01 Apr 2012 at 2:23 pm #573
We are still waiting for Wallach’s clarification of the screenplay issue re: The Counselor.
Any more public scoop?
02 Apr 2012 at 7:44 am #639
No information that I can add about the screenplay. Just wanted to tip my hat to the webmaster for his excellent, careful and aesthetically meritorious new design. Cheers.
Also, I will be eager to read Rick Wallach’s final word on this matter.
12 Apr 2012 at 11:27 am #803
Richard L. PangburnMember
Angelina J. seems a natural for this movie. She can easily represent the cat woman, sexy but cool and distant, with whom sex is a given, naturalistic thing. Nothing personal.
Richard L. PangburnQuote12 Apr 2012 at 3:41 pm #806
Not only is Angelina in the flick, but Mr. Pitt and Javier Bardem, too. And Mrs. Jolie is not taking a small
role but the female lead, according to:
13 Apr 2012 at 6:51 am #809
It would be nice to hear from Rick. After all, he dismissed the script right from the start as very, very bad and something no way in hell a McCarthy would have written. At least he’s partially right: it is crap, not just the story but the dialogue too.
Dear Rick, you’ve said it would take a few days, now weeks have passed… production starts in may and we’re still hoping that all of it is just a hoax.
So… is it or is it not?
13 Apr 2012 at 9:54 pm #816
Good Evening to All Brothers and Sisters.
I am hailing Glass for clarification on the title of a book he wrote of on the forums prior to the Great site update. I think it was a a kind of 17th century herbal pharmacopeia by a German botanist.
Any help by Mr. Glass or others would be appreciated.
13 Apr 2012 at 11:37 pm #817
Seth, probably “Devils, Drugs and Doctors” by Haggard or this interesting character:
GlassQuote20 Apr 2012 at 3:14 pm #935
Sorry if this is already posted here…couldn’t see it…
21 Apr 2012 at 11:03 am #982
Unfortunately, as the news indicates the producers have been so preoccupied with the casting and production issues involved in this film that they just haven’t gotten back to me with any of the details yet, and the last thing I want to do is pester them about it with so much stuff going on on their end. I did promise Steve Schwartz to keep much of our original conversations confidential until they sorted matters out themselves, and I feel obligated to keep their confidence until they tell me it’s OK to divulge it. Hell, if Barry Bonds’ trainer can do it, so can I.
Meanwhile, I must say that these inferences of reconstituting the past three McCarthy films with the casting of the fourth makes me a bit queasy. I don’t much like Angelina Jolie and we already know what a disaster Penelope Cruz was as Alejandra. Just don’t let me hear that they’re talking to Jennifer Lopez. I don’t like where all these associations are leading. It’s bad enough we have to think of McCarthy playing golf. I definitely don’t want to see him on a tabloid cover on my way out of Publix.
02 May 2012 at 3:00 pm #1106
- This reply was modified 2 years ago by Rick Wallach.
I ain’t gonna say a dang thang about till I find out whether or not it’s the real thing.
13 May 2012 at 7:52 am #1203
Can’t say as Cameron Diaz inclusion in a project has ever proved beneficial to my cinema going experiences. Then again, this Counselor project has yet to stimulate anything resembling interest in myself either as a lover of McCarthy’s fictions or as a moviegoer.
Is it just my perception of things or has the forum grown considerably quieter since the site revamping?
13 May 2012 at 7:54 am #1204
Anonymous20 May 2012 at 2:06 am #1300
Quieter? I don’t think so. Speaking as the Webmaster, I can say that folks are registering and posting pretty regularly.
We are also far less plagued by spam, though I’m seeing the occasional spam message on my end.
However, if others share Seth’s opinion, I’d like to know about it. I have never been as frequent a Forum visitor/contributor as I’d like to be.
21 May 2012 at 7:11 pm #1305
Probably I’m wrong about that and am still just adjusting to scanning the new site. I in no way meant to disrespect the handsome site. It was just a thought. I’d say curtailing all of that nasty spam is a marked improvement.
