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 could only hope such anti-conspicious consumption takes hold. There was an article in the NYT a couple years back examining car buying habits across the country. In so-called “Blue” states there was more husband/wife collaboration. In “Red” states there was less collaboration (more power to men), and more people buying SUV-type vehicles rather than mini-vans (I suppose one could argue that ruralness of “Red” states presents a confounding variable). They also said that liberals are more likely to buy Saabs (luxury automobiles but not particularly showy like a BMW or Mercedes).
A friend from Sweden once explained there was a reluctance in his neighborhood to hire a magician for a children’s birthday party because it looked like showing off. Compare to the U.S. and the truly frightening MTV show “My Sweet Sixteen”. Or the well-reported Bat Mitzvah where a father paid something like 10 million dollars on music entertainment (50 Cent!).
Of course those silly, libertarian “South Park” creators are not too upset with people who drive ginormous, oversized cars (polluting the environment and endangering lives). Socially responsible citizens are just too damned SMUG. Oh, please.
I don’t think it’s a message about being part of the crowd. I think they’re trying to create a reputation much like the Toyota Camry has– “We’re not showy, but we don’t need to be, because you’ll be satisfied with your car.”
I think you could tie it in to politics, but more in the way that we seem to crave something “authentic.” It’s why people seem to respond to McCain, almost despite himself– they think that what they see is what they get.
Of course, the only thing that could possibly remain authentic as it’s marketed as such is one’s marketibility. Maybe that’s how Kerry got the nomination.
Nothing is more manufactured than authenticity.
And the commercial undermines itself because not all the other cars are in fact German sedans. Compare apples to apples, not apples to grapefruit.
I thought the low-ego ads were clever, but a pale second to Stormare’s lunacy.
And what about selling through fear? VW’s “sudden mayhem” spots — with passenger-seat POV and the best fear-mongering visual and audio effects money can buy — I found morally repugnant.
But then looking for morality on Madison Ave is a fool’s errand. So back to movies.
Christ, wasn’t “Poseidon” just awful?
Sadly…and for better or for worse, we do not agree on what is ‘personal’ or the ‘bigger picture’ any more. That is part of the conflict.
Everybody wants a world with peace, good people, and prosperity. These are common values for all.
We just do not agree with what they mean in terms of policy any more. I think modern, current times are every bit as turbulent right now as the sixties…mostly because the baby-boomers are of the age of power now and much of the ‘values/causes’ they ‘fought for/pushed upon people’ (and one could debate what they are depending on your perspective) are now being rebelled against.
As for the ad…I would argue they use the word ‘ego’ incorrectly. What the ad really rails against is ‘insecurity’. The captions of the people who drive the first cars seem more like jellyfish candidates for Oprah as opposed to egomaniacs.
Yeah, I think the VW car wreck campaign is one of the most disgraceful ever.
I remember my girlfriend commented on one –
“Who would want to buy a car that promotes the idea that you are going to crash in it?”
I’m curious who the Ad agency is that VW hired that is using essentially negative reinforcement to sell their cars.
I’m buying a new car right now. I am shooting for a Civic. There is no way I would buy a VW based on both styles of Ads. I even like some of their cars, but I’m not buying one pretty much because of their current ad campaign.
By the way… those VW crash spots were shot by Phil Morrison, who did Junebug last year.
I’m still not buying your argument, DP. I viewed the commercial as saying that the VW is populist-cool. (Sort of like the new mac vs pc ads.) The message I get is don’t waste money on a sports car, buy quality.
i’m pretty sure these VW ads are not an Orwellian shout out. Conform, don’t stand out. They’re just a silly spin on the old ‘small cock big car’ riff that we all throw out when an accountant drives past in a ferrari. My agency friends love it when folks like DP suddenly read a WHOLE lot more into one-note ads cos it gives them another reason not to slit their wrists punching out garbage instead of finishing that screenplay. The whole concept is based around the line ‘Lowest Ego emission’ this is how it works dave. Someone in an agency comes up with the line about ego emissions and THEN they create the ad to fit. No secret agenda. Just another cute ad.
My take on the commercial is that it’s kind of elitist, in a subtle way. It’s suggesting that liking “hot” cars is crass, the kind of obvious status symbol that only unsophisticated rubes would fall for. It’s like how many hipsters drink Pabst Blue Ribbon and wear trucker hats, to affect this “authentic” pose. Or like the upper-class kids I went to school with, who deliberately dressed in a downscale, shabby way and sneered at “new money” kids who wore designer clothes.
I believe Phil Morrison also did the mac v. pc ads.
The VW ads seem to be an illustration of the old joke that flashy cars are men compensating for their…shortcomings. It wasn’t attacking individuality so much as car chauvinism.
And in driving, I think it’s much smarter to be part of the crowd. I hate drivers who are too “individualistic” that cut people off and honk for no reason and feel entitled to the road because of their car.
Mr. Poland, I’d say your argument is reaching a bit, but I agree with the premise (that people are embarrassed by being better and that weakens society as a whole).
Wait, wait, how are the VW crash spots ‘morally repugnant’? I think they’re incredibly smart and well-done, and funny to boot with their ending lines. I’d be very interested to hear more about this because I just don’t see it…yet.
(And I had no idea that Phil “still learning how to frame a shot while making Junebug” Morrison would have done this. Must be a fast learner.)
The spots are unquestionably smart and well-done. And by closing with a dollop of humor, they help sooth the preceding shock just delivered. But all that does nothing to lessen my finding them repugnant.
Selling cars on their safety features is fine (I always loved the Saab ad where the four beefy guys rolled the car over then got into it and drove off). Showing cars crashing or crashed is also fine when it is more about presenting information than recreating the visceral terror of a car wreck. But in my opinion the VW ads knowingly crossed a line in their recreations.
