DP/30: State of the Union – Christine Vachon, producer

35 Comments »

35 Responses to “DP/30: State of the Union – Christine Vachon, producer”

1. Don Murphy says:

   September 21, 2010 at 8:15 am

   I’ll be watching all 33 minutes of this when I want to regurgitate a bad meal.
2. David Poland says:

   September 21, 2010 at 8:39 am

   Watch out, Noel Coward!!!
3. Don Murphy says:

   September 21, 2010 at 9:28 am

   No I spoke to Noel and he isn’t watching the piece either.
4. Jake McClure says:

   September 21, 2010 at 4:35 pm

   [redacted]
5. Triple Option says:

   September 21, 2010 at 10:59 pm

   Holy sh#t is it loud! You couldn’t have done this interview on the tarmac of YYZ?
6. Don Murphy says:

   September 22, 2010 at 7:24 am

   TO: Stop – you are just encouraging more of these. Let him continue to sell them overseas and spare us the viewing pain.
7. Charley Martin says:

   September 22, 2010 at 8:10 am

   At a time when it feels harder than ever to get independent films off the ground it’s nice to hear from a vet producer who remains upbeat about the direction of the industry. Certainly hope she’s right..
8. Foamy Squirrel says:

   September 22, 2010 at 8:24 am

   “Help help! Let me out of this coffin!”?
9. Michelle Harris says:

   September 22, 2010 at 8:26 am

   Amazing to see how much Christine has impacted the independent film market!
10. Stephanie Danson says:

    September 23, 2010 at 12:11 am

    As someone who’s just starting out, it’s great to hear that Christine has faith in first time directors! I wish more people could recognize that young directors youthful creativity and strong willingness/need to prove themselves is a major asset on any production.
11. Don Murphy says:

    September 23, 2010 at 11:26 pm

    wow- 558 views – must be a lot of bad veal in the market place.
12. Don Murphy says:

    September 23, 2010 at 11:27 pm

    Yeah- so well that it is GONE. Now that’s impact. I think it looked at her.
13. David Poland says:

    September 23, 2010 at 11:43 pm

    It occurs to me that maybe this isn’t actually Don Murphy, but someone using his name. Making the inquiry, since it is hard to believe that Don actually is this pathetic.
14. Don Murphy says:

    September 23, 2010 at 11:51 pm

    You think that I should say nice things about a videotape which drones on for 30 plus minutes in which a shrew of a woman who caused one of my movies nothing but trouble back in the day nosily holds court over nothing? Or you think there is still an Independent Film Business? Which post is bothering you?

    Define “pathetic”? Someone who doesn’t bow down to Uncle Dave? Or a commentator whose posts often have fewer than 5 comments because he is talking to himself?
15. Freddy2000 says:

    September 24, 2010 at 11:27 am

    “Back in the day” Vachon and Don Murphy were both trying to make movies about Brendan Teena, Vachon and Kim Peirce’s BOY’S DON’T CRY went into production and was completed while Don Murphy was still in development. Don Murphy had the rights to the Brandon Teena documentary. When Vachon and Peirce premiered their film at Toronto, Don Murphy sought an injunction against it, claiming Vachon and Peirce did not actually have Lana Tisdale’s life rights. As it turns out– they DID have those rights and they prevailed and were able to show their movie which eventually won an Oscar. What I don’t understand is– Don Murphy would have done EXACTLY the same thing in Vachon’s shoes so why all the vitriol? and the same thing happened to Vachon years later when she tried to get her INFAMOUS out before CAPOTE. She got screwed.
    I think both don Murphy and Christine Vachon are totally bad ass– would love to see them team up! Now THAT would rock the indie world…
16. Don Murphy says:

    September 24, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Freddy 2000 inaccurately says
    “Back in the day” Vachon and Don Murphy were both trying to make movies about Brendan Teena, Freddy is correct about this

