April 25, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
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
The current meaning if “Swift Boat” as a term, especially a verb, is beyond dispute: a smear campaign rooted in falsehoods. It uses in the NYT article strike me as essentially correct.
The internet term for Nazi comparisons is called Godwin’s Law. But, IMHO, that doesn’t automatically mean that ALL Nazi comparisons are invalid.
That should be “its uses,” of course.
Excuse me, Dave, but weren’t YOU the one using “swift boat” just a few weeks back? Are you saying it’s OK for you, but not for the NY Times? Seriously: I don’t get your point here.
I wish Paramount would let me post my review of World Trade Center already because the longer I sit on this, the angrier I’m going to get about it, and I see it turning into a 5,000 word diatribe that has much to do with all the stuff being said about the movie (i.e. raves) than the movie itself (which I usually try to avoid).
Dave, are you saying that there are people using Stone’s past movies and his very vocal politics, conspiracy theories as a means to smear his upcoming movie? Just want to make sure I’m not reading between the lines, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out what the point of that is. “World Trace Center” isn’t “Fahrenheit 9/11”
Well, Joe, I am not The New York Times. But I don’t know what reference I made that you are bringing up. If you can recall, it would make it easier for me to respond.
Well, EDouglas, I think you can pretty much forget about getting that approval now….
Not to get involved…and I have no opinion, just a decent memory…
But if I recall correctly you complained that Spielberg and Munich were being swiftboated…
Joe: LOL! Considering who I just had a conversation about my thoughts on the movie, I might not even be granted my request to see the movie a second time before writing my review (which is still likely to be negative).
Not to change the subject, but did you all see who’s feuding with Kevin Smith now? I’ll let you figure it out, but I also questioned her (that’s a clue) take on Clerks II’s opening weekend as a failure when it doubled its production budget. Now she seems to be saying that any movie that doesn’t make $20 million opening weekend should just go to DVD! And just in case you think I’m making this up, a direct quote:
“Because eking out anything less than $20 mil at the box office during its debut weekend means that movie should have gone straight to video.”
I just want to know if Joel Siegel would have walked out of his house if Clerks II did go to DVD.
“And the truth is, when only one side is willing to speak, the other side wins by default. Steven Spielberg is being Swift Boated. And if he wants his film to get its due, he is going to have to do better than John Kerry did in responding.”
— David Poland, Dec. 14, 2005
David, your memory is so…. selective.
Yes, I do think I used that terminology back then.
But it spoke specifically to the politic hum around the film. It wasn’t being used to call out marketing efforts. I felt, and feel, that the movie’s ambiguity – besides the dramatic issues – left a lot of people uncomfortable with the politics of the film and that many of the reviews and stories around the movie positioned the film as being “with the terrorists.”
If WTC had a political message, which the Times does not seem willing to accuse it of having, then the Swift Boat issue – in fact, the issue of making a 9/11 themed film with a clear political lean – might have been an appropriate lead.
And again, I have no problem with the idea of a story on how the movie is being marketed. But I feel this piece goes waaaaay out of its way to push the idea that they are only selling it to the right and fan those flames with the Swift Boat story, which of course, represents a minor piece of the marketing of this film.
ED –
The embarrassment is that anyone would ever imagine that Nikki Finke knows anything – or cares anything – about box office.
Kevin is right. It is so a non-issue. Nikki, of course, didn’t see the film and was just riffing because she had no content on her blog for days and was just praying that Kevin would respond. And of course, she has no idea how little The Weinsteins are spending these days… because she is nothing but a phone tag gossip these days.
I agree that this Times article reads like its primary reason for existing is to raise doubts about the movie’s motives.
That said, it seems like you (DP) should have included the disclaimer ‘by the way, this is a movie that I really love, which is why my radar is open to attempts to attack it’.
Or were we already supposed to know that? You can’t be an objective journalist and a guy with a strong opinion at the same time.
Nikki thinks the Weinsteins spent more than $36 m to market the $5 m Clerks II? That’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard. Does she really think Harvey is an idiot?
NYT does seem to be making an issue out of nothing. I guess the angle of Hollywood left gets in bed with Conservative right is fun, but they play it like a hard hitting investigation. When people want to make money, they will get in bed with those who can make it happen. Capitalism baby!
Well, Jeff… I have had simiar reactions to stories for movies I hadn’t even seen yet, as in the cases of The Passion and Fahrenheit 9/11.
