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
that’s some real paranoia right there.This aint 1950 where viewers are new to the tv-awards concept. What, emmy voters might think The Shield is on ABC? Come on.
I guess TNT needs all the advertising it can get.
You know it’s the home of drama, right?
It’s not a question of if everyone knows or not. It’s a question of marketing and acknowledgement. They should be acknowledging the networks behind these shows and giving credit where credit is due. They have a right to be upset about it.
Seconds until DP comments on Brokeback’s eroding Mountain:
3…
2…
1…
While I understand why Crash won, I’m still heartbroken over Brokeback not winning anything. Come on, this movie has 4 main actors, 3 of whom are nominated. What more can a movie ask for in its ensemble? I think the facts that the cast is so young and each of them hasn’t “paid their dues” yet are the main reason why it lost to Crash.
What will happen is people will start to wonder if “Crash” and “Brokeback” will split the vote, allowing a dark horse to win Best Picture. Not that it’s likely at all, but every possible analysis will get pulled out of the crypt now, until it’s time to go back in March 3, or whatever the day after the Oscars is this year.
You can understand why Crash won Waterbucket? well I can’t. matt Dillon I love. The rest Crrrrinnnnge.
I certainly hope this is not goign to be A Beautiful Mind year.
It’s an award for “ensemble” cast, and Crash had a cast of 15 or so actors each with a BIG SCENE. No surprise that it would win.
By “understand”, I meant that I understand how the politics of the guild would lead to a Crash win. That doesn’t mean I’m a big fan of the movie.
It’s ok, my Brokeback will kick that movie’s butt come Oscars time. If not? Then I’m blaming it on Dave Poland.
Wow… haven’t said a negative word about BBM in weeks and I’m still getting shit. Nice.
The reason Crash won is because the actors are veterans and they were accesible to SAG voters for months. It’s no big mystery.
The only win that I consider significant at this point is Phil Hoffman, who is beginning to look inevitable… and Heath giggling through his intro didn’t help him any.
I still think Michelle Williams has a legit shot at a win and the movie is looking stronger than ever for an Oscar win. But I continue to believe that the finals could be anyone’s race… it really depends who gets in and what they do. BBM is on cruise control, which could be good or could be bad for its chances of winning. But the precursors are certainly in its favor…
And if you don’t bring up Sideways winning BFCA, the Golden Globe, and the SAG Ensemble, I won’t either.
Dave, but you still haven’t said that BBM is the ultimate, absolute, most supremest bestest movie ever. How could you be so heartless?
I was also shocked to see BBM not get Ensemble. Guess I was going on the other nods the actors received. It looked good on paper!?! As far as Heath making a spectacle of himself? I agree with David Poland. Heath looked like a fool. How could he expect anyone to take him seriously now?
Award shows are depressing. It seems that critics pick a handful of favorites and everybody runs with them. That’s why no one remembers, from year to year, what movies won anything. They are small little films most people never see.
IMHO, this pretty much cinches up Hoffman, Witherspoon, and Weisz as winners. Supporting actor is still quite a horserace, though. The other question is how the Academy decides to spread around the love–there are three movies that would seem to be competing for the “consolation prize” of original screenplay–Squid and the Whale, Crash, and Good Night and Good Luck. How do they spread the love around?
Crash was a true ensemble film with ZERO lead actors.
I think Dave Poland is right in saying that ”Crash” won because many of actors were veterans and accessible to SAG voters for months. I also think, however, that one can’t discount the unprecedented screener mailing (150,000 pieces) that went to EVERY member of SAG.
I kind of doubt that Ledger’s intro will hurt him anymore than Catherine Keener’s will. Hoffman has been sweeping the Best Actor awards because … he has the far bigger and juicier role in his movie. ”Capote” is basically dominated by that performance, and percentage-wise, I’ll bet he has far more screen time in his movie than Ledger has in his. Hoffman also has the showier role; Ledger underplays a lot, and that seldom wins awards.
I still think the supporting actor and actress races are up for grabs. If there’s a surprise among the Oscar acting categories, it usually comes up in supporting actress. Given how popular Clooney is, and what a career year he’s had, I’m surprised the SAGs passed him over for Giamatti. Will Oscar voters think Giamatti is overdue after snubbing him for ”Sideways” the year before?
