ROTTEN TOMATOES: Interview: Picking Up on William Friedkin's Cruising Comments

Interview: Picking Up on William Friedkin's Cruising

by Tom Toro | September 14, 2007

Summary

William Friedkin will forever be remembered as one of the legendary New Hollywood directors of the 1970s. Read on for our sit-down with the man who made such classics as The Exorcist for his insights on Shakespeare, DVD restoration, the attainability of another Citizen Kane and the remastering of his 1980 gay S&M serial killer pic, Cruising. Back to Article

(1-56 of 56 posts) | Reply

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 14 2007 06:53 PM

Friedkin hasn't made a good movie in 30 years.

Talk about falling off.

(Reply to this)

Jen Yamato writes:
on Sep 14 2007 07:08 PM

Geez, way to be the most negative human being on the planet. Even with a spotty filmography, the man made The French f***ing Connection and The Exorcist.

(Reply to this)

lostharvestmovie writes:
on Sep 14 2007 07:41 PM

maybe Friedkin hasn't made a great movie in 30 years but let's see: "to live and die in la" is pretty cool and that was made in '83 or '84; i remember thinking "jade" was pretty good and "the hunted" was a really neat movie and "the hunted" is fairly recent.... the 1980s were not really a Freidkin type of decade anyways... I remember sitting in the theaters in the 1980s and just wishing for the kinds of '70s films that Friedkin was making.... Friedkin is a pretty cool filmmaker.

www.lostharvest.com

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on Sep 14 2007 07:55 PM

In reply to this comment (#1124204)
You've never made a good film.

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 14 2007 09:17 PM

Listen....do you hear that???

Sounds like a bunch of babies crying.....waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa............

(Reply to this)

monkeyonaspring writes:
on Sep 15 2007 09:07 AM

In reply to this comment (#1124461)
Using a baby crying simile for an insult is more commonly employed by children. If you are going to make a come-back make it intelligent, please...

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on Sep 15 2007 10:24 AM

In reply to this comment (#1124461)
Enough from you, son.

(Reply to this)

Loserman writes:
on Sep 15 2007 11:04 AM

To proclaim Friedkin hasn't done a good movie in 30 years is a proclamation of your own unawareness. While Friedkin's filmography isn't miles long, what it does encompass is a variety of provocatives. Sure, his modern stuff may not match up to his earlier promise, but there are inklings of it throughout. I thought Bug was very effective, probably his most consistent film since To Live And Die In L.A., an unsung '80s film (one of the few gritty ones from the Reagan years). I think someone needs his diaper changed.

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 15 2007 11:35 AM

In reply to this comment (#1124967)
O....I'm sorry....he hasn't made a good film in 23 years.

My bad.

lol

30 years to 23 years....whatever....the guy is irrelevant.

That's like praising Steven Spielberg if he had only done DUEL and JAWS (late 70's) and then didn't do anything since then.

The guy's not exactly kicking over in his grave....so why don't he step up to the plate and get on some good scripts again?

You tell me that.

All the interviews I've seen him in he comes off as a pompous, arrogant know-it-all.

This, after he hasn't been relevant in 30 years.

Bitter, maybe?

(Reply to this)

Loserman writes:
on Sep 15 2007 01:02 PM

In reply to this comment (#1125007)
Who's bitter exactly? For whatever reason, you came out of the gates swinging at Friedkin. Did you discover authenticity issues with the leather bar scenes in "Cruising" or something?

Aside from box office receipts, has Spielberg really done anything as good as Duel or Jaws?

And, in all seriousness, do you think any of the serious dramas of the 1970s would be greenlit in today's commercial film market? Friedkin and many other directors from the bygone days could be sitting on some good scripts and just can't receive the time of day because of the newbies who control the purse strings in Hollywood. When lauded filmmakers such as Herzog, Lynch, Scorsese, Allen, etc., struggle today to get financial backing for their films, something ain't right. Does that make them irrelevant too?

Your associating Friedkin to being pompous, arrogant and a know-it-all says more about you than him. Why is sharing knowledge a detriment? Yep, thinking and learning are so 20th Century. At least his knowledge base is deeper and more broad than most directors', which is typically based upon bad television shows from the last 10 years. So, yes, you've made it clear you don't like the guy. Some of us wish Friedkin could be given more opportunities to express himself through cinema. Why the scorched earth vitriol?