    Vachon and Kim Peirce’s BOY’S DON’T CRY went into production and was completed while Don Murphy was still in development. Except the screenplay for BOYS did not use any real names because Vachon did not have the correct rights- she was just winging it and violating the law Don Murphy had the rights to the Brandon Teena documentary. see Freddy you can be right some times. When Vachon and Peirce premiered their film at Toronto, Don Murphy sought an injunction against it, claiming Vachon and Peirce did not actually have Lana Tisdale’s life rights. This is not true Freddy I never have sought an injunction in my life against anyone. In reality, I notified the Festival that she didn’t have proper rights and, agreeing with me, the festival had the sad ugly cow indemnify THEM As it turns out– they DID have those rights and they prevailed and were able to show their movie which eventually won an Oscar. Here is where you need to LEARN before you fucking speak Freddy. Vachon had to pay Lana a boatload of money after she sued because they did NOT have her rights, they tried to exploit the poor girl and it was disgusting what they did. They wouldn’t have paid anything except they didn’t have nada! What I don’t understand is– Don Murphy would have done EXACTLY the same thing in Vachon’s shoes Freddy, I would have correctly gotten the rights and not relied on the courts and legal settlements- I would do my job correctlyso why all the vitriol? and the same thing happened to Vachon years later when she tried to get her INFAMOUS out before CAPOTE. She got screwed. Anything that makes Vachon’s miserable life more miserable is a GOOD Thing Freddy. She didn’t get screwed she got to whine and bitch for weeks over it
    I think both don Murphy and Christine Vachon are totally bad ass– would love to see them team up! Now THAT would rock the indie world… There is no indie world anymore, Fingered Freddy, and that teamup will happen right after Landis and Morrow get back together for a pic
17. Freddy2000 says:

    September 25, 2010 at 4:40 am

    Dude, you do NOT have your facts straight! I was at searchlight when this was going on and I saw the releases with my own eyes. Searchlight did make a payment to Lana at the urging of the filmmakers but they were under no obligation to do so. Lana’s lawyers backed off very quickly when they saw that their client had indeed signed a release giving Peirce her life rights. It sounds like you are royally pissed that BDC scooped your movie (and took home the gold!) but Kim Peirce and vachon did have the clearances they needed. sounds like it is time to move on!
18. Don Murphy says:

    September 25, 2010 at 9:10 am

    Freddy, you are wrong. She signed a release allowing her to be interviewed by Vachon and her people- it did not convey any rights. You think Fox made a payment because it was the right thing to do. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! They paid because they had to. My facts are straight- I got Lana her lawyers, fool.
19. Freddy2000 says:

    September 25, 2010 at 9:56 am

    Fox was well aware that you did! But the fact remains that the release DID convey rights and I was (one of the many!) on the conference call when her team realized there was no case. Sorry– but those are the facts. Anyway — ENOUGH. Didn’t this happen like 10 years ago? move on already!
20. Don Murphy says:

    September 25, 2010 at 10:07 am

    Freddy Baby- Fox did not pay a boatload of money to the girl to be nice. You’re just plain wrong. And I have moved on, rather well thank you- but I can never forgive the actions of bad people like Vachon. All that is necessary for evil to prosper etc etc.

    ((in fact I just remembered- this release that she was tricked into signing didn’t involve any payment at all- that’s how “valid” it was, lol)
21. Hunter Tremayne says:

    September 25, 2010 at 10:18 am

    Well, someone here is blind to the truth: is “Don Murphy” a plant at the end of the day?

    Wait a moment – “blind” – “plant” – “the end” – “day”?

    It must be the real Murphy – he’s already got me sucked into talking about that Triffid picture…
22. David Poland says:

    September 25, 2010 at 11:09 am

    I have confirmed with Don that it really is him.

    And I would really be happier if his cause for being such an asshole didn’t have to be outed by someone before he got to the point. I wouldn’t mind “I hate Vachon because she fucked me and I think she fucks others.” I wouldn’t agree overall, but I would be more than willing to listen to his personal experience without prejudice. This can be a rough business and as I have said before, every person I think is a great person in this business has someone out there saying they are a piece of shit and every person I think is a piece of shit has someone out there saying that he/she is a saint. Nature of the beast.

