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” ā 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 ā 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 ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā 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 namedā” “Yeah, sure ā 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 Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās 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 didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā 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. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās 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
It’s not the first time this has happened. One of the more famous occurrences was Pink Panther – it’s almost impossible to think of the franchise now without defining it through Clouseau (and Peter Sellers), but he was originally a secondary character to The Phantom in the first film.
“Batman movies are about Batman… but it is The Joker who tends to drive that train, no?”
perhaps, but the joker is batman’s ultimate foil. hit girl is not kick-ass’s foil, rather his accomplice, so perhaps technically ‘robin’ is a better analogy (and i haven’t seen it yet so i’m just blowing smoke out of my ass based on what i’ve heard). should robin upstage batman? perhaps, but only if he really kicked some serious ass, but he was always a bit of a nancy boy. maybe ‘hit girl’ is the 21st century’s robin. robin as he might have been – should have been – if he was a bit demented and a juvenile potty mouth to boot
Green Hornet / Kato (Bruce Lee) then?
better (but bruce upstaged EVERYBODY. he had existential awesomeness. does ‘hit girl’ have existential awesomeness?)
This movie looks like a one trick pony I have no interest in at all. Could care less what Ebert or anyone else thinks. it looks like a dumb, mindless movie. Nothing better or worse than anything else.
How insightful, EOTW.
Read the 8 part series. Apparently there will be more, so that’ll give Kick Ass new opportunities to be upstaged.
There’s a debate?
“Batman movies are about Batman… but it is The Joker who tends to drive that train, no?”
No.
And has anyone ever watched Road Runner cartoons to see the Road Runner?
The Batman/Joker comparison is valid.
When we were kids we all loved supporting character Han Solo over Luke.
Who drives Goodfellas more; Supporting players DeNiro and Pesci or lead Liotta.
It is valid that even though a character may be supporting they are the engine that drives a film.
I am sure others could think of plenty of other examples.
Eh… I don’t know about Batman/Joker. If you’re talking about the franchise, Batman certainly trucks along quite happily without Joker even though Joker is one of his more iconic foes (for the mainstream public, I don’t think any other comic character has such an easily identified foil – Superman’s Lex Luthor comes closest, but even Spiderman’s Rogues Gallery is fairly distant compared with Joker).
The Dark Knight, on the other hand, wouldn’t have drawn anywhere near the attention without Ledger’s Joker. Nothing else in the film “comes close to the intensity” as Poland puts it.
Although, as Don points out, there’s not really a “debate” unless there’s people arguing that Hit Girl is NOT the key attraction for the film. I don’t believe I’ve seen anyone say that they’re going explicitly for Aaron Johnson. Probably most attendees don’t even know the actor’s name, compared to Chloe Moretz.
Goodfellas is driven by the whole ensemble. Just because Liotta is often a passive narrator doesn’t mean he doesn’t move things along via voiceover.
I’ve yet to see the film but am frankly kind of stunned the “uproar” over the content- particularly the actions and mouth of “Hit Girl”- has legs. People were griping over the red band trailer and are now equally offended by the final effort. By “people” I mean Roger Ebert and AO Scott. Obviously the argument is falling back on “but when Jodie Foster is a 13 year old hooker in “Taxi Driver,” it’s brilliant filmmaking but here..
I also hope no one invokes the idiotic attempted takedown of Ebert’s review that Knowles posted on his site. Never ceases to amaze me that someone who makes a living writing has actually become WORSE at putting sentences together in a cohesive fashion.
There are plenty of movies where a supporting character is the most interesting thing about it. Heck, with The Dark Knight, I’d imagine most viewers would have picked The Joker, Harvey Dent, or Jim Gordon as their favorite character over Batman himself. Certainly most people walked out of The Fugitive remembering the Oscar-winning performance of Tommy Lee Jones over Harrison Ford’s more low-key (but still terrific) work. I agree that the character of Kick-Ass isn’t particularly engaging, and that’s a serious problem with the film. But I found the other supporting characters (Hit Girl, Big Daddy, Red Mist, D’Amico, etc) entertaining and developed enough to compensate. I guess the difference is that I liked the other colorful characters and didn’t spend the whole film waiting for Hit Girl to kill someone again.
“The Batman/Joker comparison is valid.
When we were kids we all loved supporting character Han Solo over Luke…”
huh? so han solo is the joker to luke’s batman? not
of course supporting players can be the beating heart of a film, cinema is littered with examples, but in this case the batman/joker comparison is NOT valid because the joker is THE VILLAIN, not a sidekick or a ‘supporting character’, simple as that
I have not seen KICK ASS yet, but from the footage in the red-band trailer, I would say the TAXI DRIVER / Jodie Foster argument crumbles. Yes, Marty had a child actress playing a thirteen-year-old prostitute, but in his infinite wisdom, he chose not to film the scenes where she fucks a few dozen guys for cash.
