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
Why were you beginning to “hate her”? Not like she did anything to you personally. Her worst crime at the time was being a BritCeleb– one of those U.K. paparazzi magnets that clog up the IMDB’s Brit-based gossip pages, despite complete American ennui.
Think also the Beckhams, any Spice Girl, Mr. Bean, Sadie Frost, Sophia Ellis Bextor, William and Harry, to some degree even Jude Law. The Brits are so cute with their little C-list celebrities that no one over here cares about.
Anyway, she was smoking hot in “Alfie” and “Layer Cake.” What more do you need? She was gorgeous in “Factory Girl.” I liked your review and all, Noah, but just on this one point (“limited actresses”) you seem to be falling into the tiresome geek/media smarmball trap of having a sexist vendetta against celebutante-actresses, which is about as revolutionary as calling out “Gigli” for sucking. It’s old, it’s irrational, and it’s borderline sexist.
In any case, how does one get this D-Pizzle staff job? Hey, Showtune Poland, it’s widely agreed that I’m the smartest and funniest person on this blog, and as a bonus, I’m also a genius. I have three– count ’em, three– degrees, in English Lit, Journalism, and Film Studies. Put me on the staff and I’ll increase your readership a zillion times over.
I also won’t pretentiously label myself an “aspiring filmmaker” in every article. Christ.
She’s been good in everything she’s done. Especially “White Plastic Flower.”
That was a short honeymoon.
LexG is right about Miller being hot. She isn’t a bad actress but her public persona has been a problem. I guess this marks the beginning of her redux. She bugs. Not sure why but she bugs. I certainly don’t think “next Natalie Portman” though. More like the next Kate Beckinsale or Julia Ormond.
Am I the only one who watched “Keen Eddie”?
LexG, you win at life.
First of all, LexG, I don’t put that “aspiring filmmaker” tag at the end there. That’s an editorial decision. Even if I did, though, what is pretentious about someone aspiring to be anything? Maybe your aspirations should be a little higher that being “the smartest and funniest person on this blog”, what with all the degrees you have. Secondly, no celebrity has ever done anything to any critic personally or any viewer, but I was not a fan of her acting. You think she’s hot and she is hot, but her public persona was overshadowing her acting career and her acting in those roles was subpar for me. I definitely don’t think I’m sexist just because I wasn’t a fan of Sienna Miller. I wanted her to wow me in a role of hers and finally she did. I don’t care what a director or actor does off-screen as long as they do something a great job onscreen or behind the camera. Woody Allen is a creep, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t love his films. Sienna Miller courted the paparazzi to get famous and now that she is, she shuns them. I think that is hypocritical, but I don’t care as long as she gives me performances like the one she gives in Interview.
And Sasha, when I called her the next “Natalie Portman”, I was simply referring to a taelnted young actress who doesn’t let her private life intrude on her professional career, unlike Miss Lohan.
remember when the weinsteins found Gwyneth Paltrow and put her in movies, made her a star, won boatloads of awards, and the films she was in made Miramax a boatload of money?
Ah, how times have changed.
Now it’s Sienna Miller, The Weinstein Company, no one cares and the movies don’t make a dime.
Is it more sexist to say that an actress has limited skills at acting, or that being smoking hot is all that’s required?
Noah, I see what you’re saying. I still think she has to overcome a lot, the least of which are her early nudie pix all over the web, before she is taken seriously. Julie Christie would be my role model if I were her. Honestly, though, as I’ve said in other posts, the paparazzi are such now that i don’t know if anyone who doesn’t manage them well can overcome the image that they sell to the public. They are the photos that are taken of them in private life and it will be harder and harder to erase those from the public’s mind. Interview certainly isn’t going to do that for Miller.
But you got to figure it this way: eventually she is going to get a part so good it will clean up the mess of her private life (or I should say manufactured private life by the money grubbing paps and the public who are fooled by them).
There is nothing wrong with being an aspiring filmmaker front and center – it’s better than what most people do by pretending to blog and suddenly, miraculously, a screenplay appears out of nowhere. At least people know with Noah where he stands from the outset.
Anghus…it was actually Steven Spielberg who “found” Gwyneth Paltrow. He’s her godfather. Her first major role was in Hook.
Mutinyco, you’re right about Spielberg being her godfather, but I would hardly calll her role in Hook “major”. I think most people first found Gwyneth in Seven or maybe Flesh and Bone.
Sasha, thanks for the support on the aspiring filmmaker thing. The funny thing about that is that I’m not aspiring to be a filmmaker! If anything, I’m aspiring novelist as I’ve written two of them and I’m editing them in the hopes of getting them published one day. But, I agree with your premise coompletely. Even if I was an aspring filmmaker, I don’t see the harm in saying that.
As for Sienna Miller and the paparazzi, I think her public persona was calculated and then it kind of got away from her and the paparazzi turned on her, like they do with most celebrities and I think you’d agree with me on that, Sasha. I mean, she has her own fashion line in the works already and the average moviegoers still don’t know what she looks like. It stills seems to me like she’s overvaluing fame. I think there are some folks that want to be actors and some who want to be stars and it seemed to me for the longest time that Sienna wanted to be a star. Now, with Interview, she’s given me hope that there’s an actress inside her.
Noah, my point was that she was hardly “discovered.” Spielberg had known Gwyneth her entire life and wanted to give her the first major role she had. And by major, I mean major motion picture.
