MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Globes Catch-Up

My take on The Golden Globes this year was a little unexpected.
I thought Ricky Gervais did a solid job that was perfect for The Globes and will never be appropriate for The Oscars. Good call on both teams.
There were a few goofy choices… and that’s fine. The only award of any significance was Sandra Bullock in a category that has some great work in it, but is by no means an intensely competitive group of “must votes.” The Bullock win (and the co-win at BFCA) will get Academy members who hadn’t put the DVD in the player to do just that. The urge to offer a loving hand to a well-liked and high-grossing member of the community may do the rest.
The most significant element of The Globes is always the impression that winners make at these shows with their speeches, Was Mo’Nique’s speech genius or a melodramatic bore? Did Jim Cameron come off as a good-natured winner or will Academy members really want to see Kathryn Bigelow speak and make history? That kind of thing.
I went to the parties afterward and was reminded that, indeed, we are all part of a big high school. I am not a studio exec or an actor or director… but I am some kind of member of the family and as such, an evening out at the penultimate high school reunion creates its own perspective. There are so many levels of communication going on at once… so many people whose lives touch, but work on so many different layers of intimacy (or lack thereof).
A night of thousands of indifferent people becomes a lovely thing with a few moments with people you are genuinely happy to see. This is a note to myself for when I get angry about the absurdity of it all. I will always get sucked into rage over hypocrisy. But there is never a real question about why I still work in this world. I love it. And I am lucky to have my passion indulged.

Be Sociable, Share!

37 Responses to “Globes Catch-Up”

  1. Gonzo Knight says:

    The following is taken from the Motion Pictures Sound Editors website (in relation to their 2010 Filmmaker Awards honors):
    “One of the most influential director, producer and writer in the history of film, Mr. Spielberg, has immeasurable credits to his name as director, producer and writer.”
    It gets worse:
    “His appreciation of the interweaving of the sonic process of the soundtrack, are shown continually his projects.”
    I know times are tough and Guilds are trying to cut costs but I never thought that bio blurbs could be outsourced.
    See for yourself:

  2. yancyskancy says:

    The only thing that bugged me about Mo’Nique’s speech was that she used that same voice she uses in PRECIOUS when the social worker visits.

  3. anghus says:

    “but I am some kind of member of the family and as such”
    oh Dave. You said so much with this line. This underlying thought that exists in entertainment journalism. always just under the surface but so rarely put into print. that desperation to be part of the creative industry.
    the thing is, you’re not.
    you’re the guy who stands outside the concert selling bootlegged t-shirts.
    you’re the guy who heads up the fan club and knows a lot of interesting facts and can talk endlessly on the topic.
    you’re the guy with a radio show who does really great fantasy football analysis.
    and there’s nothing wrong with that. i love that. i’m that guy too. a fan who enjoys the game.
    but make no mistake, you are not any part of it. if you were hit by a bus tommorow, everything would go on.
    btw, that’s not me trying to be a dick. it’s an expression i use all the time.
    know your role. you’ve got a great one. you provide analysis and insight into a wonderfully creative industry. but you are not a part of that industry. that is the key mistake made in entertainment journalism. reporting on the industry doesnt make you part of it, it makes you a journalist.
    the guy who writes car reviews for Consumer Reports isn’t a mechanic. He’s a reporter.
    And it’s the one thing that grinds my gears when i hop from website to website: the guys who think they are part of the engine. You’re not.
    I’m sure this sounds dickish. But i think that sycophantic people flock to entertainment journalism and deep down there’s this desperate need to be perceived as part of the industry.
    and to me, that’s intelectually dishonest, and dishonesty is a terrible place to start as a journalist.
    honesty above all else. the line never moves.

