MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Taxi To The Toilet

There was actually a very good film by the same title as this entry… Taxi Zum Klo… apologies for the grab.
But Alex Gibney continues to push ThinkFilm on his Oscar winner, Taxi To The Darkside, now claiming that Think was fraudulent in its handling of the film, allegedly knowing that a financial crisis was coming that would get in the way of a wider post-Oscar release.
IndieWIRE does a good job of offering the Gibney side, the Think side, and the objective side.
I look at the numbers on Born Into Brothels, Think

Be Sociable, Share!

10 Responses to “Taxi To The Toilet”

  1. jeffmcm says:

    “All of us who are owed money”
    So you’re an ‘us’ too?

  2. Joe Leydon says:

    You know, with all due respect to Gibney, you’d think that after he made the terrific Enron doc, he’d be more alert to… well, tell-tale signs of creative accounting.

  3. martin says:

    Jeff, maybe you should offer your skills as Dave’s copy editor.

  4. jeffmcm says:

    Or his sales agent.

  5. David Poland says:

    Yes, J-Mc… MCN is owed money by ThinkFilm.
    And Joe… I don’t think there was any creative accounting in play here or any accusation of same.

  6. Joe Leydon says:

    Wouldn’t you describe misrepresenting (allegedly) your financial status as a form of creative accounting?

  7. This whole scenario makes me wonder why we never hear directors making a rukkus about the Weinstein brothers buying their film and then not releasing them. I’m not sure how the system works, but when a company purchases a film at a festival surely there’s a part in the contract and states somewhere that the film must be released, right? I still can’t believe why any filmmakers would sell their movie to that company. Why hasn’t some filmmakers come out and publicly whipped these guys?
    Nevertheless, back to ThinkFilm and Taxi to the Darkside.

  8. jeffmcm says:

    KCamel, this is why there are a lot of films that play in places like Encino and Irvine for one week and never anywhere else. Contractual release obligation fulfilled, they move on.

  9. I don’t know what those “Encino” and “Irvine” places are, but I get your meaning. Still doesn’t explain why any self-respecting director/producer would give their film to them anymore.

  10. jeffmcm says:

    Sorry, they’re suburban areas of Los Angeles. As for your other question, I’d say ‘money’ and ‘seduction’.

The Hot Blog

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