MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

BYOB – Wednesday

Be Sociable, Share!

62 Responses to “BYOB – Wednesday”

  1. chris says:

    Better place to put this open letter to Anthony Lane:
    Dear Anthony,
    By no stretch of the imagination is “We Own the Night” a 2008 film.

  2. P.H. Hoffman was asked the “did he/didn’t he” question by Terry Gros. He answered it without bitching her out.
    So, I guess it’s okay Terry Gross asked that question, but some poor working journalist who goes on junkets isn’t good enough to get a pleasant answer.

  3. Nick Rogers says:

    Chris: Maybe he got it confused with Pride & Glory.

  4. Aww man, I responded to Chris’s post in the other blog. D’oh.

  5. bmcintire says:

    Nick – that is hilarious. And if it were actually the case, would he ever admit it?

  6. Nick Rogers says:

    bmcintire: Lane specifically mentions the car chase in what he wrote, and there wasn’t one of those in “Pride & Glory.” I understand the fudgery on something like “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” but “We Own the Night” was a major studio release 14 months ago. That’s pretty embarrassing.
    One thing about which you can’t be confused: TypePad still sucks a pimply ass.

  7. The car chase in “We Own the Night” is, for my money, the best one in recent years. Even better than the “Children of Men” scene. Other than that though…..crapppppy movie.

  8. Triple Option says:

    No mention of the Sony cuts? Anyone know who was being shown the door? Like mid mgmt? Low level? Any particular dept?

  9. Ray_Pride says:

    It may be filled out more elsewhere, TO, but some information at this link on front:
    Sony Sez Sayonara To 16,000 Jobs, Sashimis $1.1 Billion From Overhead; Film, Music, Games Not Affected

  10. LexG says:

    Hey, Poland (or any journos here who interview famous actresses):
    I just thought of a funny idea. Next time you have like a Lunch with D. or you guys have to junket w/some beautiful actress, ESPECIALLY one with serious thesping aspirations, it would be fucking hilarious if you entered the room and you started the interview with, “Hey, what’s up, sugar tits?”
    I’ll give you five bucks to do it. Just picture it, it’s funny as fuck. Like if I had to interview Kate Beckin-hotness or something, I’d just sit down and throw out that line. Would FUCKING OWN. Christ, I’m cracking myself up just picturing it.
    I should put that in my movie. BEERCHUG EMOTICON.

  11. lazarus says:

    David Poland: Please ban LexG.
    How much longer are you going to put up with bullshit like the above post?

  12. christian says:

    Poland should blacklist Lex?

  13. scooterzz says:

    lex — too bad your suggestion came so late…there were interviews this afternoon at the four seasons with marisa tomei and evan rachel wood for ‘the wrestler’….

  14. LexG says:

    E.R.W. OWNS. If I had to interview her at a junket, I’d ask her out then tell he she give ME some WOOD.

  15. brack says:

    I think David should do The Naked Man. It works 2 out of 3 times.

  16. Joe Leydon says:

    LexG: I have interviewed Kate Beckinsale. And she’s a bright lady with a great sense of humor. But I have to tell you: If you ever told her anything like that, she would would slap the taste out of your mouth.
    And God help you if you ever said this to Lexi Alexander, director of Punisher: War Zone. She would drop kick your ass into a different zipcode, and make you like it.

  17. brack says:

    Do you really think that information would discourage Lex?

  18. Do you people really think “Lex” is serious?? Good God y’all. jeff must have been hit by a frigging truck since he hasn’t jumped all over this latest silly screed.
    I mean really…if the guy bugs you….iiiiiggggnnnnoooorrreee hiiiim. Your 30 responses to his shenanigans make this place a pain in the ass. They exacerbate his shenanigans (which is fine cuz it’s f-ing funny at how the collective panties are in a constant wad).

  19. Joe Leydon says:

    Actually, I enjoyed Valkyrie. As a history buff with particular interest in that period, I appreciated the movie’s fidelity to facts. If you really want to enjoy it to the max, prepare yourself by tracking down Hava Kohav Beller’s 1992 Oscar-nominated documentary The Restless Conscience: Resistance to Hitler Inside Germany, 1933-1945. Good stuff.

