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
As a former soldier, I would recommend you talk to those who have endured the brutality of POW status. You know, our guys who have experienced torture. You know, the way Kathryn Bigelow and her team did. Then comment on whether the movie “endorses” torture
And Guerilla2001, I as a former soldier ask you to ask yourself what kind of treatment soldiers are in for now. Knowing what America has done they will make their lives are in captivity will be much worse because their captors know America endorses torture. You’re a disgrace to POW’s.
America no longer endorses torture. But it did. Are we supposed to pretend it never happened? Does forgetting history bode well for our future?
Does it matter at all that Kathryn Bigelow herself says the film doesn’t endorse torture? Showing something on screen doesn’t necessarily equal endorsement of it. If that were the case, Silence of the Lambs would be an endorsement of cannibalism. Psycho would be an endorsement of matricide. Scarface would be an endorsement of drug abuse. Just because a film is showing you what happened doesn’t mean the film is saying, “this is right and everyone involved with the film agrees with this.” To believe that about any film, whether it be a historical drama or a horror film, is a ridiculously literal reading of a film. Would you prefer that Bigelow and company simply whitewashed history rather than letting people make up their own minds about what happened? Then everyone would respond by saying, “Oh right, what about all the TORTURE – have we conveniently forgotten about that suddenly?” You can’t have it both ways. I respect Mr. Clennon as an actor, but I find his argument to be ludicrous.
Poor David Clemmons. Can’t make it as an actor, not relevant enough for anyone to give a damn about, but knows that by “staging” his protest of a film nominated for best picture, he’ll get his name in the news again. What a pathetic excuse for “activism”. **barf**
Cinemapsycho you are a dolt. Bigelow is the one who is whitewashing history. You’re missing the whole point. Nobody objects to the torture in the movie its the fact that torture had nothing to do with finding Osama but Bigelow shows that it did. The scene where they give the captive food and cigarettes shows he’s talking because he’s afraid of being tortured again. The info he gives had already been obtained without torture. Do some research before you start spouting off stupidity.
A strongly as you believe what you are saying, Mike z, at the time of UBL’s death, the head of the CIA acknowledged that “enhanced interrogation” did play a role in finding bin Laden.
A year later, a Senate committee decided, after torture had been eliminated by a new administration, that torture never worked in any way shape or form.
Well David what else would he say. Of course he has to say that it worked or else he might set himself up for some possible future criminal prosecution. He’s the head of the CIA and they never protect their ass right? But if you want to go in this direction you forget to mention the numerous CIA agents who have stated on record that were witnesses or had direct involvement that enhanced interrogation did not give reliable info.
David, everyone without a conflict of interest who has had access to the full documents said that torture did not play a role in any way to capturing Bin Laden. Why can’t you accept that.
FACT: All important info that led to the capture of Bin Laden was obtained though non torture interrogation before torture interrogations started. Stop wanting to believe something that has been proven to not work at all.
They water boarded Zubaydeh 83 times in one month and did he not give up one piece of vital info. “However, in September 2009, the United States Government finally admitted, during Abu Zubaydah’s habeas corpus petition, that Abu Zubaydah had never been a member of al-Qaeda, nor involved in the attacks on the African embassies in 1998, or the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001”.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 187 times and all they got was a confession that he was part of the 9/11 attacks ( which doesn’t seem so much a confession, more like an act of defiance).
Yet the world is wise to what America has done and the repercussions to Americans and American soldiers will be seen in future conflicts
Wait. Who is this guy and how does he rate AMPAS membership? How did he get in? I looked up “David Clennon” on IMDB and barely found anything at all, much less anything meretricious. The buried lead here might be another story about the Academy’s sorry admission system.
It has been well established that the U.S. during the Bush Administration and even before engaged in torture at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, and at so-called overseas black sites as shown in the film, and even taught enhanced interrogation techniques (a euphemism for torture) to Latin American military officers at the School of the Americas now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
And extraordinary renditions apparently continue to this day under the Obama administration. These are secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to overseas black sites like those shown in the film where torture is used.
The criticism of the film seems to have started with a letter that Senators Feinstein, Levin, and McCain wrote to Sony Pictures Entertainment calling the movie “grossly inaccurate and misleading in its suggestion that torture resulted in information that led to the location of Usama bin Laden.” Senator Feinstein now wants the CIA to detail its contributions to the film Zero Dark Thirty, and even wants the filmmakers to include a disclaimer indicating the film is fiction, only based on a true story.
In my opinion, “Zero Dark Thirty” does not advocate or excuse torture or that torture is effective. Clearly, the CIA and the Bush Administration accepted torture as a legitimate interrogation technique and the film realistically depicts some of these torture techniques such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation in a realistic manner. Reading about waterboarding is not as unsettling as seeing it realistically depicted on the screen. Does telling like it was equal excusing these techniques? I think not.
I agree with the Director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal who countered Senator Feinstein’s accusation that torture worked in the manhunt for Osama bin Laden, “The film shows that no single method was necessarily responsible for solving the manhunt, nor can any single scene taken in isolation fairly capture the totality of efforts the film dramatizes.”
And remember, the filmmakers had the full cooperation of the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House in the making of the film. Given this country’s use of torture in the past, I for one tend to believe that the film’s depiction of torture of prisoners is accurate. If a viewer needs the filmmaker to tell you the realistic depiction of torture is illegal and immoral, then there is something wrong with the viewer, not the filmmaker.
Actors Clennon, Asner, and Sheen — knowingly or not — have become shills for a campaign to divert attention away from the bad old days of torture by discrediting the film — a shoot the messenger approach if you will. Hopefully, the rest of the Academy members will disregard these actors and fairly asses the merits of the film.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Please spare us
any further opinions as to whom or what you may vote for in the future or may not have voted for in the past. This should include High School Class President, football team captains, or American Idol Contestants. As you mentioned, this is a ‘secret vote’… perhaps you would be better suited for a ‘show of hands’ vote immediately after each screening of the films in the Goldwyn Theatre. The vote you cast for the film is for the FILM and not the specific aspects of the war and the elements of warfare. I think we all agree that WAR IS HELL!