The only advantage I have here is that I know what is in the movie, so I know what they aren’t saying between the lines.
I can be an objective journalist and be a guy with strong opinions. Do you know any journalists who don’t have strong opinions? Or is it that they don’t express them publicly?
My radar is open to all important news outlets taking positions on movies. There are people who I greatly admire who disagree with me on this issue. But the fact that I like the movie is not the primary issue here. And I think you should note the lack of the NYT positioning on the content of the movie, which would be hard for them to attack on political grounds. (Ed Douglas will not be the only critic to dislike the film. As I wrote in my review, I expected the reviews to be very mixed.) But attacking the marketers… fair game?
Of course it’s fair game to attack the marketers. They’re scum. Maybe not in what is supposed to be a strictly ‘news’ story, though.
I’m just saying, you should be more explicit about your biases in situations like this, for context’s sake.
One thing I’ve found interesting about the marketing is that Paramount has been flying Stone, his cast and the real people behind the story around the country to do press conferences in various cities, not just NY and L.A…. They’ve been to Miami, San Fransciso and Seattle. I even heard there was one in Toronto! It’s quite a departure from the normal NY/LA junket/press days in that it allows a lot more local papers to get reporters to talk directly to those involved about the movie and find out their intentions.
I have to admit that the actual NY one of these was not that enlightening…but it was the day after I saw the movie so I’ll have a chance to listen again before we run it.
First off, it is hard to tell if the person who sent you the email is accusing you of being a ‘conservative’.
As presented, he says you are using the same tactics or language as a ‘conservative’, not that you necessarily are one. As someone who skews right (yes, yes I know many of you are surprised by that declaration) I find it hard to fathom how anyone who read the headlines on MCN on a regular basis could not see that it skews left.
Now as to the other issue of the story in the NYT, there are two components.
1) Is it news?
Yes I believe it is. Hollywood is an overwhelmingly left-liberal town; when a film comes out from a very left wing director and it is seen as being loved so much by conservatives that they should actively market to them…of course that is news.
Especially in an environment where conservatives regularly complain that Hollywood is anti-American or forgets about them. Whether liberals admit it or not, the sting of how they took a collective shit on The Passion will not be forgotten any time soon.
Do not blame me for stating that simple fact and obviously the producers of WTC would like Gibson style, not Clooney style dollars.
2) Will this hurt the film?
Of course not. Openly and/or perceived left wing films about 9/11 and terrorism (Syriana, Munich, V for Vendetta etc.) have not performed in ways that set the box office ablaze.
With the budget of WTC they also are hoping for more than just F/911 type grosses and a limited shelf life. This wants to be a definitive (as best as possible) blockbuster. Stone plays in a very different park than Michael Moore who will never see F911 grosses again.
The real question that people on the left should be concerned with is:
Why is a film with no perceived bias but that clearly speaks to issues of family, patriotism, faith and brotherhood automatically lumped in as conservative?
Read around on some other film/political websites…many liberals are upset that Stone has not used this as an opportunity to lambaste GW or include Loose Change style conspiracy theories or Clooney/Moore like theories of equivocation.
What should concern liberals more than anything else is that because the film includes no bias, that allows it to be perceived as ‘conservative’ where when films do include clear bias, they are perceived as ‘left’.
I look forward to this film greatly (I am a fan of all of Stone’s work as an artist).
I also suspect the more conservative pundits rave about it closer to the date of its release the more liberal critics will feel the need to dump on it.
I hope I am wrong.
I’m sorry, but I read the NYT piece and all I see is a story about… irony. In some ways, an AMUSING story about irony, kinda-sorta like what was written when David Mamet and David Lynch made their first G-rated movies. Like: Whoa! Look at that! How ironic! Who ever thought THAT would happen?
“Do not blame me for stating that simple fact and obviously the producers of WTC would like Gibson style, not Clooney style dollars.”
Uh… Blame? Why are you already making yourself out to be a victim?
“…Michael Moore who will never see F911 grosses again.”
I see that time machine is treating you well.
“What should concern liberals more than anything else is that because the film includes no bias, that allows it to be perceived as ‘conservative’ where when films do include clear bias, they are perceived as ‘left’.”
