MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

DP/30: Descendants, actors Beau Bridges, Matthew Lillard, Robert Forster

Be Sociable, Share!

19 Responses to “DP/30: Descendants, actors Beau Bridges, Matthew Lillard, Robert Forster”

  1. Joe Leydon says:

    I wonder how much money Fox Searchlight is passing up by not going wider today with The Descendants.

  2. David Poland says:

    Joe… think you’re overestimating the sure bet of that movie’s grosses. They have to convince people other than critics before they start making bank on this one.

  3. LexG says:

    Lillard is FANTASTIC in Descendants. He’s always been a good actor but plays such goofballs, and usually in proudly dumb movies, that it’s exhilarating when a great director goes with an off-kilter choice like that and it turns out so well. Like, who would have thought to cast Matthew Lillard opposite George Clooney, yet in one big scene he hits so many precise notes so well.

  4. sanj says:

    the best part of the entire dp/30 is Beau Bridges poem near the end.

  5. movieman says:

    It would have been nice if (thinking) adult audiences had a real choice at the multiplex this holiday weekend. (“Hugo” seems to be benefitting from the slim–at least for anyone over the age of 12–‘plex pickings right now. Not surprisingly, its core demographic opening day was adults who traditionally patronize “prestige” films.)
    But the release pattern reminds me of a similar tactic successfully employed by Paramount 28 years ago this w-end with “Terms of Endearment.” After a “Descendants”-sized platform release at Thanksgiving, it successfully expanded on December 9th.
    I just hope F-S doesn’t platform this to death and kill its momentum.
    It’s happened before.

  6. scooterzz says:

    slightly related: lillard is currently on stage in ‘harbor’ at the victory theater in burbank…small space, good performances… also, looking forward to catching bridges as a song-and-dance man when he steps into ‘how to succeed…’ in january

  7. Joe Leydon says:

    Nothing is a sure bet. But considering this is the day when entire families have to decide which film will be acceptable to everyone…

  8. Gus says:

    Might want to give SPOONER a look, Lex. It’s on Netflix instant. Lillard plays a semi-retarded (or maybe just Apatovian) 30 year-old in drake doremus’ first (or second?) feature. Not a great movie by any stretch but I found Lillard really impressive and surprisingly moving in it.

  9. yancyskancy says:

    Payne says he’d never seen Lillard in anything before. He got the role because he nailed the audition.

  10. leahnz says:

    does lillard look like THAT in ‘the descendants’? i can’t even believe that’s him – like the mythbusters dude only not having swelled yet – granted i haven’t seen him in a long time and haven’t seen the descendants. (eta still sounds the same)

    robert forster shoulda won an oscar for jackie brown, he was robbed (by whom i can’t even remember, but still)

    i always think of lillard and jake busey together as a set for some reason. haven’s seen him in ages either come to think of it.

  11. movieman says:

    Lillard looks completely different in the movie, Leah. He’s got dark hair (darker than I’ve ever seen on him), and no facial hair.
    I actually did roundtables with him, Seth Green and Dax Shepard back in 2004 for the uber-lame “Without a Paddle.”
    He seemed like an OK guy at the time. But I never pegged him for a future Payne dramedy.
    Of course, I would have never imagined “Wings” alum Thomas Haden Church costarring in “Sideways” prior to 2004 either.
    I should have probably said:
    After a “Descendants”-sized platform release at Thanksgiving, it successfully expanded on December 9th and the rest was history.
    At this vantage point, it’s stiffest Oscar competition looks like “The Artist” and “War Horse.”

  12. yancyskancy says:

    leah, it was Robin Williams in GOOD WILL HUNTING who stole Forster’s Oscar. Still can’t believe voters had Forster and Burt Reynolds (in BOOGIE NIGHTS) to choose from and went with Williams. I think it was one of those ‘career achievement’ awards, where someone who’s lost a number of times in the lead category finally gets a supporting win.

  13. Krillian says:

    I thought it was Reynolds’ to lose and I seem to recall him giving a couple bridge-burning interviews and lining up some TNT movies that soured some voters.

    Forster, it was like the nomination was reward enough for an actor resurrected from obscurity by QT.

  14. leahnz says:

    ah, robin williams, thanks. oh well, he was really good in GWH, i guess i can’t begrudge that – maybe just a little – but if i had to give williams an oscar it would have been for his brilliant turn as ‘sy the photo guy’ in ‘one hour photo’, because he achieved the impossible: making me forget i was watching robin williams to go on a weird trip with his sad, creepy ass.

    (movieman: did you know that paragon of comedy cinema ‘w/out a paddle’ was shot here? hooray. i think that’s the last time i actually saw lillard full stop, so his appearance in the interview was a bit of shock, i didn’t intend for my comment above to sound so looksist, which it did in hindsight. he wasn’t in ‘the descendants’ trailer i’d watched, but i looked it up and saw lillard looks far more ‘himself’ in the movie – himself being ‘how i remember him’ of course, more power to him looking however he darn well pleases)

  15. yancyskancy says:

    Krillian: I thought Forster deserved the win, but was frankly surprised that he even got nominated. It was the film’s only nomination, and the Academy often overlooks such non-showy work, no matter how superb.

    I don’t have any big beef against Robin Williams, but it does gall me that the Academy has given him so much love over the years while snubbing the best acting work of Steve Martin and Eddie Murphy (to name two).

  16. leahnz says:

    but yancy, not that i disagree with you but just wanted to point out that ‘the academy’ notoriously does not like to validate comedic perfs – laughing must chaffe their adult nappies or something – and william’ss noms have all come for drama roles or roles with a heavy dramatic component (my memory is a shocker): ‘GWH’, dead poets society, fisher king, good morning vietnam…i may have missed out some but with the exception of ‘good morning’ none of those are overtly comedic perfs, and i can only guess that the nom for ‘vietnam’ was tied to the dramatic setting/subject matter/war element of the movie and william’s force of nature perf with lots of deadly serious moments, and quite possibly its financial success/popularity.

    now i can’t remember my original point but murphy and martin for example haven’t really made many celebrated forays into ‘serious dramatic roles’ of note for the academy to fawn over

  17. yancyskancy says:

    Good point, leah — because, indeed, it’s the lack of recognition for Martin and Murphy’s comedic work that ticks me off, and as you say, Williams’ nods have come for predominantly dramatic work. I guess part of my problem is that I didn’t find Williams particularly deserving for any of those nominations. I would’ve had no problem with nods for AWAKENINGS, maybe ONE HOUR PHOTO, MOSCOW ON THE HUDSON or GARP, but of course the Academy passed him over in those instances.

  18. movieman says:

    I vaguely remember hearing that “Paddle” was shot in NZ, Leah.
    But I don’t recall any of the actors making an issue of it at the time.
    And that was seven long years ago.
    Lots of water (paddled?) under the bridge for me since then, lol.

  19. Alisa says:

    In first 15 min of the interview Beau managed to say three times that he has a house in Kauai.

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