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 can’t believe Paramount allowed Oliver Stone to shoot this movie in German.
And we’re *sure* this isn’t Wolfgang Petersen’s next project?
the trailer sucked.
the fundamental flaw with WTC and United 93: theyre telling stories were already familiar with. Instead of making a movie about the impact of 9/11 on our society, or a story set in and around the events, they keep giving us these ‘inspirational stories based on true events’. We all know what happened that day. We’ve seen the images, we’ve seen the footage. I don’t need Hollywood to spend 80 million bucks recreating scenes that are already vivid in mine, and in the minds of others.
The flaw of United 93 was making a bland, manipulative movie. In dramatizing real events, they made a very safe movie that tells us nothing knew, and only exists to push people’s buttons.
If Hollywood had a clue… and it seems readily apparent that they don’t, they would take a cue from something like Crash (not a great film, but certainly a film many people liked). Don’t make movies about event, make a film about the impact, about characters…
Wow. Couldn’t disagree with you more, Anghus.
UNITED 93 was hardly “manipulative.” Stripped down, lean, damn near documentary in approach, it was anything BUT the typical Hollywood dramatization of the events.
You want CRASH as an antidote to manipulation?
That may be the single most insane comment I’ve read or heard all day.
All kidding aside, I wasn’t crazy about it either. This is exactly the thing I was worried about with United 93… that things would be overdramatized and that wasn’t the case. Here, it’s obvious that Stone is more concerned with telling a dramatic story than being factual or true-to-life. Of course, I’ll see it with an open mind, but it’s going to be hard to take it seriously with Nicholas Cage in that key role.
What bothers me about this trailer is exactly what DP says; that, unlike United 93, this is a “real movie” which means that we have recognizable star faces and explosions and soaring, emotional music.
I agree with Anghus that this movie doesn’t look like it’s going to show us anything new (although maybe when we have English dialogue that opinion will change), although I loved United 93 precisely because it showed me scenes that nobody ever saw before, but could only imagine. I don’t know in what way he thinks he was being manipulated, either.
Did anyone read the Hot Button column today? Why hasn’t DP started a thread so we can point out all his errors?
United 93 has to get some tech nominations. If it doesn’t get nominations for sound editing and film editing the Academy hasn’t a clue how to do its job.
You can’t write an early Oscar column without NOT mentioning Oliver Stone. He has to be taken seriously until the movie comes out. It seems if the movie is good–and a hit–it might the kind of movie that voters eat up. I’m actually looking forward to it.
Is coppola really going to go head-to-head with his daughter? I seriously doubt it. What would be cool is if Coppola had the movie ready for Sundance. This would tie in nicely with his commitment to embracing new technology from the new generation of filmmakers.
Who else besides Diane Keaton has Meyers helped get a nomination? I think winslet has a better chance at a nomination–and a possible win–with Romance and Cigarettes.
I think Gandolfini could be the one to get nominated from All the King’s Men.
Gibson is out with the Academy. The wounds are still fresh from The Passion. To quote that popular phrase of our times, “It’s too soon.”
I think it could be a repeat of 2004 with Eastwood and Scorsese going at each other’s throats. It would be a sad day if Eastwood ties with Ford by winning his third Best Director Oscar. Do we really need another WWII drama?
Al Gore will be giving an acceptance speech come Oscar night. Deal with it. Love it.
If Da Vinci Code hits expect at least a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination.
Don’t see any mistakes there, Gent.
“Who else besides Diane Keaton has Meyers helped get a nomination? I think winslet has a better chance at a nomination–and a possible win–with Romance and Cigarettes.”
I can actually see her getting a supporting nod for R&C but I think this year’s Best Actress will be a battle to the death between Winslet and Bening. Winslet has Todd Field’s latest movie (Little Children? Lost Children? Something like that) and Bening has “Running With Scissors” – doing exactly what she does best (and for what she has three Oscar nods for doing).
Trailer was… fine.
Stone is one of the most influencial and talented directors of his generation. On a stylistic level he has easily been as influencial to modern cinema as Scorsese with regards to music, cutting etc.
I hope this film puts him back on the right path.
Not to nitpick, a real question: Will it be Al Gore accepting the Oscar? I haven’t seen his name on any of the credits.
I would say that “An Inconvenient Truth” has a much bigger chance of winning if Gore is one of the actual nominees. Of course, it already has a pretty damn good chance given its subject matter.
You’ve forgotten Mia Maestro (POSEIDON) as Best Supporting Actress and Akiva Goldsmith and Mark Protovich (POSEIDON) for Best Screenplay.