  20. christian says:

    “she would would slap the taste out of your mouth.”
    What taste?

  21. sloanish says:

    7 Pounds: The most obvious, predictable, watching-the-paint-dry film I have ever seen that made me bawl at the end.

  22. jeffmcm says:

    I was at a screening of Rachel Getting Married. Shortish review: good drama, very good performances, but wayyy too much ‘wedding’. At times, like during the rehearsal dinner, and at the reception, it felt like someone forgot to turn the camera off. Why did Demme think it was so necessary to just sit and make us watch a bunch of relative strangers dancing when it doesn’t advance the plot/theme/characters?
    Plus, and allow me to vent for a second, that was the most obnoxiously hip/liberal/upper-middle-class/multiculti/world music wedding I’ve ever had the displeasure to witness. UGH.
    As for Lex, there’s a fine line between his ‘schtick’ and his real personality because he’s basically saying here what he would say in public/on a stage if he actually had any balls. Also, he would be totally excusable if he was EVER FUNNY AT ALL.

  23. LexG says:

    McDouche, your first paragraph is kind of what I’ve been dreading and why I haven’t gotten to RGM yet; It’s also my chief complaint about Altman’s “Nashville”; I wanna say this has come up here before and not too long ago, but for all “Nashville’s” rabid devotees, and much as I like Altman, I’ve ALWAYS been surprised that there are so few voices of dissent on that film, especially in regards to the ENDLESS musical scenes.
    They must play even worse today than they would’ve in the era in which it was made… the “country” on display there is so very dated, but also just very glum and depressing, and musical acts go on… on… sometimes in their entirety; Its fans like to discuss the many subtle, observant moments of human behavior in “Nashville,” and yes, there are many. But of its 2.5-hour runtime, I gotta guess at least an HOUR of that is godawful music, ususally performed by actors playing up their lack of musical chops; some of its borders, at least today, on downright unlistenable.
    I can respect the movie and totally see what its followers find in it, but it’s hard to hail something as a masterpiece when 1/3 of its running time is so off-putting; Imagine if smack in the middle of “GoodFellas,” Henry Hill just played a saxophone, and badly, for 23 straight minutes of screen time.
    I guess one could, and some have, register similar complaints about the OPENING HOUR OF WEDDING in “Deer Hunter,” but somehow that kinda works for me in a character-investment way. The same charity doesn’t extend to the 20-minute long ROLLER DERBY in “Heaven’s Gate,” where everyone’s just kinda SkatetownUSAing in the Old West and looking like a bunch of douchebags.
    ANNE HATHAWAY OWNS. Should change her name to ANNE SQUACKAWAY.

  24. jeffmcm says:

    The opening hour of Deer Hunter is a lot of dialogue and character stuff. A huge amount of the wedding in Rachel Getting Married is toasts from third-tier characters and Demme’s musician friends playing music at the reception…and playing…and playing.
    I did enjoy the Roger Corman cameo, though.
    Also, re: Nashville, good points. That’s why it falls behind McCabe & Mrs Miller for his best film.

  25. LexG says:

    It would OWN if Rachel Getting Married played exactly as it does in every other way, only instead of Demme’s World Music pals playing P.C. boho jazz fusion shit, like the Insane Clown Posse or Slipknot came in and fucked shit up.

  26. jeffmcm says:

    I completely agree with you, although I have no idea what Slipknot sounds like.

  27. LexG says:

    It is the sound of ownage.
    But, yeah, mostly my half-serious point is just Demme these days is so P.C. and up-with-people and tasteful, literally ANYTHING to shake up that fuzziness would be welcome.
    It’s like, yeah, we get it, Demmeworld is a colorful, all-inclusive place. Diversity is always a good thing, but he’s so hellbent (since Philadelphia, I’d say) on proving he’s the most liberal, inclusive, and progressive person alive, it gets into goody-goody preciousness.
    Demme seems like the kinda guy who comes out of a meeting to find his car’s been stolen, not only does he not get pissed, he takes out an ad thanking the thieves, then buys a second car to donate to a local soup kitchen just for good measure. All while listening to some boring drumbeat music.

