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
So no long relationships with many people of varied RELIGIOUS backgrounds?
😉
So how old *are* you, Poland?
After seeing “Crash” this weekend, I looked up your review and Mr. Poland it is clear you are a special brand of racist. And your snide notes on “Charlie’s Angels” show that you are clearly a sexist swine. Your defense of “Undercover Brother” and “Soul Plane” reveals a blatant disregard for the white man (uh, please disregard above “Crash” remarks), while your dislike of “Mr. And Mrs Smith” reeks of an anti-monogamy agenda.
Simply put: Go back to Africa you Mormon freak.
I’m guessing that ‘LD’ has not actually seen BBM him or herself.
Reading DP’s response, suddenly I pictured a variation of the “Brokeback Mountain” poster with Poland and Ginnifer Goodwin. Don’t know why.
was rachel mcadams in that poster too james leer???
Because Dave isn’t gay he can’t understand this movie? He’s not a hobbit and he reviewed Lord of the Rings without incident.
Not a hobbit?… Since when?
Didn’t you know? “Open-minded” means, “those who think as I do.”
“Tolerance” means “everything that I deem it permissible to tolerate.”
“Conservative” means “will go to any lengths to protect my own agenda” and “liberal” means “will permit anyone to protect their own agenda.”
Orwell would be proud.
Did Dave say anything more about the movie?
I have always felt that not being an Animated-American has prevented me from fully empathizing with my toon compatriots. I have never fallen off a cliff nor had an anvil dropped on my head.
I think the bigger question is why David is such a smug jerkoff when it comes to anyone disagreeing with him.
Give him a break, it looks like he’s feeling defensive on this one.
No disrespect, DP.
A smug jerkoff? You really need to stop looking over your shoulder Henry. You need to relax.
If you don’t think this movie is good, apparently, you don’t understand love. Sounds logical.
To me, the question isn’t so much “Why didn’t DP like ‘Brokeback Mountain’?” (some people simply won’t) as it is “Why is he letting that get in the way of his Oscar prognosticating?” BBM is assumed nearly everywhere but here to be a nominations lock for at least Picture, Director, Actor, and Adapted Screenplay. DP only lists Ledger as a likely nominee, and even then barely.
I know that DP is a big “Walk the Line” fan, but journeyman director James Mangold ranked four places over Academy darling Ang Lee (for what is being reviewed in some quarters as his best film)? A screenplay with two Pulitzer Prize-winning authors that Poland expects not to be nominated? I think this is an instance of DP’s personal feelings on the film affecting his ability to read the tea leaves, and it mars what is otherwise a pretty thorough Oscar chart.
It is obvious that Poland has taken a lot of flak for his review, more than for a lot of other titles.
Anyway, since when have great reviews or Pulitzer prizes meant anything to Oscar voters? It’ll be a feat for this movie to appeal to the bluehairs in the Academy, it seems to me (without seeing it, obviously).
The homosexual groups out there are going to flock to this and claim it as their own and make it a statement. So expect to be hearing from many more “outraged” fans. Of course, many who are writing DP haven’t even seen the movie but thats irrelevant, right?
How is Ang Lee an Academy darling? I didn’t see The Hulk winning any awards.
So it’s sort of like The Passion then joe? Just replace “homosexual” with “Christian.”
If there is one person who hates The Passion and Christians its you, stella. I got to hand it to you. You make sure it gets into every topic and every thread. Congrats.
You must prove you know what love is before you review any romance movie ever again.
That’s an order.
Lester, Ange Lee’s got a Best Director nom and two Best Picture noms to his credit. But I’m sure you knew that.
Yeah Ang Lee won and Oscar for Best Foreign Film. He lost Best Director. So, Academy Darling my eye.
If this movie made Jeff Wells tear up, I’m sure it’ll get the most of us. I’m one that thought Million Dollar Baby was WAY overrated after reading about it months before I saw it. But I’m very interested in this one.
If he was a darling, then he would have got one for The Hulk. A much more enjoyable movie than The Ice Storm or Sense and Sensibility.
But yes, I agree with your premise in your first statement. I would rank him hire than a James Mangold based on rep.
I can only imagine all the emails Dave receives all day long. Post them more often if they’re this funny.
Who taught you people grammar!!!? 😉
I too would hire Ang before Mangold…
^ No one?
“Me fail English? That’s unpossible.”
I remember when I was in film school we were explicitly told by our profs to start critiquing films differently. To not look at traditional qualities such as diretion, acting or cinematography to judge quality but instead to see if the film was ‘correct’ in its ideology with regards to race, gender and sexual orientation. We went through the entire history of film and crapped on Ford and Hawkes while lapping up Kennenth Anger and Maya Deren.
I fought this view tooth and nail. Nevertheless, this new way of thinking seems to have seeped into the mainstream culture but people don’t realize it. Now people judge films for ideology as opposed to quality. However they think they are still judging quality.
Now, not everyone does this…but a great deal of critics do.
I don’t think people up-rank from junk to great but they always skew from good to great or great to classic if a films politics are right (or left so to speak).
