April 26, 2024
BYOB
Triple Option on: BYO Oscar
Sideshow Bill on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Pete B on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Hcat on: BYO Oscar
brack on: BYO Oscar
iothereturned on: BYO Oscar
BYOB: 235 Years Of Relative independence
BYOB Weekend: Hop, An April Fool’s Gag?
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
Just watched The Hunt for Gollum. Very impressed with the production design and special effects (wardrobe and make-up are unequivocal wows). The acting was more than passable for a fan film, as was the writing. The editing and pacing were issues, but not to distraction. Overall, gorgeous and worthwhile.
http://thehuntforgollum.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html
WARP DRIVE!
yeah, baby! space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence
Tracking coming in a bit soft for Star Trek (as expected). Since Paramount is already throwing the kitchen sink at this one, let’s hope the buzz breaks through to those who wouldn’t be caught dead watching a Star Trek movie.
“Jim… Edith Keeler must die.”
(Sorry)
“He knows, doctor. He knows.”
Just read Noah’s review Girlfriend Experience.
He is aware that the reason the pornchick’s performance seem so genuine is because Soderbergh doesn’t write dialogue for his non-actors, right? She’s not really “acting”, per say.
Take this crappy weather with you DP! Ugh….lame.
^ Dave’s in DC?
Martin, you do realize that acting is more than reciting dialogue, right?
“Tracking coming in a bit soft for Star Trek (as expected).”
What is it compared to say, Wolverine? I have to say, I am a major Original Series Trek Fan and I will see this…but I am in no way excited for it.
If that is how I feel, perhaps many non-fans are even less inclined. I also think a lot of the early reviews come off like fan-boy over-praising and the ones that go overboard on the political subtext (there have been many) have completely turned me off.
Again, I will go see it in theatrical…but not in first weekend. And I am a majot Kirk-era fan.
“What is it compared to say, Wolverine? I have to say, I am a major Original Series Trek Fan and I will see this…but I am in no way excited for it.”
Yes compared to Wolverine.
I too am a big original Trek fan (at least I used to be) and I share your lack of enthusiasm for this film. Though, like you, I will probably end up seeing it.
Trek is tracking @ a $62 million opening, with twice the amount of pre-sales of Wolverine (50% of which are on IMAX).
Then again, Wolverine was tracking @ $103 million. Pssshaw.
I watched The Duchess 2 days ago and was appalled that it was rated PG-13 “for sexual content, brief nudity and thematic material.”
SPOILER
How could a movie in which someone is brutally raped get away with this rating? This is insane!
Saw Star Trek tonight, and enjoyed it. But I was surprised to see that….
MINOR SPOILER
MINOR SPOILER
MINOR SPOILER
….in the future, Vulcans have a hard time finding a decent set of dentures.
Noah,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/apr/29/steven-soderbergh-the-girlfriend-experience-sasha-grey
http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-03-18/film/spring-guide-steven-soderbergh-s-the-girlfriend-experience-tries-to-turn-a-porn-star-legit/
Larry Clark’s Kids went with a psuedo-docu, real NYC street teens with a few actors, but scripted. Soderbergh has gone a step further and removed the script. He’s trying to get as close to a presentation of cinema verite as possible, while Kids was a representation.
The whole point in casting Grey was so one wouldn’t perceive her as an actor giving a performance. No written dialogue, no traditional stage direction or set lights. Soderbergh knows you can’t shoot a docu about a porno star because they’re always “on” and lie their asses off. So he takes a working one, puts her in a faux reality and says be yourself. He manipulates her into being herself in front of a camera because she wouldn’t be that open and vulnerable in a true docu-reality situation.
I think it would be a miracle for her to be able to translate this experience into other legit gigs, ala Rosario Dawson. The odds are acting classes are going to add layers over herself since it’s near-impossible for Grey to be playing it any closer to the bone. So unless she does manage to pull a scripted performance off, I find it insulting to anyone working at the craft to call this acting. Just my opinion.
I should add the rest of your piece is very well thought out in its comparisons and layout of Soderbergh’s experimentalism.
Martin, I appreciate your opinion and the kind words about the piece. But, I must disagree with you in the following way: many seasoned actors cannot do what Sasha Grey did in that role precisely BECAUSE they are actors trained to do what the script tells them. Sasha Grey is a porn star, not a hooker as she is in the film, so she is giving a performance as she’s not playing a porn star. And, I think it is difficult to give a performance that relies heavily on improvisation; I took an acting class in college and had no problem reciting lines, but once I had to improvise it was clear that I was no actor. So, to me, that makes her accomplishment even greater.
Similarly, I would say that many of those kids gave great performances in Kids (including another future star you left out, Chloe Sevigny) and I think it speaks to the talent of the directors more than anything; and if that’s your point, then yes it’s a valid one. But I cannot take anything away from the performance that Sasha Grey gave simply because there was heavy improvisation and little dialogue. I was moved by her performance and while she might not become the next Meryl Streep or Kate Winslet, she gave a legitimately poignant performance in THIS film; however it was done, whoever was really responsible, she was great in The Girlfriend Experience.
Wrecktum & Tofu–not sure where you’re getting your numbers, but none of the major tracking firms are predicting $62 million for Star Trek.
What is the “political subtext” of Star Trek? I just watched it and don’t really see one. Unless it’s the standard “Starfleet is kinda socialist” criticism that people have made of Trek from the very beginning.
I think everyone agrees that genocidal villains are bad.
^ The genocidal villains would like a word with you.
Sasha Grey fucking RULES.
They should give me and her a G4 or REELZ movie review show if her A-list movie career doesn’t catch fire. (Which it totally should.)
“Wrecktum & Tofu–not sure where you’re getting your numbers, but none of the major tracking firms are predicting $62 million for Star Trek.”
I never said it was.
Further proof that JIMMY FALLON = Greatest Host EVER.
Anyone watching GOD — I mean Fallon — tonight?
Jennifer Aniston is on; For 15 years I’ve thought she was kind of high-maintenance and entitled and grouchy… But she’s on with Fallon tonight and is CHARMING. Yeah, without seeing it I wouldn’t believe it either, but she’s totally game and delightful and good-natured, sticking around for some goofy bowling segment and seeming as genuine as I’ve ever seen her; Just hot and likable and awesome and accessible like she’s NEVER been onscreen or off.
My goal in life is to be the next BYRON ALLEN so I can meet all these celebrities.
“COMIN’ UP NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEXT…..”
Is it just me, or does ESPN have a hard time ever giving props to the Houston Rockets, even when they beat the Lakers? All I’m hearing on Sports Center this morning is, geez, what happened to Kobe? Hey, I’ll tell you what happened to Kobe: he and his team got beat last night.
Noah,
many seasoned actors cannot do what Sasha Grey did in that role precisely BECAUSE they are actors trained to do what the script tells them
That’s a good point.
I think it speaks to the talent of the directors more than anything
That is more of what I’m getting at. It’s a bigger Soderbergh accomplishment than anything else.
Sasha Grey is a porn star, not a hooker as she is in the film, so she is giving a performance as she’s not playing a porn star
Again, nothing personal, but that’s a living fallacy. I can’t speak to the 70’s/80’s era, but starting in the late 90’s the thin line between hooker and pornster was erased. It’s been more prevalent in the past several years thanks to the web, but any pornster can be hired as an escort to visit any city, which was consciously part of Soderbergh’s reason to hire her. Putting that aside, she gets paid to have sex in movies that are actually in violation of the original 70’s Supreme Court ruling, which went in favor of Deep Throat, IIRC, because the sex was integral to the story. That ain’t the case anymore. The Court had The Girlfriend Experience closer in mind as porn than what exists today.
Joe – The Rockets are in a groove similar to the 20-win streak. The Lakers looked past them because of the regular season and they wanted Portland. I should say Kobe wanted Portland. Everyone is talking up Game 2, but it’s Game 3 that matters the most. Kobe will probably go for 40 tomorrow night, but if the Rockets can hold Game 3, you’re going to see a Laker team meltdown.
The best thing about Jimmy “one day I’ll make it through one of my bits without laughing” Fallon, is that his “chevy chase” level of suckatude is so fully formed, it has sent me fleeing me down the dial to Craig Ferguson.
That guy got really funny while nobody was watching.
I don’t know what I’ll do if they get rid of Ferguson.
Fallon or oprah reruns.
A faustian choice indeed.
@ Martin S.: Just a couple of points, for your information: For what it’s worth, Sasha Grey started taking acting classes when she was about twelve. Also, your assertion that “any pornstar can be hired as an escort to visit any city” notwithstanding, Sasha does not work as an escort, ever, either UTR (“under the radar” as they say) or out in the open.
