April 24, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
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
My Blueberry Nights will be lucky to make 3.5 million but Hairspray will make 200 million? (kidding, kidding)I don’t know, that doesn’t sound right. My Blueberry Nights has Jude Law, Natalie Portman and Norah Jones (who a lot of folks love as a singer). I think it should definitely make at least ten million, but I would bet on twenty. The Weinsteins are gonna market the shit out of it and they know how to get projects like that off the ground. At least, they used to…
David Fincher takes his “onanism” to France? Come on, Dave, lay off, you bring your onanism to this blog every day! But seriously, I didn’t really find that film indulgent or masturbatory in the least because it didn’t call attention to Fincher as the director. It was a restrained film, not a Tarantino-esque masturbatory “look at me!” flick.
But, I’m most excited to see Paranoid Park. Gus Van Sant, to me, with his whole Bela Tarr phase, has become the most interesting filmmaker working the last few years and I’m anxious to see what else he’s got up his sleeve.
“At least, they used to…”
And even those who love it seem to agree that Zodiac was all about Fincher. Yes, he doesn’t splat all over the audience like QT. He was, in this film, more like the guy at the opening of Shortbus.
Did you just call “No Country For Old Men” likeable? It’s a fantastic novel and I have no idea how the Coen Bros. are approaching the material but “likeable” seems like an odd choice of words for such a violent and bleak piece of work.
Have you ever seen a Coen Bros film that didn’t have not only like, but joy in a movie way?
But, if he’s like the guy in the beginning of Shortbus, then you’re saying he blew himself and I don’t really see it that way since I didn’t find it to be an indulgent film. I thought it was about the subject, not the director. But, agree to disagree.
Not to open up any old wounds, but Fincher’s work in Zodiac was about the serial killer genre as a movie concept. He did a lot to define that genre, so there’s some metatextual issues going on as we watch it, but they’re not really in the film itself.
Perhaps only Fincher could have directed it to the same effect, but that doesn’t mean he made a movie regressively about himself.
Of all these movies playing Cannes this year, I’d gladly have traded the last FIVE years of Sundance to attend this years Cannes. And I was AT the last five Sundances.
Not to get on a soap box here, but the “American audience” makes me vomit in my own mouth almost daily. Hats off to Cannes and other festivals that are about movies and not huge jackpots of money. Give me Wong Kar-Wai over another Ice Cube shuck n jive any day of my life.
“Even those who love it seem to agree that Zodiac was all about Fincher”
If this is true, it’s because, like so many works of art, it’s a _personal film_. Just like Taxi Driver is all about Scorsese and Schrader. Just like any Wong Kar-Wai movie is all about WKW. This is one of the reasons why it’s one of the best films of the year…and what is ‘onanistic’ about burying an audience in ugly suits and lengthy exposition scenes? We’re not talking about M. Night Shyamalan casting himself as the writer who saves the world here. Some perspective please.
Before making any comments, I’d like to ask a couple of questions which may or may not have already appeared in this blog.
1) Why wasn’t I’m Not There (Todd Haynes) on the list? Everything I had read seemed certain it would be part of the lineup?
2) On a similar note, why wasn’t my most anticipated film of 2007 on the list? What’s that? Oh yes, the film in question is P.T. Anderson’s There Will Be Blood. I’m assuming it just wasn’t ready on time, but does anyone have a more definitive scoop on the matter?
As far as the films that WERE included, I’d just like to add a few notes. I am enthusuastic about My Blueberry Nights, though the cast and change to English/America has me slightly worried.
I was also puzzled to see Zodiac included, though I loved the film and feel it’s easily one of the best releases of 2007 thus far. I usually don’t follow Cannes too closely, but I didn’t think movies which had already had a wide theatrical run were eligible for the Competition category. Perhaps this will give the film a chance at a re-release later in the year to recoup some of its unfortunate financial losses.
Finally, there’s No Country for Old Men. I agree with the guy who felt the subject matter wasn’t exactly “likeable,” though I believe I know what David Poland was getting at by using that term. Personally, my once passionate love affar with the Brothers Coen first began diminishing when they released the fun but overrated O Brother Where Art Thou. Of course then came The Man Who Wasn’t There, which I truly enjoyed. Intolerable Cruelty was my least favorite of theirs until The Ladykillers came out soon thereafter. I’d have to go back and see those latter two again, but I’m thinking that The Ladykillers is their first film I just simply did not like (with Intolerable Cruelty nearly joining that group). I haven’t seen their piece for the Paris anthology feature, but I truly hope they can get back on top of their game with this one.
