1. Roman Polanski directing God of Carnage – Rarely has a great director seemed more wrong for great material. This is a dark social satire of people exposing themselves bit by bit… a comic variation on the disastrous Polanski take on Death And The Maiden. Really, Mike Nichols should direct it. Nora Ephron would be a fascinating choice. But Polanski? No.
2. Vulture Exclusive: Fox
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
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"]
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
Saw God of Carnage on Broadway back in September and had a great experience for my introduction to Broadway shows.
Really can’t see how it would work as a movie though. Can’t Hollywood just leave well enough alone sometimes.
Nichols already directed GOD OF CARNAGE–only it was called WHO’S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?
Really, it’s four people shouting at each other in one room. It would be a perfect starter feature for a stage director; the only thing a big-name helmer could add is a larger salary.
and then he kinda did it again when he directed “Closer.”
Nichols is so obvious for God of Carnage the thought of him doing it is actually painfully boring. I’d love to see what Polanski brought to it.
Planet of the Ape sequel ideas for FOX Studios.
Idea #1: BLUE MONKEYS!
Idea #2: Rip-off better movies for this movie but replace it with… BLUE MONKEYS!
Idea #3: Possibly have terrorist orangutans some where in there. That would be AWESOME!
Idea #4: Did I mention… ape nips? OH I JUST DID!
Idea #5: I forgot to mention APE ON APE ACTION! APEY STYLE!
Idea #6: Cast Josh Hartnett. Why? He needs something to do.
Idea #7: 3D! 3D! 3D! WE WILL THROW MONKEY FECES IN 3D! THINK ABOUT THAT 30 PERCENT BUMP IN GROSSES WE WILL GET FROM MONKEYS FLING POO AT ONE ANOTHER!
Idea #8: Possibly recast Tim Roth because we already employee him with Lie to Me, we can just call it a right off or something.
Idea #9: Tie-ins with McDonalds that really does nothing for the movie but dumb kids love BLUE CREATURES! SO WE WILL GIVE THEM BLUE MONKEYS ON HAPPY MEAL BOXES!
Idea #10: Conan O’Brien. He’s hot right now.
If these are not suitable to your needs, I have an idea about redoing a Jim Kelly movie with USHER!
Norah Ephron would be an intriguing choice for God of Carnage. I also think Jason Reitman would have a fun go at the material (as one of the few directors today who is committed to making smart comedies for adults and about adults). Especially if he could cast Vera Farmiga as Annette.
Hell, even Woody Allen would make a pretty fun, wicked version if he didn’t mind working from someone else’s material.
Norah Ephron would be an intriguing choice for God of Carnage. I also think Jason Reitman would have a fun go at the material (as one of the few directors today who is committed to making smart comedies for adults and about adults). Especially if he could cast Vera Farmiga as Annette.
Hell, even Woody Allen would make a pretty fun, wicked version if he didn’t mind working from someone else’s material.
Norah Ephron would be an intriguing choice for God of Carnage. I also think Jason Reitman would have a fun go at the material (as one of the few directors today who is committed to making smart comedies for adults and about adults). Especially if he could cast Vera Farmiga as Annette.
Hell, even Woody Allen would make a pretty fun, wicked version if he didn’t mind working from someone else’s material.
Shh, DP. Polanski can do whatever he wants as far as I’m concerned. With the right script he’d be a great match. My pick to adapt: David Mamet.
And personally, I’m just glad Polanski’s working. Heard great things about “The Ghost Writer”. Hope it delivers.
And, DP. Stop being a hater.
Reitman, Allen. How about Levinson? From that same Mamet script.
“Can’t Hollywood just leave well enough alone sometimes.”
Ah the irony.
It’s like Fox made all this money w/Ice Age and Avatar now they want to give it all back w/nothing to show in return. Why not put the money into R&D? Like on some solar powered 3D film projectors?
