MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

BYOB Wednesday Cannes Begin

Robin Hood is not nearly as bad as some have claimed.. it’s even quite brilliant at times….more later…

Be Sociable, Share!

48 Responses to “BYOB Wednesday Cannes Begin”

  1. storymark says:

    Well, that’s reassuring to a degree. I want to like it, but I’m still keeping my expectations in check.

  2. Geoff says:

    Has any one seen Exit Through the Giftshop, yet?
    I was raving about it in another blog on this site – movie of the year!

  3. Geoff says:

    Here was my original post, I cannot rave about this movie, enough:
    Posted by: Hopscotch at May 10, 2010 05:13 PM
    Saw Exit Through the Gift Shop, today, and it is the movie of the year, so far – most purely entertaining doc I have seen Touching the Void.
    Just a kick-ass, funny movie that makes the wittiest use of silhouetted, voice-box talking head that I have ever seen. So glad I did not know much about it in advance, because the last 20 minutes are a fantastic punchline to a joke that I did not see coming. Fantastic movie!

  4. LexG says:

    In a perfect world ROBIN HOOD would earn 100 mil this weekend. I haven’t been this excited about a movie since THE RUNAWAYS; GREATEST DIRECTOR OF ALL TIME EVER. First in line, please. Only thing is, I wish they gave Crowe a hotter chick or something, like when they paired his Brother in Humorlessness, Clive Owen, with Keira Knightley. Crowe is a GOD and shouldn’t be paired with women in his own age range.
    One thing that REALLY annoys me is all the purists who talk about that 1938 thing, like you can ONLY have one version of this tale. Fuck that. Never saw it, NEVER WILL. I can GUARANTEE YOU that RIDLEY SCOTT makes a better movie about Robin Hood or ANYTHING than some gaylord in shitty 1938 color on a cheesy soundstage hopping in and out of trees in GREEN TIGHTS. STUPID.
    Old movies blow.

  5. a_loco says:

    Exit Through The Gift Shop is great, even if I don’t like it quite as much as you, Geoff, I still thought it was pretty fantastic, especially the last 20 minutes, as you mentioned.
    But what do you think of the theory that it’s a hoax? I’m sort of leaning towards “yes”.

  6. Joe Straat says:

    I’m going to have to squeeze the movie in-between family stuff since a good amount of them are in town for my sister’s wedding, but I’ll get a viewing in. I know a lot of people like to go out of their way to say how much they’re not interested, but I’m in.
    When you go epic, you give yourself a long enough rope to hang yourself, and Scott manages to avoid doing that most of the time (Though I do know many like Noah Forrest who would very much disagree). I liked Gladiator when I saw it, still like it now, the director’s cut of Kingdom of Heaven is a very well rounded movie (Still a little simplistic and leaves out developing some of the supporting cast. “Okay, bald guy who’s generally in my scenes, you now have my land!”), so if Robin Hood is kind of in that ballpark, I’ll be happy.
    And I too don’t really give a shit how Robin Hood’s portrayed just as long as the movie’s good. I didn’t even mind sans-accented Costner (Prince of Thieves hasn’t aged that well, though, with little things like the introductory scene of Guy of Gisborn filmed through a cheesy-ass fisheye lens).

  7. leahnz says:

    geoff: i haven’t seen ‘exit thru the gift shop’ but i’ve heard good things about it — and ‘touching the void’ is a terrific movie – simpson’s story of survival is not to be missed – so if you’re inclined to mention them in the same breath i’m inclined to give ‘exit’ a go! (hopefully it gets a theatrical release here)
    ‘robin hood’ isn’t even close to brilliant in my book, handsomely mounted as is par for the course for a RS ‘historical war epic’ but also par for the course it’s rather middling, turgid and lacking heart, far from gripping or rousing – or god forbid fun! – like a robin hood flick should be. note to ridley: please, lighten up a bit! and get as far away from russel crowe as possible. RUN AWAY!
    (and i say this having really liked russel in ‘state of play’ recently so i’m not bagging on him in general for recent perfs, i dug the chemistry between him and mcadams in their partnership as cal and della frye, they struck just the right tone. actually, had russel played hood more like cal and less like the one-note too serious growling fucker scott seems to bring out in him, the movie might have been better. and really, it also belongs to blanchett’s marion, but unfortunately that doesn’t help the cause)

