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
“Monumental”! Very Nice!
Methinks that U93 is too challenging a film for a Best Picture win. “Emotionally wrenching” and “horrifying” are not phrases that that come to mind when thinking about past winners.
“United 93” is the best film released this year. So obviously it has no Oscar chance in the face of treacly syrup like “World Trade Center.”
Methinks United 93 is the great fraud of ’06.
What is so challenging about United 93?
I’ve seen three genuinely great movies this year (United 93, Little Children, The Queen) and three close-to-great ones (The Departed, Brick, Little Miss Sunshine).
The Oscars are, of course, scheisse but it would be mighty encouraging to see them recognize the brilliance of Greengrass’ film.
The acclaim for United 93 completely mystifies me. Horribly acted, badly directed, with some of the most hopeless dialogue of the year.
We got U93 here on the East Coast today, too. I think it’s a valiant effort, but getting 6,000 Academy members to watch the movie is going to be tough. It’s a really difficult movie to watch, as good as it is.
I just don’t get the love for “Little Miss Sunshine,” at least as far as awards go. I mean, it was cute, I guess … But that last scene is still creeping me out.
I need people to make a serious case for U93. I need to be convinced.
Because the movie I saw…well…not only was I unsatisfied…I honestly can’t think of a single aspect worthy of compliment…
“will the two studios spend each other
I’ll be going into sensitivity training post haste.
They also put this same three-page ad in the Entertainment Weekly I got last week.
We disagree on United 93 Josh, but I’m with you on Little Miss Sunshine. I liked it even less. It gets my vote for most overrated movie of the year at this point.
Almost as swanky as the box of Mann-centric promotional materials Dreamworks sent out for COLLATERAL back in ’04. Didn’t work, but, for a time, I was convinced the movie had a shot at taking down a well-deserved Best Actor nomination for Cruise.
This is a nice gesture from Universal, but UNITED 93 won’t register with voters unless Greengrass tacks on an epilogue in which the families of the deceased gather at the spot of the crash and leave tokens of remembrance one-by-one ala SCHINDLER’S LIST.
Is anyone else worried that the actors’ bloc will fall for BOBBY? It’s an awful movie, but actors are very stupid and terribly impressionable. The lack of a known frontrunner (until DREAMGIRLS is screened for crix) could put it in the race by default.
I would imagine that this is Universal’s only big push for the movie – there can’t possibly be as much need for a big effort as there was for something like Seabiscuit, which had a higher budget and a larger number of producers and talent involved.
Hmmm, how to convince someone of U93’s greatness…I don’t know, for me if the movie itself and its dozens of strong reviews weren’t enough at the time, I don’t know what else might do the job.
“This is a nice gesture from Universal, but UNITED 93 won’t register with voters unless Greengrass tacks on an epilogue in which the families of the deceased gather at the spot of the crash and leave tokens of remembrance one-by-one ala SCHINDLER’S LIST.”
Bullseye. The Academy doesn’t like to be disturbed.
That same ad was in Entertainment Weekly this week, I think
Who cares if Travers tends to love plenty of movies?
The bottom line is that this is easily one of the best films of the year. It’s also vastly superior to World Trade Center. People like David Poland ruin things by spending all their time talking about the chances of films like Dreamgirls (sight unseen) and ignoring great films like United 93, simply because it was released “during those unfortunate months.”
(DP NOTE: I pulled Moniker’s next comment at his request… but then thought the better of it. But I have no way of reloading it… so I am putting it in here as edited and comments on…
Why are you not allowing me to speak my mind on this blog? I’ll keep your name out of my posts from now on. E-mail me at xxx@xxx if you want to share your reasoning for excluding me. Thanks in advance.
DP NOTE – Moniker got in touch and asked that I pull the e-mail address… I don’t want to pull the whole entry so that I am not later accused of censorship. Moniker was one of those I was referring to in the “A Note” post and was never barred from posting in any way by me… just our spam fillter)
I probably shouldn’t have mentioned Poland’s name in a negative light during my initial post.
There is also a three-page ad in the national edition of the New York Times.
They’re also on both Variety’s and Hollywood Reporter’s site. Kind of sleek, though, don’t you think? I think U93 still has a MUCH better shot at a BP nod, despite the heavy promotion THIS site is doing for WTC. We’ll see. I would always put my chips behind Tony’s movie, though, for the record.
