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
Clint Eastwood deserves any kind of award. He’s the man.
If you don’t want to say anything about Brokeback Mountain then I’ll say it instead. Big congrats to the cast, including Jake Gyllenhaal who finally is getting some much deserved credit for his role.
Cheers to Brokeback!!! =]
I actually liked Jake better than Michelle Williams, who cried a lot, but didn’t offer much in the way of shading. In that respect, I think Anne Hathaway was actually more interesting in her role in the film, particularly in her last scene on the phone.
this blog has become the brokeback fan club.
You would be stupid to count out “Munich” and Spielberg this early in the race. It’s like counting Michael Jordan out of a game in the 3rd Q. You know he’s going to come to play to finish the game.
I’d say right now the Best Picture nominees are Brokeback Mountain, Good Night and Good Luck, Crash, Capote and Walk the Line. In that order of certainty.
So, SAG is a political award and subject to cronyism? I’m truly shocked that actors would have the glad hand other actors.
BBM, Capote, Walk the Line, Munich and Good Night and Good Luck.
Crash isn’t going to make it.
But I think this will be one of those years where the Best Picture contenders don’t match the Best Directors.
And I’d be shocked if Crowe makes it to the Best Actor race. If he does, that’ll be a monumental acheivement on Universal’s part…or the movie’s (depends on how you look at it).
Shouldn’t these discussions be on the severly ignored Awards Blog? Just askin’!
And as for the DGA … Haggis?! Talk about holdover Million Dollar Baby love.
You know, I don’t really think the DGAs today prove that “Munich” is on track for much of anything. The DGA loves him and they nominate him pretty much every chance they get. He got nominated for “Close Encounters,” “Empire of the Sun,” and “Amistad” and those films didn’t make it into the best picture race. For Christ’s sake, he WON for “Song of the South,” er, I mean “The Color Purple” and he didn’t so much as score a nod for best director that year.
DP wrote: Passing up Bob Hoskins, Michael Lonsdale and William Hurt is an embarrassment. >>>
Dave, I haven’t seen MRS. HENDERSON, so I have no opinion on the Hoskins comment, but what exactly was oustanding about Michael Lonsdale’s work in MUNICH? I’ve seen the movie twice and think it’s excellent. But wasn’t Lonsdale basically just playing the exact same role he played in RONIN? And OK, so the whole spy/international intrigue thing comes full circle from DAY OF THE JACKAL, but the “gardening/cooking/wealthy eccentric who fills in the empty spaces” role is almost becoming a film cliche of its own. And William Hurt in A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE? Another movie I loved, have it in my top 10 for the year. But Hurt makes Pacino’s work in DICK TRACY look subtle. Imho, of course.
I’ve seen Mrs. Henderson Presents and Hoskins and Dench are as amazing as DP has written about. I think she REALLY could give Reese a run for her money. No joke.
Teh Awards Blog has, sadly, become a bit of a drag, since even when I post there, it doesn’t get enough eyeballs and when I link to it in here, all the conversation ends up being in here… your point is taken… frustrating for me too…
The fact that BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN was shown this much love is misleading. MUNICH is, in my opinion, the film to beat right now, despite what everyone is saying and despite the heat Spielberg and the film is drawing. It is by far the most well-rounded motion picture out there.
Anne was great. Wouldn’t it be cool if all four principles from Brokeback get nominated? I don’t want Anne to feel like she’s the Sandra Oh of last season.
I still think “Munich” wins it. Remember where you heard it. You can quote me.
You must be quoting me, Panda… right?
Ha.
Yeah. The Munich bandwagon line starts here. I’m hopping on board. Lead the way, Dave.
I just think it’s the Oscar movie this year. I don’t think BBM can sustain this momentum and it isn’t as good a movie as Munich anyway. Not that has anything to do with Oscars mind you.
As to Munich, it would be interesting if some guru of Oscar statistics could tell us when any other contender that has gotten as little precursor attention as Munich (no Golden Globe nom for BP, no major critics awards, and only the DGA out of all of the Guilds) has gone on to win BP. Do I sense an uphill battle?