  8. leahnz says:

    “When you go epic, you give yourself a long enough rope to hang yourself, and Scott manages to avoid doing that most of the time (Though I do know many like Noah Forrest who would very much disagree).”
    add me to that list. scott’s epics are certainly epic: at being snoozefests (and ‘blade runner’ is intimate, NOT epic)

  9. LexG says:

    Hey, it must be Boredom O’Clock!
    Lushnz getting her swerve on and doing her nitpicky, whiny “intimate vs epic” rant for the 800th time that no one can make heads or tails of.
    Yes, we know that THELMA AND LOUISE is your paranoid guidebook for life, but it’s Ridley’s least exciting movie, not to mention shrill and embarrassing because it depicts two revolting hillbilly HENS — “GIRL MY HAIR IS COMIN’ DOWN TONIGHT!” Embarrassing. Geena Davis all practicing her smoking and Grandma Sarandon wearing some OLD-LADY HANDKERCHIEF on her head? Fuck that, bring on the Young Stuff.
    Duelists: epic, awesome. Blade Runner, Legend, Black Rain, 1492, GI Jane, Gladiator, BLACK HAWK DOWN POWER, Hannibal, Kingdom of Heaven, American Gangster… all EPIC, all MASTERPIECES and anyone who doesn’t agree can get the dick because Ridley is the KING OF ALL DIRECTING, no further discussion EVER. I won’t even read it.

  10. leahnz says:

    please don’t, mr. TRY-HARD
    you don’t know your ass from your elbow when it comes to what defines an epic, lex, obviously. EPIC DOES NOT MEAN AWESOME, doolally. actually, when it comes to film, you don’t know your ass from your elbow about a GREAT MANY THINGS, as is in evidence day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year here
    but keep on keepin’ on, try-hard man

  11. leahnz says:

    “Ridley is the KING OF ALL DIRECTING, no further discussion EVER. I won’t even read it.”
    and if i forgot to say, who gives a shit what you read and don’t? the fact you think it matters what lex reads says it all

  12. LexG says:

    Don’t you have children to neglect, lush?

  13. leahnz says:

    aw lex, are you really that pathetic and desperate for attention/a fight?

  14. Cadavra says:

    This just in from Lex News Channel: Errol Flynn was gay. Please feel free to laugh hysterically.

  15. LexG says:

    Cadavra, just ’cause you’re old enough to have hung out with Errol Flynn doesn’t mean I have any reverence for the guy. Just another Clark Gable-looking hambone gay-stached fast-talking Old Hollywood hack I don’t care about and wouldn’t watch if you paid me.
    Anyone who’s sitting around watching some 1938 dated-ass, no-vag, no-violence “ROUSING AND FUN” Robin Hood instead of RIDLEY SCOTT? Maybe I can interest you in a fucking awesome new TELEGRAPH or EIGHT-TRACK PLAYER while you’re at it.

  16. Pete Grisham says:

    Actually it’s the fact that Lex skipped “Matchstick Man” is favor of, say, “GI Jane” that is more telling to me…

  17. LexG says:

    I love “Matchstick Men.” I was listing Scott movies that could be perceived as “epic” in scale or scope, not the more down-to-earth ones like Thelma, White Squall, Someone to Watch Over Me, Matchstick Men, Good Year, etc.

  18. Pete Grisham says:

    One time Scott did down-to-earth the result was “Good Year”. Not the movie I dislike but not one I really like or think much of. Now, Hannibal on the oher hand… well about that hand…
    And while I have not seen White Squall I bet that along with Thelma it is anything but down-to-earth, in the relevant (i.e. non-epic) sense).
    Here’s a better question: are the two stars that Roger Ebert’s gave “Robin Hood” the same two stars he gave to “Gladiator”?
    Something tells me they are not, if only because I have liked nothing that I’ve seen out of the movie so far. Ever since I found out they ditched the original idea of Crowe playing the sheriff (despite keeping Cate Blanchett) and after I saw that haircut, the project has lost all mystery to me and became too obvious. Then the 3d conversion thing came up.
    I do hope I’m wrong though becuase I think that Scott a fine director when he’s not being boring.

