Awards Archive for October, 2008


There is little question, the studios are a bit tighter this year with throwing around the expensive awards season ad buys.
Ironically, Peter Bart, whose Variety ad sales team has done its best to undercut everyone else selling advertising in the awards season world, is the first – and likely only – ad seller to publicly whine about what he sees as “significantly reduced support” in this season.
In his very best McCain, he spins what are surely reduced revenues at the on-the-selling-block Variety into some kind of failure on the part of the studios to support the talent involved with movies. Bzzzt! Reality Check: The belt tightening finally caught up to Variety, in spite of coming close to killing off The Hollywood Reporter and even with the advantage of studios that are being very tight with other outlets still buying at the Gray Drag Queen of Movie Journalism (it works hard to look a certain way from the outside… it is something very different if you look under its journalistic skirt).
Perhaps Mr. Bart feels particularly bend out of shape by the round rejection of his blog as a central hub of $15,000 a month Oscar insight… of course, on top of the ad prices for the rest of Variety and
More likely, Variety is slightly down for the season, as compared to last year, in ad sales, in spite of price hikes across the board.
There should be some relief for Pete & Co. as a few last minute players jump in the water. But this whole public moaning is very dangerous because it may well stick the whole ad buy idea in the faces of the bosses who could wonder aloud,


The Gothams Deal The Joker

A few things struck me as I looked at the Gotham Awards nominations (which by the way, seem to have been successfully embargoed on the web and elsewhere until this morning


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