May 5, 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
You’ve got Kaufman. This is a coup of sorts.
Congratulations.
I guess I should make it more clear that I was being sarcastic.
LOL!
I guess I should make it more clear that I was being sarcastic.
I’m being a little sarcastic: This interview is like nothing I could have imagined.
“Coup” it is, I’ve taken it along on my MP3 for personal and professional inspiration and enlightenment.
What an insufferable pain in the ass. Hey Charlie, we’re so sorry you’re successful, stop looking so fucking annoyed and angry and neurotic. That heavy sigh before the interview starts, as well as his endless tirade about doing press, really set the tone for the rest of the interview.
DP: You’re THE writer of this generation.
CK: (Indifferent shrug)
Aris: Clicks interview off.
Aris P. doesn’t think it’s fair there isn’t a myth or two about Aris P., but he’s working on it.
That was actually pretty funny…
“Yes, I do press. Now can somebody please get these invisible two-headed gay cobras to stop licking my body?…”
sloanish,
The only thing worse than being witty is not being witty.
How can one claim that there’s no basis for that mythology when that’s exactly how he characterizes himself in ADAPTATION? Literally, all the things he’s complaining about are the ways he portrays himself in that movie.
When journalists interview Charlie, hopefully they do a little more research than just watching Adaptation.
In Adaptation, Susan Orlean is depicted as a drug-taker, Laroche is killed by an alligator, Charlie has a twin brother named Donald, and Charlie is depicted as fat and bald. None of which is true. (And if a film journalist doesn’t know this… well, what can one say?) Besides, there’s nothing in the film that suggests he’s a guy who does no press.
Granted, Charlie-in-Adaptation IS characterized as a nervous person, a guy who’s awkward around other people, and that certainly seems the case in real-life… but he doesn’t deny any of that in this interview.
When Charlie gives interviews, they’re usually conducted by pros — journalists who, one would hope, have done a little research and do not base their real-life opinion of Charlie solely on the film Adaptation. To suggest that he rarely does interviews, only implies that the interviewer either hasn’t done his homework or wants to retread the same baloney everybody else has spouted for the past 10 years. I’d certainly be annoyed at spending 10 years denying something I never claimed was true to begin with.
Jose… don’t know who you are… don’t much care… but you are as presumptuous as you are wrong.
Hi David.
I wasn’t referring to you specifically, just the media-propagated Myth of Charlie in general — but mostly CRM114’s implication that Adaptation could be mistaken for a literal representation of the “real” Charlie.
But… presumptuous and wrong? How so? I’m always willing to be corrected.
Sorry, Jose… in my limited time to read, I didn’t see the comment you were referring to. Given that you were not suggesting that I was basing my sense of the man exclusively on adaptation., I was wrong to call you on both presumptuousness and being wrong about me.
Of course, Adaptation is not Charlie… and it is… and it isn’t. We get representations of Charlie in all of his work… and misunderstandings.
As for his media shyness, he really wasn’t doing much before Eternal Sunshine, where he really worked his ass off for the film, even touring with Gondry. Likewise on this one.
I feel like his response to the comment is very much him… he seeks to right the wrong idea, yet doesn’t speak to the 100% truth, which is that it has been an evolving thing for him. The genius of Kaufman is how we all might interpret his truth… so ironically, though it might chafe him, the attitudes about him expressed here are also a part of the mosaic of his work.
The fact of the matter is you had 30 uninterrupted minutes alone with one of the greatest screenwriters of our time, and asked him pedantic, rote, simplistic questions… Half of which didn’t seem to make sense to him or I. The only thing you were able to engage him on was movie journalism itself, which seems to be the self absorbed thing you’re actually consumed with.
No worries, David. 🙂
And I see your point, re: the publicity Kaufman did for Eternal Sunshine.
While I’m here, I’ll just mention that I read (some years ago) the 3-part analysis you once wrote about Adaptation. Any time I get into a discussion with someone over reality vs. fantasy in that film, I point folks to your piece. Even if they don’t entirely agree with everything in it, it always gives ’em much to think about.