By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

Picturing Sundance 2014 x 13 (Plus 140-Character Grasps For Instantaneous Truth)

If you go to parties, you miss movies. If you go to movie after movie after movie, you don’t have time to write, let alone think. But! Thank the Movie Godz for Twitter and for photographs. The quick quip and apt snap are more quickly up on my Twitter and Instagram (with RTs from others at the MCNtweets account). A raft of full-on reviews may have to wait a couple days: Wednesday and Thursday are sizing up as quadruple features, at the least. I’m dying to describe the titanic charm and simple, subversive comic loveliness of Obvious Child at length, as well as delve into the painterly effects of Love Is Strange, the look of which seems patterned after many of the artists who would have been contemporaries of John Lithgow’s character. Alas! Twitter reactions and more photos below. (The actual Twitter handle is @ebertmovie.)

LIFE-ITSELF-0

Life-Itself
Boyhood
BOYHOODZellner Kikuchi Zellner

Zellner-Kikuchi-Zellner at their opening night pour.

KUMIKO-LoversSundance 2014
Truism
LOVE IS STRANGE
Ancient indiefilm burial ground

The ancient indiefilm burial ground. Jamie Stuart says he can see Happy, Texas from here.

Staff Only

Press office. STAFF ONLY.

Obvious Child

Augment

Stealthfest

Stealthfest. Best rumors hold that FILM X tonight will be Nymphomaniac or Foxcatcher.

P-Brod

Consultant Peter Broderick in motion.

Laggied Lynn

Lynn Shelton, also in motion.

Shuttling

Shuttle

Get off the shuttle, the cool air hits your face, the dusk is blue and luminous, the chatter of the bus falls away, and on the sidewalk, you run into people you’re meant to run into.

Just confessed

Intimacies exchanged at the Slamdance opening night party in an underground parking garage.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

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