  4. Biscuits says:

    Oh yeah! These are my favorite entries — good old-fashioned David Poland style navel-gazing. No one does it better. What exactly was so unexpected about your take on the Golden Globes, David? Because it certainly wasn’t the fact that you turned it into an entry about yourself.
    I kid, actually, I really do. There’s been much less navel-gazing of late, which is disappointing to me as a casual reader, and also surprising to me as a casual Poland-ologist. I expected with the birth of his kid to see a substantial increase in self-reflection/absorption, not a decrease. I don’t know how to explain it, but I don’t appreciate it. More like this, please.
    In regards to Anghus’s above post: just in the spirit of generalizing, I’ve found the most interesting people at these parties, in order of their profession, to be:
    Production/Costume Designers (always extroverted, occasionally flamboyant, usually fascinating)
    Studio Execs
    Publicists/PR (the profession I respect the least, but usually filled with people I like the most, oddly enough)
    Editors (a truly boring group)
    Journalists (a profession I really do respect, but really hate to deal with for pretty much exactly the reason Anghus outlined above).
    Journalists at these parties always reminds me of that kid at recess in Kindergarten… everybody else is already on the merry-go-round, having fun, and so the kid makes a few half-hearted efforts to get on as well… but the merry-go-round is going too fast and he’s too scared, so he just stands there with a stupid grin on his face, waiting for the merry-go-round to slow down. But then the bell rings and recess is over.
    And then the kid goes home and writes a blog entry about how great it is to have such fun recesses with all his grade school friends…

  5. anghus says:

    Biscuits, good post.
    I like good journalists. The ones who are aware of their role.
    I hate starfuckers. I hate people who elevate themselves to unrealustic proportions. I loathe the geek kids who believe rheir opinions impact box office.
    Ego. Hubris. Bottled up insecurities. Starfucking.
    This is the foundation of the online film reportet.

  6. longshanks says:

    “Unrealustic [sic] proportions”? The post-award show party scene is hardly rarified air, folks, and Poland doesn’t really suggest otherwise. (Unlike Biscuits — who seems very pleased with his own positioning in a sprawling social sphere that he somehow seems to view as exclusive — Dave even qualified his participation by describing himself as “some kind of member”, one man among “thousands of indifferent people”). The question of whether he did or did not attend one of these parties is nothing to get worked up about, and in no way a significant-enough gesture to raise questions of journalistic integrity.

  7. Sam says:

    anghus, that post was pointlessly mean-spirited. Like Nicol angrily trying to classify Avatar as a fad instead of a phenomenon, as if that distinction matters, here you are trying to classify David Poland as an outsider instead of an insider, as if THAT distinction matters. The difference is, your beef is with a person instead of a movie, which makes your tirade more spiteful than eccentric.
    Then you attempt to justify the force of your remarks by confessing a hatred of certain types of people. If you hate the kind of person David Poland is (or in any case who you perceive him to be), then what do you come here for?

  8. christian says:

    If only we had the online film reportet when Pia Zadora won her Golden Globe.

  9. David Poland says:

    You’re a bit sad, aren’t you, Anghus?
    You’re so anxious to put me in my place… but you have no idea what my place is or is not.
    I hate all the things you claim to hate in your comment… and the things you like. The difference between us is that after more than a decade of swimming in this pond, I do know the score. And from the distant sidelines, you have no way of knowing the score at all.
    And I love Biscuits claiming to be a “Poland-ologist.” A. It oddly overvalues me as it tries to diminish me. B. The only thing this patso has ever added to the conversation is attacks on me. C. It also decides to self-aggrandize by claiming some higher view of the events, as though it’s experience is correct and mine is just navel-gazing.
    I would compare both of you to the angry goth kids who sit around on the edges of the athletic field sticking pins in their body parts and talking endlessly about how everyone else is an asshole. But those people don’t deserve to be so narrowly categorized either.
    It’s a weird thing, having people so angry at me and yet, hang about in my space, as though expressing rage at me and telling me that I am nothing is the most important thing of all.
    Meanwhile, I am still at the party… still trying to gain perspective instead of assuming that I already know everything I’ll ever need to know. What an asshole I am.

