What Do You Think?
The MPAA red-banded this trailer for Deliver Us From Evil, a film made by my friend, Amy Berg.
There is really no way around the red-band since the MPAA
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
Pope Benedict wasn’t even around when it all went down. This is akin to a trailer about the My Lai Massacre with shots of George W. Bush in it.
Pope Benedict was actually in charge of handling the pedophile priest issue for many years before he was Pope… and didn’t.
So it would be like having pictures of George HW Bush in a doc about capturing Hussein. Different outfit, but still very much a party to it.
I see… so instead of telling the muslims to go fuck themselves, he should be telling priests to ONLY fuck themselves.
Anyone besides me having trouble getting the trailer to load?
Of course the really interesting thing about this will be how many people see the priest in this as a smug, evil man while praising the nuance and non-vilification of molestors in both Little Children or The History Boys.
The molestation issue in the Catholic Church is a very sad part of it’s history, yet based on everything I can discern, this film barely scratches the surface of it.
I say molestation issue because the majority of victims of course were not little children (or girls), but of course adolescent boys.
If this film gives the impression that this is not the case, then it is just another part of the problem of obfuscation of truth to protect those who we are supposed to believe do no wrong.
Isn’t that attitude what led to so many victims in the first place?
It’s a well cut trailer. If the language meets their screwy standards I don’t see how this movie can warrant an R. But it’s not like this matters the MPAA and the overall movie industry is all about kissing the arse of the religous right these days. I see this as an extension of this.
Gee Nicol… maybe should see the movie first before deciding what it does and doesn’t do?
The victims of this one priest, who was moved four or five times in the State of California by The Church after being caught repeatedly in each parish, who are shown in this film are, in fact, all women except for one boy. And the church actually discounts the priest’s rape of these girls becuase they weren’t boys, thus making their assaults somehow less significant. Then, when he is later caught with boys as well, they are more concerned… and cover that up too.
As for the other pictures, for the record, one deals with someone convicted of exposing himself and the other deals with a serial groper of teenaged boys who are concious and have come to expect the behavior. Not excusing either behavior, but neither man is accused of or is, in these dramas, guilty of having sex with children who are left in their care… much less left in their care under the expectations of the safety of the church.
I get that you are trying to make a point, but it’s a bit like comparing the Steve Carrell’s character on The Office and a real-life rapist.
There are double standards all over the place. I’m irritated by the Matt Lauer interview with the female teacher in Florida who had sex with her 14-year-old student and how she becomes a titillating celebrity and not a monster because of the gender reversal.
Dave,
The problem is, the film cannot do what it needs to do. The problem of molestation in the Catholic Church is byzantine in its complexity and encompasses culture, both modern and church.
To be very clear, the Church has a major crisis on its hand and yes, much of it is of its own doing. But it is also much more complex than that and by merely focussing on one priest, the film cannot by definition deal with the enormous complexity of the problem and who or what is to blame. I actually will see the film but this issue is much more complicated than just pointing a finger at Pope Bendict which seems more convenient than truthful.
We also need to become mature enough as a sociey where we can realize that ‘The Church’ is more complex of an infrastructure than it is usually depicted as. Not all dioceses communicate with each other and just because one has guilt on its hands does not mean they all do.
Just as the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, the vast majority of priests are not molestors or pedophiles.
Questions must be asked as to who the perpetrators were; why was the problem so heavily concentrated in the more laissez faire North American Catholic Church; why could Pope JP II not comprehend the problem; what was the sexual nature of the majority of priests who were guilty.
To be clear, I do not assume any alterior motives or agendas with this documentary, but I am leery that it will have the courage to truly get to the bottom of the issue on all counts.
As for the other films, I disagree that it is not the same. Everything in degrees.
We cannot on one hand vilify priests who abuse children or teenagers in real life, then celebrate fictional characters who do similar or the same behaviour as three dimensional characters of enlightenment on screen. One feeds into the other. If it is wrong for a priest to molest an adolescent boy in real life (which it is), why is that same behavior then celebrated as just ‘quirky’ or ‘eccentric’ in The History Boys?
We have to be consistant as a society.
As for you Jeff MCM, you’d better watch it. I again find myself agreeing with your post.
