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
You know, I think Ang Lee has quietly become one of the best filmmakers working today – better than the overhyped “geniuses” like Tarrantino and Wes Anderson. He’s got a true vision and isn’t afraid to take on controversial subjects with grace and artistry. It’s a shame he doesn’t get more credit.
What? An Oscar isn’t enough recognition?
Ang Lee’s “The Hulk” was a worse than anything Tarantino or Anderson has done.
Noah, not sure I understand the point of that post. A filmmaker cannot have a misfire on their resume? I think one spectacular failure is better than a good, not great, film in some ways.
Okay, well I’ll elaborate then. For starters, Ang Lee has made the worst movie out of the three of them (and I didn’t bring up the names, ME did). Also, I don’t think Ang Lee has made a film as good as either Royal Tenenbaums or Jackie Brown. So he’s made the worst film out of the three, but he hasn’t made the best film, so I would find it hard to say that he’s “better” than the “overhyped” Anderson or Tarantino.
Of course, a great filmmaker can have a misfire, but The Hulk isn’t just a bad film that missed the mark. It is spectacularly bad (in my opinion, of course) in a way that I rarely see achieved in film and with so much talent. I think, if anything, Ang Lee is more “overhyped” than Tarantino or Anderson. I admire a lot of his films, but I don’t LOVE any of them other than The Ice Storm and maybe, MAYBE Brokeback.
I still don’t get all the hate for the Hulk. I saw it in theater and really liked it. It’s no “Spiderman 2” but it has a lot more heart than many summer movies out there.
Noah, you MAYBE like Brokeback? How gay!
No, waterbucket, I maybe LOVE Brokeback! I’m so queer!
To me, Ang Lee’s best film is the slept on masterpiece The Ice Storm. One of the most heartbreaking, beautiful films ever made about the American family.
And yes, I’d put Lee above Tarantino or Anderson, neither of which is making particular important work at this point. Both have sunk into their comfort zone, and the films have suffered. Only Lee continues to challenge himself in a meaningful way.
But yeah – an Oscar should be credit enough. Ang Lee is hardly not getting credit.
I agree with you on Tarantino and disagree with you on Anderson, Carpetmuncher, but I think this brings about an interesting question: are directors only as good as their last film? Personally, I loved Darjeeling but I didn’t like Death Proof and thought Kill Bill was mediocre, yet I still think of Tarantino as an important filmmaker. So, my question is this: is Ang Lee the better filmmaker right now because he made a better movie this time out than Tarantino or is Tarantino the better filmmaker because he made Pulp Fiction, which is (arguably) better than anything Ang Lee has done (and I say this as a huge fan of The Ice Storm)?
Well, I admire your passion for Anderson, who I also love, but I’m not sure I can put him ahead of a filmmaker who, as Carpetmuncher pointed out, continues to challenge himself. I’ll never know what to expect from a new Ang Lee film. I’m pretty sure I have a good idea what the next Anderson or Tarantino will entail (and this doesn’t mean it will be bad — they could be fantastic movies). But I’ll take the unexpected and new every time.
While it’s hard to defend The Hulk as being entirely successful considering how many critics, genre fans, and members of the general public didn’t like it, I’d like to point out one thing: at least you can feel Ang Lee behind the camera in it, attempting to blend his own style with a actual comic book visual approach. Sam Raimi, on the other hand, made a few Spider-Man blockbusters (only the second one did anything for me personally) where he entertained the mass audience but buried his cinematic soul in the process.
Give me Lee’s noble “failure” any day of the week.
And despite the Oscar, no he still doesn’t get enough respect. He has a great track record, and yet is rarely listed among the best directors when we talk about them. He’s proven adept at many different genres, and Noah, while Lee hasn’t done anything as unique as Tarantino and Anderson, I’d argue that Crouching Tiger and Brokeback are every bit the masterpieces that Rushmore and Pulp Fiction are. It’s just that Lee’s restrained, old-fashioned style don’t appear fresh by comparison, and besides, he’s not really from the same generation as far as age is concerned anyway.
Thanks, lazarus. Was going to mention how amazing Crouching Tiger is. I love that movie so much. And yes, Noah, even more than Tenenbaums.
Well I guess we disagree on our opinions of the movies because I don’t think it’s a “freshness” factor, I just enjoy the films of Wes Anderson more. Don’t get me wrong, I do respect Ang Lee but I’d rather go for the director who tries to hit one out of the park every time than the director who just hits solid doubles mostly. But, see, Lazarus and ManwithNoName, you two would have a different opinion of who hits the doubles than I would.
But that’s okay, because we can all still enjoy the movies. I think, though, that Lee does have a style, a very deliberate and restrained one and sometimes it works (Ice Storm, Brokeback) and sometimes it really doesn’t (Ride with the Devil and Hulk). I think all three of the directors are “auteurs” who make definitive films and it’s really just about preference. I think The Ice Storm is absolutely brilliant, but I don’t think it matches the level of originality of Pulp Fiction and it doesn’t hit me as hard as Tenenbaums. As for Crouching Tiger, I found it a bit ordinary myself, but I can’t argue with the folks that love it.
Since when did a bad film define a good filmmaker?
This is a failure of imagination. Failures often lead to the greatest successes.
I agree with the idea that a movie is generally made better if you can feel the presence of the director behind it – that’s one of the reasons why I like such movies as The Black Dahlia or Showgirls. With Ang Lee’s Hulk, though, it feels like an oil-and-water situation where the filmmaker just doesn’t really understand the subject matter he’s working with.
And I would argue that Raimi’s presence is still strong and clear in all three Spider-Man movies – One of the reasons #3 is as incoherent as it is, is because of Raimi’s insistence on keeping elements that were thematically important to him alongside things he had to keep to make the suits happy.
Ang Lee has Crouching Tiger, Brokeback Mountain, Eat Drink Man Woman, The Ice Storm, The Wedding Banquet and Lust Caution (which I haven’t seen, but it’s good for a list like this) which I think just trumps Tarantino’s Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs rundown (Death Proof is nowhere to be found anymore).
Anderson is a non-entity if you ask me. I absolutely loved Royal Tenenbaums, was mild on Life Aquatic, didn’t like Rushmore and I haven’t seen Bottle Rocket and Darjeeling.
Still, Jackie Brown is the best movie by either of the three, then Tiger, Brokeback, Royal and… so on.
I’m kind of schizophrenic on the issue, Jeff. I do enjoy some director’s styles (Scorsese, Lee, Agoyan, for a few examples), but I also think style can overwhelm substance. In the end, I want to see a story, not an exercise in style, and some directorial flourishes can actually get in the way of solid storytelling.
I agree when it comes to someone with an obnoxious non-style like Michael Bay, but a director should never let telling a story get in the way of making a good film.
Quick comparison…
Ang Lee: Love Ice Storm, didn’t like Crouching Tiger all that much (growing up in HK, so I didn’t think it’s anything special), Hulk was a failure, like Brokeback Mountain, Lust Caution is also very good. Also, Wedding Banquet and Eat Drink Man Woman is pretty good as well.
Tarantino: Didn’t like Reservoir Dogs, Love Pulp Fiction, love Jackie Brown (I think it’s one of the most underrated films in the last 10 years), Love Kill Bill 1 and 2 (Maybe the only one here), like Deathproof, but I think he is settling into a cult filmmaker like Robert Rodriguez instead of something more.
Anderson: Bottle Rocket was a good start, Rushmore was tremendous, but everything else is the same. All his movies after that feels the same. Is he the new Woody Allen?
I like Tarantino the most, but I wish he could do more. Lee is the most versatile of the 3 and Anderson is a lost cause.