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
Guess I’ll only be tuning in to the Oscars to see if Natalie Portman wins an Oscar for her Black Swan performance or if Annette Bening gets a lifetime achievement award.
And as long as we’re comparing this year to 1976, I would sort of compare Black Swan to Carrie. A horor film about a fragile young woman with an overprotective mother. But maybe that’s a stretch.
lady gaga is so cute
i don’t know, i have this weird feeling that benning could take it.
the large acting branch provides the noms but the entire membership gets to vote for the acting winners, and i’m just having a hard time picturing the generally quite conservative-leaning academy rewarding ‘black swan’, which i’d think may be a tad too ‘unrefined’, weird horrory and perhaps even silly to validate with such a prestigious vote of approval with lead acting. i know two academy members personally well enough to pick their brains on their choices for the final ballot, and neither voted for portman (one found ‘swan’ absolutely laughable), but my two-man anecdotal evidence is worth about as much as two farts in a gale so of course i could be completely off-base, and probably am.
(personally i don’t think neither portman nor benning did the best lead actressing of 2010 – portman’s ‘constipated look’ for 90% of her expression didn’t quite cut it for me tho she did shine in a few scenes, and benning’s role was smaller than moore’s and should have been in the supporting category with steinfeld in the lead spot – so i don’t really care one way or another who wins. if i had a vote from the nominees i’d choose michelle, or maybe lawrence. i think the only categories i’m really rooting for anyone is deakens’ photography and ‘restrepo’, the former with a good shot – go deaks, legend – and the latter with probably next to nil. but a girl can dream)
It’s not a constipated look. It’s the look of sheer terror one has when they feel as if they are failing. No one has captured that terror more than Portman.
“It’s not a constipated look….’
see, but i think it is, and if i could be bothered i could name a plethora of sublime perfs that capture terror better than portman for me. and therein lies a difference of opinion. but i clearly framed my statement as my opinion, qualifying it with the assertion that I didn’t think either actress did the best acting of the year (note: I, as in my individual interpretation), whereas you simply say, ‘it’s not a constipated look..blah blah blah’ as if it’s a fact and i am somehow incorrect. do you see the difference, io? i’m guessing no.
Leah, yeah that’s your opinion but you are making a statement that’s not accurate of the film. Why? You previous statements about said film read like someone who had a problem with one aspect of the film, and slammed the entire film because of it.
Opinions do not exist in a vacuum. If you put out there something about something that can lead to a disagreement, then a disagreement can be had. I bet you don’t get that, but apparently people like you love insulting things they hate without getting called out for it.
Seriously, HUG!.
ETA: CUTTING IT FOR YOU is stating you didn’t like it. I don’t like sushi but I am willing to listen to other people tell me why they do. Apparently you refuse to listen to a difference of a opinion from me. Too bad. She does not look constipated, the sex in the film is not sophmorish, and the film is much better than the reasons you have given to dismiss it. Excuse a fan of that film for disagreeing. Oh I forgot, I cannot disagree with your opinions in a polite and orderly fashion because I am above contempt for reasons that you explained to me once but simply were as factually inaccurate as describing a look of terror as being one of constipation.
little girl? silly boy
that i’m “making a statement that’s not accurate of the film” is ENTIRELY YOUR OPINION. your opinion of a film is your opinion, not an irrefutable fact. the rest of that what you said…pfft, i can’t even bother trying to make sense of it. i don’t care what homie plays, just make sure you get the sand out of your little undies after you’re finishrd in the sandbox, and make sure you cover it up so it doesn’t get filled with cat turds overnight.
(and edited to say: stop editing your posts after the fact to make yourself sound like less of a tool. yes, i read that ‘silly girl’ comment before you could delete it, and the inane ‘homie plays’)
Leah, I edit my posts to try to filter out whatever is unnecessary. Sorry for belittling you like that, it was unnecessary, and that’s why I changed it. Some of us believe that there’s no reason to be mean on here, if we don’t want to be mean. That was mean, it’s gone, deal with it.
Again, I disagree with your sentiment, and could give a crap about your opinion. What makes you think that your opinion should be cherished like a Fabergé egg? You are dismissing a great performance and I simply think that’s bullshit.
If you want to insult a performance or a movie or anything else I like, I could give a crap what the facts are, it’s the sentiment that I will go after, and that’s never going to change. Also, it’s a fact to countless other people, about the movie having deeper means then you give it, and that means IT’S A FACT! Again, Leah, facts can be manipulated to whatever one wants (David makes a career off of it even if he is some times right), but this is not about facts. It’s about you slamming something and wanting to get away with it. Sorry, that’s unacceptable.
You also maybe need to realize that if you don’t want people telling you what to post maybe you should extend that freedom to other people. Oh I forgot, you are Leah, you are woman, and you are R0ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIN! Yeah whatever Leah, but some of us like to have discussions and do not find our opinions to be empirical facts that cannot be questioned.
