April 19, 2024
Awards
Susu on: The Letters From Iwo Jima review
Krillian on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Kristopher Tapley on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Kristopher Tapley on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Hallick on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Joe Parts on: Welcome To The Future
qbtqpidc on: Oscar Morning Coming Down
IOv3 on: 20 Weeks Extra: Could There Be One More Turn?
20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
20 Weeks Extra: Could There Be One More Turn?
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
No “United 93.” That’s a shame. It’s good to see “Babel” get some recognition. No surprises popped up from the either of the “Children” movies or “Pan’s.” I wonder what this means for “Letters from Iwo Jima” and Clint Eastwood?
What a strange list. “Departed” aside, how many of those films truly are what they are because of the direction? Of the people in play, where are Greengrass, Cuaron, Del Toro? Maybe I’m biased because I think Dreamgirls stinks, but these seem like weird choices.
Those seem extremely likely to be the 5 BP noms to me. with the consensus guild support of Babel I’ve been bumping Iwo Jima down and down on my list. Now I’m starting to think it may not even be as strong in editing and cinematography.
These have pretty much been the favorites since November, no? With UNITED 93, LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA and VOLVER vying for the presumably less secure slots occupied by LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE and BABEL? It sucks when things shake out so predictably, but I’m cool w/ three out of five being worthy nominees.
I agree that those are the most likely Best Picture nominees right now.
Will the Eastwood snub and continued love for Babel finally get Dave to switch up his list a bit?
Iwo Jima is close to dead at this point in the major categories. And Babel is almost as much of a lock as The Departed.
Of this group, only Inarritu and Scorsese deserve to be singled out. Cuaron, Greengrass and Del Toro (or Almodovar) should round out the field. Alas, that would be too many Hispanics, I guess.
Man, these guys aren’t auteurists, which is somewhat ironic considering they’re directors themselves! Maybe that’s the thing, most of them are “moviemakers” more than auteurs, so they’re fonder of an entertaining, well crafted enough little flick like LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE than truly visionnary directorial genius like the latest work of Gibson, Cuaron, Aronofsky, etc.
As I said last week, Letters missing the PGA alone wouldn’t mean a whole lot, but if it missed the DGA as well, count it out of Oscar. That happened, and I don’t see any reason to think the DGA/PGA lists (they name the same five films) won’t be the Oscar nominees, too.
The weird thing about the DGA nominees, though, is that they’re more predictive of Oscar’s Best Picture than Best Director. So I’m not so sure that the Best Director list will line up the same way. Director can have some weird surprises sometimes (Lynch, Meirelles, Leigh, etc). I’m hoping Paul Greengrass will take a director slot. LMS seems the shakiest for that category. I don’t think Eastwood is going to make it. The Academy loves Eastwood, but so does the DGA.
I knew I was setting myself up for disapointment when I hoped for noms for del Toro and Cuaron…but these DGA choices are so…bland. I hope those aren’t the Best Pic nominees…ZZZZZzzzz…
Just won’t give up on Letters, will you? Well, I guess it worked for Munich.. (but that got a DGA nod)
When are the TV and doc nominees announced?
Todd Field is the biggest snub IMO. Or Eastwood, though I didn’t feel he was deserving this year. Cuaron I would buy except that the film just hasn’t had any steam, and it seems like a lot of folks haven’t seen it yet.
Thought Altman might have a chance too with his Swan Song.
Overall, these choices are pretty good though. The Dayton & Faris nom shows the strength of LMS…
I just don’t understand how the DGA, who frowns on directing teams, can nominate them. I do think they’re quite a surprise even though I always expected LMS to get a BP/SAG nom.
“where dozens of studio execs will be searching in vain for the next Little Miss Sunshine.”
Hey, how about a thread where we can all try to guess this year’s big Sundance buys? I know that a lot of the movies I’m interested in already have distributors.
Doc noms are announced next Tuesday
What happened to the can’t have two directors for one picture thing? Did I miss something being announced saying this was possible.
I recall when Sin City came out that Rodriguez had issues because he wanted to include Frank Miller in on the directing credit and DGA wouldn’t let him.
Now they’re honoring a directing team with a nomination?
I believe the first big problem with Frank Miller is that he wasn’t DGA. Dayton & Faris are. And they have always been a team on the TV side.
Still, the issue is an odd one. Coens come to mind.
But they have been qualified as a nominee team for this year for weeks, so the qualification is not actually a surprise.
Mr. Poland, you did forget to mention that the BAFTA nods are landing on Friday, which personally I feel is another important pre-cursor to watch in terms of oscar, certainly more relevant than the globes.
“…given the rare occasion of a film wining Best Picture without having its director nominated. (It
“I believe the first big problem with Frank Miller is that he wasn’t DGA.”
Ah, good point. Wonder if he has a shot of joining now that he has a hit movie under his belt.
