April 24, 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
I realize what I
Since we’re about 2/3 of the way through the year now, here’s my top 7 for 2009 at the moment:
1. Drag Me to Hell
2. Gomorrah
3. Coraline
4. Up
5. Tyson
6. The Hurt Locker
7. Everything is Terrible! The Movie
And my bottom 3:
3. Transformers 2
2. Race to Witch Mountain
1. Wolverine
I still don’t understand what people like about Star Trek, but what do I know? I’m a Trekkie.
anyone who claims ‘trannies deux’ is the death knell is cinema is giving that craptactular poopfest way too much credit and power
poopfests come and go, but cinema will endure because we humans are cave-people at heart, telling and listing to stories huddled in the dark around the flickering fire is part of our evolution, it’s in our DNA. technology may have changed the way we live but we still long to sit in the dark transfixed by a good story, only now our caves are cinemas, long may they stand
and anyway, who cares what other people think, biscuits? all that matters is that YOU are feeling it and enjoying yourself, that’s all that ever matters, you, yourself and you. you don’t need validation, your opinion is the only one that matter when it comes to you and movies. and if others can’t dig it, well, then fuck ’em
sorry for the typos, me tired
Biscuits, you think people will discount the first four movies you listed because they’re “populist”, but at least three of them have been named as a legitimate Best Picture contenders for the Oscars and many people think they are amongst the best of the year so you’re not alone.
It’s only when the “populist fare” is feminine or from the Michael Bay school of filmmaking that people will mock.
BTW, is it too much if I self-advertise? I do a little movie segment on the radio show hosted by a friend of mine. The guys that usually host the station’s movie program are on holidays for two weeks so the two of us are co-hosting in their place for two hours on Saturday 5pm-7pm (Australian Eastern Standard Time). You can stream via http://www.joy.org.au/listenlive I think we’re discussing Inglourious Basterds, Three Blind Mice and The September Issue as well as various other stuff. Feel free to listen.
**I have to do this. This is community radio – they like listeners from anywhere!**
Turning the radio station as that LP/TFROTF marketing crossover song comes on, I am heartened by the cost/profit ratio of District 9.
Thanks for the tip, Kam. Its a fun little station, the podcasts are interesting, and it’s nice to find a resource for film talk in Australia. I’ll try to catch your show.
I don’t think there’s been any comparable comedies to 1999. Sorry, THE HANGOVER doesn’t belong on the same shelf as RUSHMORE or ELECTION…
Thank god for Jonathan Rosenbaum, I was beginning to think I was the only person not willfully blind to the problematics of Inglourious [sic] Basterds [sic] turning Jews into Nazis because Nazis get to have more fun.
I’ve literally been screamed at by a lot of different people not to “ruin their fun” at simply pointing out that deeply disturbing set up of the film. Good to see there is at least one other person who sees thing from my perspective.
Isn’t Rosenbaum the guy who went apeshit over The Reader because it dealt with the guilt Germans felt about their Nazism? Doesn’t sound like someone I particularly give a shit about.
Anyhow, as much as Hurt Locker is a “consensus film” on the internets, and as much as I loved it, a bunch of my (mostly female) friends in film school have problems with it for its “romanticization of the hyper-masculine male hero”. So people do have issues with it.
I seem to recall the “fun” of THE DIRTY DOZEN involved alighting Nazi men and women alive in gas and flame…and certainly we were invited to enjoy the brutality of Indiana Jones against the Nazis. Rosenbaum is a smart man, but as Glenn Kenny pointed out, he also co-wrote “Midnight Movies” and he should at least get the spirit of the thing…
Rosenbaum’s sin, IMO, is in believing his overly sensitive interpretations are the only ones worth considering.
My response to his not very well explained attack on Basterds is that there is a large difference between the Nazi’s unprovoked brutality/genocide/prejudice and Tarantino’s wish fulfillment revenge fantasy. Even if the methods come out looking similar, the motives are hugely different.
I really wish people would stop creating some arbitrary meaningless line in the sand of what is “offensive” and what is not. Does anyone really think Tarantino is anti-Semitic? I didn’t think so, so let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.
Was Indy really “brutal” to the Nazi’s? Or does that term now allpy to any sort of on-screen violence, regardless of context?
Technically, it was God that was brutal to the Nazis. Indy just happened to be in the vicinity.
I would say the truck battle and various beat-downs were pretty brutal. Actually, Indy was equally brutal with the Arabs to boot…
I’ve managed to avoid EVERYTHING about “Basterds” except a pretty loose understanding of the storyline. I’ve actually got pretty good at avoiding spoilers for movies I’m psyched for over the years as well. I have it down to an ART form I tell ya.
Avoiding “Avatar” spoilers will be tough though, but that’s my next big one to avoid pre-screening info on.
How about that Summit and BANDSLAM?!
Only a 36% drop off Sunday for their Monday grosses…what a great comeback for their marketing team…$2.6M and no looking back. Looking forward to teaser trailer #2 for NEW MOON in front of their next youthful wide release, SORORITY ROW, on 9/11 (nice date).
Maybe they will be focused on acquisitions at TIFF instead
Funny that you bring up Indiana Jones, storymark, because Rosenbaum’s predecessor at the Chicago Reader, a Mr. Dave Kehr, was pretty harsh on Raiders, and raised the “is he any better than the Nazis?” question there too.
One of the reasons I love Temple of Doom so much is that Indy really is kind of a selfish jerk. Also, his leading lady is a shallow gold-digger, and his ward a card-cheating pickpocket. Yet ultimately they do the right thing and save the day anyway, as a weirdly functional dysfunctional family unit.
I think Rosenbaum’s one of the best critics alive, but sometimes you have to wade past all the blood gushing from his bleeding heart.
I don’t know how anyone could compare Indiana Jones to the Nazis he fights…he’d always prefer to run than fight. And killed people in self-defense. When Indy knocked a guy down, he didn’t take an extra five seconds to stomp his head in.
a) I loved GOMORRAH too, but it came out last year.
b) re: THE HURT LOCKER – “a bunch of my (mostly female) friends in film school have problems with it for its “romanticization of the hyper-masculine male hero”.”
Wow. I’d hardly say it romanticizes the dude – he seemed pretty sad and alienated to me. YMMV, of course, but I think your friends misread it pretty seriously.
I think the comparison between Indy and the Nazis was about seeing the ark as a prize not in the brutality of their methods. Belloq was right in the bar scene where he basically said they were both grave robbers.
And isn’t the whole reason to have Nazi’s or zombies in a movie or video game is so you can enjoy guilt free bloodlust and carnage?
I think the comparison between Indy and the Nazis is that they both see the ark as a prize. Belloq was right in the bar scene where he describes them both as being nothing more than glorified grave robbers. But there is no way that the methods he uses can be judged as being as bloodthirsty as the Nazis. Besides isn’t the entire reason people put Nazis and Zombies in movies and video games is to provide the audience with guilt free bloodlust and carnage?
Jeff, just watched Tyson last night and outside of the fight footage I found it all a little underwhelming. Not a bad movie but I am a little surprised to see it on a top of the year list. What did you find so appealing?
Gomorrah came out in the US this year (not counting festivals, and I’m not). So it goes on this year’s list, even though down the road it’ll be in the ‘2008’ list.
I can sum up the whole difference between Indy and the Nazis in five words: “It belongs in a museum!”
Re: Tyson, I don’t know, I found the whole thing very compelling. I tend to be attracted to stories with unreliable narrators, and stories about complex individuals divided against themselves. And I thought it was tons better than most other documentaries I’ve seen this year (although Anvil sticks out).