I have no doubt Brokeback Mountain is a competantly made film. They are all good actors and Lee is a good (but not great) director. But if it is good, it will be called great because of its subject matter. Just like The Hours.
The same with Syriana. Stephen Gaghan’s first film Abandon was junk. Now I’ll be expected to believe he pulled out a four star classic. It’s possible, but even if he didn’t we’ll be told he did…because of the politics.
This is part of the new politicization of the film industry that quite frankly, pisses me off. People have taken something I’ve loved and turned it into a referendum on one’s political views.
Malcolm X came out when I was in school and if you weren’t seeing it opening night you were automatically suspected of being a racist. Why?
I let these words slide off me now like water off a ducks back. Words like racist, misogynist, and homophobe are more often than not used to censor and silence in our culture. Sad, because just like the little boy who cried wolf, more often than not when they are used now, decent people do not give the benefit of the doubt.
If the only way one can defend BM is to accuse its detractors of being a homophobe…it really must be mediocre.
Isn’t there a flipside to that coin? It seems like you went from one end of the spectrum to the other. If I happen to love Syriana and Brokeback Mountain, is it only because of the politics? If one hates The Passion, is it only because they hate Jesus and Christians? If only there were less racists, homophobes and misogynists in our culture. You make it seem like none of them exist, and that people only use those words for the wrong reasons. Blanket statements used to argue against blanket statements.
I don’t know that my response was smug. Certainly not in the same smug area code as the e-mail. And I put it on here to allow for a discussion… not sure that makes me hypersensitive.
As for BBM, the fact that everyone else put it high on their lists in September doesn’t mean much to me. Right now, the only opinion in the world is that of media. Our opinions of the films do not define the Oscar race. Sorry. It’s as true for me as anyone.
There are always movies I love low or off my lists. There are always movies I don’t like that are high on my lists. Ironically, I am still getting more shit for Phantom than anything else when I was not particularly a fan of the film.
As you will see on Thursday, Brokeback is gaining momentum for me… but based on the slow evolution of the season. There are years where it would truly have no chance. If other titles fall, it could move up. Look for further explanation in future columns. (As I will look for “you” positng that I have finally figured something out… not the case.) I have always maintained that critics groups could make BBM happen, but I don’t forsee a Sideways-like sweep.
Just as Cold Mountain made room for other films and Million Dollar Baby shut the door on others… shit happens. Guessing to try to beat the odds is not what I do. I try to take the tempurature each week as the season progresses. So I am often wrong. And I am often right.
But in the end, the point of this post is still that many people show great intolerance while claiming others are intolerant… not to mention great smugness when accusing others of being smug.
Your professors must not have known much about Howard Hawks, who routinely gets praised by liberal film critics, all the way up to the socialist Robin Wood.
But are things now really that different from the past? Even Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was criticized in its day for being unpatriotic and overly critical of the government.
(The Hours was crappy.)
That was responding to Nicol, not DP.
OK, Dave, I did you a favor and looked up love, sexuality, and gender. Didn’t see anything about homos, so no help there.
Stella,
I assume you were responding to my post. Thanks for the comment. Context my friend, context.
For example. I remember David Ansen’s review of The Passion. He did not like it. But he was moderate and rational in his language. He acknowledged it was well made but just not for him. Perfectly acceptable.
Geoff Pevere called it violent exploitative pornography then went on to give Kill Bill 4 stars the following week. The readers smelt what was up and called him on it. Good for them.
I have not seen Brokeback Mountain. I suspect that given the talent involved there will be a base of quality that is undeniable. What I argue is that everything is in increments. If a review said it was absolute junk with no merit than maybe they might be hating it for reasons of distaste for the subject matter.
But most, given my experience will incrementally upgrade based on its ‘correct’ material.
There is no black and white…just increments.
I don’t argue there are no racists, misogynists or homophobes in our culture. Just that these words are more often than not used to silence.
Dave’s email is a testament to that. Based on everything I have read, Dave P is no homophobe.
Fair enough Nicol. I see where you’re coming from, and for the most part I agree. I always enjoy seeing what you have to say. Gets my brain working.
“But most, given my experience will incrementally upgrade based on its ‘correct’ material.”
Uh huh. It’s called “Crash” ladies and gentleman, and I guarantee you it will embarass critics in ten years the way “Dances With Wolves” does now.
Though Costner’s film at least plays fair with its audience.
Agreed. The glowing reviews for Crash were ridiculous.
JeffMCM,
Thanks for the comment. You ask if things are really different then the past.
I do think they are. I think this new group of ‘tolerant’ types are really rather vicious. Nevertheless, saying things are no different than the past is no reason to excuse them. It doesn’t serve cinema…it doesn’t serve art.
