MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

BYOB Thursday – Long Week

Be Sociable, Share!

22 Responses to “BYOB Thursday – Long Week”

  1. bluelouboyle says:

    Van Damme goes meta:
    The film may be crap, but that trailer is good. Loved the Coke-snorting POV shot.

  2. That new Wall*E trailer?
    OH. MY. GOD.
    Those visuals! That music! That character design! Those visuals! Those visuals! Wow.

  3. Me says:

    Really, like it wasn’t bad enough knowing that my wife is going to drag me to every Harry Potter movie, but at least I knew there were only so many more. Now they have to split the last one in half, extending this reign of dullness by one more movie? Calgon, take me away!

  4. Aris P says:

    Typical cult indoctrination tactic. Be strong, Me. Don’t let them win.

  5. OddDuck says:

    The Van Damme trailer was pretty amusing! For all I know the movie will probably suck, but just watching Van Damme in it, I don’t know, it seems clear that the right director could do a lot with him.
    Why is it that almost all shitty actors seem to get more fun to watch as they age? Is it really just the wrinkles that make them seem more interesting?

  6. bluelouboyle says:

    A potential Van Damme resurgence is about 1,000 times more newsworthy than a debate about Nicole Kidman’s use of botox.

  7. Aris P says:

    I hadn’t realized I meant my post to be taken literally. I do, however, debate your claim of 1000 by 400.

  8. hendhogan says:

    i did like that van damme trailer. thanks.

  9. Nicol D says:

    Hey Dave,
    I’ve been noticing a few articles on movie city news about the tax bill that many in the Canadian film industry are calling censorship. Just to clarify…
    …the bill is being supported by both the Liberals and the NDP (Sarah Polley’s party) and is virtually identical to the bill proposed by the Liberal government in 2003. It is – not- being pushed by evangelicals. An evangelical was only asked his opinion and then the media (led by the Globe and Mail) reported it. The rest is spin spin sugar.
    The bill came about as a part of a debate several years ago when the Liberals were in power and many members of the public were upset over the Karla Homolka film being made. There was also issue over the fact that a film named Bubbles Galore was made that was a real porno film starring Nina Hartley using tax payer dollars. As a result, there already is a provision put there by the Liberals under Paul Martin.
    The Conservative are just extending the film to cover any film that might include hate etc. It is using the same wording as proposed by the Liberals under Paul Martin.
    I am actually glad this is coming up because Canada’s system of film financing is woefully abused. None of the films mentioned on some of the links have been targeted by the Consevatives. None. Not Eastern Promises, not Young People Fucking. Similarly, the majority of financing for Cronenberg’s films does – not – come from Canada. It comes from Britain and America. Always has. He takes a few thousand from arts agencies so that he can qulify for the Genies. And y’know…many of us have a problem with that. That a wealthy director will get a few thousand in development funds while a generation of artists goes starving.
    There is a huge debate in Canada about how arts funding agencies give away funding. Most filmmakers know it is a corrupt system where ‘who you know’ is how funding is given and films are vetted for subject matter to make sure they are politically correct from a left wing perspective.
    The conservative bill will change nothing, but the “evil evangelical” smoke screen is just that. A smoke screen so that a corrupt system that is actually stifling Canadian film will stay in place while the real culprits do not have to answer to the public.
    Nobody is saying or has said – any – of these film could not be made. This is one of the biggest obfuscations of truth I have seen in decades in the arts in Canada.
    What these woefully misinformed artists need to start asking is why is it their political parties are supporting it? But for the Sarah Polley’s and David Cronenberg’s of Canada, apparently that is a question that would require actual real thinking as opposed to knee jerk reactionism.

  10. jeffmcm says:

    David Cronenberg’s earliest 5-6 films were almost entirely Canadian-financed. He didn’t get heavy American investment until Universal picked up Videodrome.

  11. Nicol D says:

    But Cornenberg’s first few films…Fast Company, Rabid, The Brood, Shivers…were produced under a different system with different goals.
    That system was used to produce many Canadian classics such as the Cronenberg films. The new system does not and is not being used to produce films that the public might see.
    This is a long and complicated ( and painful ) topic for many of us in Toronto.
    But the upshot is, the system Cronenberg came up in (and Reitman and Bob Clark) does not exist. And their films rarely if ever get funding now.
    Yes, I know there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.
    I know you do not trust me Jeff…but it is a genuinely corrupt system. This controversy is completely manufactured and is a smokescreen.

  12. Nicol, the reason the bill is being supported by the Liberals and the NDP is partially because the part of it that would censor withold tax credits from is buried under a lot of other stuff. Also, there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in that the bill would only affect Canadian movies and not American movies being filmed in Canada.
    We should also remember that, unlike Martin and the Liberals, Stephen Harper does appeal to the evangelical, even if he isn’t one. Remember, Stockwell Day is Minister of Public Safety. Harper has also used the power of his office to an extent not seen since Trudeau.
    As for your remarks about Cronenberg’s films, every Cronenberg film (with a few exceptions) has used funding from the National Film Board and Cronenberg is a strong supporter of government filming. Financing films like Cronenberg’s is important for the Film Board because it Eastern Promises was one of the few Canadian films last year to turn a profit for the Film Board and shows that the Film Board doesn’t spend all their money on films that no one sees. I would rather see them spend money on Cronenberg films than American style big budget movies like some national film programs.
    I think we should also remember that Cronenberg had to deal with censorship back in 1975 when Shivers was accused of obscenity in parliament and made it difficult for him to secure funding after. We don’t want that to happen again, which is what this bill could do.
    Is Polley really NDP? I didn’t think she was that dumb.

  13. jeffmcm says:

    Nicol, I don’t really know much about the Canadian film financing system, which is why I didn’t address anything you said except for the one statement that I knew to be incorrect.
    As much as I like Sarah Polley’s work, she is indeed a little dumb.

  14. LexG says:

    That Van Damme trailer was TERRIFIC; I actually watched it twice, and hope the finished product is as cool and fun as that preview.
    As a fan of big action, I always thought Van Damme was underrated. Yeah, there was the language barrier and the fact that many of his films were pretty workmanlike… but I always thought his actual acting was fine and that he had a weird, Euro sleaziness that wasn’t properly exploited in leading man action roles.
    He’d make a great villain. Obviously he now comes with the dual stigmas of “former action hero” and “DTV star,” but I’ve always wanted to see him in the Tcheky Karyo or Jordi Molla type villain role in a huge blockbuster.

  15. Stella's Boy says:

    Lex wasn’t he offered the villain role in Rush Hour 3? And didn’t he turn it down?

  16. sky_capitan says:

    interesting story how blu-ray players have increased in price since the format war ended.
    bring back HD!

  17. Blackcloud says:

    Just get a PS3 for Blu-Ray. Price may go down, but it won’t go up.

  18. lazarus says:

    Lex G responds rationally to a new Van Damme trailer?
    If it wasn’t for the “TERRIFIC”, I would have thought your caps lock was broken from excessive pounding.
    Nice to see they lowered your dosage.

  19. lazarus says:

    Lex G responds rationally to a new Van Damme trailer?
    If it wasn’t for the “TERRIFIC”, I would have thought your caps lock was broken from excessive pounding.
    Nice to see they lowered your dosage.

  20. Monco says:

    I always liked Bloodsport.

  21. Stella's Boy says:

    Anti-abortion protesters at Horton Hears a Who?

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