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” ā 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 ā 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 ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā 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 namedā” “Yeah, sure ā 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 Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās 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 didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā 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. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās 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
They should have also included a couple of naked men on the cover to balance it out. Jake, Heath, Keira, and Scarlett together would be hot.
The picture is dull and if anything, looks like their heads are P-shopped onto other bodies (weird looking). Too much make up on their faces too.
Peter rocks. He was great in Wings of Desire.
No wonder R McAdams RAN from this photo shoot!!!
Would have been some great press for Rachel though. I think its hot and I’m a girl. LOL. But I wouldn’t turn down Heath and Jake in there either.
Rachel McAdams was rather smart for walking off the set of this photoshoot.
Very smart of Rachel McA. I don’t get anything out of this photo. It’s so “blah”. Woah, but crack. I’m freaking blown away. Hopefully the spread in the magazine is interesting.
As a female expert I see they made a terrible mistake here. First, Scarletts best asset(s) are her breasts. And they completely hide them here. And Keira’s best is her long, skinny body. And they hide that too. Nudity for the sake of nudity isn’t good.
I am soooo sick and tired of living in a world where only men that look that THAT get all of the best looking women.
And look at the glib look on his face. He just takes it alllllll for granted.
Bastard!
Thing I don’t get is… with such a great viewing position, what’s Columbo doing staring forward?…
I think the major mistake here was throwing Tom Ford in there as a ridiculous replacement for … Rachel McAdams?!
Throwing in a guy, I can see. Naked or clothed, whatever (naked is probably more fair in terms of not making the girls look like sex slaves). But how about an actual ACTOR? How freaking cheesy is it that Tom Ford hired himself for the job? Ugh.
That said, and given that it’s not the single most attractive picture of Scarlett or Keira that I’ve seen (S-Jo’s lips look weird … too pursed, maybe?), this picture is like a movie where aliens fight predators: Even if it’s a mediocre version, I’m still going to stare at it.
It’s laughable that Scarlett is described as “zaftig” above, though. Yeah, she’s incredibly zaftig, all 120 pounds of her.
Am i seeing this correctly?
We got 2 of the best looking 20 yr old women in the world, naked, and people are bitching? Please say you’re joking.
We should be thanking the Lord for this.
Heck, I’d have sex with the pooch and the cyclops there if it meant I could get the two chicks after.
(Seriously, only a guy living in LA could say these two young women are remotely unattractive here. LOL!)
Good Lord Poland, Scarlett Johansson is “zaftig”? No wonder these women starve themselves beyond attractiveness.
Tom Ford is as gay as Dave Poland on the opening night of Dreamgirls. So what’s he doing sniffing Keira?
“We got 2 of the best looking 20 yr old women in the world, naked, and people are bitching?”
C’mon get with the program. We’re all trying to act enlightened and evolved…we are in film dontcha know.
Personally, I wish it was Phillip Seymore Hoffman laying on his stomach with Felicity Huffman (in full TransAmerica mode) sitting next to Ford.
Thinks to self.(I think I just bought me some major film cred there big time!)
The Huffman/Hoffman angle would be bigger news.
This just seems like a desperate move by a magazine desperate for publicity.
I don’t want to be that critical of the young females but wouldn’t a tanning salon have been a good option for them?
Rachel McAdams is a smart cookie. And a classy cookie if she left this shoot.
Keira “My name is Dominow Hayhvah” Knightley looks unflattering, like a thin chick with a slight belly she tried to keep in by inhaling.
And Scarlett Johansen: my dear you looked good in THE ISLAND and MATCHPOINT – how the bloody hell did you get the Velazquez Middle Ages Voluptous look?
Keira Knightley gave this interview once about how she she was and how fame gave her anxiety attacks — well this photo shoot aint gonna help honey.
I’m sorry, I must not have gotten the memo – what the hell is this photo? And why Columbo? And why the little dog?
Where’s Anne Hathaway and Michelle Williams???
