MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland


Be Sociable, Share!

8 Responses to “BYOB”

  1. The Pope says:

    Hmm. A bit quiet around here, especially for this time of year. Think I’ll scoot over to another thread on the site.

  2. anghus says:

    maybe it’s just me, but i’m so uninspired by the potential nominees this year. 15 minutes away from the noms, and as long as i hear “Inglorious Basterds” and “Hurt Locker” for best picture i’ll be satisfied.
    Not happy, mind you. With 10 nominees i would expect to hear it. If there were 5 nominees, i might be a little more curious.
    I think the only thing that will break me free of this Oscar funk is hearing any nominations for The Road, which was my favorite film of last year.
    Other than that, i’m kind of uninspired by this year’s potential crop of nominees. This is the first year i can remember where i just can’t seem to muster any enthusiasm.

  3. The Pope says:

    I think the TEN list is okay. Not great (perhaps I have reservations about The Blind Side… a film that I doubt would have made the list had it only been five… and I would have happily subsituted The Road in its place), but the rest I am okay with.
    What I am most pleased about though is IN THE LOOP. getting adapted screenplay. Fingers crossed now that it wins.

  4. Stella's Boy says:

    Anthony Mackie really deserved a Supporting Actor nom. Very happy for Jeremy Renner. I was surprised to see the noms for Damon and Freeman, but I guess I shouldn’t have been. It didn’t seem like anyone was all that impressed with the movie or the performances. And hell must have frozen over since anti-Christian and anti-conservative Hollywood nominated The Blind Side for BP. The makers of The Rookie, Invincible and Miracle are bummed that there were not 10 nominations the years they were released.

  5. Geoff says:

    Wow! This is actually a group that closely mirrored my Top Ten – awesome for a A Serious Man and District 9!

  6. torpid bunny says:

    LexG just got extensively quoted by James Wolcott for a lengthy Humbertesque diatribe about the lifestyle salvation of cuddling starlets.
    Is this the opening salvo of the LexG era on the internet?

  7. LexG says:

    Third time Awesome Wolcott’s highlighted my antics in VANITY FAIR.
    LINK. BOW:
    This one is especially sweet, because I am being quoted in THE VERY MAGAZINE that his highlighting my favorite actresses on the subject of same.

  8. Foamy Squirrel says:

    All you need now is a collection of images with photoshooped penises on them and you’ll be well on your way to becoming an interweb celebrity.

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