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
That South Park episode was really gross. I couldn’t make it through.
What does this visual have to do with this story?
Ouch, you’re making the EXACT same point as Wells tonight. Does that make you feel icky?
I was within a mile from the Towers when it all went down on 9/11 and saw a lot of what happened to the one tower I used to be able to see from my apartment roof. I was in shock for a number of days and it took a few weeks to get used to the towers not looming over my neighborhood, but I’m really looking forward to seeing United 93 because it actually deals with the flight and people we know the least about, those that didn’t even go near the towers. I think if it dealt with the planes that crashed into the towers or the people working there who died, it might be tough, but this seems like it could be a solid reality-based drama that would make a good film.
I really don’t think New Yorkers are nearly as sensitive as people are trying to give us credit for. 9/11 was a tragedy but it’s over four years ago and I’d expect that those who didn’t lose immediate family and friends barely even think about it except when it’s brought up, and even then (and I can only speak for myself), it’s thought of a tragedy that never should have happened…but also as something that we endured and got over.
This thing about the trailer is becoming a big thing about nothing.
Good points, although I know plenty of people (primarily New Yorkers) who didn’t lose anyone on Sept. 11 and are still planning to avoid the movie, on principle or on account of sheer discomfort.
This story is the one airplane that had a ‘happy ending’; the question is how will Greengrass modulate things into tragic/rousing/heroic/depressing. And how much will conspiracy theorists be roused.
“A big thing about nothing?” This story got prominent play in the New York Daily News, The Independent (a British “quality” daily) and Newsweek.
The fanboys and the pinheads don’t want Loews to pull the trailer for “United 93”. What happens if somebody sees “ATL” and then gets killed outside the theater?
Sorry fanboys, “United 93” is blowing up in Universal’s face for all the right reasons.
Chucky, what are you talking about? The media will make “big stories” out of anything they can, especially if it involves controversy surrounding a movie. I personally don’t think that many people were even that aware of the movie’s existence unless they were online movie buffs (as most of the people are)… so all it’s doing is getting the movie more attention ala Passion of the Christ. (BTW, I love the irony that both of my posts in this thread were made while in an airplane.)
I really feel for those who suffered a real lose on 9/11…but fact of the matter is most Americans did not lose anyone dear to them from those attacks. Over 2,500 Americans have died in the Afghan and Iraqi wars…and tens of thousands have been wounded and scores of thousands are out there right now in harm’s way, but I didn’t hear a media outcry over family members saying it’s too soon for movies like Jarhead.
I think America needs a movie like United 93. It’s been almost five years since any major media outlet has displayed footage that was taken on 9/11. I’m not suggesting that Americans should dwell on the terror of that day…but when a modern, visual society such as ours chooses not to show images of the planes hitting the towers or the terror on people’s faces as they realized that people were jumping 100 stories to their death to escape the evil that had been inflicted on them, it’s easy to see why wiretapping terrorists is actually controversial.
What the NYT is doing is playing to our society’s piety of victimhood. People are out there yelling “poor me” or “it hurts” and the media jumps in and writes a “don’t you feel sorry about what’s happening to these people.”
I feel for people who suffered that day…but every day people suffer (e.g., cars crash and catch on fire, drug ODs, cancer), and the survivors have to learn to cope with it in order for their lives to return to normal. Pretending something didn’t happen isn’t coping with it. The terrorists win if we allow this wound to fester.
The quote at the end of the NYT article is great:
“Sandra Felt, whose husband, Edward, a software engineer, was on United 93 [said] “But I think of it as a good thing; it creates awareness about terrorism.” Mrs. Felt said people who were upset by the trailer should avoid the movie. But she added: “9/11 is a fact. It happened. Running away from the movie isn’t going to resolve underlying factors of why we’re upset by it.”
Jarhead was about the Gulf War in 1991.
You’re right. I’m sorry. I think my point still stands, however, since it would be understandable if survivors of vets from the Iraqi War said it was painful to watch Jarhead.
Just to clarify ‘Eric N’s’ comment…
the controversy isn’t about wiretapping known or suspected terrorists overseas without a warrant. It’s about illegally (re – 1979 FISA law) wiretapping American citizens on American soil without a warrant, possibly with no relation to terrorism or even criminal activity.
If it was just about terrorists needing to be spied on without much time, the FISA law allows you to get a warrant AFTER the fact, up to 72 hours later.
Seemingly the only reason Bush and Co would feasibly need to break the FISA law is if the spying wasn’t terrorist related and they knew the other uses wouldn’t be approved (which is saying something as the FISA court has turned down something like 5 requests in 27 years). It’s not a terrorism issue. It’s a civil rights/privacy/freedom to associate issue.
Other than that, I agree with Eric’s points.
Scott Mendelson
Hey Chucky: I don’t know, what does happen if someone gets killed outside of ATL? I do not understand at all what connection you are trying to make.
“I think my point still stands, however, since it would be understandable if survivors of vets from the Iraqi War said it was painful to watch Jarhead.”
