokes.

  70. Blackcloud says:

    “Now that most others are praising it and it’s up for several ISA’s, Poland is again ooh-ing and ah-ing.”
    Claudius, where did Dave start oohing and ahing over Brokeback Mountain? I’d like you to show me that column, since I’m pretty sure I haven’t read it.

  71. David Poland says:

    I,C –
    If you want to attack, please get your facts straight.
    The entire Phantom discussion lasted 2 weeks… total.
    I was never a gung-ho cheerleader for the film and pointed out in the piece I am still being atatcked for that the film would not make my Top Ten list or even come close. And it did not.
    I have not backed off of my position on Brokeback, laid out in four pieces… speaking of serious discussion of movies. However, predicting how others wil vote has NOTHING to do with how I feel about a movie.
    I didn’t vote for George Bush, but as I watched precinct numbers in Ohio come in, I knew he had won another term. Last year was the first year in a long while in which I particularly liked the winning Oscar movie.
    Youc an certainly call me arrogant and vain and ambitious all day long… but to say I follow the crowd is simply ignorant.
    I have a lot more good calls than bad calls in this Oscar silliness. But i am also learning and getting better each year, I think.
    Still, it is only about a third of my output, even during Oscar season. And it is less than 5% of my output the other 7 months each year.

  72. David Poland says:

    And… life has taught me that I cannot demand respect or leadership. It must be commanded by my actions.
    And if those actions come up short, so be it. I can tell you by experience, leadership has its downsides.
    It would be a whole lot easier to work for someone else. Of course, it would also be a whole lot less fun.

  73. henryhill says:

    I was going to post something saying about how arrogant and immature David is… but then I realized I already posted that a couple of weeks ago, and could probably post that again a couple of weeks from now. This site used to be excellent… now it’s like a bad SNL skit come to life. David, you need to get some self-realization and come down off your high horse.
    I’m glad the LA Times sent you a stock email about Goldstein’s piece asking you to comment on it for many reasons:
    1. They called you a ‘blogger’
    2. They clearly don’t think of you as any better than any other ‘blogger’ on the internet. You are lumped in with the rest of the lot.
    It should prove to you that you aren’t this all knowing person, which despite your protests, you think you are.
    I love your site when you are giving me movie news, and even reviewing movies. I hate it when you talk about this shit. It’s ridiculous. It’s childish. It’s irrelevant. There is nothing more pathetic than you picking a fight with Patrick Goldstein, who picked a fight with you. And your readers could not care less.

  74. Bruce says:

    Get your facts straight before you try and bash Dave Poland.
    And that is what prognosticators do. They predict award winners! How hard is that to understand?
    So Dave got burnt with Phantom of the Opera. Not like he runs and hides from it. He also touted Million Dollar Baby before anyone else.
    And I don’t think DP cares one bit about being as you say a “leader”. He gets his views out there. He’s got a great site with links to hundreds of other stories. Seems to me like some of you are just jealous. And the sad part is, it shows.

  75. Angelus21 says:

    It’s funny how so completely off some of you are about Dave and his intentions. You obviously don’t read his articles or his insights because you are so way off base.
    That is what you get when you’re bitter. Also leads to uninteresting arguments like Henry Hill. Who supposedly hates Dave but yet keeps coming back here to see what he has to say.
    Interesting stuff.

  76. David Poland says:

    Wow, henryhill… you have posted 10 times to the blog and 7 of them are attacks on me.
    I am always amused by people who tell me what everyone else wants to read, see, think about.
    I am happy when people like me and what I do and less so when they don’t, but if I ever started working on the basis of your opinion or anyone else’s, I would be lost. I have plenty of room for growth, but growth comes from me having experiences, not from me worrying about your complaining and pronouncements (which I would bet dollars to donuts has some personal basis that your anonymity keeps me from knowing about). Sorry.

  77. Blackcloud says:

    “It should prove to you that you aren’t this all knowing person, which despite your protests, you think you are.”
    Dave, you’re omniscient?! Why haven’t you told us this before?

  78. Sanchez says:

    Henry Hill is one bitter, mean guy. But that’s what you get when you have no friends and you have a life living in the shadows. Never rat your friends.

  79. Crow T Robot says:

    This is hilarious.
    The search for Oscar gold has turned intelligent, levelheaded journalists (both old school and new) into the cast of Treasure of Sierra Madre.
    “Screeners? We don’t need no stinking screeners!”

  80. PandaBear says:

    Obviously, these other writers think DP is the King right now or they wouldn’t be trying to attack him. How right they are. Don’t take any of their crap, Dave.

  81. Josh says:

    I’m sorry but….. Spanglish?!?!?

  82. Mark Ziegler says:

    All a guy like Henry Hill does is criticize. It is easy to criticize when you can’t do.

  83. jeffmcm says:

    Hmmm. Went away for a few hours. Good to see that absolutely nothing has changed and that everyone is basically repeating themselves. Carry on.

  84. Scooba Steve says:

    Henry, Premidator, I’Claudius and Jeffmcm seem like okay guys. They likely come here expecting to talk movies. Can’t blame them for being slightly turned off by topics that have little to do with the subject.
    But aren’t we learning a lot about the minds of journalists?