    The problem I have with Don is that he plays this peek-a-book game of “figure out why I am pissed,” pisses all over the blog like a child, and acts as though no one else is allowed an opinion, when an opinion is all anyone can have.

    This set of attacks – at least they are under his own name – started before the Vachon interview posted, so I suspect I offended him in some other way even before daring to talk to Christine without vetting it through him.

    And once he starts, it’s hard to satisfy his inner beast. I believe that what “he knows about me now” is that I listened to executives about the cost of the first Transformers and was wary when he insisted that it was significantly lower. But the thing is, after that conversation, I hedged on the number and really, stopped writing about it at all. But the fact that I didn’t immediately apologize for my horrible mistake of trusting sources who were also directly connected to the budget – who certainly could have misled me or left out details – I was An Idiot. Nevermind that studio accountants – the people who actually know, even more so than those who get the sheets on the films as participants – have offered me many examples over the years of films that have multiple sets of books and other ways of disguising real costs. And in my history, when someone has tried to mislead me about details like Cost of Production and I find out they were misleading, there is a motive attached. Don offered no such motive or any other narrative thread around the cost argument that I could follow, which makes it more challenging to take one person’s word over others.

    (Ironically, the studio money counter who I know the best in real life has never so much as cracked a smile while I try to wheedle answers out of them. This has often been my experience with higher ranking execs. The ones who talk a lot are almost never telling the truth.)

    Anyway…

    I’m glad to at least know why Don’s ass is all puckered about this one. And wish he could just step up and be honest without being found out.

    As for everything I “pretend to know about,” as noted all over the blog in the last couple of weeks, I would love to here an actual opinion from him on that too. Unlike IO, he actually must, for instance, know something about union business and have an opinion. I know there are people who think my position is wrong. But I don’t know on what planet me having a very informed and educated/reported opinion is arrogant or improper in any way.
23. IOv3 says:

    September 25, 2010 at 1:44 pm

    You have no idea what I know about labor relations or unions. How dare you sir, dare cast such aspersions! SHAME ON YOU! SHAME!

    That’s the ticket.
24. Triple Option says:

    September 25, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    David Poland wrote: Nevermind that studio accountants – the people who actually know, even more so than those who get the sheets on the films as participants – have offered me many examples over the years of films that have multiple sets of books and other ways of disguising real costs”

    Too bad Ed McMahon isn’t still alive. I can just picture him pulling up in one of those Publisher’s Clearinghouse vans as a Process Server. The subpoena would be the size of one of those gigantic checks. Sigourney Weaver would come up w/a bouquet of balloons, Angelina Jolie would toss confetti on David, Brad Pitt would have champagne. You could see Robin Williams operating the video camera and like Halle Barry trying to push everybody together for the Polaroid. “On three, everybody. Say ‘Yay, our money!’ “
25. David Poland says:

    September 25, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    In the cases I am talking about, TO, it’s less about hiding profit from participants and more about manipulating corporate balance sheets.

    It’s amazing how numbers are bent to keep quarterly numbers in line. And indeed, there are times when the studios don’t want their parent companies to know how much they have spent. Or in some cases, they have taken tax benefits before the movies are completed and either want to hide the losses or want to switch things around later. Much of that has been limited by changes to the tax laws in recent years.

    I don’t follow any of this nearly as closely as I used to. It takes a unique situation to pique my interest.

    And IO… my deepest apologies… please feel free to let me and everyone else know what you know about film industry labor relations… whenever you’re ready.
26. Don Murphy says:

    September 25, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    David you haven’t found me out (over something that happened more than four years ago) anymore than you have found out anything. I didn’t ask anyone to find out why I was pissed- I am not arrogant enough to think anyone would care that much about me or my feelings- I am not you, the great DP. But your 7 commenters will bow and scrape and the rest of your readers will continue to defect to more user friendly sites and the world will continue to turn.
27. David Poland says:

    September 25, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    Waaaaaaaaaaaa
28. Don Murphy says:

    September 25, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    Mockery, one of the last resorts of those who have fully lost their own argument.
29. IOv3 says:

    September 25, 2010 at 11:09 pm

    Don, seriously, DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOU FIGURATIVELY ARE? THIS IS… THE HOT BLOG! Of course we care about why you are pissed at David. WHY? MOST OF US ARE PISSED AT DAVID! So the moment you want to share with us why he skieves you out so much. Please: LET US KNOW MAN! THE ANTICIPATION IS TOO MUCH!