FInally, in my admittedly biased opinion, what Sasha does in “Girlfriend Experience” IS acting, and very good acting at that.
RIP Dom DeLuise
And I agree with Noah that improv is typically more difficult to do well than scripted acting. I haven’t seen the movie yet, obviously, but is it possible that Ms. Grey is a very good actress within a very limited range of performance?
But Glenn: Did you score? Really, that’s all we want to know.
Fallon does a great job with that show.
Martin S, you’re trying way too hard to not give her credit for an amazing performance.
Re: Lakers vs.Rockets
The Rockets are a damn good team. They beat the Cavs pretty handily when they met. ESPN is pretty heavily invested in wanting Lakers v. Cavs, so they won’t give the Rockets their due credit.
But none of that matter because the KING is back tonight. Seeing Lebron excepting the MVP trophy at Akron St. Vincent St Mary really was special to anyone living in Northeast Ohio. I live in Akron, go to the University of Akron, so seeing the best player in the NBA coming from the place I grew up rocks. I mean the guy is only one year older than me. The Cavs are gonna steamroll the Hawks tonight. GO CAVS!
Monco –
Cleveland has a problem with dominant centers. The problem with Houston is the same with Orlando. Anderson and Z have no weight to push a Yao or Howard around, so it’s going to be up to Wallace and possibly that rookie to lean on them.
I’m interested to see if the Hawks can get into LeBron’s head and make him run-n-gun in Atlanta. Cav’s can’t play that kind of offense because they’re either too short or too old. Cav’s will still carry the series, but a sweep is the question.
Glen – I didn’t realize she took acting lessons. That changes things, to a degree. As for the escort thingee – take away Soderbergh’s legitimacy and keep her in gonzo and she would have been on the circuit in about two years. More money, less work.
Rothchild – she does a fine job, but I give the credit to Soderbergh. Ice-T was made to look like he can act by Van Peebles and built a career off of that one riff.
The best analogy is Chambers. Cronenberg wanted her for Rabid while the producers wanted Sissy Spacek. He got her, and when she died, everyone talked about her ability and place in the porno/mainstream nexus. Yet – she did nothing of relevance after working with Cronenberg while he went on to become the actor’s director. Why didn’t she? Opportunity was a lot wider in the 70’s/80’s then it is today. Cronenberg legitimize her as an actress, yet she always circled the porno drain. There’s no reason things should be different for Grey. If anything, it should be tougher because of the over-population of hookers-as-entertainers.
I think I remember in some Cronenberg book reading that Chambers had a ‘manager’ who probably wasn’t acting in the best interests of her legitimate acting career.
Does my one MCN experimental column qualify me for “press passes” yet? I want to go to some GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE junket like a white Byron Allen and get to interview Sasha Grey and put some sly moves on her and we’ll hit it off and end up being like the Ryan and Farrah of OWNAGE.
GOOD IDEA.
How much would it RULE to have her as a roommate?
Martin, Sasha Grey is a porn star not a hooker. I don’t think the difference is mere semantics, either, I think there is a discernible difference in being an “entertainer” and an “escort.” Regardless, if you’re basing Sasha Grey’s future career on that of another porn star who went mainstream, well here are the problems with that: 1) that’s a really small sample size you’re using. Just because Marilyn Chambers didn’t work in many more mainstream films after that doesn’t mean that Sasha Grey won’t. 2) Sasha Grey was really good in her film, to the point where I think she should be getting legitimate awards consideration. And if you didn’t know that she was a porn star beforehand, you’d be saying, “who is this fabulous young starlet? She’s going places!”
Look, it’s completely within the realm of possibility that Sasha Grey will never find mainstream work after this film. But, if I were a director and I saw her work in Soderbergh’s film, I would definitely consider casting her with her combination of looks, talent, and charisma.
I just like how when “others” make minimalist digital video films starring all white non-actors everyone flips out at how the problems discussed in them are rambling and boring and “those aren’t my friends or colleagues and so forth. But when Steven Soderberg goes mumblecore, everyone freaks the hell out.
Uh, Don… Not “everyone” has panned the so-called mumblecore movies… OK? And not “everyone” lacks the capability to empathize… got it?
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117927011.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
I was referring specifically to Noah and (ironically) Glenn Kenny. But if you want to think I’m bashing you Joe, by all means….
Once again, Martin S. is dead on right about the realities of the porn business leading into the escort business and the path he describes. To try to argue otherwise, is just completely naive and square.
I had to chime in on Noah’s assertion that being a porn entertainer has more pedigree than being a prostitute. If I am inferring that correctly. Well, in a sense I could understand that, but have to completely disagree and take the opposite view if you factor in one variable – children. As in, is this porn entertainer or prostitute ever intend on being a mother? Because if so, than I feel being a porn entertainer is much much worse.
In this day and age which would be more traumitizing to a child?Being teased by his peers with rumors of mommy being a hooker (plenty damaging right there) OR, having your mom’s porn videos emailed to the student body or worse thrown right in the child’s face?
This is why I don’t buy into Sasha Grey. All the squares in the world hears her quote Kuroak, or the French New Wave and then buys into her sexual dysfunction as some expression of intellectualism. But if she’s so enlightened, why didn’t she factor in being a moths into her equation of using porn to break into the mainstream. (Another thing I don’t buy. She is hot and talented enough that she could have easily used sex off camera as much a she uses it on camera, to probably more successful mainstream results) If she doesn’t ever want to have children fine, but that’s what Jenna Jameson and Madonna used to say too and now they’re mommies.
And then you have guys like Soderburgh caught up in this bubble of LA women who are sharks and predators and do create a need for square men to pay for escorts to feel some sense of intimacy. There is just a major hooker fascination going on in TV and Film right now (Dollhouse, BSG/Caprica, GF Experience) because these square actors and filmmakers in Los Angeles are getting chewed up and spit out by this younger breed of female predators that are 30 and under, getting their hearts broken, turning to escorts for intimacy (or scumbag worry free wife cheating) – AND THEN – putting this dysfunctional female personality type in their work, thus spreading the ways of this new LA based, youthful female predator who always has a rotation of lovers on speed dial, making each one think they are the only one. And let’s be clear 9 times out of 10, this girl is college educated, comes from an upper middle class family, and has, sadly, suffered some form of abuse from a man, and thusly pull a similar form of abuse or control, but instead of it being some asshole who deserves it, but the nice filmmaker who always got shot down by chicks when he was a kid, and would probably be a cool partner (until success gets to his head) This female as sexual predator to get ahead that is eminating it’s way into the under twenty females is a far far cry from the other kind the girl who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks that’s been through the ringer with men so bad, they appreciate real love over looks and latch onto it when they get it. But these Hollywood types don’t want that girl, because they have become chicks, and want the female equivalent of an asshole, just the same way women used to turn down the nice guy for the bad boy. Nowadays, these under thirty Hollywood chicks will just bang them all, get as much profit as they can and then spit them all out, ruining them, all the while thinking it’s okay to pay the bills by getting banged on a web cam simply because they got a degree in Philosophy and understand Nietzche. It’s such justificational bullshit.
The filmmaker, in an attempt to make honest work, encourges the continuing dysfunctional female as sexual predator stereotype to young girls.
Because now, irregardless of the merit of Soderburgh’s work as a piece of cinema, the subtext in just composing encourages this new and dysfunctional belief that having real sex on camera will get you mainstream success. Which was cautified when Paris got her Carls JR commercial after her porn video came out.
And so more and more of these under thirty, LA based female sexual predators are being created as more young girls see in the culture created here in LA that feminity can be reached by being famous and using sex for personal gain, no matter how much you might really hurt the man you’re devouring as long as it gets you rich and famous. And in effect, that sires the guy into becoming one of the real assholes that ruin it for nice guys because they’ve been traumitized. And let’s be clear, these female sexual predators in LA ruining nice men, got that way because they themselves were ruined by some real bastard of a man (almost always from some bastard that is older than Gen-X)
But the square filmmaker doesn’t get that. He’s just doing his job, using real life experience to strenghthen his work. But in consequence, perpetuating this dysfunctional belief that being a sexual predator, escort, or porn entertainer can lead to mainstream success.
And I love how when some of us try to have some boundaries; skills and awareness so we may avoid getting destroyed by this new breed of younger female sexual predators, we are labeled misogynist by real women like Lota and Leah even though they are unwilling to recognize that we aren’t referring to them at all and may as well be talking about a different species. Instead of seeing that if these square men had these skills and awareness, then there could be some genuine nice good guys for the nice girls in the world. And even more, having those nice guys be the kind of man women want them to be instead of a boring chump or an abusive asshole. But Lota and Leah are of a different generation, where the men really are bastards and at fault and yes, everything leads back to them and their male forefathers.
