MCN Curated Headlines Archive for November, 2017

“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.”
Mr. Mamet Turns 70. Here’s The Paris Review Art of Theater No. 11

the wrap

“Warner Bros. declined comment for this story.”
Unnamed Workers On Justice League Desultorily Describe Frankenstein Monster

“This whole thing from Weinstein to all that’s happening in Hollywood is about an abuse of power. An abuse of the position you have, and what happens is they’ve fooled everyone into thinking it’s part of the job.”
Terry Crews

Richard Schickel Memorial Edition New York Film Critics Circle Awards
Lady Bird; Sean Baker, Director; Phantom Thread, Script; Ronan, Chalamet; Haddish, Dafoe; BPM; Coco; Faces Places; Mudbound, Cinematography; Molly Haskell, Career

hollywoodreporter.com

“Repairing the damage will take a lot of time and soul-searching and I’m committed to beginning that effort. It is now my full time job… There is enough truth in these stories to make me feel embarrassed and ashamed.”
Matt Lauer Says He Is Beginning Image Recovery

“I am removing myself from the businesses that I founded. The companies will now be run by a new and diverse generation of extraordinary executives who are moving the culture and consciousness forward. I will convert the studio for yogic science into a not-for-profit center of learning and healing. As for me, I will step aside and commit myself to continuing my personal growth, spiritual learning and above all to listening.”
Russell Simmons After Jenny Lumet Sexual Assault Story

“Who Owns LA Weekly? Who owns the publication you’re reading right now? The new owners of LA Weekly don’t want you to know who they are. They are hiding from you. They’ve got big black bags with question marks covering their big bald heads.”
From LA Weekly, At Least Until Dawn

“I would like to add that I am troubled by how quickly and brutishly some have taken my comments out of context and attempted to blame my generation, my age, or my mindset, without having read the entirety of what I said.”
Angela Lansbury

“I didn’t hack anyone. I didn’t do anything that I was not authorized to do,” he told us when we met in Germany. “I didn’t go to any site I was not supposed to go to. I didn’t break any rules.”
The Eleven-Minute Man Speaks: Bahtiyar Duysak On Deactivating Donald Trump

NY Times

“At some point, she said, she passed out with her pants pulled halfway down. She woke up on the floor of his office, and Mr. Lauer had his assistant take her to a nurse.”
Matt Lauer Alleged Sexual Abuse Story Updated

ew

“There’s no time for pondering,” Scott says with a grin. “Sometimes you’ve got to lay down the law. You have to!”
“I think it was about time. Harvey definitely was way overdue. There will still be a few more people out there gritting their teeth who are way overdue.”
Sir Ridley

NY Times

“Now that Mr. Weinstein faces a mountain of damning corroborated evidence, his tactics seem tinged with malevolence, fronts for a man who abused women and used the promise of Oscar gold as bait. He might be gone, but his protégés remain.”
Cara Buckley Ponders Post-Weinstein Shape Of Oscar Three Months Before Broadcast

“I just hate to see some of these men’s careers, I mean, guys like Charlie Rose, these are terrific people and I hate to see it happen… These people’s careers are being ruined and we just hope and pray that these women are telling the truth.”
Pat Robertson, 87-Year-Old Billionaire Broadcaster, Expresses Concern About Men’s Careers In Face Of Harassment Allegations

NY Times

“The inquiry found that the relationship was inappropriate because the woman worked on the Android team while Mr. Rubin was leading it.”
Harassment Allegations: Andy Rubin, Android Creator

NY Times

“Even when professing solidarity with survivors, many people still balk, still recoil and insist, ‘I don’t know anyone who would ever do that or has ever done that.’ You do now, kind of.”
“Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose and the Sexism of Morning TV” By James Poniewozik And Margaret Lyons

Goodbye, LA Weekly, Goodbye

“Lauer whispered to Couric on set in 2006, ‘Keep bending over like that. It’s a nice view.'”
A Short History Of Matt Lauer’s Publicly Known Bad Actions

