Exclusive: Producer Wyck Godfrey on THE TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON, ECLIPSE and BREAKING DAWN
THOR's Hammer Strikes another Talented Actor as Idris Elba Comes on Board
Exclusive: Richard Linklater on his 13 Year Film Project Starring Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette
Is JACKASS 3 in 3D Arriving in 2010?
Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner Exclusive Interview in Brazil - THE TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOONGus Van Sant and Bret Easton Ellis Commit THE GOLDEN SUICIDES
by Michael Sullivan Posted:October 13th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
In 2007, two artists who were hot in the California scene committed suicide, one after the other, following fits of paranoia the two suffered, fearing the government and religious organizations were conspiring against them. Theresa Duncan, a video game designer for girls, killed herself in her bedroom. Jeremy Blake, a popular “digital painter,” found her there and ended his life by walking into the ocean a week later. And Nancy Jo Sales wrote an article for “Vanity Fair” about it. Now, two years later, perhaps the worst combination of writers imaginable are teaming up to pen the film. Find out more about the project, and why Gus Van Sant and Bret Easton Ellis spell disaster, after the jump.
The screen rights to this property were acquired by three different production companies working together. The first is PalmStar Entertainment, best known for producing the indie drama “Fifty Pills”–a surprisingly uninteresting film given the fact that it’s about a college student unloading drugs by any means necessary–and for casting the sequel that never should have been, “S. Darko.” The second is Celluloid Dreams, which prides itself on a library of abundant, needlessly obscure international titles. And the third is K5 Film, which has released four films this year thus far that weren’t even a blip on the public radar.
If these details alone don’t worry you, the names involved should. I mean, I’ll admit Gus Van Sant is a highly respected director. Even if I’m not his biggest fan, many are. But let’s remember: Gus Van Sant isn’t directing. He’s writing. And he’s a pretty strange writer. Anyone remember “Elephant?” Eye opening, sure, but can anyone really explain that shower scene toward the end without grasping at straws? His work is just needlessly cerebral. But he is certainly the better half of this pair.
If Gus Van Sant is needlessly cerebral, Bret Easton Ellis is needlessly sensational. The decline of moral decency and the rise of teen apathy never seemed so disgustingly glamorous as it did in “Less Than Zero.” Or “Glamorama.” Or “The Rules of Attraction” or “American Psycho.” In fact, they’re all essentially the same book–200+ pages of sexually ambiguous, cheap shock value drama. And honestly, nothing he’s every written has made a good movie. Even “American Psycho,” which is arguably his best adaptation, is too absurd to connect to and ultimately leaves an audience feeling cheated. The man can’t be trusted with a pen, let alone a film deal.
So what we have here is a collection of bad production companies commissioning a pair of bad screenwriters to write a project that, ultimately, can’t be anything but bad. Unless this is a case of two wrongs making a write, “The Golden Suicides” will be a film to keep close tabs on…if only to make sure you don’t waste your time on it by accident.
[Variety]
You sound like a homophobe if you don’t understand that part in Elephant. That whole article was awful.
I confess I haven’t seen Elephant but I haven’t seen a Van Sant movie I haven’t liked. And I really liked American Psycho. I thought the writing was excellent, even if I did feel a bit cheated in the end. That’s how it happens in the book so why should I have felt less cheated by the film? It was great!
If Van Sant isn’t directing this, who is? Sounds like a perfect film for him.
Yeah this was a pretty terrible article. Bret Easton Ellis is probably one of the best/most interesting writers of the past thirty years. I haven’t read a novel of his that didn’t hit me in some profound way, and American Psycho is an out and out masterpiece.
I do not agree with this Michael Sullivans take on Ellis’s work. Even though, sure, the adaptations (not including “American Psycho”) were a tad watered down compared to the books. But what movies aren’t in one way or another. I wonder if Sullivan has read all Bret’s books or is just envious/annoyed that he could write about the similar topics and thread them into at least four books.
I am excited to see what comes out of this duo.
B.E.E. is one of the few modern writers from whom I actively anticipate new books. Sullivan completely misses the point. Whats more, screenwriting is TOTALLY different from novel writing.
Eh, I don’t think Michael Sullivan seems like a homophobe just someone expressing a (freakin’) harsh opinion.
He might not be, but Michael Sullivan sure seems like a homophobe. Why does the shower scene need to be explained? By asking that, you’re basically claiming that any sort of homosexual act needs explanation, and can’t just be.
Never mind the fact that it’s there, in the movie, and it wasn’t explained. Does everything that happens in a movie need to be explained? Isn’t withholding explanation an integral part of much of modern art?
And the phrase “overly cerebral” should be banished. As though engaging the brain, something we’re in short supply of at the movies, is a bad thing.
And Celluloid Dreams produced Still Walking, which is a wonderful film, and A Prophet, which I’ve heard incredible things about and cannot wait to see. Are you seriously saying they’re a bad production company for making movies that don’t have an advertising budget big enough to reach your unadventurous mind? You do know that a film shouldn’t be dismissed just by dint of you having not heard about it? Someone did tell you that, right? Okay, well, now you know.
I’m not usually a snarky man, but you’re writing for a film web site - try engaging with film beyond what has directly been sold to you. Jesus.
Oh, and for the record, these are not necessarily rhetorical - I would LOVE to hear your responses, Mr. Sullivan.
I’d just like to step in with one fact.
I know Michael Sullivan. I find the claims of him being homophobic incredibly humorous.
If you knew him, you would fully understand, but I’ll go so far as to say he is not homophobic.
I’ll be curious to see how the dangerous cult of Scientology is treated in this movie. Should be very interesting subject matter. Funny how Scientology isn’t mentioned by name in this article.