MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride

Trailering THE CONVERSATION (1974) (2’43”)

“This is a world of hidden mics and two-way mirrors. A world where nothing is private. Harry Caul is an expert. The best there is. He can bug anybody. Any time. Anywhere. They’re not people to him. Just voices. He doesn’t know them, and they don’t know him. Be careful, Harry: You’re just supposed to listen. Not look. Not feel. Not care. Gene Hackman is Harry Caul in The Conversation. There is nothing private about… the conversation. Listen…”

BONUS! (Via Joe Dante) The “Trailers From Hell” Commentary by screenwriter Josh Olson.

Be Sociable, Share!

5 Responses to “Trailering THE CONVERSATION (1974) (2’43”)”

  1. Keil S. says:

    One film that just continues to grow in my estimation. Coppola in the ’70s was unbelievable. There will never again be a 4-film streak by a director as remarkable as that one.

  2. The Pope says:

    Keil S.,

    Certainly I can’t think of a Hollywood director who went on such a hot streak. Billy Wilder… maybe. Internationally, Kurosawa. Buñuel. Fellini. Tarkovsky.
    That is how good Coppola was.

    And to those who pass snarky comments about him now, I say he did it while he could. And thank God for Francis!

  3. Keil S. says:

    Nothing can ever take away the power and brilliance of his 1970s output.

    The Godfather
    The Conversation
    The Godfather Part II
    Apocalypse Now

    I’ve loved all six Paul Thomas Anderson films thus far, but no 4 in a row can approach this level of artistry.

  4. Joe Dante says:

    Here’s another appreciation of The Conversation from writer Josh Olson at our site Trailers from Hell, which features a variety of movie pros talking about their favorite films.

  5. Ray Pride says:

    Thanks, Joe! I’ve added Mr. Olson to the main entry.

Movie City Indie

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