I didn’t see the ad, but I got the DVD in the mail today. I was just glad it didn’t come with quite as many “Don’t Pirate This” warnings as Little Miss Sunshine did.
It’s very fair of you to make that admission, bip. I think it is far more likely for neither to be nominated than for U93 to get nominated.
What a very militeristic tone they have hit. Drab is another description that comes to mind. It’s too polished, and yet too lacking. A line of stills wouldn’t kill’em.
I’ve seen nothing this year that moved me more than this film. U93 was far more powerful than Stone’s 911 film. Stephen King is an astute critic of pop culture. His columns are something I look forward to on EW.com. I agree with him…it’s up there with the GODFATHER. If it doesn’t come out ahead at Oscar time, no matter. It will live on longer than any other ’06 film that reaps the popular awards. Pity that the media talk around the film was one of over-emotional nonsense. Critics, even while praising the movie, kept echoing one another with phrases like “it’s too hard to watch,” and “oh, it’s too soon.” That stuff seemed childish.
What strikes you as ‘militaristic’, Tofu? I don’t see it.
Tony A. works miracles. Also, U93 is one of the best reviewed films of the year where WTC did not do that well; it didn’t even do as well as Flags. Of all the movies Tony’s backed, only two have really tanked (I’m pretty sure). Usually he gets his movie nominated for BP, whether or not they win. If he was behind WTC? Miracles.
Good old bold white fonts over light khaki green. It seeps into the wilderness like a professional commando should. Even the clouds present a camouflage pattern. Many war-based videogame adverts and military dense articles use this format.
Travers may heap hyperbole on countless films, but United 93 truly is a monumental achievement. We should spend less time taking sarcastic jabs at whose blurbs were published and more time appreciating the film itself. It is easily one of the 5 best films of this year, and most certainly better than WTC.
Tomny is very smart… and spends a shitload of money.
Nothing wrong with giving him props for being relentless on Seabiscuit and Ray (and spending like a madman), but what other “miracles” has he pulled off? With due respect, I think you started being an Oscar webmistress in the midst of his sweet spot and that turned your head a little far.
And of course, you need to acknolwedge that Tony is hardly the only power player on Universal’s Oscar team… even if they don’t take credit or talk to press.
Don’t get me wrong. I am hardly saying that Tony isn’t a strong player… but he doesn’t have an actor to work on here (unlike Bridges, Maguire, Cooper & Foxx) and unless he can convince a few major critics groups to give it Best Picture, there is zero chance.
Also, The Queen, The Departed and Little Miss Sunshine were are all “better reviewed” than United 93. Having a fourth film nominated in the 90s would actually be an anomaly.
Who’s an Oscar webmistress?
Tofu, I see what you’re saying now, but I can’t agree. Khaki alone does not militaristic make, and clouds are an obvious component of this movie’s look.
Actually, I disagree – I dont know what you’re going by but on Metacritic, U93 and The Queen are in the 90s – Departed, Little Miss are lower. The Queen is beating them all. Anyway, like I says, I’ve seen him work miracles. When A Beautiful Mind was up against Fellowship of the Ring EVERYONE said FOTR was going to take it. But Tony warned there was no way the Acad was going to go for LOTR. Going into the Globes everyone was clinging to it being Fellowship but Tony was right. It didn’t hurt he was pushing ABM and of course, he would have still written me the same email if the film hadn’t won but as it turned out…he was the first person, the very first person to ever email me back when I started my site — this was way back when, mind you, in the Zeusefer days. He was working the back end back then. It was a sight to behold. Alls I’m saying is, never count out a Tony movie. There have been The Emperor’s Clubs and the Cinderella Mans but more than any other publicist he’s got AMPAS’ number. Just my rotten opinion; means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Just saying, don’t count out United 93. It’s a VERY strong film. Add that to Tony and you have a potential miracle.
Sorry… but Tony SWORE that Rings wouldn’t even be nominated. And I never thought Rings would win that year. But be nominated, yes.
That was also the year when Moulin Rouge COULDN’T be nominated.
ABM was always a sure bet to win that year, even with the gay controversy. Tony helped the studio play it smart – as did Allan Meyer and others – but that was a perfect Academy movie. (And a piece of junk.)
