MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Trouble In Woodyville?

Woody Allen‘s financial tribulations have been covered in this column. He is financed primarily through personal relationships now, and it has cost him the services of some of the greats with whom he has worked in the past. Woody spoke to Newsweek magazine this week (for some reason, Newsweek is not on the Web) and minimized the problems in typical Woody fashion: “We’re in a state of major emergency. The crews go without coffee or sometimes even water. We can’t afford actual technicians, so we’ve assigned people on Workfare to do all the costumes and sets. The lights and sound are worked by Mexican aliens who we house in a bunk. I don’t think we’ll be able to pay the actors for my next picture, but perhaps if we eliminate using film in the camera, we can swing it.”
WHERE’S DABNEY?: You know, I was just saying to some pals the other day, “Whatever happened to Dabney Coleman?” Well, the answer is here: He just finished the Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan/Nora Ephron movie, You Have Mail and he is about to start shooting The Real Inspector Gadget as the certain-to-be-cantankerous Police Chief. Glad you’re working, Dabney. Love your bite.
BARGAIN BURLY: David Rabe‘s Hurlyburly has finally made it to the big screen, but like Lolita, it’s not coming to theaters in a blaze of glory. The drugs, sex and bile-laden film was privately financed by Storm Entertainment and, after a series of studio screenings, the film has gone to New Line’s Fine Line division for between $2 and $3 milllion. Pretty cheap for a Sean Penn/Kevin Spacey/Robin Wright Penn movie, huh? Even better, the film was made on an $8 million budget, so Fine Line is getting it for just around 25 percent of its cost. You don’t get bargains like that at Sundance.
RATING THE VOICE: New York’s Village Voice has had some terrific articles lately, and thanks to the glory of technology, you can read them. But first, a warning. Each of these stories requires a rating, a la the MPAA, because the Village Voice does not restrain itself as we gentle folks at roughcut.com do. First, Peter Braunstein gives us Days of Retro, a PG-13-rated (for intelligence) article that amusingly explains why we all missed the cultural significance of The Wedding Singer. Next, it’s a series of articles about the new Adrian Lyne version of Lolita. It’s rated R (for decadence) and you can click your way there. Finally, there is the very NC-17 rated Michael Musto column. I’m not just saying this. There are words in there that start with “c,” “s” and “f.” Really. On the other hand, Musto talks about Vincent Gallo in such an amusing way, you have to read it. If you are of age. So, can you e-mail me a driver’s license? Oh. I guess that won’t work. So, one more time, if you are easily offended by words, do not click here. And don’t say I didn’t warn you.

ARMAGEDDON
SPIN WATCH: Well, kids, I think we are getting to the end of the spin cycle. I’m sure that many of you are happy to hear it. But I still have to point out that all the “numbers were better than expected in week two” stories may have been, in no small way, another form of spin. You see, every week, movie studios call in their grosses to Exhibitor Relations on Saturday morning with Friday numbers and Sunday morning with Saturday numbers, when they also make their Sunday estimate. It is almost always the case that the difference between the Sunday estimates you read and the Monday afternoon “final” numbers are based on adjustments of the Sunday estimate. And those adjustments are almost always down, not up. This weekend, Armageddon‘s reported Friday number ($7.17 million) rose to $7.4 million on Monday. Their reported Saturday number ($8.84 million) rose to $9.49 million on Monday. And the Sunday number rose from $5.661 million to $6.661 million. No one I found could remember when this kind of jump happened last. Quite the opposite. (In fact, Armageddon reduced their estimate by about $500,000 last weekend.) And don’t write to me complaining that this requires a conspiracy. The only real check and balance on these numbers is inside the studio. And maybe here. (And for those who remember the Scream 2 debacle, that was a $6 million misstatement. This, if it is a fake, is much more subtle. And, of course, Miramax is a Disney company.) You make the call.
READER OF THE DAY: Valentine X is not nearly as restrained as I have been on this subject. But he has some well-thought out points. He also has some tough words for those of you who love Armageddon. And the media doesn’t get off lightly either. That’s why he’s the ROTD: “Dave, why don’t you just say it? Point No. 1: Peter Bart [Variety editor] does for his pallies. Point No. 2: Jerry Bruckheimer is an astute-enough politician to have made sure he IS one of those Peter-pallies, for situations like this. Point No. 3 (might as well just say it and face it): The entertainment media hated Armageddon for the most part and took GREAT — though somewhat premature — delight in its apparent stumble on opening weekend. It’s an unsatisfying, irritating, pretty-much- empty-in-all-departments movie. Michael Bay really IS the devil, in my view (he was born in ’65, only one year prior to the birth of Rosemary’s Baby in 1966).
“Alas, those Omega Man scruffs, those junk-food-diseased morons out there have kept it afloat regardless. So the media came off as (slightly, though deservedly) elitist, having (slightly) advanced its very well-taken agenda (ie: this movie is calculatingly hateful in ways we hadn’t even imagined could be manifested) by cackling with a tad too much glee after that disappointing opening weekend. Nobody misread the situation — those numbers were obviously disappointing, somewhat, to Roth, Bruckheimer, Cook, et al — but the delight certain media types took in reporting this development was not sufficiently (appropriately) concealed.”

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