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 15 2007 02:32 PM

Hmmm.....Spielberg has done little movies like Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, etc.

Have you heard of them? : )

And how does Scorses struggle to get financial backing? Ever see a movie called The Gangs of New York (and its monumental sets of old New York), as well as The Aviator?

Herzog is underrated and doesn't get the respect he deserves, but that doesn't stop him from making quality projects, no matter the financial backing, year after year.

And I never said I didn't like the guy.

It's called stating facts.

Look up the word: Fact(s)

The equation = you make a decent movie, you'll almost 99% of the time get financial backing of a sort.

I'm just amazed at the utter lack of knowledgable posters on here who actually know film history (and it shows in the posts above, concerning Scorsese, etc.).

Consider yourself served, sir.

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on Sep 15 2007 03:16 PM

There are billions of people on this planet.

Only a few will ever make a great film.
Even fewer will ever make a horror masterpiece like 'The Exorcist'.
Even fewer will ever make an additional three great films.

The great 12 Angry Men remake, directed by sir William Friedkin was made only 10 years ago. Not 30.

The man has made four great films. Most people struggle to make one. The man has earned atleast some respect.

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 15 2007 03:55 PM

In reply to this comment (#1125582)
Very true, Bruce.

He does deserve respect.

I'll get him credit where credit is do.

Read my first post--all I wrote was: "Friedkin hasn't made a good movie in 30 years. Talk about falling off."

And that was a statement of fact.

It can't be denied.

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on Sep 15 2007 04:14 PM

12 Angry Men.

All I'm saying.

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 15 2007 04:58 PM

12 Angry Men was a freaking television movie remake of Sidney Lumet's classic 12 ANGRY MEN (Henry Fonda).

It wasn't even an original piece. It was Lumet's classic filmed for 1997 TV.

Get your facts straight.

My god.

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on Sep 15 2007 05:17 PM

It was great remake though.

So... What's your point? Are you saying no (TV) remake can be good?

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 15 2007 05:36 PM

It's basically exactly like the remake of Hitchcock's classic, Psycho, which came out in 1998 starring Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates.

It used the exact same script (and even imitated the original in camera-flow and shot sequences).

It wasn't original, and it's far from creative.

Friedkin took the script from Lumet's classic and made it into a direct-to-television remake.

Thing is, the Psycho remake (1998) sucked, but the tv movie 12 Angry Men (1997) remake was watchable.

My beef with not crediting Friedkin for it is:

#1-It wasn't original
#2-Same script
#3-Tv movie

And #3 sets it in motion.

It's a TV movie.

Should I care that Quentin Tarantino wrote AND directed a two-hour long episode of CSI?

Yes. It was decent.

But it was still just TV (though more original than a remake) and SHOULD NOT be equated with ANY of his film work (Pulp Fiction, etc.).

Though TV and film have many ties and relations (think about all the mini-movie episodes of shows like THE SOPRANOS, etc.), they are still two different mediums.

Copy? : )

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on Sep 15 2007 05:42 PM

Wow... You are picky.

Or were you just looking for a loophole?

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 15 2007 05:45 PM

In reply to this comment (#1126244)
Haha...nah, I'm not picky, I just actually know what I'm talking about, compared to others around here.......

Any experienced filmmaker will tell you the same thing. Go ask.

Btw, I think all that baby crying finally died down....

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on Sep 15 2007 05:55 PM

I am an experienced filmmaker though.

I did direct classics like 'Man with the Screaming Brain' and 'Fanalysis' afterall.

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 15 2007 06:31 PM

You're really Bruce Campbell.....and I'm Denzel Washington. lol

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on Sep 15 2007 07:09 PM

Hi, Denzel Washington.

I loved you in Training Day .

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Sep 15 2007 08:03 PM

What's the last great film Coppola made? Does that lessen his standing as a great filmmaker? Not really.

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 15 2007 08:34 PM

In reply to this comment (#1126887)
*Sigh*

I never wrote GREAT.

I wrote GOOD.

Coppola's last GOOD film was THE RAINMAKER (1997).

AND he has a new film coming out this year with Tim Roth which looks GOOD.

