By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com
Happy
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
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
This one I like. I also like the approach of the Picturehouse. Happy Holidays right back to them :D!
totally off topic, but amused me so I figured I’d share. Definitely goes on way too long, but I gotta give props for their commitment to the subject matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN25hFa1rms
Picturehouse is one of my favourite production house logos. What ever happened to Manderlay though? They had one where a tiger walks through a black and white jungle and it was kind of great.
Mandalay changed their logo. Or you can blame Gruber going to shootout for the lack of tiger awesomeness.
Fuck Picturehouse!
They never even shipped screeners of “La Vie en Rose,” “The Orphanage” and “King of Kong” to BFCA members this year.
Cheap bastards.
And while Cotillard may have been fine, “La Vie en Rose” sucked the big one.
What a hoary bag of musical biopic cliches.
If “Rose” had been a Hollywood movie, it would have been laughed off the screen, “Walk Hard” style. (And that was supposed to be funny.)
movieman, given your comments, I’m sure Picturehouse is quite happy that you didn’t get screeners for their movies. I can’t imagine they really care whether or not the Broadcast Film Critics give their films any awards.
La Vie en Rose is one of the year’s worst movies. It’s a discombobulating mess. I guess it’s not Piaf’s fault that her life followed the biopic blueprint, but geez did anything happen in her life that wasn’t like a movie?
I’m sure you’re right about that, Grady.
The BFCA obviously doesn’t matter a whit to Picturehouse. It’s always nice, though, when distributers and studios play by the rules and dutifully send out “fyc” screeners during awards scene to every major critics organization doling out awards.
For the record, I’m a big fan of “The Orphanage,” even though I think P might be overselling the Guillermo del Toro angle. It’s a lot closer to Dario Argento’s Gothic shockers than it is to “Pan’s Labyrinth” or “The Devil’s Backbone.” And I enjoyed “King of Kong” as well. I just don’t think it’s in the same doc league as a “Lake of Fire” or even “Sicko.”