  19. Geoff says:

    A Loco, I didn’t know about the “hoax” thing until after I saw it, which is probably better.
    I can definitely see that – the movie certainly seems true to life, but wow, it sure does seem deceptively how easy it is for Tierry to find Banksy, very convenient. I think the movie works, either away.
    But I am not an Angelino, though they are many on this blog who are – did that art show really happen? Some one has to know!
    And LexG, I like you, but it seems you are getting quite tangled with your pseudo-Howard Stern shtick. Come one, Susan Sarandon was a “Grandma” back in ’91, really???? You know better – she was a super-hottie back in the late ’80’s: White Palace, Bull FREAKIN Durham! Give me a break, man – she had more allure in just that one tub scene with Costner than a whole collection of the hottest scenes Alba and Biel were ever in.
    And since when is Thelma and Louise not epic? I say it’s one of Ridley Scott’s best without any hesitation – you cannot deny the epicness that comes from those scenes throughout the mountain west – no one makes the Rockies look better.

  20. Joe Leydon says:

    @LexG: You do know that Errol Flynn got a superabundance of vag in his time, right?

  21. Pete Grisham says:

    I think Flynn was way too into himself for that to be true. The guy was a pretty conceited douche.

  22. LexG says:

    Susan Sarandon? I love Bull Durham as much as the next guy, and she’s a pretty great actress and all who I respect, but in terms of “sexy” and “hot”?
    Yes, in one movie: Rocky Horror Picture Show, 13 years before Bull Durham or White Palace or Thelma. I saw RHPS for the first time recently and couldn’t BELIEVE this smoking chick with the incredible body was the old grandma from Lovely Bones.
    Come on, in BD both Costner and Robbins are in their mid-30s but don’t look a day under 46, and Sarandon’s playing some earthy den mother type who STILL seems a decade older than either. Freddie Prinze and JESSICA BIEL SEXIEST WOMAN OF ALL TIME are a much more age-appropriate match for the minor-league romance subject matter in SUMMER CATCH. GOOD MOVIE. BIEL POWER.
    Unrelated/No one will care:
    In a blast of 1997 Nostalgia, lately I’ve been listening to my favorite female recording artist of all time, FIONA APPLE, again. Oh my GOD… I always remember finding her FETCHING back then but watching her old videos from back in the day it’s no wonder: She’s like the TEMPLATE of everything I find sexy now– youngish looking, wounded, sensitive, sleepy, a little crazy, DEMURE bordering on self-destructive and damaged. SO SEXY.
    Please don’t tell me she’s aged badly. I’m sure she has, but if she could still look like she did in the SLEEP TO DREAM video she’d be the Ultimate Woman. We could sit around getting drunk and/or high and being tired and lazy and miserable together. GOOD FANTASY.

  23. The Big Perm says:

    How awesome will it be when Lex doesn’t get laid for the next twenty years since he only wants women who’d never fuck him in a million years, and then lo those twenty years later he’s 40 YEARS OLDER than the women he lusts after, further insuring that he will never get laid at that point either.

  24. Geoff says:

    LexG, we are going to have to agree to disagree – Sarandon was HOT in Bull Durham, it’s a fact as far as I’m concerned – come on, the short skirts and the batting gloves, swinging the bat to show Nuke how to hit? That’s your textbook definition of DEMURE, my friend.
    Yes, she is a grandma now because she’s pushing 60, but 20 years ago??? No way, no how.

  25. leahnz says:

