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
Blogs, New Media, the net news are here to stay. It’s the first time Old Media has had some competition in a while. They were scared of television too when it burst on the scene. Hopefully, the coming new media will help weed out the weak in the Old Media and we’ll all be better for it.
“The traditional media has been, for the most part, the gatekeeper for internet sites.”
That I would disagree with, unless you think that traditional media “validates” internet sites by featuring them. Traditional outlets with a higher age demographic tend to be late to the cultural party, so that once a site shows up in the NY Times, for example, you can bet it has already attracted a huge audience on its own through little more than word of mouth.
I’d rather read three rockin’ columns from Poland every week than twenty thin-skinned reactions on the blog. I think the b-word brings out the worst… whatever the intentions, it all comes back to ruffling feathers.
But, as was the case yesterday, it CAN be entertaining as hell.
I like content filled articles and columns. But a blog is good for the little stuff. The quick stuff that comes out. Little, light reaction pieces. But it won’t beat any of the full columns.
I agree James that OM does confirm status. But the reality is, the “next level” comes when OM starts promoting the website or blog, at least as far as ads go. More people have heard of Defamer than read Defamer… but you can be sure than half the ads they get are because of that OM cred, which they hear on Madison Ave.
You do need the street cred before you can claim a place at the table.
The writer of the FT article is engaging in a give-and-take at this… blog: http://ftmagblog.blogspot.com/
Gawker is good for some laughs but serious, real content? Nah.
Speaking of blogs… you guys have to read Bill O’Reilly’s homophobic, amateurish take on Brokeback this week…
Classic out of touch Billy Boy.
I saw that.
“According to friends of mine who have seen “Brokeback,” the key scene takes place in a pup tent. Apparently, two shepherds “bond” in said tent. If I do see the movie, I know what will run through my mind during that scene: What would Clint, Lee and Eli have done had they stumbled upon the tent? I believe gunfire might have been involved.”
Wow, how classy.
Certainly, he goes on to say that prejudice against gay people is wrong, but his implication that the behavior of “Clint, Lee, and Eli” might have his tacit approval is more than a little frightening.
Two things that I thought were funny about Billy’s column:
He was shocked shocked that Hollywood was involved in culture-shaping.
He believes the days of Gone with the Wind type films winning best picture are over in favor of “message” films. Yeah, Lord of the Rings was a very distant two years ago.
The days of GONE WITH THE WIND type movies will never be over. They’re just hard to find and even harder to produce.
The X Men campaign should be here and on other web sites. Movie fans do come here don’t they?
Maybe they think they already have this market cornered.
At least O’Reilly admits he hasn’t seen the movie, because bisexual shepherds aren’t on his viewing wish list. I guess curiosity, exploration, or empathy aren’t on his ‘to do’ list in general.
But yeah, this is the same old crap, new day, recycling the “Hollywood is out of touch” argument about ignoring the highest-grossing films of the year.
I don’t know why anyone pays attention to him.
“The writer of the FT article is engaging in a give-and-take at this… blog: http://ftmagblog.blogspot.com/“
Well, that’s irony for ya… didn’t take long for someone to turn this into a conversation about Brokeback Mountain, though. Maybe the first response to every post Poland makes should be something about Brokeback Mountain in the same way that the first comment on every AICN post is “FIRST.” Just a thought. 🙂
it usually takes about 3 posts to turn a thread into a brokeback thread. it can be a thread about narnia and someone will find a way to incorporate brokeback into it.
O’Reilly. Highest rated show on cable. I guess someone pays attention to him huh? Shows how out of touch you are jeff Leer.
Hollywood isn’t about “statements”? What do you call each of the five Best Picture nominees? 5 low grossing movies all preaching a statement.
First = Brokeback.
That’s really funny.
Especially if you post on AICN too.
Bills Point: Hollywood makes movies to change the culture of society.
What he doesn’t get is Hollywood could care less about culture or values or changing anything. They only care about the bottom line and what movies can make a few bucks.
That’s all well and good. But how does that explain the Oscars and all the films nominated being Message films?
They just patting themselves on the back?
The http://ftmagblog.blogspot.com/ site is a really good back and forth on blogging and the net in general.
I don’t know if 2% of the general online going public can tell you what Gawker Media is.
That’s a site that could really use a top notch partner to help it.
The Chicago Tribune, as fogey as any media is old, has weighed in, twice repeating the canard that “Al Gore invented the internet.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0602220029feb22,0,6109543.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed
“No sooner had Al Gore invented the Internet than early adopters discovered a liberating opportunity: Anybody with a modem and an ego could share his or her thoughts with the world…. You’re forgiven if you cling to the conventional wisdom that blogging, like half-pipe snowboarding, enjoys an unrelievedly rich future. Forgiven, but maybe behind the curve… Gallup finds only 9 percent of Internet users saying they frequently read blogs, with 11 percent reading them occasionally. Thirteen percent of Internet users rarely bother, and 66 percent never read blogs… The pixels hadn’t faded on Gallup’s downbeat report when Slate.com columnist Daniel Grossman chimed in with another requiem, “Twilight of the Blogs.” … Even if blogging flops as a business and doesn’t attract more readership, many bloggers will still have loyal followings. Gallup’s report gives a nod to the chattering class–that segment of inordinately dialed-in Americans who are enthralled with, or at least entertained by, one another’s opinions about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. … So blogging has a future, however indefinite. At least till Al Gore invents the Next Big Thing.”
Now for the blog part, which involves planting a small thorn of greater accuracy into the furry paw of an outsized creature: Gore, in an interview on CNN, said, as part of a list of things he supported, “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” [More at http://www.sethf.com/gore/%5D
al gore. a true renaissance man.
Prideray, I think that article is being facetious about Al Gore “inventing” the internet.
You mean the Trib doesn’t really think Al Gore invented the internet???
Say it ain’t so, yo!
When were blogs ever a business? I didn’t think they were a big business part of any website or any Old Media or New Media. Can you make money off a blog?
Hey Josh: do you dislike ‘statement movies’ in general, or just these five movies in particular (which raises the other question, have you even seen them?)
Jeffmcm – “I guess curiosity, exploration, or empathy aren’t on his ‘to do’ list in general”.
Empathy. Two Marlboro Men in sham marriages are now the poster kids for cinematic empathy.
Excuse me if I decide to save mine for movies like Born Into Brothels. Ya know – real people going through truly harsh times.
But ya know, that’s probably just me and my out-of-whack priorities.
It’s the lead editorial and the Tribune is not being facetious. Why slag someone twice who has nothing to do with the point you’re attempting to make? It’s numb.
Martin: Did Bill O’Reilly ever praise Born Into Brothels in any way, shape, or form?
My comment was to point out that he’s happy to mock a movie he hasn’t seen to make a cheap political point, and that he makes it clear that he isn’t interested in learning about any way of life outside of his own. That’s a lack of curiosity and empathy.
Some people want more out of their movie going experience than curiosity and empathy. It’s not cheap to attend movies nowadays.
But if you’re going to write nationally syndicated articles based on a movie, you should really pony up the dough and see it. Walk out if you want but at least try.
GONE WITH THE WIND is indeed a message movie. The message: This is what happens when you don’t pay the help.
Hey Joefitz: when you say people want more out of their movie going experience, what are you thinking of? Boobs or explosions or both?