And of course, that “line” is unquestionably subjective. But at the risk of inviting a straw man to the discussion, let’s invent an ad for a home security system that’s considerably more visceral than what’s currently out there. We see the bad guy smash through the window and gain entrance, mom and young daughter screaming in terror. Cut to the police car, siren blaring, racing towards the house, having been automatically notified. Cut back to the bad guy’s evil cackle as he shoots mom in the stomach, daughter in the chest, with gunshots booming, bloodpacks jetting red artfully onto walls and furniture. At the sound of approaching sirens, bad guy flees, and the camera spirals in on gutshot mom dragging herself across the floor to where daughter struggles to breathe, her eyes wide in terror, blood oozing from her mouth as she fights to say her final words. Dissolve to hospital waiting room where Doctor is comforting Dad: “They’re both going to be just fine. Police and EMS got there just in time.”
I’m hopeful that most would consider producing such an ad as morally repugnant (and certainly lacking in creativity). But will it require things getting to that ridiculous extreme before we decry shocking to sell?
I think the difference is that the scenario you described manipulates the viewer into someone paranoid and fearful of their fellow man; the VW crash ads play on the fear of naturally-occurring accidents. I see your point, but I don’t think the VW ads could turn anyone into a more fearful, vengeful person, as you describe.
Let’s put it this way: does that mean Poseidon is a bad movie because it will make people fearful of sea travel?
Talk about being way, way off.
In order to justifiably point to some level of subtext within something, you need to be able to hang that supposition on either some overt clue or well established convention (ie, like the fact that the premise of the ad is a riff on the conventional wisdom that middleaged men who buy expensive sportscars are announcing to the world that they have small penises). DP does not point to anything that supports his contention either. Based on what, that it attacks the idea that car ownership denotes personality?
For this ad, I don’t buy it. The message is too contrarian when it comes to the usual MO of selling vehicles as instruments of personal change. Be sexier! Be more rugged! Be more powerful! Instead, the subtext here (supported by the tagline of “Lowest Ego Emissions” that is both seen onscreen and heard in the VO) is the heretical thrust that “Hey, it’s just a car. The Passat is a great care to, but just enjoy the ride.”
And I support that last contention by the fact that the woman in the car is seen holding a bullhorn herself that she was on the verge of using to sing the out the praises of her own car. Yet she reconsiders and tosses it out the window.
Unless of course DP meant to say “unintended message” instead of “subtext.” Because subtext is a deliberate thing and here it seems to be less “don’t stand out” than “it’s just a car, not to mention it’s just a sedan.”
To also drag politics into it opens up yet another point to disagree with. Instead of seeing this a swipe at the idea that you’re not supposed to stand out (by buying a flashy car and behaving like an asshole in it), I would say on a political level the message could be read as broadside against Bush and the strategies that kept him in office. “Don’t be mislead by morons that go out of their way to be noticed, learn to see what their choices of cars says about what they really care about.” On a subtextual basis in regards to politics, that translates to “Take a hard look at the what they really stand for, don’t get distracted by boys kissing.”
There’s a difference between here is a extraordinary person who drives this type of vehicle and here is a type of vehicle so therefore this person must be extraordinary.
jeffmcm: while you’ve accurately pointed out some important differences between the VW-crash ads and my fabricated home-security bloodbath, I would argue the aim of both is still “shock to sell.”
And so the question remains, how far down that path is too far? For me, the VW ads crossed a line. For you, obviously not.
But I’m curious. Is it the “whew, we’re okay!” endings that make things copacetic in the VW spots? If VW ran the exact same ads with same shots, same dialogue music & sound, only difference being at commercial’s end the actors were bruised and bleeding (but obviously not greivously injured) would that then be “manipulating the viewer into someone fearful?” And if not, what would have to be included for you to consider the ads an overstep?
Oh, and re “Poseidon,” it was a bad movie not through any fomenting of sea-fear, but because it was an indefatigable behemoth of dull.
Wow Roy… “Hey, it’s just a car. The Passat is a great care to, but just enjoy the ride.”
Don’t worry. Be happy. Is that it?
It’s pure Smug Alert to me.
We are meant to identify with the Passat drivers. And you think that they are not judging the people they pass? They are just “happy?”
Heiron, you’re right that it’s a simple matter of where one’s own personal line is to be crossed. For me I think it’s the difference between a manipulation, and a subtle, skilled manipulation. One is insulting, the other crafty, maybe even seductive. The only way for the VW ads to really be offensive to me would be if they featured a lot of blood and broken bones, like an aggressive Michael Bay approach, but then they probably also wouldn’t sell a lot of cars. (Unless they used that approach and put a rival company’s brand on it- negative advertising?)
I agree that the Passat ads are selling a kind of lifestyle superiority, but that the search for authenticity and a disregard for shallowness and flash are a big part of that. Are we now saying that such goals are a bad thing?
I love the car crash commercials (of course, very similar footage from the Bourne Supremacy trailer got me to pay for that movie, too). I think they do a great job of capturing the suddeness and surprise (but not necessarily the violence) of a car crash.
Yes, if the drivers were all bloody at the end, I feel it would be crossing the line, but then again, it also probably wouldn’t make for a good advertisement for the VW.
I don’t think they’re anywhere close to morally repugnant. I think that maybe the main line of difference from the security ad mentioned is that very, very few people have had a loved one shot and needed their security system to save them from it, while almost everyone has experienced a car accident at one time or another.
Sure, it’s smugness, but who’s smugness? The answer to that will be the people VW is trying to target. Is the ad saying that everyone should be like this…or is it saying that people who are like this should buy this car? The “we” may not be all inclusive (and doesn’t need to be) just the way a rugged pickup truck commercial may not appeal to certain demographics or attitudes.