MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Posted Sunday, January 20th, 2008 - 11 Comments »
Be Sociable, Share!

Sundance Sunday 1

Park City is warming up a little… more the weather than the films.
The Hot Title du Jour is American Teen, Nanette Burstein’s apparently triumphant return to Sundance. We’re 30 minutes away from it’s grossly overloaded 80-seat press and industry screening. We’re also getting the experience of this fest when there is blood in the water… assholes saving 3 and 4 seats in a “sold out” show where the people they are saving seats for are unlikely to get in. Charming.
Burstein was previously teamed with Brett Morgan, making two real classics, On The Ropes and The Kid Stays In The Picture. Soon after, Brett was Evansed and the team split. Morgan returned to Sundance last year with the highly anticipated and mostly disappointing Chicago 10. If A-Teen is the big doc buy this fest, it will be an interesting story… one surely not wanted discussed by either ex-partner.
Working together isn’t easy. I ran into a half of another superstar Sundance team that hasnt spokenin a while… sad, really.
Meanwhile… The Polanski doc got the right slot for American distribution… television. An HBO doc is what it is. So an HBO buy is a perfect fit. An the Weinsteins buying therest of the world, where Polanski should draw, was smart too.
The hot intellectual film of the fest is Mama’s Man, a semi- autobiographical piece about a 30something coming back home, living off the fat of the home, the doting Jewish mom, the successful disconnected father, etc, as he searches for his own place at life’s table. The New York Smartniks are all over this one. I hope to see it before the fest ends.
And so, this 90% distributor’s screening is about to start. More later…

Be Sociable, Share!

11 Comments »

11 Responses to “Sundance Sunday 1”

  1. lazarus says:
    January 20, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    DP, did you not make it to the 3-D premiere last night? You sounded excited about it last week.

  2. David Poland says:
    January 20, 2008 at 3:56 pm

    Not sure how excited I ever was… passed… not sure what a 3D concert film is doing here anyway.

  3. TMJ says:
    January 20, 2008 at 7:25 pm

    And the weekend box office charts didn’t update because …. ?
    Cloverfield set a new January record. It beat a re-released Star Wars. It all but doubled its budget. Unheard of for a January release.
    Are you that upset, David? I can’t imagine what you will do when it crosses $100 million.

  4. IOIOIOI says:
    January 20, 2008 at 7:57 pm

    TMJ: holiday tomorrow. So the charts do not come out til tomorrow afternoon.

  5. marychan says:
    January 20, 2008 at 8:23 pm

    The Polanski doc will be released theatrically….. at least for one week.
    http://www.indiewire.com/buzz/080120.html#011100
    [the company confirmed that plans to will give it an Oscar qualifying this year]

  6. Wrecktum says:
    January 20, 2008 at 9:37 pm

    “Cloverfield set a new January record. It beat a re-released Star Wars. It all but doubled its budget. Unheard of for a January release.”
    It couldn’t happen to a more boring trifle.

  7. sloanish says:
    January 20, 2008 at 10:34 pm

    Can’t wait for U23D. Why was it at Sundance? National Geographic needed the coasts to know about the movie and the festival needed the rest of the country to know it was happening. Not a match made in heaven, just the 23,384th sign that Sundance is a business, first and foremost.

  8. Aris P says:
    January 20, 2008 at 11:05 pm

    “Are you that upset, David? I can’t imagine what you will do when it crosses $100 million.”
    Worldwide? Not a big stretch if it happens. Most event films do. Crossing 100 million in the US – not a chance.
    Those who defend this film need to find another reason to — going against the grain (ie, good taste) isn’t enough. Find a real reason please, or stop already. It’s getting BORING.

  9. TMJ says:
    January 21, 2008 at 4:57 am

    My main reason for “defending” the film, Aris — besides actually liking it — is because it hopefully will prove to a studio that you can open a good title in January (or any month).
    What typically has been a desolate, scorched-earth release field (Codename: The Cleaner, et al) has borne serious fruit. God willing, in years to come, other studios will follow the Cloverfield lead, so we can have solid cinema year-round, and not in the traditional fits and spurts.
    And it may take time, because the drop off is inevitable, but $100M domestic is possible. Even probable.

  10. martin says:
    January 21, 2008 at 8:33 am

    I completely disagree. Cloverfield fits in perfectly with a season usually filled with the likes of Codename: The Cleaner, Virus, White Noise, Underworld: Evolution, Elektra, etc. They release all sorts of debatably retarded sci-fi crap around this time of year. Cloverfield just happened to skew younger and broader due to a very smart marketing campaign. If they were releasing No Country for Old Men this week and it opened to $25 million, I’d be impressed, and hope that studios realized they than release quality films outside of the Sept-Dec Oscar block. But big money for a cheesy b-movie with no stars and a one-trick marketing hook hardly means the season is on the up and up.

  11. TMJ says:
    January 21, 2008 at 5:09 pm

    Martin,
    If you truly believe there’s no artistic separation between Cloverfield and Elektra — and I respect your right to such an opinion — then we’re so far off the same page, it’s not even worth discussing. We have different tastes is all.

The Hot Blog

Comments Most Recent Archives

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