When was the last GREAT film Scorsese made? GOODFELLAS

That doesn't lessen his GOOD outings like CASINO, THE GANGS OF NEW YORK, THE AVIATOR, AND THE DEPARTED (which won the Oscar).

Go lookup GOOD and GREAT in the dictionary.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Sep 15 2007 09:17 PM

In reply to this comment (#1127045)
You're really clutching at straws with your defense there. Look, I understand what you're trying to say. What the hell happened to Roland Joffe? His career started out great, but has he made anything close to a good film since The Mission? But the point is that they've actually made excellent films and should be judged as accomplished filmmakers.

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 15 2007 09:41 PM

In reply to this comment (#1127177)
Grasping at straws? lol

It's simply, really. Friedkin hasn't made a good film in 30 years. He fell off.

That's what I wrote in my first post.

And it's true.

What's so hard to comprehend about that?

No....I just get a couple of guys that no zilch (and who clearly don't have good reading comprehension, since they can't grasp simple words in my post) whining and throwing false 'facts' at me as some sort of proof against what I wrote.

That's not grasping at straws. : )

Either some of you guys need to go back to school to learn basic English 101, or seriously need to get checked for 'head-in-*** syndrome' which seems to go on a lot around here.

Check yourself and respect yourself.

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on Sep 15 2007 10:28 PM

I had Void Moon pegged totally wrong.

I first thought he was an immature, ignorant moron.

But now I see that's he's a smooth talking anti-hero that kicks serious ***.

Keep up the good work.

(Reply to this)

Loserman writes:
on Sep 16 2007 02:26 AM

In reply to this comment (#1127205)
Someone needs to go back to school to learn basic English 101, huh? In your words, son: "...a couple of guys that no zilch..." Now that's funny. (You brought it up.)

As for serving, you've only served up your own deluded understanding of "facts" especially regarding Scorsese. Eat up this serving:

Scorsese does struggle to get financial backing. You won't believe me, but it's true. I think the man is a genius, a gifted artist where words cannot describe his influence and importance. Yet, his films are not the financial blockbusters many might believe. In short, his films don't make squat in receipts. That is why he struggles to get films made. And even when folks say, "Sure, we'll back your film", he still struggles.

For instance, the Weinsteins promised to back Scorsese's complete script and vision for Gangs... and at the last moment tightened the wallet. All that talk about filmed scenes being cut is mythology because the scenes were never shot in the first place. The Weinsteins did an about face and refused to pay for them...scenes that were to flesh out the DiCaprio character as an orphan and whatnot. (Gangs was a bomb: budget: $97 million, box office came in around $78 million.)

The only way Scorsese has been able to get anything funded recently has been his association with DiCaprio, which he's happy about because it gets him regular work. (Aviator only made $102 million, Departed only $132) Otherwise, Scorsese would be struggling to get anything made. Raging Bull was not a financial success and had UA looking over his shoulder and wondered how they were going to market it. Most of his films have not been blockbusters or modest financial successes by any stretch of the imagination. King of Comedy? After Hours? Last Temptation? Age of Innocence? Bringing Out The Dead? Every one of those was nearly impossible to get funded...all low budget, especially considering the great director he is.

Color of Money was a moderate success ($13 million) considering the financial success of his previous films. Goodfellas not so much a financial success considering how much influence it's had on popular culture and films ($47 million box office, $25 million budget). Cape Fear did quite well (almost $80 million made with a $35 million budget). He had to go back to Goodfellas territory with Casino because it was something that could get made, but that prospect fizzled when it made only $42 million with a budget of over $50 million (a bomb).

If people were beating Scorsese's door down just to throw money at him, why did he have to struggle to get Kundun made? His last two films saw decent returns, again financially speaking, given his track record. Getting funding for his documentary projects about European cinema? Forget about it. The man's films receive great reviews, but box office intake is less than stellar. But by and large, Scorsese has struggled to have anyone float him financially on his films. Why did it take him over 20 years to get Gangs... made? No one would give him a freaking dime for it, that's why.

These are what are called "facts", in case you didn't know what they looked like. Looks like somebody needs to actually READ those film history books instead of letting them sit looking all pretty on the bookshelf.