ETA: I do find that you — the meanest and most insulting person on all of this blog — considers me a tool. IRONY… HUG!
lol. you’ve edited again to take out the part about taking lex’s advice to go away. and that last sentence before your ETA is a befuddled classic, when i’m the one who stated my opinion as my interpretation using the words ‘i don’t think’, and you state yours as a fact (unless you edit it out too). tweedledum and dumber, rulers of the blog. go away stinky leah, you can’t disagree with us, we’re dum and dee!
Leah, when it’s edited out, and you act as if it’s not. That only makes you look silly for not realizing it’s been edited out for a reason. This edit function exist solely for me and I use it. The fact that you are mad at someone going out of their way TO EDIT THEIR POST TO KEEP THEM FROM BEING MEAN OR FIXING THE SYNTAX, is another one of your ridiculous reasons that you believe you can just post because I suck or some nonsense.
Now let me explain that last sentence to you:
“You also maybe need to realize that if you don’t want people telling you what to post maybe you should extend that freedom to other people.”
This comes form all the times you screamed at me about not telling you what to do… figuratively.
“Oh I forgot, you are Leah, you are woman, and you are R0ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIN!”
Apparently you were too busy insulting a Nigel to have heard this wonderful song from Helen Reddy: http://youtu.be/mmifO2sKT7g
“Yeah whatever Leah, but some of us like to have discussions and do not find our opinions to be empirical facts that cannot be questioned.”
Again you are not stating your opinion as interpretation. You believe she looks constipated and I disagreed, but you love to just blow everything out of proportion. You’ve also never heard of Helen Reddy’s Magnum Opus. God damn shameful.
ETA: There was a paragraph in there that had to be axed because it was dicky. Again, if you want to hate me for disagreeing with you about something, fine. There’s no reason to be dicky to anyone just to do it.
lol, what are you on about io? i see you’ve edited out all the bits about me being a horrible drunk here, that was delightful. (not to mention totally wrong, i rarely post drunk) here’s the amusing thing: you’re a class-a prick who writes horrible things to/about me (i actually couldn’t care less), then deletes them and thinks that makes you an angel. you are delusional.
can’t be bothered with all that delusional nonsense, but a little reality check re: this little gem:
“Again you are not stating your opinion as interpretation. You believe she looks constipated and I disagreed, but you love to just blow everything out of proportion.” (i love to blow everything out of proportion? that’s perhaps the silliest thing you’ve ever written, but maybe not)
this is what i said, verbatim, clearly stating something as my opinion:
“(personally i don’t think neither portman nor benning did the best lead actressing of 2010 – portman’s ‘constipated look’ for 90% of her expression didn’t quite cut it for me tho she did shine in a few scenes”…)
note the use of the words “personally”, “i don’t think”, and “didn’t cut it FOR ME”.
this is your statement:
“It’s not a constipated look. It’s the look of sheer terror one has when they feel as if they are failing. No one has captured that terror more than Portman.”
which of those two statements, mine then yours, is framing something as an interpretation, and which is the one stating something as a fact? i would dearly love to hear how you rationalise and twist it around to be me. it bet you can do it tho, because reason and logic are not required
Let’s Play… LEAH’S SUPPOSITION!
“The large acting branch provides the noms but the entire membership gets to vote for the acting winners, and I’m just having a hard time picturing the generally quite conservative-leaning academy rewarding ‘black swan’, which i’d think may be a tad too ‘unrefined’, weird horrory and perhaps even silly to validate with such a prestigious vote of approval with lead acting.”
Sure this is all opinion until your realize that Mo’Nique won an Oscar for a really fucked up role, Halle Berry won an Oscar for a dark movie in which she was plowed by Billy Bob, and Charlize Theron won an Oscar for a fucked up movie in Monster. That’s your opinion of course but you site a FACT in all of that, which can be counter ceded BY THE REALITY OF RECENT BEST ACTRESS AND SUPPORTING ACTRESS WINNERS. If Mo’Nique can win, Nat can win, but that does not fit your supposition now does it?
“I know two academy members personally well enough to pick their brains on their choices for the final ballot, and neither voted for portman (one found ‘swan’ absolutely laughable), but my two-man anecdotal evidence is worth about as much as two farts in a gale so of course i could be completely off-base, and probably am.”
You actually have a fact, you pass it off as a fact, then you state it’s laughable. Of course you use that FACT to back up your supposition that Black Swan is laughable and one of the best actresses alive not worthy of an Oscar.
Seriously, you are not just stating your opinion. You are stating a supposition that a) Black Swan is not very good, b) you know people who vote and they believe that it’s not very good, and c) that you believe the actress in the lead role should not get the Oscar. The fact that you think I lack the logic and reason to decipher the lack of logic and reason in your response to me, is pretty much why we do not get along.