May 5, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
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
That felt like work to fill out, but also very satisfying.
i like participating in polls and surveys and questionnaires.
(DP, you’re a mischief)
as of this moment…
the clear winner: good movies seen in the cinema
‘most wishywashy’: the dithering people and their opinion on ‘let me in’ (likely sight unseen as an explanation for the uncertainty and said dithering)
the big loser: the jews (for being singled out and getting several ‘absolutelys!’)
the actual biggest loser: rick sanchez
the biggest sigh of relief: professional critics
Does Mike Fleming have some kind of stake (ha-ha) in the sale of “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter?”
In related news, Jewish people also control Science and chess.
I voted, and commented via the Facebook link, but here is what I said FWIW:
“I get what Armond is saying, but his dismissal of blogs –which are by and large made up with ordinary, enthusiastic moviegoers — is pompous and insulting. It demeans the idea that everybody’s opinion is worthwhile or, at least, that they have a right to that opinion. I really, really don’t get what philosophy he has …that informs his opinions on films. He praises the Transformers films, and claims to find real cinematic value in them. Yet, the Fincher picture, and Reeve’s incredible LET ME IN are dismissed. No less, LET ME IN is bashed for it’s themes and “pessimism.” He seems to sometimes let his personal morals and standards over power him. He’s a real, real enigma. He’s right about the Rotten Tomatoes forum posters, though. It’s idiocy peppered with a few reasonable responses. And the man has a hell of a vocabulary, even if his prose is a purple as HP Lovecraft on meth.”
Yea, professional, informed film criticism IS important. It’s wonderful to read, and I admire Armond for striving and defending. But this guy is different breed of cat, man. I don’t think his reviews are jokes or trolling. I just don’t understand where his opinions come from. Most seem to be just very, very personal which, while fascinating and kinda gutsy, read as didactic (big, Armondish word there!!!). Ebert (who remains the best living writer on fim, to me) has said his philosophy is “How good is the movie at being what it wants to be.” He, for the most past, judges each genre by it’s own standards. And even when he is out of left field, or I disagree, I always understand WHY he feels how he feels because he explains. Off hand, I think of his positive review for Ghosts of Mars. Universally considered horrid (though I like it…..), he felt it served it’s genre, and was entertaining within the genre. OK. Same with Deep Blue Sea. But he, too, lets his personal feelings over power fair reasoning i.e. Blue Velvet, and his disemboweling of Kick Ass. I know lots of other hate Kick Ass (I love it) but it deserved to be judged for what it is trying to be, and not by the little girl killing bad guys (which, ya know, is pretend at the end of the day)
As for the Jews running the media? I’m with Dave. If they are they are doing a poor job. Where are the Jew centered sitcoms? Where’s How I Met Your Moile?? Wheres the Bar Mitzvah version of that Sweet 16 birthday party reality show? Everybody Loves Herschel? Yemenite Stepping with the Stars?
Rick Sanchez: deserved it. I just hope the next step is taken and the NY Jets bench him for Sunday’s game. A Jet loss would help my Miami Dolphins, providing the Fins win Monday night. That is the same Sanchez, right? Right……
When I first saw your comment, I thought it was Science and cheese, Maxim.
I think that we jews would administrate cheese well. We like variety. We’re adventurous. Not afraid of stinky cheeses. Identify with the hard cheeses.
Yeah…
A couple of observations…
I’ve lived all over the world and, despite the US not having a significantly higher proportion of Jewish population than other western countries, almost everything I know about modern Jewish culture/society comes from US tv and film.
I think it’s more symptomatic of the generalized US fascination with heritage than any kind of bias though – if I remember correctly, it’s common practice in Playboy to list the various countries of origin of the Playmates’ ancestors (to what seems a ridiculous degree – “You’re Cherokee/Dutch/German/Vietnamese/Irish-Catholic? Good for you”).
The flip side is that if “the Jews run the media”, either only the US Jews are good at doing so or they’re ridiculously patriotic to the point of marginalizing non-US Jews.