  10. Sam says:

    On the subject of the actual awards, someone said in another thread that this must make Sandra Bullock the front-runner for the Oscar. I’m curious if others agree.
    My own feeling is that it possibly doesn’t, but I’m curious to hear further thoughts on the matter. My reasoning:
    (1) We already know the Globes aren’t good at Oscar prognostication anyway. Even if they were, the fact that the acting awards are split between Drama and Comedy/Musical blurs the picture. Streep, previously (still?) the most likely Oscar winner, did take home the Best Actress In a Comedy/Musical award: so it’s not as if Streep has lost ground; it’s only that Bullock has possibly gained some. But if Streep were leading the pack before, what makes it any different now?
    (2) True, the Drama awards are better prognosticators than the Comedy/Musical ones. But Bullock is the kind of popular actress that the Globes feel likely to embrace when the Academy does not. Consider the Globe wins by Clive Owen and Natalie Portman in 2004 (both supporting categories), neither of whom won the corresponding Oscar (though both were nominated). Consider Scarlett Johansson’s four Globe nominations and zero Oscar nominations.
    (3) Every time Streep racks up another nomination, her wins in 1979 and 1982 look less and less adequate. (Two Oscars are enough for anybody, but that’s not the point.) With Streep losing a presumed close race so recently in 2006, will the Academy try harder to reward her now? Especially given that there is no clear spoiler? I just can’t see the Academy bursting with the desire to give Sandra Bullock an Oscar, as they obviously were with Kate Winslet last year and Helen Mirren two years before that.
    I’d actually like to see Bullock walk away with it, if for no other reason that it makes better story. But I’m unconvinced that her Globe win actually elevates her chances into the realm of probability.

  11. anghus says:

    Im not trying to be mean. Theres no malice here. If people interpret it as malicious then they i dont do a good enough job explaining myself. This is honesty. This is a guy who respects what good journalists do.
    Good journalists dont consider themselves part of the entertainment industry. Good journalists know their role.
    Dave, the sideline shots should be beneath you. I have no delusions that am i anything other than a part time nothing. I openly declare my nobody status.
    But if it makes you feel better my friend, go right ahead.
    It still doesnt change the facts of what i said. Just because youre closer to the field doesnt mean youre on the team.
    You can marginalize me all you want. Its a great Karl Rove manuever. Diminish the person, dont address what was said.
    You take what i say as a shot at you, then you dont get me.
    I make comments about intellectual honesty. If you think of yourself as part of the film industry, fine. But is it really a stretch for someone to call ‘bullshit’? Are you so up your own ass that even the concept of someone questioning the fleeting sense of objectivity in entertainment journalism is warranted?
    As for being sad. Ask Charles the last time he saw me without a smile on my face?
    Why is it that critics are so bad at taking criticism?
    The question begging to be answered:
    Are film critics and reporters a creative part of the film industry.
    I say ‘no’
    And sorry for the typos. Most of my responses come from a smartphone with a limited field of vision

  12. anghus says:

    One more thing. How much perspective does one require to accept thr basic concept that good reporters never consider themselves part of what theyre reporting on?

  13. Joe Leydon says:

    Anghus: Actually, you raise an interesting point. But wouldn’t you agree that it’s a matter of perspective? I don’t consider myself to be part of the film industry, and have never claimed membership in that club. But when I have said and/or posted as much, I’ve found, quite often, that my words generate… well, shall we say skepticism? It’s actually been my experience that many people — most of them, I would wager, non-industry types — think of critics as somehow part of the same eco-system as filmmakers.

  14. joyfoool says:

    relevant quote from anus.
    “…i dont do a good enough job…”
    “…limited field of vision”
    please forgive any typos.