    for those who do not know what an epic is, a simple definition/explanation:
    “Epics are more ambitious in scope than other film genres, and their ambitious nature helps to differentiate them from similar genres such as the period piece or adventure film. They typically entail high production values, a sweeping musical score (often by an acclaimed film composer), and an ensemble cast of bankable stars, placing them among the most expensive of films to produce. The term “epic” comes from the poetic genre exemplified by such works as the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Ramayana.”
    “The “epic” movie is often set during a time of war or other societal crisis, and covers a long span of time, in terms of both the events depicted and the length of the reel. Typically, such films have an historical setting, although fantasy or science fiction settings have become common in recent decades. The central conflict of the film is usually seen as having far-reaching effects, often changing the course of history. The main characters’ actions are often central to the resolution of this conflict”
    blade runner is NOT an epic by any stretch of the imagination. it has very few characters and is filmed extremely intimately, almost every single scene produced on an small scale between a couple characters, with a few exception such as the night club scene and a few very claustrophobic street settings such as the diner where deckard eats. any action is tight and takes place in a closed, confined space, except for the only real ‘open air’ action being the brief street chase, and the rather subdued rooftop finale. there is NOTHING about blade runner that qualifies it as an epic. not a single thing. note: having pans of a futuristic cityscape does NOT make a movie an epic.
    a film having scope DOES NOT make it an epic
    a ‘big’ movie is not by definition an epic
    an action film does not mean epic
    thelma & louise in not an epic because it has pans of the desert/mountains/grand canyon (even tho i think geoff was joking there)
    the only epics ridley scott has made are:
    the duelists
    kingdom of heaven
    robin hood
    some of his weakest films. one could possibly argue ‘legend’ is a fantasy epic, but it is still rather intimate in its direction, scale and action.
    ridley scott excels at character and intimate, tight action, which is why his classic films are:
    blade runner
    t & l
    black hawk down for his war movie (‘war movie’ does not mean an automatic epic; BHD is filmed in an very intimate manner, tight as a snare, which is one of the reasons it’s harrowing, compelling and succeeds the way it does. it is not an epic)
    ‘matchstick men’ on that list too, because it’s so terrific, even if it might need some time to merinate and become a RS classic
    scott’s second tier of ‘someone to watch over me’ and ‘black rain’ are stylish but not epics by any stretch.
    i’ve never seen american gangster (fell asleep on both attempts) so i can’t say if it’s an epic or not, i suspect not. ‘GI jane’ is a bigger film, but certainly not an epic. ‘hannibal’ and ‘body of lies’ are big action films, but not epics.

  26. a_loco says:

    Arbitrary categorization — one of the least relevant methods of evaluating films.
    Team Lex.

  27. leahnz says:

    arbitrary categorization? i thought you thought you knew film, aloco. there is nothing ‘arbitrary’ about what makes an epic, and claiming otherwise is a sign of ignorance

  28. LexG says:

    YEP YEP YEP YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP. The level of erection that shall by achieved will be akin to earth’s orbit around Mercury in the seventh cycle.
    I cannot wait. Despite by MAJOR in ENGLISH LITERATURE (one of THREE DEGREES, along with JOURNALISM and FILM), I never read the Kerouauauauauc book and DON’T CARE, all I know is it sounds like K and K are going to be ROMPING AROUND in LITTLE OUTFITS and showing off their BARE FEET and maybe even PRACTICING KISSING ON EACH OTHER, which is SEXY but not if it goes TOO FAR, because I only like TAME LESBIANISM, nothing to feminist or explicit, because ALL WOMEN need to be DEMURE and INNOCENT.
    Only thing that WORRIES ME about this project is a lot of cheesy male actors signing on, and you KNOW anytime any actor and actress act together, they end of having SEX, and I sincerely hope the GODDESSES don’t fall prey to this tradition of sleeping with their costars. Especially when the male costars are so LAME and LOW WATTAGE but you know they’ll try to get in the girls’ zone and probably will succeed. TOTALLY DEPRESSING, and yet REASON ZILLION why BEING AN ACTOR is THE BEST THING EVER– YOU ABSOLUTELY 100000% get to bang every actress who you ever star in a movie with, ever, ever, ever.

  29. SJRubinstein says:

    Re: Geoff
    Yeah, the MBW art show happened, but not only that, his art was papering Melrose, La Brea, etc., for upwards of a year beforehand.

  30. a_loco says:

    There is plenty arbitrary about what makes a film an “epic”, Leah, along with every other genre. (You ever heard a film scholar talk about film noir? It can take hours.) the term grew to describe the type of film, not vice versa. And epic films often don’t have much in common with epic poems from which they take their name.
    Also, claiming that Black Hawk Down isn’t an epic because it is “filmed in an very intimate manner” is a bit like saying Vanessa Williams isn’t black because she has blue eyes.
    Furthermore, why do you feel the need to list which Ridley Scott films are “epics” in the first place? Just say what you like or don’t like and why. There’s no need to force every film to fit into some category before you describe why you like it or not.