As for you BBM lovers, hey, it won the N.Y. Film Critics, the L.A. Film Critics, the Broadcast Film Critics, the Golden Globes, the PGA and the DGA. You can’t win ’em all. Besides other movies have gone on to win Best Picture without any SAG wins: namely, ”Gladiator,” ”The English Patient” and ”Braveheart.” Keep your chin up; the Oscar nominations should bring good news! 🙂
Nothing is ever cinched up until the award is announced. Saying that is foolish.
Who said anything was ”cinched up”? I merely pointed out a simple fact: that some movies have won the Best Picture Oscar without any SAG wins.
I think Brokeback has won far more awards than Sideways had at this point last year. I also don’t think that last year, anybody really thought Sideways was much of a contender. The big Oscar race was between M$B and Aviator, if you recall.
Damn. And here I was going to eat up my words and say, “Bravo, DP! Restraint on the BBM shut out!” before that “still getting shit” comment. Alas.
Just sounded like an inevitability given what came before, is all.
Glad I was wrong.
Will proceed to lower head in shame, and flog self publically.
Brokeback has earned far more money than Sideways did at the comparable time last year (and Sideways came out all the way back in the previous October). And Sideways was mainly a comedy unlike Brokeback. And Brokeback is controversial and progressive (while Sideways was a sensation in its own right…for wine).
Well, Mr. Poland…welcome back to Brokebackmania! Since you non-brought it up, I will definitely say that Sideways won the GG for best comedy/musical…definitely not in the same league as a win for best drama. Also, Sideways won the SAG ensemble as a kind of consolation prize as it didn’t win the other categories…which may make it harder for any single Crash player to have a stand-out campaign (vote splitting is a bitch). I’m just glad that Terence Howard got some recognition for his work.
I don’t think I have ever seen a more anticlimactic awards show. You knew going in who would win every major acting award, with the only surprise being Giamatti, and that was an unpleasant surprise since he probably won only out of pity for the Sideways shutout.
I can understand why Hollywood might think the BBM actors are too young or immature to deserve awards, but I’m beginning to think that the complete shutout of every actor (and tonight’s Crash win) suggests that the Oscars will give Director to Lee and give the other major awards to other films/actors. I almost feel like the awards are trying to make an example of this film, or the cast, due to its subject matter.
I continue to wonder when Philip Seymour Hoffman is going to mention Capote in any of his acceptance speeches, instead of launching into muddled, pretentious speeches which seem to talk about everything but the film he made.
I don’t think Ledger’s performance was worth an award but Hoffman’s work (which seemed more like a sedated Charles Nelson Reilly than Truman Capote) was either.
And Reese Witherspoon, who was about as believable in the June Carter Cash shoes as Halle Berry…I guess this is Erin Brockovish redux. Give an award to an actress who is money in the bank.
“Heath looked like a fool. How could he expect anyone to take him seriously now?” – watch the movie again and you’ll see how.
Reese and Phillip are indeed looking like inevitable winners, but Rachel Weisz is anything but a winner just now. The supporting categories can sometimes throw wild suprises, and AMPAS likes to gives the Best Picture winner an acting prize – see Juliette Binoche for English Patient over Lauren Bacall who everyone thought was the favourite.
The reason Brokeback lost ensemble is because, yes it has great performances by its entire cast and particularly the four main ones, unlike Sideways last year all four never share a seen. It’s always two-hander scenes, occasionally three. But the four never work together at once. Crash, however, features some very popular actors all working together to help the film be better than it has any right to be. That’s the work of a true ensemble.
Of course, BBM still might lose Best Picture and have no need to receive an acting trophy.
I still continue to be baffled by Paul Giamatti. Does he just not care? He just mumbled, barely even looked at the audience or the camera, he couldn’t even dress nicely (they’re called buttons, Paul). Phillip didn’t exactly look dashing either, but at least his speech was tolerable.
Nobody owes Paul Giamatti shit, least of all the Academy. And then why (WHY?) for Cinderella Man? They’ll look like silly fools if they give him a statue for Cinderella Man. We grovel at thy feet.
KamikazeCamelV2.0, Hey man your right! “Heath looked like a fool. How could he expect anyone to take him seriously now?” – watch the movie again and you’ll see how.”
I went off half cocked (wich isn’t a good thing….in anyway (lol). He (Heath) was just having fun at the sag awards. His performance in BBM was outstanding! I was most amazed at how convincing he was as the character became older. As far as the Oscar goes, he probably will go the path of Paul Newman and not get an Oscar for awhile no matter how good he is, and he is an excellent actor.
No actor is owed anything. But I can see some rewarding Paul G for getting snubbed last year. It’s not like the Best Supporting Actor field is studded with great performances this year. And it’s not like he went thru the motions on Cinderella Man.
hoffman didn’t even mention capote in his speech again? whats with this guy?
