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” ā 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 ā 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 ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā 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 namedā” “Yeah, sure ā 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 Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās 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 didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā 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. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās 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
Congratulations David, you has just become the new Ken Thuran!
Oh, Dave. Not that it will matter much to you, but you should prepare yourself for ZODIAC to become another CHILDREN OF MEN for you. For my own sake, I hope it does. Granted, I haven’t seen it yet, so I can’t really comment, but I loved Cuaron’s pic and would hate to be disappointed by Fincher’s.
How am I “the new Ken Turan,” Tyler? Because I think Fincher missed this time? Or was it because I was the most aggressive defender of Fight Club in Los Angeles?
I have no problem with defending my position, BMc. In the end, they are opinions. But even if one disagrees with me, if they are fair, they have to see that my opinions on these two films are not unconsidered or rash… just not the same as some other people.
I hope you love Fincher’s or whatever film you love. I’m not here to convince you. Not my job. But I am interested in your opinion of the film, even if we disagree. It’s called discourse and I think it will survive the web.
And defend it you will. I am guessing this opinion is going to inspire even more vitriol than CHILDREN OF MEN and DREAMGIRLS combined.
By the way, I finally caught THE LIVES OF OTHERS this weekend. Liked but didn’t love it, and was frankly surprised to see that it had inspired so many champions toward its nomination and eventual win. Right up there with (or frankly, just below) BARBARIANS AT THE GATE. Oh well.
I watched THE PARALLAX VIEW a week or so after seeing ZODIAC for the first time, and was stunned (in a good way, I think) at how fully Fincher had assimilated Pakula, right down to the seemingly inconsequential use of Pong. More than anything, ZODIAC is an aesthetic exercise, especially if you’re already well acquainted with the particulars of the Zodiac case. Fincher’s not after anything as conventionally excellent as the Kyle Secor arc on HOMICIDE (good call, by the way); the narrative, and the characters, are just familiar elements Fincher employs as he evokes a deep and seductive sense of mystery he has no intention of resolving. It’s actually a kind of audience cruelty (and most audiences will hate the piss out of this movie), but it’s also a bravura piece of filmmaking and, ultimately, unlike anything I’ve seen since Pakula gave up on the thriller genre in the late 70s. It’s *not* a masterpiece (many of DP’s criticisms are completely valid), but it is essential viewing if you give a shit about film.
One of the worst things that ever happened to me was reading a screenwriting book when I was younger. Because it made me watch every movie for a year and a half from the perspective of that traditional 3-act formula. And when a movie didn’t quite fit into it, I had a difficult time relating to what it was trying to do — since it was “incorrect” form.
So I forced myself to the pass this kidney stone. It didn’t hurt that taking a weekend class with Syd Field where he spent hours scanning through hit movies to show how correct he was did more to disprove his theory than solidify it.
Yes, there are certain films that very much benefit from a traditional structure. There are others that work simply because they don’t. In fact, most really great filmmakers have been more interested than not in experimenting with the narrative form — Kubrick, Godard, Bergman, Welles, Coppola, Antonioni, Altman, etc. Even Martin Scorsese’s films have been very loosely structured and episodic.
What matters isn’t that traditional structure, so much as forward momentum. As long as the narrative FEELS to an audiences like it’s moving forward and going someplace, digression and experimentation will be accepted.
And if I recall correctly, William Goldman never uses that structure when planning out his scripts. He thinks more pragmatically about what scenes he thinks are required to simply tell the story properly while developing what he feels is necessary. His process is more organic than a strict structuralist.
Anyhow.
What’s your point, Mutiny… since Fincher’s film does have a three-act structure?
I have no problem with films that don’t have conventional act structure. None of Malick’s do. ALL of Fincher’s have.
I saw “Children of Men” today, finally. I have no idea what David said, since I avoided the discussion so as not to get spoiled. But I’m sure I agree with him at least 88%. The movie is overblown and underthought. It makes “V for Vendetta” look like a paragon of reasoned discourse. And “V” is dumber than a box of rocks.
Scoutt Foundas captures exactly what is wrong with Zodiac, while raving the film:
“The form of the film
Boy, I sure look forward to seeing this. I’m trying to remember the last time I agreed with DP on a film – probably The Departed š
…Simply that you initially thought it was rather formless, but upon seeing it a second time it had a standard 3-act structure. Just sounded as if it was more acceptable to you by existing in that form.
Blackcloud: Funny you should mention Vendetta in the same context as Children of Men. VfV carries clear cut central villains that the CoM novel provided, while the film version of CoM was more ambiguous like the VfV comic.
Of course neither is interested in reasoned discourse. Narratively, those barriers had been lost long ago, and provocatively it would carry far less impact.
The disappointment that there was not even a hint to sex in the film is going to make me laugh years down the line when I hear a similar disappointment for our own time now.
“I forgave this while watching, but it occurs to me now that New York was a hotbed of patriotic politics and hero worship at the time of the first half of this film, but you would never know from watching this.”
Just curious by way of comparison, David… what did you think of Spike Lee’s SUMMER OF SAM?
I have no idea why I loved Summer of Sam so much. It’s crazy.
I’ll be watching ZODIAC this weekend, but, from the trailers, it appears the comparison to MEMORIES OF MURDER is an appropriate one. It would be very difficult to make a better film of a failed attempt to capture a serial killer than that one, however.
This probably means I will really like/love this movie, since I’ve disagreed with DP on many of my fave films, notably Huckabees, Kill Bill and The Fountain.