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
“Lady in the Water,” I feel, is a victim of the whole internet new medias ability to judge and destroy a film before it even hits theaters. People hate Night and maybe for good reason. But people also perpetuate this hatred of him and wear it like a badge of cool. I liked “Lady in the Water” alot and think there’s some great allegory and insight into the creative process.
The movie and M. Night are worth discussing, this little gossip thing not so much.
But Lady in the Water was a victim of M. Night’s own pretentiousness and self-absorption. If ‘new media’ aided its downfall, that’s a good thing.
Lady in the Water IS beautiful. Cynics.
Yes, I’m a cynic, but garbage is garbage.
Incidentally, has anyone besides me ever seen M. Night’s first movie, Wide Awake? It makes LITW look like Cocteau in comparison.
Mr. Shyamalan’s first feature was 1992’s “Praying with Anger,” starring Shyamalan as “Dev Raman,” a privileged, American-raised teenager who returns to India to make a journey to discover his true heritage, as they say in the logline biz.
That is correct, never seen that one and don’t think I need to.
Its greatest virtue is that it does not co-star Rosie O’Donnell, unlike WIDE AWAKE.
Wide Awake is flawed, but I’m afraid that’s the Weinstein’s doing. Take away the crappy voice-over, music and choppy editing, and there migtht be a pretty good movie in there. Not as good as Night’s later five flicks but, you know.
I didn’t like Lady in the Water that much but definitely didn’t think it was the abonination many were making it out to be. Yes, it’s a disaster in terms of storytelling and general filmmaking, but it’s utterly fascinating to watch and wonder the what is happening and why. Plus, you can’t ignore that Shyamalan can direct individual scenes like not many others, but the way he puts them together and how they relate in the grand scheme of things is what’s the issue.
Although, even I have no defence for that ridiculous Bob Balaban character nor why Shyamalan decided to cast himself as the world’s saviour-cum-guru or whatever he was supposed to be. That was just strange.
No no no, Goulet, I could agree that some of Wide Awake’s flaws are the result of the Weinsteins’ meddling, but that’s a movie that is rotten to the core in its very conception.
LADY IN THE WATER was not a perfect film, but I loved it: a lyrical, dramatic fairy tale with an amazing performance by Paul Giamatti.
And the icing on the cake was the beautiful score by James Newton Howard.