MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

20 Weeks/T-Minus 19 – Whning While Mining


Be Sociable, Share!

8 Responses to “20 Weeks/T-Minus 19 – Whning While Mining”

  1. seanwithaw says:

    hilarious. you think hairspray will be nominated for best picture.
    even more funny is the John Travolta best supporting actor. but Dave, I think you chose the wrong movie he’ll be nominated for. His Wild Hogs role was meatier.
    of course i’m being completely sarcastic. Both roles are absolutely horrible.

  2. David Poland says:

    To think it doesn’t have a chance is rather narrow-minded. It didn’t make all that money because people didn’t like it or because it was driven by a gay audience.
    And as for Travolta, you should try seeing the film with an non-critics audience that has an opinion about the performance.
    I don’t think it is a lock or anything like that. But I do think there will be one lighter picture and I think that the two other significant candidates to be that picture – Juno and Lars – have issues. Sweeney could block Hairspray too… but we’ll have to see it to know. Or, of course, there could simply be no “light” entry… or Charlie Wilson’s War could be seen as “light” or something else. This is why I have weekly charts. I am not a clairvoyant… i just read where things are each week for 20.

  3. seanwithaw says:

    Wild Hogs was light and made a lot more money than Hairspray. So I think it also has Best picture potential as well.

  4. David Poland says:

    Yes… and when Disney thinks so, I will consider it.
    Oscar is not a vacuum and not about whether you or I liked a movie.

  5. jeffmcm says:

    Yes, but you’ve been pushing Hairspray more than anyone.

  6. Crow T Robot says:

    Oh lighten up, gang. Poland is the Sisyphus of Oscar bloggers… cursed to push a Broadway musical adaptation up Academy Awards Hill year after year, only to have it roll down come nomination time.

  7. seanwithaw says:

    oh i only tease. if hairspray is nominated. john waters will be happy. so that’s good.

  8. Travolta being nominated is more than possible. I can’t say for the industry, but a lot of people love him in that movie. I mean, I lot of people also love Amanda Bynes and she ain’t getting nominated, but when you have someone as perrenially popular as Travolta in a hit film doing a major dose of stunt casting then you have GOT to consider it.

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