MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Gus van Sant Shoots Dustin Lance Black For Vogue Paris pour Hommes

The awards season brings out the weird in many people.
How I came to end up with a copy of what purports to be the Fall/Winter edition of Vogue Hommes International with a photo shoot that Gus van Sant shot and Dustin Lance Black posed for in various states of dress and undress is really not the point.
But to the studio that feels slammed and endangered by the images in this profile, written by Bruce Benderson and Philippe Garnier, it is a low blow meant to derail their movie

Be Sociable, Share!

11 Responses to “Gus van Sant Shoots Dustin Lance Black For Vogue Paris pour Hommes”

  1. I really want a copy of that MILK screenplay.

  2. LexG says:

    It would rule if Vogue ever had Adrian Lyne photograph a Kristen Stewart layout.

  3. I don’t see what’s weird about a 56 year old man taking photos of a mid-30’s screenwriter in various states of undress. Sheesh…sensitivo people out there…

  4. leahnz says:

    ‘A Beautiful Mind-style smear campaign’
    and look how that turned out

  5. I mean, remember when Jason Reitman photographed Diablo Cody in her bra and panties last year? No one said squat about that.

  6. The more semi-naked photoshoots Dustin Lance Black wants to do the better.

  7. LexG says:

    This is meant in all innocuousness, and with a wide-eyed straight guy cluelessness:
    But don’t gay guys notice that women are, like, hotter and shit, than guys?

  8. urmomsdealer says:

    I’m vacillating between 1) wishing that the openly gay director and openly gay screenwriter of the most mainstream gay-themed film in several years had avoided this type of stereotypical display and 2) thinking, goddamn, that is one hot screenwriter.

  9. In regards to #1… well, I just think that’s pretentious. This whole “we’re better than the others” mentality won’t get us anywhere.

  10. CaptainZahn says:

    Have you ever seen Paul Newman in The Long Hot Summer, Richard Gere in American Gigolo, a young Bruce Springsteen performing, or, ya know, Hugh Jackman at any point in time, Lex?

  11. jeffmcm says:

    I don’t know if ‘generous’ is the right word for this situation (I just now read the accompanying text). ‘Conciliatory’ seems more appropriate.

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