April 24, 2024
The Hot Blog
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"]
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
that was a very great, beautifully written post.
Sorry to be going so wildly off topic, Dave, but any chance you’ll be putting up a new BYOB entry soon?
The silence isn’t unique to the press or the liberal side of the table.
I showed up to church expecting spirited discussion, clarification, conversation, SOMETHING.
Nary a word about Prop 8. Nothing, until I brought it up. And was greeted with blank stares. Disappointing.
The local news station that I watch here in Dallas had pretty good coverage of various protests, including one at the First Baptist Church of Dallas against the pastor’s scheduled sermon regarding homosexuality.
It’s TV news, so they didn’t go too far in depth, but given their time constraints, I think they did about what they could.
That was so much more on topic than you think, BC.
Every time I listen to the talk guys trying to rationalize why this is not an abridgement of gay civil rights, I am pushed further into “radical” thinking. They just can’t keep from getting to the bottom line of bigotry. It just keeps coming back to “separate but equal” and “we’re different.” Palinesque.
Why aren’t I hearing boycott and rage aimed at Florida which also voted against gay marriage?
I’m ashamed of my home state. Most of the people here are fair minded, not homophobic… but the way proposition 2 was worded, confusing and challenging… enough people voted to deny the right to marry… even though the state largely rejected the social agenda of Sarah Palin.
I believe the majority of people involved in Utah, involved with the Sundance festival, have no problem with gay rights. So why punish the festival as if it exemplified bigotry?
Boycotts rarely bring about the desired result and innocent entities bear the consequences.
and, now…matt & trey chime in:
http://www.playbill.com/news/article/123416.html
DP, your response to the vote and its aftermath is a great relief. In the media culture of my dreams, these posts would be run-of-the-mill but yikes you really are an anomaly. On this week’s installment of The Treatment, NPR’s show biz show, the issue merited only a joke. Shameful. Thanks and please keep-a-going.
It is odd, but unsurprising.
Hi David-
Thank you for continually keeping an eye on this. B/c of you I’m trying to keep daily tabs on it myself. And without your initial coverage, I wouldn’t have even HEARD about this.
There is no doubt that the LA Times, Variety, Hollywood Reporter et al. know about this story, they just want it buried. People talk about media bias, but this is media gangsterism.
Well done. Your work on this has converted me into a loyal reader of your blog.
Folks, I hate to break it to you, but as someone who has worked in mainstream media for the past decade, there is probably not as much coverage not because of some conspiracy of silence. More likely, it’s because editors and reporters, given limited time and energy (and page counts, don’t forget page counts) are using their form of economic sense to decide which issues or subjects are worth covering for their readers.
When you are a general circulation publication, you serve a wide audience. This means you’re not going to get into specialist coverage of any particular issue. While you may be interested in an issue and may want it covered, the newspaper or magazine must cover news for a wider audience that includes you and a million other readers. So they make choices that seem conspiratorial to you, but sensible if you actually work within the machine.
Take Hollywood coverage: You may not get all the detailed news of every single nuance of industry moves. But that’s because the newspaper doesn’t serve industry insiders. That’s why you go to Variety and other publications. So some debates will not make the pages of the LA Times unless it is remotely of interest to every reader.
Same with the Prop. 8 protests. As important a debate as it may be, the protests are merely noise in a debate that will really take place within the state legislature and the courts. The Times will focus on the court battles and not necessarily on the shouting matches and inside battles over donations by film festival executives that may or may not represent their own opinion on an issue.
You may not like the way mainstream publications work. But this is how it is.
Seven – The trades and LAT not covering the head of the LA Film Festival being a Prop 8 funder is not an economic issue.
Really… you are right about this as regards many stories… but not this one.
I have no issue with USA Today, for instance, not covering. It may not be critical for their readers yet. But in the city of Los Angeles… in the industry… coverage is not a question mark.
It is the biggest local story as regards the industry and Prop 8 so far… even as the Sundance issue looms as a future story.
I am pleased that Variety FINALLY did a round-up of what was going on, even if they carefully avoided crediting me for the news breaks. But it was, as so much of their coverage is, slow, late, and overly cautious.
Whenever anyone goes to “it’s not a conspiracy,” I know that it is an intentional overreach. The LAT has NO EXCUSE for not covering. And anything suggesting that they are waiting for it to be bigger news is just a lie or a delusion…. ESPECIALLY since the paper has a financial interest in the festival. That puts it into the realm of malfeasance.
Well, David, you think not attributing something to conspiracy is an “intentional overreach.” You know nothing about what I’m thinking or intending. So cut it out and behave like an adult. Deal with the argument being made and deal with it straight — or don’t bother responding at all.
To you, this is the biggest story in town. For the average Angelino — who frankly, doesn’t work in the film industry, doesn’t care about gay marriage (or Prop. 8) and is more concerned about the economy — the protests aren’t a big deal. Remember, the LA Times isn’t written for you or I, folks who care about the industry and the machinations within it. It’s written for the rest of L.A. and SoCal, who think of Hollywood as the local curiosity.
You also have to remember that the film industry isn’t even the biggest industry in the metro area. Defense contracting — Northrup Grumman and other firms — are far bigger local players than Disney (the only one of the major studios whose parent firm is actually headquartered in the area). Then there is Amgen out in Thousand Oaks and the other biotech outfits in town. Essentially, when it comes to coverage, Hollywood garners more ink, but the real serious stories are about the big economic players. A film festival fight ranks as small potatoes, even if the battle involves a constitutional amendment.
And just as likely by the way: The oversight in coverage is as likely to be due to the bureaucratic inertia that marks most mainstream dailies these days. Getting a story reported and written can often take a few days, with several editors pouring over a piece, rendering it a mere carbon copy of the original draft.
Knowing several reporters and editors at the Times, I can say this: Why attribute what you consider faulty coverage to conspiracy when mere incompetence and inertia suffices?
Well, David, you think not attributing something to conspiracy is an “intentional overreach.” You know nothing about what I’m thinking or intending. So cut it out and behave like an adult. Deal with the argument being made and deal with it straight — or don’t bother responding at all.
To you, this is the biggest story in town. For the average Angelino — who frankly, doesn’t work in the film industry, doesn’t care about gay marriage (or Prop. 8) and is more concerned about the economy — the protests aren’t a big deal. Remember, the LA Times isn’t written for you or I, folks who care about the industry and the machinations within it. It’s written for the rest of L.A. and SoCal, who think of Hollywood as the local curiosity.
You also have to remember that the film industry isn’t even the biggest industry in the metro area. Defense contracting — Northrup Grumman and other firms — are far bigger local players than Disney (the only one of the major studios whose parent firm is actually headquartered in the area). Then there is Amgen out in Thousand Oaks and the other biotech outfits in town. Essentially, when it comes to coverage, Hollywood garners more ink, but the real serious stories are about the big economic players. A film festival fight ranks as small potatoes, even if the battle involves a constitutional amendment.
And just as likely by the way: The oversight in coverage is as likely to be due to the bureaucratic inertia that marks most mainstream dailies these days. Getting a story reported and written can often take a few days, with several editors pouring over a piece, rendering it a mere carbon copy of the original draft.
Knowing several reporters and editors at the Times, I can say this: Why attribute what you consider faulty coverage to conspiracy when mere incompetence and inertia suffices?