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
David, you really need to stop talking about Dreamgirls and why you think it didn’t get nominated for an Academy Award. It was nominated in a number of other categories, so it was seen by a large amount of people. I guarantee you more votes saw Dreamgirls than saw Letters From Iwo Jima. So all that means is that not enough people loved it as much as you did. I thought it wasn’t a very good movie, despite some great work by Bill Condon and crew. I didn’t think the performances were all that wonderful and the story didn’t pull me in. Is that my fault that I didn’t like it enough? Is it the fault of all the people who didn’t love it enough to nominate it for best picture? Did they all “not get it” like you did? Just let it go, you loved it but guess what, not everyone did.
All subject to opinion, Noah.
And you speak directly to why I don’t just “get off it.” Because many people, as you just did, keep making it personal when, for me, it is not.
We live in a weird place where we argue rational arguments, then revert to “what we think” ahead of all else, and then back again.
It’s poor rhetoric. But it is, I admit, very human… even when I do it.
You’re talking around the point, though, David. I don’t think you’re a bad person or a dumb person for liking Dreamgirls, but you make it personal when you say that I am somehow inadequate because I did not like it. Or that the Academy is dumb for nominating Letters From Iwo Jima instead. I just want to be able to read this blog and instead of reading about you making all the excuses that you normally do for why Dreamgirls wasn’t nominated, I just want you to say, “Well, I guess not as many people liked it as I did.” Instead, you dismiss the opinion of many intelligent folks and instead of thinking that the film failed those folks somehow, you think those people are the failures for not liking the film enough. I respect you a great deal, David, but it gets to be quite frustrating when you go on these crusades and I’m sorry to say, but this is a lost cause.
Good commentary, but should use a lav mic next time.
But it’s not a cause, Noah, it’s a discussion.
If you think that professional Oscar consultants are talking about much of anything else this week, you’d be wrong… aside from no one knowing who’s going to win Best Picture.
And we don’t agree about what I think. Sorry. You can want me to say or think whatever you like, but wanting simply does not make it so.
Certainly the film failed some people. Every film does. But arguing that your feeling is everyone’s feeling would be as false if I did it as it is when you and others do it. The process of simplifying things to black and white is always a bit mystifying for me.
Regardless, this is a daily project, so we can disagree about something else tomorrow.
I’m not asking you to say anything other than to state the simple truth of the matter: Dreamgirls didn’t get nominated because not enough people loved it. I’m not asking you to tell me you hated it when you didn’t. You liked it and that’s fine, I respect your opinion. But it didn’t get a Best Picture nomination for the same reason that Children of Men and Little Children (two films I loved) didn’t: they didn’t love those films enough.
I just think you can be very pompous with your opinions sometimes, like you are the all-knowing God of what is good and what is not. I am not arguing that my feeling is everyone’s feeling, I understand that a lot of people like that movie, but not enough loved it. And the only thing I am simplifying to black and white is why Dreamgirls wasn’t nominated for Best Picture. It was obviously seen by a large number of voters, as evidenced by its nominations in other categories. But it did not get nominated because those voters did not fall in love with the film like you did. So stop making excuses, David, for why the film failed to nab the Academy’s top prize. You can say “it should’ve” won this and that all you want, but it won’t because it wasn’t as universally loved as you want it to be.
What’s up with that Washington comic? Interesting but where did it come from and why did DP put it here beyond the Pres Day holiday?
There was this guy in my high school, a year or two ahead, who had his friends over one day and they wanted to watch a VHS he had of some recent basketball game or something. So he pops in the tape. And lo and behold — he had apparently videotaped himself jerking off with his thumb up his ass. HE HAD PUT THE WRONG TAPE ON!!!
Not sure that this has anything to do with anything. But it’s a funny story to tell.
Regarding the subject at hand…
DP, could you please give some examples of the things that Marty has never done before in The Departed (given its gross and DVD release I think we no longer have to worry about spoilers). I really like the film and would be happy if it won BP but for some of us non-experts in filmaking could you give some specific examples of what makes it your #1 pick?
