MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

The Cricketeer: H'wd sez keep outta the trash

David Germain of AP suggests that denying crickets a chance to chirp at rotten films before opening day might be a bad thing: “Critics are being shut out of more films as studios forgo advance screenings on [pictures] they expect reviewers to trash, figuring the movies stand a better chance of box-office success with no reviews rather than bad ones.” omg_2757.gifSo far this year, 11 movies have not screened for critics before opening day,” by Mr. Germain’s count. “The practice does not sit well with critics, who either must do without or scramble to catch the movie on opening day and dash something off if their outlets want to have a review over opening weekend,” he writes, without producing quotes from reviewers. I’ll give him one: Shawn Levy at the Oregonian disagrees: “Does this sort of thing make me feel obsolete? Unnecessary? Unloved? Hell no! It’s positively liberating! Nobody expects a restaurant critic to comment on the finer points of each new McDonald’s that opens, and film critics should be treated with similar respect. If the studios know that they’re making garbage, they should drive right past the House of Criticism to the city dump and do their business.” omg_2757.gif While it’s not such a loss when the Adam Sandler production Benchwarmers isn’t previewed—auteur, Dennis Dugan be thy name—it’s more problematic when studios screen serious pictures past many publications’ deadlines, such as Universal did for most reviewers in Chicago for Spike Lee’s The Inside Man. Germain quotes Roger Ebert: “The target audience didn’t care that we hated [horror and teen] movies because they just expected us to hate them,” Ebert said. “If we reviewed them and showed clips and said they’re stupid and awful and violent, that’s a selling review for that audience. So the studio head told me, `Publicity like that can only help us.'”… Sony, the studio behind The Benchwarmers and three other films [horror entries all] not screened for critics this year, declined to comment. Executives at other distributors that decided against critic screenings—20th Century Fox, Lionsgate and Fox Searchlight—either declined to comment or did not return phone calls.” Leaving the last lines to Levy: “But one last thing: If studios want to work around me, they had best not pester me afterward looking for us to run wire service reviews of films they wouldn’t let us see. Don’t tell me that I’m not good enough to get an advance look at your product and then get cross if I refuse to slap a free ad for it on my chest.”

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Movie City Indie

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