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
Best Song may be the hardest race to call. 6 of 9 Gurus of Gold give it to “In the Deep,” while over at the L.A. Times, only 1 of 8 pick it to win (4 say “Pimp” and 3 pick “Travelin’ Thru”). All three songs have a legitimate chance. Right now I’m leaning toward Dolly because she’s the biggest star and, when in doubt, always go with the biggest star (that’s also why I’m thinking Clooney will win Supporting).
I got to gice credit to “Crash”. They’re making this a race.
I saw CRASH at the American Film Market (Santa Monica) November 2004 – an 11 am show, almost empty theatre. I thought it was Michael Mann lite; liked Matt Dillon and Michael Pena’s work.
Thought it was a classy little independent LA “racism for dummies” flick, no more no less.
If you had told me then that this film would be a strong #2 runner up for Best Picture in 2006 I’d have tried to sell you some real estate in Florida.
Amazing…
I think for next year’s Oscar race, the “pundits” should be forced to endure some sort of penance for every article/column they write pushing their unobjective viewpoint to try to make the Oscar race seem more interesting than it really is. David, you’ve avoided your lashes because Munich actually did get into the race for Best Picture, but I think you should be ready to accept the fallout when Crash loses to Brokeback Mountain. (What happened to all the support and love for Munich anyway?!)
This year isn’t a race. Brokeback Mountain already won even before the nominations were announced, and it has nothing to do with its a better movie anymore. It’s just the way it is.
EDouglas: What happened to all the support and love for Munich anyway?
The answer is that Dave’s hatred for all things Brokeback is now stronger than his love for Munich.
If Matt Dillon wins Best Supporting Actor early on, then its a CRASH upset.
I could definitely see Matt Dillon winning — but then, I could make a legit case for any of those Suppt. Actor nominees winning (besides William Hurt). Both of the supporting categories are very exciting this year.
I posted this in the other thread, but I’ll repeat since this one is more relevant. Lionsgate has little picture saavy when it comes to Oscar. Focus does. That doesn’t necessarily prove anything, but I think to call Crash really that much of an upsetter requires more than getting a song performance or editing award.
If Dillon wins we could be seeing a big CRASH night.
What some people can’t seem to comprehend is that my person preferences and my sense of the race tend to be disconnected.
Munich is still the best of the four films nominated and I still feel it will be remembered best over time. But as I explained – and apparently was not of interest to some – was that Universal did blow the release and had to be very aggressive if they were going to be able to take advantage of getting a nomination. They chose not to be aggressive and therefore, they have no chance of winning anything. What part of that is confusing?
I don’t know what fallout you expect from predicting that Crash might win. I have couched it 300 different ways. And it’s not as though I have ever said BBM can’t win. There is a logic to my call and it has nothing to do with hatred of BBM, because if I had to choose the film I prefered of the two, it would be BBM.
But some people seem to want to project their obsessions onto me. So be it.
I’ll be fascinated to read Bucket’s take when we are in absolute agreement on something. I have an odd feeling that I won’t be such an asshole then.
You’re looked at by these people as the leader of the anti Brokeback Oscar movement. The only way you wouldn’t be is if in December you crowned BBM the winner and said every movie should just bow out now and let the Greatest Movie Ever take charge. They don’t know about trends and politicing and the race.
Not quite. It’s more like it’s 1994 if Dave were saying over and over: “there’s no way ‘Schindler’s List’ will win. You’re delusional if you think it’s a lock. ‘Schindler’ has peaked too early. ‘The Piano’ is coming on strong. How is it that the media has got everyone bamboozled into thinking ‘Schindler’ is the best film this year? Even if it were, that doesn’t mean it’s going to win. It’s too long and depressing for the academy. It’s black and white. No black and white film has one best picture in 30 years. ‘The Piano’, er, well, maybe ‘Remains of the Day’, that’s what’s going to be standing once the ‘Schindler’ mirage evaporates….”
(that should have been “won best picture”. D’oh!)
For your 300 ways to couch the Crash upset, there are many more reasons why BM will win as expected. The Schindler’s analogy is pretty interesting since it definitely had Academy support through its subject matter, pedigree, precursors, and obviously the film itself was of a certain quality. And even with all that, it still didn’t get any acting trophies.
