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 hope the Oscars drop Lee Daniels and throw in a wild card, like the Coen brothers or something.
If I ruled the world (or at least the DGA)
Katheryn Bigelow
James Cameron
Jane Campion
Joel and Ethan Coen
Lone Scherfig
Please excuse the typos above. Also, I have not yet seen Precious.
I don’t think the field changes but IF it does, I don’t think Clint or Lone get in. I think it’s a completely left-field choice like Blomkamp, Ford, Abrams, Haneke or Psihoyos. If you had told me that the director of Shadowboxer would be nommed for Best Director his very next film, I would’ve punched you right in the face. Maybe the least likely turnaround, um, ever…?
Bigelow, Cameron, and Reitman seem like locks. I have a feeling that Daniels will stay and Tarantino will get bumped out, although it would thrill me for the opposite to happen.
“Shadowboxer” was execrable. And I’m not sure Daniels has turned around all that much.
No way Tarantino is getting bumped out. Honestly, and this is a minority opinion? By the time we get around to Oscars (not the DGAs), I think Bigelow is the one who’s gonna get bumped… Movie critics DO NOT equal academy members, and I can’t see Mickey Rooney watching “The Hurt Locker.”
As an aside to amuse myself:
All this time I thought “An Education” was some boring prestige period shit about a couple of thirtysomethings and the social mores of the time. Only recently have I found out Mulligan is supposed to be jailbait in it?
But Carey Mulligan doesn’t look a day under 31.
I have some INFINITELY BETTER casting suggestions if you know what I mean. They should have let ME direct that movie.
I actually had dinner with an older member of the Academy tonight. He thinks Bigelow’s a lock.
The InSneider,
Is Michael Haneke a DGA member? I know he directed the remake of his own Funny Games but that would not necessarily mean that he is. Almodovar is somewhat similar. I think that would be the only explanation why certainly he has never been nommed by the Guild but is so popular with the Academy (I mean, two wins; one for foreign and one for screenplay). A pity, because both of them are great filmmakers and certainly this year, Haneke is deserving of all the awards he is receiving.
Lex makes a good point about certain members of the Academy actually getting to see The Hurt Locker. But hopefully enough directors will nominate her round and after that… well, as DP has frequently pointed out, that is a different matter altogether.
Pope, you don’t have to be a DGA member to get a DGA nomination. Quentin Tarantino can attest to that (he isn’t a DGA or WGA member).
“Movie critics DO NOT equal academy members, and I can’t see Mickey Rooney watching “The Hurt Locker.””
Um, Mickey Rourke doesn’t vote for the directors branch as far as I am aware. Your argument is stupid. And I shouldn’t expect you to actually find someone like Carey Mulligan attractive since you have repulsive and repugnant taste and anyone who looks remotely normal is not your forte.
If Daniels has to go – and I don’t really since it’d be a trip to have an opening gay black man nominated – then I hope they go with Scherfig. It’d be awfully disappointing if the director category only made way for one minority (Bigelow) amongst a parade of white guys (especially if Eastwood gets the nod, although since they’ve found it easy to ignore his other middle-of-the-road stuff I really hope they don’t choose him again for no reason whatsoever).
lol, “opening gay black man” is a… interesting Freudian slip. excise the ing and you know what i mean. Oh my.
“I have some INFINITELY BETTER casting suggestions if you know what I mean. They should have let ME direct that movie.”
This idea has the makings of THE BEST behind-the-scenes documentary in decades:
“Well, he doesn’t talk to the actresses a lot; and its hard to get eye contact from him. He’ll mumble something polite to you one minute, and then disappear back to his trailer for a while. And hey, what the hell is “Kay Stew” anyway? Is that some kind of canned good? He kept yelling it at random all the time like he had OCD or something; and he’d do it right in the middle of a scene with Channing with the cameras rolling. And PLEASE, if I never hear the phrase ‘back end points’ again, it’ll be wayyyyy too soon…”
Somebody cross the fifth dimension Buckaroo Banzai-style and get me that DVD!
To be fair to Lex (oh, now I’m being fair to Lex?), he was only pointing out something about Mulligan’s appearance in regards to her apparent age that I’ve read here and there from professional critics myself.
To be fair to you, Kam, saying she looks 31 puts her in a certain Lexian category that we’re all familiar with here; and it isn’t a leap with that history to think the citation was an insult too.
