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
“There are jewish-themed films this season that absolutely will not be serious Best Picture contenders. For one thing, there are three, with The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, The Reader, and Defiance (in order of release). ”
David, dare I say it, but it is exactly these kinds of comments that prove that Goldstein actually has a point? Not about bloggers hijacking the race, but that other point, more subtle one that I will not say here?
For one thing, you are grouping three different films together under the same umbrealla of not being serious BP contenders. Just because they are three “Jewish movies” (and let’s just admit that in case of the Reader, and hey, even in case of the Boy, it’s a bit of stretch), doesn’t mean they belong under THAT umbrealla.
And you are doing something very sly here too – no, of course The Boy in the Striped Pajamas isn’t going be a player there, duh. But the others, even if cards are stacked again them (and this is where you are being sly) shouldn’t be ABSOLUTELY nixed yet.
Yes, Defiance has the issue of the release date against it and it’s doubtful Paramount will do much to promote it, but the issue of the film’s quality is still there. You haven’t seen it yet, so I find it rather cheap that you are willing to
offer it up as a sacrificial lamb, for the sake of increasing the dramatic power of, what appears to be, just a statement.
(And I admit that I say this as someone who cannot wait to see this film.)
Same for the Reader, again, troubled, troubled, won’t finish on time, not high profile, the issue of Kate, etc, but why bother?
(That said, I admit that I didn’t like the trailer)
Just like you said, just because the movie has certain themes doesn’t mean certain groups will vote for it. It’s an axiom that needs not to be proven, I think.
I also find it amazing that you are willing to deny the fact that bloggers had an impact on the Awards game. Sure, hijacking is too strong a word but you, of all people must know that studioes are planning their FYC somewhat campaigns differently and by ads in different places. Places, like Oscar prediciton sites. Yes, it’s only a fraction of their overall spendings but does it not mean that they think that people, VOTERS, are reading those sites.
Especially since you are saying that his column “have been devalued”. What is the reason for it then?
It is no secret that a lot of Academy Members are pretty sketchy when it comes to choosing who to vote for in terms of all the categories on the ballot. Just the fact that these things are out there, as opposed to the decade ago when they weren’t changed things.
Roman –
I have to take some responsibilty for writing something that could be misinterpreted as you did. I did not mean to say that all three films were out of contention, but rather that there were three films with jewish themes and not all three could get in.
AND – I did not say that bloggers had no impact on the season. You are overstating my comment. To say we hijacked it is to give us WAY too much power… and Patrick would never agree with that anyway.
“I have to take some responsibilty for writing something that could be misinterpreted as you did. I did not mean to say that all three films were out of contention, but rather that there were three films with jewish themes and not all three could get in. ”
Well, that certianly explains it. I’m laughing now but looks like I was triggered by something that wasn’t there. I certainly can’t aruge witht that renewed statement.
As for the Proposition 8, I do not believe the early release date would have had much of an affect on it’s passage during the pre-awards season. For one thing, I have a hard time picturing a lot of older conservatives going to see the film in the first place and a harder time still thinking that a single movie (masterpiece or not would have changed a lof of minds -thousands worth, though I admit every little bit helps). If the movie was released during the awards season, however, the extra buzz around the picture and continuous disscusion of the topics would have both encouraged people to see it and kept the movie’s issues on their minds.
By the way, is ‘Milk’ a Jewish movie now too ;)?
/Sarcasm
sorry if i’m repeating myself but i actually do think an earlier release of ‘milk’ would have had an effect on the passage of prop.8…..not because of the people who would or would not have seen it but because of the huge amount of ink it probably would’ve generated because of the parallels between prop.6 and prop.8 and the whole ‘history repeating itself’ thing……
people not inclined to see the movie wouldn’t be able to ignore the coverage…..
just my opinion…i’m sorry it didn’t see an earlier release but there’s no sense crying over…..no, i just can’t………
I’m sure an earlier Milk release would have made some positive difference, but (a) the vast bulk of its audience would be voting no on 8 anyway, and (b) the vote margin is about 500,000 at this point, which is quite a lot of votes for a single indie movie to change in one state.
Speaking of THE READER, it looks like Kate Winslet will do press for this movie; at least she does talk about this movie in the newest issue of VANITY FAIR….
While I don’t think bloggers “hijacked” the Oscars, I would say that Oscar voters are more careful about their picks since the Crash backlash. And how do they be more careful? They pay attention to the interwebs, even Rotten Tomatoes. Think about it, how BP many nominees last year got below 90% on the tomatometer? Only Atonement, which was the prestigious war movie. In 2006, the only one was Babel, which is at 68% right now, but I assume was much higher on release.
This is a big difference from 2005, when Munich had 77%, and the two frontrunners, Brokeback and Crash, had 86% and 75% respectively.In 2004, only Million Dollar Baby and Sideways had over 90%.
Or I could be wrong, but I really think voters do pay attention to the interwebs more these days. If No Country For Old Men had been released in 2001, when only big expensive movies and star vehicles like Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind got awards, I doubt if it would have been nominated.
“While I don’t think bloggers “hijacked” the Oscars, I would say that Oscar voters are more careful about their picks since the Crash backlash.”
