May 20, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
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
Theory: In 2038 a movie will be made called It Girls and it will centre around the monotonous droll lives of the likes of Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie and so on. It will be a stylised and hip retelling of the era between 2004 and 2007 when they were famous. It will feature an actress giving an Oscar-worthy performance as Paris who struggles to deal with her fame for fame’s sake. But what will tip audiences over the edge and get them to scream “OSCAR! OSCAR!” will be a scandalous scene where Paris gets out of a car and flashes her bits.
Careful there, Dave. If your review isn’t positive enough, Hickenlooper might sue.
I hope Harvey keeps his scissorhands away from the new Wong Kar-Wai…
This review raises interesting questions about how or whether a movie “works.” Dave, you seem to be saying that the new version of Factory Girl (and I’ve never seen any version of it, though I plan to when it hits NYC) “works” better in the screenwriter/beats/”story” sense… but has lost a lot of what was interesting about it for the sake of it being less of a mess. But in saying this, your point seems to be that the result is a movie that’s somewhat better overall, but maybe lacking the curiosity or novelty factor present in the messier earlier cut. (Maybe I’m misreading you, but that’s what I got from this review.) That raises the question of whether
an interesting mess is preferable to better-structured, more coherent roteness.
I know your POV is that it’s not much of a movie either way, so it’s not really a travesty to discuss how the Weinsteinized version “works” better. But I guess it’s hard for me to muster much appreciation for a movie that “works” as a story (or for any positive writing about a movie that uses the term “beats” in terms of story; that’s just a personal pet peeve of mine; the term gets way under my skin) but is ultimately less interesting and/or more conventional than something less polished.
Yet at the same time, I’m always one to say that if (say) MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III succeeds more as an action-adventure movie than BABEL does as a drama, then I prefer MI3, “points for trying” be damned. And a lot of movies are overlong, so in theory I’m not opposed to a (“scissorhands”) 95-minute version of whatever over the 120-minute version; I’m not always a stickler for ambition over competence. But it can be a conundrum in the gray areas — losing thismuch “magic,” as you put it, in exchange for thismuch coherence.
do you know if the move is going to open in iowa soon
I saw Factory Girl last week in LA during its qualifying run. I have no idea which version I saw. There was a voice over, so I must have seen the new version. I actually quite liked the film, and for the first time ever, Sienna Miller. I thought it had a lot to say about the silly celebrity-obsessed culture we embrace now, a la the Parises and the Lindsay’s and how Edie Sedgewick sort of blazed this trail for all these girls who are really more famous for being famous than they are for any great work.
So DP reviewed it last week (or whenever it was) based on an unfinished cut, or when it was doing its ‘qualifying run’?
All the Sienna hate was way premature. She’s quite a good actress, and her work in Factory Girl supports that.
Really, the hate for the film comes from hate for Harvey more than anything else.
Though in the end, DP is right, there is no question that Harvey improved Hickenlooper’s cut, which was all over the place. Hickenlooper just isn’t an A list, or really a B List director. Let’s give him a B minus.
I wasn’t hating on Sienna.
If you saw the version I saw – which is what they showed LAFCA for award consideration – you would agree, I think, that she was completely unimpressive.
And in this version, she is much better.