MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

DRIVE Lawsuit 3: Witness For The Screenwriter

London, England

Dear David

I came across your item while googling reviews of Drive, and see it has generated a fair number of comments.

I am Hoss (Hossein) Amini’s former college roommate from Oxford University, his best friend for over 25 years, and the godfather of his son. The suggestion that he is in any way anti-Semitic is preposterous. I cannot imagine a less anti-Semitic person. Indeed Hoss is the nicest person I know, and I have never heard him utter a word of prejudice about anyone. He has always been very fond of Jewish culture and fair to the state of Israel, and has often stood up for Jews and Israel while others in England’s cultural and literary circles have not done so.

I am a fairly well known commentator on Jewish and Israeli affairs, who was on the staff of Britain’s best-selling quality newspaper the Daily Telegraph for many years, and before that worked in Israel for the Jerusalem Post. I remain a contributor on Israeli and Middle East issues to a number of American papers, including The Wall Street Journal.

I am Jewish, though Hoss is not. My father, John Gross (who among other things was the book editor of the New York Times – as well as occasionally writing movie reviews for the Times and other papers) has also spoken on many occasions about Jewish issues with Hoss and remarked on several occasions that Hoss could almost be Jewish, so friendly was he to Jews and so understanding was he of Jewish concerns.

Thanks,
Tom Gross

Previously…
Stupid Lawsuit Of The Week!™
DRIVE Lawsuit 2: A Critic & A Lawyer Walk Into A Bar…

Be Sociable, Share!

13 Responses to “DRIVE Lawsuit 3: Witness For The Screenwriter”

  1. Random Commenter says:

    Great letter and a great pursuing of the story, DP. That said, I still think the most interesting and unreported angle on an Amini/”Drive”-story is the fact that HE CAN’T ACTUALLY DRIVE – no license, no nothing, takes cabs everywhere, etc., and always has.

  2. yancyskancy says:

    Cool. Reminds me a bit of Woody Allen pulling Marshall McLuhan into that movie line in ANNIE HALL. Of course I’m sure the folks behind the lawsuit will say the screenwriter’s lack of antisemitism doesn’t mean the film isn’t antisemitic, since an uncredited antisemite could’ve rewritten it.

  3. palmtree says:

    Years ago, I remember the Weinsteins were heavily into Hossein Amini, who was attached to and wrote scripts for them but weren’t produced. The Weinsteins!!!

  4. Joe Straatmann says:

    It’s a good thing the statute of limitations has run out on such issues, because if this flies with any jury or judge (Which I highly highly HIGHLY doubt it will), then man, what a feeding frenzy this would be for Muslims in the 1980s. From Back to the Future to Navy Seals, one-dimensional characters who only exist to be evil villains and destroy. I’m sure most posters on here could find many other religions/races for this.

    And if anyone gave a shit about it, it’d be bad news for a movie like The Sky Crawlers:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oddimR3JNcg

    Does any moment of the English trailer give you any indication the movie has languid pacing, a lot of scenes of people sitting around having long conversations with a lot of subtext, and the most pointless aspect is most of the action sequences that make up about 5% of the movie? I love the movie, but anyone who was coerced into seeing it expecting a Top Gun movie and getting an Michaelangelo Antonioni-esque movie instead probably has right ot be angry.

    Far far away from litigation angry, though. Be a better, more educated consumer. I got missold Another Earth just last month because I read Roger Ebert’s review, watched the trailer and they focused on a lot of the aspects that make up very little of the movie and most of it is this two-character drama. So what? Where is the harm “deliberately” caused by the filmmakers here? It’s nonsense, but you can’t really blame the lawyer for taking a paycheck and a bit of recognition for someone’s stupidity (Yeah, don’t worry about posting the poker face banter about how it is legitimate and blah blah blah. My brother’s a lawyer. I know how standard procedure goes).

  5. Martin H. Leaf says:

    Dave you are amazing finding that resource……but facts are a stubborn thing.

    Bernie Rose appeared before me in a dream last night. He looked terrible by the way. I asked him if the movie was viciously anti-semitic. This is what he told me: “Its the money that flows up. ”

    I was pondering that clue a lot. And then it hit me. He was telling me that something else flows down. Like anti-semitism. Then it made a lot more sense.

    The gangsters did not just have stereotypes common to gangsters, there were stereotypes used against all Jews, “flowing down” to the gangsters. That is what takes the gangster “excuse” out of the equation.

    For example, the Jew hating false stereotype that Jews are the outsiders that never fit in, but merely pretend to. Just read the bio of Izzy, and how Izzy tried to pretend he was an Italian.

    Or the old canard about how Jews are a threat to Christian children, and gee wiz, guess what?

    I think this same logic can be applied to many more of the Jew hating stereotypes alleged to be in this movie.

    Thanks Bernie. I knew I could depend on a fellow Jew for help.

  6. David Poland says:

    Martin – Now you are sounding a bit nutty.

  7. Drew McWeeny says:

    A bit?

    This entire line of argument has been indulged past the point of lunacy, David. Simply put, the movie is not anti-Semitic. Leaf hasn’t made the case for it remotely, no matter how hard he stretches imagery from the film to fit his interpretation, and it sounds more and more like an agenda advanced by one mentally unbalanced person in the name of another mentally unbalanced person.

    Yes, Leaf, that’s right. I think you are genuinely unbalanced. You’re not just a terrible lawyer, you might actually be deranged.

    And none of this has anything to do with whether “Drive” resembles “Fast Five” or not.

  8. Well says:

    He’s clearly out of his mind, Poland. He wants attention. You gave him attention.

    I just hope he starts a box office blog of his own.

  9. Edward says:

    Mr. Leaf, I am curious… what facts? Your client has an OPINION that the film is anti-Semitic in nature. You have an OPINION the film is anti-Semetic in nature. I have an OPINION the film is not anti-Semitic in nature. Drew has an OPINION the film is not anti-Semetic in nature. Facts, by their very definition, are things that actually exist.

    What you are actually talking about in this case is Question of Fact, concerning the reality of an alleged event or circumstance, which is done in a trial by jury in a court of law, and decided by a jury after all the evidence has been presented. Right now, there are no “facts” about this case, other than you and your client have filed a case, and you both believe you actually have a case.

  10. Joe Leydon says:

    I haven’t seen Drive yet, so I’m curious: Is there a scene in the movie where one of the Jewish gangsters says, “I’m glad we killed Jesus,” and the other one says, “That was Hay-Soos, dummy”? Because, yeah, I can see where some people might find that anti-Semitic

  11. berg says:

    YOU HAVEN’T SEEN drive yet? what’s you’re major malfunction? seen it twrice and would see it again

  12. GexL says:

    What’s wrong with being anti-semantic?

  13. Joshua says:

    GexL: I believe it’s wrong to be anti-semantic. Words have meanings and those meanings ought to be respected. It’s not as bad as being anti-semitic, but it’s not good.

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