You are wrong if you think that the Acedemy members “have seen the light” or feel bad that they voted for it. They voted for first and foremost because they liked it. (And because it was a better movie than Brokeback Mountain).
Now they might be more cautious with Milk if it gathers a lot of external support and becomes an important gay rights movie (something, that it ironicaly will not be sold as) than they might think twice because they will not want to be branded as closetly homophobic. That’s a little much for the ‘libereal Academy’. That’s the only effect of BM that I can see really playing a factor. But, most importantly, the quality has to be there first.
I don’t think Academy voters “have seen the light”. On the contrary, I think they’re more influenced by external forces than ever in their picks.
And please don’t go around saying Crash was a better movie than Brokeback. That is a matter of personal opinion, not an objective statement.
Furthermore, the reason Crash won BP was because Lionsgate sent out in inordinately large amount of screeners. Yes, voters voted for Crash because they liked it, but how much one “likes” a movie can be heavily affected by external forces. If it couldn’t, No studio would bother with “for your consideration” adverts.
Crash is _not_ a better movie than Brokeback. I thought we had gotten past that issue.
Yeah, I wasn’t even that fond of Brokeback, but c’mon.
“And please don’t go around saying Crash was a better movie than Brokeback. That is a matter of personal opinion, not an objective statement.”
In that case, who are you to say that it’s not?
Besides, as far as I’m concern it is a fact that it is a better film. I mean it’s obvious (this should teach you not to argue with me on matters of taste. The more you talk about this the deeper I will go.) I was on record on this from the beginning (just as I was in saything that Munich was better than the two combined).
And I say this as someone who greatly admires Brokeback Mountain.
I still say that the Acedemy did actually sincerely like Crash. And no suprise, it’s their kinda film. Sure the screeners greatly helped them get there but it doesn’t change the notion.
And pleasly don’t pretend that Crash isn’t a greatly admired movie. Just check IMDb.
I’m sure Crash is better than SOME movie, but nothing’s coming to mind right now.
Actually, Crash is the most impressively photographed and acted student film I’ve ever seen. In the DVD introduction, Paul Haggis refers to his film as “a passion piece.” But it plays like the passion of a precocious, socially conscious middle schooler who’s been motivated to make a movie after receiving praise for his anti-racism yearbook poems.
I’m kind of partial to all the DUMB-ASS COINCIDENCES… like how Larenz Tate just HAPPENS to be related to a main character, how Luda acquires THE VAN FULL O’ IMMIGRANTS, and how Thandie not only has a near-perilous traffic incident the day after being felt up by a cop… but it’s THE SAME COP that rescues her.
I realize all these arguments are 3.5 years old, but to this day I have no idea how ANYONE couldn’t have called bullshit around the time of the fourth, fifth, 21st ABSURD path-crossing, like the shit took place in some fucking one-horse town.
There are contrivances so unlikely — like .000000001% chance of EVER happening to any two of the same characters, let alone a whole interlocking web of them — that no sane person could or should award the movie any more than 2.5 stars, no matter how accomplished the acting, filmmaking, and even individual scenes.
The thing I object to most in that movie is the shrill melodrama of it all. And the bad acting, which goes together in the ‘yelling is good acting’ school of filmmaking. I can think of plenty of worse movies, but none of them are modern Best Picture winners.
i musta missed the ‘crash’ vs ‘brokeback’ smackdown, but the two pieces are an interesting contrast: ‘crash’ is overwrought verging on hysterical, and ‘brokeback’ is so subtle as to risk falling into a coma. personally i prefer subtle to overwrought any day of the week, but it’s funny how ‘overwrought’ is so often mistaken for ‘dramatic’
It doesn’t matter which movie was better. That was my point. But, objectively speaking, Crash is at 75% on the tomatometer while BM is at 86%. Nowadays, the majority of BP films are above 90%. That was my point.
And don’t pretend like picking Crash didn’t result in a shitload of backlash. Because it did.
Which I like to call ‘shitlash’.
Check out Probably Drunk 2am Jeff breaking with the jokes and shit. Improvement over usual rod personality = YAY!
No drinks since 2am Tuesday night, Lex (I think that was a homemade white Russian).
oh man, i love white russians. no one makes them look as tasty as ‘the duder’ tho, i try to channel his style whenever i indulge in a caucasian
I will continue to defend Thandie Newton in that movie for years to come. She had more dedication to that material than anybody else in the cast combined, as, perhaps, unwarranted as it may have been (Terrence Howard, Ryan Phillippe and several others appear so uninterested in everything going on around them that it was hard to like them). Although, I did very much like Crash on my initial viewing (at which point I did predict it would receive either a Best Picture or Director nom, alas I did not predict both and a win – ouch) but subsequent viewings bring it’s shortcomings into obvious light. It was better than A Beautiful Mind that’s for sure.
KCamel, I actually think that Howard and Phillippe are the best performers in that movie, and that Newton gives a flat-out bad performance in it. Sorry to have to disagree with you.
I know a lot of people hate Newton in Crash, but she at least stands out as opposed to all those other people whose names I don’t even remember (the latino dude from Lions for Lambs!)