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
“I haven’t seen the scene, so I don’t know how close to the line it gets.”
C’mon, David, think of all the times movies have been criticized and then it turns out the critic hasn’t seen it. How is this different?
“But it doesn’t sound like anything that wouldn’t manage a PG-13 or even a PG via the MPAA.”
Maybe, maybe not. But the last time I checked, the MPAA wasn’t in charge of TV ratings. I’m not saying you’re wrong. I haven’t seen the show (ever), and this could be great overreaching by the FCC. But there’s surely a better argument to be made that this is the case.
Do you really think a problematic sex scene got past the CBS censors?
I know what you are saying, but what seems reasonable?
Of course the MPAA and the FCC are different. But again, the FCC is claiming to know what the public thinks. It is even more invasive a notion than the MPAA’s, no?
But blowing someone’s brains out an hour before on CSI…that’s fine.
Does the FCC fine for violence, like, ever? Or is it just sex they’re so terrified of?
The real news should be that someone actually watched Without a Trace in order to report this.
Oh, I wouldn’t be so sure that the people who complained watch WAT either–these protests are organized by evangelical Christian groups who simply tell their members to complain in massive numbers about something the organization doesn’t like.
(former attendee of evangelical church)
Not that I agree at all with your FCC or its ruling, but I think its important to note that it is the fact that this episode aired at 9 pm, not 10 pm, in the central and mountain time zones. That is a big part of why CBS is being fined.
Coming Soon… Attack of the MPAA from Mars!
Dave:
Are you still at SXSW? If so, I just caught a band here in Toronto last night that was so absolutely amazing, i have to recommend you check them out. They are playing SXSW tonight. They are called “The Guillemots” and, although the name is terrible, their show and music is excellent. Of course, there may be “work” or “movies” to get in the way! hehe. This mp3 blog has a number of songs. “Trains to Brazil” is the one to check out. http://goodweatherforairstrike.blogspot.com/ (post on Tuesday March 14th)
Here’s a link to the video of the offending scene courtesy of the PTC: (Link is about halfway down the page in a box)
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/ealerts/2005/0112.asp
I don’t know about other people, but I could barely see a thing until the last few seconds, and even then, mostly it was alcohol being poured down her throat more than anything else. That didn’t seem any worse to me than scenes I’ve seen on other similar network shows (I do watch episodes of Law & Order every once in a while).
And thanks for posting the clip. I was looking for it with no luck.
Perhaps the argument shouldn’t be, was this scene really so bad to deserve this massive fine, but rather, even if it was, should it be fined anyway?
Also, I think the other point I was trying to make but didn’t (it was late on the East Coast) is that I don’t think TV and movies are directly comparable. I don’t think saying that because something would fly in a movie it should or would fly on TV works. They need to be taken on their own terms. That’s all I meant.
After viewing the scene, it does look a little racier than what I’ve seen on other broadcast shows in the last year or so. I’d totally only put it at a PG13 type thing, which is usually okay even in the 9pm hour CST/MST. Maybe it was the porno-style music in the background of it that did it. Honestly though, there was a scene in the short-lived Rod Lurie series Line of Fire where a woman got anally raped that I found more disturbing and was surprised there wasn’t an outcry about that.
Just saw the scene (via the link above).
R-rated all the way.
Premium cable can air this. Broadcast TV (even at 10 pm) is too much.
Mr. Poland, TV is more “invasive” though and yes, I think this “orgy scene” (what else would you call it) would merit at least a PG-13. Because the show was aired at 9pm, then it would be outside the safe harbor.
I don’t see any crotch on crotch “thrusting” that the FCC is complaining about. The second half of the flashback has the girl sitting almost directing on the guy’s chest. Unless he is super-endowed, that’s not intercourse.
No one has to worry about the studios making movies like this. They’re more concerned with fat guys porking pies and totally perverting sex more than anything.
Ryan
You must not watch much Law & Order or CSI then white label. I have seen my fair share of those shows and I have seen plenty of episodes with sex and violence that is just as racy or graphic as what that clip shows. The dark lighting and quick cutting make it difficult to see much of anything anyway.
Whoa.
Are we sure this is CBS’ Without A Trace and not FOX’s The Larry Clark Holiday-Christmas Extravaganza?
Since the federales couldn’t go after CBS for exposing Abu Ghraib the federales went after CBS for a prime-time show that a pro-censorship group doesn’t like. That’s not unlike the Interior Dept. doing the bidding of Jack Abramoff.
From the Reagan years on the FCC has become a morality police. Have the feds ever gone after stations that broadcast “The 700 Club”? Pat Robertson used that program last August to demand that the US government assassinate the president of Venezuela. [The FCC would be involved as “The 700 Club” is seen on some over-the-air stations.]
What was the show rated? Why aren’t the offended viewers using their V-chips? Remember the V-chip, people?
Maybe CBS can get the money back by suing the Parent’s Television Council for copyright infringement.
There’s always been oversight of network TV content. There’s always been obscenity laws. That invisible “line” that can be crossed is subjective, but I don’t know how “shocking” the objection to a depiction of a teen orgy is.
The real issues here are what should and shouldn’t be shown on television and when?
Ultimately, tv is a medium that children have a ready access to V-Chip or not.
On the one hand there is the freedom of speech argument…that the FCC should not fine.
To those people I ask “Do they think any limits should be placed on network television and what?”
To those that agree with the fine, “Who gets to determine community standards?”
I do not have an answer in this case, but there seems to be very little consensus.
Is it censorship? Perhaps. But there are many forms of censorship. Are those that oppose the fines in favour of making hate speech criminalized? That too is censorship and raises the same questions. Who determines community standards and what is hate?
What about issues of libel and slander? We restrict freedom of expression on those. No free speech is absolute.
