DP/30 – Man On Wire – The Producers
A chat with the Andrea Meditch & Maureen A. Ryan, two of the people who brought us the Oscar short-list doc, Man On Wire.
May 12, 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
I want to ask a question now:
Does this MAN ON A WIRE movie make anyone dizzy? I haven’t seen it but just seeing the clips makes me freak out and think holy shit that shit is insane.
Like the dude went back and forth??????? I want to see this now but do they have lots of footage of the actual walk? That’s gotta be freaky as fuck, like what if the wind blew extra hard, wouldn’t the dude get owned?
I have a good idea: Did he have a parachute on his back? That would rule if the dude fell off the wire and everyone was like holy shit he’s gonna get owned but he’s like fuck no I have a chute and then pulled that shit and landed safely.
GOOD IDEA.
He did not. That’s why it’s so great.
Lex, the WTC walk isn’t as vertigo-inducing as you make expect. The editing is done so that it frequently changes from point of view. It’s a very good movie.
And I know you’re just trying to “funny”, but the whole point of the movie is that he didn’t have any safety whatsoever.
I actually cannot wait to see this; It looks AWESOME.
The depiction of the WTC walk is told through stills, if I’m remembering correctly. But, as Kamikaze says, they’re edited in a way that’s coherent and captivating. “Man on Wire” really is the best movie I’ve seen so far this year. There is nothing else that examines the intersection of art, social cultures and existentialism in such a thoughtful, suspenseful and entertaining manner.
They had taken a film camera onto the roof, but the rigging was so arduous – this is in the interview – that the guy who was supposed to film it couldn’t lift the camera to do it. Thus, the stills.
Lex: I too have a thing about heights. Always have. Hate to fly and try not to. And I HATE tall f’n buildings. my first trip to NYC, back in ’99 was a nightmare. Loved the town but the first time I saw those towers, they just seemed so tall and monolithic to me. my friends went up in them but it was all I could to be at the bottom of them. Just how I am.
Yes, MAN ON WIRE is not only the best film 2008 but it is exciting as hell. Who knew a couple guys under a tarp would be the dramatic peak of this year in cinema. And the walk is amazing to see, even just in stills. Hell, both times I saw DARK KNIGHT in IMAX, those aerial shots of Hong Kong freaked me out, made my stomach churn.
There is actual moving footage of the guy crossing the Sydney harbor on a wire in the film and full short on the DVD/
I finally caught up with this, and while I liked it quite a bit and was moved by its message and some of the incredible images, I guess I’ll have to disagree with the many who think it’s a great overall doc or one of the year’s best.
Petit is a charming character and wonderful subject, but I couldn’t help feeling that for a DOCUMENTARY on the guy, it kind of played pick-and-choose with what to develop. It very nicely captures his infectious, inspiring spirit, but then treats all but one member of his “crew” like total throwaways. Seemed pretty regularly he’ll just say something to the tune of, “Eh, then I hooked up with these two weird Americans” or the guy who worked at the WTC, and beyond painting the one American as stoned and goofy, and the other as negative and nervous, we never really knew HOW, WHY OR WHEN these people fell into his inner circle.
On that tip, the girlfriend kind of pops in and out; Near the end, she and Petit talk about his celebrity leading him astray, but we never learn or feel much about their relationship. As with his henchman and the Americans, it’s all just kinda brushed over, like, WOW THIS FRENCH FREE SPIRIT IS SO JOYOUS IN HIS PURSUIT, *everyone* falls into his orbit.
And all his messages about going for it in life and living on the edge are beautiful and profound, but again, the doc totally skims over just HOW he had the means to do all this shit: Flying cross country dozens, hundreds of times, spending all his days practicing in the woods behind his house? Nice sentiments, Phillippe, but some people have bills and shit to pay.
And the recreations were kind of cheesy and just… off, definitely not the kind of filmmaking that should be present in a film being hailed as the year’s best: Fake beards, bad wigs, none of the shots remotely convincing as to time and place; And it’s certainly not a fault of THIS actual doc, but the lack of video footage of the WTC is all the more frustrating when you realize these goofballs FILMED EACH AND EVERY THING THEY EVER DID! They’re sitting around looking at blueprints, frolicking in the woods– somebody’s got a camera. For the actual walk, there’s not even ground footage of it, no one brought a camera, and the aerial helicopter footage we briefly see is so distant, it may have come from another time. Again, that’s not the fault of the filmmakers of this doc, but almost inconceivably frustrating that someone couldn’t have lugged even a 2-pound B&W 8mm up there to get at least a mere minute of footage of this incredible feat.
Lex, perhaps you needed to have checked your baggage re: this movie instead of keeping it all as carry-on.
Oh – and a lot of the ‘period footage’ in Man on Wire of rehearsals etc. is actually stuff restaged by Marsh, right?
Jeff, I *think* I understand the joke of your first post– I assume you’re saying I’m bringing too much to the table as the exact kind of sell-out practical worker drone Petit stands in contrast to (my words, not yours.)
So perhaps fair enough if I’m bringing too much practicality to the table to ask mundane things like, How did he pay for this shit? And Why is everyone so caught up in his quest?
But, really, scanning over the many Rotten Tomato reviews– where it enjoys a MIND-BOGGLING 100% FRESH rating– I really do find it perplexing that few if any notable critics were troubled by the sugarcoating/glossing over of SO many logistical particulars. I’m also surprised how it’s so routinely complimented as serving as an edge-of-one’s-seat suspense/heist-type film. Beyond the guys hiding under a tarp and scoping for security guards, I didn’t find the “break-in” as presented to be particularly exciting or riveting. And the LUDICROUSLY FAKE WIGS AND BEARDS on the re-enactment actors make the typical VH1 or E! “true story” look like the height of verisimilitude.
This makes it sound like I didn’t like the film, which is not true. Petit is amusing and the stunts are genuinely gripping and inspirational… I just can’t fathom how so many smart critics find it beyond reproach as a documentary, when key members of his crew are barely explained– why, when, where, and how are these American guys (we learn NOTHING about them!) falling into this guy’s orbit and joining up with him. The doc is so matter-of-fact about these relationships, we have to take it on mere face value with NO investment.
All of that struck me as beside the point of the movie; in a scripted film I would have thought they were story holes, but since it was a documentary, I could comfortably feel that since those aspects happened _somehow_ I didn’t really need to know the particulars.
Your observations aren’t “wrong” LexG, it’s just not that “type” of doc. You have to read up, before you weigh in, if you want respect, if not, then you’re okay.
If Schnack is so biased for docs that have ralized “the movement” “that nonfiction can be more than just Direct Cinema,” why doesn’t he divy up the Cinema Eye awards to also address the fine verite and social docs that don’t go for broke with filmmakermanship and craft?
Who?
Exactly, “Who?” The self proclaimed king of documentary.
Okay, let me try again:
Who and what are you talking about?
Do you ever look at the home page or are you so fascinated with your navel, you can’t see what evil people around you are doing?
Which home page, MCN?
Am I wrong?
Bob Alexander (who sponsers A.J. Schnack