Is Planet of the Apes even on anywhere in syndication? What makes them think people would be clamoring for this? Don’t they at least have some successful films in their closet they could rummage through? I’m surprised no one’s gotten a hair up his ass to remake Cleopatra. It made money, after all. Who’d take Marilyn’s spot in Some Like It Hot? I hate to bring it up just jokingly. Seriously, why go into the movie biz if that’s all you’ve got?
“What makes them think people would be clamoring for this?”
Used to run on TV a couple years back all the time. And we are talking movies not the obscure TV series.
“What makes them think people would be clamoring for this?”
Eh… Tim Burton’s remake did quite well. And if you don’t see franchise potential, you’re the only one.
“I’m surprised no one’s gotten a hair up his ass to remake Cleopatra.”
Eh… Soderbergh?
“It made money, after all.”
Right, that’s what’s it’s known for. Making money (longest 70mm film ever)
“Who’d take Marilyn’s spot in Some Like It Hot?”
Eh… Lady Gaga?
“Seriously, why go into the movie biz if that’s all you’ve got?”
Eh… what’s the square root of a triangle?
In all seriosness though, of all the Ape related project’s Scott Frank’s “Cesar” was by far the most interesting one of all. I really love “Conquest for the Planet of the Apes” and believe that in capable hands it’s can be hella scary.
Like rooting for another race except when shit’s real.
Burton’s Planet of the Apes was dire and feels like one of those in between blockbuster movies like GI Joe. Based on a previously popular franchise, yet not done in any particularly good way so it all felt a bit “so what” and not based on a current hip nostalgia trip (like the ’80s). I can tell it cost a fortune, but it sure didn’t look like it. Where was the extra something that should have made people sit up and really pay attention. For all its faults even Transformers and its sequel offers audiences cars that turn into giant robots with amazing visual effects. What did Apes have? Paul Giamatti and Helena Bonham Carter in monkey suits, however “advanced” as the press releases may have tried to make them out to be. And Estelle Warren was it? Christ almighty, talk about hitchin’ a ride on a cart that’s not going anywhere. It was also the beginning of a disturbing career trajectory for Tim Burton. I’m surprised Johnny Depp isn’t in that movie somewhere hidden under makeup.
IO, ffs build a bridge and get over it. then go back and jump off. You’ve become more monotonous than Lex.
The major problem with the POTA remake is that it ignored what made the first a hit. Not just cool ape costumes, but the satire of watching alpha male Heston become a slave to the real alpha apes. All of that was jettisoned in the new version. Typical.
disastrous Polanski take on Death And The Maiden
You mean the one with both Weaver’s & Kingsley’s best performances on film? That one?
Just about everything was wrong with the recent Planet of the Apes reboot, but I have to give it credit for getting one thing right: Tim Roth’s performance. He was amazing as the ape. The makeup looked great, and he nailed the movements, walking and tics of ape behavior. I was amazed at how good he was, and it’s a shame that the rest of the movie sucked, because it’s a performance worth noting.
“And, DP. Stop being a hater.”
Hater towards what?
“Shh, DP. Polanski can do whatever he wants as far as I’m concerned.”
After drugging and anally assaulting a 13 year old, apparently nothing much concerns you.
After yesterday’s ruling, there still exists the slight chance Polanski might not have the freedom to do anything for awhile. Like 5 to 10 years. Many might scoff at that, but the prosecutors will have to worry about someone running campaign ads against them down the road that claim they let an “admitted child rapist” off the hook.
Preemptively handicapping a director’s next project based on a skewed personal perception of what he can or cannot pull off equals being a hater in my book. May seem like an overstatement (that’s why I tried to downplay it a bit) but it’s a huge personal pet peeve of mine. That’s the number one reason I cannot stand Faraci. My motto – Let people do their work – unless we are talking really bad directors or Ron Howard – don’t
be a hater. Some of the most interesting films ever made were made when people thought the directors didn’t match their material.
And D_G, grow up. That clearly wasn’t what I meant.
Gonzo Knight wrote: Eh… Tim Burton’s remake did quite well. And if you don’t see franchise potential, you’re the only one.”