I don’t think I understand this argument. Are people afraid that 13-year old girls are going to start engaging in street fights? Or that the audience is indulging in some kind of underage girl/violence fetishism (like if Russ Meyer had made Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill! with the cast of Bugsy Malone)?
Wrong argument.
Debate 1 – “Tweenage girl killing people/swearing is inappropriate”
Debate 2 – “Kick-Ass is more than just Hit Girl”
DP’s picked Debate 2 for this post.
Leahnz,
“huh? so han solo is the joker to luke’s batman? not”
I think you are missing the point here. Han Solo is not the villain…but he is a supporting character who drives the narrative in a kinetic way that attracts people more than Luke.
The Joker is the villain, but he is also a supporting character in both the Ledger and Nicholson incarnations that drives the narrative more than Batman.
You are dwelling too much on the hero/villain debate and missing the larger point that a side character can dominate a film and drive it in a way the lead sometimes cannot.
Jeff,
Goodfellas is an ensemble but the driver is Pesci and to a lesser extent DeNiro. That’s why the film was marketed around them. But I think what we are getting at is a point that goes beyond screenwriting or anything the writer/director may have planned. I am sure when Goodfellas was made they had no idea that Pesci would become such an icon for that role.
It is something that is not in the cards in the planning stages but only emerges to the audience after the final film is seen.
My understanding is that’s what Hit Girl is to Kick-Ass. A character that was conceived as supporting but ends up being the driver whether it was planned that way or not.
Foamy, with all due respect to DP, I think Debate 1 is a lot more interesting (and Don Lewis brought the subject up, not me).
Nicol, I’ll agree with you on your above Star Wars points, and add a flip: when The Fugitive came out, 17 years ago, I was surprised that by the time it ended, how much Tommy Lee Jones had taken over the movie and how much Ford had allowed his character to drift into the background.
I disagree with you about Goodfellas though – I just rewatched it a week ago or so and thinking about it, Pesci’s character is in surprisingly few scenes, relatively speaking. Almost every scene he’s in is amazing, but there’s so much other plot in the movie beyond him that to me, he’s not the ‘driver’.
I think I see Leahnz’s point. The Joker isn’t really an apt comparison because he’s the antagonist. Without him, there’s no story – it’s 2 hours of Batman sitting on a rooftop, drinking coffee to stay awake, and trying to work out how to open the fly of the batsuit so he can have a pee.
Contrast to Han where theoretically you could digitally erase him from every scene and still have the same movie (you’d probably have to substitute one of the other rebel pilots driving off Vader during the climax). It’s just a lot more interesting with Han in it.
Hit Girl goes beyond Han though. Han was interesting, but he doesn’t define Star Wars on his own – arguably neither does Pesci or De Niro in Goodfellas either. Kick Ass almost IS Hit Girl, especially in terms of the marketing draw.
Jeff – Probably, and there’s nothing really to stop you if you want to get into the moral debate. It was more of a response to “I don’t understand this argument” where your “this” wasn’t defined. š
Gotcha, sorry if I sounded defensive.
“You are dwelling too much on the hero/villain debate and missing the larger point that a side character can dominate a film and drive it in a way the lead sometimes cannot.”
no, i’m not missing any point, simply pointing out that DP’s batman/joker analogy is not apt in this instance, and it isn’t, and you said it IS valid, and it’s not. i already said supporting characters can be the beating heart of a film, clearly legible in black letters in my post, your telling me something i’ve already stated myself
or “you’re” for those who speaka de english
(yes, foamy, exactly)
Dave’s question seems to be about what Feraci is arguing versus Ebert/Dargis. Knowles’ post is a passive-aggressive attempt to guilt Ebert with relativism, and as Don Lewis pointed out, is an incoherent mess. Feraci makes a huge case that K-A is commentary on the genre akin to Watchmen, and it’s well thought-out, yet, nothing from Vaughn has indicated that as a motivation.
Dave seems to be asking that if you just focus on Hit-Girl you’re missing the larger scope, but without Hit-Girl, what is there to focus on? This is actually a similar argument about Mark Millar as a writer – great ideas vs mediocre execution – so it’s natural for the question to come up about K-A. Wanted as a book and movie were tagged with the same questions – interesting idea, wild visuals, lacking results – but because the movie varied so wildly from the book, the postmodern superhero argument couldn’t be made on its behalf.
