Old MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Screening Gotham: June 16-18, 2006


A few of this weekend’s worthwhile cinematic goings-on around New York:
–The Museum of the Moving Image features a pair of nifty-sounding screenings tonight and tomorrow. First up is Strangers With Candy, which does not open in theaters for another two weeks but is hitting the New York preview rounds pretty hard in the meantime. The film’s creative duo Amy Sedaris and Paul Dinello will stop by afterward to answer your probing questions. Heads-up, however: Tonight’s event will be hosted at the ImaginAsian Theater on the Upper East Side (not at the Museum’s Queens headquarters), and its hosts tell The Reeler it is sold out. Which naturally means a little more creative crashing scheme is in order. I have faith in you.
Meanwhile, the museum returns home tomorrow to screen Full Metal Jacket with Matthew Modine in attendance. Feel free to ask him how he applied his lessons from Kubrick to his performance in the recent Tribeca shit-stack Kettle of Fish. Or just gasp and sob and blubber into the mic. Same difference.
–Speaking of Tribeca, the festival unofficially marches on with a series of films about office life. Just what you wanted over the weekend, I know, but at least they are free. Tribeca Cinemas unspools the Fonda/Tomlin/Parton parable 9 to 5 tonight and the cult classic Office Space Saturday; both films start at 7 p.m. and seating is first-come, first-served.
–The very wonkiest of New York’s cinema wonks should be taking over Film Forum right about now as the joint unveils its restored print of G.W. Pabst’s silent “erotic masterpiece” Pandora’s Box. Featuring Louise Brooks as Lulu, the bobbed, class-straddling siren of Weimar Germany, the film confirmed the star as one of the great screen icons of her era–hell, of any era, but primarily after her career was well over, the French had revived her work and she wrote her 1982 memoir Lulu in Hollywood. This weekend’s 7:45 shows feature live piano accompaniment, while Film Forum repertory programmer Bruce Goldstein may beatbox over the late screenings if you ask nicely.

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “Screening Gotham: June 16-18, 2006”

  1. Scott says:

    I already saw them at the apple store Q@A and they were hysterical. Clips on my site…

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