Funny that if the movie did “quite well” that they didn’t cue up another installment within the first 3 years, let alone 9. You know, like the way they did 4 in the first 5 years of the original. Whether the 2001 film ultimately made money or lost money I don’t know but I know it didn’t make enough for Fox to see it’s “potential” as being a sure thing.
The tale is not particularly timeless, like Romeo & Juliette or the universal desire for acceptance. The characters aren’t a focal points of pop culture lexicon, unlike Star Trek or Adams Family. They have no distinguishing power that would suggest they could usurp the appeal of any reining super hero. Any major talent cast as primates looses any recognizable star appeal and thus marketing advantage. Any bridge between past and present had been eroded by a near decade old film that was not received well by critics nor audiences. What you’ve got is a recognizable title whose lunchboxes may fetch a premium on eBay but nothing to substantiate the coinage needed to make it a viable summer tent pole option. Are you planning on 3D’ing this movie up, attach a name who can open a film? Drive the budget up towards $150M? I see the potential to break even or pack up my sh#t in boxes after I loose my job for pushing this idea.
I’d seriously love to hear why anyone would expect another Apes movie to outperform the last installment in a matter that would be cost efficient.
Triple Option, you may have a point there. When I I was talking about “franchise potential” I wasn’t necessarily referring to the Tim Burton’s version but, rather, the franchise potential inherent in the sereies (or, franchise, if you will) itself. The fact that there is history of multiple (and very different movies) in that series only makes that idea more justfiable.
Burton’s version did make a profit and not every decision he made was a bad one (though I’m not really a fan aside from Tim Roth aforementioned turn(. But that ending, really, apart from being really bad, may have been the thing that killed the sequels. Was anyone really exicted about Ape Lincoln? Point being, others can succeed where Burton failed. Heck, I’m semi-suprised FOX didn’t at least do direct-to-video sequels to his version.
Artistically speaking, mind you, I’m against the sequels. The original Planet of the Apes had a perfect ending (sorry, Boulle). The story was over. It did not need to continue.
The second installement was so over the top and terrible even if it did allow for superior sequels. Which is why, again, I return to “Cesar”. That’s the only movie out of the series that is really worth doing again.
And it’s not a movie that really needs a prequel or a sequel.
I would disagree with your comparison to “Adams Family” though. Apes are classic characters (even more so than any human characters) and are a much greater presence in the Pop Culture than you give them credit. Whether or not it’s enough to REALLY make an all-out hit, I don’t know.
In my mind, right now, Will Smith in Heston’s role probably could do 650+ million worldwide. Is that a fair example? All things, considered, I I don’t see why not (even if the casting might prove controvercial – it’s hard to know when it comes to these things).
Wait, did Gonzo just bag on Ron Howard? Me no understand.
And Triple is right…is the studio saw franchise potential in the movie, they would have made two more by now.
The second movie (Beneath) is actually my favorite, leaving aside the brilliance of the original.
“Apes are classic characters”
Burton’s mistake may have been leaving out Dr. Zaius, Taylor, et al. Even Troy McClure knew better than that.
Ephron is far too toothless a filmmaker to take on something like GOD OF CARNAGE. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that when you said she’d be “a fascinating choice,” you meant it would be fascinating to see how badly she fucked it up. I mean, honestly, that makes about as much sense as Neil LaBute directing JULIE AND JULIA.
Neil LaBute’s remaking DEATH AT A FUNERAL with an almost all-black cast, which is almost as bad an idea.
DeafEars, no offence but you are probably one of those fools who would think that Rob Reiner could never do a Steven King film.
Yes, let’s be idiots and call a person who specializes in particular type of movies “toothless” and let’s assume they cannot do anything else. Beacause you know, Nora really fucked up “Silkwood”.
I know that it was directed by Mike Nichols but that’s sort of the point.
Not saying Ephron is perfect for the material but she may have it in her.
