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
I disagree on the merits of the film, but more importantly you’re not being fair in your last point. I don’t think any intelligent viewer is going to conflate the obviously fictional film with the photographs, which perform the same function as the title cards you find at the end of any “based on a true story” movie. And I don’t think De Palma is trying to “blur the line” between the two in any articulable way. Are you suggesting that he’s using the photographs to create the impression that the rest of his movie is a documentary?
Having watched that video, however, I can agree that De Palma is a blowhard.
I am also confused — has the “unredacted” version been shown at festivals? What did I see at Telluride?
I’m more cynical than most but this was not a publicity stunt.
The version at festivals ran without black bars covering the faces on the photographs. Cuban has the money to fight this in court and make a stand about ‘fair use’ but personally I don’t think he wants to and not for financial reasons. I can’t believe I’m saying this but I think Cuban has a stronger moral core than DePalma who is simply on his high horse. Its not ethical or important to use real photographs in a commercial piece of fiction. I don’t give a fuck if DePalma feels its censorship, thats not his son in the photos. Do you need to see someones face to know someone died? Do you need a face to be affected by carnage? Are we really that desensitized? And for Jason from HDNET to compare Redacted to all documentaries is really stretching the argument. There is a interesting battle to be waged but this is not the film to launch it from.
And for the record. REDACTED is a poor excuse for a film.
I haven’t seen the film, but it sounds like the endings of Lars von Trier’s Dogville and Manderlay, with the photographs of depression-era and pre-civil rights era America. The only point of this is usually to make it seem like you have a point, but really all you’re doing is trying to stoke the fires. DePalma has always been a sensationalist, so it’s no surprise that he’s continuing that trend here.
I can’t say where I stand on this issue without having seen the film, but I can say that I haven’t liked what I’ve heard about it. I feel like this could be another film similar to In the Valley of Elah, where I agree with the politics to an extent, but the heavy-handedness will turn me off. I can’t help but think that this is DePalma’s last stab at trying to be relevant for the first time in two decades.
JBD – I thought for sure the version I saw in Toronto had the black bars covering their faces – because DePalma mentioned in the Q&A that they had been redacted themselves. The pictures came up because someone asked him why we haven’t seen a peace movement like we did with Vietnam and he said because no one is seeing the pictures, so for DePalma, I think the pictures are a large part of the reason he made the film.
On the matter of the film itself, Dave and JBD are completely right. It is a poorly made, poorly acted and unconvincing from beginning to end.
I also saw Battle for Haditha at Toronto and again agree with Dave – it is vastly superior on every level than Redacted.
I don’t think it was staged. But at the same time, both Bowles and Kliot could’ve handled things in a more subtle, professional manner. They’re not new at this. So when first Bowles starts yelling from the rear of the theater, then Kliot rushes the stage…of course, they knew this was going to get media play. The only people in the audience were press.