Honestly David, I couldn’t care less whether or not Brokeback Mountain was a good movie or not. And I don’t care if you didn’t like it. And I don’t care if the person who sent you the original email was being overly sensitive and completely knee-jerk in their reaction to you as to why you didn’t like the movie (sidebar: one of the main reasons I think Brokeback Mountain has a tremendous chance this year is because of the fact that a large majority of voters will feel ‘obligated’ to nominate it because of its topic)…
All I commented on was your blatent, childish and pathetic smug attitude. It permiates through your sites and it makes me want to read you stuff less and less. It also makes me take you less seriously.
You have some great opinions, but you think you’re so god-damned great that it’s a complete turn off. I’m sure all your fans who post here will burn me up.. and I don’t mean to take away from the good conversation going on about Brokeback Mountain, but since you referenced my post about your smugness, I felt I needed to respond.
If you really think Dave is a smug jerk than why do you come to his site, read his reviews, and take the time out of your life to comment?
Seems like a waste of time if you really feel that way.
This is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. A critic is a homophobe because he didn’t think a gay film was great and doesn’t list it high on the Oscar chart. What??
From reading DP on a daily basis, hes a journo and a pretty good critic of films and the industry. I don’t think he’d screw over his hard fought rep just because he didn’t like gays. Seems really out there.
David Poland doesn’t care about queer people.
Considering Poland is good friends with the Wachowski Bros, one of whom either went under or nearly went under a sex change operation (I’m still not sure, though, it’s totally none of my business), I don’t think you can say he doesn’t care about queer people.
I don’t like Top Gun, that doesn’t mean I hate gays. (Hay yo!)
Is that true about Poland having a personal relationship with the Wachowskis? That would explain why he never publicly reviewed Matrix Revolutions.
Is anyone going to call out mysteryperfecta on his nasty ‘homos’ comment?
When I read his responses to Matrix Reloaded…it sounded like a friend defending his buds from ridicule. I mean that in a complimentary. I know he’s supposed to be objective when watching movies…but I defend my friends if they deserve it.
No doubt, it definitely felt like the kind of comments he would have over beers pondering the deep meaning of the movie. But usually Poland is scrupulous about revealing his potential conflicts of interest…why wouldn’t he mention his relationship, if it existed?
Is it worth it to call out mysteryperfecta, jeffmcm? The comment seemed clearly intended to get a rise out of people. Better to ignore it.
Also Josh, I’ve read the whole thread and I don’t see anyone who called DP a homophobe. Certainly not me, if that’s who you were alluding to when I criticized its low placement on DP’s Oscar charts.
And as far as the other shit goes, DP is only smug when eviscerating other entertainment journalists. Hopefully he’ll learn soon that’s akin to shooting fish in a barrel.
I don’t know how to respond, HH. I have to have an ego to do what I do. Somedays, I feel “so god-damned great” and some days I feel like a god-damned fool.
I do think it’s been a major accomplishment to do a daily column for more than eight years. I am very proud of MCN, which I have built in tandem with the endless efforts of my partner in the venture, Laura, and the writers and everyone else who has helped build the site.
I am not dumb. And even though I piss a lot of people off for a lot of different reasons, I think I try and try hard to be fair. There are virtually no moments in my public life that embarrass me on the level of intent, though I have certain had my share of egg on my face in practice.
I don’t know how else to do this, HH. Maybe you can offer some insight. Because you can accuse me of what you like, but I have to actually do it every day… week in, week out, year after year. So if you want change, offer solutions, not invective. That’s all I have ever asked of anyone.
Finally, though I would like to count myself as a friend of The Wachowskis, I am not. I have met them, but I do know really know them.
As I have explained a million times about BBM, I don’t care if its gay, I care that it is about making the choice not to act for 20 years. That is of great interest and emotional weight to some, but not to me.
And as far as writing about other journos, James, my rule is simple. If we are to feel free to slam the industry, we must be equally willing to slam one another… not being psuedonyms either.
I don’t tend to call out the weak sisters. I fight people my size and bigger. And I praise freely as well. The idea that not commenting on shitty pieces by highly esteemed outlets is the right thing to do makes zero sense to me. If the New York Times writes misleading things, it will still be repeated as a fact. And that will not change because of respectful silence.
And the fact that someone took a month to write a piece that is full of errors and omissions does not call for me to respect the long effort. Quite the opposite. Major papers writing press releases for studios is just a step on the slippery slope. Why does it matter so much when Judith Miller does it (and that story was overblown because of the politics of the NYT and overblown self-importance) and not when it shows up in film industry coverage?
People like Henry that use smears like “smug jerkoff” to make his or her case without backing up that claim are, to me, just jealous. On a deeper note I think a lot of critics are down deep jealous of the art they critique because they deep down wish they could do it.
To add to your comment, Josh: or they’re insecure because they don’t think film is ‘serious’ or ‘important’ compared with literary or fine art critics.
If you disagree with a critic about a movie(like this guy and Brokeback) how about writing why instead of calling him a gay basher?
I don’t think everyone who doesn’t like what I do is jealous. I am certainly capable of smug.
But namecalling is always easier than offering a workable alternative.