Despite the mediocre lineup, 2007 has me more excited about going to the movies than I have been in years. So many potentially exciting projects on the horizon…
I wonder if the Coens will change the ending of “No Country for Old Men”? The last part seemed uncinematic to me.
I have to reread No Country for Old Men, because I recall growing bored and tired at the very end of the novel, waking up the next morning and not understanding what had even transpired in the final pages.
I didn’t even bother to reread those pages at the time, which was either a sign of my laziness or the book’s underwhelming resolution. Since Cormac’s not around to read this I’ll go with the latter.
Yes, I’ve used the word “latter” twice now…if not more.
Again with the “Savages”! This was in nooo way the best-buzzed about film at Sundance. Not even the second- or third-best buzzed about film. In fact, the three films you named right after got a hell of a lot more buzz than “Savages” – “Grace is Gone” was the critical hit and “Son of Rambow” was the crowd pleaser.
Also, I’m not really sure what you’re saying about “Little Miss Sunshine” going into Sundance last year with nothing to gain…can you explain that more?
The ending of “No Country for Old Men” was fine and I liked the novel but it just seems to be hard to translate to the screen.
Now if someone had the balls and talent to adapt and film “Blood Meridien” that would be something.
But what do you suggest? Which movies should have been put in competition in place of these? What kind of outcome are you looking for from the festival and what changes would you make to attain that? If Dave Poland ran the show, how would it be different exactly?
I think if Dave was running the Cannes show then it would become as irrelevant as Sundance and any festival set in a Caribbean nation or in random country towns in wherever. Cannes is much more relevant than Sundance (which launches about one MAYBE two films a year?) Cannes is relevant for celebrating the work of beloved directors and discovering new ones. At every other festival they are trying to find “the next Sundance hit!” or “the next Toronto hit”, but Cannes is more about celebration. It’s a veritable orgy of the world’s great directors.
But then again, it’s not based on the American continent and doesn’t have movies screaming “Oscar, I’m easy!” so of course it’s irrelevent.
Whoa. Sundance launches a lot more than one or two films a year. By what do you define that?
I’d argue that both festivals are relevant. Sundance is relevant to the U.S. slate of movies, and Cannes is relevant globally.
DP . . . you might have a point about the Coens at least giving a sense of filmic joy to their adaptation even when the subject matter is grim. They walked that line well with Barton Fink. I do worry about them resorting to their often arch depictions of violence and death which I think would be the wrong approach to this material.
grandcosmo wrote: “Now if someone had the balls and talent to adapt and film “Blood Meridien” that would be something.”
Well, according to the IMdB Ridley Scott is taking a swing at “Blood Meridian” for a 2009 release. Sounds like wishful thinking on the part of a contributor. Any industry confirmation?
I also read on another board the John Hillcoat (The Proposition) was attached to “The Road.”
“But with due respect to a very good film festival, it seems anxious to become more irrelevant to the American marketplace every year.”
Is there negative relevance, because otherwise Cannes’ relevance has been zero for years.
There is a simple reason DP doesn’t go to Cannes – Cannes is about FILMS, American/Caribbean film festivals are about BUSINESS.
Since DP nearly writes exclusively on the business of Hollywood, rather than the artistry there isn’t any real point to his attending Cannes.
OK, I can see why “DaVinci Code” opened at Cannes last year. The film’s quality (which I won’t get into here) wasn’t so much the issue as the fact that it was an eagerly anticipated adaptation of a huge international best seller. But can you tell me that anyone has been sitting around panting for “Ocean’s 13?” The cast may make it a “get” for the festival, but after the by the numbers, “Ocean’s 12” is there any reason to expect this one to any good???
Sad to say but Soderbergh isn’t Rami when it comes to high budget sequels.
The world of cinema does not begin and end with American box-office hits. Sure, Cannes will try to book a couple of big American films from celebrated directors or stars but its main focus is Eurocentric … and difficult art films and directors that take chances deserve a venue to be seen at and celebrated also.
I stopped caring about Cannes when they rejected Brokeback.
I stopped caring about Cannes when they rejected Brokeback.
What do you think about this story on SpeedDating for film distribution? http://thenewsroom.com/details/310551
If this works, I think it could be a serious disruptor!