Also, I mentioned this in another thread but I recently watched Infernal Affairs and I was shocked at how closely Departed follows. I know it is a remake but many of the scenes were virtually identical. Is this common in remakes? Does this impact your opinion of Departed as superior filmaking if much of it seemed to go little beyond the original vision?
Input from DP or others is greatly appreciated.
I think you’re overstating the import of the win for Virginia Katz and Dreamgirls at the ACE Awards. Sure, she won the award, but none of the other movies competing with her in that “Best Editing in a Musical/Comedy” category were nominated for an Oscar; whereas four from ACE’s drama side have been: Babel, The Departed, The Queen and United 93 (Casino Royale rounding out the five in the ACE’s and Blood Diamond doing the same in the Oscars). So one could just as well (and more logically) extrapolate that Dreamgirls only has the best editing in the #6 to #10 area of the best films of the year in the eyes of Oscar voters. But maybe not even that, since Dreamgirls was all but made to win in a Best Musical/Comedy category that it owns since its the only musical; since it’s a dramatic musical; and since dramas virtually ALWAYS get preferential treatment over pure comedies everywhere you turn.
But the most challengeable statement you make in this Daily David is that Dreamgirls should have been nominated for the best picture Oscar and if it had been nominated, it would’ve won. And yet, it didn’t garner enough nomination votes to even guarantee a fourth runner-up ribbon, much less a trophy. How can a movie that wasn’t popular enough to escape sixth place (or lower) in that ballot hope to do anything like winning first place walking away? Okay, maybe there’s always a hail mary chance for miracles, but you’re throwing out that statement like it would’ve been a done deal as soon as the noms were announced. Maybe it was good enough to be nominated, but when the reality is that it wasn’t put in this mix, that tells me it was NEVER going to be enough to win.
Everytime I think of Dreamgirls I start thinking about Rocky Horror Picture Show, that would make such a great double bill.
The editing made Dreamgirls bearable, so yes, sad faces all around. With that said, this statement is honestly amounting to much more than what any one discussion over the internet about pictures being ‘robbed’ and such from previous years.
David, you are so beyond this it isn’t even funny. Well, except for that Washington song. That rocked. Last summer. When it first released. And was in full screen. Still, major points there!
DreamBLAHgirls…yadda yadda…is QT on some WWE program tonight?? I can’t miss that!
Dreamgirls was really cartoonish to me. I enjoyed it, and I think there’s some truth that it would be the frontrunner, instead of there not being a general interest film leading the pack right now, and, I think that does hurt commercial interests of the movie business.
BRINGING OUT THE DEAD has all of the flashing light wipes in the opening credit sequence, right? That was stolen directly from Gary Sherman’s VICE SQUAD (which Scorsese praised at the time of its release).
And this is not a knock on Marty; he always stole wisely and incorporated his many purloined flourishes deftly (thanks in part to Thelma). But has he really “pushed the envelope” technically in any tangible way since KUNDUN? I don’t think so. This isn’t to say he’s been terrible since then; it just seems apparent that he’s slowing down. Same goes for Thelma.
Is Marty slowing down, or is he simply mellowing? Some of our greatest directors did exceptional work in the autumn of their careers: Ford (68, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE), Hawks (63, RIO BRAVO), Hitchcock (73, FRENZY), Huston (79, PRIZZI’S HONOR), Lang (63, THE BIG HEAT), Wilder (66, AVANTI!), Fuller (68, THE BIG RED ONE), Sirk (62, IMITATION OF LIFE), Wyler (63, THE COLLECTOR), Walsh (71, NAKED AND THE DEAD), and of course Altman (81, PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION). Most of the examples I’ve listed did NOY represent stretches for those directors, but were merely new work in genres that they felt comfortable with. DEPARTED fits squarely in that group.
That NOY should of course be NOT. Sigh. David, when can we getting an “edit” button?
That NOY should of course be NOT. Sigh. David, when can we get an “edit” button?
Cadavara: Good call on The Collector, a great movie that not enough people remember. (And what ever happened to Samantha Eggar?)
Cadavra’s examples so Abra: so much to look forward to with the DGA health insurance…
The editing in Dreamgirls was so hit-and-miss. Sometimes it was great, other times it was intrusive. Why interrupt Beyonce’s big “Listen” with scenes of her looking through a drawer?
