Z
MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

The Campaign for The Lady Launches

9 Responses to “The Campaign for The Lady Launches”

  1. LexG says:

    I don’t get why the MIGHTY Luc Besson is doing this of all things… Seems like a PURE medicine movie, won’t make much money, and it’s been proven time and again that Americans don’t care about these epic Eastern humanitarian movies (Kundun, Beyond Rangoon, Anna and the King, Red Corner)… Come to think of it, wasn’t Boorman’s Beyond Rangoon ALSO about the EXACT same story– ONG SONG SUCHEE or whatever her name was? Other than some dippy Westside Yogi, does anyone in America have interest in this material? Starring a 50-year-old Asian actress? Good luck.

    I want the old Luc Besson back; I go to Luc Besson movies to see lanky, anorexic, slightly boyish supermodels in fetish wear shooting off oversized guns… I don’t care about ONG SONG SUCHEE.

  2. Joe Leydon says:

    Oddly enough, both posters look like Hatch Show Prints.

  3. sloanish says:

    I know it’s subjective and they’re both wonderful, but is this the first time where you could argue that the actor is less attractive than the subject?

  4. LexG says:

    they should of had her played by jennifer morrison

  5. cadavra says:

    You guys do realize that Yeoh is drop-dead gorgeous and that’s MAKEUP!!!!!!!

  6. Edward Wilson says:

    Luc Besson’s Pearl Harbor.

  7. palmtree says:

    Luc Besson is making Oscar bait, right?

  8. yancyskancy says:

    Lex, don’t worry – COLOMBIANA is on the way (even though Besson isn’t in the director’s chair).

    I think it’s cool that Yeoh is getting an Oscar bait role; hope it’s good.

  9. LexG says:

    COLOMBIANA POWER MEGATON POWER SALDANA POWER VARTAN POWER MOLLA POWER.

    If you’re not going to see COLOMBIANA SIXTEEN TIMES this weekend, you should be banned from movies.

    Only thing is, why is it PG-13? Aw fuck it, getting kinda sick of that whole AICN thing where dorks get all HOSTILE if something isn’t HARD R. Who cares, what’s more awesome, hot chicks and guns, or a bunch of explicit squib shots?

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

MAMET
Well, that, to me, is always the trick of dramaturgy; theoretically, perfectly, what one wants to do is put the protagonist and the audience in exactly the same position. The main question in drama, the way I was taught, is always what does the protagonist want. That’s what drama is. It comes down to that. It’s not about theme, it’s not about ideas, it’s not about setting, but what the protagonist wants. What gives rise to the drama, what is the precipitating event, and how, at the end of the play, do we see that event culminated? Do we see the protagonist’s wishes fulfilled or absolutely frustrated? That’s the structure of drama. You break it down into three acts.

INTERVIEWER
Does this explain why your plays have so little exposition?

MAMET
Yes. People only speak to get something. If I say, Let me tell you a few things about myself, already your defenses go up; you go, Look, I wonder what he wants from me, because no one ever speaks except to obtain an objective. That’s the only reason anyone ever opens their mouth, onstage or offstage. They may use a language that seems revealing, but if so, it’s just coincidence, because what they’re trying to do is accomplish an objective… The question is where does the dramatist have to lead you? Answer: the place where he or she thinks the audience needs to be led. But what does the character think? Does the character need to convey that information? If the answer is no, then you’d better cut it out, because you aren’t putting the audience in the same position with the protagonist. You’re saying, in effect, Let’s stop the play. That’s what the narration is doing—stopping the play… It’s action, as Aristotle said. That’s all that it is—exactly what the person does. It’s not what they “think,” because we don’t know what they think. It’s not what they say. It’s what they do, what they’re physically trying to accomplish on the stage. Which is exactly the same way we understand a person’s character in life—not by what they say, but by what they do. Say someone came up to you and said, I’m glad to be your neighbor because I’m a very honest man. That’s my character. I’m honest, I like to do things, I’m forthright, I like to be clear about everything, I like to be concise. Well, you really don’t know anything about that guy’s character. Or the person is onstage, and the playwright has him or her make those same claims in several subtle or not-so-subtle ways, the audience will say, Oh yes, I understand their character now; now I understand that they are a character. But in fact you don’t understand anything. You just understand that they’re jabbering to try to convince you of something.
~ David Mamet

INTERVIEWER
Do you outline plays before you start to write them?

PINTER
Not at all. I don’t know what kind of characters my plays will have until they…well, until they are. Until they indicate to me what they are. I don’t conceptualize in any way. Once I’ve got the clues I follow them—that’s my job, really, to follow the clues.

INTERVIEWER
What do you mean by clues? Can you remember how one of your plays developed in your mind—or was it a line-by-line progression?

PINTER
Of course I can’t remember exactly how a given play developed in my mind. I think what happens is that I write in a very high state of excitement and frustration. I follow what I see on the paper in front of me—one sentence after another. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a dim, possible overall idea—the image that starts off doesn’t just engender what happens immediately, it engenders the possibility of an overall happening, which carries me through. I’ve got an idea of what might happen—sometimes I’m absolutely right, but on many occasions I’ve been proved wrong by what does actually happen. Sometimes I’m going along and I find myself writing “C. comes in” when I didn’t know that he was going to come in; he had to come in at that point, that’s all.
~ Harold Pinter

Z Z