Wow, I actually have to thank David for defending me from the incredibly stupid comment from “Josh”…
As for solutions, I don’t think there are any workable solutions to being smug. That’s your personality. People, no matter how hard they try, can’t change their personality traits. I think over the past year, more often than not, you have become very smug, in that you don’t seem to do anything but shoot different opinions down. And then, even after you are proved wrong, you don’t seem willing to ever admit it without a caveat (case in point: Phantom, the Matrix sequels, Kill Bill, Win a Date With Tad Hamilton, the career of Ginnifer Goodwin)…
You aren’t always wrong, and you are right more often than not. But the mark of a truly smart writer is being able to admit when they were wrong without any caveat. It makes it so much easier for the readers to take the inevitable gloating, which is better for everyone.
The reason I got so incensed by this in the first place was the flippant way in which you responded to the emailer. Rather than dress them down with fact and accuracy, you simply resorted to smugness. Just because the emailer is an ass, doesn’t mean you have to be in your response.
I don’t think you can change the way you write, and the reason I keep reading this site, MCN and The Hot Button is because despite all the clutter, I get more info here than at the pitiful Aint It Cool and other sites.
But just because I have a negative view of David sometimes, doesn’t mean I’m jealous. It just means I expect better.
Why is my name in quotes Mr. Hill????
Just curious.
And let’s not bash the career of Ginnifer Goodwin just yet. Not like she has been A list and failed. You seem to be a little short when you try to come up with examples against Mr. Poland.
You should be more upset that he called you stupid than that he put your name in quotes.
The original e-mailer needs to settle down. It’s not worth getting antsy over.
But, I was one of the people that had issue with Brokeback Mountain’s low ranking. Or, not the low-ranked nature of it, but that fact that Ang Lee and the film were listed below just films as CAPOTE (for Picture AND DIRECTOR wtf?!?!).
I still want to know why Dave thinks Pride & Prejudice is considered mediocre (which it is not), and why he thinks the Academy is prejudiced against mediocre films (which they DEFINITELY are not. Hello. Halle Berry won for MONSTER’S BALL). That’s still one of the oddest calls I’ve read this season.
A. Only a fool responds to irrational people with facts they aren’t interested in.
B. Proved wrong about Phantom, the Matrix sequels, Kill Bill, Win a Date With Tad Hamilton, the career of Ginnifer Goodwin?
Phantom died… never said otherwise.. so did TH. Kill Bill sucks. Matrix Reloaded is brilliant. And Ginnifer Goodwin will be a major actor for the next 20 years.
But regardless… proof? Of your opinion? Of my opinion?
Opinions are opinions.
“Matrix Reloaded is brilliant.”
Not sure I’d go that far, but it is far and away the best of the three movies. Far and away.
I think HenryHill is picking up on Poland’s very condescending tone as of late toward the Envelope website. I can totally see that. Journalists fighting with journalists is not why we click on everyday. If you have to get a rotten piece off your chest, tell it to your dog. There’s really no point in you publishing your opinion of an opinion, even when it’s about something you deem “wrong.” Every now and then you blog your complaint… in effect asking us our opinion about your opinion of an opinion.
Just keep writing about what you love… the impossible science of showbiz. Everything else is beside the point.
It’s really hard for me to take an actress seriously when her name is “Ginnifer”. Come on, parents, there are plenty of non-made-up names out there for you to choose from.
Anyway, I think the important thing in talking about movies is that we don’t dismiss each other’s opinions unduly. I understand why Poland loves Matrix Reloaded. I sort of understand why he doesn’t like Kill Bill. I certainly hope he understands why others hold the opposite opinions.
Unfortunately until Brokeback is released it’s hard to have any meaningful discussion about it.
lol
Matrix Reloaded is to Poland what WMDs are to Bush.
We went in. There was nothing there. It’s great to see those people free now… but it was not the reason we went in.
🙂
I think “Capote” mayyyyyyybe has a shot at Best Picture. But that is a very, very tenuous maybe, and I think the Academy is more inclined to see a Best Actor nod/win for Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the essentially the same thing as a Best Picture nom (since PSH *is* the movie).
But Best Director? No. This is Bennett Miller’s first narrative feature and it didn’t demonstrate enough of a unique directorial sensibility for voters to even know his name yet. He’s definitely more of a longshot than Ang Lee, and Miller would have to fight for his director slot against Cronenberg and Meirelles (two other directors whose films weren’t *quite* big enough and came out too early to make them sure things).
I love the “Viewer Mail” segment on the Hotblog! 🙂
David and I have disagreed on many things, and I’m sure we’ll continue to disagree about things in the future, but I can say without hesitation that calling David a homophobe is ridiculous.
And I think he was equally clear in this thread of replies that he separates his critical reaction or personal reaction to a film from his Oscar commentary. Handicapping the Oscars has nothing… absolutely 100% nothing… to do with someone’s personal taste. At least not if their commentary’s going to be worth anything. Good Oscar commentary is about the season and momentum and, as he said, taking the temperature. It’s the whole reason I don’t write about the Oscars. That stuff makes me mental. It’s six months out of the year at this point. But David’s a total nerd for it. He just loves the fucking horse race.
