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
Is there any links for any trailers yet?
Would be interesting in this one if for not other reason than that cast is phenomenal. How long each of the famous cast members (outside of Sandy Bullock) are in it is, obviously, yet to be seen.
umm, can I link these here? I don’t know where else?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlDYmmC3Ra0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDEsOh2mIvE
interesting…
What is laughable is the idea to make another movie about Truman Capote so shortly after Philip Seymour Hoffman’ brilliant performance. Obviously, everyone’s gonna compare both performance and I have the feeling Jones won’t get the best of it…
Does anyone know which movie was greenlit first? I’m very surprised that two movies on the same subject got made at approximately the same time.
This movie was probably doomed the moment ‘Capote’ hit theaters. Never mind that it was a fantastic movie, with great performances. But ‘Infamous’ was always going to suffer under comparison, regardless of how good a movie it may have been or the star power in its cast. People tend to enjoy what they saw first.
It’s happened before, ployp. The mystery of having had not one, but TWO Steve Prefontaine bio-pics out at roughly the same time is not something that mankind is ever likely to come to grips with.
Yeah, I remember hearing about Infamous a while back, so I doubt it was greenlit that much later than Capote.
It’s strange though that they both focus around the exact same time though. Like… it’ll be interesting to see how this one goes box-office wise.
But, yeah, the whole two-on-one-topic thing has happened plenty of times before, but it doesn’t happen very often with such niche subjects such as Truman Capote. Asteroids and ants, sure – fey literary heroes? Not so much.
I normally do not agree with David Thomson, but he raves about “Infamous” at this link here.
http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/film/features/article1096307.ece
He also makes a good argument about allowing for different interpretations of the same material. Also, Capote and Infamous started production around the same time.
There were going to be two Alexander the Great movies, too. Oliver Stone managed to prevent that twice. First, by being first. Then a second time by making a terrible movie.
“Infamous” is a terrible title, since it lends itself easily to bad headline puns.
“Infamous” also sounds like a straight-to-DVD erotic thriller starring Billy Zane. Wasn’t it called “Have You Heard?” at one point. I much prefer that title.
That would be a better title, although not much better in the avoiding-headline-puns department: “Have you heard? This movie stinks!”
Not sure which was in production first since both movies have been in the works for many years, but I remember the NY publicist for Infamous telling me she had seen it last October, shortly after Capote came out. I’m sure that they decided to hold it until well after Oscar season knowing that it would be getting nominations, if only for Hoffman.
Capote was first:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06034/649656.stm
I have no problem with a second film. My problem was with Toby Young looking like they tried to find a guy who looked a lot like Capote and his voice being shrill and unpleasant, but not smirky, the way Capote’s always was. Of course, it’s just a little clip.
And I should point out… neither Prefontaine film got to even $1 milllion, much less took a definitive position in the culture.
“And I should point out… neither Prefontaine film got to even $1 milllion, much less took a definitive position in the culture.”
Right, which is largely why I never understood how TWO of them got greenlit! Where exactly was the market supposed to be?
Looking at IMDB, I hadn’t realized those numbers–Prefontaine had a budget of 8 million, while Without Limits was 25 million. Ouch.
If I recall, one of the Prefontaine movies was a pet project of Tom Cruise, who produced. The other was directed by the director of “Hoop Dreams.”
The weird thing is — and there’s no nice way to say this — Prefontaine evidently died in a car mishap caused in part by his excessive drinking. And so, right from the start, the producers of either movie had a dificult time getting promotional tie-ins with various image-conscious shoe companies, breakfast cereals, etc. (At least, that’s what I heard from a party deeply involved with the production of one of the films.) So, yeah, Haggai, you’re right to wonder: How did one get green-lit, much less two?
I didn’t know about that marketing issue, Joe, but I think the main issue was that almost nobody had ever even heard of the guy. It’s hard to find an audience for a biopic when they don’t know anything to begin with about the person being profiled.
Actually, you could ask that same question about a lot of biopics. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I liked “The Notorious Bettie Page” and “Ed Wood,” but, really, do mainstream auds (or even art-house auds) know all that much about either of those cult figures?
As Picturehouse found out when Bettie Page tanked.
Ed Wood became about soemthing bigger than Ed Wood, much as WTC, which is essentially the story of two little-known policemen is about something other than them… and yet, isn’t.
WTC isn’t being sold as a movie about the specific individuals, it’s a ‘911 story’, just as Ed Wood and Bettie Page were sold as period comedies who were essentially introducing their characters to mainstream audiences. I wish I could say how Without Limits or Prefontaine were marketed, but I don’t recall a single trailer for either movie, so I have to assume that if I ever saw such a thing, it was very generic ‘sports movie hero’ stuff that looked boring and routine to audiences.
Let’s go one step further: Did it ever cross the minds of the folks who made “Man on the Moon” that most people (even folks with vague memories of “Taxi”) had no idea who Andy Kaufman was? And that a significant percentage of the folks who did know him didn’t like him, and sure as hell wouldn’t pay to see a movie about him?
I worked on Infamous as the art department researcher, and when I saw Capote, I felt like I’d worked on it, because I just kept seeing things that I recognized. Plus the scripts were so similar.
I think that Infamous (originally called Every Word is True) made a bigger splash when it was first announced, because of the high-profile names involved. I’m not sure anyone involved with the film thought that Capote was going to end up being anything more than a low-profile indie film.
The New York Observer ran a piece a few months ago about a really long rough cut and the article was not kind. But along with Thomson, Looker found another admirer: http://looker.typepad.com/looker/2006/06/capote_take_2.html
Let’s go one step further: Did it ever cross the minds of the folks who made “Man on the Moon” that most people (even folks with vague memories of “Taxi”) had no idea who Andy Kaufman was? And that a significant percentage of the folks who did know him didn’t like him, and sure as hell wouldn’t pay to see a movie about him?
True, although in that case, you had a huge star in the lead role. Prefontaine/Without Limits with Tom Cruise in the lead would obviously have made a lot more than $1 million!
Although you’re right that the success or failure of a biopic doesn’t solely depend on the audience’s awareness of the real person, which I was overly restrictive in arguing earlier. I would amend my earlier point to say that a Prefontaine movie without a big star in the lead seems like a questionable thing to greenlight in the first place, and a really insane thing to produce for $25 million!
The delectable Sandra Bullock is in this?’
Hmm…
Instead of burying the movie out of hand, let’s try to be charitable, at least a little, to it. In that vein, can anyone think of an opposite situation to the two Prefontaine movies? That is, two great biopics about the same person. They don’t have to be contemporaneous the way those two were. I’m stumped, but I’m not thinking very hard at the moment.
All I can think of is Young Mr. Lincoln in 1939 and Abe Lincoln in Illinois in 1940.
I like the title Infamous more than Capote. BOR-ING.