So to Dave’s question, IMO, K-A as movie or book without Hit-Girl wouldn’t exist because Millar doesn’t explore themes or elements like an Alan Moore, but closer to Tarantino deconstructionism. Vaughn got that which is why he felt it could be something cool, but just like Watchmen, it’s superhero deconstruction on film. The archetypes, tropes and short-hand of its native comic book format is being lost in the translation. So what is an Ebert or Dargis left with?
I don’t want to speak for Don Murphy, but I think he faced a similar problem with LXG just as Snyder did with Watchmen. For a broad example, if Romita draws Kick-Ass to resemble a Ditko-Spidey in one panel and then a few issues later, puts him in a McFarlane pose, the comic reader innately gets it. Translate it to film and what exactly is the reference?
To me, Kick-Ass and Watchmen are now mirror reflections. Watchmen was killed by its own weight of accolades so it could never live up while K-A has none of that baggage. Watchmen is so deep it was near-impossible to translate while K-A is so superficial Vaughn was actually able to improve on a few aspects. Watchmen is plodding, K-A is kinetic. In the end, both suffer from the same problem, postmodern, deconstructive superhero comics do not translate to film because its a foreign language. To stay with that metaphor, you would need pop-up video to act as the subtitles.
Jeff,
I think we are in agreement in priciple…just not in the example of Goodfellas. No worries.
Leahnz,
Why do you not think Joker/Batman is valid?
This is not about the fact that the Joker is the villain and Hit Girl is not. That is not the point. It is about the fact that they are both (in their respective films) the supporting character everyone feels drives the film. I have not even seen Kick-Ass (although I cannot wait) and this is clearly the vibe everyone has.
The Joker analogy is completly valid.
The problem isn’t Hit-Girl. The problem is that an okay comic book was made into a marginally better movie. That makes it a mediocre movie.
Didn’t hate it, found some of it pretty enjoyable, but it left me feeling whatever. The changes that were made from the comic were ones I would have made overall, but yeah, even then, it lacked a knock out moment that would have put into TDK realm, instead of just another nerdboy fantasy flick that hasn’t got much mass appeal beyond the opening weekend crowds.
I expect word of mouth isn’t going to be pleasant on this, save for Hit-Girl perhaps…
(and i wrote a helluva long run on sentence. whoops.)
you are the one missing my point.
(what ‘respective films’? do you mean ‘kick-ass’ and ‘TDK’? ftr, DP never once mentioned TDK, he merely used the comic-book characters of batman and the joker for his analogy to k-ass/hit girl; believe it or not, batman and the joker have been battling it out for yonks and not just in that one rather over-hyped flick)
and yes, the analogy is still a poor one, even if it was just a blip on the radar of a larger subject.
the batman/joker as ‘lead v supporting character driving the film’ analogy to kick-ass/hit girl only works in the broadest, laziest sense.
apart from ignoring simple context, it also conveniently ignores the common dynamic in which delicious villains often upstage their hero counterparts. using the batman/joker rationale, is superman/lex luthor as k-ass/h-girl also apt? dr. doodle (i can’t remember his name) and magneto? (whoever, i’m not a huge comic-book fan)
comparing the joker to hit-girl as ‘supporting player stealing of a story’ is overly-simplistic, requiring one to ignore the importance of THE NEMESIS in the piece and demote said antagonist – the source of conflict and usually resolution – to the absurdly one-note category of ‘supporting player’.
oversimplifying the importance of the story’s antagonist down into simple ‘supporting role’ status just because it’s convenient to fit your theory of ‘supporting player driving the story’ is still silly in my book.
in the case of the joker, it’s not a supporting player driving the story, it’s the DERANGED VILLAIN stealing the show, which is something altogether different (and far more common) from an accomplice/sidekick doing the hard yakka. not comparable at all, really
obviously my post was re: nicol’s, snap insane lad
Seems like jeffmcm reads the Brit press too much. In the traditional Brit manner they’ve gotten all hot and bothered about this movie.
The only way jeffmcm would have approved of “Kick-Ass” is if it was promoted with name-checking, Academy Award references or a Legion of Doom trailer.
Sorry DP, I posted this on the wrong entry before:
Kick ass is both deconstructing the superhero myth while becoming a great example of it. It is a cartoonish satire that at no point demands to be taken very seriously. I just don’t understand people who do; which brings me to Hit-girl, here’s the pitch: a cool, sophisticated and fierce 12-year-old girl violently kills dozens of men. The idea alone is far-fetched and it works as a cartoonish satire for the reason that it is so extreme.
The film is not just very self-conscious but from the early narration it makes accomplices of the viewers and requires the audience to be conscious of the fact that, yes, they are watching a film. Hit girl works because the film and the audience know that it is extreme and ridiculous and JUST a satire. Being shocked and even disturbed by her actions and storyline are part of it.