Brokeback Mountain: Directors’ Guild Award; Producers’ Guild Award; Golden Globes for best pic and director; BAFTAs for best pic and director; Broadcast Film Critics award for best pic and director; NY Film Critics (pic and director); LA Film Critics (pic and director); National Board of Review (best director); Boston Film Critics (pic and director); San Francisco Film Critics (pic and director); London Film Critics (pic and director); Vancouver Film Critics (pic and director); Dallas-Ft. Worth Film Critics (pic and director); Florida Film Critics (pic and director); Iowa Film Critics (pic and director); Las Vegas Film Critics (pic and director); St. Louis Film Critics (best pic and director); Utah Film Critics (pic and director); Southeastern Film Critics (pic and director); International Press Academy Satellite Awards (best pic drama and director)
VS.
Crash: Chicago Film Critics (pic)
Who do you think is really engaged in self delusion?
I respect the fact that a movie has a lot of hardcore, devoted fans. It’s good for the industry and films themselves.
But you’re point is ruined when you attack Poland as someone who has an agenda against the movie. Because that’s just false and you obviously aren’t reading his articles. His integrity as a journalist would be nil if he was like that.
“The BAFTAs Love Brokeback Mountain .. Winning Four, (Film, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Supp Actor) While Losing Five… Crash Surprises With Supp Actress & Original Screenplay…Memoirs Of A Geisha Wins 3, Walk The Line 2, And Constant Gardener Surprises By Winning Only For Editing
(Ed Note The Reason For Mentioning BBM’s Losses Is To Avoid Suggesting A True Sweep, Though It Did Win The Top Two Awards, As It Is Expected To As The Oscars.)”
PandaBear: Can you really read this with a straight face and say that Poland doesn’t have an “agenda” against BBM and that this sort of sh*t doesn’t reflect poorly on Poland’s “integrity” as a journalist? Give me a break. Poland is not now and nor has he ever been a neutral, objective reporter on BBM.
What EXACTLY do you find offensive about the headline, “steve”?
Is it the inclusion of all the other films? Is it the word “love” for BBM, not used for any other film? Is it the mention that Memoirs had the second highest total? Was it my lack of support for Constant Gardener?
I am sorry… four of nine is not a “sweep.” It is the winning of the two top awards.
How does your elleged agenda manifest itself? Because I didn’t write “BBM SWEEPS!!!” and not mention any other films because they are all unworthy?
Let me ask you… was it right for headlines to say that BBM won the WGA award without mentioning Crash, which won an award of equal value by any standard? I bet it was just fine with you.
Physician heal thyself.
Poland has gotten himself stuck in the kind of situation where, no matter what he says, it’s going to be seen as some kind of anti-Brokeback thing. It’s too bad, but he really has only himself to blame for becoming part of the story early on.
When did 4 out of 9 become a sweep? Are we forgetting sweep means “win everything”?
Want to look for a sweep come Oscar day look at “Geisha”. It has a real chance to win all six of its chances.
I hope they both lose the Best Pic race. And CAPOTE takes it.
Go little film that could!!
Exactly what do I find offensive about this headline?
If you don’t want to use the term “sweep”, fine, and indeed you didn’t use that term in the first part of the headline. You instead refer to “BBM winning four . . . while losing five”, but you don’t refer to losses for any other movie. And then you append a very weird editor’s note to drive your point home: “The Reason For Mentioning BBM’s Losses Is To Avoid Suggesting A True Sweep, Though It Did Win The Top Two Awards, As It Is Expected To As The Oscars.”
In all my years of reading entertainment features, I must say that I’ve never seen anything quite like that headline. No reputable publication would publish anything like that. And if you really think that the headline reflects a balanced and objective report of what went on at the BAFTAs, then all I can say is that your journalistic standards are wildly different from mine.
And if I had written a headline about the WGAs, it would have been something like “Brokeback Mountain and Crash win Writers Guild Awards”.
You know what, Steve… you are right about that. While trying to be clear for folks like you, I put up a stupid clarification. You are absolutely right. And now, it is gone.
