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
Exactly, I don’t want to know about Bullock’s private troubles, and I’m sure she doesn’t want me to know about her private troubles but its inavoidable due to how the media covers these things. Now any actual reporting on future projects and all interviews for some time will contain at least some snippet referring to this. I don’t see how they are not considered private citizens under the law. Outside of breaking the law, why the hell are their private lives reported on?
And yes the parasitic media has some blame in this but the fucking housecoat and curlers crowd that laps this shit up creates the market and should shoulder a majority of the blame.
I just read The Death of American Virtue (great book), and it’s a clear reminder that private lives should remain exactly that. The graphic, intimate details should not be for public consumption and it says a lot about us that so many get off on text messages from Tiger’s flings and the fame whore that slept with Jesse James. I feel sorry for Bullock and Tiger’s wife & children and all those who have to suffer through the public humiliation and embarrassment caused by someone else’s actions.
I agree that it’s disgusting. The nazi skank picked the week of Sandra Bullock’s greatest triumph to cash in and get her 15 minutes of fame. What’s most repulsive (and, alas, it’s not isolated to this case) is the fact that what was once exclusively the purview of supermarket racks now becomes part of the “news.” How many pressing issues are not being discussed on CNN et al. to make room for this? The woman has just been sucker-punched to the kidneys and humiliated. How about letting her heal in peace?
If there’s a silver lining in this, I wonder how Sandra Bullock does not now emerge from this the biggest, most-beloved female movie star in the world, though that’s hardly consolation for heartbreak. The infinitely less-talented Jennifer Aniston has been playing the tabloid game, milking the “getting dumped” sympathy card for 6 years and it’s the only discernible reason she still has a career — in her eyes, constant exposure, any exposure, is more important than the quality of her work itself. Contrast that with the private and classy way Bullock has been comporting herself. Hopefully, other than the inevitable Oprah interview, she’ll bypass the parasites and continue to let her work speak for itself.
Wow, D.P… That was some pungent melodrama you just put out there.
I guess I am the only one who doesnt give a damn about this mess. Here is the thing, she knew it that she was marrying trash, so you cant look surprise now. He was married to a freaking porn star when he met Bullock.
But she is a lovelly lady and I wish her good luck.
I do wonder if this mess had hit BEFORE the award season, would she be a Oscar winner still? you know the academy hates tabloid mess.
Nothing against Bullock, but plenty of stars are tipping off photographers about where and when they’ll be poolside with their co-star/fling, or entering into sham relationships for their career’s sake or whatever. Celebrity journalism is about the lowest kind of media, but plenty of celebrities are serving up their “private” lives for consumption. It’s terribly unfair to people who don’t want to participate in that, but it’s kind of an occupational hazard.
The collective Us that wants to read more about the piece of shit human being who leveraged her stardom and Oscar success for maximum sales value to damage Ms Bullock as loudly as possible. The collective Us that gets of on all the different ways a story like this allows Us to judge Them. The collective Media Us that should cry Ourselves to sleep each night, disgusted by what We see in the mirror.
oh good, I was worried for a minute that you were talking about me
“Nothing against Bullock, but plenty of stars are tipping off photographers about where and when they’ll be poolside with their co-star/fling, or entering into sham relationships for their career’s sake or whatever.”
Not Bullock, though. Which is why this kind of especially sucks.
Hey, I’m pretty plugged in on what’s going on in the world, and I really don’t have any idea what Poland’s talking about. This is something about Sandra Bullock and her philandering husband, I assume, but I don’t know why this particular minor titillating TMZ fodder warrants any kind of discussion.
Jesse James: Bandit of Love
Speaking of Ms. Bullock, when will the liberal media call out WB for getting into bed with the Parents Television Council? That seal of approval from the Cali theocrats/censorship advocates is why I refuse to see “The Blind Side”.
As always I have a hard time parsing Chucky’s muddled postings, but the reason to not see The Blind Side is because it’s simplistic and pandering, not because of anything to do with any outside group (who also gave their seal of approval to Wall-E, Spellbound, The Incredibles – all horrible movies, right Chuck?)
“The Blind Side” opened on 11/20/2009. Print ads for “The Blind Side” clearly show the Parents Television Council seal, at least in the first 2 weeks of release. If you don’t believe me go through the NYTimes or LATimes on microfilm in your local library.
But Chucky, so what? Seriously: So a conservative group liked the movie. So freakin’ what? The movie actually says a liberal tutor (played by Kathy Bates) is a good person. And the male lead is Tim McGraw, a Democrat who openly campaigned for Obama. Again: So what?
FFS Chucky, you’re a little worm, aren’t you? Don’t you ever just not speak?
In regards to Bullock, I legitimately haven’t the slightest bit of interest in the whole thing. I may have once, but these days not so much. I will say that dietcock, your spiel about Aniston is just as vile as anything that media is doing to Bullock.
Can’t some people just leave their ugliness at the door? “in her eyes, constant exposure, any exposure, is more important than the quality of her work itself.” ugh. just revolting. Because you obviously know the inner workings of Aniston and you can tell us all what she thinks? Or because you obviously believe everything that you read in the rags and that Aniston is obviously just going out there every few months and talking to these tabloid people about how heartbroken she is? Bloody hell, you do realise, right, that when a magazine prints “JENNIFER: ‘I’M STILL IN LOVE WITH BRAD'” on its cover that she hasn’t actually said that to somebody who works there?
Again, it’s just all so repugnant.
Weasel words from Mr. Leydon. The liberal media have always had a soft spot for the hard right — “conservative” is a weasel word for right-wing and fascist.
Think the Parents Television Council is innocuous? Ask Shirley Jones — she resigned as their honorary co-chairman when Howard Stern correctly accused the erstwhile Mrs. Partridge of blacklisting.
why would I ask Shirley Jones about anything, she’s a right-wing fascist
Chucky, as usual, you aren’t getting the point. It’s not that I don’t believe you that the Parents Television Council put their seal of approval on The Blind Side. It’s that I don’t care.
Also: “If you don’t believe me go through the NYTimes or LATimes on microfilm in your local library”
This is one of the sillier things I’ve read today. You do know that we live in 2010, right?
My right-wing, tea party-loving father-in-law recently saw and enjoyed An Education. I will never see it now. Surely if he liked it, it must be conservative propaganda. Who knows, maybe the PTC even gave it their stamp of approval. AH!
OK, Chuckster, so it’s a fascist group. Again: So what? Hitler liked Mickey Mouse cartoons. Does that mean Fantasia is a fascist movie?
“Disney is the Hitler of youth” – Kenneth Anger
That’s not exactly fair to Disney as an artist. As a person, we all know of his political leanings, but you can take Fantasia out of my cold, dead hands.
“That’s not exactly fair to Disney as an artist. As a person, we all know of his political leanings, but you can take Fantasia out of my cold, dead hands.”
I guess there are worse things to find in somebody’s cold dead hands.