Sienna’s misstep was that she got involved with Jude Law before her first feature had even been released. I think she was only 21 at the time. So yeah, everybody knew who she was and had formed an opinion about her before her work had a chance to speak for itself.
That said, her work has been consistently good. Most writers/critics have been caught between admiring her performances, yet remaining ambivalent about whether they like her for her public persona. Now that she’s developing a body of work, people are realizing that she is talented after all.
i watched “keen eddie.” i liked it and her in it.
hugely funny to talk about the discovering of gwyneth when she is the daughter of blythe danner and bruce paltrow. that lineage would lead to an inevitable shot, that she was good in “flesh & bone” is why she stayed around.
I’d say Seven is the first time most people heard of her. And if her head hadn’t been chopped off in the end, it would have taken awhile after that. I didn’t think her role was hugely memorable except for what happens to her.
I think the difference between Gwyneth and Sienna is that Gwyneth she gave some good performances in a few good films (Seven, Emma, Hard Eight) and then won an Academy Award for Shakespeare in Love before her pretentious public persona became a problem for audiences. She was good in movies that were seen by the public. It’s been a long while since she’s had a hit, though. For Sienna, she has yet to star in a hit movie while not being very good in movies nobody has seen. So her reputation is suffering everywhere. But, the thing that connects them is that when they both started out, they were more famous for who they were dating (Brad Pitt for Gwyneth).
Noah, since you’re new at this, you need to know when to quit. Your last post came across as defensive and hardened since your initial essay — mostly because you’ve been met by opposing views.
“For Sienna, she has yet to star in a hit movie while not being very good in movies nobody has seen. So her reputation is suffering everywhere.”
That’s silly. Your essay was about discovering Sienna, now you’re trying to be negative to over-emphasize your point.
An artist doesn’t suddenly get good from nowhere. She’s always been good. She’s always done what was required of the roles she’s played. And she’s always popped on screen. This is just the first role she’s had that YOU’VE connected to. Therefore, this isn’t so much about her doing anything different, but an evolution of your view of her.
Dude, I wasn’t being defensive at all. I was having a discussion. And I’m hardly new at this, my friend, you should try not to be so condescending. My position has remained consistent and there haven’t been that many opposing views, just different ones. I did not enjoy her performances until the one she gave me in Interview. I now see that she is CAPABLE of giving a good performance, but in the past she hasn’t done so. How am I supposed to know that she’s talented when I don’t see that talent for the first three years of her career?
Artists don’t often suddenly get good out of nowhere, but a lot of great artists make mistakes. Most directors have a flop on their resume, does that mean they aren’t talented? No. But if you had only see Scorsese’s New York, New York and Bringing Out the Dead (my personal two least favorite Scorses films), you might not think he’s that great. For Sienna, she had yet to make a film that I truly liked or gave a performance that I truly admired. Of course, it’s about what I personally connect to because this my opinion and my taste. She definitely did something different in Interview, she finally gave a performance worth watching. And I think you’ll find many critics who feel the same way and I don’t think it’s because we all suddenly viewed her differently, it’s because she gave us something different.
I’m happy to continue this discussion with you, but it’s clear that you are a fan of hers and I was not until Interview. This is fine, but don’t make a mountain out of a molehill, let’s just have a friendly discussion or agree to disagree.
That’s a highly dubious point, plenty of actors may have talent that simply isn’t expressed until they get cast in the right role, or work with the right director.
I think you’ll find that the actor is generally good, regardless of the quality of the picture or the character’s range. Yes, somebody like Naomi Watts landed the perfect role in Mulholland Drive, but that doesn’t mean she was BAD in the roles she had before that. In fact, last year in Seattle, Poland and I were browsing a video store and he mentioned how much he’d liked her back in Tank Girl. Were Jack Nicholson or Dennis Hopper bad actors who suddenly got good in Easy Rider and became stars?
So yes, often it requires the proper role for an actor to shine (I actually said ARTIST in my previous post), but that actor didn’t suddenly get good. They always had the talent.
Yes, we agree with each other now Mutiny. I agree that Sienna Miller always had the talent, but how could I know that such talent existed within her when I had yet to see a performance by her that was any good until Interview? Again, this is a matter of taste of course, but I’m not going to pretend that I always knew she had it in her when I didn’t believe she was capable of the performance she gave in Interview. The whole column that I wrote talked about that, about how I didn’t think she was capable of this but now I realize that she is and I can’t wait to see what she does next.
I also watched her in “Keen Eddie,” and thought she was good, but not great. She really won me over in CASANOVA, in which–sorry, Noah–I felt she was marvelous.
Her former beau was Michael Caine? Duuuude–way to go! Still hittin’ it after all these years.
Sienna is a pretty good actress, and was much much better in Factory Girl than Poland is saying. Yes, the film was a total mess, but the credit/blame for that should go to Hickenlooper, not Sienna. Try starting the biggest role of your career by having to act with a horrible horrible terrible terrible Jimmy Fallon (whose career should be over already).
And yes, she was quite good in Casanova as well, another film that the director seemed to lose hold of.
Remember, Poland lambasted Factory Girl for months before he even saw it, not because of the quality of the film, but because of some press snootiness about TWC, and because of some strange dislike of Sienna. Calling Pittsburgh Shittsburg was pretty funny if you ask me. But journos tried to make it like Sienna was destroying her career. Nobody ever said that about Preston Sturges.