Cheers and keep up the good work.
24 May 2012 at 10:18 am #1336
Things had quietened down considerably before the new site appeared and perhaps a tad more since. But I suppose I’m only one of several who has lurked a bit but not posted very much at all over the last 12-18 mths. I do that know it’s God’s own task to get a decent row started these days, p’raps you’ve all gone soft! However it does look like I will have more time to post now (are those cheers that i hear or…?) so…
In the meantime where’s all the juice on this Counselor business? Come on Rick, tell all.
peterfranzQuote24 May 2012 at 12:34 pm #133719 Jun 2012 at 11:57 am #1595
Any news about the authenticity of the script–or at this point should we all just assume the worst? My guess is that the screenplay floating around (which I have only perused) is mostly Cormac but is edited and/or is only a rough draft. Either way, from what Mr. Wallach has posted, there seems to be more to the story than appears.
But as an occasional reader of this forum–I demand–nay, deserve–answers! If the Obama administration can leak military operations to the US press, then by golly Mr. Wallach can leak Cormac information to the hungry masses! (Ha ha.)
11 Jul 2012 at 5:37 pm #1704
I can tell you right now it’s authentic. 100% McCarthy only.
21 Jul 2012 at 2:09 pm #1731
IMO: the script is crap. The dialogue is horrible at best. The beginning an embarrassment. Waste of time.
26 Jul 2012 at 3:40 pm #1747
Man, I liked it.
31 Jul 2012 at 2:25 pm #1760
Hey, this just came up on Google Alert.
There’s also a link on the linked page to the Empire interview with Brad Pitt discussing McCarthy.
Richard L.Quote10 Aug 2012 at 3:15 pm #1786
Oh my god, I love that photo of Brad Pitt. That just made my whole day. Yummmmy!
Look the rumour of the pdf file many of us read as being a fake was started here from a couple of the forum participants. At least one of whom is not remotely qualified to decide whether any script is authentic or not. I don’t know why those forum participants started a rumour the pdf script was a fake…but they did. I would take their view with a grain of salt. Everyone is entitled to their opinion…and I don’t pretend to understand why someone would start such a rumour but their motives reflect more about their own personality and attitude towards life and art than anything else. If this rumour had been started by a valuable source then I would perhaps take it seriously. I think with such a rumour the best way to deal with it is to ask the question “Who benefits from this rumour?”
A movie production company might benefit from posting a fake script in order to deflect from the actual script.
But this rumour wasn’t started by a movie production company, it was started by a fan and an academic. What gain does a fan benefit by starting this rumour? What gain does an academic benefit by starting this rumour?
The answer to the authenticity of the pdf script lies in knowing the answer to those two questions.
10 Aug 2012 at 3:22 pm #1787
The ‘grapevine’ is the informal communication network found in every organization. The term can be traced back to the United States Civil War in the 1860s. Since battlefronts moved frequently, army telegraph wires were strung loosely from tree to tree across battlefields, somewhat like wires used to support grapevines. The wires were used to carry telegraph messages created in Morse code (the electronic alphabet, invented in 1844) because the telephone wasn’t invented until 1876. Since the lines often were strung hastily during battle, and messages were composed in a hurry, the resulting communication tended to be garbled and confusing. Soon, any rumor was said to have been heard ‘on the grapevine’.
There are four types of grapevine rumors:
Wish fulfillment – identifying the wishes and hopes of employees.
‘Bogey rumors’ – exaggerating employees’ fears and concerns.
‘Wedge-drivers’ – aggressive, unfriendly and damaging. They split groups and dissolve allegiances.
‘Home-stretchers’ – anticipating final decisions or announcements. They tend to fill the gap during times of ambiguity.
Research shows that grapevine information tends to be about 80% accurate. Since many rumors start from someone’s account of an actual event, there are strong elements of truth in many rumors. However, grapevine information often contains big errors as people put their own interpretation onto an event or information they have seen, and then pass it on in a process of partial or selective recall.
