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
Looking forward to Ultimatum. I am one of the few that thought the first film was a bore, but I thoroughly enjoyed the second film, so there is definite interest in the third.
Very nice review.
Do you really think they’re setting up for a fourth in the series? I don’t know where, but I got the impression that Damon was done after this one.
I liked the first Bourne but never got all of the fanaticism about it. I find Damon to be a bit of a cypher and although he is certainly physically up to the challenge, I have never seen him as someone to root for. He can do the moves but it feels like his heart is not really in it.
Perhaps part of the problem is that Bourne’s story is essentially one of feeling betrayed by the government whose dirty work he was supposed to do. This is a classic action hero structure but in order for it to work, we have to see how the character gave blood and allegiance and patriotism to that government to begin with. With Damon as Bourne, you never feel he would have wanted to do this to begin with. Unlike say a Jack Bauer or a James Bond, who have a patriotism to begin with and feel burned when betrayed, Damon seems to bring to much anti-governenment sentiment to begin with to the role and they are written with that in mind I presume.
Again, Greengrass is an excellent director and these are not bad movies by any definition, but I do not think they are quite as good as many like to believe.
The Ludlum written Bourne books ends with “Ultimatum”, but there are some written recently. So it’s logical that it ends with Ultimatum.
I’m psyched as hell to see this movie.
Nicol, I think the burned-patriotism angle is sacrificed in favor of the amnesiac angle, which I find a lot more interesting (though it’s almost equally common in this type of action movie). Bourne (and us) not remembering much about his past increases his feelings of betrayal and desperation. If we were privy to scenes of him on the job, showing the actual burn, I don’t know — I think it would come awfully close to something like Shooter, with Mark Wahlberg. Not terrible, but pretty cheesy.
That said, I do think Bourne Supremacy was a bit overrated. Some great action scenes, but it was one of those stories where they do a lot of zig-zagging to tell what is essentially a straightforward story that seems like the first two-thirds of a movie, not the main event. I felt underwhelmed and actually prefer the pulpier Liman take… though I am looking forward to Ultimatum.
I thought Supremacy was far superior to Identity – Greengrass’ version felt more emotional and heartfelt while Liman’s felt mechanical.
I did like Shooter though, too.
I prefer Identity over Supremacy, too– Liman made such a cool, classic spy movie. It’s one of the very few movies in the last five years that I’ve actually watched more than twice.
Nicol, it’s an interesting point, but I disagree with your take. For me, one of the really affecting aspects of Bourne’s character in the first movie was that he didn’t feel anything, including patriotism, when he was an agent. He was an absolute professional. It was when that started to crack, when a little bit of his humanity kept him from doing his job, that he was cast out.
I prefer Identity, too. It was more subdued, not hyper-edited, and had a lot more heart. And it was easier to take Damon as the amnesia victim the first time around than still milking it in the second.
However, I do love the one shot from Supremacy of Damon from inside the car as it crashes. Wow.
Eric, Jesse,
I do not want to overstate my point because as I said, I think the Bourne movies are decent. I also agree with the point that having amnesia means that when we begin the journey, the old Bourne is, for all intents and purposes, dead.
Nevertheless, for me, it meant the character lacked a story arc or a journey. He starts out as a charcter who knows nothing, then the more he learns the more betrayed he feels, then the more betrayed he feels the more revenge he wants. Without feeling the loyalty the character would have felt to begin with, for me, it left the character with no real arc.
In the Bond films where he feels betrayed by his government (License to Kill, Die Another Day, parts of Casino Royale etc.) it hurts more because you know Bond has killed and would happily die for Queen and Country. Same for Jack Bauer; when the character has an unlimited loyalty to his country and president (regardless of party) then he feels betrayed or let down by it, it lends the character a sense of gravitas or an arc. I think that is why so many people responded to Season 5. Bauer is upset at Logan because of the sacrifice he would have made for him.
Even the character of John Rambo (in the original David Morrel novel and films) feels betrayed because he loved his country so much.
Bourne (in the films) does not exhibit this and as such feels hollow to me. It makes the films feel more ‘pop’ or light to me. Well executed mind you. Greengrass and Liman are excellent directors. I just think the films lack a certain gravitas.
