MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

von Foot In von Mouth

Be Sociable, Share!

11 Responses to “von Foot In von Mouth”

  1. Geoff says:

    Wow, is this guy an asshole – sorry, this wasn’t a gaffe, just him trying to be “provocative” as usual. And I LOVED Breaking the Waves.

  2. TheGhostOfWillieMcGhee says:

    Geoff, wow, just wow.

  3. NickF says:

    Some people just have a career death wish.

  4. The Pope says:

    Lars von Trier always was, is and forever shall be an idiot. He behaves as an adult who wishes to be a child; everything is a game of provocation where he doesn’t have to take any responsibility. So since he chooses to behave as a child, he should be treated as one. Artistic freedom or not, Cannes are right to throw him out.

  5. sanj says:

    The Cannes Film Festival has banned director Lars Von Trier

  6. Geoff says:

    Pope, you said it better than I could have – the dude has talent; but WOW, I remember his own pre-release hype before Dogville and how it was ABOUT America. Give me a fucking break! He is such the Hollywood Euro-Trash stereotype that they obsess about on web sites like Big Hollywood.

    He’s not the first director to just say provocative shit to hype his own movies – I would put Spike Lee in that category, too. But at least Spike has a pretty impressive filmography that would rival any director over the past 20 years to back up the talk, his movies are actually FILMED in America and about American culture, and the dude is not so much of a wuss that he can’t actually fly to the places he loves to bash so much. When Spike gets out of his own way, he can make a great movie!

    Same with Oliver Stone – dude was IN Vietnam and his father worked as a stockbroker, went to Ground Zero many times, and spent a year in and around Dallas studying the JFK assassination. He talks a lot of shit, but backs it up all of the time!

    Von Trier wishes he could be in the league of those guys, but stupid lines about feeling sympathy for Hitler are just not going to cut it. Oh and the talking dog/fox deal: Spike Lee beat him to that idea by about 10 years with Summer of Sam!

  7. chris says:

    I’m not sure it’s about provocation as much as it is about being a dope who should have just stopped talking instead of trying to complete an exhausted thought. I don’t think he should have been banned — he immediately disavowed the Nazi idea — and if, by “sympathy,” he means an effort to understand Hitler and where he came from and why he behaved the way he did, I think that’s an interesting and useful question that has not been grappled with much.

  8. Keil Shults says:

    Like with most artists or celebrities, if you love their work, you’ll bend over backwards to rationalize all the stupid crap they do and say. When I first read about this, I figured it was an off-the-cuff joke that came off badly and he struggled to dig himself out of it. On the contrary, this video makes it clear that he was thinking and laboring over what he was saying, but said really stupid things anyway. Will this change what I think of the guy’s films? Of course not. Does it make me automatically think he is a Jew-hating Nazi? Not really. Does it make me want to roll my eyes and ignore any future idiotic provocations he may wish to dish out? Certainly.

    I will say, however, that if Terrence Malick had delivered that train of thought in the same fashion, the moderator would not have been kindly trying to provide him an out. I read yesterday something to the effect of, “American journalists have no sense of humor about these sort of things,” but you can be sure that same “it’s all good” mentality would not apply if the same comments were made by an American director.

  9. David Poland says:

    But he would not have been banned for that if he was an American director, Keil.

  10. SamLowry says:

    I found the transcript of his comments hilarious ( ), but that’s assuming he’s on a roll; the painfully slow video clearly indicates he was not, and it takes the air right out of his words.

    As for Big Hollywood ( ), Nolte invalidated his whole story about Roger Ebert being intellectually confused when he blasted an article written by Chaz and assumed Roger wrote it. You’d think he’d retract the story, but instead he kept it up and allows the trolls to keep on attacking Roger for words Nolte put into Chaz’s mouth.

  11. Lane Myer says:

    I actually got a kick out of seeing just how long KD could go before reacting to the crap that was coming out of his mouth. I swear it was like watching an episode of the old Candid Camera.

The Hot Blog

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