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
It’s actually more revealing than you think, but like DP/30 or 60 (whatever it is), you have to listen to the whole thing. Side note: when Anne panned her camera and caught the room, I’d have thought a greater ratio of speaker to attender had attended. Do you want the whole thing, do you? Louder.
That vintage chick on the panel with the glasses and ’50s hair?
I hope the site she writes for is called “TryingTooHard.com.”
During her speech about internet sites balancing being factual with being first, Sharon Waxman seemed a little cavalier about The Wrap getting duped by that fake “Avatar” teaser. I don’t feel great about a would-be news source glibly replying “so what?” and “I’m okay with that” just because it wasn’t an earth-shattering story.
No, I don’t expect “Avatar nerds” to be at The Wrap’s helm 24/7. But I also don’t expect a “nimble” news organization to fail the most basic peripheral vision test and miss the fact that the video was dated October 19, 2007 and the comments section was awash in people pointing out that the film had nothing to do with this teaser.
I like all these folks personally, but Christ…were I at Cannes right now and it came down to witnessing, or even participating in, one of these navel-gazing sessions versus seeing an actual movie, there’d be no contest.
Hallick, you own.
Enough with the eyeglass knocks already, she means what she says, tracking primarily young filmmakers she likes, making them sound desirable, for instance Hong Sang-soo’s “Like You Know It All,” which interestingly has a minor role of an actress playing a pornstar trying to go legit (I’m not even looking at you, Glenn); it’s not like the smorgasbord of highly anticipated new works by known directors are hitting them out of the park, and if a programmer thought these newer directors’ works were good, why not write about them, when no one else’s editor is assigning them to anyone?
Everyone on that panel, except Horn, is trying to establish cred or get a job/jobs or both.
I will be very interested to see how the indieWIRE hook-up with American Pavilion works for the guys. Lotta work. Big distraction. But sometimes, that’s why people really need to be at Cannes.
True and true, and Horn’s not happy about it, nor about Zell.
True?, isn’t it that it’s one thing for Brian Brooks to say, “IFC said the cut [of Antichrist] will be the same version screened in Cannes.”, but it’s another thing to get them on record saying it? Like it’s called journalism, that old media thing called journalism.