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
That sound you hear Dave, is an overwhelming yawwwwwn. Can I be the only one that is bored, bored, bored of you going after the Times, NY Times and Mr. Goldstein? The fact that so far I am the only one even bothering to respond must tell you something (but of course it won’t….even conflicting opinion or disagreement is a sign of alarm for you to fight). Hmmm? Sorry, did I doze off here?
Your yawn is as welcome as any other response or non-response, Glamour. Please let me know exactly what you want me to write and I will get right on it.
How ’bout Anna Nicole?…
Why not examine it again, so close to Oscar time? Would it make a difference to you if he cited your previous writing on the topic? By the way, did I read something by you with a quote from Mark Gill about the lessening of importance of winning Oscars in terms of box office, etc., and how expensive the campaings are, etc., and how studio execs approve the costs, which is not always a good thing for the filmmakers, etc.? If I did, I’d like to find it, I’ve looked everywhere.
For years and years she chews away,
her jaws get stronger every day.
And with one great tremendous chew,
they bite the poor girl’s tongue in two.
And that is why we try so hard,
to save Miss Violet Beauregarde.
Chewing, chewing all day long.
Chewing, chewing all day long.
Chewing, chewing all day long.
Dave, of course you’ll continue to write about whatever you want to write about (and why shouldn’t you). Even I would never be so naive to think that you’ll stop writing articles about Patrick Goldstein. But there is a certain amout of arrogance in not listening to your readers, or taking their comments seriously. Dave, Goldstein, LA Times, New York Times…it’s gotten tedious.
I take your comments very seriously. That is why I have the blog. That is why I answer the vast majority of my e-mail. I don’t edit what you want to express or limit your ability to say it. I’m not sure who shows readers more respect. Of course, respect and agreeing are not the same thing.
If I listened to what everyone wanted me to write, I would write nothing, Glamour. Everyone wants something else. And I write enough that many get what they want and simply disregard the rest. Best I can do, really.
Patrick gets commented on about 3 or 4 times a year on this blog. Even today, it is one of 5 entires so far. If he accounts for as many as 10 of the more than 1500 entries on this blog, I’d be surprised. Additionally, there are real issues bigger than Patrick or one column that I am trying to address. But again… you have every right to piss all over the piece.
Finally, keep in mind… the people who comment on this blog are not the only people who I hear from about what posts. Your boredom is, indeed, the majority, so far as I can tell. But it is hardly the exclusive position on these pieces.