April 25, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
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
David, do you have any idea how much Da Vinci Code is costing? Just wondering.
The problem is…you can’t ‘sell’ controversy.
True controversy is organic and from the ground up.
I actually think from a PR point of view Sony is doing the right thing in the way they are selling it.
How else could they ‘create’ controversy? The controversy is that the book tells historical fallacies about Catholics and portrays them as the villains of history in an effort to promote Dan Brown’s belief in the Pagan earth goddess.
That kind of stuff isn’t going to sell to the average filmgoer on Friday night.
The people to whom this book is genuinely slanderous are not going to see this movie.
The people who genuinely believe in Brown’s (and perhaps Hanks and Howards?) view are going to see it regardless of the quality.
What is left is that murky middle. People for whom the subject matter has no sway either way and are just looking for an adventure on a Friday night with America’s favourite star.
To these people…the current sell is most likely effective. Hanks hasn’t been in a massive tent pole summer film in a while and it may be his last chance.
It also has franchise potential-perhaps the sequel could have him taking down Catholics in a Boston homeless shelter and forcing the hungry to sacrifice their first born to Gaia the Earth Goddess for food. Hey…Al Gore could make a cameo as the high priestess!
(deep down you all know that idea is being considered over one to many cheap beaugeolais’ at the Chateau Marmont)
I also believe the big dust up with Catholics that Sony is hoping for is not going to happen.
This film will be no more or less controversial than the book. It is just an extension of the culture of it which has been around for two years now.
And quite frankly…saying Catholics are the villains of history isn’t really controversial anymore (memo to Madonna). If it were, mega corporations like Sony would not be financing movies with Tom Hanks in them about it.
Does this movie (and the book) actually offend you Nicol? Isn’t it fiction, or did I miss something? And is it saying that all Catholics are villains, or just this small, secretive faction of Catholics? Seems like a pretty big difference to me. I can’t imagine being outraged by The Da Vinci Code.
Stella,
I do not know if you have read this book.
Brown tries to get away with saying the book is a work of fiction but the ‘facts’ it is based on are not. The ‘facts’ are fallacies he tells about the Catholic church and the Opus Dei that have been discounted by virtually all respectful historians including the head of Oxford University history.
But people are believing it.
Much like CS Lewis wrote Narnia to advance his Christian beliefs; Brown wrote DaVinci to advance his New Age Pagan Earth Goddess beliefs.
Does it ‘offend’ me? That is a loaded term. One can be offended by things that are true or not true.
The book contains historical innaccuracies and lies that portray the Catholic Church as an evil organization and her followers as either evil or dupes.
Brown’s Pagan belief system depends on the disparaging of Catholics. And to be clear, when I say pagan, I do not mean atheist. I mean full blooded worship of Gaia, solstice loving, wicker man Pagan.
I have two aquiantances that have this belief system and they think he is a hero. None of them would know a Josephus from a Tacitus from a Pliny if thier life depended on it. And thier hatred of Catholics runs deep.
The story and Brown’s ‘facts’ allow for no middle ground.
“And is it saying that all Catholics are villains, or just this small, secretive faction of Catholics? Seems like a pretty big difference to me.”
Many neo-nazi’s and followers of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam believe in a conspiracy that a small cabal of Jews control the world banking system and the IMF in order to dominate the world and oppress…
Obviously, this conspiracy theory is complete and utter anti-semitic trash.
Let’s say someone financed a film or wrote a book where a fictional character uncovered a plot by a small Jewish cabal to control international finance. The author or producer then says that even though the story is fictitious the facts that the story is based on were not. In other words, the cabal did exist.
Would it be safe to say that all Jews would have a right to be concerned?
Would the fact that it is a ‘small’ cabal make a difference?
Look, this film is gonna be huge. I am a free speech libertarian. They have a right to make it.
But free speech also means people have a right to question them on it and thier motivation in making the piece.
Truth is, people will beleive what they will believe. DaVinci is successful because as with most complex things it takes about 2 minutes to state a lie and two hours to explain to someone why it is a lie.
Sadly, in our society, we have forgotten those old fashioned tenets of ration, logic and reason and I do not have two hours to type.
Nicol, you’re not taking into account that lots of Catholics like Da Vinci Code. Maybe they don’t see the harm in it that you do. Maybe they can separate fact from fiction.
If anything, DVC is leading people to find the truth. Everyone major bookstore has a “Da Vinci” section where books (both fact and fiction) are being sold. That tells me that most people realize there is more to Brown’s book and are willing to seek it. I mean, when I finished reading DVC, the last thing on my mind was a hatred of Catholics…sorry to disappoint you.
There’s nothing lamer than manufactured controversy used as a marketing gimmick. It’s so tacky.
