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
You may be reading too little into the DNA decision; the issues are complex. Some interesting words from Souter in his opinion, quoted at the end:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-handing-off-the-dna-issue/
If you were listening to NPR tonight then you heard the two worst movie related stories in recent memory: A piece on Bruno which did nothing but play clips from the trailer while some broad jokily chatted about offensive the movie will be, followed by a nonsensical interview with Bob Mondello about the history of vacation movies. Enough blather to tighten Poland’s rect if he was listening.
PBS. Listen to Dr. Carhart @ 2:54-6:12 and Hern 8:50-9:20 and send a letter and do what they say. http://tinyurl.com/mq27yg (hattip @ShelbyKnox follow a feminist).
“Also interesting was the horror show that is the Supreme Court is refusing to allow a convict who was convicted via an earlier era of DNA testing to have the evidence retested at his own expense. Alaska refusing, I understood. But The Supremes? Oy.”
It requires an understanding of the proper roles of each branch of government.
It’s true – you ever want to demystify an artist, read their Twitter stream.
Mystery… that is the paper thin argument that was made for this stupid choice.
But there is a reason for the Supreme Court to exist. And it is for cases like this when a half-cocked state like Alaska decides to choose guilt based on past methodology that was unsound (the DNA testing done at that time included over 15% of black men as matches) instead of the possibility of innocence given advanced technology in the presence of that option.
As Innocence Project noted, the group of men who this ruling actually has an effect on is very narrow. In the vast majority of cases, the DNA evidence is gone or never gathered. Only cases that closed over 10 years ago or so would be at issue. And obviously, only a small percentage of these men are innocent. Could be 5 – 10 cases.
All the state was asked for was to turn over some of the evidence for testing… not even to do the testing.
If YOU were responsible for wrongly convicting a man, how would you feel about it? Do you really think there is any moral argument for not allowing someone who still claims innocence to do a more current DNA testing at his expense when almost 250 men doing time for crimes they did not commit have already been freed on this basis?
States rights my fucking ass. There is no excuse possible for keeping someone who may be innocent in jail… no principle that is higher… unless you have a time machine and know that letting the person free will end up destroying the earth… but this is not a movie or a classroom discussion… this is a human being in a cage.
I do not believe in endless appeals. But I do believe that when exculpatory evidence becomes viable due to new technology, we have a moral obligation not to put our heads in the sand. This is not Iran.
I just see it as yet another reason to never, ever, never move to Alaska. It’s reason number 385, if I can read my writing properly.
We lived in a very bizarre culture. Why would a revisit to DNA cause such uproar? Ego…
I’m guessing no one here has actually read the opinions in the DNA case. Also, it should be pointed out that Obama’s DOJ sided with Alaska in this case. Everyone seems to be missing that.
Robert’s statement is disturbing on any level:
“The dilemma is how to harness DNA
Just for factual clarity, what Obama’s DoJ did, a month after coming into office, was to fail to reverse the Bush Administration’s argument that had already been made.
Unfortunate. And I’d like to think that there would not be the same failure to act against Bush Administration doctrine if it came up today.