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
Wait, what?
Big supporter, big reader of the site – but this sounds like something Harry Knowles would have written (well, with more words spelled correctly, but still). He doesn’t get his “pwesents,” so he happens to overlook certain titles. I know that’s not what you’re saying, but it has a similar odor.
I understand how DVDs help the voting process (especially with smaller and foreign films), but it’s sad if they play that big a role. Just because a DVD never waited for you in the mailbox shouldn’t mean the film is forgotten. Voters guilty of this are lazy and neglecting their responsibility.
For something as ostensibly important as selecting worthy nominees, might one be better served winnowing down their ’06 “films seen” list rather than looking over a random sampling of screeners piled up in front of the television? (Crazy, I know!) I’d hate to see Verhoeven’s exceptional BLACK BOOK get overlooked just because Sony Classics didn’t make screeners readily available.
I’m in a different voting organization, but some of us don’t have opportunity to see some movies unless we’re given a screener.
I get all sorts of letters telling me about free theatrical screenings, but not a single one of them is within 500 miles of where I live.
Does half of this entry repeat, or is it just me?
Apparently they did get a screener of Deja Vu.
“When BFCA misses films like these, it makes us look less smart and sophisticated than the group actually is… even if we are made up mostly of junketeers.”
Uh, David… I think I know what you mean here. But are you really sure this is the way you wish to phrase it? I mean, does this fall under the heading of damning yourself with faint praise?
Most of the winners of awards given by my little critic group, NYFCO, were movies that had been sent to us as screeners. I like to imagine a world where we got CHILDREN OF MEN and voted accordingly.
It’s your award group isn’t it – so why didn’t you vote for Children of Men or Slither or whatever was Chudalicious to your gang?
And with screeners going out to every johnny come lately award group it’s no wonder why torrents pop up the next day . I’m amazed at the casual nature of some of these distributors sending out screeners any which way but loose. At least we code ours with the name of the person who watches it. Lets see them torrent that puppy.
I did my best. I put my nomination votes where my mouth was, and I got THE FOUNTAIN on to our year end Top Ten list. When the final votes happened, I voted as best and as wisely as I could. I’m just one man, you know.
“Curse Of The Golden Flower” was brilliant as was Gong Li but course she will AGAIN be overlooked for an Oscar nom in favor of the overhyped Cruz.
I’m in the WGA and was shocked last year when they sent us screener DVDs of “Crash” instead of just the occasional script (“Jarhead,” etc.). Then, of course, it got a slew of Guild nominations, so this year we’ve gotten “World Trade Center,” “Little Miss Sunshine,” “Babel,” “Thank You for Smoking” and “United 93.” I do wonder how long it is before the Guilds start getting not just fancy hosted Q&A screenings and Guild screenings, but buckets of screener DVDs as well. We got sent the script to “Children of Men,” but I wonder how many more people would’ve checked it out if a screener was sent. You won’t vote for something you don’t see and if there’s something you were on the fence about checking out, there’s nothing like a free DVD in your mailbox to tip the count, strangely enough.
I wouldn’t be surprised if The Lives of Others got an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay too. I liked it, but that like has turned into a deeper admiration. Definitely one of the best films of the year.
Ah, the sad continuation of the 2001-2002 era bitchfest “Where are my screeners!?!”
Dave, you’ve got a much less seaworthy complaint compared to the poor folks out in the sticks who have to consider airfare when seeing some of these yet-to-be-released titles. Maybe you can respectfully request that the studios send you empty boxes of titles that don’t have screener copies ready in time, just so you can remember what you’ve seen.
I will say, however, I am surprised that Fox couldn’t eek out screeners of THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA mere weeks before the consumner-level DVD arrives.
Sorry about the double print and thanks to BiPed for sending me an e-mail to tell me.
Josh… not saying it should be that way. Saying it is that way. And yes, as you might recall from the outrage over screeners being made illegal for a few weeks a few years ago, people want their pwesents. But equally, people become reliant on screeners when they are available, which is my biggest problem with them.
And no, Joe… pretty much reads the way I intended. I can’t deny being a part of BFCA. But it doesn’t mean we all behave or think the same way. And I do think the group is more valuable than moments like this make us.
Actually, I think the overall list is one of the most qualified that BFCA has ever voted in.
B-Mc… you are misreading me, as I was on the other side of the screener bitchfest.
What I wrote about is the biggest problem with the screener system. The screeners end up defining too much.
And conversely, given the system, if a studio doesn’t at least send a screener, they need to know they are out of the game. And that hurts the filmmaker much more than the critic.
Judging motion pictures based on how they play on your television or computer screen is beyond ridiculous.
Dave – sorry to have taken that dig at you – I do remember which side of the argument you took. But, you have to admit, your lead-in paragraphs seem to betray that. Between the lines criticizing your own members, you seem to be telling the studios they lost out becuase they didn’t give the BFCA it’s proper goodie-bag (“neither nominated for Best Picture”). Of course, I guess their reply in-kind to the BFCA could be a “Fuck you” on the December titles (“especially PERFUME”), since you’ve already nominated. That particular gravy train appears to have already left the station.
You know… it’s completely up to them.