By WHO exactly? I’ve yet to see many Liberals label a recent movie as Conservative. Where ARE these Liberals labeling United 93 & World Trade Center as Conservative? Inaccurate? Yes. Sensational? Yes. Conservative? Huh?
The New York Times is dying a slow drawn out death. They’re going to resort to doing celeb gossip stories soon on the front page to drum up interest and sagging circulation numbers.
Only thing I know about Stone’s movie so far is he is sure to piss off all the far left fans he has who expected him to just bash America. The NYT falls into this category.
Of course, can anyone name one print media syndication that HASN’T been losing circulation over the past five years?
And can anyone point out any ‘far left fans’ pissed off at Stone for not ‘bashing America’.
Unjustified victimhood and unresearched conclusions went out of style three year ago, fellas. Find a new gig.
“Why is a film with no perceived bias but that clearly speaks to issues of family, patriotism, faith and brotherhood automatically lumped in as conservative?”
It’s not. It’s only when far-right wing pundits like Cal Thomas start shilling for the movie that people stand up and take notice.
I’m irritated because I _could_ go see this tonight at a screening but instead I have a meeting. It’ll be nice to discuss it once more than a couple of people have seen it.
Anyway, Tofu, I’m pretty sure that there were plenty of liberals – typically the fringe, conspiracy-theory types that Nicol mentions – who insisted that United 93 was ‘conservative’, which I agree is inaccurate.
Or are you saying that you thought United 93 was inaccurate and sensational?
You’re ‘pretty sure that there were plenty of liberals’? Again, who and where? Nicol says to read some film/political sites, which I do everyday, and I don’t see them. I’m saying I’ve seen United 93 described as inaccurate and sensational by people who could have been Liberal. For myself, it was nothing too special.
Where are these ‘plenty’ of Liberals? A good deal of the conspiracy discussion I’ve read has been from self-described ‘Libertarians’. Ugh.
One telling aspect was Universal buying loads of ad space on Conservative blogs for U93. A Liberal blogger noticed the exclusion, and talked with Universal, who immediately bought into many liberal advertisement networks. Universal was so quick to run to the ‘rare’ chance of advertising to Conservatives, that they forgot the Liberal blogging base, which records three times the traffic.
One diary I remember from DailyKos was about how powerful U93 was, and that it was a major blackmark on the current administration. Countless scenes repeat how there was no command, as getting ahold of the President & Vice-President was impossible. Yet, I’m now being told that U93 is labeled as a Conservative film? Interesting.
I said, liberals of the fringe conspiracy-theory type. The IMDB boards were FULL of them.
Seeing conservative/liberal sides with that film was basically dependent on what one’s starting position was. If you wanted to pick out moments of noone at the top of the command, you could. If you wanted to ignore that and just focus on ‘civilians fight back’ you could. It’s an interesting film as a litmus test.
I agree with Joe about the irony angle in the article. But tonally the language was quite serious, not light. It was kind of like reading about someone getting connected to Jack Abramoff, except here it was connecting “the folks that brought you the Swift Boat ads” with Paramount. Seems less like they were poo-pooing the movie than they are trying to make people aware of the Creative Response Concepts. The skeletons quote was classic…let your subjects be biased for you.
Human Events, a right-wing publication, broke this story last week. Liberal website The Raw Story followed up on Friday, July 21; Antiwar.com linked to the Raw Story account on Saturday, July 22 (scroll down to “The War at Home”). As usual the New York Times claims credit for a story it did not originate.
Why is Paramount releasing “World Trade Center” on August 9? To shore up support for the Bush government on the 5th anniversary of 9/11. The elites in this country are well aware that what’s going on now in Iraq and Lebanon could mean the end of Republican Party control of Congress.
To find a similar scenario you only have to go back a couple of years. Viacom Chairman Sumner Redstone publicly endorsed George W. Bush for re-election. Viacom-owned Paramount released “Team America: World Police” on October 15, 2004. That movie may have been crude but its storyline sent a message — vote for Bush or else. Bush was re-elected 2 1/2 weeks later.
See, this is what I was referring to.
I don’t see how anyone could think that there was a ‘vote-for-Bush’ message in Team America, even if for some perverse reason Parker and Stone thought it was more important to make fun of Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon.
Once again Chucky astounds us with his firm command of casualty, I mean, causality.
You know, Team America would have been so much better if it understood that Dicks can become Assholes just as quickly as Pussies.