(To be fair, when I dropped the link to by friends site, I had no idea that they had just sold all their ad space to porn, and in effect are no longer affiliated with them. But I still stand by the principles I was trying to convey in my words there and here)
But to deny that there is some definite identity shifts between men and women Gen X and younger is naive and closed minded. And if being called a misogynist by those that don’t get it because of the belief that men have no emotional rights when it comes to sex and relationships, fine. There’s no reason why men can’t have their own rights and boundaries as they are used and spit out by these “Only in Los Angeles” breed of female sexual predators.
And these filmmakers just get mentally and emotionally fucked over by these predators and put that personality type in their work (or just cast the real thing if you’re VH1) for young girls to assimilate and believe that this way is better than real talent or craft. Or the LA filmmaker just gets so bent over mentally and emotionally they turn to escorts or false fronts for real intimacy; or are so confounded by being devoured by a woman when that instinctually feel that that is their role – begins to believe and convey in their work that the female as independent sexual predator is a positive way to be a woman. And possibly convey that concept to a young impressionable unstable little girl.
The idea that Noah believes there is more merit in pornography than being an escort is a good example of this distorted menatlity seeping it’s way into the culture.
I can understand Noah’s perspective if you’re looking at it from a filmmaker or critical perspective.
But anyone who is a parent or cares about children’s emotional and mental development and rights, will tell you the porn actress is work simply for the fact that the work can be thrown in their kids faces causing untold damage.
When I was working with Jacky Jasper and would run into one of these girls that were considering porn, these “Pimps” that get judged as wrongly as a moonshiner thinking a Hindu man is a member of Al Queda, would talk EVERY girl out of doing porn. And it was always the same thing “Trust me, you’re going to want to have kids one day. You don’t want recordings of you having sex on camera out there on the Internet for your kids and grandkids to one day see. It’s too destructive.”
Yet Hollywood continues to celebrate and validate porn as a legitimate career avenue…
So square.
Don: If you’re bashing me, then go fuck yourself, punk. Of course, I mean that with all due respect.
Kuroak?
THX, there’s this thematic recurrence of “LA based female sexual predators” in your postings that I don’t get a hint of anywhere else in the universe. Can you corroborate this somehow?
Apologies on the length and format. I banged this out on my phone while stuck in line and didn’t preview it before I posted. Feel free to skip it. What I wouldn’t give for an edit button.
And before I disappear again for awhile I have to say, even though it’s the wrong thread:
IOI, what you’re missing is, the reason you didn’t get a column and Lex did, is regardless of style you constantly with every post would personally disparage and insult Dave when you disagree with him. Whatever anyone’s feelings are about Lex’s behaivor on the blog, it is undeniable that he never disrespected Dave even when being disciplined. Where you always try to rip him. I’d put my money on that being the primary difference.
It seems that anyone who has a problem with Lex is an old timer who remembers how different the tone was, pre-Lex.
However, it appears that Lex’s dilligence has paid off and he has garnered THB/MCN more hits since his persona became a mainstay. While I don’t know how I feel about others wanting Lex to destroy himself with alcohol for their own entertainment. And I laugh at those that think it’s an act, it’s like conservatives believing Colbert is one of them.
Still, I think it’s an awesome idea, and offer Lex congrats. If anything, this sense of legitimacy for and of him has quieted the raging manic so we can keep it about movies instead of manifestos on only being a worthy human being if you can fuck an actress that pretty much will fuck anyone anyways…which always ends one up in the Valtrex club.
Either way, congrats Lex. Hope it leads to bigger things for you. IO, if you want a gig, don’t continuously throw personal insults at your prospective boss. (I say this as someone on your side, it’s okay if you wanna think me a douche. Everyone else here does 😉
Cheers.
THX: Just for the record, I do not not, nor have I ever thought, you are a douche.
Jeff,
We only need one night at some clubs in Hollywood and I can corroborate it. But if you wanna see it in the work, it’s there.
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang addresses it pretty directly.
A more recent example is Adventureland –
**Spoiler** Only a square sensitive filmmaker who has been burned by these predators would make the choice for his lead character to be so in love with the girl that is a homewrecker and a cheating alcoholic, that she would be a more desirable choice than the super hot, virginal with good values, who is lusted by everyone at the park. She genuinely likes the lead but he turns her down because she doesn’t follow him on his intellectual bullshit but the homewrecking alcoholic does and goes to NYU so she gets the guy? The dancing girl didn’t even seem stupid. When she asked the character if he believed in God, I felt that was an opening to a way deeper and more meaningful conversation than anything said by the messed up girl.
Only a filmmaker that has been ravaged by these types would think that’s a better choice, because the identities have flipped and they are the prey while these girls are the predators.
Now is every man in the film game some sensitive new breed of hombre? No, there are plenty of scumbag agents and execs ruining chicks here. But they’re not the ones writing and directing movies using their own life experience to shape stories and characters that might encourage dysfunctional behaivor and beliefs of getting validated by performing sex on camera to any impressionable youth not in this environment.
And I forgot to say, excellent Pimp move Dave. Impressive.
Thanks Joe, that means something. Sincerely
Don, if you don’t see the difference between Soderbergh’s film and, say, a Joe Swanberg film, then I don’t really know how to proceed into a further discussion with you. Technique, acting, plotting, characterization, mise en scene, etc. is worlds apart. And I don’t really see how you can call Soderbergh’s film “mumblecore” since it isn’t a navel-gazing film about regular people. It’s about a specific person in a specific industry. What does it even have in common with a “mumblecore” film other than an improvised feel and being shot digitally? I think it has more in common with a Dogme film, actually.
THX, ultimately, I don’t really care how Sasha Grey makes her living. All I care about is what she puts on screen and I thought she gave a hell of a performance; everything else is trivial and irrelevant in my eyes.
THX: the facts are simple. Look at the number of posts. If the dude was getting paid per page view on damn near any thread I post in compared to Lex. Well, the dude, could afford a nice pimp Hawaiian shirt. The only time the dude can get more posts per thread without me (damn near most of the team) is when he acts like a… douche. Those are the facts, and just the facts. If he wants to give space to a dude that will generate about as much interest as the other dude he gave a column to way back. He can keep doing what he’s doing. No sweat off of my balls that his website is as white as he’s not.
Noah – I can see your point, but it’s never worked out for a pornster. I’m not talking Krista Allen softcore, but someone who gives it all up. I used Chambers instead of Jameson or Lords because they could never act. Chambers got the same love Grey is getting now and maybe Jeff is right and it was a manager thing.
Grey’s best chance is what Soderbergh referred to as the ubiquitous porn celebrity. Whether it’s Kim and Paris or some low-renters on a “Real Housewives” derivative, the hooker-as-entertainer has become pervasive to the point that actually talented females are opting for the partywhore lifestyle as a way to maintain status instead of dilligent work.
I think this dovetails nicely into LexG as critic. His drooling over some of actresses is pure humor, but it speaks to a level of objectification that didn’t exist just a decade earlier. When a person like Grey can go from doing the hardest gonzo to a possible legit career, we are debasing the role of professional female actor/actress.
Through relativism, we say “yeah, but it’s one person and look how good she is”, while not considering a point that THX brought up – if she’s really this talented why did she opt for hardcore, unquestionable hardcore? Her choices make Jameson look like a prude. The only way to rationalize her decisions is by buying into the Pretty Woman fairytale, but that’s not the case. The truth is, she was totally misguided and chose instead to spend three years tricking for a camera. Where did she get the idea that would lead to fame? Jameson. And she got it from Lords who got it from Chmabers. So four women have a achieved a minute degree of legitimacy while thousands have been emotionally scarred for life.
And the reason this matters with Grey moreso, is that she’s getting kudos for improvising the role of a sex worker. I’d laugh at the irony if I couldn’t shake the fact that some very destitute people trying to survive this economy are going to follow this girl’s path. But what does that matter.
Wow, IO, could you maybe try a little harder with the petulance. I think there might still be one person taking you seriously.
Martin S. writes: “When a person like Grey can go from doing the hardest gonzo to a possible legit career, we are debasing the role of professional female actor/actress.”
I don’t want to be uncivil, but the mix of moralism and resentment in that sentence
Actually, I strongly suspect that Grey is less of a prostitute than some of the people who post on this blog.
Joe- again, what the fuck are you talking about? As I said in my post, I was referring to Noah and Glenn.