MCN Curated Headlines

Troy on: Jan-Michael Vincent Was 73

eht% on: Kubrick by Weegee

Thawn Chwithy on: Topix Forums Deep-Nixed

Some Random Troll on: Topix Forums Deep-Nixed

Trenton Moore on: Philadelphia Film Critics Circle Nod Roma as Best Film, Cinematography and Foreign Film

Celia Ann Harrison on: Topix Forums Deep-Nixed

Celia Ann Harrison on: Topix Forums Deep-Nixed

Karen Christy on: Topix Forums Deep-Nixed

The Pope on: "ABC’s decision to cancel 'Roseanne' feels like a gutsy move. It looks like a stand against racism, a line drawn in the sand to delineate what is reasonable and what is not. It even looks like a data point in the 'How do we separate the art from the artist?' debate, and it offers a heartening answer: We don’t have to, because, in this case, ABC will not finance that artist. It’s somehow even more heartening because it comes from a massive corporate conglomerate that might lose money by making this decision. It feels remarkably just. It feels decent. I’m thrilled that Roseanne has been canceled. It was the right thing to do. But it doesn’t feel correct to hold up ABC as a new bastion of decency, either. 'Roseanne' felt like the Titanic, a ship that seemed too big to turn around — but in the aftermath of Barr’s tweet, it also seemed like a ship that was doomed. ABC’s decision to cancel Roseanne is a good thing, but it also seems like a decision to shut down something that was about to implode anyhow. With a little more context, it looks like a network taking a strong stance against racism… in a way that also rids them of a show that was about to fall apart anyhow."

Sergio on: "Even though the Marvel series are TV shows, Netflix has become entranced by this notion of the '13-hour movie' when developing a season. This format mashup does a disservice to both mediums. Television's strength lies in episodic structure, which allows writers to explore different tones, characters, story structure and conflict. Movies allow a filmmaker to hone in on one or two central themes, attack it from multiple angles and get out. Netflix’s model takes the most incompatible parts of each and slaps them together, creating a lumbering mutant medium. The '13-hour movie' model means we don’t get the brevity of a film or the variation of television; it means we get the singular focus of movies stretched out to television length. It’s exhausting and it does these heroes no favors."

Gish

“John Wick 3, Aladdin, and um, Endgame. How with a straight face do you make an argument that the world is tired of sequels when the biggest film of the year, #2 all-time grosser, is the twenty-second film of its series and the fourth film of its particular label/action group? It’s said a lot you have to “Give people a reason to go see a sequel.” Well, yes. In general, when you’re releasing a film, that tends to help. More than just saying, ‘Hey, uh, we’ve got this thing that some guy made and ummm, there’s a show at 6:30.’ ‘Give people a reason to go see’ is analyst-ese for ‘Make a good movie’ when people don’t want to get all subjective and call certain movies bad. Or at least, make a movie that looks like something different and exciting, that breaks through the clutter and gets them motivated to leave their homes.”

Malick’s Hidden Life Acquired By China Distributor That Succeeded With Shoplifters, Capernaum and Cold War

Award-Winning Filmmakers Dan Cogan and Liz Garbus Launch Story Syndicate Production Company

Sundance Institute Brings Free Summer Film Screenings to Salt Lake City, Park City, Ogden, St. George and Coalville

Scrapers

Suzanne Pitt

Kind of propaganda

China film marketing

“Jean-Pierre Melville built his own studio so that he wouldn’t have to take orders from anyone, and lived there with his wife and three cats. (The staircase from the studio to the flat upstairs features in nearly every Melville film.) He hated shooting because he had to wake up early and change out of his pyjamas. He could be charming but on set was often a tyrant; he considered it a betrayal when his actors became romantically involved. He was a great talker, with a deep, velvety voice, but he hated cliques and industry schmoozing. One of the fathers of the Nouvelle Vague, he soon fell out with his ‘children’. ‘I desire only one thing in life: to be left alone,’ he said.”

Quote Unquotesee all »

This is probably going to sound petty, but Martin Scorsese insisting that critics see his film in theaters even though it’s going straight to Netflix and then not screening it in most American cities was a watershed moment for me in this theatrical versus streaming debate.