I’m with Gonzo Knight: Polanski can handle all kinds of material. He has a terrific sense of humour, too. Also, this thread is about suitability for directing certain film projects, not about Polanski’s legal problems, right? Right?
I think the main difference between Rob Reiner and Ephron is that before he directed Misery, Reiner had made a bunch of good movies.
Don’t see how anyone can doubt Polanski. He’s shown his chops over and over, only failing utterly when he tries his hand at comedy (like Pirates and Vampire Killers).
Gonzo, how do you constantly defend mediocrity and bag on Ron Howard? I’d think he would be right up your alley (although I actually think he’s pretty good).
Nice try Perm but you are going to have to try harder if you want to land a decent insult. Just because I once stood up for Bretner doesn’t mean I’m into “defending mediocrity”. As you may recall that particular conversation had a particular context and had a fairly strong fantastical bent. Can’t a guy get hypothetical for a moment without people taking it all wrong 😉 ?
And as for Ephron, again, I wasn’t singing her praises but merely countering what I thought was a hugely overstated comment. There is a difference, Perm. I wouldn’t ever think of her in this context but it annoys me when people start cursing someone out for little reason.
Now, Reiner – you are right he made great movies before his King films. And one of the absolute best was written by Ephron.
The bigger point I was maing is that prior to Misery, Reiner never done anything similar. If he could adapt then maybe others can too. It wasn’t even about Ephron per se.
You clearly have a very wrong idea about my actual tastes. And I see you bring up the Ron Howard thing again. (yeah it was a cheap shot but frankly, I’m a little surprised since it seems like it really bugged you – I mean it’s Ron Howard, i.e. the poor man’s poor man’s poor man’s you know who) He’s the very definition of not up my alley. Over half of his filmography is, imo, very subpar. I find his directing style to be incredibly bland and predictable.
Let me explain myself here since I will be asked to anyway. It’s the predictableness of his shots that gets me the most, really. With most good filmmakers there’s some mistery with how they get their shots and the thinking process that leads them to a particular destination. With Howard (and a few others) I always feel like I can deconstract the whole thing on the fly. And then I find myself spending a lot of other time thinking how some of the other shots can be improved.
I admit that I should like his good movies and the ones that are considered great. I just don’t. I don’t know why.
In any case, it really was a bit a throwaway comment and I don’t really have anything against the man. Don’t read too much into it.
THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS is awesome. My favorite Polanski film.
Gonzo, it’s only an insult if you believe it is.
And sorry, but it seems every other time you pipe up it’s to defend Ratner, or Burton’s Planet of the Apes or Ephron. So yeah, you kind of stick up for medicority.
I’m not really reading much into what you said about Ron Howard, I mean, you bagged on the guy, there wasn’t a whole lot of subtext there. But it is funny that for a guy who was defending Ratner is going to take Howard to task for his shot choice and such is sort of baffling. Maybe you don’t like Ratner, but you sure will defend the man for days. And come on, you were saying that the man directed movies WELL, not just that he was so-so. And I’d say that Howard isn’t great, but at least he can make a movie with some energy, like Ransom.
And Reiner, before he directed Misery, had directed several very good dramas, which showed he could work with actors. I don’t think there’s as big a gap between making Stand By Me and Misery as you seem to. Misery is still a character based drama at it’s core.
And maybe Ephron wrote When Harry Met Sally (which I don’t really love anyway), but she also wrote AND directed Mixed Nuts, Michael, Lucky Numbers and Bewitched.
I only believed that you were trying to make an insult.
And Perm, I don’t even like Burton’s Planet of the Apes and hardly anything I’ve said above could lead one to believe otherwise. It’s ridiculous that I have to “bag on” something around here for people to understand I’m not in love with it. Seriously, not a fan.
And the only reason I even talked at any length about Ratner is because it was part of a conversation that you were a part of. It was YOU who dared me to defend them so I thought about what I could. Geez, man, me may not have similar tastes but I sort of enjoyed that convesation. Don’t try to spoil it with your overanalysis. (“Mediocre” is an euphomism for hackery around these place anyway and all I ever said that I didn’t think he was a hack. For the record, didn’t find Ransom that intense either. Walked out of Bewitched. Let’s move on.)
