From “Lisey’s Story” Wikipage (the Stephen King book, not the Pablo Larrain/J.J, Abrams miniseries): “The genesis was an incident in June 1999 in which King was hit by a van in Lovell, Maine, and seriously injured; while he was in the hospital, his wife Tabitha decided to redesign his studio. Coming home from the hospital and seeing his books and belongings in boxes, King saw an image of what his studio would look like after his death.”

The eight-parter starts on 6.4.21, concludes on 7.16.21.

I’ve listened nine or ten times to a line spoken by Stillwater costar Camille Cottin, and for the life of me I can’t understand what she’s saying.

It happens at the :43 mark, and she’s saying it quietly to Matt Damon‘s character — a beefy, burly, cap-wearing 40something bumblefuck type — and is apparently referring to his incarcerated daughter Allison (Abigail Breslin). The line she says to Damon is “the father of duhkat?…he left in six” something-or-other.

Three minutes later: I’ve listened to this damn line 13 times with my excellent headphones, and it’s driving me crazy.

This plus Damon as a yokelish Midwesterner who probably loves Donald Trump has raised my hackles slightly. I’m sorry but I don’t care for heavy-set fellows who swallow their words…vaguely surly, low-key clock punchers who drawl “yes sir” and “yes ma’am” and who resemble those beasts who stormed the Capitol on 1.6 and who still insist the election was stolen. I love hanging with super-smart reporters who work for the Boston Globe, but not gutty-wuts like this…sorry.

A good portion of Stillwater was shot in Marseilles, and apparently depicts Damon running up against some local thugs while searching for evidence that might free his daughter. An American primitive clashing with Marseilles baddies = John Frankenheimer‘s French Connection II.

Basic Stillwater logline: “A father works to exonerate his estranged daughter of a murder she never committed.” Tom McCarthy‘s film pops on 7.30.21.

Atlanta creator, star and sometime director Donald Glover believes call-out culture is diminishing or dulling down creativity in movies and TV series. “We’re getting boring stuff and not even experimental mistakes because people are afraid of getting cancelled,” Glover tweeted. “So they feel like they can only experiment with aesthetic.”

Glover was responding to Twitter users who’d complained about feeling deflated and bored due to too many cookie-cutter films and TV series. Yeah, he said — that’s because terrified screenwriters and show runners are afraid to step out of the box and risk offending Twitter jackals.

Some of the usual rationales were posted in response. Scriptwriter Lisa Hofacker reminded that “(1) There are only 7 basic plots so only so much can be done & redone with that in mind, and (2) script reviewers basically only review the 1st 5-10 pages of a script…if it doesn’t have the inciting incident or exciting enough it gets thrown out.”

The proverbial “inciting incident” has to happen within five to ten pages? When I took Robert McKee‘s class in ’88 the inciting incident had to happen no later than 25 pages in, and preferably within 20 pages.

Not to discount Hofacker or even McKee, but Glover’s tweets sounded a lot like something I tapped out a couple of months ago. At the risk of irritating regular readers, here’s the gist of it:

From “Wolfe Reminds, History Repeats,” posted on 3.22.21: “For since wokeness began to take hold in ’18 and certainly since the pandemic struck 13 months ago, the movie pipeline has been losing steam and under-providing, to put it mildly. Nothing even approaching the level of Spotlight, Manchester by the Sea, Call Me By Your Name, Dunkirk, Lady Bird, La-La Land, the long cut of Ridley Scott‘s The Counselor, Zero Dark Thirty or Portrait of a Woman on Fire has come our way from domestic filmmakers. **

18 months ago on Quora, British poet-artist Rod Summers attempted to answer the eternal question, “Should we learn to separate the art from the artist?” Here’s what he said:

“You love the art work, it speaks to you, it fascinates you, it stimulates your desire to appreciate the finer, less debased things in human creativity. Then you discover that the creator of the art was less than perfect, just like the rest of humanity. So then you decide you don’t or shouldn’t like the art any more.

“Art is part of the artist, as a child is part of his/her parents. You can separate them geographically, but they will always be connected. The mistake you’re making is judging the art by how the artist lives, or has lived. Morality has nothing to do with it. Morality is just you putting your value template over someone else and dismissing if he/she doesn’t fit in the slots. Artists rarely fit in the slots, and those who do probably aren’t very original or very good either.”

Lucy McKinney, posted on Quora on 10.31.19: “I cannot support an artist once I know that person is horrible. The problem is that art can be technically excellent but still, unfortunately, reflect only their own horrible worldview. A goal of art is to evoke the emotions of the viewer, some universal theme or abstract concept or even visualization that transcends words, independent of the horrible person who created it. Supporting the work of a horrible person is just another way of letting the person bully you emotionally. Passive-aggressive + hostile = TOXIC.”

HE to McKinney: “In the case of Roman Polanski, what you’ve written is exactly, precisely and absolutely dead wrong. The worldview contained in Polanski’s Chinatown, The Pianist and J’Accuse, to name but three, is sane, frank, sensible, compassionate, at times delicate, sometimes open-hearted, wise, unblinking, on the side of the angels.”

“Open Letter to Polanski Haters,” posted 4.2.20: “Anyone can watch Roman Polanski’s The Pianist, but no one in the U.S. and England can watch J’Accuse in a theatre, on a Bluray or even via streaming.

“Because of a certain percentage of #MeToo progressives. Because they believe that Polanski’s rep must be permanently tarred and feathered and therefore J’Accuse, too, must be buried or otherwise scrubbed from existence. Because of reputedly credible accusations of Polanski having behaved badly and perhaps even criminally with certain younger women several decades ago. And so the distribution community is terrified of what #MeToo-ers might say and do if anyone even considers offering an English-subtitled J’Accuse for U.S. or British viewers.