I completely respect when a filmmaker insists that their movie is meant to be seen in the theater, but the thing is, you got to actually make it possible to see it in the theater. Some movies may be too small for that, and that’s totally OK.

When your movie is largely financed by a streaming service and is going to appear on that streaming service instantly, I don’t really see the point of pretending that it’s a theatrical film. It just seems like we are needlessly indulging some kind of personal fantasy.

I don’t think that making a feature film length production that is going to go straight to a video platform is some sort of “step down.“ I really don’t. Theatrical exhibition as we know it is dying off anyway, for a variety of reasons.

I should clarify myself because this thread is already being misconstrued — I’m talking about how the movie is screened in advance. If it’s going straight to Netflix, why the ritual of demanding people see it in the theater?

There used to be a category that everyone recognized called “TV movie” or “made for television movie” and even though a lot of filmmakers considered that déclassé, it seems to me that probably 90% of feature films fit that description now.

Atlantis has mostly sunk into the ocean, only a few tower spires remain above the waterline, and I’m increasingly at peace with that, because it seems to be what the industry and much of the audience wants. We live in an age of convenience and information control.

Only a very elite group of filmmakers is still allowed to make movies “for theaters“ and actually have them seen and judged that way on a wide scale. Even platform releasing seems to be somewhat endangered. It can’t be fought. It has to be accepted.

9. Addendum: I’ve been informed that it wasn’t Scorsese who requested that the Bob Dylan documentary only be screened for critics in theaters, but a Netflix representative indicated the opposite to me, so I just don’t know what to believe.

It’s actually OK if your film is not eligible for an Oscar — we have a thing called the Emmys. A lot of this anxiety is just a holdover from the days when television was considered culturally inferior to theatrical feature films. Everybody needs to just get over it.

In another 10 to 20 years they’re probably going to merge the Emmys in the Oscars into one program anyway, maybe they’ll call it the Contentys.

“One of the fun things about seeing the new Quentin Tarantino film three months early in Cannes (did I mention this?) is that I know exactly why it’s going to make some people furious, and thus I have time to steel myself for the takes.

Back in July 2017, when it was revealed that Tarantino’s next project was connected to the Manson Family murders, it was condemned in some quarters as an insulting and exploitative stunt. We usually require at least a fig-leaf of compassion for the victims in true-crime adaptations, and even Tarantino partisans like myself – I don’t think he’s made a bad film yet – found ourselves wondering how he might square his more outré stylistic impulses with the depiction of a real mass murder in which five people and one unborn child lost their lives.

After all, it’s one thing to slice off with gusto a fictional policeman’s ear; it’s quite another to linger over the gory details of a massacre that took place within living memory, and which still carries a dread historical significance.

In her essay The White Album, Joan Didion wrote: “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true.”

Early in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt’s characters drive up the hill towards Leo’s bachelor pad, the camera cranes up gently to reveal a street sign: Cielo Drive. Tarantino understands how charged that name is; he can hear the Molotov cocktails clinking as he shoulders the crate.

As you may have read in the reviews from Cannes, much of the film is taken up with following DiCaprio and Pitt’s characters – a fading TV actor and his long-serving stunt double – as they amusingly go about their lives in Los Angeles, while Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate is a relatively minor presence. But the spectre of the murders is just over the horizon, and when the night of the 9th finally arrives, you feel the mood in the cinema shift.

No spoilers whatsoever about what transpires on screen. But in the audience, as it became clear how Tarantino was going to handle this extraordinarily loaded moment, the room soured and split, like a pan of cream left too long on the hob. I craned in, amazed, but felt the person beside me recoil in either dismay or disgust.

Two weeks on, I’m convinced that the scene is the boldest and most graphically violent of Tarantino’s career – I had to shield my eyes at one point, found myself involuntarily groaning “oh no” at another – and a dead cert for the most controversial. People will be outraged by it, and with good reason. But in a strange and brilliant way, it takes Didion’s death-of-the-Sixties observation and pushes it through a hellfire-hot catharsis.

Hollywood summoned up this horror, the film seems to be saying, and now it’s Hollywood’s turn to exorcise it. I can’t wait until the release in August, when we can finally talk about why.

~ Robbie Collin