MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

BYOB Hump-a-vampire-Day

Be Sociable, Share!

18 Responses to “BYOB Hump-a-vampire-Day”

  1. Couple of GREAT articles on the MCN homepage; the Apatow (although brief, I found it interesting) and the Wes Anderson. While the latter is insightful Anderson once again manages to be enigmatic and elusive even though the writer is the guy who did that great LA Weekly piece 10 years ago where he and Anderson drove to Texas together.

  2. jennab says:

    Hey, Guys…working on a project for which I need to tap your collective wisdom: Can you name movies about successful businesses or product inventors, e.g., Coco Before Chanel, September Issue, etc…? Thanks for your help!


  4. hcat says:

    The Stuff

  5. anghus says:

    i love reading reviews from critics who somehow manage to give New Moon a decent review and instead of pointing out the series obvious shortcomings decide to treat each movie as if they are reviewing a phenomenon to which they have no grasp.
    It reminds me of the way critic reviewed Jackson’s King Kong and Singer’s Superman. Even though the films were horribly flawed, the critics seemed to give extremely favorable reviews.
    critics don’t matter anymore because they’re afraid to say ‘this just isn’t any good’.
    The Star Wars prequels seemed to set the modern tone. No one really liked them, but the critics didn’t take the critical stabs they should have because of the phenomenon. But the fans did. Maybe that’s why no one cares about critics. They have to play it safe.
    Most of the New Moon reviews are soft to the point of flaccid.

  6. yancyskancy says:

    Okay, I know it’s not scientific, but the Tomatometer has NEW MOON at 31% fresh. This doesn’t strike me as giving it a pass.

  7. anghus says:

    yancy, you’d have to read the reviews. even the ones that are technically negative are like “some people will really enjoy it”. Conceding to the populist rabble rather than just saying “i thought it was poo”

  8. brack says:

    Eh, I’ve seen New Moon, and it seems to me that most critics this time out simply didn’t care to critique the film. Even Ebert wasn’t very objective with his review.

  9. RP says:

    JennaB, how about Flash of Genius (although not a “success” story, per se), Fat Man and Little Boy (albeit not a great product), Something the Lord Made (about medical discovery), And the Band Played On (dealt, at some points, about scientific discovery and competition) or Tom Dowd & the Language of music (outstanding and fascinating documentary about the famed Atlantic Records recording engineer and producer whose innovations helped changed modern recorded music).

  10. jennab says:

    Thanks, Don & RP! Don, I remember seeing Primer at its Sundance premiere on a Saturday night…very creepy and interesting. What happened to the filmmaker…? RP, will check out the Dowd doc! Again, thanks for your help…

  11. Stella's Boy says:

    I guess the Vatican does not approve of Twilight:
    Monsignor Franco Perazzolo, of the Pontifical Council of Culture, says, “The theme of vampires in ‘Twilight’ combines a mixture of excesses that as ever is aimed at young people and gives a heavy – esoteric element. It is once again that age-old trick or ideal formula of using extremes to make an impact at the box office. This film is nothing more than a moral vacuum with a deviant message and as such should be of concern.”

  12. jeffmcm says:

    Was this oddly translated from Latin or something? What does the Vatican consider to be the ‘deviant message’? Romantic relationships with the undead?

  13. Stella's Boy says:

    Good question. Here’s where I copied the above from.
    People in the News
    Vatican Slams ‘Deviant’ Twilight
    The Roman Catholic Church has expressed concerns over the growing popularity of the “Twilight” movies – Vatican officials have called the vampire franchise a “moral vacuum with a deviant message”.
    The second film in the series, “The Twilight Saga: New Moon,” hit cinemas this week and the movie’s stars, Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner, have been traveling the world to promote the release.
    But the worldwide hype, along with masses of hysterical teenage fans, has drawn criticism from the Vatican, with officials urging parents to be more vigilant about the type of films their children are watching.
    Monsignor Franco Perazzolo, of the Pontifical Council of Culture, says, “The theme of vampires in ‘Twilight’ combines a mixture of excesses that as ever is aimed at young people and gives a heavy – esoteric element. It is once again that age-old trick or ideal formula of using extremes to make an impact at the box office. This film is nothing more than a moral vacuum with a deviant message and as such should be of concern.”
    Vatican officials previously criticized the “Harry Potter” film franchise for its themes of magic and wizardry, as well as Dan Brown adaptations “The Da Vinci Code,” and “Angels and Demons” for their depiction of the Catholic Church.

  14. jeffmcm says:

    I was hoping they would be against the movies for bad writing, but it sounds like it’s just the usual anti-occultism.

  15. Nicol D says:

    Just purely as an FYI, the “Vatican” did not issue any statement at all about New Moon or Twilight. There are no encyclicals of condemnation about it and this is merely the opinion of one man on a council who does not speak for every member of the council let alone the Vatican (which is a sovereign state) or all Catholics. It is not a sin to like Twilight ( I am a big fan and look forward to New Moon) nor does this Monsignor’s opinion represent anything other than his opinion. It is not Catholic doctrine and the media should not be representing it as such.
    That this one man’s opinion is seen as a blanket statement by the Vatican and taken as such is exactly why so many call it and ignorant media.
    I am trying to use this, as Obama would say, as a teaching moment.
    Put in terms you all might understand…Bob Casey is a junior Democrat Senator who is serving with Arlen Specter. He is pro-life. He is on the record as saying such. If he makes such a statement and is caught on tape, is it fair to say that he speaks for the entire Democratic Party as being pro-life?
    Of course not. He is just offering one view and is not representing the entire party in his view.
    This is why so many people of Catholic faith (and other religions) see the media as biased.
    It is not intentional but just a genuine ignorance about how things work and it paints a skewed image.
    Think of it how GLAAD condemned Bruno. It does not mean they spoke for ever gay person or gay organization.
    This Monsignor’s view does not represent official Catholic doctrine, just his own simplistic view. Personally I wish these idgits would keep their mouths shut. They do far more harm than good for Catholics in the arts and just play into every stereotype out there.
    He is a dick.

  16. Bob Violence says:

    Agreed — no need for the media to misrepresent the Church’s position on a dumb movie when it takes far more ruinous positions, day in and day, out as a matter of policy

  17. jeffmcm says:

    Thanks for the info, Nicol. One point I think should be noted, though, is that I think you’re drawing an inaccurate comparison between this Monsignor, who (if I have this information correct) was appointed by a Pope, vs. Senator Casey, who was elected by the people of Pennsylvania. As such, they have a different set of responsibilities within their respective hierarchies.

  18. Stella's Boy says:

    I love the irony here. Nicol, the one who over and over again here has thrown around the word “liberal” to describe millions and millions of people in this country, the one who makes simplistic generalizations over and over again, is asking people to not generalize in this instance. Priceless.

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