david foster wallace: classic or dud

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.

The book/interview is excellent, but Lipsky comes off as a total pud in it so that news isn't particularly surprising.

You'd have to think he'd have something to say about this, but he gave up on us.

On the festival circuit, the movie has garnered glowing reviews, and, whatever its complicity in softening Wallace so he’s easier to chew, it’s certainly in a league with films like The Theory of Everything and Dallas Buyers Club, essentially high-gloss true-story after-school specials for adults. Segel does a creditable impression of Wallace; you can tell he’s done his homework, watched the extant video. His innovation is to turn Wallace’s frequent wincing into the beginning of a snarl, signaling bottled rage or torment. This is the film’s version of the Asshole Problem, of Wallace’s tilting on the prickly-cuddly axis. Segel’s Wallace says he can’t stand the “enormous hiss of egos” in New York and he doesn’t want to be a guy at book parties saying, “I’m a writer! I’m a writer!” He asks, “What if I become this parody of that very thing?” Too late now.

the article is not that great, but might as well post a link if you're quoting it

http://www.vulture.com/2015/06/rewriting-of-david-foster-wallace.html

google works

it’s certainly in a league with films like The Theory of Everything and Dallas Buyers Club

*raises finger-copter* whoopdee shit

not sure i understand yr point

Glenn Kenny weighs in on The End of the Tour:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/29/why-the-end-of-the-tour-isnt-really-about-my-friend-david-foster-wallace

a lot of what kenny says rings true. then i got to the m4r14 busti1105 part.

i hadn't read that really long article she wrote in 2011 on dfw, so i actually went and read it. it's true. she provides very few insight and it all sounds more like a long-form gossip column or a conversation a woman would have with her best girlfriend, rummaging through her ex's stuff and speculating on him and it. she was certainly thinking it could've been taken as gossip, which is why she mentioned it and tried to defend herself for it. at times, it is a tiny bit interesting, but after reading it completely, it kind of made me feel sick.

it's difficult to take her seriously, as she misrepresents the trust and calls into question dfw's wife.

A.O. Scott gives the movie a rave review in the NY Times. He doesn't really address the objections to it other than to say he "respects" them. The part about Eisenberg making the Lipsky character "25 percent weasel" made me laugh.

sure.

except dfw's characterisation of borges is partially wrong, and sounds like a bit of romanticising. borges was not "stripped" of all foundations in religious certainty. borges was not dogmatic, but he had more of a philsophical take on religion. that doesn't mean it was without foundation. it's a bit strange that he'd say that as he later references borges's monism, but doesn't clarify berkeley's and spinoza's influence on him. borges's texts are sprinkled with some type of idealism -- at times subjective, at times pantheistic -- all over the place.

but let's say borges did do away with religion with regard to the foundations of his aesthetics (and worldview), it was precisely this that made him turn "inward" and, thus, made details about his love life "irrelevant".

but this is not analogous to dfw's work at all, in my readings of him. so, i can't really measure dfw's biography/biopic the same way i'd measure a borges biography. or, if it is, it is only analogous insofar as a lot of writers look "inward" when creating art or writing.

i am so looking forward to not seeing this movie.

you guys ever watch this whole interview? he got twitchier later in life:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkxUY0kxH80

excruciating moment in that one somewhere where the cameraman complains about the twitchiness and uses the word "pontificating" and the woman doing the interview doesn't have good enough english for "pontificating" so asks dfw to explain it and dfw does, looking pained, and then says, "but he meant it in a nice way i think."

It's about 10 minutes in. The cameraman's tone is very bizarre.

What a fucking dick! In the middle of an interview to interrupt like that and call the guy pontificating and twitchy--

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122381/im-not-watching-david-foster-wallace-movie

he should've prefaced that with an apology to the few great cineastes of the 20th century

had forgotten that after the pontificating remark there's "well these are hard questions. particularly when they're about something that you did like seven years ago. [hand farts]"

probably the only reasonable reply to the cameraman's utterances is hand farts, as it echoes the sounds he emits

I never followed Wallace much but liked the movie a lot.

boo !

The Awl puts in the boot

http://www.theawl.com/2015/08/the-bro-of-the-system

I'm so out of touch I don't even know what they're referring to when they say "the kinds of guys who even in their twenties are walking advertisements for the “low-T” scam the pharmaceutical industry is trying to pull on the flagging libido of the American male" and I don't want to google "low-T" lest it mess up my ads for life

low testosterone id imagine

That's what I guessed, but what's the scam? Are there lots of people walking around buying OTC testosterone supplements???

I was in a pharmacy a few days ago and they were selling a book which was about eating paleo and doing this and that in order to raise your testosterone as the majority of health conditions in men (according to the blurb) are caused by low testosterone.

so yes, I guess?

so I guess the awl writer is making some complicated cultural bankshot of the form "paleo dudes are deluded jerkwads but who can blame them for thinking there's a nationwide testosterone shortage when there's so many David Foster Wallace fans around"