David,
Opinions ARE opinions. That’s true and that means you can’t have it both ways. Even in your post back to me, the way you wrote it, it’s literally like you think you are better than me. Why is that??? My opinion is that Kill Bill is amazing and Ginnifer Goodwin is no more than a C-List character actress.
I called you out on mistakes in your opinions, that have been tortureously gone over time and again. And you prove me right with your response back. Acting like you are the “final word” on anything.
Your problem is that you state opinions like they are fact. The Matrix Reloaded is brilliant! As if to say because I and 75 percent of the public thinks that movie is complete garbage, we’re completely wrong.
And you mention irrational people… I really hope you aren’t calling me irrational. Or a fool for that mattter. Because that would only reinforce your complete and utter contempt for anyone who disagrees with you.
It’s so blatently obvious.
Basically you and everyone else here (myself included) can hide behind the principle of “I can never be wrong because it’s only my opinion. Everyone’s got one.”
The problem is, we’re your readers, we are supposed to have that attitude. You are supposed to be above that feeling. Unfortunately you aren’t, and it makes you seem like a complete smug jerkoff, which is what I gladly called you in the original posting.
really henry. is there need for novels explaining how much u think dave is smug? no one cares. u got a bug up ur ass about poland. thats great. don’t u have hit squads to avoid?
Calling Dave a homophobe?
I’d laugh if it wasn’t so far out there. How can he be a journalist in Hollywood if he was? The Gay Mafia would dig him six feet under with Henry Hill.
Did I miss the part where Dave was called a homophobe?
Expect to hear that more often against people who don’t think this movie is the best of the year. It’s already started with emails like this. Tip of the iceberg.
Jeff and James-
Perhaps people didn’t respond to my “homos” comment because it was clearly intended to mock LD’s email. I assumed that taking LD’s “look up x, y, and z” literally (which misconstues his/her intent) would hint at sarcasm. In other words, I was playing dumb. Too subtle, I guess.
I need to see all Dave’s reviews of The Birdcage, Love, Valour and Compassion, and Jeffrey before I call him a homo hater.
Apologies, MP.
Jeff apologizing is more shocking than DP being called a homophobe.
Can Brokeback Mountain actually open and people see it before they launch passionate defenses of it?
Lester, I’d be offended about your taking a cheap off-topic at my son, but you’re obviously so ignorant that you couldn’t even grok that my post was to defend David, not to attack him. Nice reading comprehension, dude.
Or passionate offenses of it, Josh? Though I agree that it really needs to open before this discussion can move up a notch. Am I the only other one who’s seen it?
I plan on naming my kids Chunk, Mouth, Data and Sloth. But come on, how could anybody intelligent really give a crap?
I removed Lester’s comment. I don’t think I’ve done that before, but it was so off point and so much a personal attack, that I felt it was the right thing to do. I hope it doesn’t anger you, Lester, but my reaction was instinctive and, I think, reasonable.
McWeeny, you better get used to your son getting made fun of because of his name. I’ve seen you cry about everything on your AICN site but crying isn’t going to help him. Don’t get offended. Just a warning.
I really had no comment on you defending or making fun of David Poland. My comment was based on your child’s name and Nic Cage’s son’s name and how irresponsible it is to treat a kid like a pet. Might not be the topic here but it is more interesting to me than some gay cowboy film and gays beefs with critics who don’t like it.
You can remove what I said, David, but that’s just my point. Nothing malicious about it. Just how I feel. I didn’t even think it was the real guy so relax a little real Mr. McWeeny. You’re going to hear it from more people than me about the kids name in the future.
You name a kid that name and you better have a strong backbone.
As for you, HenryHill… I don’t think there is a good answer I can come up with for you. I can be verbally furious, but I don’t think I know of anyone offering opinions that they think are wrong.
Maybe I believe that I am right when I hold an opinion more that others do. Maybe that comes through in my writing.
And if you are a liar – which I have no reason to think you are – than I am better than you. And if you are thoughtless in attacking others – I am better than you. If you throw around made up statistics about the public’s reaction to a movie because 75% of your friends feel that way… yeah, I’m better than that.
I know what I know. I know what I don’t know. And I know when I am living in the massive gray area in between. I am much more circumspect in my writing when I am in the gray. And when I offer opinion, I think it is pretty clearly opinion. And when I offer what I think borders on a fact, I show the work, in the form of statistics or whatever… real stats, not ones I made up.
Is it a fact that further shortened windows will end uo reducing overall revenue in the film business by 40%? No. But the only evidence I have ever seen to the contrary is rich men thinking that people will pay $50 or $100 to watch Spider-Man at home on opening night in massive numbers… and people who don’t understand new technology embracing it anyway.
I’m not making the argument because I love the big screen or some other purely subjective reason. I make the argument on the level that the industry is dealing with it… it’s all about the cash.
If my opinion of Matrix Reloaded could be changed by you or anyone else (as opposed to the remote possibility that I would someday reconsider for aesthetic reasons), I would be a moron… yes, I am better than that.