The problem I have with the logic on U93 is that it is well loved by the critics. But it was nto a strong film with audiences and Academy voters are audiences. Twice as many people saw WTC, yet the argument is still that it is somehow inferior. Well for critics, sure. For audiences, no such indication. And none of our personal tastes change that.
Sideasy, Eternal Sunshine, and Spider-Man 2 were all “better reviewed” than Million Dollar Baby. And Aviator was only 3% off M$B on RT. But Baby was the emotional one and it won.
Yes, movies have to reach a certain standard. But RT and Metacritic numbers are just stats that are there to fuck with your head. Us the force, Luke.
I don’t think we’re talking about winners here – we’re talking about nominees. My best guess is that if it’s between WTC and U93, Tony will out or they will both be out, as you said. I used to think WTC had it over U93 but buzz and heat has dropped way off WTC while U93 seems to be coming up in people’s esteem – or it’s all a lot of horseshit and none of it means a damned thing. I don’t know. you called Capote last year when I had no clue. I think, at this point, you know more about the race than I do. But I do think your support of WTC if off base. Big time. Also, don’t you NOT have Depared on your top five? Crazy man!
It’s been moving up… called it a lock on the blog last week… seems like when I first suggested it was looking possible, people called me crazy… funny how that works.
And things can still change…
I thought United 93 was great, but I think its Oscar chances are nil for many of the reasons David mentioned, but the main one being that Oscar voters are general audiences, they’re not critics, and U93 is a difficult movie to watch.
World Trade Center is also a difficult movie to watch…but that’s because it’s so unbelievably frickin’ bad after the first 20 minutes, but I think in terms of this year’s 9/11 movies, it’s much more in the vein of what regular moviegoing audiences can enjoy (it has actors and a director they know for one thing).. but I still think there are other players in there, and right now the only movies I’ve seen which seem like definite BP locks based on viewer reactions (not just critics) are Babel, The Queen and Little Miss Sunshine. That leaves two open spaces, and one has to assume that Dreamgirls will be one and the other one? I guess The Departed, unless something better comes along that no one expects. (Flags is out… the movie is way too polarizing to be taken seriously)
My thinking about United 93 is, if you didn’t like it when you saw it then there’s no convincing you. Because every argument a person such as myself brings up, a person who didn’t like the film will shoot it down. And vice versa.
“The acclaim for United 93 completely mystifies me. Horribly acted, badly directed, with some of the most hopeless dialogue of the year.”
You thought it was horribly acted, I think it deserves a Best Ensemble Cast nomination somewhere. Badly directed? I thought it was done perfectly. Hopeless dialogue? It rang pretty darn true to me. I thought the film gave a true account of one event. No grand pyrotechnics or whatever. It’s definitely, so far, my #1 or #2 of the year (I keep swapping it with Jindabyne)
I don’t think it can get a BP nod, but I think the Director’s and Editor’s branches could easily give it some love.
I’m starting to lose my love for Little Miss Sunshine. Those last 10 minutes or so left a bad taste in my mouth.
My #3 at the moment is Children of Men. Excellent film right there. The best performance is newcomer Claire-Hope Ashitey but Clive, Julianne, Michael and all the others did great too. Technically stunning and Alfonso’s direction was really great to experience. I even started to tear up at one point, which I did not expect.
KCamel… I’m 100% behind you with Children of Men! I went in expecting nothing but seeing what I hoped would be an interesting movie from a director I really admire, and came out a bit “wowed”. Is one of my favourites this year! (and I personally think this year has been pretty darn good for movies, much better than last year).
But I’m afraid it’s too dark to be appreciated by the Academy and most of the Awards’ people…
How did a movie where a coke-sniffing old man teaches a 7-year-old to dance like a stripper in personal, private sessions make so much money?
“You thought it was horribly acted, I think it deserves a Best Ensemble Cast nomination somewhere. Badly directed? I thought it was done perfectly. Hopeless dialogue? It rang pretty darn true to me. I thought the film gave a true account of one event. No grand pyrotechnics or whatever.”
But why??? When not borrowing directly from transcripts, Greengrass demonstrates that he cannot write believable, give and take, cause and effect dialogue between people–the scenes where the flight crew and the passengers were inter-acting with each other (both before and after the takeover) were completely made up and yet completely bland and unrealistic. The cast, stuck with such awful dialogue, drifts aimlessly through the proceedings, never genuinely connecting with each other or this member of the audience. As usual, Greengrass attempts to sweep over his deficiencies with shaky, zoomy camera work and rapid-fire editing–a supposedly “revolutionary” technique that is only “revolutionary” if you haven’t watched television for the past decade. It’s an empty shell of a film.