The word censorship is a loaded one…but ultimately, I have yet to meet someone who is 100% for ‘no censorship.’
As a Conservative Republican, I believe in the marketplace to decide. It works for cable, there’s no reason it can’t work for broadcast TV, as well.
I think people are also rightly concerned about a small but vocal minority perverting the system to attempt to control what other people can or cannot see.
I mean, there were something like 350 complaints to the FCC in 2000. Now the FCC gets something like 1,000 times that many complaints or more in any given year. Is broadcast television 1,000 times worse than it was in 2000? Or are groups like the Parent’s Television Council (which, at one time, was apparently responsible for 99.8% of the complaints the FCC received) perverting the process?
And even if all 350,000 of those complaints were about one particular show and were all legitimate, that’s still a small percentage of the viewership of most shows.
http://datelinehollywood.com/archives/2006/03/13/conservative-tv-critics-relieved-by-return-of-sopranos/
This is a pretty funny Onion-esque take on how the PTC works.
Here’s what I don’t get. An adult show like Without a Trace (which, no doubt, was tagged with a TV-14 SLD rating) is being targeted by the PTC. Fine, I dig it. But where’s the outrage for what happened on American Idol three weeks ago?
The #1 rated show on TV. The show most watched by families. A show in the 8PM family hour. And what do I see? A 15 second TV spot for The Hills Have Eyes. A review that uses language like “Brutal and Unflinching.” “Relentlessly terrifying,” and “Almost too intense.” A TV spot that shows shots of a family screaming in terror, an axe-wielding maniac, evil mutants and, to top it all off, a disturbing shot of a deformed little girl.
Somehow this escapes the wrath of the Parent’s Television Council but an adult show broadcast at 10:00 to most of the country does not.
I really appreciate the irony that a scene that the Parents Television Council deems offensive is available for download on their site.
Has anyone heard anything on this upcoming weekend event with David Lynch?
http://lynchweekend.mum.edu/
“Ultimately, tv is a medium that children have a ready access to V-Chip or not.”
No, I’m sorry. That is crap. If a child is watching TV unsupervised at 9 or 10 pm at night, the responsibility for that belongs to the parent.
If a parent chooses to let a child watch whatever they want without their supervision, if a parent chooses not to bother learning how to use their cable box or V-chip, if a parent chooses to let a child have a TV in their bedroom — those are the choices of that parent. It shouldn’t be up to the government to decide what’s appropriate for a child to watch. It should be up to the parent.
I’m from the Sesame Street generation. I am all for having family-friendly TV options. I am all for TV being used as a tool for education.
What I am not in favor of is the notion that everything on TV needs to be appropriate for a 5 year old… and if it was up to the PTC crowd, that’s exactly what the standard would be, on both broadcast TV and cable, including pay cable. They don’t want anything they deem offensive to be available to anyone.
I think the 500 channel universe has room for content for both children and adults, and it should be the market, not the federal government, that decides what’s appropriate on TV and what’s not.
The FCC and its decency regulations were established at a time when access to TV viewers was restricted to the public airwaves. That’s not how most people receive TV anymore. 67% of homes with TV’s have at least analog cable, thereby making the conscious decision to have TV in their homes. There are several easy-to-use technical tools to limit what their kids see. Satellite users, not included in the 67%, have the same or greater tools, and even homes with no cable who bought their TV in the past 10 years have the V-chip. The idea of TV being an uncontrollable intruder into your home is no longer true, and the FCC decency regulations are a relic of the past that should become extinct.
Of course, they won’t, because the PTC crowd is far too powerful. But don’t kid yourself (so to speak) — this isn’t about what kids see. They won’t be happy until they regulate what everyone sees.
The evil FCC forced the USA Network years ago to cut dozens of scenes in Brian DePalma’s Scarface.
Well folks those scenes have finally been found…
http://www.superbike.co.uk/video/scarface_kwik_news_81215.html
If someone ever aired that during primetime, the FCC could fine $1 trillion dollars, retire and live off the interest.
A funny thing. Nobody complaints about the violence on these shows.. CSI, Law and Order, etc. Moonves should be suing the PTC. Vince McMahon sued them and they can’t even mention his programming anymore. Who ever said these complainers hadn’t seen the shows were right. These are generated via their web site in mass. During the whole Superbowl thing or whatever they found that like the majority of the complaints were form letters generated by the PTC and only like 100 weren’t. This is one of the most popular shows on television. If it was that offensive wouldn’t the FCC have been overwhelemed with complaints. This frigging country is down the drain. We’ll all be watching Hee Haw and Ozzie and Harriet if we arne’t careful.
“The evil FCC forced the USA Network years ago to cut dozens of scenes in Brian DePalma’s Scarface.”
The FCC doesn’t regulate cable. Yet.
That’s one of the networks’ big complaints — that they’re competing against channels that don’t have to follow the same restrictions that they do.
Basic cable, with very few exceptions, generally self-censors for a number of reasons. And in some cases they simply use the “TV cut” of a movie that was done by the filmmakers, or, especially for older films, an already-existing TV version, usually cut together by a network.
CBS and the producers of “Without a Case” have grounds to sue the Parents Television Council — for interfering with these companies’ business. CBS also has a good case to charge the federales with arbitrary and capricious conduct.
Then again CBS is part of a Big Media conglomerate whose chairman openly supports Bush.
So in other words…screw them?
I dunno…that seems pretty tame compared to some of the stuff that’s been shown on the television at earlier hours…I mean, if that’s sex, then I’m Ghandi.
The FCC is ruining your country! Americans, stand up against the injustice! Okay…it’s a lot of fuss over a show that I have never seen and don’t know anyone that does watch it…so I’m with you who say, “Who complained exactly?”