Noah-
I was trying to find your article where you said you hated mumblecore so I could draw some parallels for you, but I couldn’t. But, if you’re going to tell me the “acting” by non actors in Soderberghs movie is somehow “better” than any other non-actors, then you’re crazy. In fact it’s been duly noted there were NO acting cues given to the non actors in Soderberghs movie.
As much as I liked “The Girlfriend Experience,” I liked it for the SAME reasons I like Swanberg, Katz et all. These are movies attempting to get at a truth through cinema. And I’m only now realizing how impossible that might be thanks to all these movies.
Just because Soderbergh has a higher pedigree than other filmmakers, don’t be confused with what he’s doing because he’s asking the same questions as mumblecore filmmakers and exploring the exact same arenas. Saying his film is more successful than these others is obviously a matter of taste. But it reminds me of when you get a really highly regarded glass of wine and you think it’s good but everyone at the table is like, loving it because it’s some fancy name.
Don
GK-
No kidding, huh? It’s my niche, what can I say?
What you’ve described in terms of Soderberghs direction and cues is exactly how alot of the m-core crew “directs.” To a tee. And I think your comment about the “knowingness” and “calculation” in Soderberghs work is dead-on. But what does get overlooked in that is….Soderbergh is 45 years old with over 20 films to his credit and Swanberg (by way of example) is 26 years old with 5 films to his credit. No duh there’s less knowing!
As we grappled with on your blog, I’m not saying Swanberg/Katz/Duplass et all have got it right but I think they’re working towards something.
See, there’s my problem right there, Don. “Joe Swanberg is only 26,” is an excuse. Just like, he doesn’t have real actors, everyone improvises, etc. etc. It’s all an excuse as to why his films aren’t more polished or aren’t as full of depth. And Soderbergh released a little film called Sex, Lies and Videotape when he was 26 years old. A film that is way more knowing than anything Swanberg has committed to celluloid.
The main difference between The Girlfriend Experience and anything mumblecore is that Soderbergh’s film is about something; whereas a mumblecore film is about itself and navel-gazing. And by the way, just because you’re shooting on digital doesn’t mean your film has to look like it was made for five dollars; there’s a difference between going for a documentary feel and going for a snuff-film feel. For lack of a better word, there is no “elegance” to a mumblecore film and even if I didn’t know Soderbergh was the filmmaker, I could tell you that The Girlfriend Experience was an elegantly and expertly made film. I don’t like films merely because of who makes them.
While I don’t necessarily agree with Martin S, I have to wonder why is it around here that when someone doesn’t like something, people accuse the person of resentment or jealousy? Like saying if you think LexG is annoying, you gotta be jealous of him for some reason? If you hate George Bush, you must be jealous of him…it has nothing to do with his politics. You wanted to be the one starting wars.
Perm, you mean like Noah’s jealousy of Ridley Scott? Kidding, Noah . . . 🙂
David Poland is jealous of Jeffmcm, and I’m jealous of being hit in the face with baseball bats.
That made me chuckle, ManWithNoName. 🙂
i heard that, perm, re: the accusations of ‘ulterior motives’ if someone disagrees with someone else – which may actually say more about the person doing the accusing and the often shallow, back-stabbing, paranoid, two-faced nature of the movie business and ‘entertainment journalism’ than someone just trying to express an honest opinion
i left out ‘self-serving’ from my list above
Maybe I shouldn’t be dipping my toe into this pond again, but I guess I’m shallow and paranoid. But I don’t think I’m crazy to infer a little more than mere contrarianism in a loaded phrase such as “a person like Sasha Grey.”
Oh, and Carrie Prejean was just expressing her “honest opinion,” too.
Whoa, Girlfriend Experience is watchable for ten bucks on Amazon? Like, now, before the release? Or am I mistaken?
What do people think about that? The simultaneous theater-PPV thing I sort of get, but two weeks early? How does that not cut into the number of people who would go see it on a proper theater screen?
I’m hyped enough about the movie and Soderbergh to give it a glance, but I don’t know… Even though it’s a legit service and on the up-and-up, just doesn’t seem right to watch a first-run movie on a computer screen, like it’ll render a serious movie into an extended YouTube clip or something.
So was Hitler, Glenn!
A person like Sasha Grey is only defensible because porn is legal. If Glenn Kenny gave a rat’s ass about her, he’d write something and if Steven Soderbergh gave a rats ass about her, he’d do something along the lines of the fair use, non-profit commentary on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxUq_zzvAaA
Carrie Prejean is hotter than Hitler.
Shut up Lex, write something honest about being a pig and then go back to being a pig to show it’s a choice you make.
Glen –
The entire back-n-forth with Noah is based around who should get more recognition for Grey’s performance. I argue for Soderbergh. He says I don’t give her enough credit .
“For instance, in my scenes with Grey…”
You’re going to insinuate ulterior subtext in my words, when 1) you met her 2) you liked her and 3) you were involved with the production of the movie. You’re the embodiment of objectivity.
There’s no resentment on my part. Moralism, yes, in the sense that pornsters hide behind a veil of performance because they don’t want to admit, for psychological and legal reasons, they are prostitutes, yet the vast majority of the industry knows that’s what they’ve become. She gets paid to have sex and uses the proximity of a camera to claim it’s acting. Maybe that’s why pornsters who “escort” will have john’s bring cameras to “dates” in cities where prostitution is illegal.
As I said, she gives a good performance, but IMO, it’s thanks to Soderbergh since the only other thing I have to judge that against, would be say, her performance in getting DP’d.
If you’re a producer, how could you be wrong to not expect a favor from Grey to cast in her in a mainstream role? Why would anyone be wrong to think otherwise? How could she have the audacity to be offended? What message does she send to other women trying to break in? That is the sliding scale of debasement I’m referring to. Whatever degree the casting couch existed, Grey lowers the bar. She can claim otherwise, but you don’t do the shit she’s done on camera and then suddenly develop scruples.
I just realized who Carrie Prejean is. That’s about all I need to know, Glen. This is got nothing to do with my stance on GFE but what you trolling for a larger political fight.
Then again, if I worked with a woman who’s done some of the things she’s done for cash, I’d try and widen the argument, also.
Lex – GFE is also available on HD PPV since it’s a Mark Cuban production.
And there’s a guy who would never proposition a porn star. No way. Total class act, that Cuban.
Obviously, Martin S., if I’m writing about her within the context of meeting her and working with her, of course I’m not the “embodiment of objectivity.” I’d imagine that would be a given.
I’m not trolling for any kind of fight. I just think you’re wrong, and that
Noah-
His age isn’t an “excuse,” I don’t make excuses for filmmakers. It’s a fact and I think he’s been forced to learn the art of filmmaking in the public eye. “Sex, Lies and Videotape” IS agreat movie, but there was GREAT acting in there…by professionals. I still think Soderbergh made a mumblecore movie and if you weren’t so knee-jerk in your reaction towards that “movement,” you’d see that.
As for Miss Sasha Grey…
I like her in the movie and I like what she’s trying to do with porn. I really like her taste in film and music.
But just a few weeks ago in a class I have I got indignant at an article stating Annie Sprinkle is a “feminist” because the only real feminism in her work is the fact that she claims to be a feminist and then Linda Willaims at UC Berkeley crowned her a feminist pornstar. Just as Sasha claims to be the worlds only “existentialist pornstar,” I think it all goes back to saying you are something, promoting that and then, boom! That’s what you are.
And Martin….for a “moralist” you sure seem to have done your research on porn and prostitution there buddy. Glad you could weigh in on the morality involved in both and condemn them both with your antiquated views that have been argues since the advent of the internet. Yawn.
What is she’s trying to do with porn, Don?
Glenn, there’s no couch, it’s stunt. You’re a writer, an intellect, a critic and lastly, a coward for toeing the line and being complicit and submissive to the machine that promotes legalized assault for profit when your involvement could open new lines of insight into a dark corner.
Don, he wasn’t “forced” to learn his craft in the public eye, he chose to do that. Soderbergh made short films and documentaries, honing his craft before he was ready to make a full-fledged feature length film that he felt could be seen by the public. Just because Swanberg’s films were seen by the public when he wasn’t “ready” or whatever, that doesn’t excuse his work. You say you’re not trying to make excuses, but you brought up his age as if to say, “he’s only 26, cut him some slack, he’s just a kid.”
I’m not “knee-jerk” in my reaction towards mumblecore movies; I saw a film called Sorry, Thanks that I felt was kind of a mumblecore movie and admitted that I enjoyed it. I just don’t see how The Girlfriend Experience fits into that genre of film; as I said earlier, it feels more like a Dogme film to me. In Soderbergh’s film, there is a rhyme and reason to the way the camera moves, for instances, whereas in a Swanberg film it just moves because the dude holding it can’t keep still. I guess I don’t really understand what your point is. You see his new film as a mumblecore feature? Fine, that’s your prerogative, I respectfully disagree. But, I’m only 26, so cut me some slack, I’m just a kid.
