MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland



19 Responses to “BYOBerlinale”

  1. Triple Option says:

    Not that they can’t do what they want or that I’m crying for not being able to get something for nothing but it seems like collusion or price fixing that a lot of online newspapers are now requiring paid subscriptions to view articles online. It’s not like there’s been a gradual roll out based on some papers subscription but the gig’s been up across the board in the past couple of weeks. It can’t be a coincidence that the price rates are very similar also. I can’t stand the gossipy nature Yahoo uses in writing headlines and article teases, I don’t know where I’m going to go for news. The pay concept wouldn’t be so bad if I didn’t often have to go to two-three publications/(sites) to get a full story.

  2. doug r says:

    Have you tried setting your browser to delete cookies when you close it? Sometimes if a site doesn’t know if you’ve been there before it’ll let you sample more.

  3. leahnz says:

    speaking of wes Anderson – and this being tangentially movie-related i hope it doesn’t sound too insensitive or flip or offend anyone – but trying to read up on the Dylan farrow situation in the media, which i kind of missed not being online much, does anybody else hear Royal Tenenbaum’s cluelessly condescending voice describing Margot Tenenbaum with the phrase ‘adopted daughter’ used over and over and over again to describe Dylan Farrow? — i mean yikes what’s up with that, when someone legally adopts a child that’s their kid man, you don’t describe someone’s child as ‘adopted’ like that, an unnecessary and in this case a seemingly insidious qualifier, i started to hear royal T and couldn’t shake it out of my head, i felt bad. if it’s just me then maybe it’s a sign i internalise movies far too much.

    also, since i know DP is always going on about journalistic standards here perhaps this observation is not out of place: i was a little shocked that i couldn’t find something of an objective summary of the facts including the related court cases anywhere (maybe there is one and i didn’t see it in my search), the ‘big’ third party opinion pieces provide obviously biased commentary toward one party or another with cherry-picked information, i realise that’s probably par for the course these days and perhaps i’m naïve to think there would be just one article that gathers ALL the information together and clearly lays out the ins and outs of the investigation and court cases, but i had to search for and read the interviews and documents and court rulings and decisions handed down myself, which is probably prudent anyway in a case like this but you’d think that at least one ‘news source’ would integrate all this into their ‘coverage’ or at least make it much easier to find the relevant info, what a pain in the ass.

  4. YancySkancy says:

    leah: It would definitely be useful if someone would put together an objective list of the details of the case, including each side’s assertions and denials of each supposed fact. Instead, as you say, most articles pick a side, then pay lip service to the other side with a few cherry-picked refutations and an “allegedly” or two.

    If such an article is ever done, I hope they forgo a comments section. People who’ve chosen sides are remarkably entrenched. Those who express ambivalence or discomfort with making a judgment based on conflicting reports are lumped in with Allen supporters (or “pedo-defenders”). Others come to make lame, distasteful jokes. Some share their own abuse stories, which, heartbreaking though they may be, only serve to make it seem that their opinion is based solely on identification with Dylan rather than a thorough reading of the details. Some take the opportunity to exonerate Allen simply because Mia Farrow seems unstable, while others seem to think Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi is sufficient proof of an immorality that could include child molestation. The scary ones, to me, are those that basically say the presumption of innocence shouldn’t be a factor in cases of child abuse, because “children don’t lie” and “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” The sad truth of these cases is that guilty people can walk if there’s not enough evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. But no one ever suggests a truly fair alternative, because there isn’t one.

    EDIT: Oh, and of course each comment section averages a couple dozen instances of someone referring to Soon-Yi as Allen’s “stepdaughter,” with an equal number correcting the error.

  5. EtGuild2 says:

    One thing we can all agree on: poor Cate Blanchett. I don’t buy the idea that she won’t win; I think Oscar voters are smart enough to realize Amy Adams (the presumed beneficiary) wouldn’t be winning if they were to alter their ballots. The influence of Woody Allen’s penis would be the real winner, not Adams, and it would diminish the awards process, Farrow and Adams more than it did The Woodman by creating the perception that Adams’ Oscar wasn’t earned, and Blanchett was robbed. But I don’t envy Blanchett trying to come up with a speech here.

