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 think it has more to do with “it’s a movie about France.”
And, too, it’s opening in France right now, its first territory.
Probably not the best time to start something this esoteric – the 2 hour finale of LOST just started on the East coast.
Myself, I don’t think the French are the only ones with a cool reaction to a new Sofia Coppola film. LOST IN TRANSLATION was probably the most overrated, over praised, miscast (which planet is Bill Murray supposed to be an action star on again?) bit of a piffle of the last 10 years. Not to mention there are a number of folks who found it mildly racist to boot.
Wake me when Roman decides to make another film, he seems to have gotten the better artistic genes from Poppa Francis.
It seems to me that the mixed critical reaction represents a situation where the critics were presented with a film that didn’t play to their preconceived notions of what it should be. Most of the negative responses made the point that what made Marie Antoinette an interesting historical figure is her role in the revolution. And this movie eschews that entire episode. Nor does it seem it be interested in a realistic portrayal of the period, which again would counter one’s expectation. It doesn’t even seem to want to be an entirely accurate biopic in the traditional sense.
The movie’s goal was to use that period and those characters to comment on our current culture — and any culture of riches where its citizens are removed from the realities of the rest of the world. And the ultimate consequences of that. As Tony Scott pointed out. Even Jeff Wells, while not liking it, admitted respect for Sofia’s approach.
They’ll now have 4 1/2 months to find the critics who “got it” so the correct case can be made what it actually is.
It sounds similar to how Chinese people laughed and scoffed at Crouching Tiger because the language was mangled with actors (Michelle Yeoh, Chow Yun Fat) who are not native Mandarin speakers. Arguably, the movie wasn’t made for them.
Sofia shot it at Versailles…which probably raised the expectations of using it an historically accurate way.
they laughed at Davinci Code at Cannes and look how that turned out.
I’m not saying that Marie Antionette will do well, but are the ‘snickering French’ and film critics really a gauge of what is popular these days?
So you’ve seen the film, mutinyco?
Couldn’t Coppola have made a movie that was a commentary on modern times _and_ historically faithful at the same time?
And I don’t get DP’s point: is he saying that because of Da Vinci’s huge gross in the face of bad reviews, that the wire services are compartmentalizing these negative reviews to “the French”? Or just playing another round of smarter-than-thou?
No.
But from a purely observational standpoint I can tell what it is. I didn’t say it was good — cause I can’t be the judge of that. But I did feel — and now Ebert confirms again in his piece — that most people had an expectation of something it wasn’t.
Which happens all the time.
BTW/ I think Scarghis is funnier sounding than TonyOhla…
The funnier thing is it actually together with the Almodovar the best rated fim at the Le Film Fran
But alas Mutiny, being disssapointed by not getting the joke doesn’t make it good, as you acknowledge. Might be. But my guess is that there will be a critic’s cult for the film a la Virgin Suicides, which is really what it is sounding like.
Scarghis is funnier, but sounds mean.
And JMc – I am saying that American writers don’t like teh film any more than the French, overall, but that by making it a french booing thing, they can move off of the position if the concensus in the US turns out to be positive. This, of course, leaves out certain writers who are above this, such as Roger E and Scarghis.
I wasn’t really all that interested either way in this movie until all this crap came up. Now I’m really curious to see for myself.
And I’ll be going in understanding the movie Copolla wanted to make, not the one that includes Dunst getting her head chopped off (though, that probably would be the one I’d go in wanting to see).
Can’t be any worse than going to see the Che movie, and then not seeing him kill anyone.
Yeah, it does seem that people are reviewing under the context of what they thought it should’ve been – a more tradition historical biopic. But what it appears it really is (and what I’ve always suspected Sofia would make it as) a teenager movie where a young attractive woman gets a lot of money… except in this case she’s the Queen of France and she’s in the 1700s.
But, then again, I haven’t seen it. I can’t wait though.