MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Critic Time

The big parade of critics groups

Be Sociable, Share!

11 Responses to “Critic Time”

  1. Joe Leydon says:

    I’m happy to see the various groups thinking outside the box and spreading the wealth. Whether any of this has any effect on the Oscar race is, frankly, of no concern to me. But I’m a bit disappointed that The Prisoner, or How I Planned to Kill Tony Blair — arguably the only one of this year’s Iraq War movies, drama or documentary, to offer anything like a glimmer of hope for the future over there — isn’t being recognized. Please don’t misunderstand: I think No End in Sight is a great film, and deserves all the accolades it has received. Still…

  2. Monco says:

    Amy Ryan’s performance is the most overrated this year.

  3. David Poland says:

    For me, Joe, the tragedy is that Tony Kaye’s Lake Of Fire is not getting the love it deserves. I am a big fan of Tucker & Epperlein and feel their Iraq films have led the way. But Lake of Fire is a FOREVER film… Shoah, Grey Gardens, Thin Blue Line, and the highest Herzog and Ken Burns level stuff.

  4. Ben C says:

    How the hell did DARJEELING win best screenplay?
    I’ve seen home movies that were better realized than TDL.

  5. AJ Schnack says:

    For The Prisoner to get any love from critics, they would have had to actually see the film and for the most part they didn’t. Thus most of the critics awards will go – as always – to the doc that most critics have seen, which this year will be Sicko (just as last year it was Inconvenient Truth). Thankfully, the Spirit Awards committee nominated The Prisoner, as well as Lake of Fire. I don’t think Lake of Fire is a great film – beautifully shot certainly but strangely dated – but it has a more than decent shot at an Oscar nomination.

  6. Noah says:

    I think the screenplay is perfectly realized, Ben, when you consider that it takes the short story concept and applies it to the film, using little short stories that add up to a satisfying whole. You can definitely see the influence of Salinger’s Glass Family and it incorporates a lot about identity, Indian society, religion, spirituality, etc. I can see how some people might be turned off by it, but I think if you’re really tuned into the aesthetic of the film and what it’s trying to do, then it can be a really magical experience.

  7. Joe Leydon says:

    Unfortunately, David, Lake of Fire hasn’t played Houston yet. It was supposed to play here in November, but it got yanked. Make of that what you will.

  8. errolmorrisfan says:

    There Will Be Blood and Amy Ryan are obviously the big stories of the day. But what about Frank Langella winning Boston and coming in runner-up in LA? It seems like those plus his Spirit Award nod are putting him into serious contention. Am I crazy here?

  9. martin says:

    Would be nice to see Langella at the big show, very talented actor that hasn’t gotten as much recognition as he deserves.

  10. But best actor is filled with so many big names. I’d be more inclined to think he’s not nominated this year but next year gets a nod for Frost/Nixon as a big residual lovefest. Or something to that effect.
    The question about Amy Ryan is this: Is she a Rachel Weisz of a Peter Sarsgaard? He won tonnes of awards and even got a GG nomination but lost the last spot on the Oscar list to Djimon Hounsou who played a baity AIDS victim role. She, on the other hand, started out well and then steamrolled through the whole season. It’s still nice to see people awarding her and not the pre-ordained Cate Blanchett.
    I’ll be surprised if Julian Schnabel doesn’t take out the NY best director prize. He’s a god in the NY art scene, right?

  11. scooterzz says:

    joe– most voters have had a screener of ‘lake of fire’ for a couple of weeks….it’s lack of theatrical play shouldn’t be keeping it from critical recognition….

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