May 8, 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
Excellent post, Dave.
Again, it is not a reflection on the doc itself, but too many ‘alternative’ festivals say that they try to not be the institution Sundance is, when that is exactly what they strive for. Strictly speaking in numbers only, it is now statistically harder to get into ‘alternative’ Slamdance than Sundance.
Sadly ‘festival type’ films seems to have become a genre in and of themselves and many of the festivals that claim to be alternative do not have courage to not choose films that don’t have that ‘indie’ or ‘Sundance’ stamp of approval.
Many are good, but many are also poseurs.
And yes, if I was there, I would be kinda pissed off. It would make me feel like it was just more of the same ol’ same ol’.
“It was a little shocking to me that with 20something new, distributor-free films up there, the Audience Award, the Jury Award, and the $16,000 to $18,000 (more than the combined amount of the five other cash awards handed out) that go with them went to HBO Documentary Films
But — and I’m speaking as someone who has served as a judge at film festivals — what do you do when you’re genuinely trying to give the award for Best Film to… well, the best film? I’m sorry, but if “The Trials of Darryl Hunt” really is that damn good (and I don’t know, because I have not yet seen it) and it was in competition, then why the hell shouldn’t the jury give it the top prize? Sorry, Dave, but what you seem to be saying is, hey, the prizes exist primarily to give publicity-challenged little films a boost, not to award genuinely worthy movies. In other words, the emphasis is charity, not quality.
And I’m actually quite surprised that Nicol appears to be supporting what seems perilously close to affirmative action.
Look, I speak from experience: A few years ago, I was on a jury at a festival where “Strictly Ballroom” was in competition. And it was, hands down, the BEST film in competition. But one of my fellow jurors bluntly said: “Hey, Miramax has already picked this one up. And Harvey gets too much free publicity already. So I’m going to vote for [obscure European film that never got a US distributor, title withheld out of respect to its director].” Sorry, but to me, that sort of mindset cheapens the award and the awarder.
the little guy/gal will almost never win if the big guys are allowed in–it’s hard to make a movie with good sound and other techie aspects on a 3K budget, so it is almost a foregone conclusion that better quality movies with a lesser story might annoy an audience less than one which has a better story but not as well put together. I agree with Dave’s sentiment but…it’s money and exposure for the fest itself to have a couple big pics in competition.
I actually did see an Absolutely Great movie that Did cost 3K with all unknowns and decent sound and it DID get the Audience award at a small-ish fest. It actually beat out the 1 million picture that was expected to take all the prizes (and did have a couple actors that weren’t complete unknowns). the 1M pic didnt get a theatrical release (will have to check again) cuz it didn;t get acclaim at fests (it wasn’t crap tho) but the 3K picture hasn’t been picked up either, but might get more $$$ to get ‘remade’ by Hollywood actors etc.
Strictly Ballroom is the Baz film I can stand. It’s almost the Best in Show of the dancing world.
Good post Dave but shouldn’t some of the blame be directed at the jury (e.g., Ray Pride) in addition to the festival? Was he on the jury that awarded this doc? What’s his side of the story?
Couple things…
1. Joe – You are misunderstanding me by not reading everything I wrote. As you did, I also suggested that the film was worthy of an award. And I also said that there should be separate opportunities for 300 lb gorillas and the others
Krazy – Addressed by my next post and Joe.
No, I don’t think the jury makes that call. The festival has to do it. The jury should make its best choice out of whatever they are offered.
Of course, the politics of juries can be brutal. In one case, I was on one where the movie that we gave the award to was the favorite of none of the jurors… but each of our favorites was so intensely objected to by other members that ultimately, the only way we could agree was to pick a film that was okay, but less challenging. That sucked. But such is the nature of the beast.
And of course, the primary amount of money at BendFest came for the Audience Award.
i don;t disagree Dave but some movies & personnel may not want to come to a Fest if they are not in the competition…and the small money comes from the public directly, indirectly through grants etc, but still sponsors usually want to see someone bigger or known before they plonk down $$$ don;t they? (in my ltd experience, yes). doesn;t have to be a monster Indie–just someone known or someone “behind” the movie is known.
Oh shit. A good friend from college directed Dance Party USA…I totally forgot.
This is the best thing i’ve ever read on this site.
I know there’s some concern this year here in Dallas with the Deep Ellum Film Festival giving way to AFI Dallas Film Festival, that we’ll see less locally-produced fare and more Dependent-Backed films and their ilk in the festival so as to lure more celebrities and appeal to the cocaine and boob job crowd who doesn’t care anything about the movies but wants to “be seen”.
Honestly, though, I can’t imagine Hollywood people wanting to come to Texas twice within a month. And Dallas Cool can’t really compete with Austin Cool.
I don’t think it’s honorable to discuss jury deliberations, but I think it’s fair to note that the Bendfilm remit was ONLY to choose what the jury considered best out of the field on display, and every film but SHERRYBABY was in competition, in categories from features to docs to shorts to student shorts, along with the $10,000 best of show and the $1-per-ticket-sold of the Audience Favorite. Best director, for instance, went to the maker of an incredibly assured student short, Julie Meerschwam. There’s someone with an interesting career ahead.