By the way, why does a discussion about this film have to turn into a discussion about the merits of pornography? Sasha Grey does nothing pornographic in the film, why can’t we just allow her work in the new Soderbergh film to speak for itself? What relevance does her other career have on the performance she gives?
Because of the PR machine. Reality, Noah.
uh, glenn kenny, just so you know my comment of 2:45 wasn’t about you or anyone in particular, just a general observation of how easily misconstrued a comment can be
Noah-
To answer your first post…
So are you saying Swanberg should have just known better than to put his films out there? Are you so certain he has absolutely no clue what he’s doing and the camera moves “because the dude holding it can’t keep still?” Wow man….nice research into who you’re having issues with. Again, it does boil down to opinion when you talk about actually *liking* a movie. But you’ve tipped your hand above by talking out your ass. Which reminds me…what Swanberg movies have you seen? Have you seen Aaron Katz’s movies? Andrew Bujalski’s?
And for point #2…
I think you’re equally deluded if you think “Sasha Grey” would have been cast in this film if she wasn’t in porn. For starters…psst…Sasha Grey’s her porn name. And, this gets to T. Holly’s question…
Sasha has always been very forthright in the way she performs in her porn movies. She’s extremely in-touch with the camera and not in terms of just like….showing her lady parts. She stares at the camera and is very clearly performing for the viewer. Greanted, you could say that about any performer, but with Sasha, it’s very detached but not in a “I’m fukcing stoned out of my mind on drugs.” It’s intentional detachment.
As such, many find her performances cold and fake. She’s way, way over the top vocally as well but in a very “honest” way, if that makes sense. Again, it’s an intentional performance for the viewer to see. Without getting too heady, I think she’s making an effort towards making the abject real in a cinematic sense. Sort of….bringing to light what the viewer wants but in a way the viewer doesn’t really want to admit they wanted.
Anywho, I think she’s trying to operate on a cinematic level…getting at a truth in her performances.
Now that’s I’ve creeped myself and everyone out, it’s time for LOST!
Don, she may be performing, but the pain is real, can I tie you up and ream for ass, please, for $50k?
*your* ass.
And can Rolling Stone do a piece on you about how totally hip you are?
Don, I’m saying that if you’re going to go through the effort of making a film, then the hope is that it will be seen. And if it is seen, then you can’t really play the “I’m only 26 and I’m still learning” card, which you were happy to play for him. Don, obviously I was being hyperbolic when I said the dude couldn’t keep still when holding the camera; the point being is that in Soderbergh’s film the camera moves with purpose, while in Swanberg’s films it moves without rhyme or reason. And I’m definitely not talking out of my ass because I’ve seen every Swanberg film, every Bujalski and Duplass film (HATED the Puffy Chair), but I will admit I have not yet seen Quiet City, which I’ve been told is quite good. I’m not out to hate every mumblecore movie, I just haven’t liked the majority so far – especially Swanberg’s films because I find them to be navel-gazing and inaccurate depictions about what it is to be a young person today.
As to the second point, once again, who gives a shit how she got into the movie or the PR associated with it? Why should that color your view of her performance? It’s inane. Judge what’s on the screen, dude, not what’s in your head beforehand…or on your laptop.
P.S. Lost was awesome tonight.
So, like it’s wrong to consider an actor’s oeuvre? You can’t be a critic, Noah. You’re excused, profession over.
Thanks, T. Holly, appreciate you completely misunderstanding me. It’s a good thing I never claimed to be a critic!
You’re saying that her porn career and her “acting” in those films is relevant to the performance she gives in this “mainstream” film? And usually, I don’t judge someone’s performance in one movie based on a performance they gave in another film. But I’m glad you’re not a critic.
T. Holly
What did you think of the commentary on youtube?
What did I think of the commentary on YouTube?
Not much. “Sasha is an example of the harmful effects of underage viewing of pornography” and “Some consider [S & M] to be a harmful disorder” don’t strike me as staggeringly brilliant insights. As anti-porn arguments go, I prefer David Foster Wallace’s “Big Red Son.” Of course, I edited that, so I’m biased.
You singled out the weakest parts, that’s how you roll. Good job, best of luck with your net points.
T. Holly, hasn’t Sasha (rightly) complained about how she was depicted on that Tyra?
And for the record, I happened to see that episode in its entirety when it aired, before the endless “commentary” bubbles provided on YouTube, and thought S.G. was condescended to, and with a sanctimonious, moralistic tone, right from the jump.
Yes she complained. She and Tyra are cut from the same cloth. The commentary stands worthy, Glenn Kenny be damned for hiding behind David Foster Wallace.
T. Holly, I will take you up on your offer to Don. I want to see the money first, though.
I haven’t seen any of Sasha Grey’s porn or her Girlfriend Experience perf. I assume the former includes little in the way of acting, and I’m told the latter contains no porn, so perhaps oeuvre comparisons won’t get us very far in this case.
I would like to know how Soderbergh managed to get a damn good performance out of Andie MacDowell in 1989, when practically no one else before or since has managed to do it. This may or may not be related to points made here about Grey’s performance, but it made me wonder.
Yancy – That is the better question.
Glen – you didn’t mention your direct connection to Grey until after you took your shot at me, couched as if it were some unbiased, objective comment. It wasn’t common knowledge.
I didn’t insinuate there was a casting couch on GFE. I said it couldn’t be held against someone working on a future production to expect a favor from Grey as that’s the basis for her career. My comment about Cuban stands, because you most likely don’t know what kind of chach he is.
Don – please. What. An. F’ing. Joke.
Glen wrote my comments were a mix of moralism and resentment. I answered truthfully by saying there was moralism in the sense that a pornster’s persona is a front, hence, Grey’s excuses for doing porn is pure equivication.
As for “research”…it helps to know what one is talking about, something you might want to try on occassion.
For the past decade, I’ve dealt with enough rubes about porn financing/production that I had to find out the truth. The reality is porn has never been as financially lucrative as AVN and the mouthpieces have claimed. That’s how I learned about the blooming escort industry. From here, it’s not hard to find review sites and databases that list what pornsters have done.
As IO would say – knowing is half the f’ing battle.
As for my antiquated views…let stack them up against your depcition of Ms. Grey…
“Sasha has always been very forthright in the way she performs in her porn movies. She’s extremely in-touch with the camera and not in terms of just like….showing her lady parts. She stares at the camera and is very clearly performing for the viewer. Greanted, you could say that about any performer, but with Sasha, it’s very detached but not in a “I’m fukcing stoned out of my mind on drugs.” It’s intentional detachment.
As such, many find her performances cold and fake. She’s way, way over the top vocally as well but in a very “honest” way, if that makes sense. Again, it’s an intentional performance for the viewer to see. Without getting too heady, I think she’s making an effort towards making the abject real in a cinematic sense. Sort of….bringing to light what the viewer wants but in a way the viewer doesn’t really want to admit they wanted.
Anywho, I think she’s trying to operate on a cinematic level…getting at a truth in her performances.
Don wrote this about a woman who has…
(EXPLICIT)
Swallowed a load forced out from another woman’s ass, drank her own piss, bukkake, BDSM, simulated “forced” sex, DP, and just about everything else. In her first porn, she asked the guy to punch her in the gut.
(OVER)
This is cinema to Don.
Can’t wait for Dave’s interview. This should be fun since he’s open about being a moral person.
Again, Martin….abjection. Look it up. “Sasha” came out of the gate doing all the things you listed while most girls in the industry are on some unwritten chart that eventually culminates in more abject/risque performances. I am NOT saying it’s cinema, I’m just saying it’s there. I think porn is always one step ahead of the mainstream and some attention should be paid to what’s popular (and who) and why.
And you are right that AVN et all make porn out to be lucrative. But what you’re missing in that statement is, most of these girls don’t do the work involved to truly make money that will last. But do you really think “Sasha Grey” wants to eb shooting porn in a year? She has a plan and in her mind, it’s being executed. Personally, I don’t feel it will be until she plays something other than a sex worker in a film. Or, something rather than stunt casting in a horror film which is her other “mainstream” project.
And again as well, you aren’t stating anything that hasn’t been argued to the point of redundancy regarding the porn vs whore thing. But all the “gross” things you mention (and I agree, not my cup of teabagging) must have an audience or they wouldn’t be made…and sold.
