April 28, 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
Great film. Tough to watch. I think the ten minute (give or take a minute or so) conversation between Sands and the priest is something to behold. Not sure if I’ll ever watch it again, but I am glad I saw it.
Excellent film. Didn’t get as many viewers as it should have in its one week at the Nuart…but maybe now that it has all the acclaim behind it, it will.
I don’t use the term “Kubrickian” lightly, but it approaches that…
Agreed that the that mid-film long take is excellent, but I generally didn’t like it much at all. If I wanted to watch people wipe shit on the wall for an hour and a half I could watch a monkey do it on YouTube (veeery large generalisation as to why i don’t like the movie so don’t think that’s the sole reason and that I’m only being childish or whatever.)
Lol. I have a film prof who offered to lend me her pirated copy of this movie for a paper I was working on. So much for piracy being for the youth.
This movie is brilliant; a real work of art. Everyone should see it.
Well, Kamikaze, that’s the only example you’re offering and, yeah, it’s childish.
I believe I’ve mentioned previously why I don’t like it. Alas, nobody had seen it at that stage so people probably didn’t take much notice. http://stalepopcornau.blogspot.com/2008/12/hungry.html
Basically, no amount of great cinematography and harsh realism could distract me from the fact that I could’ve read Wikipedia and learned this all without seeing the movie. I didn’t find it had anything particularly interesting to say outside of it’s direct themes. The long take in the middle of the movie between Fassbender and Cunningham is like a stunning short movie that felt like it truly about something, but was surrounded by dreariness and I don’t think the film compensates enough to make up for it. Plus, there’s also the fact that I just didn’t care about this man. Or anyone else in the movie for that matter.
“Hunger” is an outstanding film….with a capital O.
actually, i thought ‘hunger’ was a bit of a bore…with a lower case ‘b’…..that said, why is this film even in play?… screeners went out back in november and the movie was in theaters in december….three months and a new release?…
Oscar qualifying run.
Gommorah did the same thing.
Now’s the official release.
I’m with you on this one, Scooter.
Saw this at the tail end of a generally lackluster Toronto Film Festival last September, and it struck me as yet another example of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” syndrome: an overpraised fest-crix darling that couldn’t quite live up to all of its hype.
And not to get all Lex-y on everyone, but doesn’t it seem wrong that a director with the uber-cool name of Steve McQueen isn’t helming kickass action movies instead of Derek Jarman-esque objet d’art like “Hunger”?
Yeah, couldn’t he at least call himself Steven, or throw a middle initial in there, or go by S. Poindexter McQueen (or whatever his middle name is)? Even assuming it’s his given name (I’m not going to research this), it seems disrespectful somehow. Are we gonna get a new Cary Grant someday, or Marilyn Monroe or Rainer Werner Fassbinder or whoever?
~phew~ glad I’m not the only one who saw through this movies posing. I really didn’t see anything radical in it at all, honestly. I still can’t see what the big fuss is. As good as the single take scene is it’s been done before and the scene is more a triumph because of the acting than anything McQueen is doing with the story (which I felt he told in a very useless manner).
Again, just my opinion though. Feel free to wax lyrical over it’s gorgeous images of starvation or whatever.
“the scene is more a triumph because of the acting”
Yes — the dude clearly actually starved himself for the later scenes, and memorized a shit-ton of dialogue for long uninterrupted takes in the middle.
Tough to do on both counts. I was once asked to lose 10 pounds for a role and that was hard enough.
i haven’t seen ‘hunger’ yet, it played at a festival here a while back but i missed it, but is the starvation on par with christian bale’s emaciation for his role in ‘the machinist?’. that was pretty hard-core
See… this is the thinking that makes me a little crazy…
Why does it have to be argued to be “radical” to be seen as excellent?
McQueen did nothing that hasn’t been done before. But what he did do was daring and human and a very rare kind of theatrical experience for the audience. The writing is strong. And the performances are strong. And McQueen surely has the courage to stick with his choices and to put his audiences in a place that will make most uncomfortable.
Why does it have to be The Emperor’s New Clothes… or Old Clothes… or contextualized?
This is the same kind of thing I rail against when I suggest groupthink amongst critics. It’s when they see something more than the movie and that somehow becomes more important than the film.
I admit, it happens to me occasionally. Hostel II. Speed Racer, a bit… though I do find the film very entertaining and still think it is a game changer in ways we can’t yet fully imagine. But I really try to stay away from it.
“Why does it have to be…contextualized?”
I haven’t seen the movie, but it seems like its context is important, no?
What I meant by the use of “radical” was that I can’t quite fathom how so many people think it’s an unmissable masterpiece when there really isn’t much to it. Yes, the guy has a way with imagery and the lead actor lost a lot of weight… but what else is there? For such a simply story it’s told so… simply. I’m just not quite as much of a sucker for hauntingly beautiful images of people living in squalor and emaciating away, I suppose.
It just didn’t feel like McQueen did enough with the material to warrant that much attention. It’s an interesting moment in British history and yet I didn’t feel like it was when it was portrayed in front of me. Again, outside of the central one-take scene I just didn’t feel it really went anywhere other than showing the crappy lives they lived and it wasn’t exactly something I cared to watch, quite frankly. The poster is literally shit on a wall! That’s how pretentious this film is. I can just see the upper class nodding their head and going “oh yes, it was all very horrific wasn’t it? Really makes you think.” But about what exactly?
You certainly can’t critisise me for doing what the group think does, right? Why bring that up since i am CLEARLY in the minority with my opinion. Christ. I’m not seeing “more than the movie”. I saw the movie and just didn’t like it. No motives or hidden agendas. I just flat out didn’t think it was anything special. Or anything at all. It just… was.
And, well, Fassbender is an actor. I would expect him to remember his lines, but my issues with the movie aren’t to do with him so I’m not going to discuss him.
Leah, it is. The scenes of him wasting away are tough to watch, but – again – in service of what? They’re “powerful” because of the act itself and what they represent and that the actor really did it. In the film it represents just another ugly thing that happens. It’s just an event that happens. I’m sure there are images of him on the internet somewhere that would at least save you an hour an a half of watching miserable buggers paint their jail cells in feces.
Liam Cunningham was still the best thing about the entire movie. I haven’t a bad word to say about him at all.
thanks for that, kam. to be honest i’m reluctant to see ‘hunger’; i had a hard enough time watching bale in ‘the machinist’ – the tormented physicality of his perf haunts me to this day – so i’m not sure i want to go there again with ‘bobby sands’. plus i’m a fan of ‘some mother’s son’, which focuses on the hunger strike from the standpoint of two of the hunger striker’s mums trying to save their sons, such a moving little gem of a film, i might just leave it at that