  15. Joe Leydon says:

    BTW: This is totally off-topic — on this thread at least — but on the subject of ticket price inflation… Well, check out these concert ticket prices…

  16. anghus says:

    Ecosystem i could agree with. But far too often i think theres a delusion present in a lot of the faraci-wellsian types that believe their work is influential in the process of making movies and that ‘impact’ somehow warrants them being considered part of the industry.
    It doesnt.
    I contend that when people write a script review about a work in progress script that causes backlash from fans and constantly mention the fallout of the project like a badge of honor, that those people think they are part of the industry.
    Theyre not.
    Theyre just examples of piss poor journalism. And when people make statements about feeling they are part of the industry, they begin to think certain principles apply to them.
    Maybe they review a bootleg of a movie
    Maybe they reveal the ending of an unreleased film to someone in a chat room and it ends up on imdb and pisses off the director
    Maybe if entertainment reporters and critics were.satisfied with their roles they wouldnt behave so poorly.
    Should i apologize for valuing journalistic integrity?

  17. EOTW says:

    Agreed, DP. Anghus, leave if you don’t like what DP has to say. Don’t let the door…Sorry, but I’m a fan of DP. He printed my take on “Three Kings” on his old hotbutton column and responded one night years ago to a couple of emails I sent jim after seeing GANG OF NEW YORK. He’ss a cool dude.

  18. christian says:

    “Are film critics and reporters a creative part of the film industry.”
    Sometimes. As when Kael championed an early cut of NASHVILLE to help spread the word. And she did do a brief stint in Hollywood. I’m sure there are other collusions. It’s a big buffett.

  19. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    It’s always black or white around here.
    I think there’s truth in what both Anghus and DP have to say about the roles some journalists play in La La Land. If its only being part of the creative process Angus, who do you think feels closer to the scene. The hundreds of talented people who crew on films but who never go to one Hollywood shindig? Or DP who gets invited to rub shoulders with some stars? Your argument about DP is kind of weak, what you do accurately nail is the desperation of many others in the geek critical world who really believe they have some connection to the scene. Even the behemoths of the scene are regarded as dog shit behind their backs by those they wish to connect with.
    Biscuits on the other hand comes off like a passive aggressive bitch. Categorizing and generalizing film types like they’re candybars. This idiot shows his utter outsider status by failing to acknowledge that makeup & hair are always the best to talk at parties as they have the real gossip & stories that no one else has.
    Biscuits are you Eli Roth?

  20. anghus says:

    EOTW, come on.
    Obviously i like Dave’s writing or i wouldn’t be here. And the only time i take issue is when i feel things are devolving into ridiculous territory. Like last year when he spent a third of time freaking out about Finke.
    Are we not allowed to read the site AND provide the occassional criticism?
    Whether you want to admit it or not, the criticism is constructive. My point was, and is, good reporters do not consider themselves part of the story.
    I’m all for bringing up Kael, but let’s be fair. Kael, Ebert… maybe you could throw in a few more examples of entertainment reporters/film critics that became something more iconic. And you have tens of thousands of others who were not. And most of them who cannot be named shouldn’t be named because the goal of a reporter is not to become the story, but to report the story.
    The goal of a critic is not to influence popular opinion, but to report their own.
    Finke is such a fine example. So is Harry. People who have spent so much time desperate to be considered ‘part of the industry’ despite the fact that they are as far removed from the industry (both physically and mentally) as someone who claims to report about film could be.
    The statement “i’m part of the industry” coming from anyone who would put the name ‘critic’ or ‘journalist’ anywhere in their job description is everything that is wrong with media.
    We could use some critical minds that aren’t closeted screenwriters, directors, sycophants and starfuckers.
    I’m not sure how anyone can disagree with that.
    And i don’t know how identifying that those in the reporting field who claim to be ‘part of the industry’ aren’t stepping across the line into starfucker territory.

  21. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    You mean like former critics turned journalists like Lurie, Schrader, Bogdanovich etc it’s all part of show business. Business being the operative word .