  85. jeffmcm says:

    More perhaps than we want to know.

  86. henryhill says:

    Hey Mark… So by your rationale, David shouldn’t post anything critical about movies because he can’t make them. And you shouldn’t either since I seriously doubt you are a filmmaker posting on some silly blog.
    Your comment is absolutely embarassingly ridiculous.
    It’s true. When you post shit like this… or act like you are some all knowing “blogger”, I have a personal vendetta against you. I will not bow down to you like so many other posters on this blog who think you are the inventor of sliced bread.
    Like I said though, I like your reviews and your site news. Just wish you could stop your flaming out of control ego for one second and not post every little ridiculous thing that gets you mad. Everytime you do this, you lose all credibility and turn into what you so desperately don’t want to be: Just another blogger.

  87. Mark Ziegler says:

    Henry if you actually read my comment you wouldn’t even have to say something so dumb like that. Your hatred for Dave is getting old. You have been doing it for weeks. Why come here to criticize him everyday over nothing? Shows your true colors.

  88. Josh says:

    If DP was “just another blogger” as you say, than why do you insist on visiting the site five times a day and posting as much as you do? He seems to be numero uno on your list, Mr Hill. But what I don’t comprehend is your apparent bitterness at him. Did you lose a job because of him? He steal your girlfriend? What’s wrong guy?

  89. Mark Ziegler says:

    He only comes here to take shots at Dave. Hill is a real class act. Why don’t you start your own site up, Hill? Show us all how it’s done. But that’s too easy right?

  90. Sanchez says:

    Scooba Steve,
    There is being turned off and there is being snarky, condescending and just flat out rude. Huge difference. It ain’t hard to skip a thread if you’re not into it. Because it ain’t your blog. Sorry fellas. I know I for one didn’t sign up for the “jeffmcm” blog (thank God). And I know for sure I didn’t log on to the Henry Hill bitterfest.

  91. jeffmcm says:

    Then the obvious question is…why keep posting on the page?
    Sanchez…I love you. Like a puppy.

  92. joefitz84 says:

    Again, I don’t come for the jeffmcm show. Thank God.

  93. joefitz84 says:

    Because I’d have to question my sanity.

  94. Josh says:

    If you guys hate the topics I just don’t see why you come back here and go thru all that pain. Seems pretty dumb to me but what do I know?
    Jeff’s site? Isn’t that called the Daily Kos?

  95. joefitz84 says:

    The jeffmcm show. Come one. Come all. Bring Patty Goldstein so he can try to rain on the parade.

  96. jeffmcm says:

    You make the Daily Kos sound like something…AWESOME.

  97. joefitz84 says:

    Oh stop jeff. We all know you go there 10 times a day. None of that now.

  98. PandaBear says:

    We’re getting away from the main point here. That the Old Media is starting to really become terrified of the the New Media. And they will do everything they can in order to maintain what little power they have left.
    So, you people can yell at Dave for being a leader or having think skin, or call him names but that is beside the point. The point is that Dave is leading the charge of the New Media against the Old Media machine and the Pat Goldsteins out there.

  99. jeffmcm says:

    Yeah, so what. I bet you watch Fox News.
    Let me know if you want to actually discuss anything, or we can just keep volleying insults. Seriously. See any movies over thanksgiving, Joe?

  100. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    I liked it when Henry said he hated topics such as this, but is almost solely responsible that people are still discussing it.
    You go Henry!

  101. bicycle bob says:

    why couldn’t jimmy put two into henry? traitor.

  102. Terence D says:

    Jeffmcm, there are 30 other threads specifically discussing movies right now. Why aren’t you on there discussing them? Seems like you just like a good argument.
    I’ve been reading Patrick Goldstein for quite some time but him trying to rip Dave for his Phantom of the Opera call strikes me as petty. Since Dave did take a stab at a prediction and came out wrong and had the quickness to actually call himself out on it right away, I give him a pass. It’s not like he defended that call to the death which would have been suicide.

  103. LesterFreed says:

    Never met a more ungrateful group of jerks in my life. Disagree with Poland all you want to. But don’t even bash him over the forum and the chance to express your views. No one else lets free expression go like him. And the Movie City News? Revolutionary on the web. It’s the leader now and will be in the future. It’s just an infant.

  104. BluStealer says:

    I don’t even know who this Patrick Goldstein is but I don’t like him. So there.

  105. MicheBel says:

    David, I love you. So thoughtful, so succinct. You just let him have it.
    Your refreshing honesty is one of the reasons I have come back to your column and your website year after year after year. I read you 100 times more than I read the LA Times these days. And I increasingly get all my movie news on the Web.
    It is truly sad that these ink-stained wretches will not get the force of the revolution until it has truly left them behind.
    BRAVO to you! And Movie City News! Long may it live and prosper.
    –Michelle Belaskie

  106. I love your blog’s information and all and i like the theme including the visuals but probably it needs a new look, its been quite some time, what do you guys think?

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