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
I’m guessing the screening is Bruno? I’m seeing Revenge of the Fallen tonight but I wasn’t aware of any US embargoes.
Other people here have already seen Revenge of the Fallen and mentioned it, so it can’t be that.
Bruno’s a possibility, but how about Potter? Would that screen this early?
I’m guessing Public Enemies. Wondering why that hasn’t gotten more buzz than it has, given it’s Mann and Depp. I can’t wait.
Though Bruno is a possibility.
Mixed feelings about Moneyball. I read the book right when it was published and thought it was fascinating (i’m a baseball person), but it doesn’t really fit into a film-type structure. A documentary about it would be much prefered.
The reason there’s no buzz on PE is that it’s not worthy of it. Wish I could say otherwise… it’s just a stale piece of competent craftsmanship, with serviceable performances and a fairly perfunctory script shepherded by a director who’s clearly more interested in secondary characters than the major players.
My question to Mr. Mann is, why didn’t he make a movie about those guys, then??!!!?? Same story, different perspective; Stephen Lang owns as much of the movie as he’s given the chance to. So many great character actors (Lili Taylor! Rory Cochrane! Carey Mulligan! Giovanni Ribisi! Matt Craven! should I go on?) who’re eminently more interesting than Depp & Bale ever have the chance to be here.
Lord knows I wish it were different. Mann is one of my favorites.
Campbell:
Yours is the closest I’ve seen online to someone agreeing with my take on the film. I was struck by how completely without point of view the film was; it could have been made by a dozen different filmmakers at a dozen different times in history and not be demonstrably different (digital photography aside). The film never steps back far enough to view these guys as rebels or heroes of the common man despite lip service in a couple scenes as it more or less is a plodding procedure building towards what we know is inevitably coming.
It also doesn’t help that the two leads aren’t on equal footing and rather than epic duel between two formidable opponents you have Purvis as a driven but dutiful civil servant with no interior character to speak of. It’s a serviceable but underwhelming film.
The embargo’s up in a few hours so it will be interesting to see where critics fall with this one.
But is it as good as Melvin Purvis, G-Man?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071828/
You guy’s thoughts on PE is what I thought about Miami Vice. I think Mann’s starting to fall into the trap of using this new technology and putting all of his efforts into it, and not really getting the rest of it right. Miami Vice had the most boring story possible.
“Miami Vice had the most boring story possible.”
I’m not really gonna make TOO huge a case for it, because I know how divisive Miami Vice is, even among Mann fans. Plus the whole MY DIRECTOR’S BETTER THAN YOURS back-and-forth is just getting tiring to me. You’re NEVER going to convince anyone to like or dislike a certain movie, long as everyone’s so entitled and cocky in their own personal opinions, so SO MUCH of what we all do here and Elsewhere is just so much hot air.
But with MIAMI VICE: I understand how or why the digital element is offputting, but I’m always just a little curious why everyone bags on the plot or the characterizations or the humorless tone in VICE so badly; Isn’t it pretty much of a piece with everything Mann’s ever done, from Jericho Mile through Thief through Crime Story through Heat?
All-business, humorless, professional Zen dudes talking shop for 2 or 3 hours? The minutia of the underworld laid out in almost newpaperly, detail-oriented fashion? Multicultural urban verisimitude? Blasts of deadly serious rock music? Plot points that are basically who/when/what/where detailed shit, pure procedural with an emphasis on technology and surveillance?
If anything, Miami Vice kind of amps some romance and melancholy into the proceedings, whereas Heat and Manhunter and Thief are about as asexual as a Jim Cameron movie. The hushed tones, the quiet-then-loud sound design, the moody synth noodlings, the criminal slang…
Just curious, what is the shortcoming in VICE that you don’t find in the entirely similar-themed Thief, Manhunter, and Heat? (Collateral has the same milieu but a pulpier hook.)
Lex – I am right in the middle, I understand your defense of Vice and I liked it a lot but nowhere as much as Mann’s previous work. Beyond being humorless, the leads seemed bloodless. Mann seemed more interested in the hardware than the people. He lingered on the guns, cars and planes like Bay lingers on Fox. Now as far as that is a critique it did lead to some stunning camerawork, the planes contrasted against the clouds and the blue sky was stunning.
Overall the movie felt like it was more about the toys than the leads. Sort of a testasterone version of Coppola’s Marie Antoinette.
I actually didn’t mind the digital photography in Miami Vice…if anything, that was the sole different thing about it.
The reason that Miami Vice doesn’t work to me is the reasons you said…he amps upthe romance and pathos, but to what end? A generic “let’s get the drug dealer” cops movie. Boring story and Mann’s trying to make it commercial, but we’ve seen a million commercial versions of that exact same boring story, and if I want to watch a cop going after generic dull drug dealers, I’d rather it be Arnold with a grenade launcher.
Heat works so much better for these reasons…it felt effortlessly Zen as opposed to Miami Vice’s posturing. Colin and Jamie are no Pacino and DeNiro. And Heat did have interesting characterizations…they were done in a minor way, but they were there…Miami Vice had two cardboard cutouts for all it mattered.
And the best thing about Heat is that depending on the scene, you may be rooting for the cop or the robber. There’s story tension there…you know these guys are going to clash, and then what’s going to happen? And the story felt more propulsive even though it may have been a longer movie. Miami Vice just came off like a whole lot of standing around trying to look cool. It didn’t even have an interesting villain, that movie was generic all the way.
Well said to both of the above posts.