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
I watch the Factor every night, and Bill-O was kind of foaming about this… BUT WHO WAS THAT CRAZY-ASS BLONDE MEGAN KELLY???
That chick is WAY too intense; Her reactions made a Nancy Grace harangue look subtle. I see she’s a host on “America’s Newsroom”? GodDAMN, I gotta check that out; Could be some good entertainment there.
O’REILLY OWNS. “THE SPIN STOPS HERE.”
The ‘god’ moment is a little over-the-top, and the whole thing is definitely manipulative, but it seems effective and inoffensive to me.
And also wanted to say that O’Reilly and the ladies were taking the position that these kids are too young to know what they’re saying, and thus it’s some form of abuse for adults and parents to foist their own political views on children too young to understand the issues.
Er, isn’t that what parents DO? Is that really much different than taking a kid to church and indoctrinating them in a certain faith before they’re old enough to research it for themselves? Isn’t it the same as a kid being signed up for some kiddie football league before he’s old enough to realize he’s a baseball man?
I don’t consider that stuff “abuse,” and I doubt Bill or the two hens would either… just typical parent stuff where you inherently try to shape your kids in your own interests and down a path you’d like them to take; As they get older, they probably find their own way.
Granted, maybe the intensely adult level of discourse and partisanship in the ad is above the girls’ comprehension level, but in the end how is it different from some pageant mom entering her daughter in those creepy pageants, or some ambitious stage parents sticking their kids in commercials for ANYTHING?
What struck me, watching the video itself, after listening to them, was that very few of the girls in the piece actually speak to specific details and just say, “Please don’t undo everything they fought for,” and the women who speak about rape in Alaske seem significantly older than some of the others.
What you said about taking kids to church reminded me of this moment with O’Reilly on The View, Lex: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPxOGKghd2Q
Personally, I don’t see it as offensive. Manipulative, yeah, but it’s a campaign ad.
Of course, anything that pisses of Bill O is golden in my book.
Every time I see him, or some other right-wing pundit going apeshit over something like this, it always makes me think of Liar, Liar.
“Your Honor, I object!
Why?
Because it’s devastating to my case!”
Not sure what specific rights would be revoked if we sent troops back to Iraq or what ones where gained there in the first place. It’s not something to be proud of. It reminds me of the commercial nike did with the girls and young women saying “if you let me play…” and then they’d list stats and examples of how beneficial it can be to a young woman’s development to participate in athletics and team sports. It was convincing and encouraging. This was just a bash getting a buncha young girls to call Sarah Palin a sellout. It didn’t really prove sh#t.
Plus, there was something so odd/borderline vomitous about the one girl saying if she gets raped she and her parents should decide what she should do w/her body next…I can’t quite put my finger on it. There’s this huge divide of singular horrific events that’s being skipped over to put the blame on someone who hasn’t done anything yet besides state an opinion. It’s like the whole thing she’s mad at would be the possibility of having to carry a child through to term if raped and then blaming the VP. Now if she was wanting to lessen penalties for sex offenders or issue a series of statements or programs whose sole purpose was blaming the victims, then yeah, I’d get it but we’re not even to that. It’s like me being pissed at the govt that I can’t buy plutonium from the Russians in case I wanna build a nuclear bomb in case aliens land and wanna take over my land.
I agree with the others here that its manipulative, but I think it too much so to be effective. In fact, I think more people might be put off by the ad than those who might find it effective. Will people be offended? Eh, maybe some. Using young girls in this context feels a little unseemly.
I’d feel the same way if there was an ad featuring young girls that said, “If I get pregnant, Obama doesn’t think my parents have to find out” or “If I was born after a botched abortion, Obama would let the doctor kill me.”
If you’re going to put together an ad like this, you gotta be a genius and do it perfectly, or else you wind up with the resulting embarrassment on display here. That was like forcing down some bad clams in the middle of a bout with food poisoning. Bleechhhhh. Nevermind that aiming an ad at Sarah Palin is about as important as aiming one at Alan Keyes.
Fuck O’Reilly. Make he drown in his own saliva.
I liked the video. I don’t see anything wrong with it NOR do I see how it’s any different from any other political ad.
yeah, yeah, O’Reilly’s a jerk, but this ad is the is the kind of righteous crap that drives people away
imagine the flip side – an ad with young girls saying, “don’t murder my little sister before she’s born!”.
I could definitely see this putting off republicans who are leaning toward Obama. As well as being manipulative and kind of creepy, it’s shoddily done. And those who said it above are 100% right when they say if this was a Republican ad, Democrats would be fit to be tied. It’s kind of weird too, that the premise of the ad is that she WILL get into office.
It’s also a bad move to be going after Palin. Isn’t Obama running against McCain? They are just underwriting Palin’s 2012 campaign for president.
The best thing the dems could do right now is underwrite Palin in 2012, she is a dream Opponent for the dems. She excites her base and no one else.
We are still going to be in some tough financial straits when the next campaign gears up and Romney is poised to present himself as the ‘shoulda been’ candidate, but his weakness is the portion of the republican base that is drawn to Palin.
Oh, please. Anyone remember Dan Quayle’s spectacular run for the presidency in ’96? I got money sez Palin doesn’t even get re-elected governor in ’10.