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
The Channel 4 thing sounds very silly and hysterical and reflective of the lowered standards for news. In fact, it sounds like local news stations have zero standards anymore and just look for anything sensational to sell ad time with.
The United 93 thing is more complicated. The card sounded jingoistic and I’m glad to hear it has been removed (although they could have just reworded it). But that’s an act of responsibility on the part of the filmmakers. Other audience members have nothing to do with it.
DP, in both cases you’re suffering from one of the fundamental liberal problems: In your desire to be fair to all sides, to equivalue, you’re losing sight of the fact that there might indeed be a right answer and a wrong answer to the questions at hand.
Sometimes the majority of the public is wrong about things. Am I elitist to say so? Probably. That doesn’t make it wrong.
Sometimes a religion is also a scam. It’s not real just because some people really do believe in it.
Not all viewpoints are correct. You have the best intentions in considering all viewpoints, but you can’t allow the multitude of viewpoints to cripple your own faculty for reason.
Some of the people listed as current Scientologists aren’t…and some of them aren’t even still alive!
Did Greta Van Susteren have another round of plastic surgery? That alleged photo of her doesn’t look like her.
Thank god they dropped that title card from United 93. Seriously, it’s not LOTR. That title card reads like something Gandalf would say. A film based of the events of United 93, should not have GANDALF PHRASING at the end of it. Dear lord, whomever thought of that, really lacks any sort of clue. If the people GET IT or NOT. Well, the PEOPLE, are a lot more DIVIDED and INTELLECTUAL then they are ever given credit for by the people on the right side of the country and the left.
That aside, nothing in Scientology can be as silly as original sin, denying the basic nature of humnaity to do something that a deity probably doesnt care about, the fact that a prophet never wrote anything down, and his backwards father-in-law crafted his son-in-law’s preachings to HIS will. The list goes on. Sure. Thetans, a bit strange, but STRANGE has never stopped religion before. So, if the Scientologists, want their ladies to shut it during pregnancy. Well, that’s their thing, and I could care less. Seriously, we should care about Scientologist? If those people can suffer through eight-hours of induction and get something out of it. Well HIP-HOP HOORAY for them, but I am past caring.
Brandy’s a scientologist!!!? My fragile little world is falling apart!
Seriously, the list reads as a list of who is popular, and who isn’t…so basically, if you suck, you no longer are a scientologist. If anyone ever figures out the true purpose of the religion, it’ll probably cause the planet to implode.
There is a card at the very end of the print I saw in Chicago that seemed off, but I think the phrasing was different from this? You’ve seen two different cards in different screenings, D?
I’ll be up in arms if I see ‘Git’R’Dun’ slapped onto an ending card.
It sounded beyond lame in the first place. Glad they changed it.
I’m glad they took the card away because the war on terror had been going on MUCH longer than since 2001 and I think everyone knows that. AND THEN THE WAR ON TERROR CONTINUED would be more apt, but still… no.
I was going to argue with KCamel about it, but then I looked it up on that most reputable source, Wikipedia, and saw that the War on Terrorism had started after the USS Cole Attack in Oct. 2000. So never mind.
well, “war on terror” the phrase may have only been around since then but surely you guys (lol, YOU the US government) have been trying to fight it for years. Surely after the original World Trade Center attack people weren’t all “oh, let’s not try to get who did this.” ??? Hadn’t they been trying to get Bin Laden for years. Not to mention the “war on terror” has been going on in other countries other than the US too. Northern Ireland, Middle East, etc…
Maybe they meant “war on terror” and its current use as a marketing slogan, which has only been the case since 9/11.
Greengrass seems to be a very noble filmmaker. He has said that he removed the slate because he did not want to divide people on either side of the political realm. Given his actions I give him a pass. He seems to want to find truth outside of politics.
Other Hollywood filmmakers (Clooney, The Washowskis, Moore) should take a lesson from people such as Greengrass or Bono. Greengrass shows he is a class act. I’ll be there opening night.
As for the Scientology thing…it is a fad/trend. Nobody should be singled out for being a Scientologist and if that was the intent of this photospread than it is wrong. Having said that, I think scientology is more of a ‘big deal’ in Hollywood and the media than it is with the average person. Other than Tom Cruise or Travolta, it is off the radar for most.
I also however agree with the poster above who warned of the dangers of equivocation and relativism. That is a trap that sadly, too many people confuse with ‘enlightenment’ in the current era.
As for the phrase ‘war on terror’, it certainly is more common post 9/11 but did not begin with such. Terrorism has been a world wide phenomenon for decades in its current form. America is only dealing with it as a nation now because of 9/11 but certainly other cultures have dealt with it for much longer.
It is more complex than just ‘oil’ or ‘Iraq’ and will exist long after we are off the planet.
Hasn’t Greengrass publicly stated that he is against the war? What exactly should Clooney learn from him? Moore is a different story.
No issues at all with him being against the war. That is a totally respectable position if it comes from the right place.
What Clooney could learn from him is to not drink so much from the cup of arrogance and condescension.
Greengrass has conducted himself in such a way that his film is loved by both the left and the right. With such controversial subject matter, that is no small feat. Jeff Wells loved it and so did Rush Limbaugh.
Greengrass should be proud of himself. I’ll be glad to be able to talk about this film more in depth after I see it.
No issues at all with him being against the war. That is a totally respectable position if it comes from the right place. Same with being for the war.
What Clooney could learn from him is to not drink so much from the cup of arrogance and condescension.
Greengrass has conducted himself in such a way that his film is loved by both the left and the right. With such controversial subject matter, that is no small feat. Jeff Wells loved it and so did Rush Limbaugh.
Greengrass should be proud of himself. I’ll be glad to be able to talk about this film more in depth after I see it.
Jeff Wells loving a film is a flashing red light as far as I’m concerned.
What about Clooney as a filmmaker – a guy who’s directed two films, as opposed to a movie star – is ‘condescending’ or ‘arrogant’? I don’t even think his speeches as movie star fit that category either, but I understand why you would think so.
TO be honest, if Greengrass had gone radically off the rails and had characters sprouting lines like “Oh, it’s all Sadaam’s fault!” then we’d have an issue. Clooney’s films were deliberately left, for Clooney to not discuss the left would be against his character. If Greengrass was using the promotion of this movie to protest the war then there would be a problem.
And also, Nicol’s gonna get spammed!
Oh snap! Take that, entropy!