And every mention of that ridiculous “Family” song needed to be taken out.
People confuse writing and editing all the time. I’m sorry, how many line jumps would you need to remove all reference to the “Family” song? Do you know if the movie would join back up?
I’m sure “Listen” wasn’t interupted on stage, where it should have been left. Anne Thompson said that no one could have directed DG better, so it must be the underlying material. I didn’t like any of the acting — not Fox, Byonce, Hudson, Glover or Murphy.
You buried the lead. The Eddie ties for only the second time in its history and you’re still beating the Dreamgirls horse. Plenty of Eddies have won in the musical/comedy category and not been nominated for Oscars; it isn’t that unusual. The editing in DG was exceptional – but they apparently liked Blood Diamond more.
Yes, it took enormous skill, a great relationship with the director and a really long time to get exactly right.
I’d love to hear how Dreamgirls could have eked a nomination out and then won the whole thing “if it had been nominated.” Doesn’t the lack of a nomination reflect very few #1 votes on Academy ballots? And aren’t those same ballots going to determine the winner?
Unless suddenly all the folks who voted for the Queen realize “oh shit, I didn’t mean I actually want the Queen to WIN, let me vote for Dreamgirls instead.” Do you think that really happens?
Yeah, this argument doesn’t make sense to me either. “If it had been nominated…” (i.e., “if it had gotten more nomination votes that it did get”) “…it would have won.” In other words, if it had gotten more votes than it got, it would have gotten not just *more* votes than it got but enough more votes to win. What the hell kind of ridiculous crazy insane logic is that?
Fact: Dreamgirls did not get enough votes to be nominated. That means that either not enough people loved it, or not enough people saw it.
People saw the movie. You yourself argue incessantly about how enough people saw Children of Men for it to be considered fairly. Well if they saw Children of Men, they sure as hell saw Dreamgirls.
Conclusion? NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE LOVED THE MOVIE ENOUGH.
I sympathize with your belief that Dreamgirls is good enough to have been nominated. EVERYBODY, EVERY YEAR, has movies they think should have been nominated but aren’t. The reason those movies don’t get nominated is always the same. Not. Enough. People. Loved. Those. Movies.
Maybe they’re wrong not to love them enough. Every year, there are titles I think people are wrong about. It is the privilege of the movie critic to be arrogant like that. But you’re the only person I know to try to argue that the ones that don’t make it somehow actually *were* loved enough, but some unnamed metaphysical force of nature causes that love not to be reflected in the actual voting.
No matter how much we pick on the Oscars, no matter how often we disagree with them, no matter how much history proves them wrong in the end, the one thing the Oscar nominees do not lie about is what movies had the Academy’s attention and love at the time of voting. Maybe Dreamgirls was in sixth place and one vote shy of taking the fifth slot. Maybe it was dead last, behind Little Man. Either way, the Academy loved five other movies more, and that stands no matter what kind of arguments you use to explain why.
Also, that George Washington thing made me want to eat my own eyes and ears.
I didn’t watch the “Daily David” but I follow the argument that if Dreamgirls had been nominated it could have won, which works because of the vagaries of this kind of balloting system. Let’s say that there were ten major contenders, each pulling 5-15 percent of the vote but only the top five of them get to be ‘nominees’. What happens to the votes that went to the losing five, which could make up almost half of the voting population? They have to go somewhere, and they’re more likely to go to a noncontroversial, consensus candidate like Dreamgirls than to something edgy or controversial, like Letters from Iwo Jima for example. So if there was a sizable group of voters for Pursuit of Happyness, it might not be enough to get that movie a Best Picture nomination, but if added to the native Dreamgirls base it might be enough to have put that movie over the top in the final balloting, where you only need 20%+1 to win it all.
Does that make sense?
Joe: Eggar’s still at it. She was a recurring last year on “Commander-In-Chief” as Donald Sutherland’s wife.
“I’m sure ‘Listen’ wasn’t interupted on stage, where it should have been left.”
The song was added for the movie. It wasn’t in the stage version.
