20 Weeks Archive for December, 2006

20 Weeks – The Great Settling

The only titles that are not readily available on screeners are The Good German, The Good Shepherd, Monster House, and The Weinstein Company’s double dip of Factory Girl and Miss Potter. And if you are a screener recipient and are at all adventurous, there are opportunities like Sweet Land and Sherrybaby and A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints and Who Killed The Electric Car and others that might surprise and delight.
But that’s the screener rub. Getting voters to watch your movies when you don’t have Variety to beat them over the head with each day means you have to already have enticed them before they got on the plane to AspenMauiParisLondonMarrakeshBaliMilwaukee.
Ironically, any voter with young kids or grandkids are more likely to get an education on Cars vs Happy Feet vs Over The Hedge vs Flushed Away vs Charlotte’s Web than any single adult title. And if you don’t think that there won’t be notice taken of which one the kids watch for the fifth time, you would be wrong.

The rest & the charts…
(EDIT, 2:16p, Thur – It is the extremely rare occasion when I make a post-publication change on my charts, but thanks to Spammy, I spoke to Fox and indeed, they have changed their plan and decided to send Borat out to Academy members, shipping today. On the downside, they have a Peter Bart moderated Q&A with SBC on Jan 3, and if anyone can wrench the humor completely out of this film, it is Bart. Still, they have made one good decision and I hope that they can get things rolling for SBC in time for it to mean something.)


20 Weeks – The Search For Meaning

Please note that this column was written and posted before this morning’s Globes noms… and I feel no need to change a word. Likewise, the coilumns were posted before nominations… the only adjustment was to add a “GG” notation on the nominees and to add the Oscar-impossible noms at the bottom of each list.
The Golden Globe Nominations mean nothing.


20 Weeks – Inside Out

How many people will ever know who won at BAFTA


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