If popularity was the key, The Fantastic Four would be great. In fact, Hank, if popularity was the key, Matrix Reloaded and its $737 million would be one of the best 20 movies ever.
Anyway… I love that you think journalists are supposed to be above their arrogance. When you find one who is, let me know.
Finally, “irrational people” refers to people who want to fight about what they think I said and not what I said. They are not neccessarily always irrational. It often is generated by a particular passion. And as often as not, their words are an effort to inflict pain on me (or whomever) in equal or greater measure to the pain my words inflicted.
“You couldn’t me more wrong, you jerk!” Not irrational. Mean, but not irrational.
“You don’t deserve to be ont he internet. You don’t understand what it is to love or feel or think about others.” Irrational. (Unless it is an ex of mine… still wrong, but more understandable.)
Ain’t It Cool News. Can dish it out.
Now I want to see what happens when someone reviews an early cut of Mcweenys new movie and bashes it and comments on things not done yet. Going to be real interesting to see the reactions when that eventually happens.
Makes me glad for the internet revolution in terms of news.
Can you guys just do me a favor and let Drew post here without getting his son’s name beaten on?
He posts with his real name – which I respect greatly – and you all know more about him than he knows about you (I assume) and it just isn’t fair pool… not that personal family stuff is anything I want to be a subject around here.
If you are really interested in this, Lester, take it private. I don’t think Drew is hard to find.
I think it’s great that Drew comes here. It proves that this blog actually has industry appeal. Or who knows, maybe Josh is actually Scott Rudin.
Good to see Poland and McWeeney buddy up to fight these posting assholes. And maybe even a little romantic. I’ll start writing my treatment for “Blogback Mountain” pronto.
(I keed! I keed!)
Drew is one of the most knowledgable, most evenhanded film writers on the internet…where does the hate come from? I’m sure the guy is smart enough to expect an internet backlash when he gets his first produced credit — but I don’t expect that backlash to be anything smarter than the whole “first!” mentality of “You’ve been making fun of other people’s movies…so now I’m making fun of YOUR movie! See what I did there?”
Crow, I would so be first in line for “Blogback Mountain.” But you know that shit would star DP and Jeff Wells.
I can’t stand AICN. I’ll rephrase. Don’t like it anymore. Used to go daily. Now they never have any good editorials and don’t have any scoops. They have others things going on. But they should hire people because it is a brand name and could continue without their direct involvement.
Actually 100 percent of people I know (not even friends) think the Matrix sequels were complete and utter shit. Critics liked Reloaded better (75 percent reviewed it positively according to Rotten Tomatoes)… but they HATED Revolutions (36 percent gave that a positive review).
But honestly, fuck the Matrix sequels. They are completely irrelevant here in 2005. I only brought them up as examples of your hubris in the face of overwhelming dissention.
It’s not like I want you to roll over and play dead when the majority of movie-goers disagrees with you, it’s that I just hate when you treat their opinions like dog shit.
You do use statistics certainly… but like everyone you cloud the numbers to reach the facts that you want reached. Case in point: Jarhead.
I didn’t see one person on the internet, not even yourself, clock Jarhead in a 27 million dollars on it’s opening weekend. In this year of shitty movies and box office, that number… for a split reviewed, R-Rated, war film, with minimal stars, is absolutely amazing.
You wrote it off with some snide remark: “Thanks Kayne West!” (not verbatim)
This weekend, after the major opening, it dropped some 55 percent. And you said, quote:
Jarhead fell 55%, which is not good for a prestige picture.
Now, certainly, if Jarhead had opened to the 13-18 million that most expected it to open with, a 55 percent drop off would’ve spelled absolute doom. But a 55 percent drop off from 27 million isn’t nearly as bad… especially since it seemed that most of the audience surprisingly came out on opening night. Jarhead seems like the anti-prestige picture… and though I doubt it’ll be nominated for anything come Oscar time… it will probably end up with something along the lines of 65-70 million domestic, putting it in the same company as Ray was last year.
My point is that you hated Jarhead, and because of that, slighted it in your postings. Rather than say that it had a great opening and it still isn’t in dire circumstances because it dropped 55 percent… you just write it off entirely.
A better person would admit the success while at the same time trumpting the dislike you had for the movie.
This is wildly off point probably, but it all equals what my problem is with a lot of your writings. I’ve learned to sort through the bias and bullshit and the slatning, but you just rubbed me so the wrong way with this blog post that I had to respond. I could not help myself. Maybe that’s the point and I’m playing into your hands. Maybe it’s not at all, and I’m giving you way too much credit. Who knows.
Journalists don’t have to be above their arrogance, but they also don’t have to have contempt for the people who disagree with them.
Dragging this back to Brokeback, an interesting comment by the producer and head of Focus Features in Newsweek:
“If you have a problem with the subject matter, that’s your problem, not mine,” Schamus says. “It would be great if you got over your problem, but I’m not sitting here trying to figure out how to help you with it.” In an early meeting, Schamus told Lee that, from a marketing standpoint, they were making this film for one core audience. “Yes, of course,” Lee said. “The gay audience.” No, Schamus said. “Women.””
