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
I haven’t seen the film, so I can’t comment (although I’m mightily looking forward to it), but again you are at odds with Moriarty from aintitcool. He hasn’t posted a review yet, but he called the film “remarkable”.
I’ll take it as the first sign of the apocalypse if you two would ever find yourselves on the same side of the fence.
I’m really rooting for Fincher to come out swinging after a lackluster Panic Room (which still had some moments). Although I don’t consider him to be a “great” director, I always find his work at least interesting and idiosyncratic, which is more than I can say for most directors.
Well obviously I haven’t seen the movie, but
1. He’s only made two really good David Fincher movies (Seven and Fight Club) and, like all artists, is perhaps trying to branch out.
2. I don’t think this is true. Depends on what you mean by ‘high visual style’, and what you mean by ‘storytelling’.
3. I think you’re talking about The Good Shepherd, which I liked quite a bit, but I don’t imagine being very similar to Zodiac. Plus, it seems like you’re talking about box-office prospects here. I love Downey, Gyllenhaal, and Ruffalo and am very excited about the prospect of seeing them do their thing. Only a lame studio executive would ask this question.
5. (back to number 1) Maybe he was satisfied that he had made that movie and wanted to try something else. Aren’t you the one chastising filmmakers and critics for always demanding new/different and then complaining when that’s what is delivered?
And a bonus: Aren’t non-review reviews lame? Nobody can argue with you because we haven’t seen the movie yet, so what’s the point?
It’s a great, great film. ANd no, it’s not commercial, but so what? Shouldn’t we be rejoicing when filmmakers get to make movies that aren’t pandering to audiences at the Mall of America?
I haven’t seen the movie either, but I think it’s going to be the only film made by David Fincher that has the title “Zodiac” EVER and I’m prepared to argue my case until I actually do get a chance to see the movie.
ummmmmm…..
Dave. You are your own worst enemy when you’re bored. When nothing is going on, the bizarre observations just start
2. Good Shepard? Children of Men? Babel?
Examples of good films with a creative visual style in the past few months.
3. Is a movie set 70 years ago a ‘period’ film?
Where is that bar set. I always thought a period film consisted of a movie that is so far removed from modern times that it requires a massive amount of art department and wardrobe to place the movie in a different age.
Are the 1930’s and 40’s really ‘period’
i look forward to more actual news.
This is what happens when people watch a movie expecting one thing, only to be confronted with something else, and not being able to adjust.
That’s exactly what happened when critics saw that other 2:40 period drama from last year.
And it’s ironic to suggest MS as being one on the few successful visual storytellers because The Departed was both his least visual film and also his only plot-driven film.
“It’s a great, great film.” Sayeth the man who loved, loved, loved The Fountain. Color me skeptical.
Those questions are just bizarre to me. I thought it was fantastic.
trying to figure out how 1 and 5 don’t contradict each other. He’s not David Fincher enough because Zodiac isn’t enough like Se7en? Or are you saying it’s too much like Se7en? Or are you saying he should never make another movie about a serial killer because he already made one? Should Scorsese have never made Goodfellas, Gangs of New York or Departed because he’d already made Mean Streets? Why do you need Fincher to stay in the filmmaking box labeled ‘David Fincher’ anyway? (why do critics even invent these boxes?) Isn’t that the sort of nonsense that Spielberg battled against with Empire of the Sun, and still has to contend with, with films like Amistad, A.I., and Munich?
I’m only going to answer these questions with questions…
1. Could it be he harbors a death wish that involves the Long Island Expressway and plumbing materials?
2. Could it be you have yet to see Tyler Perry’s Daddy’s Little Girls, and will be revising your question to include him once this happens?
3. Could it be they believe they might be able to attract the same audience of Brokeback Mountain if they start a viral marketing campaign which leads many to believe there will be some hot Gyllenhaal on Ruffalo (with a side of Cox) action?
4. Could it be that there is a surprise ending which will be tacked on at the last minute where Gyllenhaal receives a package containing Heath Ledger’s head?
The problem wth David Fincher is that he has never been DAVID FINCHER.
What I mean by that, is that he has never been the genius auteur that so many want him to be and he has always been scattershot.
Alien 3 is a huge miss that does not age well.
The Game is an inconsequential popcorn muncher.
Seven is a good thriller but I find the deaths very…cheesy and not scary at all.
Panic Room is a good thriller but also just a popcorn muncher.
As for his ‘classic’. I really like Fight Club but it also has some huge detriments . It was the first DVD I rented and how disappointed I was to hear a commentary of the creative types (including Fincher) saying how so much of it was fluke and not intended. They sounded like frat boys. The film immediately cheapened in my eyes. It is also a film with a message plagued by the messenger.
Do you real want a lecture on oil consumption by an oil company? No. Do you want a lecture on chastity by Jimmy (I hired teen prostitutes) Swaggart? No.
Why would I want a lecture on materialism and corporate greed by uber-wealthy Hollywood actors and directors?
I will see Zodiac and am sure it will be interesting, but I take all of the ‘it’s genius’ talk with a heay grain of salt. Fincher is a great visual stylist but he is no genius.
He is the ‘fan boy auteur’ with a visual style that makes them wet themselves. He is not particularly deep and other then walllowing in darkness, his films say very little about the human condition.
