MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

Posted Monday, November 28th, 2005 - Comments Off on What a mouth: transcribing Henry Jaglom
Be Sociable, Share!

What a mouth: transcribing Henry Jaglom

Conversing at SF Chronicle’s John Stanley, veteran four-waller Henry Jaglom is
more a jag-man talking about his latest blabfest, Shopping: “My mother never told me just because I was a male I couldn’t participate in the girl’s world of buying a new wardrobe… She gave me the opening to see what a female life was like. I was in school getting into trouble, but after I shopped for a whole weekend I became much easier going.
jagman.jpg
“Suddenly, I was happy. The contrast was profound. My whole focus became fun. Life became a game as opposed to the serious values of the all-boys school I was attending. I became relaxed around women. I found out women talk about themselves. They have a sense of play. They have a way of bonding with each other that’s different from men. Men are not supposed to play. They have their manhood to consider. But women, they play all their lives. They just want to have fun. That’s why women are so special. They remain free-spirited, joyful. I never forgot that, and all my life I’ve loved to shop. I hope I’m still a kid having fun in a department store.” Men “are pragmatic about shopping… ‘I need a pair of pants,’ and that’s it. Some men are uncomfortable shopping, especially with women. But if a man can enjoy shopping with a woman, he has discovered an important way to bond. But what fascinates me most about women shoppers — shopping becomes a metaphor for things not going right in their lives, or things that are going right. If I learned anything new, it is the extreme psychological depth women plunge to when they buy. It’s a way of resolving issues. A woman has this instinct to find something new and pretty. Something to give them an upper. Shopping ultimately is this wonderful self-protective mechanism.” Did Stanley cut anything from this interview? There’s even more at the link.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments Off on What a mouth: transcribing Henry Jaglom

Comments are closed.

Movie City Indie

Comments Most Recent Archives

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