criterionforum.org

I know lots of people who work in post production and Norton is high up on their "never working with ever (again)" short list. He's notorious for meddling in the cut of every film where he has more power than the director and can get away with it, official producer credit or not. To be clear, American History X is a special case of crazy all around, but Norton has a rep for more routine and systematic power grabs that stands out, even in a town full of big ego stars who like to play games.

Well, Wes Anderson's working with him again anyway.

Not sure how he accomplishes it because he's such a meek, mellow guy, but Anderson manages to work several times with very [allegedly] complicated/difficult actors (Anjelica Huston, Bill Murray, Edward Norton, and of course the notoriously monstrous Bud Cort*)

*lest I receive any more PMs asking for sources, that one was a joke

I wasn't talking about on-set drama or Norton's relationship with all above-the-line talent. I'm sure that directors like Wes Anderson, Spike Lee and David Fincher have enough power to forestall the shenanigans Norton might otherwise pull on set or off. In any case, it's pretty rare for a star to have such a negative reputation among those who spend their lives finishing up films. The only other people I've heard such bad things about are directors like Michael Mann and Michael Bay. I could burst mfunk's bubble a bit about the supposed outward meekness of Anderson too, but I think I'll stop there.

Why on earth would it be a bad thing for a director to 'interfere' in post

It's obviously not. Just that those two directors in particular have a terrible reputation for demeaning and demoralizing their crew, often to the detriment of their films, as well as for generalized douchiness in the service of their outsized egos. I haven't known anyone who's worked on Bay or Mann films who was eager to repeat the experience of being stuck in a small dark room with that kind of negative energy for months. What's exceptional about Norton is that he's garnered a similar reputation in spite of having officially directed only one film.

warren oates wrote:I could burst mfunk's bubble a bit about the supposed outward meekness of Anderson too, but I think I'll stop there.

HAHA!

I don't doubt it, but still. The guy has a gift for working with elusive/difficult actors.

mfunk9786 wrote:Owen Wilson in talks for Inherent Vice

I really hope that works out. Him plus Pynchon might make me love a PTA film other than Punch Drunk Love.

I'm trying my best to avoid the book wholesale, just for wanting to be surprised by the plot, dialogue, etc and not be nitpicking the film to death, but I'm excited about the fact that this will be Anderson's first pure book adaptation too

domino harvey wrote:Reese Witherspoon's in

So are Martin Short(!) and Jena Malone.

Jeff wrote:

domino harvey wrote:Reese Witherspoon's in

So are Martin Short(!).

I think this may be one of those roles for Martin Short that's akin to what Refn did for Albert Brook's in Drive.

He had a role not unlike that when he was on Damages.

Short's role is being kept "under wraps," but it's worth noting that the novel is largely a comedy. So, I wouldn't assume this will be a Brooks/Drive situation.

reading the book right now. it's definitely getting me jazzed for the movie, and in many ways PTA is a perfect fit for the source material, but at the same time the book is so heavy on dialogue--much of it pertinent dialogue that moves the story forward--that i'm having trouble imagining it as a truly visual film and not just 3 hours of shot-reverse shot talking.

i'm sure PTA will do a better job at re-imagining it than i...

Hope she acts as well as she makes music.

LQ wrote:Joanna Newsom joins the cast (!!!)

Why not just cast Geddy Lee too.

This is my favorite news of 2013.

After seeing that PTA-directed video for Fiona Apple's "Hot Knife" last week, my fiancee and I were speculating on whether Anderson and Newsom, both being part of the swirling SNL circle, might one day collaborate. Validation!