  22. LYT says:

    “I would compare both of you to the angry goth kids who sit around on the edges of the athletic field sticking pins in their body parts and talking endlessly about how everyone else is an asshole.”
    Except those kids RULE. I was one. Arguably still am at times.
    Good writers are entertainers, especially those writing about stuff that is not some kind of news which alters the fate of the world. If they’re TV personalities, doubly so.
    And that’s true whether or not they have any specific influence in the entertainment industry as such.
    At one of these parties, DP probably has about a hundred or so people in the biz who are happy to see him. If he dropped out of it tomorrow, I’m sure some of them would never say word one to him again, but I think some would, too.

  23. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Anghus the poster boy for your campaign of hate should be Ben Lyons, who represents the pinnacle of star-fucking black hole critical journalism.
    There is no such thing as true objectivity in any criticism. All opinions are clouded by delusions of grandeur, star fucking, petty jealousies or even subconscious greviances. There are no pure critics. All have baggage (hidden or overt) of some kind or another. It’s what makes them human as well.

  24. palmtree says:

    It’s all a matter of degree…if you didn’t go to that particular high school, but your date is the Prom Queen and you know all the popular kids from the Boy Scouts or some shit like that and you’ve shown up at all the other parties they’ve had during the year, then I say, yeah, you’re one of them…honorary perhaps but still. That’s how community works.

  25. anghus says:

    J boam
    Youre may be right. But just because standards have eroded to such pathetic levels doesnt mean they need to be abandoned.

  26. Triple Option says:

    Doesn’t the mere fact that it’s the entertainment INDUSTRY lend itself there are going to be peripheral players who can be considered part of the giant pot? Maybe the debate could be on how much stirring they actually do but how subjective definitions are for who’s to be included.
    I didn’t see much of the Globes. I liked Mo’Nique’s speech. Didn’t see Cameron’s. Or Downey’s. I was surprised Glee beat Modern Family (and the other 3) for best Comedy. Glad The Hangover won. I think it’s too easy for a film like that to be dismissed from being award worthy. Don’t know what to make of there not being a “pure” comedy actress nominated for Best Comedy Actress.

  27. rossers says:

    Anghus– shut up. I don’t disagree with you, I don’t agree with you, and I am mildly interested by the topic you brought up, but… you’re boring… Quit boring us with pithy little diatribes on whatever the fuck you care about for a few hours. Respect Dave– he is a cool dude, whether he is part of the industry or not.
    And honestly, every part of the critic’s job is in some ways disengenuous/apocryphal so really context is a fabrication anyway… let’s all just get along and keep our personal lives out of it, because they have no place in an arena where context will always be circumspect.
    On that note– Sophia Loren’s glasses: “game changer”… they look like the kind scorcese’s mom wears.

  28. anghus says:

    Rossers. Duly noted.
    I didnt care for laurens ensemble. In fact i hated just about all the fashion. Really poor choices. Though the rain played a big part in ruining a lot of looks.
    Paquin was the best look of the evening, imo

  29. leahnz says:

    who did the table layout, a descendant of the marquis de sade? they must have had good laugh watching the ‘lesser’ recipients not seated directly at the foot of the stage try to negotiate that winding maze to the winner’s circle, i think a couple people actually got lost en route
    plus the camera operators actually missed their shots of a few of the nominees as their names were being announced (jeff bridges and kyra sedgwick come to mind but i think there may have been one or two others), shoddy. also, i kept zoning out on that groovy 1960’s-esque circle-on-circle fishscale set design in the background during the winner’s acceptance speeches, it looked like something from an old ‘laugh-in’ set

  30. movielocke says:

    might as well throw this out there,0,3065227.story
    basically this op-ed says that the oscars are pandering to films audiences and what a terrible, horrible shame of having to include such low quality shit in the grand and unsullied awards.
    Um, why does no one ever consider that since Harvey started winning best picture oscars, the awards have trended towards pandering to elite tastes by quite a lot?
    The oscars used to be a lot like Obama, pretty moderate, trying to please everyone so they wind up pleasing very few–which one would expect from a group that because of the makeup of the industry balances the interests of art, commerce, popularity, and importance. There was always going to be a mix, in the oscars, of the very popular and the very arty, in a given year you could have the Fugitive and the Piano nominated for Best Picture. But post English Patient and post Lord of the Rings, and perhaps with the rise of the internet (which makes accessing the critical consensus and zeitgeist on films easier for many, which is not to say that many actually do access it) it has seemed as though Oscar has wandered into a more insular realm (which can be seen by the consistently decreasing ratings), and the only conclusion I could draw from that is that Oscar is pandering to elite tastes more than it has in the past.
    Actually, I

