MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Daily David – New Auteurs As Old Lemmings?

QuickTime | iKlipz | YouTube
Relevant Links: A Decade Under The Influence | Movies & Money

Be Sociable, Share!

11 Responses to “Daily David – New Auteurs As Old Lemmings?”

  1. EDouglas says:

    Great piece… I generally like the more serious biz-related commentaries that seem well thought-out and not so ranting.

  2. mysteryperfecta says:

    Good stuff, DP… and A Decade Under The Influence is definately worth checking out.

  3. Blackcloud says:

    Very good. I guess Cuaron, Aronofsky, and Fincher aren’t Lucas, Spielberg, and Coppola. Then again, no one is.

  4. Devin Faraci says:

    I would love a transcript of these because, to be frank, I’m not watching somebody yap for 7 and a half minutes. I think video content on the web is cute but not the ideal delivery method.

  5. Tofu says:

    Cute, eh? Video Content is slowing eating up more and more of internet viewers time, that much is for certain.

  6. Hallick says:

    But “Zodiac” and “Children of Men” aren’t “Heaven’s Gate” and “One From the Heart”. Everbody hated those older two: the studios, the critics, and filmgoers alike. That’s far from the case here, with two films that are argueably each director’s masterpiece, which makes the problem even stickier.
    I don’t think its the fault of the directors. Yes, they’re playing with serious amounts of money, but they’re the artists. Their first responsibility is to make the best movie they can. And in order for them to be passionate enough to spend years getting a single film made, they have to believe its something so special that it’ll defy history somehow and connect with the masses in a money-making way almost no other art film ever did.
    It’s up to the studios to be the realists. The business end of filmmaking is their responsibility.

  7. squirrelblaster says:

    um… “I would love a transcript of these because, to be frank, I’m not watching somebody yap for 7 and a half minutes. I think video content on the web is cute but not the ideal delivery method.” …ok
    I survived the march 8 2007 daily david, so…
    My english sucks but I`ll try to help you anyway:
    1. zodiac shouldn`t been made (no comments, haven`t seen it, I live in Bombay or somewhere)
    2. “artfilms” shouldn`t have big budjects
    3. these selfish artsy filmmakers are sometimes unethical by not making enough money

  8. jeffmcm says:

    Wow, I’m glad I didn’t spend 7 minutes watching that. Obviously, if you’re a filmmaker making a movie that has less mainstream appeal than Wild Hogs, you should be careful with your budget, but I certainly don’t begrudge Fincher/whoever for doing what they did.
    We did’t hear this opinion when such money-losing movies as Miami Vice ($63m) The New World ($12m), or Titus ($2m).

  9. T.Holly says:

    DP just needs to learn how to hit the dissolve and cut buttons. Loved that fight between him and BiPed, I really admire how she takes him on.

  10. T.Holly says:

    I have a solution: Directors agree to a cap on the production budget in exchange for pay-or-play on their upfront fee in case the project doesn’t go forward.

  11. It’s a very difficult subject to tackle in just a few minutes, Dave, but I think you manage to discuss the main issues, which is great. Yes, we all want talented filmmakers such as Fincher and Paul Thomas Anderson to get all the money they want to make their films, but it’s extremely na

The Hot Blog

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