Shouldn’t every PR piece on Sasha Grey for The Girlfriend Experience discuss her porn work? Doesn’t every article on every actor and actress discuss what they’ve done and who they’ve worked with? Don’t reviews mention prior work, even if just parenthetically? Why is Sasha being treated differently? Because the publications and the journalists can’t deal with the reality and don’t know how to report or write about it.
@Martin S.: We’re both right.
A lot of porn actresses do escort, either overtly (see the Body Miracle website) or under the radar.
Also, Sasha isn’t one of them.
It is kind of shocking how, shall we say, underpaid a lot of porn performers are. I remember back in ’80, as a production assistant on a New York-shot porno called “A Girl’s Best Friend,” handing Samantha Fox (not the singer) a $2,000 check, for just giving a handjob to the then relatively thin Ron Jeremy. I read these days that some rookie actresses only make $1,500 for an anal scene! Note, also, the lack of adjustment for inflation. In terms of compensation, the economics of the porn industry are even more whacked out than Hollywood.
I’m encouraged there may only be room in the market for one Sasha Grey at a time to be assaulted and endangered for low six figures a year. I thought you might know about porn, Glenn; I’m thankful you are opening up. Don is still lost on Mars in his fascination.
This open article can’t touch anything she’s done, not even by title:
http://nymag.com/movies/filmfestivals/tribeca/55986/
T Holly, is your problem porn in general or just ones involving Sasha Grey or just ones involving, let’s say, ‘rough stuff’?
I don’t need a problem to see Sasha Grey’s acting past being treated differently (not naming projects, not discussing details) and for writers, journalists and critics and people on the film doing publicity for it being complicit in promoting legal assault and endangerment and its glorification.
T. Holly, I think every article or interview with Sasha Grey promoting this film has mentioned her past career. I just don’t see what it has to do with the performance she gives on screen, which is all I care about. Also, as far as I know, 18 is the age of consent in this country and if people have consensual sex that involves multiple partners or BDSM, I don’t really see how that’s assault.
T. Holly, I’m rolling my eyes at you for repeating your slogan without elaboration. Say what you really think and maybe a discussion can be had, but otherwise I’ll assume it’s option 1 (problem with porn in general).
Then you haven’t watched porn — go to heaven666.net (I believe) and watch assault right now.
Whitewash Noah: porn star, adult actress, sex with strangers for money — not even titles of films. It’s glorification and proliferation of abuse. If you limit yourself to what you’re told to consider, you’re irrelevant as an arbiter of ideas.
Just because you say its abuse repeatedly doesn’t make it so. You are not the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable sexual behavior.
I suggest you watch the annotated youtube clip before you decide you’re not watching abuse. Sometimes it’s good to defer to experts on things you have trouble understanding.
T. Holly, call 911 if you think you’re watching something illegal. I’m not authorized to detain individuals (any more).
Sometimes it’s good not to be condescending. And sometimes it’s good to think for yourself rather than listening to moronic “experts” spout off about saving these “victims.” And sorry if I don’t think Tyra Banks is an expert.
Noah, you got me back for misunderstanding you earlier.
The experts wrote the commentary. Forget it’s Tyra, I’m with you on that.
They are not saving people, they are educating people like me and you. You are so sure you know you won’t even watch. That’s how you want to exchange info in the world of ideas and writing?
What “experts” wrote the commentary? It’s some dude who posted a youtube video, please explain their credentials to me. And I’m sorry if I don’t want to listen to someone talk about how wrong it is for a 16 year old to watch porn. That’s just ridiculous and puritanical. I watched porn at a much younger age than that and I’ve never been a victim of abuse or an abusive partner and have no interest in sadomasochism. But I also understand that some people enjoy that and if that’s what some folks would enjoy practicing, then that’s fine by me. And it should be fine by you too.
You didn’t give it the time of day, much less read it. You’re smug in your ignorance, and you’re proud of it.
I just told you I watched part of it, but I’m sorry if I don’t want to hear an edited version of Sasha Grey’s thoughts to fit Tyra Banks’ pre-conceived notions that are then commented on by some “expert” on youtube. You’re close-minded and glib and you’re going to save the world one day.
T. Holly, you might have an argument, but you are not doing a good job of presenting it. You’ve pointed us to Youtube and a porn site to bolster your argument. How about an actual essay or blog or something with some actual critical content?
I see you are also incapable of observation:
“… an edited version of Sasha Grey’s thoughts to fit Tyra Banks’ pre-conceived notions that are then commented on by some “expert” on youtube…”
Jeff, make yourself usefull and do a little research for Noah on who’s written the youtube commentary.
T. Holly, it’s written by an anti-pornography website, so clearly they don’t have a bias or an agenda.
T. Holly, don’t drag me into making the arguments you aren’t capable of formulating.
Noah, of course every article is going to talk about her being a porn star. You can say it has nothing to do with her performance on screen, but it does play into how you might perceive the movie walking into it. If Jackie Chan suddenly took a role like Buffalo Bill in a serious horror movie, all of his past comedies would have been brought up, because what he’d be doing in that movie would play off of the way you see him now.
Which is why in, say, Watchemen they could have used a likeable star to play the guy with the plot at the end instead of a weenie, because it would have worked into the performance. If they got Tom Cruise, as I had heard dream casting suggestions for, that character would have come off differently than he did.
Big Perm, I gotta tell you, that is an excellent excellent point and it’s hard to argue with. I suppose, because I’m not all that familiar with Sasha Grey’s work as a porn star, that I found it irrelevant. But I suppose if someone was a huge Sasha Grey fan (or conversely, not a fan), it might color their work in a Soderbergh film. I suppose, the thing for me has always been that I try to see movies for what they give me; for example, I’m not a big fan of Spike Lee the person, but I love Spike Lee the filmmaker, I’m able to separate the two. And I think people should be able to separate Sasha Grey’s previous career from what she does on screen in The Girlfriend Experience. Similarly, if Jackie Chan gave a terrific performance as a serial killer, then I would hope that I wouldn’t hold his performances in past films against him.
Totally agree with you about Watchmen/Tom Cruise, though. And you made a really good point that had me nodding my head. So, pat yourself on the back sir, I like you.
I suppose I said “I suppose” a few too many times.
But she does have a large body of work coming into this film and you need to know it and you need to write something about it like any other actress. Stop treating her with kid gloves, get into it. If David Poland does the same thing, I’ll have a cow.
T. Holly, I can’t write about things that I have not seen. I mentioned that she was a former porn actress in my piece, but it’s not my duty to scream from the rooftops about the merits of pornography. I don’t have an issue with it, you do.
Not “former”, just porn actress.
Thanks Noah! Where’s my column, DP???
ANyway, to add…you wouldn’t hold Jackie’s past performances “against” him per se…but you’d be watching the movie and if you were familiar with Jackie, you couldn’t help but be influenced by it and be like “holy shit, Jackie Chan is raping a corpse!!!” I would be.
Which is why a movie like Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer worked so well…you didn’t know ANY of them, so for all you knew they got some real crazy guy to play Henry and it’s creepier that way. If Tom Cruise played that role and every other single thing in the movie was done the same, it still wouldn’t work as well.
Also, in a way I think it’s easier to separate Spike Lee the man from Spike Lee the director because (at least now) he’s invisible when it comes to his films…he’s not in them. With an actor, you’re looking at someone you’ve seen doing something over and over in the past and comparing that directly to what you see now.
So you might be watching Sasha act in a real movie but still recall the time she was getting peed on. I know I would!
Plus I want to see Star Trek. Not because I like Star Trek and not because it looks good, but I want to see monsters getting shot with lasers.
Well I already didn’t like Spike Lee the person when I saw him as Mookie in Do the Right Thing; also I just find him to be more humanist and compassionate as a director than as a person. But your point is well taken and I think for a lot of audience members, it might be difficult to separate out someone’s past from what they’re giving you on-screen (look at Lohan, Lindsay), but for me I don’t think I’ve ever personally had a problem with that.
I agree that T. Holly isn’t presenting his (her?…sorry…not sure) argument well, but I also think it’s a pretty standard view against pornography. Which is fine…but doesn’t lend itself to any debate or conversation really.
And Noah…”Sasha Grey” was cast BECAUSE of her adult film work….read some background on the project. She successfully set herself apart from all the “regular” pornstars by espousing Godard quotes and declaring herself and existentialist. She knew how to plant the seeds in peoples minds that she was more than “just” a pornstar and those seeds blossomed when Soderbergh took notice.
And I’ll also add that I mentioned Sasha’s propensity for detachment in her adult films but kinda forgot to add that she does the same detached thing in “The Girlfriend Experience.” Her porn personae and performances therein are how she got the gig with Soderbergh. Trust me.
