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
Never.
I would hope they would have some editorial integrity there. Online media should be held to the same standard as print media.
I liked Taylor as a film reviewer. One of the only reasons to hit up Salon. I always wondered what happend to him. He just disappeared from there.
Did anyone read that article on Taylor????
The man liked MISSION TO MARS. Wrote up a defense of it.
MISSION TO MARS!
I don’t think Brian Depalma could write up a defense of that movie he did for a new extension on his mansion and some meal money.
YSN, I half-liked DePalma’s MISSION TO MARS. Protracted and corny set-up, yes. Clunky and dopey climax, yes. But the middle section of it — mainly the “abandon ship” section, and the stuff immediately before and after that — actually held me pretty captivated.
And I’m not even a Kael-level DePalma DeFender. I think he’s fascinating and frustrating in equal measure.
(FEMME FATALE was totally underrated, though.)
No matter what he does and how abd it is I can watch a DePalma movie and appreciate it. “Snake Eyes” is a terrible film. But I can watch that first twenty minutes anytime. Looking forward to “Black Dahlia” too.
I’ve read some uneven reviews of early screenings of Dahlia. Mainly bashing Josh Hartnett but what do you expect?
Though both not what they used to be… I’ve always been more of a Lawrence Kasdan kinda guy than a DiPalma guy.
Both are great genre jumpers, but DiPalma always seemed to have a snob streak (“we get it dude, you’re really smart”). While Kasdan seems to put his great love of movies on the screen… even when he fails there’s a giddiness about them.
“De Palma” rather!
On DePalma – agreed he can be a frustrating director, but ‘Femme Fatale’ is fantastic. I had fun rewatching it to pick up all of the clues that I had missed out on the first viewing in a theater. I can’t remember all of the criticisms leveled against it, but I’m glad I didn’t listen to them. It’s a fun film in many respects, and even if it doesn’t achieve perfection, it’s damn good.
On Taylor – I miss reading his stuff on Salon. I didn’t always agree with him, but he wrote good, well thought out arguments. The problem with great film criticism is because it doesn’t pander to the studio’s dream it is not listened to. The only reason people pay attention to Ebert is because he has had a TV show for 3 decades now. If he was just starting out today? He’d be DOA. Like Taylor says, people want to be told that ‘Men In Black 2’ is a worthy sequel because some editor’s kid liked it. I don’t know what’ll happen in the next twenty years, but hopefully real criticism isn’t going the way of the dodo.
How many real critics are out there right now anyway?
Good question…
May as well get it over and done with. Roger Ebert would be on the list.
Tony Scott.
Charles Taylor.
That’s three for me.
I don’t know if they’re real critics or whatever the term is but I like reading the thoughts and opinions of
Jeffrey Anderson
Jami Bernard
Roger Ebert
Lou Lumenik
And obviously Dave Poland and I’ve gotten into Ray Pride too.
I miss Gene Siskel. Them trying to pass off Roper as Gene is insulting. Ebert should have kept up the rotating host thing he had going.
Roeper doesn’t bother me that much. But it’s not like I watch or used to watch the show at all. His writing is pretty solid though.
I like Owen Gleiberman and Ken Turan. Might not always agree but I like how they write.
Roeper is likably toolish, if that makes any sense. He and Ebert doesn’t have that Siskel/Ebert chemistry but they’re still pretty entertaining.
Owen Gleiberman is awful. I used to like his reviews pretty well until I realized they all sound almost exactly alike. You can seriously annotate them for the same phrases and words that turn up time after time after time. It sounds catchy and clever at first until you start noticing it in EVERY review he does. Like when he calls something an “[adverb] [adjective] of [adjective/noun] [noun]”… (sometimes dropping the “of”)… for example, The Man in the Yellow Hat, for example, is an “affably game science nerd.”
This is especally easy to do at home if you zero in on any of his favorite words: “fractious,” “crackpot,” “zip” and/or “zapped,” “winkingly,” “glitter,” “kiddie,” “prankster” or “prankish,” “marvel,” “media-age”…
So he might call something “a crackpot marvel of winking zip,” or “a fractious mess of kiddie glitter,” or if he’s feeling extra suacy, a “winkingly prankish marvel of media-age zap.”
He also loves the dash-phrases, because apparently his ideas are too big for normal words. Date Movie is a “how-crude-can-you-go hodgepodge”; Julianne Moore is playing a “lower-rung-of-the-middle-class role”; and there’s a “what-in-God’s-name-is-he-doing-there lumberjack Woodsman” in Hoodwinked.
I could go on. Argh. Drives me crazy.
Roeper is trying to be Ebert. Not a bad man to emulate and follow but he needs his own identity there. It’s like Ebert is on a show with his little kid brother.
Ebert. Armond White. Matt Zoller Seitz. Jonathan Rosenbaum. Andrew Sarris. Joe Bob Briggs.
Dargis. Chocano. Lane. Morgenstern sometimes.
Lately, all criticism feels the same. Maybe its because they don’t have a lot of words to play with and they have to condense their reviews into neat, tidy newspapers. But I want more than that. I want more than a synopsis of the plot and one word zingers on the acting.
I’d rather read a column on a movie after it has a chance to set in like with Ebert or Poland or Wells. A different insight than the usual paint by numbers.
For those who are interested, I’ve been conducting a series of interviews with movie critics. I’ve done six of them. They include: Owen Gleiberman, Jami Bernard, Janet Maslin, Mike Clark, Glenn Kenny, and David Edelstein. You can find them at the website rockcritics.com. DP has posted links to some, but not all, of the interviews.
The purpose of the interviews is to find out what makes movie critics tick. Check ’em out if you’re interested in movie criticism.
I’m almost finished with an interview with a female critic. Any suggestions would be welcomed.
That’s a good list to start off Jimmy. Diverse.
I’d try to get a net critic involved. See it from their perspective. Maybe a McWeeny from AICN.
I can do an overrated/hack critics list more easily than doing a good critics list.
Gleiberman has the plum slot though. In Entertainment Weekly. Read by millions. I wonder if people actually use critics to base their movie going on.
I second the nomination for Dargis as another female choice .
I also like Elvis Mitchell tho he’s not really in the game anymore.
I’m sorry but I can’t stand Anthony Lane. I don’t care if he’s one of Kael’s disciples, he’s got to be the most self-important pretentious writer ever.
And, I don’t care how anyone feels about McWeeny’s politics or ethics, he writes good movie reviews.
Nick and Devin at Chud deserve respect too.
What’s Elvis Mitchell doing now? Does he have a studio job?
Last I heard he was teaching courses at Harvard.