The double standard obviously exists because of the old fantasy of having the ‘hot teacher’ seduce the young male student. And you are right, it too is wrong and any woman who takes advantage of a young male student this way should not be a celebrity.
Incidentally, the rate of abuse and pedophilia is highest amongst school teachers. Why no discussion of that?
Again, Nicol… you need to see The History Boys before you judge it. Reading homophobic columnists is not the best way to determine your perspective.
And would you hold this standard to all documentaries? Can a documentary of less than 5 hours be made by your standard.
Of course, everything is more complex than any one story. But this story is pretty significant and it is more than just the priest.
My skin crawls a little when you say you agree with me, Nicol.
I think the reason abuse and pedophilia among school teachers is less discussed (not ‘not discussed’) is because the prevalence among teachers was a known statistic for many years, and when the various scandals involving church figures began it was more shocking because it was more of a surprise, and because schoolteachers haven’t had a large global institution covering up their traces.
Some women might become celebrities Jeff, but most adults male or female having sex with kids go to jail–many for years longer than murderers who are out on average by three years served in incarceration.
The Catholic church in Ireland is still getting sued over the Magdalene sisters and Christian Brothers’ abuse of children. There are thousands of complaints and cases. There are entire law firms devoted to it and it is in the Irish and UK papers every week.
The emerging African nations ran many Clerics out on a rail a long time ago due to years of abuse remembered. One of my cousins lost an eye, caught in the crossfire when villagers where she was stationed rioted and burned out the Catholic and Christian missionaries accused of beating/molesting kids at boarding schools. They left her small abode alone because she was a teacher not a Religious. She still lost her eye though.
The US is just undergoing its rout now Nicol, and high time after all those years of people reporting these things and Clerics talking parents out of going to the cops, assuring them they would deal with it. They didn;t.
by the way Jeff–I am in no way implying that murderers or pedophiles are serving too long. They all should be incarated much longer than they are currently, but there isn;t room due to other crimes getting stiffer sentences and taking up space (federal and non-violent drug crimes).
No disagreement, my point was merely the disingenuous titillation of putting a pedophile on TV and asking her questions like “why did you do it?” as if she was a porn star and not a criminal.
I think they do that interview stuff to photogenic criminals.
Then most of them go to the slammer.
They don’t do it with photogenic men.
i don;t know about that Jeff–photogenic men (acc to press people not me) may not get the cutesy treatment, but they get an awful lot of spots and coverage. I mean who wants to look at that ugly mo fo John Wayne Gacy when they can look at male celebutards, former athletes done for a crime or Ted Bundy types.
I think media feels the public is riveted by good looking people who commit crimes or get others to collude in their crimes.
Yes, but both John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy have had movies made about them, thus are essentially equal in the public’s mind. Neither would ever be invited for an essentially fawning, titillating interview with Matt Lauer. Do you not agree that there’s a gender double standard at play? That’s all I’m arguing.
unfortunatley there are gender double standards in everything Jeff. There are a couple men fawned over, but if a killer/molester is a cutie with a sizeable rack don;t you think she;ll get press in this country? of course. I would wager few remembers what Gacy looks like, but they remember Bundy and the heir to the Max factor fortune dude (guy who sexually assualted women & drugged woimen too) looked like since some (not me) thought that they were good looking men and footage of them was shown alot on TV/news shows.
Ugh. I think we agree, okay?
This is a dumb question but does anyone know the name of the song in the trailer?
Re your postings from Sept-Nov 2006:
My own experience with this subject revolves around the Christian Brothers (word sort: FSC, Fratres Scholarum Christianarum, de la Salle, LaSallians, Brothers of the Christian Schools) from 1963-1969 in a Catholic grammar school in Manhattan and a Catholic high school in the Bronx (both USA). Beatings with and without instruments were fairly common and gratuitous slappings were routine. There were a wide variety of psychological torments too—pointless essays on good behavior, public humiliation, a constant search for homosexual students, threats of expulsion, etc. In the high school (formal name MANHATTAN COLLEGE PREPARATORY HIGH SCHOOL, informal name MANHATTAN PREP), the gym had a swimming pool; the boys were forced to swim naked all the while watched by the FSCs. In those days, no one questioned, no one asked, no one dared anything. Has anyone heard of similar?