Since 1992 (as far back as the Oscarwatch chart went), only twice has the winner of the Oscar Best Pic not scored a nom by all three of these major Guilds: PGA, SAG (Ensemble), and DGA. The two exceptions were Titanic being passed over by the SAG Ensemble (for Boogie Nights) but still winning the Oscar, and Saving Private Ryan and Shakespeare in Love splitting the four wins after being nominated in all of them (SIL took the Oscar).
This year, oddly enough, four pics have scored the first three noms: BBM, Capote, GN&GL, and Crash. NEVER in the last 15 years has a movie scored noms by all three Guilds and NOT been nominated for a Best Pic Oscar. I’d say the chances are, oh, about 98% that those four movies will score Best Pic noms. There is probably another 98% chance that one of these movies will win, as no movie since 1992 has ever won without at least two of the Guild noms.
The other movies this year to get one nom are Walk the Line, Munich, and Hustle and Flow. Since 1992, only Babe has ever scored a Best Pic nom with no noms from the three Guilds, so it is likely one of these three will occupy the #5 spot(with almost no chance of winning however).
Of these three, only WTL was nominated for a Globe Pic (and will probably win). WTL also received acting noms from both SAG and the Globes making it the best bet for spot #5.
Munich did win the DGA nod (which has been very reliable the last three years); however, as pointed out earlier, there is a long history of him being nominated for a DGA and not being nominated in the Best Pic category. These two stats almost cancel each other out. Steven could direct a reading of the phone book and get a DGA nod.
IMO, Hustle and Flow has little chance because it was a no show everywhere else this year. This is the SAG’s version of The Station Agent for 2005.
The only other wildcard for a nom, IMO, ala Babe, is Cinderella Man which did get three Guild noms (writing and two acting). It might be hard for the Academy to totally dismiss a film with so many of their darlings: Ron Howard, Crowe, Zellweger, Giamatti, and Akiva G.
So, it seems we have four locked noms with WTL looking good and maybe Munich or Cindy Man in the hunt (with none of those three having a chance to win).
My personal preference is “Munich,” too, but I’m not sure why “Walk the Line” would be hurting. It scored a couple key SAG nominations (though those nominations were hardly a surprise), and it scored a nomination from the Producer’s Guild. While it didn’t score a Director’s Guild nomination (nor a Writer’s Guild nomination) it may still have a chance for a Best Picture nomination. If it’s because there are a few films that have nominations from all the guilds (“Capote,” “Good Night and Good” and “Crash”) then I don’t see how that makes either of those films a lock. While I don’t have all the trivia in front of me there have been popular films that have been left out: for instance, “Almost Famous” scored nominations with SAG (two supporting actress nominations and Best Cast), the Producer’s Guild, the Writer’s Guild, the Director’s Guild, as well as winner multiple critics group award, yet didn’t get nominated for Best Picture and Best Director by the Academy. “Walk the Line” scoring 50/50 out of the Guilds means it could go either way. If that’s hurting then “Munich” must be REALLY hurting.
Joseph, I stand corrected. Almost Famous has been the only movie in the last 15 years to get all three Guild noms and not get an Oscar nom.
However, no movie in that time has won Best Pic without at least two of the Guild noms.
Peteinportland:
Thanks very much for looking up the stats. Those who are touting Munich (including Mr. Poland) are siezing upon Spielberg’s DGA nomination to argue that Munich will go on to win the Oscar. I just don’t see the logic of that since Munich did not get a nomination for the Golden Globe BP or from any of the other Guilds. It seems to me that the DG is paying its ususal homage to Sielberg, even though the movie itself doens’t have a prayer of winning the BP Ocsar. It seems to me that if any movie is to overtake BBM, it will be one of Good Night and Good Luck, Walk the Line, or Crash.
Ya know, I liked WALK THE LINE well enough when it came out and would reccommend it to anyone….but it’s not in my top 10 for the year. It didn’t really stick with me the way BROKEBACK MTN, MUNICH, HISTORY OF VIOLENCE and GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK did. Maybe it’s not sticking with awards voters either?
Same here Petaluma. I liked Walk the Line a lot, and I adored the performances by Phoenix and Witherspoon, but I didn’t love it and it’s definitely not in my top 10. It doesn’t have the same rewatch value that I think a lot of the other awards contenders have.
Walk the Line had two great actings performances but is that a best film? I liked it but would rank it between 8-12 this year. But who knows. It may slip in with the weak field.
