David Brent

A new book titled "The Devil's Guide To Hollywood" written by American film screenwriter Joe Eszterhas (Basic Instinct, Flashdance, Showgirls ect..) has just been released in the States.
It is apparantly causing controversy over there because in the book Eszterhas criticises a string of stars whom he has worked with.
One amusing story he tells is about how film crew members on a Sharon Stone movie were so annoyed by her antics that they urinated in a bathtub before she got in it to film a scene.
That's Showbiz !?!

Dave.

Moor Larkin

In 1958 or so, Patrick McGoohan was quoted, discussing the TV Play that reputedly led to his selection for the part of John Drake in Danger Man. That Play was "The Big Knife" by Clifford Odets.

McGoohan, in his typically forthright manner, remarked that the original theatre play had a lot of cynical things to say about the machinations of the Hollywood system. He went to say that, when he had been approached to do the play for TV he had asked that much of that material be dropped out of the production. He thought it so much nonsense.

After McGoohan's return from filming 'Ice Station Zebra', Ian Rakoff, in his memoir remarked that McGoohan was noticed, by the Everyman crew, to have changed somehow, since his time in Hollywood.

In a later year, McGoohan, in another interview, stated he was happy in America and would be staying there. He said something to the effect that Hollywood was where everything happened first.

Given that Hollywood has always been held in contempt by many, how come it still exists.... even today, almost a century after proper movies were first invented........ and seems as dominant as ever?

Is Hollywood, in fact, taking the p*ss out of the rest of the world?

[code]http://www.flickr.com/photos/29487363@N02/sets/72157606700675506/code]

Ted Holmes

This reminds me of a story I heard recently...Suffice to say that Tommy Steele, if he knew, would be extremely sorry for pissing OFF the stage crew of Singin' in the Rain as much as he apparently did....

Ted

dylan

On the set of "The Stranger", Edward G.Robinson had a row with director Orson Welles. Robinson complained that Welles was shooting the bad side of his face - can you imagine Edward G. with a good side...?

D.

ChristineCB

I just finished watching the newly-released Director's Cut of PAYBACK (1999, Mel Gibson). The film has a substantial amount of scene differences and different characters - no Kris Kristofferon, no kidnapped son. The head of the mob-family is a woman, Mrs. Bronson. Woman beating, dog killing, a less happy ending...

The Bonus Interviews talks about how the studio took away Director Helgeland's film, fired him when he wouldn't change the script after shooting, and how Producer Mel Gibson agreed with all of these moves after supporting Helgeland in the first place.

No bitterness, no anger being expressed, only a lot of "I understand the other viewpoint" on everyone's side. Mel Gibson says he's happy this DVD release came out to give Helgeland's version a chance.

This is a somewhat harder-edged film. Debbie Unger ("Mrs Porter") gets beaten up by Mel in the kitchen when they first meet. Debbie says the character deserved the beating - after all, she'd shot him 5 times. "It's not about Mel The Star Gibson beating up a woman - it's about a man who she tried to kill punching her out in return."

One curious point: the apologists for the Theatrical Release say "Mel couldn't stand to be tarnished by Helgeland's original film."

Oh really?

And NOW he can be?!!

I like the theatrical release. I like this one. Two relatively different films. I'm glad to see both.

There are some nice technical discussions - no chemical blue-tinting on this Director's Cut, but they did alter some lightening to make faces "more harsh".

In looking at Hegleland's resumé since this "First Directorial Effort", he's only now getting director jobs again.

I wonder how far he was kicking the cat after the film's original cat? I'll bet he wasn't so generous in accepting "the studio's choices" back then.

Wolfgang

I think there are some people in Hollywood that would like to see Mel Gibson finished off for good. Do you think there is ulterior motive for releasing this cut? If you show him beating woman (even if she does have it coming) it will further diminish his leading man status?

Carmel

Have we seen Mel Gibson in anything recently No i say not

ChristineCB

Wolfie, I thought that VERY same thing.

Of course, during the bonus interviews, we're told this new version took months and months to re-work, re-collect and re-assemble. This comes from the Film's Editor (who did both 'versions' and Director Hegleland. It's not as if they couldn't have found one master copy of the original and merely SAID it took months on the morning that Gibson's latest public decacle was splayed across the press.

Geez... a director who gets such great support initially from the Head Actor/Co-Producer, who in turn backstabs him and makes sure he doesn't get a director's job for at least 7 more years?

Jeepers - who could possibly have an ax to grind over those issues?

Harleybloke

Money????????????????

.....You couldn't hear it, if they were shooting at me with howitzers!

samkydd

But it's still just a remake of the Lee Marvin film and therefore, like all remakes, not worth bothering with!

"...the chairman of Littlewoods stores made a Keynote speech!"

batman

Does that include The Maltese Falcon?

I'm the cutest bottom judge!

Brett Sinclair

No, but I think Mr. G is more often found behind the camera or with a chequebook now.

NB. He is reputed to be fiercely protective of his privacy and that of his wife and children...I would have thought his status could overshadow something like binge drinking and the release of some dodgy film content...?

There's no need to kneel, I'm a very democratic sort of lord.

Moor Larkin

Money? Taxes?

I re-read an old book I bought years ago from an old bookshop. It was written in 1952 and was a biography of J. Arthur Rank and his involvement in British Films. I haven't done any independent research but one chapter went into the recent collapse of the Rank Film empire that had evidently happened (late Forties?) and the whys and wherefores in the judgement of the author.

In a nutshell (by my reading), the British government slapped a huge tax (50%+ ?) on the 'import' of American movies. Tactically, they were concerned about this leading to British cinemas running out of films to exhibit and the consequent collapse in their 'take' of Entertainment Tax so beforehand they approached J.Arthur and asked if he could pick up the slack. J.Arthur, as a true Brit, rearranged his balance of Film Production:Exhibition in order to support the nation.

Under the auspices of none other than Harold Wilson the government panicked after about a year, as cinema audiences fell away, consequent to the lack of popular movies, as Hollywood/America stopped even trying to exhibit their fims in the UK (the unfair blame for this falling on Rank, which was unable to match it's quantity with quality). Harold Wilson removed/reduced the Import Tax without warning, or consulting Rank.

With the removal of this 'tax', Hollywood had a years worth of unshown films PLUS it's current output and the British cinemas were flooded with American product. Rank's Empire promptly collapsed as the huge costs of its Production could not now be covered by it's ruined Exhibition strategy of 'exclusivity'.

Rank recovered, of course, after a fashion, but now under the bean-counting auspices of John Davis, rather than the more dreamy Lord Rank, who retreated back to the sanity of milling flour.

Some years later Harold Wilson became the British Prime Minister.

I had to grin at the ease with which Hollywood was able to take the p*ss, in the face of 'national socialist' tinkering.

[code]http://www.flickr.com/photos/29487363@N02/sets/72157606700675506/code]

Steve Crook

And I think Rank was actually in a meeting in the States, setting up yet another big deal, when it was announced.

He professed ignorance but of course the Americans didn't believe him (would you have done?)

The Rank organisation was also badly hit by the massive overspend of Gabby Pascal's Caesar and Cleopatra (1945) which went massively over-budget.
Also, to a much lesser extent, by The Red Shoes (1948) which had gone over-budget, but not massively. But nobody at Rank had any idea what to do with such an artistic masterpiece

Steve