Thanks Kam., for the correction about not having to be a DGA member in order to be nominated by them.
It does seem odd though, does it not?
I mean, (and I certainly am not quibbling with you), the WGA disqualified Nick Hornby’s exemplary work on An Education because he is not a member of the local WGA in Britain.
KCamel:
WTF? First off, OBVIOUSLY Carey Mulligan is beautiful and charming… I just meant she doesn’t especially look “mismatched” with Peter Sarsgaard. Also, I said Mickey ROONEY, not Mickey Rourke. You even quoted it. For eagle-eyed Oscar watches and just sort of an ongoing cultural gag, for whatever reason MICKEY ROONEY is somehow “the face of the Academy” in the way they drag him out every ceremony as the embodiment of the old-school Hollywood Establishment.
More than a few people thus think of him as the quintessential blue-haired Academy Member when we weigh the chances of some new, hip, edgy movie breaking through at the Oscars.
Hallick: AWESOME.
Well, while we’re on the subject of bashing Camel, Women aren’t a minority.
Also, if Lee Daniels gets nominated, he’ll be only the second African American nominated for Best Director (after John Singleton for Boyz’N’the Hood)
Yikes. So that could be John Singleton, who also directed 2 Fast 2 Furious, and the director of Shadowboxer as two African-American directors who got Oscar nominations before Spike Lee. I know that’s not so different from, say, Stephen Daldry for every movie he’s ever directed over Spike Lee ever, or any number of excellent directors. But still, yikes.
Although I guess Bigelow’s resume, if excerpted selectively, could look pretty far removed from Oscar territory: Point Blank (which I know people love, but not all that seriously, right?); Strange Days (which I like, but nobody saw); that cop movie with Jamie-Lee Curtis… K10: The Widowmaker. I’d say she’s had some nice turnaround herself.
Although: much as I like Bigelow in general and admired The Hurt Locker as a character study, I’m a little bummed that *this* is the weak-grossing movie that might actually manage to make some big awards headway. It’s a fine movie, but I’m kind of puzzled for the hardcore loooooove of it among so many critics and film fans who I respect.
Maybe I was overhyped by the reviews calling it nail-biting and intense, but I dunno, like I said, I found it more interesting as a character study than any kind of thriller. Because it is a character study, I wasn’t exactly on the edge of my seat about whether the main character is going to bite it during the first 90+ minutes of the movie. The answer is probably no. Nor was I in much suspsense about whether the other characters, who we mostly don’t know very well, especially the ones played by stars doing cameos, were going to survive because the movie doesn’t really place me with them; it places me with Renner.
As far as theme and style and all that… I don’t know, I never felt like I was seeing something completely unprecedented. It felt like a fascinating character in a competent movie. I do like Bigelow and kinda hope she gets in because she generally kicks ass. But The Hurt Locker comes off like a Paul Greengrass movie to me in that everyone loves it and I feel like I should love it and I’m like: wait, that’s all there is to it?!
Of course, with the ten nominees, it’s more than likely that two of my top five for the year, Basterds and Up, will get nominated, so that’s pretty cool.
Yeah, but Lex, the point was that directors nominate directors, not actors (Rooney or Rourke, unless one of them also happens to be in the directors’ branch). When it comes to voting on the awards, everyone votes, but that’s not the case during the nomination process.
You know, I haven’t seen Shadowboxer, and I’m sure it’s probably not ACTUALLY a good movie, but considering the cast, the premise, and Lee Daniels’s over-the-top directing on Precious, it sounds kind of awesome.
jesse: near dark
i can’t speak for kam but knowing him a bit from the blog i think he meant women are minorities in the sense that female directors are few and far between so they’re minorities in that respect (sadly). the worst is when women are referred to as ‘niche’, total bs
I’ll grant you over-the-top for “Shadowboxer.” I’d say the scene of Dorff removing his condom-clad penis from his “date” goes over over-the-top.