I thought that the way Heath and Jake acted at the SAG awards when introducing Brokeback was childish and unprofessional. There is a place to have fun, but when you’re supposed to be representing a movie that a lot of people takes seriously (as seen here), to go up there and horse around didn’t make them look very good. It’s like that bit last year where Jamie Foxx was trying to introduce Ray last year (which they decided to show again)
Oh my, I’m checking out the other message boards today and it seems that Brokeback fans are REALLY upset with Jake and Heath for their inappropriate introduction.
I myself didn’t really appreciate it but can’t say that I hate it that much. Although it’d be nice to have just one good and serious intro to Brokeback at a big awards show: first Dennis Quaid with his joke at the Globes and now Heath and Jake giggling like they’re in junior high at SAG.
A few things:
(1) Why should TNT acknowledge the other networks? I don’t ever remember networks acknowledged in the Emmy award broadcast (except in winners’ speeches). BFD.
(2) The TV and movie stuff was balanced fairly well, given that there are 8 TV awards and only 5 movie ones. It went 3TV-1M-3TV-1M-2TV-3M, leaving, quite reasonably, the Lead Actor/Actress & Ensemble for last.
(3) “Brokeback”‘s loss is meaningless. Can anyone say “Sideways”, “Gosford Park”, “Traffic”, “The Full Monty”, “The birdcage”, and “Apollo 13”? The SAG Ensemble doesn’t match w/Oscar’s Pic half the time. It’s still “Brokeback”‘s to lose (though I doubt any of the individual cast members will walk away with a statue).
Waterbucket, a number of ”Brokeback” fans are upset, but not all. And you can count me in the latter group. Heath and Jake had a case of the giggles and had to deliver a crappily written intro. They weren’t the only ones who had trouble reading their text or the TelePrompter. If you look at the reaction shots of people in the audience, they were laughing along. They got it. How many times have awards presenters had to deliver some purplish drivel with a straight face? And how often do they say, ”Well, I didn’t write this!” To me, it’s much ado about nothing.
This was an acting awards show. Not a movie awards show. It doesn’t take away from BBM being the favorite heading into the awards.
Even the stars of the movie can’t take it seriously? I expected at least a few mentions here about the immaturity of the two stars. All the jokes about Brokeback and the lack of seriousness will have an effect when the voting comes around.
Heath and Jake have done tons of interviews and discussed the film seriously. And if you saw them on ”Oprah,” they managed to be articulate and at times funny. I’d like to give the Oscar voters more credit for judging the movie on its own merits, as opposed to being swayed by a one-minute intro by Heath and Jake at the SAGs.
re: Michelle Williams having a chance. I don’t know, if I knew that Rachel Weisz was being shunted as a Supporting Actress (somehow I thought she was a lead all along), I’m rooting for Rachel.
Well, I sorta don’t care who wins out of Rachel and Michelle (if it is indeed one of them that does win) cause they’re both wonderful.
I love though that Michelle’s in a quite small but powerful role which AMPAS love. Rachel’s is a near-lead and powerful role which AMPAS love. Michelle is a former tv star made good, which AMPAS love. Rachel is foreign, which AMPAS love. Michelle plays the long suffering wife, which AMPAS love. Rachel plays the feisty battler, which AMPAS love. etc.
And I don’t care about Heath and Jake’s intro. They all had silly intros to give and they just happened to be the ones who couldn’t handle it. They are only 26. And I really doubt the Academy members are basing their voting on whether they giggled through a minute long intro. If they pay attention to that, why not Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s inability to look nice or to even mention the very man responsible for all his awards (er, Capote himself).
Strange thing about SAGs ensemble category though is that while the entire Crash cast got to go on stage, only a collection of 10 of them are technically winners. People like Loretta Devine or Beverley Todd aren’t on the list. Just like for “The Birdcage” Calista Flockhart isn’t on there – strange considering she’s a main character. Or with “The Aviator” last year Gwen Stefani was included yet people who had much larger roles were not. Or how about “Million Dollar Baby”‘s ‘ensemble’ of three people who never shared a scene together, and completely missed out on several key cast members like the priest, the african-american boxer at the start, Hilary’s family. The SAG ensemble prize – while good hearted (honouring a well-working collection of actors) – is flawed and really shouldn’t be taken as any form of “Best Picture”.
However, what’s the bet that if the Academy ever included a Best Ensemble prize it would go to the runner up of BP?