Munich has an open hill battle on its hands but it has a lot in its favor.
Spielberg.
The film.
Weak year.
Eventual BBM backlash.
here’s another metric to look at that i think is important, the critics compilations. munich is not strong by any measure: top ten list scoreboard, rotten tomatoes, metacritic. so i think it’s out for best picture (replaced by walk the line), in for best director.
In terms of an alternative to BBM, I really don’t understand why Good Night and Good Luck hasn’t gotten more attention. IMHO, it is a terrific movie, much better than either Munich or Crash. It’s also about a serious subject (which the Academy loves) that clearly has echoes for the current occupants of the White House and Congress. It has gotten rave reviews, has won some of the critic’s awards and did well with the Guilds. It’s even in black and white, and, as everyone knows, only serious movies are in black and white. Why is it being ignored in most of the Blogs while Munich is front and center?
A few reasons:
1. It’s perceived as “too small” to be a serious contender in the big categories, and it faces juggernauts in the other categories in which it’s likely to be nominated (screenplay and Best Actor).
2. While the central Murrow portion of the movie is great, the Clarkson/Downey subplot doesn’t really work, and the jazz singer interludes don’t add much (if anything) to the piece.
3. The most powerful stuff in the movie is the knitting of the archival footage with the actors and the recreation of actual recorded moments. That may make it viewed as too “documentary” for its own good.
4. It’s “too political.” In a year where Brokeback has already been (rightly or wrongly) adopted as a political statement, as has Munich, it may be seen as overkill.
I think it’s a darn fine movie, with darn fine performances by Clooney and Straitharn. I also think it’s a lock for a nomination, but I can’t see it winning Best Pic. (Though Clooney could win director.)
personally, i would be happy with either bbm or gngl winning, i think both are indeed terrific. wlt would be too. capote is also a great movie, but not what i would hang my hat on as the best of the year. crash feels dated and rather obsolete in many ways. munich is too slick (in a bad way).
oh btw, some people are saying this year’s crop is weak. please don’t tell me that million dollar baby/aviator/ray have any lasting aspects that will stand the time???
MattM:
Thanks for the reponse. I’m, curious, in your opinion, what are the realistic alternatives to BBM (which I assume most people currently think of as the front runnder) and why?
I hate to say it, but maybe GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK is also suffering (both noms and crowd wise) because it’s *gasp* in BLACK AND WHITE!
In the last 25 years, no film not nominated for a Globe Best Pic has ever won the Best Pic Oscar. EVER.
I do have a correction. In 1995, Braveheart only had a DGA nom of the 3 major Guild noms (but several lesser noms in acting and writing) and went on to be nominated for and WIN Best Pic. However, BH was also nominated for 5 Globes (including pic, director, actor, sreenplay, score) and won Director.
Munich, to win Best Pic would have to make history and turn everything we know about Oscar on its head. It has only a DGA nom, no Globe Best Pic nom, middling box office, mixed reviews, and the perception of a loser because of its lack of noms. Plus, it has the same blood and gore effects as Saving Private Ryan (which WON the GG, PGA, and DGA and was almost universally loved by critics) which still lost the Best Pic to Shakespeare in Love.
There is nothing to suggest a Munich win. Spielberg does not have a history of being given an automatic pass to Best Pic (see above paragraph and other posts). There is no evidence of some BBM backlash, and BBM is being perceived by many critics/awards watchers as one of the strongest movies in years. And there is apparently much deeper Academy support for four other films than for Munich. An uphill climb? Try a snowball’s chance in hell. As of today, the handwriting is on the wall.
I don’t see why “Good Night, And Good Luck” could be suffering in the awards spotlight because it’s in black and white. Usually a high profile film being photographed in black and white means it’s Best Cinematography chances alone are enhanced (“The Man Who Wasn’t There,” “Schindler’s List”). And “Schindler’s List” didn’t suffer because of its black and white photography. But anyway, I think why David is still pulling for “Munich” is that the screeners for the film didn’t go out until last week, meaning not everyone in the guilds viewed the film until after voting (maybe–I’m not sure how many days there were between recieving the screeners and voting, let alone if anybody took those days to task in watching the film). As for the GG snub it’s widely rumored that it was because Spielberg and company didn’t make appearances to the press in support of the film (and possible nominations).
