Old MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Jack Mathews Has the Answers, Yet Has None

The Daily News’s resident box-office visionary and Oscar soothsayer Jack Mathews spent a little time yesterday attempting to figure out where King Kong went bad, swerving from a defense of the ape’s “fully expressive kisser” to having the x-billionth poke at the Slump of ’05.
But Mathews is not just invoking a myth for its own sake here–he seems to be circumventing narcolepsy with a luminous coat of Tabloid Critic Crapola:

It’s debatable just how much of a slump theaters have suffered in ’05. The box-office gross is expected to be about 5% below last year’s, and when you take into account two ’04 blockbusters that weren’t really movies – Mel Gibson’s religious experience The Passion of the Christ and Michael Moore’s anti-Bush rally Fahrenheit 9/11 – the numbers aren’t nearly as bleak.

Mathews has a certain logic here you have to love: A) acknowledge the rapidly evolving tastes and demographics of theatrical audiences, B) invalidate said audiences by dismissing their tastes as “not really movies.” This is old-school genius at work–the type that would have you thinking March of the Penguins‘ $80 million U.S. take is a phenomenon unto itself, even as conventional films flounder around it in puddles of red ink. It is quite the contradiction; perhaps Mathews just means that they are not really movies because even after their smashing success, studio heads (and, um, at least one critic) are still too old-fashioned to take them seriously.
Anyway, I neither know nor care if a slump exists, but guys like Mathews and anyone else in the quasi-vanguard of figuring all this shit out might try again from square one: Has the film industry ever been anything but a crap shoot? And if not, what particular end justifies these analytical means? There is a new story waiting for us in 2006… isn’t there? Please?

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “Jack Mathews Has the Answers, Yet Has None”

  1. I guess Mathews’ remarks are fitting since The Daily News is not really a newspaper. What an ass.

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