In Contention

Tag: Stanley Weiser

  • ‘Wall Street’ sequel moving forward with Oliver Stone, Michael Douglas and Shia LaBeouf?

    Michael Douglas in Wall StreetNot long ago, what with the housing market on the fritz and certifiable capitalistic ruin staring down the face of America, not to mention stoke brokers being painted as the devils of the earth, it seemed a great time to revisit Oliver Stone’s 1987 film “Wall Street,” the Michael Douglas starrer that put “greed is good” into the lexicon of trade pushers everywhere.

    Back before the release of Stone’s “W.,” screenwriter Stanley Weiser talked about the prescience of “Wall Street.”  At the time, “Gekko’s character was written to create an engaging, charming, but deceitful and brutal being,” Weiser said.  “I have nevertheless run into quite a number of younger people, who upon discovering that I co-wrote the film, wax rhapsodic about it . . . but often for the wrong reasons.”

    The time for a sequel, likely with a much more pointed message, seemed at hand.  Then word came that Stone had dropped out of pursuing a follow-up in favor of the long dormant “Pinkville” project.  But today, Patrick Goldstein offers the following juicy (but sourceless) tid-bit:

    …Fox is now saying the movie has a green light again. Stone is back aboard as director, Michael Douglas will reprise his role as Gordon Gekko and the studio is in negotiations with Shia LeBeouf to play a young Wall Street trader under Gekko’s spell — a somewhat updated version of the character Charlie Sheen played in the original film. The sequel’s original writer was Stephen Schiff, who has now moved on, with Allan Loeb (“Things We Lost in the Fire”) having done a rewrite of the script. Fox hopes to have the film in production as early as sometime this summer.

    The film is now simply going under the title of “Wall Street 2,” having shed its original “Money Never Sleeps” moniker. No one is offering a lot of specifics about the storyline, except to say that the focus remains on the Gekko character, whose exploits will closely reflect much of the greed and chicanery seen in the past year on Wall Street.

    I’m not really sure how I feel about it.  Getting someone like LaBeouf seems like the obvious play, but Stone is also something of a master at making an impact with the obvious, so perhaps this could work.  Read the rest over at The Big Picture.  (UPDATE: There’s also this AP story with quotes from Douglas and Fox spokesman Gregg Brilliant.)

    Meanwhile, allow me to submit this: Could “Wall Street” be the most dated film of all time?  Seriously.  That cell phone!  The art work!  Darryl Hannah!  Anyway…

  • Weiser on the prescience of ‘Wall Street’

    Michael Douglas in Wall StreetBuried in the pages of the Los Angeles Times’ entertainment section over the weekend was this intriguing op-ed from “W.” screenwriter Stanley Weiser.  But it wasn’t his upcoming George W. Bush biopic he had on the mind, it was 1987’s “Wall Street,” which Weiser co-wrote with Oliver Stone.

    It’s a real coup for the Times, if you ask me.  It’s interesting to read through the short story of how the film came to pass, the “read ‘Crime and Punishment’ over the weekend” stuff from Stone is classic.  But it’s the sad note of responsibility in Weiser’s words, the feeling that he may have helped create little Gordon Gekkos the world over.

    Here’s a look:

    Gekko’s character was written to create an engaging, charming, but deceitful and brutal being. I have nevertheless run into quite a number of younger people, who upon discovering that I co-wrote the film, wax rhapsodic about it . . . but often for the wrong reasons.

    A typical example would be a business executive or a younger studio development person spouting something that goes like this: “The movie changed my life. Once I saw it I knew that I wanted to get into such and such business. I wanted to be like Gordon Gekko.”

    The flattery is disarming and ego-stoking, but then neurons fire and alarm bells go off. “You have succeeded with this movie, but you’ve also failed. You gave these people hope to become greater asses than they may already be.”

    Read the rest here.  And a bit of nostalgic “fun” (here as well):

  • PAGE TO SCREEN: “W” by Stanley Weiser

    Page to Screen at In Contention“Thirty days!  I’d like to shove a plate of Freedom Fries down that slick piece of shit’s throat.  Givin’ me lectures?  The next chance I get I’ll be glad to veto something French.  Damned glad.”

    Those were the words that seemed to send a shot through the industry when Stanley Weismer’s script “W” made its way into a number of hands last April.  The speculation set in, the timidity, and in more ways than one, it did so with good reason.

    I have heard “W” praised by smart journalists and gifted filmmakers alike, but when I flipped through its pages last spring, I was met with an effort taxing in its elementary construction.  Packed to the brim with dialogue meant to secure George W. Bush’s position as a simpleton who managed his way into the most powerful position in the free world, “W” reads more like a parody than the modest character study it aims to be.

