Al Pacino is... Phil Spector

[JasonEvans]

You cannot unsee this image once you have seen it...

We now have a teaser for David Mamet’s “Phil Spector.” The HBO movie starring Al Pacino as Phil Spector and Helen Mirren as his defense attorney.

-Jason "full article and teaser can be seen here" Evans

[BD80]

You cannot unsee this image once you have seen it...





-Jason "full article and teaser can be seen here" Evans

Full on SNORT!

That there is just funny ... But that image may haunt him and us, replacing in our minds the image of him as Scarface, or Don Corleone, or Col Slade (Scent of a Woman - whoo - ah!)

[tommy]

What a pathetic excuse for a human being Spector is. Abusive, arrogant, and violent over a period of decades, and ultimately just another murderer locked up for the rest of his life in California's prisons. Thank goodness for that, at least.

I hope nobody watches this thing, unless the proceeds are going to Lana Clarkson's family, which I highly doubt. There's nothing to see here. Just roadkill along the side of our culture's road.

[JasonEvans]

I know Tommy will object, but here is a trailer for the HBO film. I think Pacino wears no less than 12 different wigs in this thing!

It is worth noting that Lana Clarkson's family sued Phil Spector and they settled out of court, probably for a pretty significant chunk of change. I have no idea if any proceeds from this film will go to Clarkson's family as well.

-Jason "maybe, one message of the film will be that being a famous musical genius does not give you free reign to abuse people" Evans

[77devil]

What a pathetic excuse for a human being Spector is. Abusive, arrogant, and violent over a period of decades, and ultimately just another murderer locked up for the rest of his life in California's prisons. Thank goodness for that, at least.

I hope nobody watches this thing, unless the proceeds are going to Lana Clarkson's family, which I highly doubt. There's nothing to see here. Just roadkill along the side of our culture's road.

I sympathize with your sentiment, but a script by Mamet, with Pacino and Mirren in the leads, is too tantalizing to pass up.

[DevilWearsPrada]

I almost spit my coffee on the laptop screen! That image of Al Pacino will be embedded in my brain, forever!!

I believe there is a special place for people like Phil Spector, Ike Turner, OJ Simpson, etc!!!

I love Al Pacino! Great Actor!!! Thanks for posting!

[tommy]

I sympathize with your sentiment, but a script by Mamet, with Pacino and Mirren in the leads, is too tantalizing to pass up.

No it isn't. Not when you read this review by the LA Times. All three of them, but Mamet in particular, should be ashamed of themselves.

[77devil]

No it isn't. Not when you read this review by the LA Times. All three of them, but Mamet in particular, should be ashamed of themselves.

The linked article is not a review of the film. It takes the film to task on the recitation of facts, however Mamet and the producers readily acknowledge the film is a work of fiction.

Mamet is in top form and Pacino absolutely nails his portrayal of Spector. The film is mesmerizing and riveting at times. I found nothing particularly sympathetic about Spector, but I appreciated the quality of the writing, acting, and production.

Idi Amin was a loathsome, despicable, and deplorable human being, but I enjoyed The Last King of Scotland and Forest Whitaker's performance for which he received an Oscar. I can separate the art from the character. To each his own.

[allenmurray]

however Mamet and the producers readily acknowledge the film is a work of fiction.

So let's see, they took something based on widely reported events, and called it a "work of fiction" just so they could change some things around (never telling the audience which things are the facts and which are the fiction)?

[tommy]

The linked article is not a review of the film. It takes the film to task on the recitation of facts, however Mamet and the producers readily acknowledge the film is a work of fiction.

Mamet is in top form and Pacino absolutely nails his portrayal of Spector. The film is mesmerizing and riveting at times. I found nothing particularly sympathetic about Spector, but I appreciated the quality of the writing, acting, and production.

Idi Amin was a loathsome, despicable, and deplorable human being, but I enjoyed The Last King of Scotland and Forest Whitaker's performance for which he received an Oscar. I can separate the art from the character. To each his own.

Yeah, to each his own I guess. But I don't think your comparison is apt. In The Last King of Scotland, while the character of McAvoy was fictional, pretty much everything else in the movie was based on fact, and the creators of that movie fired an arrow into the heart of the truth: that Amin was a murderous dictator almost beyond comprehension.

That's not what Mamet and company have done here at all.

Simply including a brief disclaimer that the movie is a "work of fiction" does not cover it, because very few viewers will be able to separate fact from fiction, and assume that what they are seeing is somehow based in fact, when in many respects it is a horribly twisted and distorted version of those facts, or they're not facts at all. They've made up a version of this story that is simply contraverted by the real, proven-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt facts, and they're passing it off as some sort of version of the truth to a public that is unable or unwilling to tell the difference. That is irresponsible and inflicts great damage on things like people's impressions of our criminal justice system. You know, little things like that.