Just a word in U93’s favor–money-wise…
it cost $15 million to make, it’s made $75 million worldwide. with a return that’s 5 times it’s cost, that’s not bad, not bad at all. movies with major nominations have made less.
The big problem with UNITED 93 is that there’s no “there” there. There is no suspense or surprises, no interest in character, nothing aesthetically pleasing about the look, and nothing cathartic about the ending. It is no different than a history channel recreation, and no more effective.
The idea that Stephen King would compare U93 to THE GODFATHER just shows how ridiculous it is to take a pop horror writer as an authority on the movies. I mean, please, stop it. Next thing you’ll be taking your cues on jazz from Kid Rock.
As the first 9/11 film, I’ll give most critics a pass for bullshitting their way through their reviews, in what I can only imagine was fear of having their patriotism bludgeoned by the fearmongers on the right. Or an uncontainable sentimentalism because of the horrors of that day.
But great films should do more than just recreate what everyone already knows from reading the newspaper – they should inform, or challenge, or illuminate character or the human condition, or have ideas. U93 does none of that.
Instead, it just mechanically goes through the motions, confident that filming the “true story” would make an compelling film (any one of 100 directors could have executed this, which makes it no more of an achievement than showing up to work that day). While this technique clearly was enough for some people, it made for a stilted drama without a single unexpected scene. In the end, it most resembles a horror film, where you’re just supposed to sit there and watch as the monsters kill off characters that you haven’t even been made to care about – that is, it relies solely on visceral reactions, which is as remedial as filmmaking gets.
It’s easily the most pedestrian well-reviewed film of the year, one that will never demand rewatching, and is only notable for being the first to the starting gate, rather than any artistic achievement.
Like KCamel and I said, if watching the movie doesn’t help you to get it, you probably never will. I think we all just have to agree that those of us who loved it saw a very different movie than those of us, like Carpetmuncher, who didn’t – I don’t see anyone changing anyone’s mind on this one.
Allow me to just say, hopefully in conclusion, that no other movie this year presented me with an experience as emotional or spiritual as U93.
Carpetmuncher,
If U93 didn’t do it for you, that’s aokay-it’s your business. But for many of us, it provided one of the most visceral, emotional experiences on screen we had perhaps seen in years.
My point is, feel free to not like it, but don’t assume that those who did were just bullshitting out of fear of the ‘right’.
That’s just condescending.
What about those of us who fall in the middle? I didn’t love nor hate United 93.
That’s okey dokey too.
OK thanks. Just making sure. I felt left out.
i think you may have eaten too much carpet.
“one that will never demand rewatching”?
i’ve seen it three times. i think it’s brilliant.
and it is amazingly cathartic to watch these passengers rush the terrorists as they refuse to go down without a fight. it makes me proud as an american to witness this display of courage. they may not have saved their lives, but others lives and more were saved due to their actions. the film captures that beautifully…even without character back-stories and music cues. ok, that’s my final thought on this.
Pretty torn here. Carpet is correct in the round about way. There really is no meat here to chew.
Yet, did we really want any? With some false character development and overly composed shots, we just have World Trade Center.
U93 was quite informative and disciplined, but I’ll fully admit many other directors could have produced the same results.
Very torn here.
“There really is no meat here to chew.”
See, this is the big thing that I think people are missing. Because the movie doesn’t present the kind of standard disaster-movie melodrama that we’re accustomed to seeing, because it takes such an understated approach, people go for the next most recognizable genre form – the TV docudrama – and assume that’s what this movie is doing. And I suppose in a lot of ways that’s technically true, but it means missing the whole point of the movie. I said when it was released that this movie has more in common with a European art film like the works of Bresson or Bela Tarr; the closest equivalent from this side of the Atlantic would be the last couple of films that Gus Van Sant has done, but without quite as much studied artsiness as Last Days or Elephant. U93 is a film of quiet action; it’s the horror movie and the action movie of the year, but to denigrate it by saying ‘there’s no there there’ suggests to me a lack of attention and good viewership. It says to me that one isn’t capable of seeing what’s right in front of them, because this movie contains an entire world of meaning and emotion.