  28. leahnz says:

    maybe ‘rachel getting married’ would benefit from ray sinclair crashing the wedding, then yanking someone out of their seat during the ceremony and shouting in his face: ‘get up, let’s see what you’re made of, asshole!!!’, all grinning-hair- trigger-psychopathy a la old-school demme…just a thought
    (please note, i have NOT seen ‘rachel’ yet so don’t anyone get all pissy about me taking the piss)

  29. leahnz says:

    maybe ‘rachel getting married’ would benefit from ray sinclair crashing the wedding, then yanking someone out of his seat during the ceremony and shouting in his face: ‘get up, let’s see what you’re made of, asshole!!!’, all grinning-hair- trigger-psychopathy a la old-school demme…just a thought
    (please note, i have NOT seen ‘rachel’ yet so don’t anyone get all pissy about me taking the piss)

  30. leahnz says:

    woopsie daisy

  31. Totally agree with you guys on “Rachel Getting Married.” I liked it well enough but man, someone gave Demme a digital cam and freedom to roam and away he went. He even put his son in the film-the bedheaded kid who plays the wedding march. We get it, Demme….you have cool musical friends that reach across boundaries. Now give us back some character development!

  32. yancyskancy says:

    I think the almost pseudo-wedding-video aspect of Demme’s direction is a valid approach to the material, and at least the multi-culti stuff is organic to the family being depicted. But I sure would’ve liked more moments such as the one when somebody tells the musicians to pipe down already. It’s a tricky situation though, because you can argue that this family wouldn’t have even one friend who would sneer at all the one-world b.s. and act as a surrogate for the snarkier members of the audience. A comic version of this story would skewer the hell out of all the PC on display, but the tragic backstory forces us to go easy on the characters instead.
    I still love Nashville though. Most of the songs were written by the actors, in character, so there’s more going on there than just musical interludes. Some people hate country music too much to get that, or even care. It’s easy to zone out if you’re not digging the song. And of course in another type of film, the approach would be ridiculous, but not in a sprawling, slice-of-life type narrative like Nashville, IMO.

  33. LexG says:

    Hold on to your hats, folks, ’cause here’s a shocker:
    Ken Turan’s review of GRAN TORINO is up. It’s a rave.
    I know.

    Agree. It’s just such a back and forth throughout that last 1/4 though. As, I reckon, it’s supposed to be. You’re mirroring Kym. How can you be so self absorbed with such a fun, outgoing family…etc. Well, that’s easy cuz…you have your own interpretations and ideas of fun and understanding. But the dad is clearly the prototypical mom…and the mom….is the not-there dad. And everyone needs their mommy. I mean, I get it.
    But it also felt like a roundabout way to put the viewer in the subjects seat. All I kept thinking was…”I wonder how this award nominated script was before Jonathan “Chic-er than thou” Demme got his multicultural paws all over it.
    But then again, I guess that before Demme, Baumbach made that movie with “Margot at the Wedding.’ Which I loathed. And I fucking LOVE Baumbach. It’s all very confusing.

  35. jeffmcm says:

    And Margot is my favorite Baumbach movie, so there you go.

  36. movieman says:

    Quick notes on Fox’s December flicks:
    “The Day The Earth Stood Still” isn’t lacking in interest.
    The cast is certainly better/classier than it needed to be (Jon Hamm looks just fine on the big screen–give this guy a leading film role stat!), the f/x are predictably impressive and it has the good sense not to overstay its welcome at a fairly tight 103 minutes.
    The problem is that it simply has no impact whatsoever (emotional or otherwise), and is pretty much a giant shrug.
    I’m guessing one-weekend-wonder status at best since it has zero crossover potential beyond fanboy types.
    “Marley & Me” should prove to be Fox’s biggest hit since “Alvin and the Chipmunks,” though. I was surprised at how much I liked it–it’s more than just a cute doggy movie.
    I was impressed by how ambitious it was at charting the lives–personal and professional–of the Wilson/Aniston characters through a major chunk of their adult lives, and it was refreshing to see Wilson play a grown-up character for a change. (He’s very good here.)
    Demographics should be off the charts (this should play for months in theaters), and I can see it becoming a beloved staple on cable networks for years/decades to come.