Why do people spread rumors? Humans are social animals – we need to talk to others. Chat about others helps to strengthen existing relationships. Besides entertainment value, gossiping can raise people’s self esteem – we feel more important by getting information first and by the interest it creates.
It is rare to find people at different levels discussing rumors or gossiping with each other. When two people share a rumor or gossip it has the effect of putting them on a relatively equal footing.
The grapevine can play an important part in the ‘management by walking around’ approach. When managers move around the office without a particular objective, they can pick up relevant rumors. This information would not have become available if the manager had stayed in their office all day.
Managers can sometimes purposely send messages through the grapevine to test the likely reaction to a possible management decision. This can allow feedback to take place and adjustments made before final decisions are made. Thus the grapevine can contribute to a more inclusive workplace.
Oh look here is a wiki page about rumours:
and this one:
20 Aug 2012 at 4:33 pm #1807
- This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by Candy Minx.
With the passing of his brother Tony yesterday, Ridley Scott has halted production to grieve.
PsifonianQuote30 Sep 2012 at 11:37 am #2100
Here’s an excerpt of a “Collider.com” interview with Penelope Cruz this week:
Before I run out of time with you, I know you’re filming in London now. What was it about that project – was it the script, was it Ridley, was it the actors? How did you get involved with The Counselor?
CRUZ: I read the script, and after three pages I was completely blown away by how new this feels. It’s Cormac McCarthy’s first script. Not based on any book, its just a script. And it’s an incredible piece for actors, all the characters are incredible. All the scenes are very long scenes, a lot of dialogue, scenes that have a beginning and a transition. You can travel with each scene, you have the space and the time to really go through a journey with each scene; and that, for actors, it’s a big privilege to have scenes like that. Then we started talking about it and playing Laura, who is one of the–how do I tell you without saying?
Yeah, I don’t want you to spoil it.
CRUZ: Yeah, but it’s a character that has always chosen the light. Has very particular ideology, is a very religious woman, or has been educated like that and is starting to have doubts about some things. Or, also starting to feel a curiosity toward the darkness. Also knowing that there is a very big, real danger there. Life is putting her in that situation where she’s tasting the darkness.
Do you do an accent in the film?
CRUZ: No, I’m a European girl from Spain that is living in America.
Do you typically have most of your scenes with one of the other cast members? You have an incredible cast.
CRUZ: Most my scenes are with Michael Fassbender and with Cameron Diaz. And I don’t have any scenes with Javier.
[laughs] That’s very funny.
CRUZ: But for us it is better, we could do every movie like this, because then always one of us can be free. You know? We don’t have to be working in the same day. (laughs)
There you have it folks. Cruz the literary critic talks about playing the role of “Laura”, a character in the controversial script we saw months ago. If that script was a total fraud, then it was very prescient, clairvoyant even. This doesn’t necessarily mean the script we saw is authentic, as it could be an intentional fraud from An Official Source. As I did back then, I still believe the script is authentic. And I still think it is bad.
30 Sep 2012 at 11:46 am #210130 Sep 2012 at 1:29 pm #2106
Actually all the use of those names confirms is that someone saw the actual script and wrote down or remembered the actual names. And that’s assuming that the actors are being truthful about their characters’ names. Everything else could be fabricated.
Me, I take no position on the authenticity or not of that script we saw floating around earlier.
30 Sep 2012 at 3:58 pm #2107
As far as I can tell, calling the script the real shindig is as much of a rumor as calling it fake.
01 Oct 2012 at 6:46 pm #2108
Marty, Will, etal. (whoever they are): I phrased it thus for these reasons. These reports from the entertainment press are “additional confirmations” though they don’t “necessarily mean the script is authentic”. There are many scenarios in which what we saw was a fake. I suggested an intentional fraud by, say, the producers or even McCarthy himself, simply to confound aggressive nosey parkers like us. As Marty suggested, it could be someone who glimpsed the actual and then fabricated the rest. Hence I used the word “believe” to describe where I stand in all of this. On second read, Marty, your several possible scenarios have surprising implications to me. If someone saw the real script and then pretty quickly wrote that entire fake script built around the few real facts (not just the names, but also other qualities as revealed by the actors, such as particular characteristics … such as the cheetah which Cameron Diaz said in one of those mindless interviews I half-heartedly skimmed), what would his purpose be? — perhaps to get a thrill of starting a hoax. And if the actors are perpetrating and perpetuating the deception (perhaps to help McCarthy throw us off the track), then that would be a bigger conspiracy going on. However, if my belief that the script is authentic turns out to be true after all, then that would have the most surprising consequence, at least to me!