I don’t think you have any journalistic standards, Steve. You have a rooting interest. And as a professional, that should be completely irrelevant to me.
Dave, every time you post something like the above, where you basically bash someone, you weaken your credibility.
I think Dave has been quick to discount Brokeback in the past, but I don’t see anything wrong with that headline.
Mr. Poland
Thank you for agreeing with me about the editor’s note. And as for my not having any “journalistic standards”, all that I can say is that I call them as I see them. And I do think that your personal preferences have a significant influence on your “objective” reporting. And as I can certainly tell from reading this blog, I know that I am not alone in that conclusion.
Since when did a BBM sweep enter the conversation? I didn’t think it would win all of its categories and I don’t think other people are expecting it to.
J-Mc… the nice thing about this blog is that someone will take a shot at me no matter what I write. And more often than not, it’s you.
My alleged credibility exists in most cases when people agree with what I have written. When they don’t, I am “not credible.” When they do, I am “credible.” The least credible thing I could do is to listen to the whims of others.
Every time there is a controversial movie, the drumbeat starts. It was the over The Passion of The Christ… Fahrenheit 9/11… Sideways… and now, Brokeback Mountain. It’s not fun for me, but it is part of the job and it is part of the price for deciding to add a blog that allows open discourse.
I am comfortable with my standards. I don’t think you will find higher ones anywhere else. And the nice thing is, it’s all out there for everyone to see… agree or not. I don’t hide, I don’t mince, and I don’t lie. And for that, I get the good and the bad. So be it.
P.S. to Steve – If a show of hands was the basis of truth or objectivity, we’d be saluting some very terrible and popular beliefs.
I may be right and I may be wrong, but neither my objectivity nor my opinion is an opportunity for democracy.
“J-Mc… the nice thing about this blog is that someone will take a shot at me no matter what I write. And more often than not, it’s you.”
Really?
It’s not out of some anti-Poland agenda. Like I’ve said before: I have a t-shirt with your face on it. I give you a hard time only when I think you need to be given a hard time.
What cracks me up about this place are the people who come here who don’t like you or don’t like what you have to say. I would think that they have a choice whether to come to this blog and read it.. no one is forcing them! I mean, I don’t always agree with you, but you’re a great writer, and I always love reading what you have to say. I also find you to be a respectable and highly credible source who is in touch with all aspects of the entertainment industry, and I know that I can learn a lot from what you have to say. But I do also think you’re not one of the most objective journalists/critics out there, although if I’m remembering right, you weren’t a fan of Crash, so if you’re now backing it, there must be some validity to it.
Me, I just don’t think that Best Ensemble Cast (which is about the acting) is the same thing as Best Picture (which is overall, everything) and I think that even the Academy’s acting branch will gravitate more to Brokeback due to the story, performances, directing, music…just the whole thing. It just has the type of feel that says “Oscar Best Picture” while Crash is a bit more confrontational and pointed (as is Munich), something which I don’t think the Academy is a big fan of.
If you so dislike Dave and his writing and thoughts why do you torture yourself everyday by reading it and subjecting yourself to the pain he gives you?
Seems real weird to me.
I don’t think “Crash” is real strong but I’ll take anything to make this Oscar season seem semi-exciting.
Who are you talking to?
It’s only February and all of this animosity already.
Just think, in the coming months we have…
V for Vendetta, Apocalypto, Superman, Flight 93, World Trade Centre, Che and many more.
I think I’ll go out and get me a pair of those Thing foam ‘It’s clobbering time’ mitts to put on my hands.
It’ s gonna be a good year!
>If you so dislike Dave and his writing and thoughts
>why do you torture yourself everyday by reading it
>and subjecting yourself to the pain he gives you?
Dave gives me no pain. It’s fun to come here and see what a BBM hater he is and call him out for it. And if this blog only has people who actually likes Dave posting, then how many are there, 2?
You’re right Waterbucket. Only cowards want to spend all their time talking to people who always only will gree with them. [That’s why Bush only speaks to invited groups at closed rallies… ;-)]
p.s. I will also say, even though he called me a goofball, that I do hand it to Dave for putting his thoughts out there and generously giving everybody–you, waterbucket, jeff, me, etc–the chance to respond.