I would suggest that Bourne has an arc, but it occurs before the events of the first movie– as I mentioned, in that small moment when he found empathy. All the action in the movie itself, aside from the flashback sequences, are the consequence of that.
It didn’t bother me much, but I think I would agree with you on the general point– Bourne is a bit of a flat character.
One thing I found discouraging about David’s review is the suggestion that Bourne himself is one step closer to a superhero in the third film. That sort of action movie invulnerability bothers me when it happens to an otherwise “realistic” franchise, and is one of the few things I disliked about Live Free or Die Hard, too.
I’ve never thought of Bond as having a sufficiently deep character as you’re suggesting there; he’s almost always just the action-hero archetype.
(I also do not think Liman is an excellent director, especially since he seems to be unable to finish a film without getting fired from it.)
Eric,
I agree that the end of Live Free or Die Hard on the plane pushed the envelop a tad too much.
Jeff,
In any given Bond film there may not be a lot of info, but his character has been around so long that all of the actors have lent him a sort of composite character if you will along with the original novels. Certainly in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service there is a real character arc and that is referenced in For Your Eyes Only etc.
This is a somewhat piece meal approach to the character but it is there and I think that is why the character has endured. People take from Bond much more than just an action hero.
Karl Urban is the Heavy Metal Pitt.
He will be missed.
Liman is a guy that will never get enough credit for the work he does. But he’s also out of his mind and figures everything out at the last minute (after he’s gone over budget and pissed off everyone). Swingers was Swingers. The first cut of Go didn’t work at all, then after some savvy editing and a few pick up shots, it became a gem of a movie. Bourne was supposed to be a disaster, then they came up with a new ending, shot it, and here we are today. Mr. and Mrs. Smith went back for weeks of reshoots, and, for what it is, it’s a fucking kickass movie.
The thing about Liman is that the FINAL FILM has always ended up great, and as long as you eventually deliver (every time) then they’ll let you off the hook. No one sits in a pile of money and complains about how they got it. The problem is that once he fucks up, once he doesn’t fix a movie and it bombs…all that resentment will pile up and expode in his face.
And he’ll be in director jail for a while. Or even longer than that.
Jumper could be that movie. A lot of people are saying it is, but they said the same thing about Bourne and Mr. and Mrs. Smith.
lexg, did somethin happen to karl? sorry to be moronic.
No, I merely meant he’d be missed as the Bourne Villain this time out.
yeah, he was good in ‘supremacy’, the kiwis kicked ass as the villains in that flick, thanks for clearing that up, i’ve been a karl lover for ages.
I am so psyched for this film. I always go back and forth about which Bourne film I enjoyed more – the first one probably had a bit more heart and I loved Frana Potempe’s character, but it was a kick to watch the interplay between Bryan Cox and Joan Allen in the sequel.
I love Greengrass, but have been even more excited if they chose to go with another hotshot director the new sequel – is it true they approached Ferndando Mereillies? Hell, The Constant Gardener almost seemed like a strong tryout for a new Bourne film.
I think Liman really does get a bum rap – the guy can flat out direct, I don’t care if it takes months of editing and re-editing. Not saying he’s on this level, but did any one get on Kubrick for months, sometimes years of postproduction on some of his films? The final product is what gets judged.
Swingers remains one of my five favorite movies of all time, it just holds up so well and is a model of humor and wit. I dig Woody Allen, but I don’t think ANY of his relationship comedies moved so well and had so many likeable characters. Every time it is on cable, I just have to watch it – you could just tell right away that Vince Vaughn was going to be a star.
Mr. and Mrs. Smith is by far Liman’s weakest film, but it is still better than anything done by Ratner, Bay, McG, or Cohen.
“Mr. and Mrs. Smith is by far Liman’s weakest film, but it is still better than anything done by Ratner, Bay, McG, or Cohen.”
Well said.
There are filmmakers that work in ‘leagues’. For all his supposed faults on productions, Liman is in a whole other league above the B List movie masters of modern cinema.
i like Doug Liman. I hope no one’s queer-eyed him. they’ve been trying.
I will always love Liman for making Go!
However, he created House and I can’t think of a more nauseating show of it’s kind.