  6. leahnz says:

    yeah (ETA re: yancysk’s comment), i’ve only had a brief look through one comments thread (Christ for the life of me i can’t remember which one it was now, clicking through links from one thing to the next, it’s kind of a blur) and that was enough, it looked vicious and kind of nuts really, i guess i don’t see the point of it but that’s the internet for you. in addition to what you’ve listed above, the other thing i’ve heard was the belief that who’s coming down on what ‘side’ is gendered, but from what i could see at least as far as the comments i read, there appeared to be both female and male voices on each ‘side’ (again my sample example was very limited though and i don’t think i’m keen to read more comments sections, so i don’t know if it ‘means’ anything), though in the thread i looked at there was a current of blatant misogyny from a certain faction of loud people.

    would a more objective, comprehensive, fact-based and detailed account of the entire case published somewhere early on have circumvented some of the vitriol and tit for tat? probably not.

    are there any positives to come out of such a heated public discussion of alleged historical abuse? i’ve kind of been wondering about that — the subject of child sexual abuse is so sensitive and emotional, something we just don’t want to talk about openly because it’s so horrible and abhorrent, i think in a way most of us simply don’t want to believe that anyone is capable of such harmful, unacceptable, sickening behaviour, but sadly this just isn’t the case and it’s a serious problem with long-range repercussions in pretty much all societies and cultures. i guess if Dylan’s case – whether she was sexually assaulted or not – in any way helps to bring the subject out into the light and empowers survivors of abuse to speak up, if it serves in some small way toward bringing an end to sexual abuse being swept under the carpet then it will have had a face beyond the ugliness of what’s being seen now.

  7. movieman says:

    Considering the stench surrounding Woody right now, I wonder if he’ll still be able to attract the usual A-list talent for his next movie (which is apparently shooting this summer).
    Or will he be forced to cast scrubs?

  8. Hcat says:

    I hope the latter, I think Donald Fasion would shine in a woody movie.

  9. YancySkancy says:

    I’ll bet he could get Andrew Dice Clay again.

  10. christian says:

    Who refused to work with Roman Polanski?

  11. movieman says:

    Polanski isn’t a fair comparison since he works exclusively in Europe.
    Despite his recent forays overseas, Woody remains an American filmmaker more dependent upon American talent.
    If this latest stink bomb had exploded in 1997, would Leo have passed on “Celebrity” and James Van Der Beek been cast instead?

  12. christian says:

    He had no problems getting actors when he was first accused of this in 92 and with the Farrow fiasco firmly in the public eye.

  13. movieman says:

    I don’t seem to recall the media emblazoning the charges from sea to shining sea 22 years ago, Christian.
    Or a nationally syndicated op-ed piece penned by the alleged victim that every TV news pundit seems to love quoting from.
    The Soon-Yi affair was the major Woody news item to receive beaucoup traction–coinciding w/ the September 1992 release of “Husbands and Wives.”

  14. movieman says:

    Not sure how I missed the obit last week, but I was genuinely saddened to learn that Christopher Jones had died.
    Incredible to think that he made only one movie after “Ryan’s Daughter.”

  15. SamLowry says:

    While reading Nobody Said That Then!, which documents so much anachronistic dialogue in “Masters of Sex”, I thought “That’s typical Dumb Hollywood for you!” but then I wondered why anyone would spend so much on hair and wardrobe and cars and props to convince you that you’re watching something shot in the early 1950s, only to have their actors burst that bubble by sounding more like Tommy Chong and Moon-Unit Zappa than either Ozzie or Harriet.

    The creative minds behind the show can’t be that skull-fuckingly stupid, right? So I thought that maybe there’s an unwritten law stating that audiences can take only so much period realism before they mentally check out and see if there’s anything else on that doesn’t look like cultural vegetables. After all, once characters start saying things like “Believe me” and “conformist” then they might as well be saying “To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man,” and then your show gets cancelled before the Complete Series is long enough to fill a single DVD.

