I have something in my chest… not thinking flu… but feeling a little like John Hurt.
There’s a 20 Weeks column going up in a little while that might offer some conversational fodder.
Have you been looking at , the new NYT Oscar blog, The Carpetbagger?
Are you interested in Time-Warner trying to compete with Defamer?
I’m sure I’ll think of something worth blogging after lunch…
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
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
Or we could ponder if Jeff Wells is being to nit-picky in his review of Munich, or if it’s an honest assessment of a movie that while well-made is not at that “great movie” level.
Well, I never though Million Dollar Baby was the masterpiece that all the critics built it up as. My guess is that Brokeback will be the critics darling and sweep all of those awards, and Munich will take the gold.
Hope you feel better Dave.
Tough to compete with Defamer. But you have to try.
Considering I haven’t seen either movie yet, I have to say that I don’t see Brokeback passing Munich. The reviews I have read on Brokeback has it all over the map. Mostly uniform in their praise of the acting especially of Michelle Williams. But the movie itself hasn’t been getting the all together great reviews that proceed major award winners. A lot of its award credibility will depend on the box office.
john hurt in the elephant man???
Er, I assume DP meant John Hurt in Alien. Creature busting out of the insides and all.
Or, if you prefer, John Hurt in Spaceballs. “Hello my honey, hello my baby, hello my ragtime gal…”
How about John Hurt in Skeleton Key…Poland has been less contentious about other journalists lately, maybe he’s not feeling quite himself…
Hope you feel better soon!
John Hurt peaked in Spaceballs.
Match Point – Calling this film “Woody Allen’s best in years” is akin to calling it “Pauly Shore’s best ever!”
I am dying of laughter from that one from the column.
that tmz site feels, unimpressively, more like eonline, not defamer.
“Farrellys and Knoxville to Take on Special Olympics” The Ringer is old old old news, but headlines like that give the impression it was just announced. I saw the trailer for that months ago and loved it (and why isn’t there any good comedies this month? the only thing I can think of is The Family Stone, which the banner ad on MCN reminded me).
Most confusing headline for me, anyway, at tmz?
“EXCLUSIVE: Judge Bans Topless Photos of Jen
TMZ obtains secret court order
By TMZ.COM STAFF
(Dec. 7) — TMZ has obtained an order, issued yesterday by a judge in England, prohibiting anyone from publishing or attempting to publish topless photos of Jennifer Aniston. The photos in question reveal Aniston topless on the balcony of her home.” Is that poorly written or is it just me who reads it and thinks it’s TMZ that wanted to have Aniston’s latest topless photos banned?
well okay it might just be me, because makes it clearer later in the article who wanted the order. But still… they suck.
Was somebody complaining about a lack of good comedies this month? Because The Ringer is scheduled for Dec. 23.
A great 20 Weeks which really puts things into perspective…
In early September I had felt that the Oscars would come down to Munich v. The Producers, with Rent and Brokeback Mountain running as second favorites. Now with Rent out of competition and The Producers facing a death knell, the true picture has emerged.
I thought that less emotional manipulation would be a good thing, leading to more honest filmmaking. Apparently Spielberg has reached a point where people expect HIM to MAKE them feel something deep, though I don’t know if Munich’s failure at this end was due to bad Spielberg work (which I don’t think it is) or an audience not fully engaging in the film.
Brokeback Mountain should settle in very well, same with Walk the Line. I am anxious to see the former because Walk the Line, in my opinion, isn’t strong enough to be Best Picture. Far from it. Brokeback Mountain, on the other hand, seems full of possibilities, especially after reading Holden’s piece where he compares Ledger to Brando at his best. That’s a tough claim to make good on.
Now I am hugely excited about King Kong and already have my ticket for Wednesday night. I think it will be a tremendous film. But it’s not big-Oscar material. King Kong takes you to the deepest realms of fantasy and adventure, like a wonderful childhood dream, which is exactly why it could push a man like Jackson to such heights. But the Academy has never gone for a film like Kong before. If it does, and this is a BIG IF, it could very well turn many ideas about the Oscars on their head.
Otherwise, no other film is taking a good contender’s position right now, though I would love seeing The Constant Gardener pick up another nod for Meirelles. It’s funny. The season seemed so full of promise last month, but mayber Jarhead slipped something in everyone’s tea because all of these highly-touted films are either getting no raves or making no impact and that adds up to few Oscar options. Sort of sad, but it seems only fitting in this dreadful year.
i can’t remember a weaker best pic race. munich will have to fall on its face to lose this.