(An aside: you're right that Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan are little films...they're two of his best comedies to me. He needs to stick to his tales of phallic fingered aliens and repressed homosexuals, you know, stuff he actually knows something about.)

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Sep 16 2007 05:10 AM

In reply to this comment (#1125095)
You said: "Aside from box office receipts, has Spielberg really done anything as good as Duel or Jaws?"

Overall I agree with your comment on Friedkin, but you really should have left that line about Spielberg out since it belittles everything else you said.

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 16 2007 10:41 AM

Loserman: You basically just proved my point. lol

You throw around a lot of box office numbers like it means something and proves something.

After reading it all, I'm like "What's all this gibberish supposed to prove or mean?"

Are you trying to say that Friedkin stuggles to get financial backing, so that's why he hasn't made a GOOD film in 30 years?

Either than that, wtf are you trying to say? : )

(Reply to this)

Loserman writes:
on Sep 16 2007 01:47 PM

In reply to this comment (#1128258)
You wrote:

"The guy's not exactly kicking over in his grave....so why don't he step up to the plate and get on some good scripts again? You tell me that."

I responded:

"Friedkin and many other directors from the bygone days could be sitting on some good scripts and just can't receive the time of day because of the newbies who control the purse strings in Hollywood. When lauded filmmakers such as Herzog, Lynch, Scorsese, Allen, etc., struggle today to get financial backing for their films, something ain't right. Does that make them irrelevant too?"

You wrote:

"And how does Scorses struggle to get financial backing? Ever see a movie called The Gangs of New York (and its monumental sets of old New York), as well as The Aviator?"

and

"I'm just amazed at the utter lack of knowledgable posters on here who actually know film history (and it shows in the posts above, concerning Scorsese, etc.)." (along with some childish stuff about facts).
---
So, I was pointing out some film history FACTS since that's what you seemingly were hungry for. I provided facts. You asked the question about why Friedkin doesn't step up to the plate and produce a good script. I posed the possibility that he may have some good scripts, but cannot receive financial backing, a problem that even well-seasoned and respected filmmakers (a la Scorsese, etc.) experience today regardless of their importance to cinema history, like Friedkin. You challenged the idea that Scorsese struggles to receive financial backing. I supported the contention that in fact he does struggle in receiving financial backing.

It's the natural progression of a discussion. I'm sorry if you need Cliff's Notes to follow the conversation. I'll try using smaller words, crayons and fingerpaints next time.

And for the record, dracus and all, I'd rather see a Friedkin film any day than a Spielberg film. At least a Friedkin film is going to take me somewhere unexpected, a Spielberg film is rote territory, IMO (knowing perfectly well I'm in the minority on this). Unfortunately, I'd have to wait a long time to see a new Friedkin film.

That's "wtf" I'm talking about.

(Reply to this)

faliklunj writes:
on Sep 16 2007 03:06 PM

I did hear that Friedkin got on a lot of people's nerves in the late 70's and could be a bit of a tyrant to work with. Nothing wrong with that, but even directors like the great Orson Welles fell foul of the money men who decide their fates and the fates of their movies.
BTW, Bruce: I've used your line from Crimewave on a number of women.

Can you remember what it was?

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Sep 16 2007 03:14 PM

Void Moon, I went back and looked to make sure, but your first post has absolutely no facts in it. You said Friedkin hasn't made a good movie in 30 years. That's an opinion, last time I checked

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on Sep 16 2007 03:40 PM

In reply to this comment (#1128967)
There was just so many.

''Keep talkin', baby. Maybe you'll tell me something I don't already know.''
''Hey baby, why don't ya come on over to my pad. We'll have a scotch and sofa.''
''I've never seen you here before. I like that in a woman.''
''Well, with a little practice you could learn to be.''

(Reply to this)

cincodemayo writes:
on Sep 16 2007 05:30 PM

BUG has been one of the best films so far this year. Furthermore Ashley Judd gave a ferocious performance, no doubt, with the help of Friedkin. What I like about him is that his film wheter good or bad are usually worthy of discussion. CRUISING is worth seeing for its sleaziness and gritty portrayal of a subculture in NYC. I will buy the DVD.

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 16 2007 05:31 PM

In reply to this comment (#1128701)
Loserman: Not to spend too my time on you, or this whole thread for that matter, but your longish post added nothing, and proved nothing in terms of the discussion at hand.

