MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

20 Weeks To Oscar – Pre-Noms

Of course, the greatest power of the New Media has always been the power to inform Traditional Media. No one has to agree with me or anyone else writing about Oscar or anything else on the web. But if they enjoy MCN, they are feeding on content that has been processed editorially. I never think that there is a direct cause and effect. But whether you are a civilian, an Academy voter, or a journalist, you can only consume so much content. And as a gateway, MCN has the power to move a movie business story as effectively as all but a handful of Traditional Media outlets.
The problem with most discussions about the influence of web sites on awards season or anything else is that people take it personally. Los Angeles Magazine decided to create a story about the gossip around “Oscar bloggers” instead of seriously exploring the influence that we may or may not have. Typical in an era in which printing the news always seems to lose to printing the legend. (There are many other factual errors, which simply aren’t worth discussing.)

The rest…

Be Sociable, Share!

14 Responses to “20 Weeks To Oscar – Pre-Noms”

  1. Wow. No Jack Nicholson, but yes to Mark Wahlberg? I hope you’re right! I’d much rather Marky Mark in there than Old Jack.
    It still saddens me that Best Actress this year has been so stagnent despite it being the strongest year for them in a long time.
    Here’s hoping for an Emily Blunt surprise ala Joan Cusack in Working Girl. Preferably instead of one of the Babel girls.
    Also hoping for a Paul Greengrass director spot. It’ll be annoying to see Clint Eastwood get a lone director spot. No matter how good the film is, it’ll just be annoying.

  2. Josh Massey says:

    Prepare to be annoyed, methinks.
    OK, there has to be one surprise, right? One nominee who isn’t listed anywhere on these charts? COUGHCuaronCOUGH?

  3. Aladdin Sane says:

    Now Cuaron would be a great longshot nominee…less of a longshot is Del Toro.

  4. David Poland says:

    Thanks for that visual, Marychan… they did manage to find the most obnoxious photo of me in existence… which pretty well speaks to the intent of the piece, no?

  5. Ian Sinclair says:

    David’s got a point. He looks like Robert Maxwell in that pic.

  6. martin says:

    If thats the quality of the actual pics in the mag, I wouldn’t be too worried. No ones gonna recognize you from that.

  7. Joe Leydon says:

    Actually, the visual put me in mind of some ’40s film noir in which a leg-breaker pays a call on a delinquent debtor…

  8. Lota says:

    For goodness sake. do you really get a Million visitors a week to MCN Dave?
    Don;t fret about the picture Dave. The triple chinned stoner look isn’t you so I’m sure none would recognize it as You.

  9. Ian Sinclair says:

    Actually David doesn’t get a million hits a week. That’s Jeff Wells and David hitting their Refresh buttons 500,000 times each looking for something to pick a fight about.

  10. Joe Leydon says:

    Go back and take another look at that illustration. Can’t you just imagine Dave saying: “OK, Jeffy. Time to come up with the vigorish.” Jeff replies: “But Dave, I don’t have it. I bet on ‘The Departed’ to win the DGA award and…” Dave: “You know, I’d really hate to break your thumbs, Jeffy, but…”

  11. Cuaron would make a worthy edition to the lone director archives.

  12. hcat says:

    After spending so much time reading all the predictions and having everything set in stone for so long, the only thing I can imagine that would truly shake up this race would be U93 grabbing a surprise nomination for picture and director. While it is not my personal favorite (Children of Men and Water hold the top slots though I still have a lot to see)it is a movie worthy of a nomination and would create an interesting dialogue of what an “must-see film” is.

  13. jeffmcm says:

    *David Poland’s head explodes*

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