Shadowboxer was quite possibly the worst movie of 2006. Here’s the last graf of my AICN review, and a link to the full thing… “Shadowboxer is an awkward mess of themes and ideas that barely come together to form a cohesive, coherent narrative. Even the score is self-important. Maybe next time, Daniels will pay more attention towards coming up with an original story worth telling and less time throwing darts in the dark to see where they land. This broken record of a hitman movie is a serious misfire.” At least I said Mo’Nique was better than she gets credit for… http://www.aintitcool.com/node/23889
Lex, Rooney or Rourke it doesn’t matter (although I admit to the slip up) since they are only members of the acting branch (as far as I am aware) and have no say at all as to who is nominated in ANY category outside of Best Picture and the four acting categories. Directors nominate directors. Cinematographers nominate cinematographers. etc. And, as Hallick says, the idea of saying Mulligan “doesn’t look a day under 31” is, given your history, as much of an insult as one can expect.
Leah is also right in regards to the woman-as-minority thing. Female DIRECTORS are clearly in the minority. a_loco, you should no better.
Shadowboxer is indeed a dreadful picture. The only redeeming feature is Macy Gray who gives one of the most cracked out performances of all time. Also, Mo’Nique showing she’s capable of something dramatic with a character called, no kidding, Precious. ???
Jesse, it’s important to remember that Academy voters are human (believe it or not), and personal feelings can and do make a difference. Spike Lee has never been nominated because he goes out of his way to alienate almost everyone he comes in contact with–even his own father–as well as some he hasn’t (Eastwood, Jewison). This is one reason why I’d give the edge to Bigelow over Cameron: the latter has a long, sorry record of abusing people, and since he already has three for TITANIC, I’m betting members will think, “Fuck him, I’m voting for the chick.”
” I know that’s not so different from, say, Stephen Daldry for every movie he’s ever directed over Spike Lee ever, or any number of excellent directors. But still, yikes.”
Yeah but unlike Lee, Daldry is actually both good and consistent. Sorry if that’s unpopular.
but daldry’s directed 3 movies, spike like 107. a ‘consistency’ comparison doesn’t seem apt at this juncture
Nobody’s forcing Lee to work at the rate he’s going.
In any case, that’s the strangest argument ever against what was actually a reponse explaining why Daldry is “consistently” nominated for every movie he makes.
Especially since I’ve also said something about him being good.
huh? gonzo, i think you’ve missed my point. my response was specifically to your comment:
“Yeah but unlike Lee, Daldry is actually both good and consistent”
apart from the fact that finding daldry “good” and “consistent’ is completely subjective (i like one in three of his movies; that academy members are so enamored of his terribly serious and rather dry sensibilities is an enigma and quite possibly a fluke, but certainly not proof of being ‘good’ or ‘consistent’), my ONLY point was that comparing the consistency of someone who’s only attempted something three times vs. someone who is far more seasoned and prolific is not really valid. when daldry has been around the block and made 30 odd films (or however many spike has done), then a subjective discussion about comparative consistency would make more sense.
as far as spike lee and oscar goes, i’ll go as far as to say he has been royally shafted several times. the old white boy’s club isn’t exactly down with the brothers in general, and i think it’s fair to say spike’s specific brand of urban confrontationalism/pathos isn’t their cup of tea, up there with sci-fi, horror and comedy. spike is ‘black genre’!
Gonzo, I’ll take an “inconsistent” director who makes a movie every year or two and yields Do the Right Thing and 25th Hour and He Got Game and Malcolm X among some less successful but usually interesting experiments or tangents against a consistently “good” director who waits years before giving us, uh, The Hours, and then The Reader. Obviously I don’t agree with the “good” assessment. Even for a journeyman director, I’d say Daldry is pretty far down the list.
It’s not really surprising in the moment that Daldry’s movies get awards attention and Lee’s don’t, but it’s one of those things that sort of adds up, and you look back on it and say, wow, weird. Similarly, it’s not so strange that Daniels would be nominated this year (even though I could think of five or ten or fifteen better choices), but when you (presumably) step back and see, yeah, the director of Shadowboxer got an Oscar nomination versus a lot of excellent directors who haven’t, it starts to look strange. I guess that happens every year, though.
I’m down with voting for Bigelow over Cameron just for the novelty of rewarding someone who’s done good work and hasn’t been similarly rewarded in the past. But I can’t really get *excited* about it. I’m just a little surprised by the hardcore love people seem to have for The Hurt Locker. I could imagine watching it a second or third time, I guess, but I can’t imagine getting much out of it.
leah,
The “consistency” part of my comment was adressing the part that Daldry was nominated for every movie he made.