I guess it’s a compliment that he responds to us, because his attitude towards the various idiots and abusers on the blog who don’t actually have anything to say is blissful ignorance.
Right. Even though he gets annoyed with us (and us with him) sometimes, what would this board be like without you, me, Steve4992, Wayman_Wong…
Major props to Poland: He keeps this blog open for people to comment on his opinions and then responds to those criticisms right in the blog. It’s very refreshing to have this kind of transparacy and also very rare. Poland critics should count themselves lucky.
Why do I read Poland’s stuff? Well it’s kind of like a bad car crash; it’s not something you really want to see, but sometimes you just can’t help your self.
Seriously, it’s kind of fun to read stuff from someone you stongly disagree with and argue with them about it. And Poland certainly does respond.
And let’s face it, if the only traffic on this site were the people who fully agree with what Dave has to say, almost no one would visit it.
Well, I think it shows that Poland is, finally, an upstanding, honorable guy. As for me feeling “lucky” that I can post here… Humm… Don’t know if I’d go that far. Now if I’d won that 365 million lotto jackpot, then I’d feel lucky. (It might actually be better for my work day if this blog WASN’T letting me post.)
Oh my my, the Brokeback shirts have been sold for over $100,000.
I bet Dave The Hater bought it.
Why would Dave hate BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN?
It has given him countless articles to write and publicity. The movie is helping him and his site reach more people. The more drama/controversy over an award winning film helps everyone in his line of work.
So, hate it? I doubt it.
Since when can’t someone tell us what they think and feel especially on their own site?
Who ever said that, Fades to Black?
I think anyone who pays attention to Waterbucket’s posts knows that he exagerrates a little when it comes to Brokeback and doesn’t really think DP hates it (correct me if I’m wrong).
Thanks for the traffic concern, boys.
We had more than enough before you showed up and we’ll have more than enough once you get bored and leave. But you are still welcome.
I just wish you would try to actually consider something before simply responding about EVERYTHING being an attack on BBM. If you think that what I’ve done is to campaign against that movie, than your understanding of my understanding of how to campaign is as limited as your ability to accept anything but roses for your one true beloved film.
The biggest problem with all of this for me is that I end up wasting too much time arguing the same nothing over and over. It’s boring. It’s predictable. And it’s pointless. I can’t imagine anyone on this blog isn’t bored by it.
Frankly, I wish I cared as much about BBM as you guys insist I do. At least I would feel more passionate about the season. I can argue about the film at the drop of a hat… but who fucking cares anymore? I have seen the thing 6 times and my opion has gotten more complex, but ultimately pretty much the same. Boring. And it’s not like Crash is so exciting for me. But they are fighting for it, so that’s why they are in play. And they may win. And if they do, I will feel no thrill. I will be happy for the people who fought for so long for it, as I would for anyone fighting a battle against all odds. As for other films, like Capote, the win was getting nominated… just as it was for Sideways last year.
And so it goes…
It would be terrible journalism by David Poland if he didn’t bring these issues up.
Everyone can see that CRASH is making a run. And I don’t think it’s his job or anyone elses to coronate a movie before the actual ceremony happens.
Now that’s terrible reporting. A ton of things can happen during the voting.
Let the chips fall where they may.
Dave, Dave, Dave… I, for one, have said over and over again that I don’t think BBM was the best film of last year, even one of the top five. I don’t even think it was the best GAY-themed film of last year. I’d put WILD SIDE and MYSTERIOUS SKIN above it. But if you can’t see how snarky “and loses five” sounds, or “suprise! suprise! ‘Brokback’ wins SF Film Critics Award”… then I give up. (And you’re right it IS getting boring.)
“surprise! surprise” D’oh!
Brokeback is not my ‘one true beloved film’ of the year either. That would be The New World, followed by Munich.
Dave, I’m sorry for two things: that you can’t tell the difference between being questioned about your statements, and being attacked; and, following that, that you’re waiting for some of your most loyal bloggers to go away. That’s really disappointing.
The New World, even though flawed is pure cinema art. I am amazed at how many of my friends won’t go see it thinking it nothing more than a too slow history lesson.
With four films Mallick has a more aesthetically sound resume and more defined style than most directors with triple that amount.