  31. Cadavra says:

    To get back to DP’s question. I agree: this does put Bullock in front. She’s well-liked, has done solid work for over 15 years, and did a superb job outside her comedy comfort zone (I assume; have yet to see the film). It’s true that Streep’s victories are well in the past, but two wins are still two wins; moreover, I think the presumption is that this might be Bullock’s only real shot at the prize, while Streep is still good for another 4 or 5 noms before she packs it in.

  32. David Poland says:

    The more I write in response to you, Anghus, the more drama I feel I am creating. You’ll feel the need to respond, etc.
    All I can say is, you have a narrow view of the world in which I live and work. I don’t mind anger. But I do mind – and this is a lot bigger issue than you – this notion that everyone now thinks they have the right to have their opinion taken seriously about every fucking thing… a conspiracy of web democracy, lowering the standards of discourse on a daily basis.
    There are plenty of people in this town who dislike me and my attitude and actually do know me and how I work. I can agree with those who “know” me… or not. But at least we are speaking the same language.
    While I am happy to consider your general issues with the media, I can’t even bother to consider your anger at me because you don’t know me, how I work, or virtually anything about my world, except what I tell you on the web. And if you think I tell you everything, you are as delusional as you seem anxious to claim I am.

  33. Biscuits says:

    A) I wasn’t trying to diminish you by saying I’m a casual Poland-ologist. I was being genuine. You have a perspective on the business side of movies and I appreciate it. It’s a different perspective than mine and I honestly learn a lot from it. That’s one of the reasons I come here. The other reason is I think you’re interesting as a personality. It’s the same reason I go to Jeff Wells’s site — for the spectacle of the person behind the perspective.
    B) You misspelled pazzo, which leads me to —
    C) Every time I post anything, you dismiss what I have to say by calling me crazy and insist I’m filled with rage. I’m not crazy and I’m not raging against you, man. I’m just criticizing you. I know you are jaded by years on the internet, but there really is a difference. I read you every day and you’re right, I don’t post that often, and when I do it’s usually to point out your hypocrisy or a mistake you’ve made. Six months ago I took exception to one of your umpteenth posts about Nikki. You labeled it “Mystery Solved?” and then you made a spurious accusation that Marc Graboff “may have been outed” as her primary source at NBC. Without mincing words, that post was bush league journalism and it was irresponsible behavior. You dragged Graboff’s name through the mud, publicly and without a shred of proof, for no reason other than to strike out at Nikki once again. You behaved in the exact manner you accuse her of behaving. I pointed it out. You called me crazy and accused me of raging against you.
    Then the other day you post a link to a disastrous Leno segment, which it turns out you misread and misunderstood, as evidence that the tide is turning and he is now winning the public relations war against Conan. This in the midst of a epic PR disaster that is getting worse every day. His ratings have continued to slide amidst all the controversy while Conan’s have more than doubled. New articles like this one ( are written and published every hour. You were then, and still continue to be, quantifiably wrong on the subject. I point out that if you actually think Jay is winning the PR battle then you may have lost perspective on the subject. You call me crazy and accuse me of raging against you.
    I was talking to another online entertainment journo the other day about how ironic this exact issue is. One of the responsibilities you’ve foisted onto yourself is to be the standard bearer for ethics and journalistic integrity in your little online clique of our big high school. You constantly rail against Finke, Friedman, the NYTimes, Waxman… anybody who you think violates the covenant of the standards you hold them to. And it’s a noble endeavor. Somebody needs to do it, I guess. Even though it’s a little obsessive at times, particularly your Finke fixation, at the end of the day it’s probably worthwhile.
    But when somebody dares to hold you to the same standards you hold everybody else to, you get indignant, dismissive, and condescending. And if that’s not the definition of hypocrisy, then I don’t know what is.
    Six months went by between my critical posts. You wrote lots of good stuff in those six months. I should probably do better in complimenting you in between my criticisms — not that you really care what I think, you’ve made that clear. My earlier post on this thread was pretty glib and maybe a little mean-spirited. Which probably doesn’t help my cause as far as you taking my criticisms seriously. So maybe this post will. Because no matter how easy it might be, dismissing me as crazy and rageful does not invalidate those criticisms, or validate your mistakes.
    And JBD — I specifically pointed out I was generalizing with my list earlier, that was kinda the point. But you’re right about hair and makeup. Certainly true on set, anyway. So please forgive my omission and slot them in just above the production and costume designers. Then all will be right with the world.