  31. storymark says:

    “aw lex, are you really that pathetic and desperate for attention/a fight?”
    After so long, I’m absolutely amazed you feel the need to even ask that.

  32. Cadavra says:

    Years from now, when Lex is my age and some new dude in his 30s is ragging on him for his shitty taste in movies/women/whatever, I hope I’m still around to laugh my fucking ass off.

  33. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Why wait? Plenty of people ragging on him now.

  34. LexG says:

    More discussion of ON THE ROAD, please.
    How is this not the biggest movie news of the year so far?
    How can I get to be an extra or U5 in it?
    Also you will discuss: Anytime, ever, they make a movie, is it 100% FACT that the leading man and leading lady will end up banging? I ABSOLUTELY assume it to be so, especially when they’re under 30. Is there any movie in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD where the two stars don’t hook up on the set? I know I fucking would if I could, and thus wouldn’t put it past any guy. So can we assume Garrett Hedlund or the other guy (who I’ve never heard of, ever) is gonna be all over K-Stew till she caves?
    Also, since I don’t know/care much about ON THE ROAD other than Dunst and GODDESS, I thought the focus was like two vagabond dudes. Wasn’t Schumacher going to do this with Brad Pitt? Nothing against Hedlund, but doesn’t this incarnation seem a LOT lower rent than the versions that never took off for the last 20 years?
    Storymark, seriously, get the fucking bozack, douche. Don’t you have a class full of students to disappoint? What does it say that our resident SCHOOL TEACHER has appalling grammar and punctuation? I sure as shit hope nobody’s paying to send kids to your school. Shouldn’t teachers be intelligent, or, failing that, be able to construct a proper sentence. Or make a point interestingly. God, your students must be looking at the window all period pondering a jump out of it, surely more entertaining than listening to you drone on in a bad sweater.

  35. Stella's Boy says:

    A story from June 2001 says that Coppola, who at that time had owned the rights to On The Road for years, was about to produce a version directed by Schumacher from a screenplay by Russell Banks. Billy Crudup was going to play Kerouac with Pitt as Dean Moriarty.

  36. LexG says:

    See, doesn’t that sound awesome? Coppola, Schumacher, Pitt, Crudup vs…
    THIS GUY, who surely K-Stew will fall for:
    Life sucks. How do you get to be THAT GUY? How do you get to be British? How do you get your hair back or get in shape? I don’t even EAT FOOD anymore, EVER.
    This is my daily diet:
    Breakfast: One apple.
    Lunch: One bowl cereal (Corn Flakes)
    Dinner: One tin of tuna, one apple.
    Desert: Handful of fat free pretzels.
    Drinking: 14 beers/day.
    And yet I STILL CAN’T LOSE WEIGHT. It sucks, sucks, SUCKS. Look at HOW LITTLE FOOD I consume and HOW MUCH LIQUID I AM DRINKING in beer form to constantly be flushing the system.
    Why have I been stuck at 248 disgusting pounds for MONTHS now without losing a single pound?

  37. Stella's Boy says:

    Indeed that does sound awesome. I saw a little bit of Control, so I know Riley from that, but that’s all I know about him.
    I think it’s the beer Lex. Lots of calories.

  38. LexG says:

    Oh, it’s that CONTROL dude?
    FUUUUUUCK. Even Pattinson is surely PISSSSED about this. Christ, they’re the same fucking guy; Pent up on a set with this British thrift-store douche for months on end, you KNOW she’s gonna fall for his Limey charms.
    LIFE SUCKS. IT SUCKS. IT SUCKS. Isn’t there a role in this thing for a fat, sweaty, Donal Logue-style antsy weirdo who can greasily hit on the women?
    Is there a part like that in anything ever? HOW DO YOU GET A FUCKING ACTING AGENT when you don’t have any real experience except a short where you look like a fat slob, and some dated classes with a Shakespeare troupe and a Classical Drama class and a few months with Crispin Glover’s old man?

  39. Stella's Boy says:

    The accent always gets them. When I was a freshman in college this very homely British guy lived on my dorm (soccer scholarship). The women went crazy for him. Never even knew his name. Everyone just called him “British guy.”
    Lex you need something like The Tao of Steve or some Oliver Platt-type comedic supporting roles. Wish I could help you with an agent.