This whole thing reminds me of last year, when “Munich” was faltering before the nominations and DP hedged his bets by saying, “Well, if Munich could just snag a Best Pic nomination, I’m sure it would have won.” And then it did, and it didn’t.
I seem to recall Poland saying before Munich was nominated that if it was nominated, it would win. Of course, it was subsequently nominated and did not win.
Poland all but guaranteed a BP win for ‘Dreamgirls’ before the nominations came out. We know what happened there so why does anyone give any credence to what he says now about ‘Dreamgirls’ winning IF IT HAD BEEN nominated?
DP, let it go.
Let it go, DP. People just didn’t dig Dreamgirls as much as you thought they would. It was forgettable in many voters’ eyes.
The Munich issue is simple to respond to… and if you remember, I was very clear on this within days of the nomination… Universal bailed on Munich after the nom… so did Sony Classics and WIP. (And Focus continued their “We have it won” campaign.)
Sorry I don’t control Universal’s marketing/publicity budget and planning. But I don’t. I would still argue that had Munich made a real push, they could have won. And Brokeback… if they weren’t quite so arrogant, it would have probably beat Crash in spite of their push.
This is the general issue I have with so many of you. There is this zero sum attitude. And none of this is a zero sum game. Even absolute failures and monster hits have many variables in play. And award season? Oy.
But people prefer easy answers…. even if they are just partial and misleading.
Or… every bit as probable… Munich lost for the same reason that Dreamgirls wasn’t nominated: Not enough Academy voters liked it. Would you not agree, David, that this, too, was one of the variables in play? Just as… once again, every bit as probable… Crash won because a plurality of Academy voters related to it more strongly than any other film nominated last year.
^in a misguided way.
Related to it or thought they were voting for something “important?”
Pretty impressive, Dave. A variety of well-argued, lucid points made about your essentially indefensible assertion, and you concentrate your energy in your follow-up point on one little throw-away “Munich” comment. Well played!
FACT #1: Dreamgirls received 8 nominations
FACT #2: Dreamgirls didn’t get a Picture nomination
IMPLICATION: While a significant percentage of the Academy saw the film (hence the 8 nods), not enough Academy members put it on their ballot in the #1 or #2 position for the Picture category.
REASONABLE ASSERTION: While it is possible that a lot of the Academy membership liked the movie, not enough of that membership liked (or loved) it enough to get the votes it needed for a Picture nod.
UNREASONABLE ASSERTION: Um, there were forces and variables and hidden factors that magically converged in such a way that a film that was clearly universally loved by the Academy still couldn’t manage a Picture nod. BUT if the planets had aligned as they should have, Dreamgirls would’ve been nominated and gone on to win the Best Picture competition over four films that somehow managed to get the nod that Dreamgirls couldn’t.
Yeah. Right.
Pretty impressive, Dave. A variety of well-argued, lucid points made about your essentially indefensible assertion, and you concentrate your energy in your follow-up point on one little throw-away “Munich” comment. Well played!
FACT #1: Dreamgirls received 8 nominations
FACT #2: Dreamgirls didn’t get a Picture nomination
IMPLICATION: While a significant percentage of the Academy saw the film (hence the 8 nods), not enough Academy members put it on their ballot in the #1 or #2 position for the Picture category.
REASONABLE ASSERTION: While it is possible that a lot of the Academy membership liked the movie, not enough of that membership liked (or loved) it enough to get the votes it needed for a Picture nod.
UNREASONABLE ASSERTION: Um, there were forces and variables and hidden factors that magically converged in such a way that a film that was clearly universally loved by the Academy still couldn’t manage a Picture nod. BUT if the planets had aligned as they should have, Dreamgirls would’ve been nominated and gone on to win the Best Picture competition over four films that somehow managed to get the nod that Dreamgirls couldn’t.
Yeah. Right.
Sorry about the double post.
Jeff and Stella — As I said last year: I think a plurality of Academy voters responded to Crash because it spoke more directly to them, about the way we live now, than any other movie nominated last year. (It was also the only contemporary story, which I think helped as well.) You guys didn’t like it, and will dis it and demean it at every opportunity, and what the hell, you’re entitled. But I strongly suspect that if it were up this year instead of last, it would still beat any of the other Best Picture nominees. That’s right — pick any four of this year’s five nominees, and then place Crash into the mix, and Crash would still win.