I would have to disagree on that count. We don’t give attention to whether Vietnam vets find it painful to watch Platoon, or whether Pearl Harbor survivors find it painful to watch Pearl Harbor (well, not anymore than the rest of us). The first Gulf War was 15 years ago… so when does the statute of limitations on whether we care about survivors’ reactions kick in?
I think what makes a 9/11 movie different is that it’s a shared national trauma that was 5 years ago. Nobody can tell you where they were when a certain scene in Jarhead took place. Everyone can tell you where they were on the morning of 9/11. I have no desire to revisit the experience and I won’t be seeing the movie. Not because I think it will be bad, but because I just don’t want to go there.
OTOH, I think people who complain about the trailer being in front of PG-13 or R movies are going too far. Nobody has a right not to see a trailer that might bother them. Nobody is stopping them from stepping out once they realize what it is.
There is a big kerfluffle here in LA right now over a stupid radio DJ billboard, with some people demanding that it be removed because “it’s offensive.” There are things that offend me, too. But nobody promised us an offense-free world.
Yeah, I’ve seen that “offensive billboard” story on the local news…pretty ridiculous. But I noticed on the news story that it was a little less than 10 people protesting it, not a whole community movement.
“United 93” is a weird area when you declare, “People just aren’t ready for (insert)”. I don’t quite buy it. But Universal is not exactly ramming this thing down are throats. There’s been a poster and a trailer. I haven’t seen any print ads, or tv spots, or “making ofs” or any of that usual stuff. I mean Pearl Harbor was an unavoidable boulder before its release, everywhere you went for a month you couldn’t help but see an ad, or an article or something about that movie.
Speaking of Pearl Harbor–the event, not the movie–Paramount rushed a thriller called PACIFIC BLACKOUT into theatres exactly 24 days after the attack, and it had a fair amount of humor in it to boot. WW2 movies during WW2 were big business, partly because they also functioned as morale boosters. The “too soon” argument didn’t apply because Americans on the whole were much more mature then.
More mature or more willing to accept a unified, probably propagandistic viewpoint?
I’m not accusing, I’m asking.
Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military target on non-US soil (Hawaii wasn’t a state yet) during a time when much of the world was already at war. I’m not saying people weren’t killed at Pearl Harbor, but a civilian attack on our biggest city on two of our greatest landmarks like 911 that comes out of the blue is incomparable. The film industry was also completely different back then in its public role.
Right, at that time Hollywood’s war effort was explicitly about making films to explain to the American people what was going on (the Why We Fight series) or dramas of bonding and patriotism (Air Force, etc). I’ve never heard of this Pacific Blackout movie but I suspect it has a more-or-less happy ending, just as United 93, harrowing as it will be, will not be a total downer.
While I don’t care one iota if people feel United 93 (or World Trade Center) is too close to home to see (i can completely understand that, not wanting to see it is a valid reaction) it seems silly that Universal should not be allowed to advertise their movie. And that people are saying letters should have been sent out to anyone affected that a trailer is going to be attached? There’s some things Universal must do, warn people about a 2 minute trailer isn’t one of them.
“More mature or more willing to accept a unified, probably propagandistic viewpoint? I’m not accusing, I’m asking.”
More mature–and that’s in general, not just in regard to movies. As for PACIFIC BLACKOUT, it was a straightforward thriller without any jingoistic overtones, merely relatively neutral references to “the enemy.” The flag-waving stuff came later as we plunged full-tilt into the war.
I guess I don’t really believe that’s true, at a time when segregation was still the norm in and beyond the South, when homosexuals were still referred to as pansies if they were acknowledged at all, and a decade before the Kinsey report.
If you mean more mature by age, then that’s probably true. Children were not the audience studios marketed their films toward even though they had “immature” shorts, cartoon, serials, B-movies that came before the “mature” film on a double bill. And that’s not even mentioning newsreels, which were a major way people received news. Naturally it was biased in favor of the government and the studios. Culture may have been more of an adult realm, but that doesn’t mean they were any less suspectible to manipulation.
Yes, if the argument is that youth culture was less dominant at that time, agreed, but that doesn’t mean the culture as a whole was more enlightened or progressive.
“I’ve never heard of this Pacific Blackout movie but I suspect it has a more-or-less happy ending, just as United 93, harrowing as it will be, will not be a total downer.”
I guess that all depends on you’re perspective, n’est pas?
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Actually, I think I do know but I don’t want to put words in your mouth…care to elaborate?
Heard that the cockpit tape from the real United 93 will be heard in Moussaoui trial. On NPR, a person who heard it said it portrays the ordinary people on the flight as heroes in the situation. So perhaps the film will be pretty close to what actually happened.
Has the trailer for “United 93” been pulled from all AMC Theatres? I saw “Inside Man” yesterday at the AMC in Clifton NJ and there was no trailer for “United 93”.
On a related note today’s Newark Star-Ledger has a big front-page story — “Survivors’ Work on 9/11 Film Leaves Widows Feeling Betrayed”.
Thanks for clarifying Eric N’s remarks, JckNapier2. Too often these bogus talking points are passed along and never challenged by anyone.
And what DOES the visual have to do with the story?