And deep inside you know my analogy about Reiner applies. Of course he’d done solid work before. Too bad you didn’t understand that my original comment was merely addressing someone’s perception of what Reiner could or couldn’t pull of.
In any case, as far as I’m concerned your defending of Howard is much, much worse. Different strokes.
“I think the main difference between Rob Reiner and Ephron is that before he directed Misery, Reiner had made a bunch of good movies.”
This. Thank you, Big Perm. And calm down, Gonzo. You have no idea what I thought of Rob Reiner doing Stephen King. I thought he was a fine choice for both King-based movies he did, STAND BY ME and MISERY, before seeing them, because he’d made one classic, THIS IS SPINAL TAP, and one minor classic – THE SURE THING – which demonstrated he really understood teenage kids. Ephron has been directing films for the better part of two decades now, and she has yet – IMO – to make a movie as good as THE SURE THING, let alone MISERY or SPINAL TAP. Moreover, I’ve read interviews with her and she’s obviously a smart woman, but as an artist, her films convey a pretty facile understanding of human nature. That’s what I meant by “toothless” – lacking quality and the understanding of the dark side that Polanski possesses in spades, and that Reiner has to a lesser degree. So, no comparison. Run along now, you’re spending too much time on this board, life is passing you by.
Oh, and
“The bigger point I was maing is that prior to Misery, Reiner never done anything similar. If he could adapt then maybe others can too. It wasn’t even about Ephron per se.”
by that point he’d done STAND BY ME, which was written by – guess who? – Stephen King. Way to make your point, genius.
“And calm down, Gonzo.”
This is coming from someone who used profanity to describe what Ephron may have made? Maybe if you weren’t so dense I wouldn’t have to explain what I meant.
“by that point he’d done STAND BY ME, which was written by – guess who? – Stephen King. Way to make your point, genius. ”
[insert a deaf ears joke here] I know he did Stand by Me and I know who wrote it. Jesus, the reason why I said what I said was because Misery is a much more typical King movie than “Stand By Me” was. That’s why I said he hasn’t done anything similar, Einstein. Both movies may based on King’s stories but the ARE different. Seriously, how stupid do you have to be NOT to see that?
I know Reiner did that teenage movie which might be a good indicator for SBM. Not so for Misery which is why I said what I said. Do you get it now or will you try to “catch me” again.
And the whole Rob Reiner comment was meant to address the general outlook a closeminded person might have. I didn’t claim to know you personally. Chill.
Look… not every director is meant for every project.
Obviously, like actors, directors can stretch. But we have seen one comedy out of Polanski… Vampire Killers… which was terrific and in a completely different vein (ha ha) than God of Carnage.
The reason I think that Ephron would be interesting is that the surface is right in her wheelhouse, but the text, first in subtext and then openly, is much tougher than anything she has ever made. That is the kind of stretch I can imagine.
And you know, perhaps Polanski would make it dramatic and the comedy would be that much more intense. In some ways, this material is like a satire of large parts of Rosemary’s Baby… the social constructs, ambitions, threatened dreams…
And yes… not a fan of child rapists either. But the discussion of whether Polanski should be indulged artistically with funding is a different one altogether.
I really don’t know how you can categorize Stand By Me and Misery THAT differently, Gonzo. They are both character based dramas…with the added addition to some suspense scenes in Misery, sure. But acting is acting, and Reiner had more than proved his chops there. And if you wanted, you could even say he was able to pull off suspense scenes in Stand By Me such as the train bit, the climactic stand off, and the scene where Keifer Sutherland held the cigarette to one of the kid’s faces.
I mean, every movie is different from every other movie in some way, so unless you’re Ephron and keep making the same sitcom over and over, going from movie to movie is generally going to stretch some different muscles.