(I remember Newsweek being shocked — shocked, I tell you! — when it reported a couple of years ago that more than half the audience for Showtime’s Queer as Folk was straight women.)
Saturday – “Jarhead is opening stronger than expected, starting with just over $10 million on the way to what is probably a $27 million weekend. Universal marketing did its job. Now, we
“It’s about rabid positions poorly defended.”
And it’s about my own rabid response, no question.
Two quick points.
One, my wife would chop off my you know what if I even proposed naming my kid something like Kal-El. Shouldn’t have married a strong women I guess.
Two, I couldn’t pick Kayne West out of lineup of two and no song would influence my movie going anyway.
Three, what will these people writing in about Brokeback Mountain do once the film is released and it receives just average applause? Will they call every critic a homophobe and say they don’t understand love?
Once again I have to point out that the only people who are throwing around the term “homophobe” (unless DP is getting it in emails he hasn’t posted) are you guys. He wasn’t called a homophobe because he didn’t like the movie. He was called ignorant…and yeah, he was called that in a stupid way. Who has posted something claiming DP to be a homophobe? Please cite that before you keep alleging that’s what happened.
DP’s clear on his reasons for not liking the film and they are not homophobic reasons, though some of his quibbles are a bit heterosexist (like his discomfort with the fact that both actors were attractive). I’m sure that in the future, after the movie has actually been seen, some BBM lover will overreact and call DP a homophobe, but I haven’t seen it done yet.
Also, I’d really like to send out some sort of internet meme: It’s “Kanye.” Not “Kayne.” Say it out loud to yourself. Kan-yay.
I can handle “to” instead of “too” or any of that crap, but the Kanye misspelling (especially after his telethon outburst, when out-of-touch bloggers couldn’t stop writing about “Kayne West”) is driving me crazy.
Not to single out any of the posters who might have misspelled it earlier…it doesn’t take away from your points. Hell, I’ve been leeting some unproofed typos into my posts, too. It’s just that this is an irrational grammar impulse on my part.
I actually think henryhill kind of has a point.
I’ve really just discovered MCN and your writings today. You are an unusually articulate and observant writer. I wonder why, though, you felt you needed to post this correspondence on a public blog, presenting it for others to comment on. You replied to this person, made your point and it was pretty clear the kind of person you were dealing with.
But that was all accomplished in private. So you posted it here to basically trumpet your victory and say “look at this idiot I’ve had to deal with — leave your comments and laughter.”
That does come across as utterly pompous and smug. Nick Nunziata does the same thing over at CHUD, in his soapbox column where he glorifies his own razor-sharp putdowns and witty replies. It’s for that reason that that site and its boards have become a protective bubble of flattery, self-congratulation and disdain for others. The danger of having your own platform from which to vent is that it can spill over into egotism.
Sorry, I know this is a very critical introductory post.
It is a danger, shortround.
But this is also a theme of mine, personified in an e-mail exchange. Tolerance seems to extend as far as people’s personal beliefs… wherever they seem to sit on the political/sociological spectrum.
What I find a constant challenge is to look at people’s actions without assuming their unstated motives. It is a great challenge.
I won’t speak to Nick… lest I get smug. I am told that I have taken more than my share of abuse on those boards. But such is the nature of the beast. In the end, I’m still just a guy with some knowledge and some opinions.
I actually think HenryHill is speaking to a different thing… though a kissing cousin to your concern.
Welcome to the sites… and call me on things when you feel it is appropriate. Believe me, I ponder it all.
Also, shortround, if you want to post on Blog Club you have to make your “first kill” man. It’s an initiation we’ve all been through.
Simply go to your nearest multiplex and buy a ticket for “Dreamer: A True Story.” Then promptly tear it up. At first you may be upset because you think destroying the ticket was a waste of ten bucks. But after some meditating (under a tree if you can) you’ll understand that buying the ticket was the point you lost the money. Ponder this tonight and come back to us in the morning, ready and willing to start petty fights Poland when he makes a bad call.
You’re flying solo now Shorty, and remember, NO MORE PARACHUTES!
50 DOLLAR BILL!
Thanks David. For what it’s worth, I’m really liking this one-stop shop for all things movies. My first impression is there’s no bullshit about you.
I’m looking forward to DP’s yearly catalogue of top ten lists from all the other movie critics. It’s fun to find that one obscure guy in Louisiana who’s in complete sync with you — and also see some fella in Chicago with a John Carpenter film at the top spot.
There really is no more comprehensive site for movies than MCN.
I don’t have anything else to say other than, why are people paying out on poor Ginnifer Goodwin? Can we wait until she actually has more than 5 films under her belt.
And, also, I don’t ANYONE would give “Love, Valour, and Compassion” a good review. Gay lover for hater.
Goodwin is playing one of Bill Paxtons three wives in a new HBO series coming out soon. She should get some good buzz from that.
