MCN Blogs

By DP30

DP/30: Samsara, filmmakers Ron Fricke & Mark Magidson

Be Sociable, Share!

4 Responses to “DP/30: Samsara, filmmakers Ron Fricke & Mark Magidson”

  1. Sarah says:

    What an annoying interviewer! The filmmakers seem interesting but they appear to be as annoyed with the douche as I was.

  2. Jim says:

    Yeah, the interviewer needs to turn down the annoying a bit.

  3. etguild2 says:

    Finally got time to watch this. I watched BARAKA the first time I ever partook in cannabis at 17 at an aging Virginia theatre that still screened 70mm…I believe it still does…and was blown away. Saw it subsequently without substance and felt the same, an experience that has rarely worked for me (BLACK SWAN comes to mind recently and not much else). Saw it once on DVD I believe but never saw extras….this was GREAT DP.

    Also, it made me more interested in DP/30’s in general. You need an alphabetical archive. Not a messy timeline where the reader needs to read every title to see if what they’re looking for is there. For instance, you interviewed Ms. Ronan 8 months after her film’s release…who the hell would guess that except dedicated blog readers? I just discovered your DRIVE/Albert Brooks interview which is a GEM. Unfortunately, unless you’re a dedicated reader, your pieces will disappear quickly unless you get a better archival setup. A lot of people love a lot of the films and filmmakers you interview, but you need more exposure and that starts with a better setup. MCN needs some sort of overhaul in general (why the hell is Noah, and I loved his work, still listed among columnists) and DP/30’s could be a main selling point for a re-brand.

    I don’t believe that most hollywood journalists do your type of in-depth interviews on a piece and there is certainly a wider audience than what you’re getting.

  4. etguild2 says:

    Also, this is blatantly spitballing, but your actor interviews are dynamic, and some filmmakers’ are…but many just ramble about inside baseball technical and distribution issues and you let them run wild in opening moments. THE INTERRUPTERS= best sociological US doc of the last few years, but the filmmakers kill their own film by going on and on on and on. You try to stop them 5 minutes in, but by then it’s too late. As they say in football DP, GO IN STRONG. On the blog you are Tim Russert. In the DP/30s, you often become Diane Sawyer.

    I just went on a very enjoyable DP/30 rampage and I’m apparently sanj, because I want more.

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