…
Just sayin’…
RE United 93…
I agree that it is a litmus test film and not ‘conservative’ per se. It is a film that could be read into what one desired.
But, I do add as a foot note that it certainly does not play into any conspiracy theories about 9/11 being committed by the government.
It said much to me that Michael Moore has an open policy of always advocating films and music on his website that endorse his worldview; when U 93 came out he did not mention it but Rush Limbaugh promoted it and had an interview with Greengrass.
Moore kept telling people to see V for Vendetta. Hardly moderate fare.
I think the public perception on U 93 is that it was a very graphic film about 911 that was a bit harsh for some but that it was a ‘conservative’ skewing film.
What really needs to be asked is the question of how mainstream are the ‘Loose Change’ types amongst modern liberals?
Is Michael Moore a mainstream or fringe liberal? Cindy Sheehan? Alan Colmes? Howard Dean? Susan Sarandon?
I would consider all of these very extreme/fringe personalities from a public perspective but very comfortably ‘mainstream’ withing the paradigm of modern left-wing ideology. All have endorsed and alluded to believing Loose Change style conspiracy theories about 911.
I would say Hillary Clinton is working hard to be perceived as a centrist and she has said many things I agree with. She is also losing the support of many mainstream liberal groups because of this (the Dixie Chicks recently bashed her also).
Are the Dixie Chicks mainstream liberals?
I do not think all people identifying as liberals are extemists. But I do think they need to ween out the extremists from their base. Yes, I know there are right wing extremists too, but they do not seem to hurt conservatives in most elections as the extremists on the left hurt liberals.
Most moderates know if a conservative is elected to office he won’t be carrying with him a flank of neo-nazi’s. Most moderates do believe if a liberal is elected they will be carrying with them a bunch of Loose Change types.
Is that a wrong perception? I have said before, the moderates on the left need to reclaim it. Many of us (yes, that means me)who have voted left no longer do because of the impression that the extremists have taken over the left.
I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty and have no problem with tempered opposition to the war in Iraq. I believe in having wider access to medical treatments for the poor. I believe in having a welfare state safety net. These are all good things.
I do however have major problems with people marching against the war alonside people chanting ‘Workers of the World Unite’ or with communist stars on flags. I have major issues with the influence of Marxism on modern left-wing thought. I have major issues with celebs bashing their country on foreign soil. I have major issues with the influence of New Age ‘spirituality’ on the left.
Many of us would love to vote on the left again because we came from poorer back grounds and cannot relate to the big business culture of the right.
But the world is more complex than mere economics and there are other concerns.
Hopefully the left will work them out.
And the unrequested advice continues…
“What really needs to be asked is the question of how mainstream are the ‘Loose Change’ types amongst modern liberals?”
This is like saying “What really needs to be asked is the question of how mainstream are the ‘NUKE THE WHALES’ types amongst modern conservatives?”
It is beside the point of relevance.
“Is Michael Moore a mainstream or fringe liberal? Cindy Sheehan? Alan Colmes? Howard Dean? Susan Sarandon?”
Fringe. Fringe. Dickless. Mainstream. And Who Cares.
Liberals talk about this bunch once and awhile (Dean most of all), but the current voices they look to at the moment are Al Gore, Russ Feingold, and Wesley Clark. That is the mainstream for Liberals, and Pro-War apologists like Hillary Clinton are looked upon as ‘the old guard’.
“But I do think they need to ween out the extremists from their base.”
Extremists, you say? Is it really so extreme to question gaping holes in logic, to voice concern over the only enviroment we have, and to monitor democracy in action?
Extreme is calling for the death of workers at the NYT, talking about throwing protestors into Gitmo, and denying equal rights.
No, the ‘extremists’ on either side won’t be weeded out until they are answered or ignored.
“Most moderates know…”
‘Some people say…’
“I have major issues with celebs bashing their country on foreign soil. I have major issues with the influence of New Age ‘spirituality’ on the left.”
The usage of freedom of speech and freedom of religion don’t much concern a majority of people in a world of vague conflicts. In an age of failed rescue relief, unequaled debt, and lost privacy… The comments from flashy star #34,755 about her KaBlahBlah experience are about as worthwhile as Nikki’s market coverage.