I never claimed my opinion wasn’t subjective (though I feel very strongly about it). So is everybody else’s. That goes without saying in a place like this.
I was also adressing the subjective notion that when a director has as many highs and lows as Lee, he’s ability to get nominated may diminish since Academy members may not be able to disregard those laws.
In addition, I would argue that even in Lee’s case, at no point in his career he had a run as solid as Daldry’s. So jesse, obviously we disagree with each other.
“The “consistency” part of my comment was adressing the part that Daldry was nominated for every movie he made.”
uh, yes, i’m aware of that. and what i said was that it doesn’t actually mean anything, that every movie he’s made (only 3) is NOT great (the reader? good lord no) and the academy either has certain proclivities which predispose voting for the style of flick daldry makes, or it’s a fluke
“I was also adressing the subjective notion that when a director has as many highs and lows as Lee, he’s ability to get nominated may diminish since Academy members may not be able to disregard those laws.”
where did you address that?
also, that’s a load of tosh. lots of directors have highs and lows and get nominated by the academy. if you believe lee’s race, his outspoken nature and particular urban sensiblity aren’t the main reasons his classic american films – and there have been a few – have been snubbed by the academy in terms of nominations, you’re naive. the old white boys of the academy clearly don’t relate to lee, or BLACK in general
you have an OBVIOUS disdain for lee’s work so discussing this is pointless, but i’ll take lee’s unique, challenging voice over daldry’s turgid sensibilities ANY DAY OF THE WEEK
leah, I think you are far too interested in being confrontational in every response you make to my comments than in having a discussion. In all honesty, I’m getting pretty tired of your tone and “because I said so” types of justifications (e.g. “what i said was that it doesn’t actually mean anything, that every movie he’s made (only 3) is NOT great (the reader? good lord no “).
I also got news for you, just because I think Doldry is a superior Director (I disliked the The Reader on the whole but I did think that it was well directed and yes it’s not an oxymoron), doesn’t mean I have “disdain for Lee’s work” (and talk about apples and oranges). As a matter of fact, I acknowledged that Lee had Highs to go with what I percieived to be his Lows (this is my personal opinion and I never pretended them to be anything but).
“”I was also adressing the subjective notion that when a director has as many highs and lows as Lee, he’s ability to get nominated may diminish since Academy members may not be able to disregard those laws.”
where did you address that?”
I think it was pretty obivous – after all we are discussing the role a director’s record plays in his chances of being nominated. I know you never bought the whole consistency thing but I think it plays a role. Even Daldry may not have gotten a nod for “The Reader” has not had a precedent of prior acclaim. (If it was entirely unclear than I’m sorry but I would also like to remind you that at a time I made the original comment I wasn’t responding to you.)
In any case, I stand by my comments. Lee is widely uneven and this should have at least some impact on his percieved worth as a filmmaker. IMO, a large ammount of output can only be used as an excuse for so long and I can easily name filmmakers who are as prolific as Lee and a lot more consistent. Again, it’s my personal opinion and I’m perfectly fine on agreeing to disagree.
And I’ve never denied that race may have been one of the factors why he still hasn’t been nominated. I just don’t think it’s a ever been a truly decisive one.
Can we just both take a big breath and try to stay civil? I’m sure there’s a lot of things that we can agree on, once the right topic comes up?
“leah, I think you are far too interested in being confrontational in every response you make to my comments than in having a discussion. In all honesty, I’m getting pretty tired of your tone and “because I said so” types of justifications”
oh, ok dad.
what are you, the tone monitor? you keep saying that any time someone challenges your assertions. my comments have been entirely civil and on point in this discussion. if you’re tired of my ‘tone’ and don’t want to have any further discussion, why are you replying? don’t impose your passive-aggressive style on me, i’ll make my point any way i see fit. and please point out where i’ve said or otherwise implied, ‘because i said so’ anywhere in this thread.
“In any case, I stand by my comments.”
yeah, no shit. and i stand by mine. and so the world turns
“And I’ve never denied that race may have been one of the factors why he still hasn’t been nominated. I just don’t think it’s a ever been a truly decisive one.”
really, based on what exactly? do you know a broad sampling of academy members? are you privy to their personal prejudices?
as far as staying civil, don’t condescend to people like you did to me in the other thread and you won’t have a problem there. simple as that.