Why Mamet? - Phil Spector (2013) Discussion

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Brennan-8 13 years ago

A UK newspaper reports that "The film is understood to be sympathetic to the former Beatles producer and claims he was wrongly jailed for murder." Also that the film is "conceived by controversial New York writer and director David Mamet who has called for Spector to be freed."

Where is Gloria Steinem when one needs her...

reply

[–] pacinoyes 13 years ago

That is absolute BS - no one has seen Mamet's script - he gave some personal comments on his thoughts on the legality of the case - legal issues of the case, not necessarily what happened regarding the crime.

He hasn't called for Spector to be freed, that's an absolute falsehood.

It's funny how people assume his personal thoughts on the prosecution of Spector case would cloud his construction of the inherent drama OF the case......he's a DRAMATIST after all, he has a film to make and I find it extremely unlikely that he'd sacrifice a film with this much rich material to make a point regarding prosecution that he could make on a TV interview.

Lastly I would most certainly dispute that Mamet is ant-female in either his plays or his films. On the contrary, his female characters (fictional at least) are often smarter, and more feeling than his male ones - he's harder on his own gender.

reply

[–] Spamlet 13 years ago

Absurd and gross mischaracterization. Mamet gets that rap from people who either don't understand that he's essentially a writer of modern morality plays or have only experienced a small sampling of his vast body of work.

Maybe I'll live so long that I'll forget her. Maybe I'll die. Tryin'.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DendelionBlu 13 years ago

I don't understand why you would fear that?

All I know is I respect Mamet greatly & find Mamet's work exceptional

I don't know if Phil Spector - who I think is a complete genius & an inspiration - shot Lana Clarkson or not & I feel we will never know, cause there were only 2 people in that room & 1 is dead

The delirious people involved in this film dispute are the Friends of Lana Clarkson, at least from what I read

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2021869/Phil-Spector-biop ic-Al-Pacino-dons-curly-wig-shades-look-just-like-music-legend-killer- producer.html

From this article it seemed like they hired a former GW Bush PR guy named Mr. Lozzi who is blackmailing - literally - actresses involved in the film in order to pull them, bar being banished from winning any Emmy awards ever again through Mr Lozzi's lobbying

The comment by Mr Lozzi on why Bette Milder left the film is plain out scary & disgusting

Anybody know if this really happened??

reply

[–] pacinoyes 13 years ago

She left the project only because of her back issue, and you're right the implication otherwise is sick and disgusting.

reply

[–] kevin_m_kirby 13 years ago

Anybody who claims to believe that Spector did not pull the trigger on his unregistered .38, that night at the castle, should be required to take a lie detector test. So, would it perhaps be safer to become a friend of Phil, should his lawyers win an early release?

Or even, pending his eventual freedom in a few short, well-behaved years; is it wiser to pretend that nothing even happened, considering his status as a member of the protected Rich? One wonders how different the outcome might have been, had a well known A-list actress been similarly discovered by police in the bungalow of some uncooperative pauper.

reply

[–] Killingforcompany 13 years ago

Has anyone seen the documentary "The Agony and Ecstasy of Phil Spector?" It was only given the go-ahead by Spector because it was supposed to rehabilitate his so-called "image" during the first trial. The documentary only makes him look even worse in the end. In any case, I think that this film is a bad idea.

reply

[–] kevin_m_kirby 13 years ago

When so much effort is put into impugning victims of violent crime, those presenting such obvious falsehoods can easily fall within the definition of accessories after-the-fact.

In any case, to add a bit more depth to the characters involved (in case the possibility of more accurate depictions should occur in the near [or far] future,) there have been some comments made to the effect that the film "Who is Harry Kellerman and Why is He Saying All Those Awful Things About Me" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067980/ ) contains allusions to the Bewigged One, to such an extent that he even changed his appearance in order to more closely resemble the supposed fictional portrayal.

As if he wasn't already warped enough to begin with.

reply

[–] Gonzo_Knight 13 years ago

Mamet is not necessarily women unfriendly or mysogenistic at all. He supposedly strived to make movies like Oleanna "balanced".

If you want to say that "asking for it" angle applies to "House of Games" but it could be a huge stretch and a wrong way to look at the film. The same thing could be argued with even great ease in something like "Edmond" and there the main character is male.

Just because his characters tend to be male doesn't mean he doesn't respect women.

reply

[–] premont 12 years ago

It's disrespectful to the victim. A jury heard the evidence and came up with a verdict. Mamet wanted to turn "The Diary of Anne Frank" into a modern tale about suicide bombers. I'm sure this movie is getting the same slant. Spector is Jewish, therefore he is innocent. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/portray-spe ctor-as-the-monster-he-is-victims-family-tells-mamet-2298772.html

reply

[–] pacinoyes 12 years ago

"I'm sure this movie is getting the same slant."

Really? You're "sure"? I don't think that you possibly could be. There's nothing in Mamet's work that necessarily dictates how he'd do this project.

In addition, this is an HBO project - it isn't "his" to do with what he wants - it's his script, yes, but every aspect of it has to go through an approval process. It isn't like if this was a film shopping for a distributor.

reply

[–] premont 12 years ago

This quote provides a hint into how he will write it -

"I don't think he's guilty," Mamet told the Financial Times last week. "I definitely think there is reasonable doubt. They should never have sent him away. Whether he did it or not we'll never know, but if he'd just been a regular citizen, they never would have indicted him."

reply

[–] pacinoyes 12 years ago

See I actually don't think that is a hint. Mamet kind of has a habit of challenging his own preconceptions in what he writes. He uses his writing as devils advocate challenges to himself (often).

You can see this in "Race" and also "Oleanna" especially and when you consider that this particular film isn't really a docudrama I think it's less likely that you see his own opinion so explicitly in the finished film.

From what has been discussed about the film so far, it seems more like a mother-child metaphor story - Phil is like a child, his lawyer his only support and lifeline to the world.

This part of his quote is obvious to me : "Whether he did it or not we'll never know, but if he'd just been a regular citizen, they never would have indicted him."

It costs a fortune to prosecute him especially after the first hung jury - I think that's what he means there.

reply

[–] zurichpoet 11 years ago

He didn't even write Spector as a character (or as a human); he just used this character as a puppet to voice all his rather sophomoric ideas that he's been saving up to enlighten people with? (ha! ha! ha! ha!): about Kennedys, Freud, Jesus, etc. Spector would never say those things. Ever. It's like something you'd read from the jackass in a high school English class. Or hear from a senile gramps at the retirement home. So silly.

reply

[–] jakethemuss3-579-270853 11 years ago

David Mamet is so incredibly strange. I can't watch films he directs.

reply