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
Any word on the quality of Dragon Tattoo yet?
Also, because I’m an ass…
It should probably read NYFFCC, not NYFFFC.
Hahohaho.
All that Sturm Und Drang over “Dragon Tattoo” and “Loud/Close” ultimately signified nothing.
The only real surprise in the bunch is Streep in a film that nobody seems to like very much. The Harvey love spilleth over.
Not bad choices overall, but “The Artist” does seem pretty….safe.
They never did get to see Loud/Close, right? So I don’t know that it necessarily signifies nothing. If for some reason it really catches on with other awards groups, NYFCC will look stupid for having missed it. Otherwise, yeah, I’d say they got away with the early move, which sucks.
Of course what REALLY sucks is any kind of expectation that the NYFCC generally pick things that the other awards groups do too. Critics groups should be able to pick what they want and “get away with it,” because they’re supposed to have greater insight than just being reflective of the awards season at large. But when you move this early, you make an issue out of what films had a chance. The attention stops being on what films you want to bestow prestige upon and becomes instead about what films ever had a fair shot at that prestige in the first place. Therefore, if a film did NOT get a fair shot and yet catches on with other awards groups, the assumption is that the NYFCC screwed up, rather than judged the film fairly and legitimately found others more deserving.
In other words, if NYFCC had awarded the exact same set of films in January instead of November, they could be seen as a lot more credible than they can now. Even if Loud/Close fizzles. But especially if it doesn’t.
It looks like NYFFCC became the new National Board of Review. Maybe it’s a curse of being the first in the season to give awards! 🙂
B&W, silent, foreign film winning Picture and Director: Millions.
Pissing off Jeff Wells no end: Priceless.
“he only real surprise in the bunch is Streep in a film that nobody seems to like very much.”
Isn’t the point of the Best Actress award meant for the best performance, instead of the best film? Yes, the critics are not in love with the film, but Meryl Streep is being given early raves.
I suspect The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was snubbed, because the critics thought it would come off badly to award the film, after they postponed the ceremony for it.
I don’t get how Brad Pitt wins for Best Actor in The Tree of Life, but Jessica Chastain is downgraded as supporting. She’s just as much of a lead as he is on the film.
Streep just seems like such a lazy, unimaginative choice. (Yes, we know she can do the accent, snooze.) It would have been a lot more inspired to pick somebody with a lot less baggage…and from a better film. For example, Kirsten Dunst who gives the female performance of the year in “Melancholia” (a movie the NY critics seemed to like a whole lot more than “Iron Lady”).
My guess is that Pitt’s award was primarily for “Moneyball” (which was certainly a “lead” performance). “Life” got added to the citation because he was terrific in that as well. I love Chastain, but all of her perfs in 2011 were in supporting roles, so that placement makes perfect sense to me.
“After all the whining, this group – with the exception of one award – really could have given out these awards on October 1”
That’s a completely wrong take away from the situation.
My biggest issue is the fact that seemingly award people for a combination of work as opposed to any individual achievement. I’d say pick the performance you think is the best among everything and list that and if you think that doesn’t work just award it to someone else.
I guess it’s their award so they are perfectly within their right to do what they want (that is unless they try to pressure the filmmakers to meet their deadlines).
All I am saying is that I reserve the right to take the way they give out awards into account when I consider how much merit they have.
Oh and Mark Harri’s piece on how Best Actress is the lesser award because it correaltes with the Best Picture nomination less often than Best Actor is pure nonsense.
If anything, it proves the opposite because it implies that the people aren’t as automatically inclined to vote for the perfromance as part of the Best Picture package. It stands on its own and, consequently means more and not less.
The salient point in Harris’s piece (which he takes forever to get to) is that the studios rarely make films built around a female lead; therefore, Best Actress nods are less likely to come from studio titles. You can hardly vote for female lead performances from the “Best Picture package” if such performances don’t exist.