>> Dayton & Faris are. And they have always been a team on the TV side. But they have been qualified as a nominee team for this year for weeks, so the qualification is not actually a surprise.>>
I’m actually surprised, not just because of the qualification but also because the duo hadn’t really appeared on the Gurus of Gold. I mean, not even one mention despite everyone thinking it was a BP candidate. Is there a chance that the Academy might have an issue with a married team as a single Oscar nominee? Has it ever happened before? (And for that matter, is this a first for the DGA?)
“Still, the issue is an odd one. Coens come to mind.”
Well, they’re not married…that might make the difference.
Joe Leydon asked: When are the TV and doc nominees announced? >>>
TV begins tomorrow. Here’s a link to the DGA schedule of announcements (scroll to bottom).
http://www.dga.org/thedga/aw_announcements-07.php3
“They pretty much bury Letters From Iwo Jima and United 93 from the BP race, as they indicate that the support for Babel and LMS wasn’t just a peculiarity of the other guild(s) but something more broad-based.”
I agree. if the DGA directors aren’t getting behind Letters and United 93, why would the Academy ones? Only reason I can think of is that Eastwood has a lot more pals in the Academy from all the partying after he’s won the last few times.
Oh boy, another ‘irrelevant’ award. Don’t even bother showing up, Marty/Alejandro/Steve/etc.
I just read that Warner is releasing The Departed on DVD Feb. 13; I’m annoyed because I was expecting a theatrical rerelease which this would seem to forestall. Does this help that movie’s Oscar push in any way?
Though the Coen Brothers co-direct, they have always listed Joel as the director and Ethan as the producer. So they avoided any of these issues in the past.
However, I believe they went to Directed by the Coen Brothers on their last film.
Out of curiosity, which of these director’s is Scorsese’s main competition? Is it a foregone conclusion around town that this is his year?
So Clint is pissed? That only reinforces his reputation as an Oscar awards hog.
Yeah, Dave, can you do an “open” Sundance comments so we can chat about that? Or are we awaiting a pre-Sundance column? Thanks…
What about any of the other sibling directing pairs (e.g., Wachovski Bros., Hughes Bros., etc.)? They don’t seem to have a problem with the DGA. I had always assumed the Coen decision was a personal one . . . like using “Roderick Jaynes” as their editor.
I can’t believe I live in a world where “Little Miss Sunshine” is considered a better directed film than “Children of Men.”
Or in a world where “Crash” is named the best picture of any year, month or even day.
Mike, I consider BAFTA a non-issue. But since you feel otherwise, happy to hear your case for it.
And Sam, one groups noms don’t change anything. Absolutely, as acknowledged, they suggest support for Babel and confirm expected support for Little Miss Sunshine. And while there is usually a one-out on the directing nominees, DGA vs AMPAS, the last time there was a big variation in the Best Picture race was 2002, when the films of two DGA noms didn’t get Oscar noms.
My position has been – for a long time – that The Departed, Dreamgirls, Little Miss Sunshine, and The Queen were in. And I am pleased for Dayton/Faris that they are not the odd directors out at DGA.
My current thought still is – as I wrote – is that Babel, which has not gotten great critics group suppport, but has gotten PGA/DGA, is vulnerable in The Academy and that Letetrs From Iwo Jima remains the biggest threat. And PGA/DGA have no changed that. Doesn’t mean that Babel won’t make it. But no, it doesn’t kill United 93 or Greengrass alone or Iwo Jima or Eastwood. DGA is a strong indicator, but not a major influencer.
And I will not make the argument that if United 93 or Iwo Jima are locked out of Oscar that it was because they weren’t seen. Not at The Academy. Both films have been there on DVD. And if people don’t want to see a film, that is part of the situation. But even then, I think that argument is spin.
DGA is the only major group where there are no screeners and that is of potential significance with Iwo Jima in particular, and less so for Uniter 93, which has been pushing so hard so late.
It would be easy to toss them off and say it’s all these five PGA/DGA movies. But we don’t know that for sure and all these award noms prove is what they are themselves. That and the die is generally cast. But with 4 of 5 feeling so locked for so long, it seems silly to start getting fixated on the 5 slot.
Here’s the DGA position on the co-directing issue: “[A] waiver might be considered [if] the co-directors comprise a
I’m guessing Greengrass will replace Dayton/Faris for the Oscars, while the DGA list of titles will mirror the final Best Pic nominations.
Dave, you left out SAG, where Babel tied for the most nominations.
That means the three awards organizations that actually have members in the Academy have singled out Babel.
Good looking out on that DGA co-directing info. Interesting.
Doesn’t that clearly disqualify Frank Miller?
I finally saw Letters from Iwo Jima tonight, and while I don’t think it’s a bad movie, I can’t see the Academy really embracing it in any way except to maybe toss a nomination to Eastwood, and even that seems less-than-probably.