What is UP with the Brokeback fans suddenly switching allegiance and saying all these Mysterious Skin and New World stuff?
Focus, people! Brokeback is the name of the game and please continue to be obsessed.
And for Dave waiting to see me go away once this is all over??? Please, have you heard that “The Dreyfus Affair” is about to be made? I’ll be here for the long haul baby. So keep expecting posts from me critizing you from your lack of taste in great films like Brokeback to your jolly good roundy belly in the horrendous orangy shirt!
Well, I’ll stay here at least until my college education is over. Gotta have this blog to keep me company each night while I belabor over all these theories and hypotheses.
In conclusion, Brokeback = good. Dave Poland = the Devil’s Advocate.
Waterbucket: Or, maybe, he’s just plain Satan? (BTW: You do know that some of us hopelessly hetero folks like “Brokeback Mountain” too, right? So, when the revolution comes, you won’t shoot ALL of us, right?)
Don’t worry, Joe. We gays know very well that the majority of the people who have been giving “Brokeback Mountain” rave reviews, nominations, and awards are, like the general population, straight people like yourself. It’s only a few right wingers and egomaniacal people with crazy blind spots causing them to dislike this film who are rationalizing, thinking its some sort of gay conspiracy that’s shoving this film down everyone
Well, Danny, like I said in another posting: I never really thought of “Brokeback” as movie that spoke only to gay folks. For me, it is a movie about the damage you do to yourself and others when you deny yourself the right to be happy, when you deny yourself the right to love and be loved. As such, it spoke to me very directely and insistently. I don’t know you, but I truly hope that you are in a relationship, or will be in a relationship, that will lift you up and set you free, and that you will never for a moment feel bad or sad or guilty about it. Come to think of it, I wish the same to everyone else on this blog, too. Yes, even you, Bicycle Bob.
and don’t forget Tiny Tim, Joe!
That’s what great art does, it speaks to people across all sorts of boundaries and in different ways, right? You don’t have to be a (straight) Italian circus worker to have your heart broken by LA STRADA or a 17th century Japanese woman to relate to LIFE OF OHERU Hell, those things speak to me more strongly than some shallow little gay ghetto farce like ADAM AND STEVE or THE MOSTLY UNFABULOUS SOCIAL LIFE OF ETHAN GREEN. What’s so great about BROKEBACK is that it’s director, who claims to have been inspired by THE VIRGIN SPRING more than any other film (quite a stretch for a 20th century Asian, considering that movie is about a 14th century Swedish family) was able to make it universal. Well, almost universal….
I agree with your exasperation over the Variety jab. Why can’t Dave just DEAL with the fact that other sincere professionals can have sincerely different takes on movies than he does. Why does it always have to be that some dark political motive is clouding some “crystal clear truth” about which movies are good and which movies are bad? The VARIETY critic didn’t like V FOR VENGEANCE, BAFTA liked THE AVIATOR last year and they like WALLICE AND GROMIT this year. Most critics and award giving organizations love BROKEBACK this year. Deal with it. I’ve never been offended that Dave didn’t like that film, I’ve just been offended that he can’t seem to accept the sincerity or even existence of the large number of people who do. Same with the response to V FOR VENGEANCE.
And finally, yes, thanks, I’m in a great relationship. Glad to here you have a new honey, too. Keep posting. I
I think when it’s all said and done, Dave Poland just was not affected by Brokeback Mountain. It didn’t work for him, and that’s the wall where all criticism and analysis and rationalization stops. I can understand and agree with several of the points he made for why the film didn’t work for him. But to me they were small enough flaws that I still greatly enjoyed the movie.
That said, I honestly believe that the blame for the never-ending “Dave P. hates Brokeback” theme of recent weeks rests more with Dave P. himself for not properly dispelling those thoughts, and not with the blogeteers who have gone after him (like myself) because it’s his blog and he sets the tone. He’s tried hard but his efforts have often backfired on him.
By the way, off the subject but can someone get rid of the pod person-Roger Ebert that won’t stop writing about how good and important Crash is and bring back the regular Roger Ebert who, in the good old days, would have laughed it off the screen? I just read his newest feeble defense of it on his web page (the Charles Dickens one).
