MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

The Reader… Coming To Theaters Near You (if you live in NY or LA) On Dec 12

A joint Weinstein/Daldry press release has been issued.
As explained before, no surprise. (Even less so after the Project Runway ruling.)
“We are issuing this statement together to emphasize the fact that we are in complete agreement on the date we have chosen to release “The Reader.” Working together, we developed a plan to extend the post-production schedule in order to give Stephen Daldry the additional time he needs to successfully complete the film in time to release it on December 12, 2008.”
“On their own, Scott and Harvey spent this weekend working together to find a way to accommodate my needs so that I may fulfill my obligation to the studio without compromising my vision for the film. I am thrilled and relieved that we have all found a way forward to work together to bring ‘The Reader’ to theaters this year.”
PS 6:29p – Why kind of con artist spin is the absurd notion that this is a win-win for Weinstein and Rudin? As I keep writing, this was never about the war of the wills. It is about money. Period. Everyone associated with Rev Road, from top to bottom, wanted The Reader to go away until next year. Period.
The only con better than “they are conceding post-production dollars and a move to NY” (when there was no other choice but to rip the film from the director, as he is putting the stage version of Billy Elliot up in NY right now) is “the movie isn’t ready.” Making adjustments to get a film done is normal. And the movie is ready 90% of the time that things have moved along enough for someone serious to be asking, even if it is not in the ultimate final form.

Be Sociable, Share!

7 Responses to “The Reader… Coming To Theaters Near You (if you live in NY or LA) On Dec 12”

  1. Here it is in the meantime:
    Still, getting Winslet out there will be interesting…

  2. David Poland says:

    Not very interesting at all. She won’t do it. Especially 2 weeks before Rev Road landing.

  3. I’m well aware she won’t do it. Hence the “interesting” aside. Regardless, this is smoke and mirrors, crisis management, and it never should have been out in the media in a big way.
    Nicely done, Zeitchick.

  4. David Poland says:

    The media remains, in this case, as usual, irrelevant.

  5. scooterzz says:

    what will probably happen is that reporters doing press for ‘rev road’ will be told that, because kate has obligations keeping her from ‘the reader’ press days, she will entertain questions pertaining to that film too…publicists will hover in an effort to keep ‘reader’ questions to a minimum….it happens all the time…. bottom line is that, if she does press for one film, she’s doing press for both films…..

  6. jeffmcm says:

    So does this mean that, when she goes on TV shows to talk about Rev Road, that the hosts will be politely asked to not ask about her other movie?
    Lame. Hollywood sucks.

  7. David Poland says:

    My guess will be that Rev Road will push as early as possible to make sure that journos haven’t seen Reader and journos will be politely asked to stay on point.
    I’m sure the issue is being discussed at Vantage right now.

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