From a John Cassidy piece in The New Yorker entitled, “RELATIVELY DEPRIVED – How poor is poor?,” this notion:
In 2001, ninety-one per cent of poor families owned color televisions; seventy-four per cent owned microwave ovens; fifty-five per cent owned VCRs; and forty-seven per cent owned dishwashers. Are these families poverty-stricken?
and
Consider a hypothetical single mother with two teen-age sons living in New Orleans
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
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” ā 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 ā 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 ā he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” ā and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging ā I was with her at that moment ā 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 namedā” “Yeah, sure ā 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 Iām on the phone with you now, after all thatās 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 didnāt seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereās not a case of that. He wasnāt using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had ā if that were what the accusation involved ā 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. Iām not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, āYou know, itās not this, itās thatā? Because ā let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. TimesĀ piece, thatās what it lacked. Thatās 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
Kellie Pickler says: y’all ain’t seen no poor ’til y’all done seen mah trailer park.
“We’re not white trash!”
“Well, look what it’s done for Britney Spears…”
…so…
What are people’s predictions of United 93’s opening weekend?
š
It’s not good to be poor, but I’d rather be poor in 2006 than in 1906…heck, I’d still take it over being “poor” in 1986. The book to read is the Progress Paradox…it’ll put anyone who believes we’re not well off or declining in their place…even movie moguls!
As for United 93…I’ll say at least $20M. I don’t think people will line up to see it…but I think people who are scared away or repulsed by it are going to be the exception. As EW pointed out, 9/11 docs have been big numbers for TV.
$8/hr for working in a pre-Katrina, Ninth Ward supermarket? Don’t think so. As an ex-30-year New Orleans resident, I can say that the sad fact is she probably would have been earning not much more than minimum wage.
Obviously there are two different kinds of wealth or “capital”: monetary/material capital and social capital. They work profoundly differently. To just discuss material possessions is missing the point, because every homeless person in the country could be given an iPod, but that wouldn’t make them any less poor or homeless. I’m watching “Rize” and it’s weird how the dancers in the film don’t think they can make it in Hollywood just because the people there seem snobby. That kind of internal sense of poverty is much more complex than just the external one.
What’s the argument here? That things aren’t so bad for poor people because they have color TVs? So that therefore taxes could be higher to pay for more social programs? And I think I missed how this connects to Hollywood beyond the obvious fact that New Yorker liberals and Hollywood liberals are probably equally as misguided and ignorant about the poor.
I just found out who Kellie Pickler is. I guess it’s a sign that you’re getting old, when what formerly would have been ironic pop-culture gold is just another boring, stupid kid.
The writer ignores his own evidence to make his case for deprivation. Maybe Moms should be getting some money from the boys, ya think? No broadband? Don’t buy the stereo gear. Lack of access to SUV’s and cellphones will limit their “social achievement”? What the @$%#! does that mean? They won’t learn how to barrel down the highway slurping gas and scaring all the Mini Cooper drivers? They won’t learn how to be even less polite by yakking on a cell phone, dropping F-bombs while they wait in line at Radio Shack to buy some more gadgets? And what happened to the “DVD player” and the “Nintendo” the guys bought in the second cited paragraph? By paragraph three, they are examples of things they are deprived of. This is some shoddy thinking here, and tendentious in the extreme. One obviously doesn’t need to be living in the best part of town to be a spoiled punk teen anymore, of any color, creed, or sneaker brand. If these teen-age sons are enterprising enough, they can make off with some of the billions of dollars of aid that is now flowing to arguably one of the most corrupt cities in one of the most corrupt states in the country. Did you see that FEMA is already suing to get millions of dollars back from scammers and frauds? It’s the tip of a dirty iceberg, but never fear, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will provide cover for the thieves by imputing racism to anyone calling for honesty and common sense in this matter. Back to Moms, poor Moms; her own sons don’t even help her out, so just who is depriving precisely whom of exactly what?
Now that was a rant!
Too bad it was too angry to be convincing of anything.
I came back to see what might have been added here … and here’s this “jeffmcm” fellow calling ME angry, after he called someone a “boring, stupid kid.” But I suppose he meant it … what? … nicely? What a laugh! I don’t know what this guy read between the lines, but I am rarely angry; discouraged and irked by shoddy thinking, yes, but I don’t let anything stop me from smiling most of the time and singing silly ditties to my dogs. But I will certainly admit that I don’t suffer fools and excuse-makers well. I stand by everything I said above, and now I am even laughing about it
I did not write a longer post above. I don’t know what Erikjay is talking about, and we are not in agreement. His words go overboard, in my opinion.