MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Trailer: Biffle and Shooster in “It’s A Frame Up”

Be Sociable, Share!

13 Responses to “Trailer: Biffle and Shooster in “It’s A Frame Up””

  1. Sam says:

    That’s awesome. So seeing that.

  2. cadavra says:

    Thanks, David!

    If you’re in or near L.A., it’s playing Laemmle’s Music Hall in Beverly Hills this coming Tuesday through Thursday (evenings only), with the new documentary ZIPPER: CONEY ISLAND’S LAST WILD RIDE. Miss it at your own peril!

  3. Jermsguy says:

    That’s awesome. I’m watching thinking “Cadavra should see this” and then there’s the closing credit card.

  4. Ira Parks says:

    Well done, Cadavra! Looks good, literally and figuratively. How did you get the creamy Black and White look, by the way? Did you shoot it with a RED? Canon?

  5. cadavra says:

    A Panasonic AF-100. Our DP was the fabulous Douglas Knapp, who’s been in the biz for four decades and actually shot John Carpenter’s first features. He knows how to light for B&W, even if the “negative” is in color. And post was in the wizardly hands of editor Bill Bryn Russell, who’s cut all of Larry Blamire’s pictures and also knows how to time and grade digital so it looks like the McCoy. As I like to say, the only amateur on the production was me!

  6. LYT says:

    Wait – I always thought Cadavra was Larry Blamire all this time. No?

  7. YancySkancy says:

    LYT: No, but he produces Larry’s movies.

  8. cadavra says:

    Guilty as charged. 🙂

  9. Sam says:

    So I’m nowhere near a major city. What are the chances I’ll ever be able to see this?

  10. cadavra says:

    You’ll likely hafta wait for video or TV. Sorry, though we are working a few angles. Is there any sort of film festival near you?

  11. Sam says:

    I’m in rural New England. There are small film festivals but nothing major.

    The thing about shorts is sometimes there isn’t a DVD to wait for. Very pleased if you’re saying here that eventually there will be.

  12. cadavra says:

    Well, I HOPE so! It would either have to be attached to something else or we’d need to make two more and turn it into an ersatz feature. Nobody’s gonna buy a DVD of one short.

  13. Sam says:

    Or, hey, make a Biffle and Shooster feature and throw the short on as an extra!

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