Saw a trailer for “Inside Man” before last night’s screening of “King Kong.” Lots of hype for Clive Owen, Denzel Washington and Jodie Foster. Movie looks like it might rock. But… no mention of the director until the very end. And even then — only in an on-screen credit box. If you’re not looking for it, you might miss it. Is Universal trying to downplay the fact that this is a Spike Lee movie?
Yes. Lee’s had a nasty string of stinkers (at least from a commercial perspective) lately. His last commercial success is “Original Kings of Comedy,” which can’t really be credited to him at all. Before that, you’ve got to look back to “Malcolm X” to find a 25M+ grosser from Lee.
Wouldn’t you want to downplay it’s a Spike Lee Joint if you had his box office numbers? Not like he’s a hitmaker. Can’t remember the last successful film he had.
Is anyone else getting a Titanic feeling from Kong now? There’s so much these two films have in common and I’m guessing if it IS a genuine weep factory toward the end and manages to really capture the public’s heart, Jackson and his monkey will become the Oscar frontrunner in the next couple of weeks. The Coldplay ads certainly want you to see it that way.
If audiences react the way Peter Travers did this week, it’s a shoe-in.
And did anyone catch Adrian Brody on Charlie Rose this week? Could be the most uninteresting interview I’ve ever seen with an actor. As opposed to Heath “Fidget” Leger the following night who seemed REALLY uncomfortable but still thoughtful with the host.
“Titanic” is exactly why I think “Kong” might have an Oscar shot beyond craft nominations. The two films really do have a surprising lot in common (some specific shots even seem purloined from the Cameron movie) in addition to an “epic” three-hour running time, a muscular, romantic lead female performance, a lot of boat time, a similar denouement, etc. “Kong” really works the “Titanic” vein of action leavened with impossible romance. I know, I know. Monkeyshines. But wait til you see it.
Interesting that “Brokeback Mountain” is evoking a lot of “Titanic” comparisons this year, too. Will “Munich” be the “LA Confidential”?
I wouldn’t be comparing Titanic and Kong.
Kong didn’t have the terrible early buzz that Titanic overcame.
And how can Brokeback be Titanic? I just don’t get it. Is there any action besides the man on man in Brokeback?
Also, do you think Jackson may have intentionally sabotaged the romance angle of Brody/Watts to steer us into the Kong/Watts love?
I remember thinking that’s what Tim Burton did in his Planet of The Apes remake by making the gorgeous Estella Warren just eye candy compared to the hairy, feral (though passionate) Helena Bohnam Carter. You couldn’t blame Marky Mark for going ape at the end.
Just wondering if this “dramatic letdown” be a professional foul on the part of Jackson.
There wasn’t even a choice for Marky Mark in Apes. He had to go with the ape. They were like made for each other.
Wow! Leon Wieseltier just eviscerated Munich in The New Republic.
See:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20051219&s=diarist121905
Another review based largely on politics, and again, not from a movie critic. Won’t mean much to me until I’ve seen the movie.
I really don’t care what a political writer thinks of a film. If I am going to read a review I want people who watch films for a living giving me my review. These other guys all have agendas.
I think the content of a movie is up for discussion by any thoughtful writer. If he were criticizing it on a technical level– the cinematography or the editing, say– it would be easy to discount his opinion.
I don’t know if I agree with him or not, as I haven’t seen the movie. But it’s an interesting viewpoint.
I’m sure you’re going to see a thousand reviews by people like this. They’re not really reviews though. They’re more like agenda filled pieces that just use the movie without going into anything about the movie.
This Leon Wieseltier shoots from the hip.
Can someone link me to his Pooty Tang review?
Hmmm so The Ringer is out on the 23
and Fun With Dick And Jane this month
I guess I’m not paying attention
And I’ll take The Ringer to beat Fun With Dick And Jane, and then there’ll be some stories about whether Jim Carrey is past his prime
To change the subject…Paramount is acquiring Dreamworks? That seems like a shocker.
Sorry, to change the subject back for a sec. I must be the only thinking that quite a few people won’t get the romance in King Kong as they did with Titanic because, ahem, it’s between a woman and a giant ape.
Like, Titanic was huge because women (and a few men, naturally) wanted that romance. I doubt many are going to be swooning over Kong.