What’s wrong with you David, getting a bit rusty there mate.
jess, when i say ‘manipulative’, what i’m implying is that the emotional impact of the film is almost a foregone conclusion.
how could you not watch a movie like United 93 and get emotional. It’s a tragic story, and i think even the most pedestrian of directors could have made it ’emotional’. It’s like making a movie about the holocaust. By its very nature, its going to be emotional for a great many people.
Films about 9/11, especially the ‘blow by blow’ kind of melodrama like United 93 and World Trade Center (i’m assuming) are manipulative because the emotional impact comes from nothing more than repackaging the tragedy we’re all too familiar with. The movies about 9/11 i’d like to see are about the stories i don’t know, not the stories i do.
sorry, i meant jeff, not jess. how did i mess that up?
I really don’t see the two 9/11 movies (United 93 and World Trade Center) getting much traction with the Academy Awards. Eastwood is still getting tons of love, people; making two films that will be out within weeks of one another is going to help in some ways, but I also think it means he has almost no chance of winning Best Picture. Maybe Best Director… which would be odd, considering that–as an above poster said–he would tie John Ford with three Best Director Oscars. Yikes.
I’ve got this feeling about The Good German these days. The Academy *loves* George Clooney and the story sounds at least Oscar-baity to me.
The Good Shepherd is probably going to be a casualty–Universal doesn’t seem to know how to promote a film properly anymore.
Dreamgirls has a shot… it’ll be four years since Chicago. But is that just enough time?
Well, I thought that the visualization of United 93 was indeed a story I didn’t know. Also, I think that there’s a useful feature to giving an audience these visuals that have only existed in our nightmares for so long. But I see your point.
Sorry, anghus, but when you proclaim that “the emotional impact comes from nothing more than repackaging the tragedy we’re all too familiar with,” all I can say is we must have seen different versions of “United 93.” That film felt so raw to me not because our national wounds haven’t healed but because of its freshness and authenticity. I can’t recall a better example of a film where none of the performers at any time appeared to be “acting,” and I think if 9/11 had never happened “United 93” would still stand up as a brilliant real-time suspense classic. (Just imagine if it had come out 30 years ago in the era when, arguably, the best political thrillers ever were made.)
On the other hand, Stone’s film looks too much like it turns 9/11 into another genre film in the “Poseidon” mold. Maybe my biases are showing their seams, but it’s also scary to me how much the shiny-faced, thin-mustached Nicolas Cage seems like a WWII German Aryan soldier in the trailer posted online.
I agree anghus, although in the case of WTC, at least Stone isn’t outright fantasizing (which is what most of what United 93 is). Better films about 9/11 will come along, but out of the two, WTC does seem like the superior cinematic achievement. But we will see, Stone has disappointed in the past.
English Trailer
This is much better and it certainly has more resonance when you can understand what they’re saying. I’m definitely looking forward to seeing this, since it seems like a good story… it’ll be tough getting into it due to the setting, but it looks like it could be another solid Stone film ala “Born on the Fourth of July”, etc.. maybe getting back into serious filmmaking again. I think that there could be some Oscars involved… maybe Maria Bello will finally get her much deserved nod for this.
WTC is definitely in the running, at least nominally, for the Oscar race. There has to be at least one film where Hollywood reaches out to conservatives (such as Walk the Line), and this could be it. Stone is an “Academy Award tested” directed, and that’s putting it mildly. Mr. Poland, why no mention?
Martin said:
“UNITED 93 was hardly “manipulative.” Stripped down, lean, damn near documentary in approach”
Yeah. some people like the hands off approach to United 93. I think it’s fucking lazy, safe, and even cowardly filmmaking. i dont need a docudrama about United 93. Give me something i didn’t already know, not a more lucid version of a story im familiar with.
I know im in the minority here, but i think these films are safe, hands off, and tell me nothing new. I mean shit, how much effort does it take to make a movie with a ‘fly on the wall’ mentality. no matter how good the polish is, its still lazy.
It takes more effort to manufacture ‘reality’ than it does to produce something stylistic. That said, poetry is the hardest of all. But I think it’s insulting to the filmmakers of United 93 to call them ‘lazy’ (unless that was your intention). I think the movie had a strong perspective and opinion on the events it depicts…it just presented them very, very subtly.
Meanwhile, the trailer for WTC does not look promising to me…it looks sappy.
One look at the poster told me this movie will be
Reaffirming the Official Story
Stirring Up the Public for Another War
Giving Support to the Maximum Leader
Oliver Stone has turned into another hack eager to please the rich and powerful.
Okay, for the sake of my edification…what’s the ‘unofficial’ story of the buildings collapsing on top of firefighters and cops?