It’s hard to say, as I’m neither a professional film critic nor a member of the Academy. My guesses for what’s a legitimate competitor for BBM?
“Cinderella Man”–If it gets in, which is a longshot, it’s almost assuredly the only “feel good” fare on the list, and that may draw in Academy voters.
“Crash”–Actors love the large ensemble cast, made up of a lot of actors who are well-respected and liked, and writers like the screenplay.
“Munich”–The big movie from the big director who’s pretty much universally beloved.
“Walk The Line”–Formulaic, but well made, might have a slight “feel good/inspirational” factor for it if “Cinderella Man” doesn’t get in. Will appeal to older voters.
I haven’t seen BBM–not a big fan of Westerns, “romances,” or Ang Lee’s prior work (other than the fight sequences in CT,HD and most of Sense and Sensibility)–it could well be an unstoppable juggernaut, but I think that for all the passion for it, there’s also a lot of “so?” toward it.
Joe: Why do you think an “eventual BB backlash” would help “Munich”? If there is one, and I’m not so sure the will be one, it could help any of the other contenders. I’m thinking if there’s a strong film coming up behind “Brokeback” it’s “Crash.” Even though I didn’t like it that much, it’s better positioned than “Munich” to be the strong alternative choice to BBM.
I have to agree with peteinportland. The suggestion that Munich has overcome some kind of hurdle with a DGA nomination is overstated; and actually feels like an attempt to add some positive spin to a movie favored by The Hot Blog.
Recently,it was suggested that Brokeback had “peaked” too early, which could be construed as an attempt at negative spin. Well in the last two weeks Brokeback has actually built on its reputation, while Munich has failed to get a groundswell of second generation critical support.
I’m not an “industry” person and perhaps there are special tea leaves that are needed to decipher awards season. But from what I see, Brokeback Mountain is a lock for Best Picture and Best Director.
There will be a big backlash against “Brokeback Mountainm” unless it becomes a big hit at the box office. Which I think is impossible in this market. Have you seen the ads they’re running for it? They’re hoping to get every homosexual and every sensitive female in there. They’ve given up on straight men. Eventually all this talk, spin, and praise is going to grow weary on people out there not elite film fans or homosexuals.
‘Cause there aren’t any elite film fans or homosexuals in the Academy…
All right, speaking as a homosexual AND an elite film fan: I have never been interested in cowboy movies, Wyoming, and especially — having lived there once — small-town Texas. And sticking a couple of gay guys in a movie about same didn’t suddenly make it interesting or meaningful to my life, which seems to make me something of a pariah in the gay world.
Whatever. My favorite film last year was THE CONSTANT GARDENER (still up in the air how that is going to fare with the Academy, although at least Rachel Weisz seems set now) and – MUNICH. Loved it, can’t understand why it’s not landing more solidly. I think it’s a crime it did not score an “ensemble” nom from SAG, because it offers a parade of brilliant supporting and cameo turns. I do think WALK THE LINE is losing heat (evidenced by the DGA noms), and wouldn’t mind at all if Joaquin Phoenix and his off-key singing drop out of the final Oscar five if it assures Eric Bana and Ralph Fiennes their well-deserved places at the table.
James, that is well put.
Guys, I am a huge BBM fan, but I try to stay somewhat objective, and I respect the fact that people like different movies. However, I have yet to hear any logical reasoning as to why BBM is set to suffer some huge backlash. Most years, movies that are such a heavy favorite at this stage(after the Guild announcements) stay that way.
As for the box office, after this weekend BBM should pass 25 mill. Last weekend, it was at 269 sites, and this weekend it will expand to over 400 (so 25 mill is fairly impressive). Yesterday, its daily take made it #8 at the box office (better than Munich which was on twice as many screens). There is nothing to suggest the buzz is slowing down, and all the awards attention it is getting is making it have a lot of crossover appeal. By the Academy Awards, BBM will probably have grossed more than at least three of the other Best Pic nominees.
Again, I would love to hear some solid reasoning as to why BBM is going to sputter at the box office or what signs are pointing to it, but I don’t see it. Sure, it could happen, but it doesn’t look as if it is in the cards anytime in the next few weeks.
I’m saying “BBM” stands a very good shot of copping Oscar gold. The Academy loves sending a message to the public. Anyone think it’s about the best film winning?