“Here’s the thing — Polanski the man is not the same thing as Polanski the artist. His depiction of awful or ghastly things in his films (he’s never explored Pollyanic fantasy and escapism) has never conveyed a corrosion or poisoning of his own spirit. He understands what goes, how it all works, who the good guys are. This is quite evident in The Pianist and J’Accuse. But the latter is nonetheless going to be buried for a long time to come, or so I’m told. This is not a good look for #MeToo.

I’m not saying I would cross the street if I saw a guy wearing a pair of Bruno Magli mandals approaching, but the thought would certainly cross my mind. Man feet are inescapable on Belizean beaches and in Brooklyn bars frequented by Millennials and Zoomers during the warm months, but that doesn’t change a basic fact: they’re often horrible to glance at. Bordering on grotesque.

And to think they weren’t even a factor after the collapse of the Roman Empire. They only returned in the mid to late ’40s when beatniks began wearing them in San Francisco and the West Village, and now, God help us, you can’t escape them between early May and late September.

Try to imagine John Wayne or Walter Brennan strolling around the set of Rio Bravo wearing mandals…Howard Hawks would take one look and deliver a withering expression. The thing that first turned me against Michael Fassbender was when he wore mandals during his first scene in Prometheus — that was the moment when I said to myself, “Wow, this guy could be a problem.” Never forget that Moneyball director Bennett Miller signalled his vague disapproval of Spike Jonze‘s husband-of-Robin Wright character by having him wear mandals. If I were to run into a name-brand film critic wearing mandals at the Cannes Film Festival…I don’t want to think about it.

If I had my druthers I would live in a zero-mandals world, forever and ever.

Imagine — not only did a professional-level French illustrator create a movie poster with two different spellings of the titular character’s name, but his/her superiors signed off on it. On top of which his/her alternate title — “John McCabe and Mrs. Miller” — lacks balance and grace. “John” is pointless besides — nobody in this 1971 film goes up to Warren Beatty and says “hey, John.” Nor does anyone address Julie Christie‘s character as “Constance.” Wait…I have it…the illustrator never saw the film! That way it makes sense.

I didn’t pick ’em — Google or Apple software did. There are only two I don’t know or couldn’t give an arm-pat to if I ran into them on a Manhattan street. Because streets are no longer an option for them.

The relentlessly sneering “Steve Brody” wrote this morning that it would be fitting if I’m still around when Jett and Cait’s daughter becomes a wokester.

Guaranteed: By the time Parker or Ripley Wells is of a politically assertive age wokeness will no longer be a definer. Bringing ruin and disrepute to imperfect people who wrote or tweeted the wrong thing 10 years earlier will be regarded in the same light as ‘90s raves or young guys burning their draft cards.

On or about 11.18.21 Jett Wells and Caitlin Bennett, who were married on 9.22.17, will be bringing a daughter into the world. The burden will be on Cait, of course, with Jett offering the usual spousal backup. Jett was born on 6.4.88 at Valley Presbyterian Hospital in Van Nuys. Possible names: Maeve, Ripley, Parker. Cheers all around.

Definitely The Queen’s Gambit Anya Taylor Joy and Mare of Easttown‘s Kate Winslet. WandaVision‘s Elizabeth Olsen will also be nominated, I expect, but she won’t beat Joy/Winslet. I never watched Cynthia Erivo‘s Aretha (Genius), partly because I have this idea in my head that Jennifer Hudson‘s Respect will be more definitive, Aretha biopic-wise. I haven’t yet watched The Underground Railroad (I’m told it’s a chore) or I May Destroy You so I have no opinion about Thuso Mbedu or Michaela Coel. For what it’s worth I agree with the below-stated opinion of Daniel Fienberg.

Angie Dickinson: Who knows more about movie cameras? You or me?
Dean Martin: Maybe you.
Angie: Ever directed anything?
Dean: Nope.
Angie: How do you adjust the focus?
Dean: Beats me.
Angie: Is it this little wheel doo-dad?
Dean: Hey, how come you’re dressed like Cyd Charisse in a Fred Astaire movie?
Angie: Gee, Dean, I dunno.

Dean: Because ya got great gams?
Angie: Howard told me to wear tights.
Dean: Can you dance?
Angie: Not like Cyd Charisse.
Dean: So what’s this movie about anyway? Besides me playin’ a drunk and Duke and I facin’ down the bad guys every so often? And singin’ a couple of songs with Ricky Nelson?
Angie: It’s Howard’s answer to High Noon.
Dean: He told me it’s a hang-out movie.
Angie: Yeah?
Dean: Yeah.
Angie: What’s a hang-out movie?
Dean: One that kinda ambles along.

In a N.Y. Times op-ed titled “Could Matthew McConaughey Be All Right, All Right, All Right for Texas?” (5.9.21), Texas Monthly executive editor Mimi Swartz asks “would Mr. McConaughey run [for governor] as a Democrat or a Republican? That’s as much a mystery as the meaning of his soliloquy at the end of True Detective.”

The basic impression is that McConaughey is a kind of “philosopher king” type, which may or may not add up tactically if he runs for Texas governor. The best way to get a line on MM’s thinking, apparently, is to read his self-penned “Greenlights,” a book of practical thoughts and philosophical guidance which published last November.

Key McConaughey quote: “Knowin the truth, seein the truth and tellin the truth are all different experiences.” No apostrophes?

Swartz ends the piece with “may the best man win, man.” Translation: McConaughey is too vague and flaky-sounding to cut the political mustard.