Old MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Josh Hartnett: Slagging Off Lohan and Hilton For the Kids


The Reeler spent most of this morning hunkered down at the Regency with Lucy Liu, Sir Ben Kingsley and a few other principals from the nifty little neo-noir Lucky Number Slevin, due out April 7. And while our technical and aesthetic banter was enthralling as all hell, leading man Josh Hartnett’s avowed resistance to being a “cog in the studio machine” reminded me of some fun criticisms he recently made of Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton.
“I don’t think I even said that,” Hartnett replied when asked about comments attributed to him by Jane Magazine (via Page Six). “But if I said something like that, I think it was more about what kids are trying to do these days with their lives. A lot of people are relying on, you know, ‘I can be on a reality TV show and be a star tomorrow, so what does it matter?’ You know? ‘I’m just going to go to college and I’m going to party–prolonged adolescence.’ But it’s getting more and more (that) I think a lot of people are kind of betting on that.
“I probably used their names in some other context,” he continued, a little more on topic. “I don’t know. Anybody who makes a living in this business has done something right. I don’t fault anybody for their way of doing things. But I think that that whole thing was totally misconstrued.”
And yes–we did talk about Slevin itself, a fine film that I will cover here a little more conventionally closer to its release. But God only knows how much the nascent Hartnett/Lohan feud troubled you, so at least now you can get some sleep until the next misquote, decontextualization or whatever.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

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