The soul point of your post was to spout off box office numbers (which can easily be looked up by any one-handed pirate, btw) that had no relevance to the question(s) at hand.

It had NOTHING to do whatsoever to do with William Friedkin. You know, the guy (and his movies) that this discussion is ALL about.

What did you prove in the post?

All it proved was the point I made in my previous posts, ala this: %u201CThe equation = you make a decent movie, you'll almost 99% of the time get financial backing of a sort.%u201D

Now let%u2019s see if you can follow this EASY train of thinking and answer the question I posed to you in the above post (and btw, the question is the only possible rock you could have based that longish post on, because without you trying to make that point or get some similar point across then your post is gibberish and a waste.

Now, the question: %u201CAre you trying to say that Friedkin stuggles to get financial backing, so that's why he hasn't made a GOOD film in 30 years?%u201D

That could be the only point of your post.

Because unless you stuttered, you slipped up and wrote some conjecture and now are waddling trying to make sense out of nonsense, which it clearly seems you are, then just own up to it like a man, because clearly you are reaching and have no idea what you are talking about (%u2018head-in-*** syndrome%u2019) and are throwing numbers around trying to make an empty-headed argument that has no relevancy to the issues at hand.

Copy?

And I%u2019m saying filmic history, not easy box office number and conjecture (example of which, saying that Scorsese only got backing because of Dicaprio).

Consider the baby whining resumed.

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 16 2007 05:42 PM

In reply to this comment (#1128974)
Ashron: Thanks for posting. You are a very astute observer, and yes it was my opinion--an opinion clearly held by almost all who have leisurely viewed, publicly reviewed and write about filmic history who have watched the stroke of Friedkin's talent over the years.

Basically, it's like saying (on smaller scale) that 100 people see a car accident (two vehicles).

90 of the people say the accident was brought on by car # 1.

While 5 are unsure, and the other 5 say that the accident was clearly caused by car # 2.

When does opinion become fact?

Is it not fact that the Earth is round and not flat (as the ancients so thought)?

But sadly enough, some people still think, to this day, that the Earth is flat.

Does that then make the fact of the Earth as round an opinion because a few disargee?

No.

(Reply to this)

Loserman writes:
on Sep 16 2007 10:25 PM

In reply to this comment (#1129147)
Huh?

Oh well, I see that English 101 is working real well for you. Keep it up!

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 16 2007 11:14 PM

In reply to this comment (#1130035)
Great way to duck and dodge.

Though everyone knows when someone oneups another in an argument, the loser (goes with your name btw) always falls back to insults, which is all he/she has.

Why?

Because he/she can't refute what the other person said/wrote and or add anything else to the discussion worthy of a glance.

And the whining continues......

(Reply to this)

islander Reel writes:
on Sep 17 2007 12:29 AM

Saw "Bug." The "textures" presented in the details were fantastic.
It sets an almost 3d stage for the actors.
The film in it's entirety fell short (for me). Still, most movies I see,
I'm able to appreciate things many don't (cam operator for 20 years).

Re: Friedkin not having a "hit" lately...his vision is still there
(a potent beast).

Re: Bruce (if it's him). Thought you stole the movie in "Spiderman."
You could build a whole comedy around your restaurant character.
Unquestionably the greatest "B" actor of all time.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Sep 17 2007 06:29 AM

In reply to this comment (#1129149)
Void: What you say above is true, but both the cases you provided above can be proven by evidence. The world is round because we've see pictures of the world. Scientific calculations can prove which car caused the accident. The only "evidence" for Friedkin's decline is his films, and whether they've slipped in quality is a matter of opinion.

I'm not saying your opinion is wrong; I'm not even saying I disagree, but don't throw out an opinion about something and then expect other people to back up dissenting opinions with facts.

And consider checking your spelling before you send. I don't say that to be snide, but that sort of thing counts on how seriously you're taken. (Not that you necessarily care, but you seem a reasonable person, so I just wanted to mention it.)

(Reply to this)

Aqueryan Reloaded writes:
on Sep 17 2007 08:36 AM

Wow, Void Moon...you are about as unpleasantly obnoxious a poster as I've had the displeasure of reading on RT lately. Looking forward to not coming across any more of your smug, hyper-critical, semi-petulant offerings.