It’s a parody of the new Vanity Fair cover. You can check out the actual one at vanityfair.com.
I’m glad I’m not so deep into Hollywood crap that I wasn’t aware of this thing.
Great looking women?? Naked??? In a reputable mag which your lady friend can look at and not call you a pervert?
I’ll buy it.
Tom Ford got to be in this? Maybe the one guy next to Waterbucket who doesn’t care at all about being there.
Some luck.
I like it. Ford seems to have been going for a certain late-Nineteenth Century oil painting genre, in the post-Rubenesque/pre-anorexia era of feminine beauty. It’s been so long since my Art History survey that I can’t name it, though. Take Columbo and the dog out and you have something that would have fit right in on a salon wall at the fin-de-siecle.
I’m appalled that we objectify young women like this. Totally appalling and whoever is behind this should be ashamed of themselves. For the love of God.
Now who has the negatives so I can keep them and they can stay in good hands?
Richard Nash, tanning salon? One, they’d look rediculous, and two it would mean the entire photo would have be recomposed because the fact that they’re white and pasty is exactly the point.
That this is one the cover of a magazine read primarily by women, I can see what they were going for.
And Tom Ford went into the photo cause Rachel dropped out on the very day of the photo shoot.
“Thing I don’t get is… with such a great viewing position, what’s Columbo doing staring forward?…” The thing I don’t get is, I don’t think Columbo CAN stare forward.
Nice.
Tom Ford is a poor substitute for Rachel McAdams. They should have stuck her in there fully dressed. Yeah, it would look weird, but at least it wouldn’t have been ragingly narcissistic.
white and pasty is the point of this?
they should fire their publicists then.
Pale skin, especially for women, was the erotic ideal before, I’d say the 1950s. Having a tan signified working outdoors and therefore not being “refined” as a lady “should” be. I’m sure the typical audience for “Vanity Fair” gets that and understands the allusion to another style of beauty.
What I want to know is what the Guerrilla Girls have to say about all this, or is that starting a brush fire? š
That’s not Tom Ford! It’s Jeremy Piven!
Click my name.
“It’s hard out there for a pug.”
Lets play a game since no one is here to control the playground.
it’s called –
What is Dave doing right now?
(keep it on the high seas folks)
dave – I am curious about the setup on the boat in terms of projection. smart ass comments aside.. when you get a chance.
Dave is doing his dishes. Yeah, wash it and like it, beeyotch!
Now this is an odd, post-modern reimagination of Men in Black….
Doing dishes? Where the maids and the help???
Piven would have harrassed these two young fine females to death. I’ve seen him in action. He’s a dog. Like most men.
Yeah…it’s Piven, John McGinley and Jon Cusack. Heard those guys are the biggest skirt chasers out there.
A. I don’t really want to get into a deconstruction of Scarlett J’s body. Let’s just say that she is not remotely fat, but she is very busty and her body is not whippet thin like Keira K’s. Neither is a terrible thing. But this is not about normal beauty, but about show biz.
B. Projection on The Floater has been an issue. They won’t send 35mm prints out anymore, so everything is digital… and not the very best of digital. Since we are mostly out of the small space designed as a movie theater (because there are too many of us in the group), the rake is non-existant, which can be troubling. The screens are a decent size. But the audience has been forgiving of the limits of the projection. And the films are good enough to inspire a lot of forgiving.
Scarlett may not be heavy, but as someone who worked in fitness for years, I can tell you that girl has not lost an ounce of her baby fat and isn’t doing a damn thing about, judging by the toneless legs. If they’re going for that “hasn’t worked a hard day in her life” feel, congrats. Knightley always looks likes a tweaker with money, or as it’s also known as, a “model”.
its just an ugly picture and puts out in the public the worst physical aspects of each actress. Which is fine with me, airbrushed fake beauty shots are so tired. But if I was either actress I’d want the negative burned.
Wow. If I was paying all that money and the film’s were digital, I’d be PISSED.