    The script is bookended with a device that draws a distinct clarity about the film’s ultimate point: Bush is a simple man meant for pretzels, beer and a love of baseball, not a man who should have the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.  And that’s a valid enough thesis, because the narrative — to its credit — doesn’t try to lambast Dub-ya throughout.

    (more…)

  • The Sunday Times digs into ‘W’

    Lionsgate Films' WYesterday’s edition of London’s Sunday Times carried a story from Christopher Goodwin analyzing the “W” phenomenon from the other side of the pond. It’s full of unoriginal information, but worth a read nonetheless.

    First, Goodwin gets into the obvious caveat that has a number of viewers skeptical:

    Some believe Stone, 61, may even have a deep-seated personal animus against Bush. Born in the same year, he and Bush were briefly classmates at Yale, although they didn’t know each other there. Stone dropped out to fight in Vietnam, a battle-scarred journey that eventually led to his radicalisation and to two Oscar-winning films born of the experience, Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July. Bush, of course, managed to avoid going to Vietnam by somehow winning a cushy noncombatant job at home with the National Guard.

    Touché so far. But then Goodwin gets into a thorough dissection of Stanley Weiser’s script to the point that we’re almost embarrassed to say we’ll be covering the work in tomorrow’s “Page to Screen” column. It seems everyone with a pulse has read this thing since it “leaked” out in April.

    Here’s the Goodwin’s closer:

    Stone says he’s beyond caring what people think. “I’m tired of defending the accuracy of my movies,” he says. “JFK was a case to be proven, Nixon was a penetrating biography of a complex and dark man. But I’m not bound by those strictures any more. Bush is not a complex and dark man, so it’s different. This movie can be funnier because Bush is funny. He’s awkward and goofy and makes faces all the time. He’s not your average president. So, let’s have some fun with it. What are they going to do? Discredit me again?”

    Sure, if they can.

    Well, all the bases have been covered, I’d say. Nothing left to do now but SEE THE DAMNED MOVIE. But maybe that was part of the strategy from the start, leak the script, get the trailer out there, pull the band-aid off quickly so that the shock of all this silliness is out of the way by the time the thing hits multiplexes.

    Still…good luck swallowing this yarn. Not that it hasn’t been nearly impossible to do so in painful reality.

    Read the rest of Goodwin’s story here.

  • Yet another early look at the ‘W’ script

    Poor “W” can’t catch a break.

    Stanley Weiser’s take on our Commander-in-Chief (*shiver*), had already caused a stir in more than a few areas before principle photography even began two months ago.  The first shockwave hit when the script was profiled by Marcus Baram for ABC News back in April.  Then The Hollywood Reporter consulted with four Bush biographers to assess the accuracy of the depiction. Their view: not so much.

    New York Magazine’s Vulture blog, always quick with the wit, predicted the film to be the comedy hit of 2009 before later getting their hands on a copy and enlisting the aid of the Upright Citizens Brigade to perform five of the more ridiculous moments for posterity’s sake.

    Weiser’s script quickly became the most widely circulated screenplay I’ve certainly ever heard of, and no one — save Jeffrey Wells — had a kind word to say about it.  So much drama and the film hadn’t even been fully conceived yet, as casting continued and locations were locked in for the April production start.

    We all know Oliver Stone was adament that the film (formerly known as “Bush” — clever titles all around) be in the marketplace “before the president leaves office in January.” But he might be wishing he’d just sprung this thing on everyone like a true October surprise.

    And now, another voice has chimed in.  Ryan Adams of Awards Daily had this to say:

    Sad to report, having now read the complete screenplay, I can assure you that the groaners we saw two months ago were the good parts. The teaser poster publicity material doesn’t try to pretend that ‘W’ intends to portray Bush as anything except an embarrassing joke. But guess what? I don’t find war crimes very funny. Yuck it up Oliver Stone.

    Personally I think Adams is way off the mark and even a bit immature in his assessment of the script’s (and Stone’s) intentions, but if we do share a point of view it is that the screenplay is quite awful.

    I ran a brief one-off when I was about half-way through the script a few months back, but I’ll save the deeper discussion for August when we launch Page to Screen once again.  And of course, the real judgment ought to be saved for Stone’s finished product when Lionsgate releases it in the Fall.

  • Reading “W”

    Boy, they sure are leaning on some hyperbolic recent dubya lore to push this thing along. I’m only about 50 pages in or so and already more than a few things turn me off about this script, but I’m also somewhat surprised that writer Stanley Weiser has gone the way of presenting Bush in such a deep character study.

    I’ll probably write up a “Page to Screen” article later in the fall. But I’m definitely looking forward to Josh Brolin in this role.