Oh, and by the way - both The Hunted and Bug are recent Friedkin offerings that were not without merit. Sorry they didn't meet with your inconsequential approval.

P.S. I don't know why Friedkin's remake of The Wages of Fear, Sorcerer, doesn't get the respect it deserves. That film is a mesmerizing experience. I'd love to see it be given the deluxe DVD treatment.

(Reply to this)

Loserman writes:
on Sep 17 2007 08:40 AM

In reply to this comment (#1130041)
No ducking, dodging or quacking from me. It is a statement of exasperation because you refuse to engage in the conversation at hand, aside from making little sense in your 5:31 post (if you're going to chide others about their understanding and usage of English, then you may want to implement that standard yourself; otherwise, what's the point?).

You led the conversation down a path and I followed you. And now you get all uppity about not understanding the points of discussion. I can't help you with that. A little tired of running in circles with you, so go have fun talking and clapping to yourself, something you seem to enjoy very much.

(Reply to this)

Dr. Evol writes:
on Sep 17 2007 10:22 AM

In reply to this comment (#1130199)
I agree, also I think The Hunted and Rules of Engagement are good solid movies and those were made after 2000, I can say that one of my co-worker said he saw this movie saying it�s the best he�s seen and that turns out to be The Hunted. He may not be as much movie buff as I am (or you) but the movie did its job. Friedkin doesnt look for blockbuster movies, Void you�re allowed to have an opinion as anyone else in here but don�t try to justify your opinion by stating that it�s a fact that Friedkin hasn�t made a good movie for 30 years. You mentioned that you didn�t like Friedkin because he comes off as �pompous, arrogant know-it-all� I guess you need to re-read your previous comments and see if those word fits to your character.

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 17 2007 12:12 PM

In reply to this comment (#1130098)
Ah!

Ashron: Most people can see the planet is round because we can clearly see it.

Also, most people can clearly come to a consensus on a particular film by seeing it.

Also, come off of it with the English in the longish post I made to Loserman. It was beyond obvious RT (in hitting the 'Submit' button) added on the %u201C and the like. And Loserman saw that, and ducked the obvious meat of the post.

Here's the post without those (if it comes through):

Loserman: Not to spend too my time on you, or this whole thread for that matter, but your longish post added nothing, and proved nothing in terms of the discussion at hand.

The soul point of your post was to spout off box office numbers (which can easily be looked up by any one-handed pirate, btw) that had no relevance to the question(s) at hand.

It had NOTHING to do whatsoever to do with William Friedkin. You know, the guy (and his movies) that this discussion is ALL about.

What did you prove in the post?

All it proved was the point I made in my previous posts, ala this: The equation = you make a decent movie you'll almost 99% of the time get financial backing of a sort.

Now let%u2019s see if you can follow this EASY train of thinking and answer the question I posed to you in the above post (and btw, the question is the only possible rock you could have based that longish post on, because without you trying to make that point or get some similar point across then your post is gibberish and a waste.)

Now, the question: Are you trying to say that Friedkin stuggles to get financial backing, so that's why he hasn't made a GOOD film in 30 years?

That could be the only point of your post.

Because unless you stuttered, you slipped up and wrote some conjecture and now are waddling trying to make sense out of nonsense, which it clearly seems you are, then just own up to it like a man, because clearly you are reaching and have no idea what you are talking about (head-in-*** syndrome) and are throwing numbers around trying to make an empty-headed argument that has no relevancy to the issues at hand.

Copy?

And I%u2019m saying filmic history, not easy box office numbesr and conjecture (example of which, saying that Scorsese only got backing because of Dicaprio).

Consider the baby whining resumed.

Understand? : )

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 17 2007 12:15 PM

In reply to this comment (#1130198)
And your point is? : )

You don't care for me, but you take the time to post about me.

Nice. : )

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on Sep 17 2007 12:19 PM

Dose anyone even like you here?

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 17 2007 12:22 PM

In reply to this comment (#1130199)
I'm not running in circles, since you clearly wont answer simple questions.

It's called having a conversation, with our main topic being William Friedkin.