  37. scooterzz says:

    i had two huge problems with ‘marley & me’…first, it’s being marketed as a holiday family film and (without spoilege) there are clearly a couple of events many parents wouldn’t want to have to explain to the wee ones…. second, i just couldn’t believe anyone would actually keep that dog…
    there are a billion problems with ‘day the earth stood still’ and yet my biggest complaint was that jon hamm was barely in it…..
    on a bittersweet note, i just watched the hbo pilot of ‘the no.1 ladies’ detective agency’ directed by minghella and produced by pollock…it was shot in botswana and has their handprints all over it….really nice…

  38. leahnz says:

    hey guys, i’m really looking forward to ‘what doesn’t kill you’ for some reason, i know very little about it but someone has told me it’s supposed to be really good so i’m excited now, what’s the word on that?
    i’m a confirmed ruffalo fan (so sad for him and his family right now), my adoration started with ‘you can count on me’ and was really cemented by his turn as det. malloy in ‘in the cut’ (i’m in denial about some of his other roles in movies like that horrible jennifer anniston thing what i can’t remember the title and other fluffy flicks in which he’s horribly miscast and must have taken on for the pay cheques), but ‘what doesn’t kill you’ sounds like ruffalo’s exact cup of tea. i’m in the mood for a cracker of a crime thriller, i hope it’s the one.

  39. I grew tired of Ruffalo’s sad sack mumbly routine early, I gotta say. Not a fan. His career hasn’t really worked out like everybody else thought it would, huh?
    Leah, since What Doesn’t Kill You (terrible title btw) is getting a December limited release with no awards prospects whatsoever I doubt we’ll get it in our region anytime soon.
    Scoot, I’ve heard Jill Scott is excellent. Is she?

  40. movieman says:

    Leahnz- Big Ruffalo fan here, too.
    And he’s (no surprise) very good in “What Doesn’t Kill You.” The film itself is a pretty decent, second-tier kind of movie that might have stood a chance 20 years ago, but will probably go straight to video after flopping in its limited “awards consideration” run.
    Ruffalo is also–in my experience anyway–a terrific interview.
    The intelligence and sensitivity he projects onscreen is very much apparent off-camera as well.
    Fun Ruffalo fact: his favorite screen performance is Marcello Mastroianni’s Oscar-nominated turn in 1987’s “Dark Eyes.”

  41. movieman says:

    Major Ruffalo regret:
    That he didn’t get to play the dad in Peter Jackson’s “Lovely Bones.”
    Wahlberg seems miscast; Ruffalo could have killed in that role.

  42. leahnz says:

    kam, you’re prob right about a release for ‘what doesn’t kill you’ (yeah, bloody grim title that) down here in our neck of the woods, looks a bit iffy, likely direct to dvd as movieman said…
    which brings me to you, movieman:
    1) thanks for the cool ruffalo info and for responding about ‘what doesn’t kill you’, sounds like it’s worth a look but sort of a bummer that it hasn’t found it’s footing;
    and 2) re: your major ruffalo regret, excellent call, YOU MUST HAVE READ MY MIND! (and a hell of a lot of other people’s, too) mark r. would have been dead-on perfect as jack salmon; the other mark may yet surprise you

  43. leahnz says:

    ‘hasn’t found ITS footing’, i’ve gone hog wild with the apostrophes!