The character itself exists not just for the “cool” factor but because in a satire of superhero films, what deconstructs more the “cool” factor of superheroes than watching their actions (killing), words (iconic catchphrases) and even motives (revenge, good… etc) only this time performed by a sweet little girl?
not much.
Also Chloe Moretz gives a terrific performance.
Chucky, you’re insane. I HAVEN’T SEEN THE MOVIE yet so I have no idea if I ‘approve’ of it or not. I’m certainly inclined towards it, because it was directed by the guy who made Stardust (which I enjoyed) and stars actors that I generally like such as Academy Award Winner Nicolas Cage. But I’m mostly interested in the broader implications of the film and why people seem to be having such a strong reaction against it which, without having seen it, seems unwarranted.
Also you are dumb.
“When we were kids we all loved supporting character Han Solo over Luke.”
Chuck Klosterman made it clear that you reach this state only in your “identifying with the bad-boy” teenage years. Previously, during your “identifying with the White Knight” childhood, you stood solidly alongside Luke.
Just sayin’.
I was always with Luke. He’s the only character with an arc.
And as Cracked.com recently pointed out, at least he won’t end up as either a space trucker or a smuggler of things that even the Alliance won’t like, such as drugs or slaves.
A blue-collar working Joe married to a princess? Yep, that’s gonna last.
It should be mentioned that I was at a party last night and we were talking about Kick Ass…and NO ONE wanted to see it. They said it looked like a cheesy lame comedy. Then the homeowner had a recording of the new At The Movies and said they thought Kick Ass was mentioned on that. So we watched it and the two critics were whining about the 11 year old girl mutilating people and chopping off heads…and then suddenly everyone wanted to see it.
Damn, critics are some tweedy girly dudes. I don’t know who’s hosting that show right now but they could stand to get in a fist fight or two.
Surely Luke/Vader is a more appropriate analogy to Batman/Joker than Luke/Han. Of course, Vader winds up becoming the main character of the whole thing.
Having seen the movie, I gotta side with Aladdin and Martin here. Martin- fucking AWESOME post man, seriously. But I just thought the movie was kind of boring or better, has major pacing issues. The first two acts are dull and uneventful but the third is terrific. I think problem with the film absolutely was Kick-Ass because we’re forced to hang with this guy throughout and there’s no there there.
The other two storylines are vastly more fun and interesting and whenever they get rolling, we go back to Kick-Ass and teen comedy 101.
I also have to admit, I felt a little creeped out by Hit-Girl killing and getting her ass kicked and I didn’t think I would. Not to the point of calling it “morally reprehansible” as Ebert did, but it troubled me more than I thought it would. Which I suppose was the point. I don’t think Vaughn was glamorizing the character but there was some fetishism going on which gave me the willies.
“I also have to admit, I felt a little creeped out by Hit-Girl killing and getting her ass kicked and I didn’t think I would. Not to the point of calling it “morally reprehansible” as Ebert did, but it troubled me more than I thought it would. Which I suppose was the point. I don’t think Vaughn was glamorizing the character but there was some fetishism going on which gave me the willies.”
I didn’t see the fetishism, outside of the outfit she uses to get inside the high rise; but even then it was used more for its innocent side than anything sexualized.
When Hit Girl was killing all of these people, it was so movie-movie and unreal, I just enjoyed the bullshit audacity of the setpieces and laughed at the thing. When she was getting beat up, sure, it was unpleasant, but then again, that’s what a grown man strangling and beating the crap out of a scrappy but undersized 12 year old foe is supposed to be.
On the other hand, this beat down is the fight you see at the end of umpteen action movies when the bad guy temporarily gets to beat the ever-loving crap out of the protagonist. So for all of the thrilling joys of seeing Hit Girl wipe the floor with one bad guy after another before this scene, I guess you have to accept that you’re going to get the dark side of seeing a child playing in this world, and the filmmakers deserve some respect for letting the inevitable happen (On an odd tangent, at one point I was reminded of a scene from HBO’s “Deadwood” when Al Swearigen was taunting Kristen Bell’s head-injured character with a gun, which was also disturbing in its own way).
Yeah, I meant the schoolgirl outfit but also, the violence Hit Girl wreaks is highly stylized, moreso than anything else in the film really.
MORETZ = BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS.
BEST MOVIE OF THE LAST THREE YEARS.
BOW.
Han Solo has an arc too. Even Vader has one, although it kind of falls flat.
I have an ARC… for KICK-ASS’S GIRLFRIEND.
FONSECA POWER.
She was also in HOT TUB TIME MACHINE.
TOTAL RAGER.
His arc in RETURN OF THE JEDI is to look like he didn’t want to be there at all.