    David, if I shared that with you, I would lose my job, and Estelle Getty would come back from beyond to get the 22.79 I owe her.
30. Brent Morris says:

    September 29, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Wow — haven’t checked out this blog in a while but some big MOANING and WHINING going on here. 2 small comments: 1) I’m sure Vachon has said it more than once in her books – but nobody gives a *#^& about PICTURE if you have crappy AUDIO, and 2) I’m a huge fan of Vachon and her experiences in the screen trade and it’s depressing (though somewhat fascinating) to wade through personal vitriol on a blog like this. Go off and make your own BLOGS if you want to set the world straight.
31. David Poland says:

    September 29, 2010 at 9:55 am

    It’s the nature of the internet, I’m afraid, Brent. I mean the rage games, not the bad audio.

    It’s theater inside of theater. And a large part of blog audiences now really go to the blogs to read the comments, not the content… which is weird. Conversely, I hear from many people who never read comments because they know it’s mostly drama.

    For me, a good day is when there is a real discussion about movies or the business or whatever and it doesn’t degenerate into performance art by one or two dramatistes,
32. Don Murphy says:

    September 29, 2010 at 10:11 am

    with most posts now getting fewer than a dozen comments and Christ knows how few hits I am sure you’ll have many good days ahead. No readers, but good days. You know, days in which you can make jokes about people’s misfortune. Where’s your Sally Menke joke, clown?
33. David Poland says:

    September 29, 2010 at 11:05 am

    New date, same false note, Donald.

    I’d ask if you had something better to do with your time, but the answer is apparent.

    If there is one clear reason why many people choose not to post in here, it’s people like you, who attack personally and without any real thought or restraint.

    You know, in all these years, I have never done anything intended to harm you or your business. I have given you the benefit of the doubt in every situation, even when being trolled under a fake name. Maybe you thought that made be stupid and vulnerable. But it’s just the way I am. It takes a whole lot to get me past thinking of someone else in a humane way.

    But here you are, publicly and privately trying to find ways to damage me, to damage my business, to put people – including but not limited to me – out of work. And you are using someone’s misfortune to do it, ironically claiming the high road of defending the production… but if you really gave a shit, you’d be doing something more than just attacking me.

    And I can’t even get myself to being really angry with you now… just terribly sad for someone who is in the kind of deep pain that you must be in to act out in such a mean-spirited unconstructive way. I guess you’ll reject the world before they reject you… or some such dime store psychology.

    There are plenty of people who find me irritating. Plenty of others who value me. But the list of people who really want to hurt me is short. And with one exception, you all seem to have a very similar character and deep self-loathing. I guess it’s on me to figure out why I bring this out in you and some others.

    As for you, it’s pretty simple. Get therapy, Don.

    Believe me, if I am the dark spot that must be obliterated in your bright world, you’re aiming too low.
34. Don Murphy says:

    September 29, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    Is that a long way of saying that it is my fault that you made a joke about a woman who is in a coma because of an accident? A woman who you never met, an accident that was caused by no one, but something you thought was not only hilarious, but worthy of making a fucking pie chart over? I didn’t make you do that David. You did it all by yourself. You can’t blame me or Jeff Wells or Nikki Finke. It’s all you genius.

    I am doing somethingS more than just attacking you. Many of them in fact.
35. David Poland says:

    September 30, 2010 at 9:58 am

    Don… I have never once denied responsibility for what I wrote or an unwillingness to remove it or apologize for it under any circumstance other than being attacked by a sociopath, which you seem to be trying to define yourself as. (PS – I haven’t heard a single word about this from Par, DW, or anyone on Team Bay.)

    And more threats. Grand. Should I be getting the restraining order now?

    At least stop hiding behind this woman. Don’t make her the excuse for your obsessive, abusive behavior, which starts with the notion that the chart was about her.