  44. movieman says:

    Thanks, Leahnz!
    One of the things I’ve always loved about Ruffalo–and it goes back to “You Can Count on Me”–is his strength at playing “weak” male characters. Jack Salmon fits right into Ruffalo’s strength(s) as an actor: the aching sensitivity; a slightly in over his head quality; and yeah, weak.
    I simply don’t see Mark W. being able to finesse that role.
    The one time W played a similar character was in “The Happening” where he came off as quasi-retarded. That wasn’t a good look on the former Marky Mark who, don’t get me wrong, I generally dig (including–hell, yes!; back me up on this Lex G.–“The Big Hit”).
    If you’re a Ruffalo (and Ethan Hawke) fan, you’ll definitely like “Kill You.” As I said earlier, it’s a solid (enough) piece of work with strong performances. I just don’t think it has the necessary traction to merit a wide release from the financially ailing Yari Film Group. It might have been a modest hit on the arthouse circuit back in the late ’80s/early ’90s (e.g., “Laws of Gravity,” “One False Move”), but today feels like a complete non-starter commercially.

  45. leahnz says:

    ‘quasi-retarded’ lol, movieman (and all too true, unfortunately!)
    i totally take your point about the vulnerability and ‘out of his depth’ aspects of the jack salmon character – and the doubt swirling around wahlberg’s ability to convincingly portray jack’s journey – but i think mark thrived in the close-knit, family-style environment on the shoot and he’s surrounded by a talented cast and crew, so think more ‘heavenly creatures’ and less…let’s see…’four brothers’!

  46. LexG says:


  47. movieman says:

    I really, really want “Lovely Bones” to work, Leahnz.
    But knowing that Wahlberg–a last minute replacement for Ryan Gosling (who was simply too young for the part: why didn’t Jackson realize that when casting him??)–stepped in literally moments after finishing his great thespian work on, uh, “Max Payne” makes me a tad uneasy.
    Nobody does weak, wounded American male characters better than Ruffalo and Aaron Eckhart.
    If the “Little Miss Sunshine” husband and wife team ever get around to making “The Abstinence Teacher,” I really hope that Eckhart is on their short list for Tim Mason (and Toni Colette for Ruth Ramsey).
    I’ve been a Foley booster since “At Close Range,” Lex. (Yes, even “Who’s That Girl?”) “Fear” contains one of my favorite Wahlberg performances (Bill Petersen as Reese Witherspoon’s dad was genius casting), but I thought “The Corruptor” was just so-so.
    I’m really hoping that Foley can make a comeback after the career low that was last year’s “Perfect Stranger….”

  48. movieman says:

    Scooter- I felt pretty much the same way about the dog in “Marley”–of course, I have a very low tolerance level for unruly pets/kids, lol–yet I gotta confess to choking back a few tears at the end.
    As for the marketing, it seems they’re going for a pretty wide demographic swath, with “family” audiences only a fraction of the pie.
    Yeah, there are “elements” that will float over the wee bairns noggins, but, really, who gives a shit? Most CGI ‘toon these days have “inappropriate-for-toddlers” material, and just about every one of them goes through the roof. I really see “Marley” as an “all quadrants” sort of hit.
    Re: Hamm in “Earth.” I was actually kind of surprised that he was in the film as much as he was…seriously.
    As stated previously, I thought he looked just fine on the big screen, and I really hope that we get to see Hamm in a leading film role very soon.
    (P.S.= He’d kill as the lead in a movie adaptation of Chelsea Cain’s “HeartSick.”)

  49. leahnz says:

    hey movieman, just to cruelly increase your wahlberg unease, he had just finished shooting ‘the happening’ in pennsylvania when the exteriors for ‘bones’ began shooting in pennsylvania and he stepped in as jack…(but don’t give up hope, trust me)
    (re: ryan g, he packed on quite a bit of weight and grew a beard to appear older to play jack, but like a friend of mine on the PA set said, ‘rachel still looked like a cradle-robbing perv’ with him on camera, so i guess it just didn’t work out quite to plan)

  50. movieman says:

    The casting of Wahlberg in “Lovely Bones” isn’t the only casting bone (sorry) I have with that film.
    Besides Wahlberg–who seems even more wrong than
    Gosling–I’m also concerned about Stanley Tucci (just too damn “big;” short and weasely Paul Giamatti seemed like perfect casting while I was reading the book) and Michael Imperioli (too, too….”Soprano”-ish?: why not Ruffalo instead?) as Harvey and Fenerman respectively.
    In fact, the only casting choices that make sense to me are the lead female roles: Rachel Weisz (Abby), Saorise Ronan (Susie) and Susan Sarandon (Grandma Lynn).
    I hope all of my fears are unfounded, Leahnz: but I also worry that Jackson has been working on such a huge, epic scale for so long that he may not even remember how to direct something as intimate as “Heavenly Creatures” again.

