Old MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Screening Gotham: Dec. 30, 2005 – Jan. 2, 2006

A few of this weekend’s worthwhile cinematic happenings around New York:
–James Bond is dead. You heard it here first. Daniel Craig is the new George Lazenby, nobody wants to be a Bond girl and the best things about the franchise’s last decade have been its titles (tell me you do not wish you had come up with The World is Not Enough). But that is not to say you cannot have a little fun rummaging through 007’s old watercraft this weekend at the New York National Boat Show. Authentic Bond boats from Thunderball, Moonraker, Diamonds are Forever (right) and a pair of other films will be on hand, not to mention a dozen or so Bond film props (A View to a Kill checkbook, anyone?) and reproductions. This is all a prelude to next week’s Bond Day, which I have to defer thinking about lest nostalgia liquefy my eyes. More on that Jan. 4.
–Have you seen Michael Haneke’s creep-out Cach&eacute yet? I was serious when I encouraged you a few months back to catch this with a big crowd, in whose company the film’s shocks are certain to wield a more powerful cinematic wallop then they ever will late in its run or on DVD. Do not ask me why, just please, please trust me: Sunshine Theater, this weekend. Worth every penny, especially if you can hop into tonight’s X-rated 3-D midnight movie, The Lollipop Girls in Hard Candy. There is nothing like French class war paired with vintage porn. I think.
–Finally, a friendly reminder: If you do not check out Fassbinder’s BRD Trilogy at IFC Center on Jan. 1, the director’s spirit will actually sneak into your New Year’s hangover and chip away at it with an old screwdriver. Consider yourself warned. Afterward, go to the Waverly and keep the servers company; it can get lonely in there.
Happy New Year to all of you–be safe, watch lots of movies and check back Tuesday with a full report. See you then!

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “Screening Gotham: Dec. 30, 2005 – Jan. 2, 2006”

  1. Jason Okamoto says:

    Bond is not dead! Let’s not forget, The Bond Series is what gave the late great Robert Bresson, hope for the future of the cinematic language. Regardless, I do think the Bond films are made to suck, like trashy romance novels. I can never watch one more than twice, exceot for maybe “Octopussy.” Happy New Year STV!
    – Jason O.

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