Please don’t play the “you just didn’t understand it or watch carefully enough” card. I found U93 to be extremely well-made and at times intense, but it failed to really move me. I wasn’t affected the way I expected to be. But that is not because I didn’t understand it or pay close enough attention.
Well there’s no accounting for taste but I’m trying to understand the different opinions on this one, and that’s really the best rational account I can make for it.
Jeff, I agree with your comments that it approximates films from the art world, which is admirable enough. But I don’t think that’s the issue. It’s more about whether that style complements the subject matter, and for those who aren’t crazy about U93, it didn’t.
I can see that as being a valid criticism, that Greengrass was applying a style too impersonal and indirect for something as charged as this material; I think that this would also be ultimately a matter of individual taste, though.
Comparing U93 to Bresson is just as bad as comparing it to THE GODFATHER. That kind of tact really belies the idea of making a real argument as opposed to just throwing around hyperbole. Bresson was a master of style – U93 is shot documentary-sytle. They’re almost polar opposites in terms of cinema.
And to compare U93 to ELEPHANT is to expose the work of a minor filmmaker by presenting it next to that of a major one. While they both deal with true life events, ELEPHANT uses art to help illuminate the people behind and impacted by those events, while U93 is more interested in the mechanics of air traffic control (or the lack thereof) than in any of the people who were affected by it. ELEPHANT is surprising from beginning to end, while in U93, there isn’t a suprising moment in the film.
In the end, UNITED 93 reminds me mostly of George Lucas’s famous response to someone talking to him about emotion in cinema, when he said something to the effect of “if I want the audience to feel emotion, I’ll wring a cat’s neck.” As UNITED 93 labors towards it’s obvious ending, all the audience can do is wait for the cat to squirm…
I remain befuddled by the notion that some poeople got “an entire world of meaning” out of the film, as I’ve yet to hear any examples of that meaning, outside of those ideas that were easily extracted from the news story anytime after 9/11. I’d be curious to know what people are actually talking about. Or what they got out of a third viewing…except a long nap.
arpetmuncher, I don’t know what else to tell you. I saw one movie, you saw a different one. I really have no idea what you would consider to be a ‘real argument’ as opposed to a mere tact.
Again, U93 _looks_ documentary-style, but really is more than just that, plus I don’t know what you mean by saying “Bresson was a master of style” because Bresson is not a stylish director, as you could describe Hitchcock or Welles – his style was anti-style, just as Greengrass applies in this film. A polar opposite to this film would be something studied and designed, like Von Sternberg or Fellini.
I brought up Elephant because as far as I’m concerned, U93 does exactly what you said: ‘use art to help illuminate the people behind and impacted by those events’. To a T.
As far as ‘surprise’ goes, this boggles my mind as well. We all knew the plane was going to crash. Did you want it to not? It sounds like you wanted something plot-heavy; I was satisfied with the emotional and existential experience of living in the moment with those people. It’s not a movie where emotion comes from watching a cat’s neck get broken, it’s a movie that comes from _being_ the cat, and _being_ the neck-braker. Plus, that quote comes from a filmmaker who knows who to make fun theme-park movies and is widely known for having no idea how to direct actors; Lucas only knows crude ways to elicit emotion, is smart enough to recognize the crudity and avoid it, but not smart enough to figure out other ways to elicit emotion. Bad comparison.
Finally, I can’t really say anything else to you. You get it or you don’t, and if you want to get it, you can find your own path.
“the scenes where the flight crew and the passengers were inter-acting with each other (both before and after the takeover) were completely made up and yet completely bland and unrealistic. The cast, stuck with such awful dialogue, drifts aimlessly through the proceedings, never genuinely connecting with each other or this member of the audience.”
I’m not sure if you’ve actually listened to people talk, but they a lot of the time they don’t discuss philosophy or sprout dialogue that required a thesaurus and makes you nod your head want to engage in a college-level discussion. People do talk aimlessly about nothing of importance. And when in times of panic people don’t usually are flustered and they ramble and, well, panic. They don’t usually have complete cognitive thoughts.
And the characters weren’t meant to be this group of people we all identify with who all have these deep thorough backstories and all that jazz. Nobody on that plane knew who each other was, whether they had family, dogs, lived in France, liked to play on the swings as a child, etc. Why should we?