Personally, I would be happy to see all the screeners go and to have round the clock screenings through Dec and Jan.
I must admit, I watched Letters From Iwo Jima on DVD rather than go to an inconvenient screening the other night… only because I could afford to thanks to screeners.
Thing is, if you’re in that game, you’re in that game. And if you aren’t, you aren’t.
And while it is absurd that a group with the word “critic” in its name only votes for foreign films and docs they see on their shelves, it is the case. And knowing that, not spending $2500 to ship a doc to a group the size of BFCA – unlike LAFCA, where the screeners are not as influential – is a major fuck up.
If you don’t have any money, buying lottery tickets is stupid too. But if your odds are down to 10-1, you’d be a fool not to buy. That doesn’t make the lottery a legitimate way to make a living.
Most of the winners of awards given by my little critic group, NYFCO, were movies that had been sent to us as screeners. I like to imagine a world where we got CHILDREN OF MEN and voted accordingly.
————————————————–
Hear, hear… Universal’s treatment of Children Of Men (truly the best film of the year) has been atrocious so far.
On the other hand, the availability of screeners really shouldn’t be an issue in the critic award process. In an ideal world, they’d wait until the end of the year when all of the films are available for viewing/proper consideration instead of trying to get-one-up-on/act-as-a-precursor-to the Globes and Oscars with whatever screeners they can get their hands on.
It probably doesn’t help that The Lives of Others won’t be in release (even the limited variety) until next year, according to IMDB.
Or have it missed it already?
Lives of Others had Academy qualifying runs already, and now it’s gone (in LA anyway).
Agree completely, Snrub
Lives of Others has been playing the festival circuit mainly, which is why I saw it in Vancouver. I think the official release date (whether limited or wide) is sometime in February.
DP, will we be reading a Curse of the Golden Flower review soon? That earlier blip about the various tones of the film was appetizing.
Actually, as a former member of BFCA, I feel relatively safe in saying that the group has a better reason than most to ask for screeners. It’s my impression that most of the members live outside of NY and LA (and, for that matter, outside of Chicago and SF). If you don’t get screeners of certain movies, well, you don’t get a chance to see certain movies before you vote.
Somebody saw “Curse”..because it got in the best foreign films group from NBR and a couple of runner-ups for cinematography from L.A times and N.Y critics. Hopefully the Academy will give it the noms it deserves.
Amazing how the Academy and various critics’ orgs managed to hand out awards for DECADES without screeners. Boo-f’ing-hoo.
I don’t disagree, Cad… but for decades, we went to the movies on Saturday night without buying tickets on the web, and we shouldn’t have to pay an extra $1.75 a ticket just to go to a movie, but if you go to The Grove for that 8p show without pre-buying, you’re going to be shit out of luck, no matter what is right or wrong.
That is my point.
“But when we miss films like this, it makes BFCA look less smart and sophisticated than the group actually is… even if we are made up mostly of junketeers.
Glad to know even you can say that Dave.
Although, I honestly doubt the producers of an oscscure documentary are going “Oh No! Our distributor didn’t send out screeners to the BFCA members. WE’RE DOOMED” or, conversely if they did, “Wow! We got nominated by the BFCA. That’ll totally entice people when we put it on the DVD cover.”
:/
Borat/Devil Wears Prada – Surely you guys could’ve mustered up the effort to see it in cinemas, right? I mean, it’s not like we’re talking about arthouse foreign titles that play in one cinema in LA for a week. These were big titles that were being discussed for weeks. And, believe me, these movies do not need any kudos from BFCA. They’ve made enough cash to justify not needing a nomination in some side category (Prada wouldn’t have gotten a Best Picture nod. It’s not serious enough, unlike Blood Diamond or Memoirs of a Geisha *snort*)
I certainly hope the Snakes on a Plane line was a joke, though.
Yes, it’s true that for many years before Harvey Weinstein reinvented the Oscar campaign voting groups went and saw movies on the big screen and voted but the Weinsteins figured out that they could tip the scales by making their product more readily available. The old rules don’t apply anymore and Dave isn’t saying it’s right. He’s simply saying “that’s the way it is.” Everyone needs to get the hell over it. Most people, especially those in the entertainment industry have big screen tv’s with surround sound anyway. If a studio can find the money to make a movie, they ought to be able to find a way to promote it.
“Factory Girl” is still not finished, so I don’t think it will get any nomination in Golden Globe
“”DP, will we be reading a Curse of the Golden Flower review soon? That earlier blip about the various tones of the film was appetizing””
I am still waiting for that one too.
If it’s so difficult to see all the films to vote on them in the second week of December, why don’t members lobby their organization to have the voting in January? (That’s a rhetorical question.)
Well, in the old days, pix were playing in only one theatre, not dozens, so it was even harder to get in. In any event, there were and are plenty of opportunities to see it at various studio-held screenings and at the Academy itself. My point remains the same: watching a movie on a screener instead of getting your lazy ass out to a cinema is bogus.
And eliz, I don’t care how big your screen is or how fabulous the sound system; people will be prone to fast-forward through “boring” parts or be distracted by the kids or something. It’s no way to properly watch a movie when you’re supposed to be judging its merits.