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 you’ve seen this too many times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU2ZgaQ_H-Y&mode=related&search=
Your hard work is appreciated, and I like your POV. You’re Kate and Todd as described by Ann Thompson: During production on “Children,” when New Line worried that Field was making Winslet too plain, Field stood firm. “She comes off as too unlikable,” the studio told him. “I said, I know, isn’t it great?” he recalls. “They gave me just enough rope to hang myself.”
I feel bad for Jeffrey Boam’s Doctor if this column is his 15 minutes of fame.
Studio 60 was sooooooooooooo good.
I also appreciate your work Mr. Poland, always have.
Yeah, Studio 60 was pretty good. Both Amanda Peet and Mathew Perry did really well. I can’t wait to see how this series grows.
I thought that Studio 60 was pretty good, but not great. It didn’t show as much promise as “Sports Night,” though. I don’t know how long this one will last, though. It costs a lot of money to make, and according to the ratings:
(http://www.zap2it.com/tv/ratings/zap-ratings091806,0,3760783.story?coll=zap-tv-ratings-headlines)
“Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” averaged a decent 8.6/14 for NBC but lost a significant number of viewers in its second half-hour.”
That’s not a good sign for the future.
Has someone already fit David Thomson’s new book into this discussion?
Stuart Smalley would be proud.
Studio 60 was good, if not spectacular. I think it has more to do with the “pilot” feel of it, which is not really a huge fault. I’m curious where the show goes.
Different Media mediums love to cover the other one. Fox News vs. The New York Times, etc. and the internet is no different. I’ve had to read lots of articles about aint it cool news and Welle’s on this site. And frankly I’m sick of it. We all know what AICN is, and more importantly what it isn’t. I say move on.
I too loved STUDIO 60 and I usually despise Sorkin’s banter. It seemed toned down here. I also love Amanda Peet in general, but her take on that character is bizzare. She just staes blankly at people…alot. Good start for the show though! Now if only SNL would really get real again…
I have long appreciated David’s efforts. Keep up the good fight.
And I loved Studio 60 as well. It has the awkwardness of most pilots, but lots of potential. Notice that Peet always has this half-smile on her face, as though she’s keeping people at a distance. The one exception is the scene where she’s trying to find her office and suddenly realizes she doesn’t know where it is. For the only time, her face reveals insecurity.
You know, the piece really wasn’t just about me… much as I appreciate the kind words… these issues are very important to me.
I hated the pilot for Studio 60. Besides the fact that Aaron Sorkin is now doing little more than masturbating on TV, the show rings false to me in almost every quarter. But I am hoping that it gets better. Perhaps Mr. Sorkin will be more honest about who he and other like him are as he proceeds.
^^^Peet doesn’t hit the comedy beats well with her cold stare. Perry however I thought did a wonderful job…just different enough from Chandler.
Mr. Poland, the LA Times have been following this trajectory for a while. Did Rachel Abramowitz give the World Trade Center script a review a while back? And remember when Goldstein said newspaper ought to just ignore studio protocol? I can’t wait til we get Treatmentland…the exciting world of reviewing ideas and outlines before they become scripts.
Oh, I posted before I read that…
I agree with that! It’s piling it on pretty thick when you have a single night where a TV producer has an on-air meltdown, writers are winning the WGA Awards, a new studio exec has her first day on the job, and two ousted writers are immediately hired. That kind of quick turnaround was maybe plausible on the West Wing (or 24) due to the nature of that beast, but here it’s a bit of a stretch to say TV works on that timetable or with such a nobility of purpose.
OH NO…
I apologize for the spoilers in advance (just in case people have it on the TiVo or some such)!
Palmtree, I have Studio 60 saved on TiVo, but I think it’s fair to discuss a show after it’s aired. So don’t worry, you’re not like that fucker over in the Departed thread.
The L.A. Times has become a sad desperate place, filled with quality reporters who know better and are capable of beating any news organization out there to the top of the food chain. But they are frozen in fear and loathing.
DP- So….your comment there about the LAT is “valid” but when Studio 60 makes basically the same point, it rings “false” and leads to…”Perhaps Mr. Sorkin will be more honest about who he and other like him are as he proceeds.”
Inneresting.
Damn, I missed it. It repeats Wed 9/20 11:00 PM
76 on BRAVO in L.A., I got the Tivo set. I am curious about the honesty issues too. Do people find Larry David honest about life after success? Entourage? – which has jumped the shark for me, it’s the same note over and over now.
