MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Surprise Screening Event?

Very quietly, Warner Bros booked the New Beverly Cinema, L.A.’s only revival house right now, with a double feature of The Good German and Casablanca, including a Good German Q&A, tonight.
They must have told someone, rught?
There may be some group invited, but regular tickets are for sale…

Be Sociable, Share!

11 Responses to “Surprise Screening Event?”

  1. Blackcloud says:

    The words “hubris” and “nemesis” come to mind for some reason.

  2. jeffmcm says:

    Don’t the Egyptian and the Aero count as revival houses?

  3. PastePotPete says:

    The New Beverly? Granted, I haven’t been there in a few years, but isn’t that about as low rent as it gets in LA outside of the Flagship theater across from USC?

  4. Wonder17 says:

    I saw The Good German last week and I’m pretty dissapointed about it. I didn’t think it was terrible, but I felt the relationship between Cloony & Blanchett’s character was pretty wooden.
    I really wanted to care, but alas, the experiment of making a the “new Casablanca” got in the way.
    For anyone who’s seen the movie so far, don’t you think it needed more charm? Which is amazing to think since Cloony was the star… but still…

  5. lazarus says:

    I was at the New Beverly screening last night. I agree with Wonder17, the romance part of the film fell very short. I felt like Clooney & Blanchett could have had the proper chemistry, but it wasn’t pushed at all. Considering how well Soderbergh handled Clooney and Lopez in Out of Sight, I know he’s capable of better.
    The thriller part of the story was great though. And Soderbergh should be given the cinematography Oscar right now over the protests of the A.S.C. This is the first modern black and white film I’ve seen that actually looked like it could have come from the 40’s. Stuff like Good Night and Good Luck, Schindler’s List, The Man Who Wasn’t There, and Raging Bull were all shot a little too immaculately and betray their years of origin, but The Good German is slightly blurrier, less contrast on the outdoor/daytime stuff, and winds up looking like an artifact. Blanchett’s perfect period look and delivery don’t hurt either.
    I really wish this film was about 15 minutes longer to flesh out the relationship of the main characters, and the ending was way too abrupt and completely devoid of emotion, in my opinion. Perhaps Soderbergh just wanted this to be a little retro potboiler, because unfortunately it isn’t much else.

  6. RoyBatty says:

    This is so bizarre, I’m looking up over this very desk that I am writing this very email on and there is a Calendar for some outfit called “American Cinematheque” that operates not one but two different theaters. Supposedly these play films like (according to the calendar that ends this week) such films as SINGING IN THE RAIN, BARAKA, SUPERMAN, FIDDLER ON TH ROOF, SOME LIKE IT HOT, DANTON, AMELIE, LA MARSEILLASIE, TWO LANE BLACKTOP, the PUSHER trilogy, FORBIDDEN PLANET and DARKMAN.
    Seeing that “L.A.’s only revival house right now” is the New Beverely rat-hole, then the rather large, professionally composed one I have for the Cinematheque must be a hallucination. I will seek professional help immediately.
    PS – A double bill of THE GOOD GERMAN/CASABLANCA was also run on Nov 12th at the Aero with Soderbergh in attendence.

  7. David Poland says:

    With due respect to the American Cinematheque, they run as much, if not more, first run material as revival. They do not program, even in their small house on Hollywood Blvd., a consistant nightly program of revival. And both the big house and The aero are dominated by Oscar hopefuls this time of year.
    I love and believe in The A.C. But it is not a “revival house,” which I think of as daily rep, usually changing out 3 times a week, with double features of classics every night of the year. Amer Cinematheque has bigger goals, including distribution.

  8. palmtree says:

    Why so much animosity towards New Bev? It’s certainly not palatial, but I’ve seen more great repertory films projected there than anywhere else. I for one will gladly take uncomfortable seats and a small theater for the cheap ticket price (even better if you buy the card) and great variety of films.

  9. jeffmcm says:

    As far as I’m concerned, if you can see old movies there on a regular basis, it’s a revival house.

  10. The Carpetmuncher says:

    The New Bev is moldy and dusty, but it plays great films, so let’s not hate.

  11. RoyBatty says:

    Program? Are you kidding me??? Who “programs” annual series devoted to Sci-Fi/fantasy, noire, 3-D, 70MM, “mods & rockers” or auteur-type screenings? It ain’t the New bleeding Beverly thats for damn sure.
    Fine, if you feel like splitting hairs and that, according to you, a theater must show ONLY non-first run films EVERY night of the week to be considered a “revival house” then I guess the arm pit that is New Beverely is the only game in town.

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