  51. leahnz says:

    i hear you, movieman; i sense that sebold’s book means something to you and i know there is nothing worse than when a beloved book is made into a movie and the actors chosen to play characters that you know and love just don’t feel right to you (hell, that happens to me pretty much every ‘book to movie’ adaptation there is where i’ve read the source material and feel an emotional connection to it), so i totally understand.
    ‘the lovely bones’ is a terrific book but adapting it for the screen is a tricky proposition, it doesn’t exactly scream out ‘cinematic’! but fran and philippa in particular are crack adapted screenplayers, so hopefully lovers of the novel will feel they’ve done sebold’s story justice and the finished film will work so well as to overcome any qualms about casting and the like, and stand proudly alongside the beloved novel. (don’t fret too much about pj directing ‘small’ again, he’s well used to it, it slips on like a well-worn glove.)

  52. leahnz says:

    and hey, i know nothing i say will ease that gnawing feeling in your gut that says, ‘it’s just all wrong!’, i totally respect that 🙂

  53. movieman says:

    I hear ya, Leahnz…and hope that your confidence and trust in the Jacksons is validated when the movie finally opens next December (!?!?!)
    As far as literary adaptations of beloved novels that manage to get everything exactly right, I have two words for you:
    “Revolutionary Road.”
    I couldn’t have asked for a more satisfying–or faithful–translation of one of the greatest American novels.
    And, miraculously, every role is ideally cast.
    I’ve seen it twice, and each time it reduced me to a quivering mass of jelly.

  54. leahnz says:

    i am so excited to see ‘rev. road’, movieman, set to debut here in january so i guess i’ll have to hold my water a bit longer!
    i haven’t read the novel in ages, i read it at university in the late 80’s, which seems like a lifetime ago now. i toyed with the idea of re-reading it but a friend who’s a fellow mendes fan talked me out of it and i’m glad he did, perhaps i’ll read it again after the film so i don’t have all those inevitable ‘how could they leave that part out?’ and ‘that’s not how it was in the book!’ indignant moments while sitting in the cinema.
    (next december (!?!?) indeed! wtf? oscar bait, maybe?)

  55. movieman says:

    Anxious to hear your take on “RR,” Leahnz.
    But I’m pretty sure you won’t be disappointed. I re-read the book last summer in anticipation of the film, and I can’t remember the last lit adaptation that captured every salient theme and nuance of a book as faithully, yet remained very much its own beast (that is, a “film”).
    A fellow admirer of the movie told me that, although he would have liked to seen a screen version years, even decades earlier, that earlier version wouldn’t/couldn’t have had this amazing, flawless cast.
    “Lovely Bones” was originally slated for March ’09 (which sounded bogus from the get-go). It was only recently–after all the monkeying around with “Soloist” dates–that DreamWorks pushed it all the way back to next Christmas.
    Personally I think that a summer release would be a smart idea. Since the book was the publishing equivalent of a summer tentpole movie, the film version has just as much blockbuster cred/clout.

  56. leahnz says:

    the studios deciding on their release dates seem like a coven of witches cackling around a cauldron of brew, working to some secret formula only they understand – and stuffing it up half the time to seal the fate of movies that otherwise might have made a go of it if released at an appropriate time of year, but instead they die a horrible death. ugh!
    (at least i don’t have to wait six months for ‘rr’ to make it down here like is so often the case with the really good ‘non-blockbuster’ flicks)

  57. T. Holly says:

    Speaking of blockbusters CARREY, CRUISE and Oscars PITT, SMITH, DICAPRIO —,0,3220368.story

  58. LexG says:


  59. I get to see “Revolutionary Road” tomorrow night…with Michael Shannon in attendance!! That, my friends, owns.

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