Understand I think he is talented, but I see no great depth there. And just as there are ‘suits’ who will balk at his ‘uncommercial’ choices, there are just as many fans who will wet themselves just by virtue of them and be equally uncritical.
Great post, Nicol D. I really dug Zodiac, but like Poland’s questions, I’ve always found the whole Fincher is a genius talk a little bizarre.
Yeah, Nicol basically hit it on the head, though I hold SEVEN in much higher esteem, more than I hold SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, which I think is overrated but has been canonized by just about everyone else.
I dig watching FINCHER movies, but he needs to knock one out of the park again. I’ll see ZODIAC, but the TV spots make it look pretty ponderous.
The comment about “high visual style” just seems inane and ignorant, the kind of thing you would never get past a half-competant editor, but end up on blogs all the time. But then again, I do enjoy me some good hyperbole.
I saw this coming when Wells loved it. One of them has always got to be the contrarian.
Too bad, because it’s a great movie.
I think Zodiac is all about Osama Bin Laden in the years after 9/11: A boogie man pops up, freaks everyone out and disappears forever, but the paranoia in it’s wake only builds and builds.
I think this is Fincher’s way of telling us to snap out of it, do the math and move on.
But agreed, Poland, the movie floats in still water. No clock at all. The Pakula comparison made me laugh.
Nicol nailed it. Fincher made one of the ultimate fanboy films of all time. The great visuals, the “anti-establishment” message, and the Palahniuk pedigree make it totally irresistible to your average undergrad. It’s neither a bad film nor an indicator of a genius auteur. It’s just Fight Club.
Se7en is better, but Brad Pitt almost ruins this movie for me. Distractingly terrible. Just…fuck.
Nicol D:
I re-posted your comment on Wells’ board. Without your permission, but fully credited to you. I hope you don’t mind.
Why do people keep saying Poland dislikes a movie b/c Wells likes it? I mean, can’t they just have differing opinions?
And who the hell is Jeff Wells anyway and why do we care what he thinks? I’ve never heard of the guy except with people comparing him to Poland on this site. Are they mortal enemies or what?
I’m assuming the Pakula allusion is meant to reference All the President’s Men. Well, that’s a pretty damn good movie, and it holds up very well. (I use it in film appreciation courses from time to time, and devote a chapter to it in my book.)I would also add that Klute, The Sterile Cuckoo and, yes, Starting Over are worth seeing and seeing again. His recurring themes — especially the alternating currents of fear of betrayal versus need to trust — give his better films a depth and resonance that I greatly appreciate.
Ju-osh,
Hey, no worries. Glad you liked the post.
All the best.
Leer – I don’t know what you get out of maintaining the illusion that anything I have ever written a review based on someone else’s opinion. It’s an enormously distrespectful and inaccurate position to argue. And if you ever really looked into it, I think you would prove it to yourself. But I haven’t read a single word of anyone else’s comments on Zodiac.
In fact, before the movie started, a friend asked whether I was revved up by the positive response and I explained that I was a blank slate… no gears to shift, Mutiny. Just a movie of style (more terrible hair pieces) and very little substance. I’m sure the French will lurve it.
I did like Roger Rabbit, however.
And I love Pakula… love Lumet even more…
But they did something that Fincher doesn’t do well. They did characetr pieces that happened to have a camera involved. Fincher is a puzzle guy. He’s as incapable of doing Pakula – who was the kind of voice that would have restructured this screenplay and made the film work – as I am of being understated and demure.
“Just a movie of style (more terrible hair pieces) and very little substance.”
Like…
Miami Vice?…
The Departed?…
Dreamgirls?…
🙂
If you feel so, Mutiny.
You have every right to miss the boat. (ha ha)
It’s okay. I’ll take a plane. Maybe the in-flight movie will be Oscar-winner Dreamgirls… (ha ha)
I should note, by the way, that I haven’t seen Zodiac yet. So I’m just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Re: the above; yes, no, yes.
Nicol:
“Why would I want a lecture on materialism and corporate greed by uber-wealthy Hollywood actors and directors?”
There you go again.
I think Fight Club is Fincher’s best movie but I haven’t seen it in a long time. I think Seven is much deeper than you’re giving it credit for – outwardly it looks like a boo scary thriller but it’s actually a series of rhetorical dialogues interspersed within a thriller narrative.
Alien 3 is garbage, however, and Panic Room and The Game are more interesting but flawed.
Nicol Posted: “Why would I want a lecture on materialism and corporate greed by uber-wealthy Hollywood actors and directors?”
Because they look the hottest, sound the most polished, and produce the biggest explosions while the lecture runs its course. Hooha!
The Game is actually the type of work that I wish was churned out every other week by the movie industry. Dashes of attention to detail, with a smattering of visual eye candy that is contrasted to hell and back.
Wait, Zodiac is three hours? Jesus Christ.
it’s not a bad three hours, it’s just that most people seeing the movie can tell there’s a superb film in there, it just needs some subtle restructuring and a few minutes of trims to focus and polish it. Mark Ruffalo is astounding and I think the main reason the movie works at all is because of him. That said, Jake Gyllenhaal is pretty damned good as an awkward and socially inept person. There are moments when the film really clicks and works, and then it just falters for a while and finds itself again. All over the place is a cliche description that is quite apt for Zodiac.
If this movie is as bad as the last 2:40 drama, I’m going to love this thing baby.