  40. Pete Grisham says:

    (Breaking a rule I know but I sort of feel like responding especially since it’s part of a larger discussion).
    Personally, I would never call Blade Runner an intimate movie. It never was. From the very first version of the film that kept the audience at arm’s length with naration (just because we hear characters thoughts doesn’t mean we feel that much closer to him) to the later once where we still feel like we are watchining but not following the characters every step of the way.
    We observe Deckard from a distance. We don’t ever really fully understand what makes him tick. And when he semi-forces himself on Racherl, the scene feels somewhat out of place with the rest of the film.
    To be sure, it has moments we can relate to and the ending does put a lot of things in perspective but I very much doubt that it’s either a very personal film to Scott nor a particularly strong character study, especially not of Deckard.
    Doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s great. I just don’t think it’s intimate in the way Atom Egoyan’s Exotica is.
    You want to know what an intimate science fiction movie looks like? Watch Silent Running.

  41. leahnz says:

    wait on, pete, didn’t you just post in the other thread that you wouldn’t willingly initiate a conversation with me (and oh so sorry you asked, which i didn’t actually) and yet here you are directly responding to something i wrote, and with “you” no less. baffling.
    at any rate, i thought it was fairly clear from my comment about blade runner in describing how it’s made that my description of ‘intimate’ was not in regards to how the audience views the film or their reaction/connection to deckard or lack thereof, but rather how the movie is filmed. hopefully that clears it up.
    (BL has moments “we” can relate to but “you very much doubt it’s either a very personal film to scott nor a strong character study”? so who is this ‘we’ of whom you speak, you mean you? and what is your assessment of scott’s frame of mind when directing the film based on exactly, so that you doubt BL is personal to him? it would seem you presume a great deal, unless you’ve been picking scott’s brain)
    and i’ve seen ‘silent running’ heaps, own it in fact, thanks
    (funny, why do sound like somebody who’s posted here under a different moniker?)

  42. Geoff says:

    I saw a free advance screening of Splice, tonight – wow!
    Very good movie, but very twisted stuff – very well done and very well acted.
    I don’t give too much away, but LexG – I do not think you should watch this, might arouse some bad thoughts. Let’s say that Dren is very DEMURE…….

  43. LexG says:

    I went out drinking with THE POSSE tonight and it was worse than drinking alone. I hit on like seven Asian chicks and some blonde pixie with pigtails and clunky glasses, breaking out all my best lines ever like “Is it 12 o clock yet? Because it is in my pants” and “You remind me of a doughnut. Because I want to fill you with cream” and “What are you drinking? Can I interest you in something white?” and “Hey, can I bang you?”
    You know, GREAT LINES like that. Especially when ROCK BOX came on the speakers.
    But none of it worked, even after 11 Beam and Cokes, so then I started shit with all my coworkers just to be an AWESOME asshole so I’ll probably lose my job tomorrow. GOOD IDEA.
    Anyone, has anyone in the history of the world ever really banged a chick from a bar? That shit is just impossible because if I’m gonna drink in public, I’m going to be as aggressive and unpleasant as possible, and NO CHICK wants a mean drunk, especially when they’re bald and kind of a loser anyway.
    All this to say, as always, HOOKERS would be the way to go, IF they could ever totally assure you they don’t have herpes. WOMEN ARE IMPOSSIBLE.

  44. storymark says:

    “Storymark, seriously, get the fucking bozack, douche. Don’t you have a class full of students to disappoint? What does it say that our resident SCHOOL TEACHER has appalling grammar and punctuation?”
    Sorry, guess I’m too busy having a life to spend as much time refining my posts as the mighty Lex. Sure, I could drop everything and dedicate my existence to bitching and moaning, but if I ever found myself living as pathetic life as you claim to – I’d, ya know….. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. And that something would not be to beg for YEARS ON END to no avail.
    I am touched that you recall my profession, though. Been months since I had mentioned it on this site.

