MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Cannes Day One: Drizzling

And so, on the morning of Day Two, a look back at Day One.

As the week progresses, the bubble we each travel in begins to dissipate. But on Day One, familiar faces, remembering the rhythm of the year before, trying to make good choices, getting the wireless and phones to work right, getting over the hotel room… It’s the first day at rich kids boarding school.

The Great Gatsby had already been popped for those of us in the U.S, bubble, so there was a sense of ennui to go with the steady drizzle from the start. I, personally, was not done with Gatsby, and after viewing the first hour again, I am still not done with Gatsby. I lean on the positive side of the meter for the film and re-viewing the first hour pushed me closer to the possibility of loving the film. I saw in in a WB screening room and seeing it on the big screen, even from a bad seat,was a better experience, scene after scene.

The biggest revelation for me was that it was much funnier than I remember. Luhrmann laid in a whole bunch of Easter egg references which I really hadn’t connected with the first time through, particularly in music choices (not just the existence of Jay-Z).

Luhrman remains one of the lazily discarded filmmakers of this era. Critics just won’t look past the surface much, almost angry at him for his ambitions. Anyone can fairly hate anything… if they have made a real effort to engage it first. I think there are a bunch of writers out there who just refuse with Luhrmann… on false principle.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

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