  34. anghus says:

    Biscuits, once again spot on.
    Criticism equals anger. It runs rampant in their line of work. Criticism can never be seen as constructive.
    They react like enraged tweens who have seen their name in a slam book. Theres one guy who screams like an old woman when you even mention that an aspiring screenwriter makes a shitty entertainment reporter since theyre soaking in bias.
    But sadly, no one will even admit the possibility. Instead were “angry”. And in the dozen or so times ive brought it up in here dave has never engaged me in a conversation about it.
    He has berated me
    Hes called me a small time nothing
    He calls me sad
    But he hasnt really discussed the topic of integrity and bias in entertainment journalism.
    Unless of course it is in reference to Nikki.

  35. EOTW says:

    Sorry, anghus, I like DP. He’s a nice guy and nothing wrong with that. the only time Jeff Wells emailed me (twice) was to tell me to fuck off and die. true story. Still got ’em, too.

  36. anghus says:

    eotw, and once again you miss the point with amazing level of accuracy.
    i don’t dislike dave. i dislike his avoidance of the topic. i dislike the fact that he perceives criticism as anger. there is no personal dislike here.
    i don’t even dislike the ‘sad’ and ‘you’re a nobody’ comments he makes. it’s kind of juvenile.
    im going to try to slow this down so you can comprehend that this is not an anti poland rant.
    ready? paying attention?
    Point 1
    i would really enjoy talking about bias and perceived bias in entertainment journalisn and film criticism. It’s a topic i find really interesting.
    Point 2
    I hate that when the topic is brought up to dave that he shuts down and calls us angry sad people rather than addressing the topic.
    Point 2.5
    Dave will not discuss the topic unless it involves him calling out other people like Nikki, Drew, Wells, etc.
    Point 2.5.1
    I would love to see a DP 30 on the topic with some honest discussion about topic. But i think it would end up being 3 guys pointing the finger at one another until eyes came popping out.
    if i didn’t like the blog or what Dave wrote, i wouldn’t be here.
    I hope this clears things up for you, but i feel you may be mentally retarded. If you are, then i apologize for not realizing it sooner.

  37. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Biscuits. Thanks for the tolerant response towards me. I do think DP responds in a confrontational manner when pegged with some proof that he may have been off base. It usually takes some time for him to admit this (mainly to do with boxoff preds), however when you call out his integrity, its no wonder he’ll take you down like the Fijian wrestler we know him to be. Re: Leno, I do think if you have direct access to Leno’s camp and know him to be furious then I accept that. I do think we all realised what was coming but I think JK may have added a couple of extra twists Leno didn’t appreciate.
    DP likes a good grudge. Unfortunately I think most posters here should temper their posts with + and – posts, otherwise DP is completely in his rights to dismiss whatever criticism you make because it sounds like an agenda without any positive feedback. And the little positive feedback he gets is always immediately coated with some negativity.
    By the way, when the date stamp says 1am or whatever crazy hour, the truth is I am probably not posting from the USA.

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