Don, that’s great, I know how she was cast; but how somebody is cast really doesn’t color my point of view in regards to their performance.
Charlize Theron’s performance in Monster is powerful, in part, because it’s Charlize Theron.
Henry Fonda’s villain in Once Upon a Time in the West is chilling, in part, because it’s Henry Fonda.
Robert Downey Jr.’s hero-turn in Iron Man is exciting, in part, because it’s Robert Downey.
An actor always brings his or her past reputation with them when they appear in a film.
This is self-evident and I don’t know why anyone would argue against it.
I disagree with each of those examples, Wrecktum. I think each of those performances is great because those just happen to be great actors. I’m admiring their work in the film, not the reputation they bring with them.
For example, I love Daniel Day-Lewis and think he’s the greatest living actor. But if he’s terrible in Nine, am I going to think he’s great because of his reputation? No, I’m going to say, “wow, that was terrible, I wish he was as good as he was in There Will Be Blood.” I try to see every film and every performance as it is, not with preconceived notions.
Yup Don, she’s a self promotion super star. And shit for an actress. Strike one:
they
Noah, I think you’re being bull-headed about this. Watching a film performance in such a rigid, formalist way completely degrades the work. People emotionally connect to actors based not on one particular film, but rather their body of work.
John Wayne’s performance in The Shootist is purely functional on its own merits, but is complex and melancholy if you take into account his mythic persona and obvious weakened condition. You deprive the story of it’s greatest strength by ignoring the obvious.
Wrecktum, if you’re asking whether or not I consider an actor’s body of work AFTER I see the newest film and decide where to place this newest work in that actor’s canon? Yeah, I do that. But when I’m watching a film for the first time, I judge a film and its performances on merit; I’m sorry, but that’s what I do. Afterward, I will ponder how that performance affects my feelings about the actor’s career or whether it is in line with their previous works – I’ve written several columns to this effect – but not WHILE I’m watching a movie. I think each performance exists in the space of that particular movie and should be judged based on that.
Then I feel sorry for you.
Um…okay.
I don’t think it’s possible to so fully separate out one’s feelings while watching an individual film from the wider context – or desireable.
Of course it’s possible if you immerse yourself fully in the movie. If you can’t do that, then that’s either an actor or a filmmaker’s fault. It’s impossible to separate after you’ve walked out of the theater – or sometimes before you walk in – but while I’m watching a film, I judge that film on its own merits. Then, and only then, can I put it in context.
Somewhere, a jealous Mike Figgis is pondering his newest project, “The Belladonna Experience.”
OK, my response was coy. Sorry about that. I just don’t know what else to say. Noah has a Vulcan-like ability to analytically divorce his past emotional relationship with an actor when watching a film. It’s an appalling way to watch a film, but it’s Noah’s choice and so be it.
Well Noah, maybe it’s possible for you. For myself, it’s neither possible nor desireable. And I don’t think a lot of works of art (novels, paintings, movies) can be understood properly out of context.
A novel or a painting is a completely different animal because you have time to study and reflect while you’re examining it. A film is meant to be seen in one sitting. Of course when I’m watching a film, I am cognizant of my feelings towards an actor, but I try to focus on what they are (or aren’t accomplishing) in the film at hand because actors are not filmmakers; they are supposed to be chameleons and each film’s performance should be judge in the context of whether or not that performance and that actor works in that particular film. Of course there are moments where I will say, “wow, Sienna Miller is better in this than she was in Alife” but I don’t let her terrible performance in Alfie change my opinion of her wonderful one in Interview.
Glib question here:
How do you know what’s happening in Godfather II if you’re not thinking of Godfather I while you’re watching it?
just a little sidebar to mention that after viewing some of the trailers for ‘terminator: the end begins’ i was actually feeling a bit hopeful for this movie, but after seeing an extended trailer before ‘trek’ yesterday, i have that voice of doubt nagging at the back of my mind again.
apart from proceedings looking a bit overblown (but trailers being trailers i won’t prejudge), it’s worrisome that the story revealed in the trailers so far, in which a new generation of terminators are manufactured that don’t realise they are terminators and think they’re human, would have been much fresher a few years ago. watching it i thought, ‘cylons. man, you guys missed the boat by a couple years.’
Okay, now you’re being purposefully dense, Jeff, you’re smarter than this, come on man. It’s a fucking sequel and part of the same story, etc. etc. You know the answer to this.
Noah….man….you’re losing me by the posting today.
You honestly believe you can become so wrapped up in a film that precedents set by set design, actors (roles, personaes. lives), previous films….MUSIC…all don’t matter because all that amtters is what you’re seeing at that moment? Sweet Jesus man….that’s INSANE.
So you’re saying, for instance, Mickey Rourke’s casting and performance in “The Wrestler” has absolutely nothing to do with him being “Mickey Rourke???” Are you saying Aronofsky didn’t push so hard for Rourke because of his past and the cinematic mirror “The Wrestler” holds up to this history?? I mean sure, the guys a great actor….but c’mon now….
And also, we’re talking about performances specifically here. I’m an auteurist, so I’m always thinking of a director’s past works while I’m watching his latest work. I just don’t think of actors in the same regard.
Noah, I did say the question was glib.
I think that if you’re thinking of a director’s past works, it’s not a far stretch to think of an actor’s past works. Especially when an actor is often a co-auteur of a film (for example, Jonathan Rosenbaum calls Taxi Driver a movie with four authors: Scorsese, Schrader, DeNiro, and Bernard Herrmann. And surely Eddie Murphy’s been the boss on most of the movie’s he’s starred in for the last 20 years).
I was talking about performances specifically, Don. And yeah, I think Mickey Rourke was wildly overpraised for that performance because of all the baggage people brought into the theater with them. It’s because it was Mickey Rourke playing that specific role that critics went nuts for it. And I was responding to an actor playing a role and I thought he was fine, not great. But that’s a whole other can of worms. Furthermore, if I lost you, so be it, oh well.
An actor’s job, Jeff, in my view is to change depending on who they are playing. That is what I’m judging when I’m watching the performance: if they adequately immerse themselves in the role that I buy it. If I can still remember that it’s De Niro playing the role, then I didn’t become fully immersed in the film and he didn’t give a good performance in my eyes.
That’s true of some actors, but not all. Jerry Lewis is always ‘Jerry Lewis’ in every movie he was ever in, except maybe King of Comedy, and that’s its own ball of wax. Ditto plenty of other comedy actors.
And to provide another example, Brando’s performance in The Freshman only makes sense of you watch it in terms of his performance in Godfather I, particularly because he’s making fun of himself. To demand that the performer sink into character robs that film (and plenty of others) of a dimension.
Of course, Jeff, I wrote a whole article about how I love seeing Clive Owen play “Clive Owen” and clearly if a film makes a direct reference to a past performance (as Brando’s in The Freshman), it’s going to make me think of it. I don’t divorce myself entirely from what I logically know to be true, but I do not formulate an opinion about what I’m watching based upon the past. That is what I would call pre-judging and I try to never do that. I will gladly judge and place things into context and all of that after I see the film, but how can you properly place anything into context while you are in the middle of it? To place something into context is to formulate an opinion and my opinion is not fully-formed until the film is over.
Look, this debate has been a lot of fun, I appreciate everyone’s comments and I really enjoy doing this. If you want to stop reading or respecting me based on my opinion about this, that’s your prerogative, but I’m glad to have these discussions even if they can be aggravating. I really must go, but feel free to take shots at me now that I’m gone!
Note that Noah’s consideration of past performance is simply to rate or catalog an actor’s current role against their prior roles. This is a dangerous way to think; that somehow a performance is to be judged as opposed to understood.
Since Noah views movies as he would a gymnastics routine, it makes sense that he wouldn’t understand the fascinating, damaged performance of Rourke in The Wrestler. To him, it’s more important how he stuck his landing on the pommel horse and how it compares to his routine in last year’s nationals.
“An actor always brings his or her past reputation with them when they appear in a film.”
Yes Wrecktum this is why Bing Crosby scared the F out of me in Dr COok’s Garden. Chilling. Somehow if it had been Christopher Lee in the role it would not be so creepy.
An unknown can blow you away with an amazing performance, but even better is someone you wrote off as being crap or past it or too pretty, and s/he blows you away with an amazing performance.
Noah – if you have the ability to look at an actor as singular entity, good for you. That’s not easy. I’m also 100% with you in Spike.
Don –
I am NOT saying it’s cinema, I’m just saying it’s there.
