Ahhhhhhhhhhh…
There is something great about being home.
And now, the work begins. Time to get my head back into things in a real way.
I am thrilled that Michael Wilmington has started working with us at MCN. And his review of Shine A Light has all the passion and detail that has made him one of America’s best.
Get ready for a load of new stuff in the next week as I ermerge from my traditional post-Oscar coma…
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)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
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
Dave,
I rapped you recently on your anti-Clinton/pro-Obama stuff but you can do no wrong in my eyes from now on. As a natural-born Chicagoan, one of the highlights of my life was reading Michael Wilmington’s reviews from 1993 to 2005 in the Tribune until I moved to Texas…where I kept up online but missed having the actual paper in my hands when I read Wilmington’s reviews. I have over 800 reviews saved in a storage box of Wilmington’s reviews from the mid 1990’s. When Siskel was alive, Ebert was at full steam, & Jonathan Rosenbaum/Ray Pride were doing their thing, Michael Wilmington was still the best critic in town bar none. Michael Phillips is really a pathetic downgrade from Wilmington, and seeing Ebert endorse Phillips & Roeper really makes me cringe. Michael Wilmington is the one critic that has consistently taught me as a avid moviegoer and I feel that I grow as a student/fan/lover of movies almost everytime that I read his reviews.
By the way, is Mr. Wilmington going to continue his DVD column at the Daily Isthmus newspaper in Madison, WI? That is also a fantastic read. Great job, Dave.
Gilbert O’Sullivan? On the Hot Blog? It’s more likely than you think!
Djiggs, you’re so spot on about Wilmington. What a terrific and underrated critic. I, for one, am so proud to see my name bylined on the same page as him and I’ll be anxiously awaiting each of his columns.
Back before Wilmington was at the Tribune, I remember his excellent writing at the LA WEEKLY through the 1980s. Among other excellent reviews was a dissection of Beverly Hills Cop which pinpointed the strengths of the film and a gentle pan of 2010: The Year We Make Contact with the somewhat harsher title “A Comic Book is Not a Poem”. I missed his writing when he left the WEEKLY, and it’s good to know where he landed.
Here here.
Wilmington’s always been a reliable, enthusiastic Ebert-esque kind of critic.
Good hire… if it is a hire.
Wilmo is *brave* to enter with a bang (and banging) on “Shine A Light.”
Finally, maybe, Dave has put windfall to good use to hire a critic with potential to thrill us (?). A model for the web, please dear god (no question mark necessary).
Hope MW understands THIS though, he’s stepped onto enemy territory! Witness A & B:
A) The web’s open distain for print critics and
B) Bountyhunting, linked-to-the-nines, web-citizen journalists and factcheckers.
I’ll start the ball rolling because I like him:
Ertegun didn’t die on concert night and the two night show (we’re led to believe only the second night was used) wasn’t part of the Bigger Bang tour, but took place in the midst of it, in support of (and I guess a fundraiser for) the Clinton Foundation, and was a self-proclaimed birthday present for Bill (one can only assume it was another “gift from” Steve Bing, but I digress). MW does give the birthday part a mention later. Interesting work, carry on!
My understanding on this issue, THolly, via Michael, is the following:
“The two Beacon concerts were added at Scorsese’s request because he wanted to shoot in a small venue. Mick wanted Rio de Janiero. (Too bad Orson Welles wasn’t around.) One of the two nights was a Clinton charity benefit, but I think it was the first one, which they mostly didn’t use (except for Bill and Hillary).
Anyway, the benefit question seems academic even if it’s right technically or business-accounting-wise. They were on the tour, and the show was part of it, with the same musicians and setup, even though the filmed shows were added for Marty and his movie.”
And I might point out that U2-3D was combined from concerts in several cities, but as I was watching it, I woulda sworn it was all in the same venue.