If Universal or whoever was in charge of sending the MUNICH screener DVDs to the BAFTA critics didn’t fuck up the DVD technical/zoning aspects then MUNICH *might* have qualified *and* won at the BAFTAS.
You people keep that in mind.
the people behind munich only have themselves to blame for not backing up and campaigning for it.
“Please, have you heard that “The Dreyfus Affair” is about to be made?”
Man, I’d much rather see The Front Runner finally get made. I don’t usually cry over books, but that one as a memorable exception.
“We had more than enough before you showed up and we’ll have more than enough once you get bored and leave.”
Mrrrrowr! 😉
As for Ebert, I feel like I just erased everything I ever learned in that Victorian lit course by reading his comparison.
“Caricatures and coincidences are not weaknesses in Dickens but his method. And “Crash,” one of this year’s Oscar nominees and my choice as the best film of 2005, uses exactly the same tools. ”
Yes, uses the same tools. No, not to the same effect. Sandra Bullock (I don’t even remember her character’s name) has so little on Miss Havisham that I’m offended that someone could even draw a comparison, particularly someone who has read Dickens end to end.
If “Crash” does win in an upset, they may have Ebert to thank for the win.
He has single handedly kept the movie alive.
“Sandra Bullock (I don’t even remember her character’s name) has so little on Miss Havisham that I’m offended that someone could even draw a comparison, particularly someone who has read Dickens end to end.”
You got that right qwiggles. Comparing the novels of Charles Dickens to Crash is like comparing a master painting with fine brush strokes to something painted with a power paint sprayer. Dickens’ characters (with all those delicious names–Uriah Heep, Miss Betsey Trotwood, Tommy Traddles, etc.) become indelibly etched in one’s memory after reading one of his novels. I couln’t have told you the names of any of the characters in Crash five minutes after seeing it.
(And no, I am not going to compare BBM to Dickens, although . . . .)
Wasn’t Paul Newman set to star in a film version of “The Front Runner” many years ago?
Joe:
I understood that Newman at one point had agreed to make the “The Front Runner”, but then nothing came of it. I’m not sure whether he backed out or what happened. In terms of offending straight peoples’ sensibility, “The Front Runner” would certainly be a much more difficult film to make than BBM–the BBM scene in the tent is very tame compared to what happens in a movie theater in “The Front Runner”.
(By the way, I remember reading your very fine reviews in The Houston Post. I still miss that newspaper.)
I think the last thing I read about it (in Calendar?) said Paul Newman thinks he’s too old now. Which, really, he is.
I agree with Steve that The Front Runner would be a much more difficult mainstream “sell” — and I think that would be even if the sex scenes were toned way, way down and a lot of the coach’s backstory was trimmed out. There are some taboos in the main relationship that would exist on some level even if it were m/f — teacher/student (even if the student is an adult) and a substantial age difference.
I also wonder if they wouldn’t contemporize the whole thing, which I’m not sure would be bad, if they could keep the emotional authenticity in place. Avoiding ’70’s haircuts and clothes is almost always a good thing. 🙂
And making “The Front Runner” would cost a fortune compared to BBM–if I remember correctly, the last scene is set in an Olympic stadium packed with people.
From what I remember, Newman bought the rights to the Front Runner back in the 70s, hoping with the breakthroughs of CABERET, SUNDAY BLOODY SUNDAY, etc., it wouldn’t be that hard of a sell to the studios. But alas, he could never get the backing.
I love Paul Newman. He was so handsome, probably the most handsome man ever.
Come to this link to see if you have Brokeback Fever:
http://nursing.advanceweb.com/common/Editorial/Editorial.aspx?CC=67419
I have it, and it feels GOOOOOOOOD!!!
Waterbucket, do you have a SECOND favorite movie? What are you going to be talking about with us once the “fever” breaks?
Not only does “Front Runner” end at the Olympics — if I remember correctly, what actually happens in the climactic scene there (nothing sexual, mind you) might greatly upset the folks who control use of Olympics logos. (If you’ve read the book, you know what I am referring to.) And that alone might be an obstacle to filming the book. Of course, another obstacle is the rest of the plot. As you mention, Lynn, the whole teacher/student thing might be a MAJOR problem even for audiences who embraced “Brokeback Mountain.”
