MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Posted Sunday, April 8th, 2007 - 8 Comments »
Be Sociable, Share!

Indie Theater Plays Grindhouse 8 Blocks From The Clinton

This is how one ends up going down the toilet.
I didn

Be Sociable, Share!

8 Comments »

8 Responses to “Indie Theater Plays Grindhouse 8 Blocks From The Clinton”

  1. EDouglas says:
    April 9, 2007 at 4:38 am

    I wonder if the CineMagic had more than 10 people at any one showing of the movie. I think The Clinton should be happy they didn’t waste their screen on Grindhouse.

  2. Krazy Eyes says:
    April 9, 2007 at 8:01 am

    After this weekend’s attendence numbers maybe the Clinton should be relieved that they didn’t get Grindhouse.

  3. Cadavra says:
    April 9, 2007 at 9:46 am

    Playing Devil’s Advocate again, I should point out the obvious, that every cinema has its own personality, and what works in one theatre might not work in another. That said, and all other things assumed equal, my educated guess is that the snub of the Clinton was indeed probably a matter of capacity.

  4. seymourgrant says:
    April 9, 2007 at 10:05 am

    As a Portlander who lives smack dab inbetween the two theaters, I’d have to say that Cadavra & David have it right, capacity was probably an issue. CineMagic tends to play higher profile movies just for that reason I’m sure. The Clinton tends to play more eclectic movies that won’t always draw big crowds.
    Also what I’m sure played into it was that CineMagic is located at a big intersection on a major street. The amount of foot and car traffic going by CineMagic is probably 5 if not 10 times greater than the Clintons. But I will say this, the seats at CineMagic are the most unGodly uncomfortable things I’ve ever sat in, and even the thought of 3+ hours in those make me cringe.
    All that aside, Poland’s point is right, Finke didn’t do her homework. Even for someone not living here a little internet leg work revealed a whole other aspect to the story. It’s just lazy journalism or fitting the story to your bias.

  5. drgogol says:
    April 9, 2007 at 10:11 am

    Just when I thought I could take a slow week away from the keyboard….
    http://blog.oregonlive.com/madaboutmovies/2007/04/squeaky_wheel_gets_the_ink.html
    Shawn Levy

  6. Edward Havens says:
    April 9, 2007 at 4:29 pm

    Maybe the Weinsteins stayed away from the Clinton because Sonstein had already booked David Cox-Arquette’s craptacular “The Tripper” in to his theatre on April 20. Would you book your movie into a junky little theatre that was going to bump your film no matter what after two weeks for a David Cox-Arquette movie?
    Anyway, why are we shocked that Nikki the Fink screwed up yet another story? She ignored that the Weinsteins let the New Beverly Theatre in Los Angeles (as close as we have to a grindhouse in the City of Angels) to screen the film on 4/5, weeks before they agreed to let any other theatre show it a night early, and she ignored the film was playing in another indie theatre in the same booking zone in Portland. Clearly, whatever Nikki the Fink knows about the exhibition industry, she’s read about in books or seen firsthand when she goes to press screenings and stands in the snack bar line for her free popcorn and soda. Perhaps gleaned a few tidbits from listening in on other people’s conversations while standing in line at the snack bar.
    Most curiously is why Harvey is even talking to the woman who obviously has a dagger with his name laser-etched on the blade.

  7. RoyBatty says:
    April 9, 2007 at 6:44 pm

    Kudos, Poland.
    I almost read that Finke piece because I am an admitted sucker for “little guy gets screwed” stories. Still of two minds about her in general. Her lapses are pretty bad, but then again very few LA based reporters dare to have her “Fuck you, I DON’T have a script to sell” attitude when it comes to the industry.
    Again, nice job on the quick fact-check (see, I can praise as easily and sincerly as I give shit 😉 )

  8. homo69 says:
    April 11, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    I think you should stop playing Devils Advocate and try to become a better reporter.
    The Cinemagic seats 280, not 420.
    The Cinemagic is known ad a Bollywood/2nd Run theater.
    The Clinton has got some street cred, and plays a lot of Classic Grindhouse shit.
    Dan Halsted who runs the Grindhouse Film Festival was also unable to get a print at the Hollywood.
    So you have the Weinstein Company giving the film to the Cinemagic because of a booker they know, and not to the Grindhouse Theater, or the Grindhouse Film Festival dude.
    It’s the attention to details, that make films like Grindhouse crossover.
    It was a good piece that Finke wrote, and there was a lot more to it then your short sighted Devils Advocate attitude.
    But hey, you are just a blogger right?
    Homo

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