By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

The Dude's still reaching out on the day's dust-up (news)

Earlier, I overlooked John Anderson’s quotes in the Anne Thompson piece from Variety MCN linked to earlier in the day, but you’d think the dust might have settled. Yet The Dude is still reaching out. Via publicist Mickey Cottrell, Jeff Dowd continues to roll with the punch heard ’round the Yarrow (mild copyedits): “My disagreement with John was not over his critical reaction which he has every right to, but his statement that the film wouldn’t appeal to the public. I suggested he come back into the theater for the Q&A and he would observe what we had seen at all for screenings—that audiences felt the film had all kinds of new information and practical solutions. It wasn’t home work, but hope made pragmatic on how we can change the planet in keeping with Obama’s Inauguration speech. I told John one of scores of examples of this was when John Densmore of The Doors stood up at our first screening (after a sustained audience applause at the end) and said ‘I have my own film here—which I clearly care about–but here is my ballot which I marked 4 stars because Dirt! is the film that should win the Sundance Festival.’ That was emblematic of all the great feedback. I just asked John Anderson to put that in the mix before making assumptions that audiences would respond negatively. It should also be said that a vast majority of audience members liked the film not just because they “support the cause” we have heard dozens of comments about the quality of the filmmaking as well. In the spirit of John Waters we even had smellovision at one screening where you could smell the sweet earthy scent of dirt and mother earth.”

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

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