Watching 10 minutes of Love Valour Compassion completely ruined Jason Alexander for me.
There is a little bullshit about me, shortround… but I try to keep it to a minimum.
“The same with Syriana. Stephen Gaghan’s first film Abandon was junk. Now I’ll be expected to believe he pulled out a four star classic. It’s possible, but even if he didn’t we’ll be told he did…because of the politics.”
It’s kind of interesting to note that Steven Soderbergh has final cut on a lot of Section Eight films — he did for Clooney’s films and Todd Haynes’ “Far from Heaven.” I don’t find it hard to believe that he’s got the same policy re: “Syriana.”
And Abandon was not a Section Eight film.
That’s my Gaghan problem. Abandon was god awful and now he directs a big winner?
I don’t buy it.
Have you ever seen The Rookie? Firefox? The Ninth Gate? 1941? Bad movies directed by Academy-award winning directors.
…with a number of (good) films under their belt by the time these films were made. Gaghan’s directed one and it’s a disaster. I don’t see the comparison.
Fair enough, but if he had directed a slew of stinkers we would have a better idea of what to expect from Gaghan. All we can do it wait and see.
Gaghan has directed one movie. It was god awful. Spielberg didn’t start out with 1941. He had real promise and some huge films before that. Terrible comparison there, jeffrey.
James leer, funny you should mention that thing about Kanye/Kayne cause in his EXCELLENT song “Diamonds from Seirra Leone” (which samples Shirley Bassey’s “Diamonds are Forever” has a lyric that says the exact same thing about people still calling him Kayne.
The whole Stephen Gaghan thing is silly. He HAS only made one movie.
It’s like all these people paying out on Ginnifer Goodwin who has a whopping 3 movies out, all of which are supporting roles. Wow. She’ll never amount to anything!
Joefitz, you’re the one trying to jump to conclusions about the guy based on one movie. Take some deep breaths, wait until the movie comes out. Did The Sugarland Express indicate how great Jaws would be? Did Dementia 13 indicate The Godfather?
What in Abandon makes you really think Gaghan can direct good films? That’s the question I have posed and you keep avoiding, Jeffrey.
Joe Fitz, I think JeffMCM stalks you. You should be honored by that.
Well, he did write “Traffic.”
I never saw Abandon. I have no opinion about it, it looked like crap. But Syriana looks like it will be interesting and has a cast who usually make good movies. It could turn out to be bad, but we’ll have to wait and see.
You should really see it before you defend it tooth and nail and get into arguments over it. Right?
I have not said one word in defense of Abandon.
Maybe others should see Syriana before they attack it tooth and nail and get into arguments over it. Right?
You seem to be defending Gaghan tooth and nail. But the irony is you have a good position. Why run from it now? It’s his second picture. He’s an Award winning writer. Maybe he turns it around after picture number one. Talent wins out. Etc. But you should really see his first movie before you jump on his bandwagon. Because that movie was terrible. Makes me doubt he can come through on picture number 2.
Running?
I just think we should all wait until the movie comes out.
OK, I’m curious. Whose first movie as a director was terrible, but second movie was good to great? What do you all think?
Here are some such directors:
James Cameron (Piranha 2)
Bryan Singer (Public Access)
David Fincher (Alien 3)
Oliver Stone (Seizure and The Hand)
I actually like Alien 3 and have never seen Public Access, but those are great examples.
I was going to add Michael Mann, but he made Thief before The Keep, so he can’t be added to the list.
Keep in mind those you listed directed small budgets and were pretty much indie type films. Gaghan had money, stars and a highly touted script.
And we all know the story behind Fincher and Alien 3 so no need to rehash it. But it’s safe to say that he really didn’t get a chance to direct it.
I just looked Gaghan up on IMDB. He wrote Rules of Engagement! That movie was horrible! I take back everything I’ve said. He sucks.
I caught it again a few months ago and Alien 3 has aged really well. The performances are excellent (easily the best in the series) and emotionally it’s one of the toughest, nastiest, low down “fuck yous” to ever come out of Hollywood.
The studios have to be insane to keep giving Fincher that kind of budget. God bless em.
It certainly is a sequel that takes the warm fuzzy feelings at the end of the previous movie and totally destroys them. It’s also one of the last big effects movies of the pre-CGI era, which is a good thing in a lot of ways.
Yeah. It’s not easy to make the relentless stomach-churning nightmare of Aliens seem warm and fuzzy by comparison.
Fincher regrets doing it. I regret seeing it.
Trust me, Gaghan was not nearly the only writer on “Rules of Engagement.” Not even close.
And though “Abandon” wasn’t good, don’t forget that he made it as a first-time director with no semblance of final cut at a time when Paramount was probably at its hackiest and most restrictive. I had always heard that Gaghan’s travails at the studio were part of what led Soderbergh to declare Paramount “the place dreams go to die.”
Gaghan hasn’t done anything all that great without Soderbergh & Co. That’s why the hopes for “Syriana” should be high. Like Bruce said, talent’ll win out. End of story.