david foster wallace: classic or dud

Any famous actor in a biopic is going to be met with skepticism. But I get the feeling there's something particularly cringe worthy about Segel's “brand” that's being extended here. If that's what's even going on, or whatever. I haven't read this book, but I hope an actor being comedic isn’t the problem. I'd hope there would be some funny moments in it!

I think this has the ability to avoid the "flatly reductive biopic" pitfall by not really being a proper biopic. I'm assuming a huge chunk of the dialogue in this is lifted straight from Lipsky's tapes.

I guess him being a comic actor is at least part of it, in that the "comedic actor proves their dramatic chops" thing is, at this point, an eye-rolling cliche. Having that on top of the "Oscar-bait biopic" vibes probably does make things worse.

@circa1916 I actually agree that it could be good, I just understand the skepticism.

i think my problem with the trailer is that jason segel sounds too much like jason segel. I wasn't expecting him to mimic DFW's speech patterns I guess, but I just associate his voice with the other characters he's played before.

the problem is it's a plainly terrible idea and everyone involved can diaf!!

segel
the other guy
the director
the producers
lipsky
dfw

all of them can just ... oh wait

i don't normally feel this kind of unconditional acritical hate towards cultural artifacts, i guess this is how the lex feels all the time

the whole premise of this movie is just so corrupt and dubious

i don't mean DFW, just whatever reason anyone chose to make this movie

i just can't imagine this being entertaining, enlightening, interesting to anyone

it scans like the "away we go" of biopics

i don't normally feel this kind of unconditional acritical hate towards cultural artifacts, i guess this is how the lex feels all the time

lol

i think my problem with the trailer is that jason segel sounds too much like jason segel. I wasn't expecting him to mimic DFW's speech patterns I guess, but I just associate his voice with the other characters he's played before.

― Roz, Wednesday, June 10, 2015 6:42 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah i've only heard his voice a couple times but there's something very distinctive about it that Segel doesn't even seem to have even attempted. you'd think he'd at least try to sound more midwestern.

can we start a kickstarter for this film /not/ to be released?

potentially valuable future okcupid filter

actively rooting for this now

I'm thinking the fact that the trailer at one point has Segel say "I think if the book is about anything, it is about the question of 'Why?' - Why am I doing it and what's so American about what I'm doing?" is far more of a terrible film klaxon.

(NB I don't know whether this is or isn't representative of DFW, have an uncracked Infinite Jest on my shelves like everyone)

(eephus also OTM about Strange Currencies)

That quote is directly from Lipsky's book, hard to judge how it sits in the movie based on the trailer.

Hard not to feel that David Lipsky is a real vampire for optioning the movie rights to his book (which I haven't read)

youll be shocked by the reveal @ the end of the book when lipsky literally sinks his teeth into wallaces neck

also it's hard to shake the dfw cosplay vibes in promotional materials

I didn't realize that this was the drummer kid from Freaks and Geeks. Doesn't look like him (or Wallace) at all. It's on the tip of my tongue who I thought this was.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DBk1Mrb4RyM/maxresdefault.jpg

Maybe not even an actor. Maybe someone from a third-tier jam band or something.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2009/top10_speeches/top10_speeches_wallace.jpg

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hm94gUBCih8/hqdefault.jpg

I guess the reason I'm approaching this movie with optimism is that Lipsky's book is really moving and great, so much so that I'm not planning to read the Max biography, I am content with the portrait by Lipsky as my final view of DFW.

wallaces hair irl in photos seemed much better conditioned than in segals portrayal, fuck this film

Segal doesn't really capture DFW's facial expressions either. The bandana and glasses are spot on, I guess.

once i went to a costume party with someone in attendance wearing a bandana, glasses, and a carmen miranda hat: bananas foster wallace

segel should go for that imo

otm

― bananas foster wallace (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, April 29, 2011 2:45 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Movies about writers : not a good idea in general?

movies about hacks are great: all the felt experience of the movie's writer with none of the awe

btw guys a "biopic" encompasses decades

kind of disagree with that. Even if there's an official rule somewhere about how much time a biopic must cover, I have concerns that this is going to fall into the same traps as the movies that fit your definition.

re reviews, a critic in my Letterboxd feed gave half a star and said "this doesn't improve on second viewing."

hey, it coulda been James Franco, so

That quote is directly from Lipsky's book, hard to judge how it sits in the movie based on the trailer.

I'm not finding it hard to judge :)

But then part of the problem is that there's lots of ways that the line could be saved if it indicated that DFW-in-the-film was aware of how ridiculous it was, but although Segel is a comedian, he's one of the plague of modern comedians who can only do earnest.

Listen Up Phillip is a very good recent film about writers, fyi. I'd say, in general, films about writers are probably less navel-gazing than films about film-makers. Obviously, the opposite is true of literature.

Listen Up Philip was purely fiction. A movie built around a writer rather than the other way around.

kind of disagree with that. Even if there's an official rule somewhere about how much time a biopic must cover, I have concerns that this is going to fall into the same traps as the movies that fit your definition.

― intheblanks, Friday, June 12, 2015 4:02 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the big downfall of biopics is usually that the screenwriter has to create all these scenes and lines of dialogue that sum up an entire period of someone's life and often ring false. movies that are faithful depictions of a specific incident or period of time can sidestep that, but if you're depicting a magazine interview, where someone is TRYING to get quotes out of a subject that sums up their life and work, then the dialogue probably runs the risk of sounding overly on-the-nose even if they actually said it. it's probably a good reason (among many) that people generally don't make films about magazine interviews.

no better ilx than trailer judgment ilx

max if it helps i have no intention of actually watching the trailer

"the plague of modern comedians who can only do earnest" is interesting, is that a thing?

A movie built around a writer rather than the other way around.

A writer built around a movie?

THE END OF THE TOUR

the novelization of the major motion picture

by john jeremiah sullivan

david foster wallace

Hard not to feel that David Lipsky is a real vampire for optioning the movie rights to his book (which I haven't read)

― intheblanks, Friday, June 12, 2015 11:40 AM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"This motion picture is loosely based on transcripts from an interview David consented to 18 years ago for a magazine article about the publication of his novel, Infinite Jest. That article was never published and David would never have agreed that those saved transcripts could later be repurposed as the basis of a movie. The trust was given no advance notice that this production was underway and, in fact, first heard of it when it was publicly announced. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no circumstance under which the David Foster Wallace Literary Trust would have consented to the adaptation of this interview into a motion picture, and we do not consider it an homage," they continue.

The estate goes on to say that "individuals and companies" involved with the film were made "keenly aware" of the reasons for their objections to the adaptation, "yet persisted in capitalising upon a situation that leaves those closest to David unable to prevent the production".

"The trust will continue to review its legal options with respect to any commercial exploitation of the motion picture," the statement said.

vampire sounds about right. 'he and everyone else involved are utter pieces of shit' would also prob fit

I feel like it would be easy to overreact to this. Maybe because it's still so soon after his death, but there is a long history of "unauthorized" works about artists and public figures.

I assume Lipsky is the author of the And of Course book, not Wallace. That would probably give him lawful license to do whatever he pleases with it.

But it is a dick move to go ahead with the movie if Wallace's people weren't cool with it.

the 'and of course' book is a transcript of wallace talking for the most part--sure, on some level lipsky is the 'author' but

"and of course you just have to be the author in a formalistic legal sense to exploit the copyright" -- david lipsky

Were DFW's people not cool with the Lipsky book itself? I didn't know that and if so it complicates my (positive) feelings about it.