By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

The Spar-O At The Yarrow – Round Two (gossip)

Our earlier story about the Dowd/Anderson closed fist slap fest seems to be wrong.
We now hear that Anderson had not yet written his Variety review and that Dowd was insisting on talking to him before he wrote.
This frames the incident a little differently, as many critics really, really don’t want to talk to anyone from a film before writing or even to be asked for a short take.
But the bigger question is, can Variety legitimately review the film, for better or worse? A positive review is suspect… and so is a negative one.

Be Sociable, Share!

4 Responses to “The Spar-O At The Yarrow – Round Two (gossip)”

  1. Bingo says:

    Dowd is a boorish, drunken lout. I’ve seen him in a fight in Cannes when he wouldn’t leave someone alone. Good on Anderson.

  2. Anonymous internet shit-talker Bingo…you couldn’t be more wrong.
    Dowd is as easy going as they come. He was truly the basis for The Dude in Big Lebowski and the thought of the Dude doing any kind of aggressive confrontation is just plain silly. Either dude for that matter.
    So, take you harbored resentment elsewhere dick.

  3. Bingo says:

    Er, excuse me. I had to pull him off someone he was drunkenly hassling in a bar in Cannes. He was an annoying, aggressive drunk who intimidates people. Easy-going? My ass. Sorry if you can’t take the truth.

  4. Doug Johnson says:

    Allow me to chime in. .. and say-you’re both right.
    Jeff (the dood) Dowd can be overbearing. He’s a bright, passionate force in the industry, and he makes good things happen. DIRT is a movie that will slow people down, get them to think, and it’s an important POWAQAATSI type of message. This critic had no intention of weighing such things in his review, which was dood’s point. He wanted a big picture evaluation, not a cinematic critique. That said, Jeff did the perfect thing, which was bring attention to a film that will help everyone.
    (nice work big guy) meanwhile, I phoned Jeff and offered him my boxing ring at my house in Park City, head gear, big soft gloves, a referee, my hot tub and 14 cases of beer.
    (He has not called back.)

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