I remember seeing a commercial for “The Libertine” that claimed it was “The most controversial movie of the year.” And I asked myself, can something really be controversial if nobody cares about it?
No, the Da Vinci Code is successful because every chapter is about 10 pages long and ends with a cliffhanger and because all the little codes and puzzles make readers feel smart. It’s a popcorn book. I hope they don’t try to make the movie too serious — I think National Treasure hit the tone of The Da Vinci Code just right, and was a big success as a result.
Anybody who is offended by this book takes him or herself way too seriously.
As for Dan Brown’s supposed Pagan beliefs, who cares? You say that like it’s a bad thing. As somebody who finds serious belief in any religion silly, I’d have to say Pagans seem much less scary/dangerous than the rest.
My problem with making extreme Catholicism a villain is it’s too easy and too boring. I’m Lutheran, so it doesn’t deeply offend me, but honestly, aiming at fanatical, authoritarian Christians is like shooting fish in a barrel of fish. You might as well have Nazis (Not saying Nazis and Catholics are the same thing. They can just be twisted to look like the same thing).
It’s very true that one can sell controversy, because look at how willing and eager some people are to be outraged. Basically just waiting for it for their own complicated inner needs.
Is there any proof anywhere that Dan Brown is a ‘pagan’? I’m sorry, I mean a ‘New Age Earth Goddess Pagan’?
Similarly, I agree that there’s a difference between being completely anti-Catholic and putting forth a fictional conspiracy in the institutional Catholic Church. Just like there’s a difference between being anti-American and loathing the actions of the top of the American government.
Truthfully, I have my doubts that Dan Brown even wrote the book. Although the whole plagarism trial that he (justifiably) won in London seemed to exonerate Brown’s standing, a closer look at Brown’s and the judge’s statements raise eyebrows. In Brown’s mystifying 69 page opening statement/self-congratulatory diatribe, he puffed up his art history credentials, such as his vast knowledge of the PAINTINGS of Bernini. Yep. Paintings. What’s wrong with that class? Of course, Bernini was a SCULPTOR. Pretty interesting mistake from the venerable scholar Brown
Brown had unusual difficulty in recalling even basic historical assertions from the book while on the stand (I think some of that in part not to tip his hand at some of borrowing he probably did from Holy Blood, Holy Grail). He mentioned how much research his wife did on the book, but pointedly kept her off the stand during the trial.
While the judge was completely correct in ridiculing the Holy Blood authors for presenting such an asinine case, he also in his judgement said on record that Dan Brown had absolutely no command of the facts of art history. The whole pagan/Catholic hoorah has obscured the fact that Brown simply knows less than nothing about all forms of art. Secular art historians have laughed themselves silly at the pedestrian mistakes he made.
Probably this wouldn’t bother me so much if Brown hadn’t gone around during the initial press run touting that every historical fact in the book was true. In my opinion, Dan Brown is a creation of his publisher. The tweed jacket wearing intellectual that appeals to the inherent biases of the intended base audience combined with a wispy effete wimpiness that appeals to consumers of mass market romance novels. Whoever actually wrote the majority of the book just wasn’t marketable enough. Brown will be in for a rude surprise whenever he comes up with the sequel. After you declare that a major world religion is a false, murderous lie, where the hell do you go to top that? I highly doubt if he attempts to do something on the Masons, he’ll have a ready made audience of conspiracy nuts just looking to stick it to the Shriners.
That all makes sense, I think it’s more logical to assume Brown (or whoever) is a writer in the sense of Crichton or Grisham: mass market hacks out to write sensational best-sellers. Except that Brown has even less expertise or knowledge that he’s basing his work on. To say that it’s all part of some kind of campaign to promote beliefs is to give him more credit than he seems to deserve (and to indulge in narcissistic self-victimization).
Brown’s writing style makes it easy to believe he’d cut those corners. But the appeal of the book wasn’t literary and it wasn’t religious polemics…it was simply good TV. It’s like reading a treatment for a script. Crichton does the same thing, but he goes deeper with his facts (I guess going to Harvard will do that).
Harvard… sure…
Crichton’s team of uncredited ghost-writers/researchers may also have something to do with that. And that’s not speculation. They exist, and they are some frighteningly smart folks.
Interesting….how recent was that? I’m guessing it was after his ER/Jurassic Park explosion in the 90s. Certainly you’re not saying that about his early stuff written under a pseudonym…are you?
Hey, I’m looking forward to this. I haven’t seen Opus Dei and the Knights since ANIMAL HOUSE.
Thank you! I’m here all week!
Don’t forget that both The Da Vinci Code and The Day After Tomorrow has more than $45 million P&A. The Passion of The Christ ,Fahrenheit 9/11, Brokeback Mountain and Crash wouldn’t have more than $25 million P & A.