    Or am I making up excuses for folks who really are skull-fuckingly stupid?

  16. YancySkancy says:

    I saw 12 YEARS A SLAVE tonight, and I couldn’t help but wonder, especially in scenes with Scoot McNairy and Taran Killam, if some in the audience were expecting an SNL period sketch to break out any minute.

  17. cadavra says:

    Sam: Don’t forget that show biz is now targeting an audience that, on those rare occasions they watch something made before STAR WARS, will invariably ask, “Why don’t they have cell phones?”

  18. doug r says:

    Although I gotta say one of the charms of Hercules and Xena was the use of contemporary language to catch a more realistic rhythm of actual people interacting with each other.

  19. YancySkancy says:

    doug r: Of course, as I’m sure you know, the difference is that shows such as Masters of Sex are actually going for period realism, where Herc and Xena were not. Therefore the latter could afford to make the dialogue more “relatable” or whatever, because “Nobody talked like that back then” would’ve been a ridiculous argument in light of all the other anachronisms.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Roger Ebert claimed that the re-editing of The Brown Bunny after Cannes allowed him a difference of opinion so vast that he first called it the worst film in history and eventually gave it a thumbs up. This is both far fetched and an outright lie. The truth is, unlike the many claims that the unfinished film that showed at Cannes was 24 minutes shorter than the finished film, it was only 8 minutes shorter. The running time I filled out on the Cannes submission form was arbitrary. The running time I chose was just a number I liked. I had no idea where in the process I would actually be when I needed to stop cutting to meet the screening deadline. So whatever running time was printed in the program, I promise you, was not the actual running time. And the cuts I made to finish the film after Cannes were not many. I shortened the opening race scene once I was able to do so digitally. After rewatching the last 4 minutes of the film over and over again, somewhere within those 4 minutes, I froze the picture and just ended the film there, cutting out everything after that point, which was about 3 minutes. Originally in the salt flats scene, the motorcycle returned from the white. I removed the return portion of that shot, which seemed too literal. And I cut a scene of me putting on a sweater. That’s pretty much it. Plus the usual frame here, frame there, final tweaks. If you didn’t like the unfinished film at Cannes, you didn’t like the finished film, and vice versa. Roger Ebert made up his story and his premise because after calling my film literally the worst film ever made, he eventually realized it was not in his best interest to be stuck with that mantra. Stuck with a brutal, dismissive review of a film that other, more serious critics eventually felt differently about. He also took attention away from what he actually did at the press screening. It is outrageous that a single critic disrupted a press screening for a film chosen in main competition at such a high profile festival and even more outrageous that Ebert was ever allowed into another screening at Cannes. His ranting, moaning and eventual loud singing happened within the first 20 minutes, completely disrupting and manipulating the press screening of my film. Afterwards, at the first public screening, booing, laughing and hissing started during the open credits, even before the first scene of the film. The public, who had heard and read rumors about the Ebert incident and about me personally, heckled from frame one and never stopped. To make things weirder, I got a record-setting standing ovation from the supporters of the film who were trying to show up the distractors who had been disrupting the film. It was not the cut nor the film itself that drew blood. It was something suspicious about me. Something offensive to certain ideologues.”
~ Vincent Gallo

“I think [technology has[ its made my life faster, it’s made the ability to succeed easier. But has that made my life better? Is it better now than it was in the eighties or seventies? I don’t think we are happier. Maybe because I’m 55, I really am asking these questions… I really want to do meaningful things! This is also the time that I really want to focus on directing. I think that I will act less and less. I’ve been doing it for 52 years. It’s a long time to do one thing and I feel like there are a lot of stories that I got out of my system that I don’t need to tell anymore. I don’t need to ever do The Accused again! That is never going to happen again! You hit these milestones as an actor, and then you say, ‘Now what? Now what do I have to say?'”
~ Jodie Foster