You tell them, peteinportland. I haven’t seen any indication of a BBM backlash yet. So far, the box office is very good considering none of us die-hard fans even dreams of it grossing $100 million. We’re happy with the small number right now. Thank you very much.
From the sound of it you die harders would be happy with anything at the box office. No matter what number it comes in at you’re going to do backflips and spin it anyway. If it’s 20, then you made your money back. If it’s 50, it means its Oscar gold. 75 means half the gays sold their souls to the Devil. 100 means it’s the new Star Wars and we’ll be seeing little Heath action figures.
Oh, Sanchez, you adorable little bastard, that was so cute. As one of those die harders, I thought you should know that the 4:20 showing of BBM I just attended (in Vancouver) was over 3/4 full. This is my fifth time seeing it and it has never been emptier than that (I also saw it in Calgary, the most hetero city in Canada, and it was a sell out). There wasn’t much of a gay audience this time, mostly couples and a few groups of older women, which I found interesting. Anyway, DGA noms are interesting. I still think Munich will get a best picture nod at the Oscars, but like most, I think it’s a real uphill climb to victory.
I remember when American Beauty wasn’t going to get any Oscar nods because it wouldn’t gross over 30 million by mail in day. The more things change….
I really want The Constant Gardener to make it to a Best Pic nod. I am surprised it didn’t get a DGN because it was one of the best directed movies of the year.
Could you elaborate on what you liked about it so much? It puzzles me.
I am curious to know what signs people see of a backlash against BBM or that BBM has “peaked”. I thought that it might indicate some softening of BBM’s position as the favorite if Gyllenhaal had not gotten a SAG nom as best supporting actor; he didn’t get a Golden Globe nom after all, and I think that his performance is generally considered not to be as strong as that of Ledger and of Williams. But did get the SAG nod and now seems to be well positioned to get an Oscar nom as well. Munich, on the other hand, seems to be losing momentum. It did get a GG nom for the script, but the Writers Guild did not see fit to recognize Kushner et al.
By the way, I really liked The Constant Garnder as well; I thought Fiennes and Weisz both gave teriffic performances.
Sanchez wrote: “From the sound of it you die harders would be happy with anything at the box office. No matter what number it comes in at you’re going to do backflips and spin it anyway.”
I don’t get this. I make a reasoned argument for BBM’s BO to refute other’s unsupported claims that BBM is/will fail at the BO, and I am the one accussed of spinning? If you don’t wanna hear BBM supporters defend it, then don’t attack it, especially attacks that offer nothing of substance behind them.
You BBM haters are like the Emperor with no clothes. You want everyone to believe that BBM is a BO failure, that it is not a critical success, that it stands no chance of winning Oscars, that there is a huge backlash building. Yet you offer NOTHING that makes any reasonable person see the clothes on your argument. If you want to just wish all this into being, then you should go play with Roger Friedman and all his cronies at Fox News where they specialise in wishful thinking as hard cold reality.
Can BBM actually open wide before the defenders proclaim it a monster success? What’s so hard about that?
It’s misleading to think of the SAG Ensemble category as a stand-in for their “Best Picture” category. It just isn’t that; it’s about quality of acting ensemble. When The Birdcage won in 1996, The Screen Actors Guild was most certainly not saying they thought The Birdcage was the best film of that year.
Peteinportland, er, Titanic was indeed nominated for Best Ensemble – or, more precisely, Outstanding Performances By A Cast.
tylerfile, it may not appear that way sometimes but it’s obvious that they go with the prestige movies a lot of the time. For an example of that look at Million Dollar Baby last year. A film who’s “ensemble” had a whopping THREE cast-members. And none of these three ever shared a significant scene together. Infact a lot of the movie was duet scenes, all three rarely had a scene – if I’m remember correctly. And then they didn’t even bother nominating any other cast members such as Margo Martindale, Jay Bacuchel, Mike Colter and Brian F O’Byrne – which is just offensive to those cast members. Brian F O’Bryne especially provided one of the films finest scenes. ANYWAY.
Whoever it was up there who referenced Sandra Oh for Sideways and Ann Hathaway in BBM – I thought the exact same thing. THe fourth member of a predominantly four-member cast, the one who gets routinely ignored for individual prizes through no fault of her performance.