MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

More Ebert

I am thrilled that Roger Ebert decided to review a film from bed. I know it’s not the way he wants to be seeing any movie, but his critic muscle is just another in his body – even if it is the best developed one he has – that needs to be used to get back to full shape. And of course, Roger is a great Anglophile, so The Queen couldn’t be a more appropriate choice. (I would also guess that he sees real Oscar possibilities and wants to throw his hat into that ring too… 2 birds, 1 stone.)
Of course, me being me, I couldn

Be Sociable, Share!

5 Responses to “More Ebert”

  1. T.H.Ung says:

    I do like this movie, it stays with you. I’m glad Ebert mentioned Mummy, played by Sylvia Syms, I think the resemblence between her and Ebert is even funnier. He doesn’t mention Charles, who is so British in appearence that I don’t understand why they didn’t cast someone who looks more like him.
    Roger, the great Anglophile, says Diana “…found no love from her husband; it was no secret they both had affairs during their marriage.” Really, did Charles have anyone other than Camilla? And, “Once divorced, she made peculiar dating choices.” Rebellion will do that, date who you know and Dodi finally seemed perfect for her. And, “There are extraordinary, tantalizing glimpses of the ‘real’ Elizabeth driving her own Range Rover, leading her dogs, trekking her lands at Balmoral — the kind of woman, indeed, who seems more like Camilla Parker-Bowles than Diana.” A quick web search reveals no biographies on Prince Charles.
    I’m surprised Ebert didn’t address the integration of newsreel footage, which was so well done.

  2. T.H.Ung says:

    There are bios on Charles, but I don’t think they’re worth reading, even if he ultimately did marry his mother.
    http://www.britainexpress.com/Bookstore/British_Royalty/Charles%20at%2050.htm

  3. mutinyco says:

    DAVE! WHAT A SCOOP! ROGER EBERT WASN’T REALLY RECOVERING FROM CANCER SURGERY! IT WAS SEX CHANGE OPERATION!

  4. EDouglas says:

    I wonder if he’ll show more cleavage than the blonde who filled in for him.

  5. Wrecktum says:

    What is Sir Thomas More doing on The Hot Blog?

The Hot Blog

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