Is agreement supposed to be the foundation of my critical judgment?
I don
Sorry, but I’ve forgotten what the original post was about, it was really densely written.
I work in “live” network TV and the Sorkin show is right on in its depiction of the egos that (very delicately) battle it out every day for love and money. There were several “holy shit” moments of recognition for me last night… that sly 3/4″ beta tape gag… the cast member at the after party insulting Sarah Paulson and her fine retort… Amanda Peet freaking everyone out with her big-hearted lucidity. That is the television I know.
But even that aside, how can anyone scoff at a big network drama that finally, at least by the thesis of the pilot anyway, aims to address the art vs commerce dynamic in the industry? Even if, as you seem to be suggesting DP, Mr Sorkin is a snake like the rest of us, this is important, relevant stuff.
Luckily no one gives a fuck what you think EDouglas.
I posted something that I’ve actually thought a lot about. It came out at Dave but it was a targeted generalisation that we are all guilty of at some point. As Dave pointed out the LAT have just taken it to insane new levels. I’m passionate about film – no seriously – when I was the same age, I smacked a 9yr neighbor in the face for spoiling an ending of a film. I appreciate where Dave was coming from and I think I’m naively nostalgic for a time when discovery was everything. Sure you can cut your e-lifelines and become uninformed but I can’t even quit smoking let alone think about moving away from the cinematic smorgasbord of the net.
And Studio 60 was Larry Sanders lite. Interested to see where it all goes.
The pilot is basically Sorkin canonizing himself. I believe it will get better, but still, I’m not really surprised that the show lost viewers in the second hour.
I was going to ask you to be more civil to ED there, JBD, but I guess he kinda started it…
It’s no bother, David. I’m used to people on the internet not getting my sarcasm. If I let things like what JBD said bother me, I would have given up the internet 10 years ago.
Larry Sanders seems to be the gold standard of shows or films that satirize the industry itself.
Still waiting on that second season DVD release…
Saw only bits of Studio 60 and it did seem like a class A wank-fest. The difference I think is that Shandling was able to poke holes into the egos and personas of those in the industry. He took the piss out of them and their petty foibles and insecurities. The characters were smug but the show was not. It was genius.
From the bits I saw, Sorkin treats the entertainers like deities for the cause. ‘We’ are the problem, who just can’t get the ‘art’ we are graced with.
Very different approach. Very different purpose.
Also, hearing Rip Torn say ‘fuck it’ just seals the deal.
Every time I see a vodka bottle after a bad day, I hear Torn’s voice saying ‘Larry, lemme buy you a drink.”
Classic.
palmtree-it was only an hour so you must have been really, really lost in hour 2.
I agree with Crow. At least someone’s trying to bring the art and commerce to life in “middle America” where hopefully some people will see the show.
For me, I felt very empathetic to the Judd Hirsch character and I know most of us did…so it’s preaching to the choir. I also know most Sorkinites are into his POV and politics so again, the choir. But if people can question what a philosophical graveyard popular TV has become on popular TV, I’m all for it.
I also feel repeatedly pissed at Saturday Night Live’s inability to be funny. I grew up on that show and know what it can be. I also hate how it caters to stupid “celebrities” and has stupid skits that offend nor entertain anyone aside from 12 year old boys. The fact that SNL is being skewered on the network that houses it is sweet.
So, and for all it’s faults, I’m willing to give Studio 60 more than it’s fair chance.
Rip Torn’s very funny in Marie Antoinette, although it’s a minor role.
“Marie, lemme buy you a drink.”
That was “art -vs- commerce debate to life” above…if anyone besides me noticed and or cares…
Second “half of the” hour.
Well, considering two things about Sorkin:
1) The West Wing was never intended as a realistic look at behind-the-scenes politics (who would want to watch that week-in and week-out?), but as a glorious look at what politics should be.
2) One of the things he’s quoted saying in the media leading up to the series is that most people tend to think the same thing about the behind-the-scenes of the tv world. That the creators are a bunch of scheming egomaniacs out to make a fast buck. But Sorkin’s experience has been that most people he’s come across are hard workers who do try to put out the very best product.
Is he still smoking crack? Maybe, but like the politics of the West Wing, I’d rather watch a glorified view of earnest tv creators than anything approaching reality. And if it is sometimes peppered with his snappy reparte, I’ll watch it every week.