You diverted off the path with box office numbers, and then in my replying post joked at me for the English within (clearly knowing RT added all the extra %u2019, etc.) and ducked answering the meat of the post.

That's what I call ducking and dodging.

And you STILL wont answer to the posts and its questions about William Friedkin.

Except for making ME the topic of discussion, which this thread isn't.

I call that waddling.

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 17 2007 12:24 PM

In reply to this comment (#1131113)
Do they have to? : )

I didn't know that was a requirement to post here.

If my non-*** kissing ways don't garner me any 'internet buddies' here, so be it.

I don't lose sleep. : )

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Sep 17 2007 12:34 PM

In reply to this comment (#1131152)
Just so you know, it's sole (as in single) point, not soul (as in spirit).

:-)

(Reply to this)

Void Moon writes:
on Sep 17 2007 01:12 PM

Ashron: Hehheh....thank you for correcting me.

I was up late last night when I wrote that.

But the gist of the post is there and is yet to be answered.

Knowing English doesn't stop one from being tired and slipping up now and again.

= )

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Sep 17 2007 01:43 PM

Well, in all this time, I lost track of what the original point even was, and I don't think I really care anymore (sigh)

Oh, well, time to move on to the eternal Superman Returns argument.

(Reply to this)

RustedSoul writes:
on Sep 18 2007 06:27 PM

Here is a thought... what does it matter "IF" Friedkin hasn't made a "good" film or "great" film in 10,20,30 years? He has made a number of classic groundbreaking films so if he didn't make another ever again he would still be considered a great film-maker. Otherwise Frank Capra,Orsen Welles,Cecil DeMille etc. granted they're dead still they "Made a Great Film" and now are Legends. JUST my Worthless Opinion, Peace

(Reply to this)

pchoffman1976 writes:
on Oct 17 2007 10:37 PM

Gentlemen...

I think we have a winner.

(Reply to this)

elcomputo writes:
on Nov 02 2007 12:29 PM

In reply to this comment (#1127515)
"I had Void Moon pegged totally wrong. I first thought he was an immature, ignorant moron."

Well, first impressions ARE important. But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about you.

I'm wondering why you are not out writing a script, making a film, rolling in lavender, or any of a thousand other things you could be doing that have to be more rewarding and/or profitable than debating the worth of one Hollywood director with someone whose mind is made up and whose vocabulary and spelling will probably never improve.

I notice that no one has picked up on one of the statements made in the interview that led to this discussion: that the original negative for "The Godfather" is kaput. Gone forever. I assume it, like darned near every other color film after about 1950, was shot on Kodak's notoriously defective Ektachrome. (If you or anyone else shot 35mm color slides on Ektachrome back when it was on the market, at least some of your pix today are nothing but faint images on otherwise clear film.) Many motion picture prints that survive from the 50's in such color processes as Truecolor have had an extreme shift to red. But that can be fixed, losing an image cannot.

I had known there were problems with deteriorating reels of film, but I had not known anything as recent as "The Godfather" was among them. This, to me, is pretty damned shocking news. It means there are a helluva lot of movies out there that, just like old soldiers like me, are fading away, not just the old silent-era stuff on nitrate film stock. Is anything being done about it? Is there anything that CAN be done about it?

(Reply to this)

andragg writes:
on Aug 10 2008 04:50 AM

William Friedkin is one of my favorite directors. "Cruising" was a very well made film with good acting and edgy story so I look forward to seeing it on DVD. The film also had a great soundtrack that included ECM artists Barre Phillips and Ralph Towner. Being a composer and partial to that type of music I thought Friedkin did better then the rest with the music he chose for his films. Film as we know it has changed a lot since the 1970's when he did has great films. Everything he did in those 10 years (1971 - 1980) was great film making. "Sorcerer" was a high point. Even "The Brinks Job" was well done, although less edgy then the rest. To expect an artist to create great art all the time is being illogical. Those 5 films he did in that 10 year period spoke enough to me that he is at the top of film making. No, he has not done a great film since "To Live and Die in L.A." but the potential is there. "Bug" showed some promise, although not a great film, but he is at least trying instead of dying. Each time I see a new Friedkin film and get disappointed I'll think about this. As Bruce Campbell said: "Most people struggle to make one (great film)." He has made 5 in my oppinion.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Cruising

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links