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
The View, Shrek the Musical, and Gay Eels.
“The View, Shrek the Musical, and Gay Eels. Yes sir. Hiyo.”
Calm down Ed. The View. Shrek The Musical, and Gay Eels.
“Yes sir.”
What are three thing guaranteed to give you the flop shits like a Tijuana taco joint.
“HIYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!”
a few years ago, the pasadena playhouse presented a really abysmal, michael jackson produced musical called ‘sisterella’….it was the first thing i thought of while watching the view this morning (well, actually, the FIRST thing i thought was,’could i be any gayer watching the view for the musical theater numbers?!?’…THEN i thought the ‘sisterella thing)…..
I AM AN OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIL MAN.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
PLAINVIEW 4 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVA.
I didn’t see the performance from The View, but I like this song from the show.
Yes Dave, but are you REALLY sad to say it? Were you holding out hope that this would be the next great Broadway sensation to bring the crowds back to the theaters and save the Great White Way from economic devastation?
Or were you, as you should have been, expecting that it would just be a lazy attempt to cash in on a movie franchise that has outlived its expiration date by at least three years?
Of course this was gonna be crap. What did you expect?
Off topic, but does it seem like Stallone’s The Expendables is going to be the very opposite of gay eels? Now they have Arnold in on that movie too? I hope Stallone doesn’t fuck this one up because it’s becoming one of my most anticipated movies.
The Expendables will be the film of 2010. Thor? Iron Man? Some other random ass movie? Pffffffftttt!!! It’s all about the EXPENDABLES!
Should the governor really be signing on to dorky film projects when the state is about to pinch a giant loaf of insolvence?
YES.
Plus it sounds like a one day gig, so he can do it on the weekend!
Arnold is the expendable one now. And thanks to all the democrats for helping keep this Enron-guided crook into power. Let him go back to the movies and destroy fantasy lives instead of real ones.
As for Shrek…well, what MarkVH said.
Totally agree after seeing that. I just can’t do the “Shrek” musical, either. But after squirming through “Mary Poppins” in London (admittedly, they had a great Burt) where even the children weren’t enchanted, I kind of gave up on this stuff.
That said, I didn’t end up going because they were canceling previews left and right, but I’ve heard from a couple of different people that the new “Guys & Dolls” is great.
Thank god, shit like “Avenue Q” and “The 39 Steps” are still around, however, to take your kids to…
MarkVH… I think the assumption that any work of that scale is “lazy” or that people are not making enough of an effort is profoundly arrogant and ignorant. I don’t think that of you, but I do think that of the notion.
I hold out hope for all things creative. You never know where you will find greatness.
Shrek was a much better film than I expected… it’s sequels, not so much. So why would I expect little from the musical. The people involved are very talented. So why expect failure? Just because it is a commercial premise?
I expected little from Legally Blonde: The Musical and got less. I expected nothing from Xanadu: The Musical and got one of the great evenings in theater in the last five years. (and yes, perhaps the very gayest evening of theater possible without on-stage penetration.)
If you really love the medium, you don’t ever going in rooting against it. This is one of the reasons I get so offended when people write off what I will feel about Watchmen. Impossible to argue, but they are wrong. I hope it’s a truly great film. And in the theater seat, I don’t care who owns it, how much it cost, who sued who, or what the director’s resume looks ike. There is nothing better than to be swept up in a great piece of film… the experience of which de-intellectualizes the experience and forgives all kinds of flaws.
And SJR… a different cast… but I think the same director as the miserable G&D that I saw in London with a miscast McGregor. If the cast is right, the show can’t miss. If not, it really can.
Point taken DP, and I agree with the argument in theory, but I’m getting a number of different contradictions from your end.
First off, you hold out hope for all things creative – as do I – but preconceptions are a given in viewing all creative media, whether we like to admit it or not. As you say, you expected little from Legally Blonde and Xanadu – why is my expectation for Shrek, based solely on the intention with which I presume it was conceived (to cash in on the movie franchise), any different? If, by some chance, I am one day dragged to the show (unlikely, but for argument’s sake), of course I’m going to give it the benefit of the doubt and try to enjoy myself. But that doesn’t mean I expect to. I didn’t see those two numbers, but I’ve seen clips of the show and I agree that it looks (your word) horrible.
And asserting that “the assumption that any work of that scale is “lazy” or that people are not making enough of an effort is profoundly arrogant and ignorant” is a bit ridiculous – critics do it all the time, good ones included. They take leaps and make assumptions based on presumed behind-the-scenes politics, off-screen personalities of the stars involved, etc., often ignoring the actual work on the screen. Of course that doesn’t make it right, and it’s easy to pretend that we’re above it all. But using the word “lazy” to describe a performance, script, film, etc., is done much more often than we like to admit.
Then there’s the fact that you seem to be ragging on the show based on the two numbers you saw. Damning evidence of the greater show’s awfulness, I have no doubt, but time and again you argue (rightfully) the need for perspective in journalism, in criticism, etc. Reminds me of the time you labeled The Wire as “overrated” based on your viewing of two or three episodes from the fifth (and, arguably, least successful) season. So why post a blog entry about it without seeing the full work?
“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.”
Considering that the same woman who composed the music for the brilliant Caroline, or Change did the songs for Shrek, I’d see it before judging. Maybe The View performance was just a miscalculation.
You’re the first person I’ve seen say something negative about that production of Guys and Dolls, Dave.
The new revival in NY doesn’t seem to be impressing many people so far.
Towleroad had a positive review. And they actually saw the show. At least a preview of it, anyway.