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” ā 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 ā 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 ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā 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 namedā” “Yeah, sure ā 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 Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās 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 didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā 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. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās 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
Jesus Dave, I couldn’t get through four paragraphs. It’s a film festival, not The Warren Commission. Just tell us what movies you liked, dude.
You kind of make my point, Crow.
You want my Top and Bottom 10… others want “The Warren Commission” or even just something more thoughtful than “I like this” and “I hate that.”
Sorry you find the piece frustrating, but I can live with that.
I’m with you on this, Crow T. This isn’t a wrap up piece at all but rather a state-of-the-biz report very long on detail and short on any TIFF content.
Sorry Dave…don’t call it a Toronto Wrap if it’s not. I scanned the article and can’t find a single film title in here that was in play at this year’s festival. Exactly how is this relevent to TIFF 2007?
Heat: Crow does have a point. You sort of achieved Jeremy Smith levels of rambling with that piece. I commend you on such an achievment.
Let me know whether it was a Toronto wrap after Pt 2.
But the real point is that there are bigger issues at play right now than thumbsup or down… no?
Part two gets you the full load.
It’s all giving me a stomach ache anyway.
Sorry Dave, that was just so…turgid. Wake me up for the wrap up.
Dave I think is correct even though it makes for sluggish reading. Most of you don’t agree with his taste so why do you care what he thinks?. It’s not like he saw small gems like Furman’s THE TAKE or Korine’s MR LONELY to recommend to you and you can find opinions on the Coen’s film and other high profile titles from 100 bloggers/reviewers who were there. Plus we all know now he walks out of films after 42m š
Dave does his own thing and like it or not, he’s doing work that most others don’t even attempt in this thumbs up or thumbs down world.
See, Dave is doing actual reporting and research in this piece and maybe that makes it tough for some to read, but I’m guessing that this is set-up for the second part. As someone who writes for this site and just basically state my opinion, it’s nice to know that somebody is actually looking at finding some actual FACTS when it comes to a subjective medium like film.
I can’t wait for Toronto Part II with DP: this time he’s pissed!
There are ways to do actual reporting and research that does not come across as RAMBLING. Respect the brothers right to ramble as much as you want, but he is still rambling in this piece. No matter how insightful Heat intends to be with his coverage of the business of art.
This is actually why I read Poland’s work. NOBODY else writes in this detail about this kind of stuff. If they do, please link me.
This kind of industry analysis is rare and what Poland does best. IMo it’s far more relevant than what Poland thinks the Oscar buzz on Elizabeth 2 is now or whatever.
Maybe, but I remember a time when Dave’s writing was 3/4 movies, 1/4 industry. Now its the opposite (and thats being generous – nearly every entry has some industry tilt to it)
The machinations of this degenerate industry are far more interesting than 95% of the “films” they release, in my opinion. What gets a little tedious, however, are all the numbers that David posts in his articles. It’s like an algebra class all over again.
I really liked the article and the fact that he writes about this is why I love to read this blog. I find it really interesting.
“Maybe, but I remember a time when Dave’s writing was 3/4 movies, 1/4 industry. Now its the opposite (and thats being generous – nearly every entry has some industry tilt to it)”
It could be worse, he could’ve written another piece where auditions to be a Broadway producer.
here’s to the bigger issues at play in the fields of TIFF.
that is to say, uh, thumbs up. both of ’em…