Without saying too much in response to Nicol, I just want to point out that most of us on the Left have mirror-image beliefs, in our perception that the Republican party has been taken over by cabal of heartless military-industrial corporatists and demented theocrats, and that I consider worrying about ‘new age spirituality’ in any election scenario to be a huge waste of thought.
“But the world is more complex than mere economics”
In my opinion, not really.
The fringe right is a hell of a lot more frightening and dangerous than the fringe left. Nicol I can’t believe the way you continue to generalize the left. I am fully aware of my intellectual limitations, but I do consider myself a well-read individual with a solid understanding of current events and world affairs. Therefore, I truly believe that sometimes you have no idea what you are talking about. When you label the left, never is that more apparent to me.
I don’t see how anyone could think that there was a ‘vote-for-Bush’ message in Team America, even if for some perverse reason Parker and Stone thought it was more important to make fun of Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon.
It’s only one small step from Parker & Stone making fun of Michael Moore . . . to Michael Savage going on radio and calling for Bush’s opponents to be put in concentration camps.
It’s only one small step from Parker & Stone killing Michael Moore on screen . . . to Ann Coulter demanding that all people in southern Lebanon should be killed.
What Parker & Stone lampoon on screen, Savage and Coulter support in real life — FASCISM.
You should call yourself “Chucky on the Moon,” since there must not be a lot of gravity in your world if it’s “only one small step” from Parker and Stone to concentration camps etc. Wherever you are, it isn’t Earth.
Yeah, Chucky, I think Ann Coulter is an awful person too, but your arguments here are in that realm that make middle-of-the-road Americans think that liberals are loony.
Nicol,
Before you go bashing New Age “Spirituality” Why with the Universalists.
don’t you go and read something from respected Christian Author, Ernest Holmes. Read anything he wrote about Christianity back in 1918 and you’ll find that practicing Christianity from that perspective is pretty much the same principles you’re bashing in most “New Age” spirituality.
In fact, if more Christians would study Holmes over Fallwell or Robertson, we wouldn’t have that “crazy”, emotionally retarded group of Christians running the show ruining the good name for the rest of you.
Just like my best friend who is Persian. They get so bummed on the “crazy” section of Muslims that cause terrorism and deface and dishonor Islam because of false interpretations of the Koran.
Bottom line, whether you’re one of the “crazy” Christians, or “crazy” Muslims;
Both sides of the “crazy” act out of an extreme fear of death. They are so worried about what happens when they die, they go and cause some kind of ill intent, trying to push their belief on others, and usually manifest exactly what they were afraid of. Some kind of death or destruction .
Again, another reason why emotional intelligence, or lack of it, imho is the root of all evil.
Re the above post typo:
There should be no “with the Universalists” b/w ‘Why’ and ‘don’t’
First time I wish you had a link where you could edit your comments for a short period of time after they post, like some boards/blogs have.
Put that one in the suggestion box Dave.
THanks to Fark I got to read about this hubbub from UK “quality” daily The Independent. As the Independent article is up for free for only another day or so I’ll quote the damning passage:
The New York Times revealed last week that Paramount had hired an outside firm called Creative Response Concepts to reach out the conservative right and to romance it in advance of the film’s release. This is an outfit that has a long history of working for clients of the far right, including [Brent] Bozell’s Media Research Center as well as the Christian Coalition. Creative Response Concepts was also the group which helped to craft the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth campaign which so successfully attacked the Democratic candidate John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race, depicting him as a traitor to the country because of his anti-Vietnam War positions, a conflict in which he fought.
In other words, Hollywood is getting into bed with the hard right and the Christian right. The Media Research Center blindly attacks anything critical of the US government or George W. Bush. The Christian Coalition was headed at one time by Ralph Reed — who went on to do business with Jack Abramoff. [Earlier this month Reed ran for lieutenant governor of Georgia and lost — because of the Abramoff connection.]
Again, from The Independent:
The irony is inescapable. Stone, with his own record of anti-Vietnam War campaigning, was one of the first to condemn the Swift Boat spots in 2004. Contacted by The New York Times last week, he insisted that he had had no knowledge of the relationship of Creative Response Concepts with the film. And he noted that, when it comes to promoting films, he himself has “hired publicists in the past that had skeletons in their closet”, adding: “It’s not a holier-than-thou street here. It’s an impure market.”
When you do business with the right wing you do what they say — or else. Even U.S. News & World Report called out the Media Research Center for acting like a Johnny One-Note.