Buckets second favorite movie is Brokeback Mountain. Followed by Brokeback Mountain. Rounded up by Brokeback Mountain.
Bucket’s second favorite movie? That’s easy: “Red River.” Long before there were Heath and Jake, there were Monty Clift and John Ireland.
And Joe, don’t you think Wayne, was actually pretty hot for Monty in Red River. I mean come on.
Duke and Monty in “Red River”? Nah. Duke and Rock Hudson in “Undefeated”? Maybe….
I’m not sayin’ the Duke and Monty DID anything, but the Duke sure wanted him. Why else did he freak out when young MC tried to break away and go off with the girl?
To answer DannyBoy, yes I do have a second favorite movie. But I don’t think discussing the brilliance of Wild Reeds would be very appropriate.
However, talking about Brokeback Mountain nonstop is very fitting for this blog.
I’ve never seen Red River but I guess maybe I should now. I heard it’s also Dave Poland’s all time favorite movie, is it not?
Please, ‘Bucket, I beg you to find new topics. Or at least new shadings. I’m sure Dave Poland isn’t the only one here exasperated by the exclamation points and frequent restating of your raison d’etre. Surely you have more to contribute?
I don’t mean that as a slam, but I just want to point out that you’re actually doing your favorite film a lot of harm by being so doggedly one-note about it. If the point it just to irritate DP, believe me, a lot of people are getting caught in the crossfire.
James Leer and I are the best of friends.
Here’s to great friendship and understanding.
Should I hazard a guess and say Waterbucket was the one who paid 100 k for Jake’s shirt in Brokeback?
Bucket, you might want to check out LONESOME COWBOYS by Andy Warhol. They were gay, and cowboys, and lonesome. (Isn’t that hot?)
Don’t listen to anyone Waterbucket. Keep telling us what you love about your favorite film. Don’t let anyone put you in a corner.
“Lions Gate to the (Mira)Max” — what a fitting headline!
LGF has pulled a Miramax/Weinstein by pulling its ads from the Village Voice. No ads for “A Good Woman” when it opened (and tanked) a few weeks ago. No ads for “Madea’s Family Reunion” this week.
Here’s Nathaniel R’s take on the ”Brokeback” vs. ”Crash” debate at the Film Experience …
http://www.thefilmexperience.net/Awards/2005/oscar_countdown.html
THANK YOU for that, Wayman. Why didn’t I know about that blog before? Nathaniel R’s little piece on the “Brokeback” vs. “Crash” faux match up makes other bloggers I know (who shall remain nameless) sound like morons.
I’m adding filmexperience.net to my bookmarks right now. =)
DannyBoy, Nathaniel’s blog has been going for a year now, but his site has been up for many a year (and before that, it was a zine!). A few months ago I actually mentioned his site and mentioned some opinion he had and I got a reply from someone (joefitz i believe) saying something along the lines of “but this Nathaniel thinks Brokeback Mountain will lead the oscar nominations. I won’t be reading anything from him again” and it was funny because it was so wrong.
But, seriously, that piece is spot on. BBM has all those awards (PGA, DGA, WGA, Globes + critics) it has the box-office (well, it IS the highest grossing) it’s topical, it’s got the reviews, it’s got the “classic” vibe (people WILL be watching this ‘in the future’ i have no doubt), it’s seen as ‘groundbreaking’ etc, and seriously – AMPAS would love to feel proud about themselves by rewarding it.
I can see that Crash is hovering around like a bad smell, but if Brokeback loses from the position it is in there (as Nat says) something is awfully fishy. And I think even those that don’t like BBM have to admit that any film who that won PGA, DGA, WGA and the Globe losing Best Picture at the Oscars isn’t slightly odd needs to re-evaluate something.
BROKEBACK loses to CRASH?
Highly doubtful. Because of a SGA award? Ebert’s effusive praise? The actors campaigning for it?
i can’t see a film with this many pre cursor awards losing. id be more shocked if crash won than shakespeare beating private ryan.
Thanks Josh. My knight in shining armor.
Don’t make me blush.