Previously…
Anywho, I think she’s trying to operate on a cinematic level…
If it’s not cinema, then I was initially right to say it violates the original Supreme Court decision, which makes it prostitution. The court didn’t legalize porn, it legalized graphic sex for the benefit of cinematic storytelling.
Clarification – I’m not anti-porn. It’s always going to exist in some form. What I’m against is porn-creep. The relativism that is beginning to equalize Sasha Grey, Paris Hilton and Megan Fox. Chambers was different because she was at the heart of the landmark decision. Lords never made it passed Jon Waters, which was fine because he dealt with outliers for a career. And Jameson never suceeded beyond the papprazzi/Stern level. She was famous for her career, which made sense.
Grey is part of a small group of pornsters who want to be seen as artists, except the others at least attempt to try and make art-porn. The others are also honest and encompass all aspects of being a sex worker – escorting, porn, live performances beyond stripping. They accept what they do for money and use that money to open art exhibits in San Fran and whatnot.
Grey doesn’t do any of this. She does the ugliest porn that pays the most and then hangs with Dave Navarro and appears in music videos. Her biggest attempt at “art” was considering the name Anna Karina. Yet, because she talks a good game and everyone’s terrified of being called judgmental – no one questions her.
I’ve decided that Noah painted himself in a corner with his whole take on Sasha Grey, and, consequently, had to quickly build an entirely new theory on film criticism around it. I maintain that it’s foolhardy and, frankly, impossible to ignore an actor’s prior body of work when viewing a performance on film, unless, of course, you have no idea who the actor is.
In other words…Noah is debating simply to argue and to be difficult.
Clint Eastwood’s movies (that he’s acted in) from Unforgiven and on wouldn’t be the movies they are without CLint’s specific baggage that he brings to him. THat’s why I love what he’s been doing, he’s been deconstructing his career. If he stayed out of Unforgiven and Gene Hackman too his part…it would still be a great movie, but it would be a completely different one.
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Once again, I am fully “aware” of an actor’s past works, I’m not a movie-watching robot. I think you’re right, Wrecktum, that it’s impossible to watch films and performances in a vacuum and that past performances will build a certain idea of an actor before I walk in the door. I go into every movie with all sorts of pre-conceived notions and opinions. But when I sit down to watch a movie, while I am aware of an actor’s history and how they might be subverting their persona and such, I try to objectively watch a movie for its own merits. I might enjoy how Mickey Rourke essentially plays himself in The Wrestler because I am aware of his history; but that doesn’t make it a more or less worthwhile performance. Or timeless for that matter, because fifty years from now people won’t understand what the hoopla was about.
All of this is saying that yes, you have a point and I will admit that I have an awareness of all sorts of factors when I’m watching a movie. But, I will also not let those factors influence my opinion of what the film is trying to do. So, Perm’s Eastwood example is a good one; the film is trying to subvert the cadences of the Western and Eastwood his persona in those Westerns and I will appreciate the film based on that. But playing against type doesn’t make the performance better, it just means the actor is – you know – ACTING.
OK, fair enough. I disagree with your technique, but I understand it better now.
Can you at least review her porn then?
Jeff Wells posts Scott Feinberg’s videotaped interview of Grey under the heading The Loneliness of Porn and says, “no porn star has ever walked away from it intact.” To hear Sasha Grey sell Sasha Grey you’d think she were promoting a nude cooking show. The irony is that Sasha will be just fine and get out very well from it because she’s doing Fear Factor The Sex Edition while simultaneously putting down the free stuff for the little people with the compassion of an ass master. The devil’s in the details, of which she gives none, except that soon, she’ll have her own line out. There, that’s her plan.
Lex G. FTW.
That is all.
If you had any balls Glenn, you’d review her porn, as a critic.
I’m getting confused by all this. Isn’t it possible to formulate an opinion on the quality of Grey’s performance without seeing her porn work? The first time I ever saw Renee Zellweger was in Jerry Maguire, and I thought she was charming and believable. If some heretofore unknown porn films she made suddenly popped up would I have to see those so I could reevaluate her performance in Maguire?
Sure, if you have any kind of history with an actor’s work before seeing a given performance, it’s hard not to make mental comparisons, especially if the role deliberately references that prior work as in the Eastwood and Wayne mentions here. But I assume if I see TGE before seeing any of Grey’s porn, I’ll be able to decide if I think her performance is any good.
At some level, you have to separate the actor from the performance (or vice versa, I guess). Gig Young murdered his wife and then killed himself, acts which I find reprehensible. Do I now have to loathe all those great performances he gave? Does knowledge of his act color the opinion of those coming to his work for the first time? If so, should it?
I don’t think an actor’s personal life should necessarily interfere with his or her work, but I gotta tell you, I don’t laugh at the opening scenes of The Naked Gun as much as I used to.
If YOU had any balls, T. Holly, you’d publish your full name. Now go home and get your fucking shine box.
That’s a lot of syllables, now “Eat your waffles, fat man.”
What an amazingly bizarre exchange. Kudos and anti-kudos to the two of you.
Not giving up the fight. Scott Feinberg replied, I replied:
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/05/the_loneliness.php
Go get ’em T. Holly! And take your fight to The Machine too, while you’re at it. He lives at his grandma’s house. Don’t let his skipping-record ruse fool ya, Nic!
T. Holly, I don’t understand your insistence on critics reviewing her porn work. The aim of a porno film are different from the aims of a “mainstream” film; namely, a pornographic film’s intention is for the viewer to get physically aroused, most mainstream films have different goals. It reminds me of a David Cross line, “I use it to masturbate to. I don’t know what you’re using it for, but I find it helps with that.”
Snooze, ya lose.
It’s a Brothers Bloom line, asswipe [G.Kenny]. Where does this rescue stuff come from? No such thing. I’m trying to get writers, journalists and critics to deconstruct porn and take it (back) from the anti-porn jizz and develop the language like video game reviews have for their form, only better. It’s here to stay, right? Where’s the language, why tip toe around it like Scott did? Disrespectful, immature nonsense. I’m tired of it. Not naming her previous works, I’m tired of that. Profile her all you want, but talk about the work, REALLY talk about it, come up with the language. Owe it to us, baby.
T. Holly, have you met Chucky in Jersey?
T. Holly, this is my refrain, but:
you might have a good idea in there somewhere, but I really don’t understand what it is that you’re trying to say or do, because your wording (like the above) is really rambling and disassociated.
For example – what ‘rescue’ stuff? What’s the ‘anti-porn jizz’? What do video games have to do with anything? What’s here to stay? What ‘language’ do you want to invent, exactly? Who owes what to who?
Jeff, she’s copy-and-pasting her posts from Wells’ blog.
Porn cannot be “reviewed” objectively because there is no way that I can tell you whether or not YOU will be aroused by a particular pornographic work. I think it was Ebert who said something along the lines of, sex and comedy are two things that can never be explained because what someone finds arousing or hilarious is up to the individual. And you want to name Sasha Grey’s past works? What will that do? Do you expect everyone to be reviled by pornography in general if someone mentions that she was in Cum Fart Cocktails 5? Oh heavens, what a filthy filthy title!
Noah, Noah, Noah, nobody knew how to critique a Judd Apatow comedy before they tried either.
Parts of this link back to here, where it got tagged tonight:
http://blogs.current.com/movies/2009/05/11/great-moments-in-internet-comments-when-glenn-met-holly/comment-page-1/#comment-60
I already logged a comment here:
http://www.movieline.com/2009/05/porn-icon-indie-muse-sasha-grey-talks-girlfriend-experience.php
Hey at least he got something. Interpret “…cried on a set was out of pleasure.” Porn is a confidence game, it requires lying, control and empowerment to turn ow into ah and ou.
It has everything to do with the history of the Brooklyn Bridge (which, joke here, is going to $5).
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/nyregion/thecity/27brid.html
Here’s Soderbergh using “extreme” again. One day someone like him will say, “she’s restrained and opened like a 7-11 in an extended sequence accompanied by vociferous vocals of unknown origin, but that, in my personal experience, would be known to be ‘extremely’ painful.”
http://www.observer.com/2009/movies/soderbergh-experience
Everyone’s twittering about interviewing Sasha Grey today, guess her thinness will be thinly spread around some more for lapping up (wait, that’s quelching).
ballywick@current_movies I have no burning questions for Sasha Grey about her movie watching or any of her proclaimed artistic abilities. But, you
ballywick@current_movies …could ask her how she feels about Chelsea’s work being illegal and Ass Master’s legal.
jlichman@ballywick oh you and your morality.
mrbeaksPrepping for Sasha Grey interview. Hope she’s ready to talk Godard.