  45. Pete Grisham says:

    Leah, it is just like you to keep making occusations without reading what I have said first. Read the very first sentence of my replY. And, sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt. I won’t be making that mistake again, I promise.
    Not when you are as dumb as a rock. You see, you don’t really want to have a conversation, you just want to argue. And when you argue you argue stupidly.
    There is nothing wrong in my use of “we”. Oh but wait, my issue of with Poland was with his use of we *ALL*. Clearly you were far more interested in taking a jab with me than to think your moves through. Nice try though, dummy.
    It is far, far more telling that you never actually adressed any of the actual criticisms in that thread. You don’t care for that. You are just content with being annoying.
    And I cannot describe how unbeliavably annoying your attempts at catching me are. And how sick I am of trying to explain it all to you. And even your refutals, which are few and far between our pathetic. Does one really have to pick the director’s brain to make a legitimate guess as to what he might have been thinking?
    And pro-tip: “Dangerous Days: of Making Blade Runner” already did a lot of brain picking for me.
    It would have been so much better if you actually elaborated about what you meant by something being “filmed intimately”. If the end result is not initimate then what difference does it make how it is filmed?

  46. leahnz says:

    wow, what’s your problem, weenie-wipe?
    uh, i keep making accusations? what accusations? what are you on about? my attempts at ‘catching you’? huh? catching you at what? you’re sick of “explaining it all” to me, and my refutals (is ‘refutals’ even a word?) about what are few and far between? blade runner, about which we’ve exchanged…one fairly brief comment? HUH???
    clearly it is in fact YOU who wants to argue, i wasn’t looking for a fight IN THE SLIGHTEST, i don’t even know what you’re talking about, you’re a whackadoo
    (do i know you beyond your 3 posts i’ve seen here by ‘pete grisham’? wait, are you someone else merely disguised at pete grisham? get out! i’m pretty sure i know exactly who you are but i won’t say it out loud lest i’m wrong, i don’t want to falsely accuse anyone and it’s not like IO, where i can tell with all certainly it’s him after 2 broken sentences)
    so, you mean i don’t want to have a conversation with some (apparent) stranger who in another thread said incredibly smugly, “i would never willingly have a convo with you, sorry” (so charming, that) as if i had asked or cared, and then wrote a bunch of subjective stuff about BL in a condescending tone, using the word ‘we’ instead of “i” to boot – the exact thing you just admonished DP the porn king for in another thread (yeah ‘we’ and ‘we all’ is TOTALLY different) – and in which you are apparently trying to refute my comment about BL in regards to the viewer’s interpretation, which i never spoke to in the first place, and you’re pitching a big hissy fit about it? how…rational!)
    re: BL
    “If the end result is not initimate then what difference does it make how it is filmed?”
    spoken like a true dummy, to use your imaginative word
    intimate; small; personal. this is the scale on which BL is filmed. nothing to do with whether or not you the viewer feels intimacy or detachment or whathaveyou upon viewing, that is a matter of interpretation of tone and connection to character. and ftr, just because YOU don’t consider the film BL ‘intimate’ in any respect by your interpretation DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. sorry to burst your bubble, you are not the arbiter of interpretation of intimacy in film. SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. i actually find a genuine, quiet, desperate sort of intimacy that slowly develops between deckard and rachel after what is initially more a physical attraction/fascination. two lonely, emotional cripples making a tenuous, uncertain bond and falling in love in spite of a future fraught with uncertainly and likely tragedy. so put that in your ‘no intimacy’ pipe and smoke it. my interpretation of intimacy is just as valid as yours of ‘no intimacy’
    and you know you’re right, i DON’T want to have any conversations with you, because just from what you’ve written above, clearly you’re an asshole! i never set out to argue with you so piss right off. i missed the edict one must engage in conversation with uptight dickheads
    (a final hint: relying on DVD commentaries for one’s film expertise is the sure sign of a NON-PRO. lol)

  47. leahnz says:

    oh and before im off to a party i forgot to say, i don’t think ‘dangerous days’ (which i’ve seen many times) portrays ridley scott as feeling BL is not a personal film in any definitive way, actually quite the contrary, my feeling was that young ridley was hugely emotionally invested in (and hugely frustrated by) the blade runner production; and further, much of the commentary from ridley is with the hindsight of many years, after which perspective and attitudes toward a project can shift, so your ‘argument’ that ridley clearly shows his hand in ‘dangerous days’ by claiming that BL is not a personal film to him is clearly just your interpretation and not some FINAL DECREE, as much as you’d like to think so

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