Old MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Reeler Screening Series Starts Tonight at Pioneer Theater


Consider this your last call to drop by tonight’s first installment of the Reeler Screening Series at the Pioneer Theater, where my bloggish colleagues Lawrence Levi and Karina Longworth will join me in welcoming filmmaker Lodge Kerrigan for a discussion/Q&A of his 2004 classic Keane. The show starts up at 6:30 and should nicely disintegrate into a beer- and pizza-fueled orgy of cinephilia (for ticketholders only!) immediately following our chat.
Check out the jump for a film synopsis and full program details–this should be a great night, and I look forward to seeing you there.


___
The Reeler presents KEANE
Director Lodge Kerrigan in person!
(dir. Lodge Kerrigan, 100 mins)
Tues. May 30; 6:30 p.m.
Pioneer Theater, 155 East 3rd Street (near Ave. A)
This is a Tuesdays@7 program, generously sponsored by Magic Hat. Every Tuesday at 7pm features special guests presenting their film, and is followed by a beer and pizza reception for ticket holders.
Few recent American films possess the dueling austerity and rawness evident in Lodge Kerrigan’s masterpiece Keane. Damian Lewis portrays the title character, a schizophrenic lost in a panicked, squalid quest to find a young daughter who ostensibly vanished in the tumult of Port Authority. At the motel he calls home, he acquaints himself with single mother Lynn (Amy Ryan) and her own little girl, Kira (Abigail Breslin), both of whom embrace Keane out of a necessity as tactical as it is emotional.
While Keane‘s subject matter recalls Kerrigan’s 1994 breakthrough Clean, Shaven, the filmmaker reprises the earlier film’s ache and chill without resorting to its singular horror. Rather, an astonishing turn by Lewis and (literally) unflinching camerawork by John Foster reveal a man awash in crisis and catharsis, on the verge of genuinely knowing something. Like its namesake, Keane is a discovery worth making.
Join The Reeler editor S.T. VanAirsdale and friends Lawrence Levi (Looker) and Karina Longworth (Cinematical) for a post-screening, talk-show style discussion with filmmaker Lodge Kerrigan. The chat will be podcast around the globe on www.thereeler.com, so bring your critical A-game and tell New York and the world what you think.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

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