MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Posted Sunday, September 23rd, 2007 - 11 Comments »
Be Sociable, Share!

The Darjeeling Short Lands A Week Before The NYFF

“Hotel Chevalier” represents a novel approach to generating buzz for “Darjeeling,” a quirky film from Fox Searchlight that doesn’t have a powerhouse marketing budget. The main film is about three brothers — played by Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman and Adrien Brody — who take a comic “spiritual journey” through India after their father’s death. Like Mr. Anderson’s past films, the new picture isn’t easily summarized or boiled down to an easy selling point.
“Hotel Chevalier,” meanwhile, is a prequel of sorts that was made a year before “Darjeeling” even began filming. It takes place entirely in the Paris hotel room of Mr. Schwartzman’s character and includes information that later becomes relevant in “Darjeeling.” The short film’s premiere will be Tuesday night at Apple stores in New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Santa Monica, Calif. Then, starting Wednesday, it will be available as a free download on Apple Inc.’s iTunes Web site.
Before a recent press screening, Fox Searchlight, which says it has no financial stake in “Chevalier,” distributed a statement from Mr. Anderson saying it was his goal to “get every person who goes to [“The Darjeeling Limited”] to see the short first.” Mr. Anderson may have a hook: The short co-stars Natalie Portman, who appears in an extended nude scene — but whose character makes just a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it cameo in “The Darjeeling Limited.”
The Rest…
Here is the LAT version…
What is fascinating and inaccurate in both stories is the degree of sex and nudity. As I wrote before, there is no full frontal anything. The most sexy moment with Ms Portman is a pose she strikes with her rib cage bared and showing through her side, and her butt extended, but pretty much a profile with all the naughty bits covered. It is less nude than the pregnant Demi Moore on the cover of Vanity Fair… not much different than Johanson and Knightley on the cover of same.
But that misstatement won’t do any good, since people will have the short on their computers by mid-week.
Weird.
And Anderson’s goal should be to get all people who see the short to see the film, not the other way around, no?

Be Sociable, Share!

11 Comments »

11 Responses to “The Darjeeling Short Lands A Week Before The NYFF”

  1. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:
    September 24, 2007 at 4:52 am

    Thanks Dave for the Mr Skin/ Bare Facts description of Portman’s skin ratio involvement. I guess you’ve got a fallback career if this blogging thing goes belly up.

  2. Hallick says:
    September 24, 2007 at 6:48 am

    “What is fascinating and inaccurate in both stories is the degree of sex and nudity.”
    No surprise. I’m actually scared to realize how much of the journalism I’ve read that talks about subjects I have detailed knowledge of comes off as if it was written by someone who worked really hard at summoning up the most indifference and inexactitude possible. I’m scared because I think of their coverage of other subjects of actual importance which, because I’m ignorant of said subjects, I don’t realize are just as screwed up and out of touch with reality.
    Does anyone else wonder if Natalie Portman’s modesty with regards to nude scenes may have just a little to do with the embarassment of those paparazzi photos of her at the beach a few years ago?

  3. doug r says:
    September 24, 2007 at 7:12 am

    Like that Vanity Fair cover, eh? Can you unfold the screen to get the “bonus butt”?

  4. bobbob911 says:
    September 24, 2007 at 8:03 am

    Hey, how about getting to work on that Toronto wrap up part deux? Y’know, the part where you actually talk about the film festival itself?
    Not for nothing, but time is running out on the relevancy of it……

  5. Ju-osh says:
    September 24, 2007 at 9:11 am

    Welcome to Hollywood.

  6. jeffmcm says:
    September 24, 2007 at 10:49 am

    Since Wes Anderson is a filmmaker and not in the marketing department, I think he has his priorities in the right place re: getting the people who see the film to see the short.

  7. PetalumaFilms says:
    September 24, 2007 at 10:57 am

    This is a cool idea and I’m glad I get to see the short. What I really can’t wait for is…
    Dear Wes-
    While DARJEELING LIMITED wasn’t my particular “train” of thought, I’m wondering if there would be any way you could send me some clips of Ms. Portman in the buff. I mean, they’re just going to find their way onto the net so technically, I’m just circumventing the wait.

  8. The Carpetmuncher says:
    September 24, 2007 at 12:13 pm

    I love this idea of the short as prelude to the film. You’ve got to love it that filmmakers are trying to realize the potential of the YouTube age.
    It really is a great marketing idea, and is already helping create buzz.

  9. David Poland says:
    September 24, 2007 at 2:45 pm

    Thanks for your consistency, JBD.

  10. frankbooth says:
    September 25, 2007 at 10:40 am

    Her rib cage is bared and showing through her side?! Freaky. When did Anderson start emulating George Romero?

  11. frankbooth says:
    September 25, 2007 at 10:53 am

    Her rib cage is bared and showing through her side? Yikes! I’d never have guessed Anderson was a George Romero fan.

The Hot Blog

Comments Most Recent Archives

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