Don’t be so defensive Joe. I just wondered if you believe that it was at all possible that Crash got votes not because people related to it but because they felt like they were voting for something important. A reasonable question I think.
Well, Joe, if Crash was nominated this year and competing with Babel, I think Babel would wipe the floor with it. They have the same ‘importance’/liberal do-good factor going on, plus one is substantially more well-made than the other. I suppose that Crash would be aided by being more of an inside-LA movie, but ultimately it’s another unprovable idea.
And yes, my snarky comment earlier aside, I was commenting to agree with Stella that Crash won because it aligned with the long run of socially conscious (for better or worse) Best Picture Winners, from All Quiet on the Western Front and The Life of Emile Zola to Driving Miss Daisy and Schindler’s List.
As I’m sure Nicol would agree, the Academy likes to feel like they’re not just honoring good movies, but _important_ movies. And Crash is suffused by self-importance.
Jeff: I think you may be undercutting your own argument by likening Crash to All Quiet on the Western Front (one of the great anti-war movies of all time, so powerful that it was banned by the Nazis as soon as they obtained power in Germany). It was a very timely movie when it was released, and continues to be an impressive film, one I show students on a regular basis. If I am lucky enough to be teaching 25 years from now, I cannot say for certian that I will be screening Crash quite so often. But if I’m teaching a course that requires showing films that summed up the zeitgeist of a specific time — well, yeah, I can see Crash as one hell of a lot more likely a choice than most other films around right now.
My point was that some message movies are good (like All Quiet and Schindler) and some message movies are bad (I think you know the rest).
On the subject of zeitgeist, I suppose you could use Crash for the year 2005. You could also use Mrs. Miniver for 1942 and Cimarron for 1931, but that doesn’t make either of them good movies either.
You bring up an interesting subject, though. I would say that the most zeitgeisty American movies of this past year were probably Talladega Nights and The Departed. Honorable mention to Shortbus. All three are more revealing to me about what America 2006 is like.
I’m not sure what you mean by referencing Cimarron, a Western, as being an accurate reflection of 1931 zeitgeist. Truth to tell, I would think 42nd Street would be a far more accurate portrait of Depression Era zeitgeist. Unless you’re saying that every period movie says as much about the period in which it’s made as it does about the period in which it’s set. I’ll buy that. I mean, Gone With the Wind details the Reconstruction Era, but it also reflects how many people felt about surviving tough times during the Depression. And remember how so many WWII movies and Westerns made during the Vietnam War actually were Vietnam War allegories (Solier Blue, Too Late the Hero, etc.).
But if we’re going to pick a recent movie as reflective of 2006 zeitgeist — I actually think Little Miss Sunshine is a better choice than any of the movies you mentioned. (Which is one of the reasons why I think it has a very good shot at Best Picture.) Think about it.
(Gosh: Isn’t it nice to have a serious film discussion without name-calling?)
“people related to it but because they felt like they were voting for something important” by Stella
actually my best pal is African Am and she said the same thing. We did not think that CRASH was what inner city living in the USA was really like (we both lived in ghetto areas), however, it struck a chord with people who thought maybe they should pay attention more to certain racial and immigration related issues.
^^^Exactly, Crash is a movie made for and by guilty white liberals. The key moment in that movie is when Sandra Bullock says her housekeeper is her only friend. I don’t think it’s a good movie, but it sums up the movie as a whole.
Joe, you’re right, Cimarron was a bad choice, especially since I haven’t actually seen all of it. But again, I disagree that Little Miss Sunshine is all that full of our current zeitgeist – it’s a little too cute and upbeat for me in that regard. Top Ten, maybe.
one of our problems is that I don;t know if we have a zeitgeist, do we? DUnno.
I don’t see CRASH as guilty white liberal, never did. It’s more like the writer had a carjacking experience and thought he learned something from it. He didn’t.
You’re thinking of Grand Canyon. Oh wait…
no i thought Haggis got ‘jacked
Grand Canyon was a better movie IMUHO, more realistic subplots compared what was actually happening in the inner cities at the time.