It's like what, they sat down and said, "let's create a story, a work of fiction. Let's call the main character . . . I don't know . . . how about 'Phil Spector?' And let's have him be a famous . . . I don't know . . . record producer. Let's make him really eccentric, like, I don't know, wearing all kinds of crazy wigs and clothes? How's that sound so far? And then let's have him . . . hmmm . . . get accused of murdering an attractive younger woman in his Southern California mansion by shooting her point blank in the face. Yeah, that sounds like a good story. And then at his trial his team of lawyers will . . . hmmm . . . accuse her of committing suicide! Yeah, that's it. Let's see if we can flush that out. . . " And so on. That's a legitimate "work of fiction?" Not to me it isn't.

I have no idea what Mamet's motivation was to become involved in this project or certainly to write this drivel. Top form? Please - it's an abomination. I'm not a twitter guy, but if I was it would be #lostrespect.

[bedeviled]

Simply including a brief disclaimer that the movie is a "work of fiction" does not cover it, because very few viewers will be able to separate fact from fiction, and assume that what they are seeing is somehow based in fact, when in many respects it is a horribly twisted and distorted version of those facts, or they're not facts at all

There is no question that the film team is intentionally convoluting fact and fiction.
The beginning of the film starts with the following quote placed upon a black screen:

This is a work of fiction. It's not "based on a true story." It is a drama inspired by actual persons in a trial, but it is neither an attempt to depict the actual persons, nor to comment upon the trial or its outcome

Yet, in an obvious act of equalizing fact and fiction, the end of the film completes with facts of the real case placed upon black screens, such as:

On September 26th the Jury reported itself dead-locked, ten to two in favor of conviction, and incapable of reaching a decision. The Judge declared a mistrial.

How can one honestly justify the initial proposition that this was "not based on a true story" when it is branzenly built upon a true story which it not only alludes to, but places on the same level as the fiction?!
They could have made this movie using different names, character backgrounds, etc, but it would not sell! - This movie is not interesting except that it is about Spector!!
Ironically, the filmmakers are the publicity-seekers spoken of in the movie's dialogue. In the movie, when Spector is talking about accusers, he states

They came out when there was something in it for them. What was in it? Publicity. What did Lana Clarkson want? Publicity. What do they all want? People think its contagious, you can get it by hanging around someone who's got it.

Yet, the moviemakers can't get publicity simply by attaching themselves to Spector. That story isn't "news." Instead, they have to fictionalize the facts...a move also denounced in the movie's dialogue:

"Jesus was so big. Why'd they kill him?"
"Because he was the Son of God"
"No. Because he was still the Son of God. Still is not news. Somebody is still the greatest beauty, actor, record producer - you can't put that in the paper. What is news then? News is that he likes little boys, he's a thief, that he cheats on his wife. Or, in the absence of any fault, that he's just too *&$^* big for his *&$^ing britches."

Mirroring their own movie, they sensationalized the content so that it would sell. Well, now they have their names on movie credits and the internet...surely, the signs of an accomplished life.
In essence:

1. Without someone else's publicity, we have no content of our own.
   
2. Without sensationalizing the facts, no one is interested in the content.

In his keynote address for First Amendment Week, Mark Boal, the writer for Zero Dark Thirty, stated the following:

David Denby...criticized us for wanting “to claim the authority of fact and the freedom of fiction at the same time.” And there, Mr. Denby got it exactly wrong by being exactly right.
Without the freedom of fiction, we couldn’t share this story with millions who deserve to understand it, question it, and debate it. Without the authority of fact, we wouldn’t have a story to share, issues to understand, questions to ask, or controversies to debate.

Put more bluntly: without facts, we have no content. Without fiction, no one is interested in the story.
In that same speech, it appears that Boal believes the public will become more accustomed to this type of "art" as time passes and such manipulation is no longer new. He adds:

I can only hope the same thing happens for our film... But I do hope the film endures. Because this is the kind of movie I want to keep making.
For me, right now, the real power of filmmaking is found at the intersection of investigation and imagination. Where reporting and creativity combine to offer something new – an ability to command attention and capture imagination that reaches further and pushes harder than traditional reporting or purely fictional storytelling on their own.

It does seem to me that this is the direction that society is going. It was first noticeable to me in research, with reporting biases and the pressure to publish. More recently, I've been totally turned off by sports journalism. ESPN took a cue from WWF and turned sports journalism into sports-entertainment. Heck, we don't even have game analysis anymore - instead of analysts, we get our report from what ESPN calls "bloggers" and "columnists" who feed us the same information we already witnessed but now with a spin/meme. Now, these documentary movies, more and more skewed towards sides, can evidently be fictionalized as a form of "art." The most upsetting media to me, though, is the local news. I'm sick of seeing teasers like, "Could you be killing your kids by letting them drink water? Find out tonight at 6."
I would be interested if anyone has any inside scoop if this marketing is what is being taught in journalism and film schools now. (ie "We have to sell something, so let's get content from someone else and let's sensationalize it so that people are interested enough to buy it)