01 Oct 2012 at 8:15 pm #2109
Your musing makes sense. I just meant to say no one really knows. Not the most salient point, but hey.
W/r/t recent information: P. Cruz said something like her character mostly has scenes with Counselor and Malkina. In the leaked script, she only has one scene without them, so her comment seems to support the authenticity of this script.
I agree with you that there would be surprising consequences if the script is the real thing. I guess I have to wait to find out, or else this debacle turns me into a mash up of Oedipa Maas and those trashy celebrity magazines by the checkout.
02 Oct 2012 at 6:25 am #2112
Oedipa Maas is exactly how I’ve been feeling since the spec script came out, and I thought about that just last night. If the spec script is not authentic, then someone is making a lot of effort, taking a lot of time, involving a lot of people to — what?– just to pull an elaborate prank on me, or us, here; we would the target, since, under normal circumstances, who else would dwell so long on a spec script that is not, say, a pop culture thing, like Harry Potter, or the next movie by a cult director, like Woody Allen or Terrence Malick?
If it’s a spoof by any of us or even by McCarthy himself (especially if by McCarthy himself), then it’s funny; if it’s seriously authentic, then it’s scary.
02 Oct 2012 at 9:39 am #211303 Oct 2012 at 3:42 am #2117
See my post from July 11, 2012:
I can tell you right now it’s authentic. 100% McCarthy only.
03 Oct 2012 at 5:15 am #2118
Also, I think the script is a master work.
03 Oct 2012 at 6:39 am #2119
On the question of: McCarthy: true or false? I picked up a copy of Tom Stoppard’s Arcadia today and was amused by the following:
Bernard: Yes. One of my colleagues believed he had found an unattributed short story by D. H. Lawrence, and he analysed it on his home computer, most interesting, perhaps you remember the paper?
Valentine: Not really. But I often sit with my eyes closed and it doesn’t necessarily mean I’m awake.
Bernard: Well, by comparing sentence structures, and so forth, this chap showed that there was ninety per cent chance that the story had indeed been written by the same person as Women in Love. To my inexpressible joy, one of your maths mob was able to show that on the same statistical basis there was a ninety per cent chance that Lawrence also wrote the Just William books and much of the previous day’s Brighton and Hove Argus.
Glad to be of help.
cantonaQuote03 Oct 2012 at 12:29 pm #2120
Please, don’t be so “whale-tongued”. Enlighten us all.
“to see value in the valuable is quite significant to me. I am resting on that point.”
I’d like to see the “significance” as well. Lead me to the light. What are “we”, the collective, missing? Or what am I missing? Your “rest” is preventing us from appreciating this McCarthy narrative.
03 Oct 2012 at 4:48 pm #2123
- This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Mike.
Unfortunately, I don’t know the answer. But perhaps if one can see genius in it, it’s worth a second look for another? I’m willing to bet “that script floating around” was written solely by McCarthy.
04 Oct 2012 at 7:22 pm #2130
I don’t care whether it’s authentic or not. If the script I first saw months ago is still the same one that’s floating around now, it’s lousy IMHO.
04 Oct 2012 at 10:11 pm #2133
Google Alerts hasn’t been working for me lately, but now it’s assaulting my inbox with a backlog of updates. Many of them feature creepy telephoto screenshots of the cast of The Counselor. Maybe it’s time to take a break from “Cormac McCarthy” notifications for awhile. However, I have gleaned that Diaz/Malkina filmed a scene in a bed with a cheetah and Cruz/Laura filmed a scene in a red dress in an airport. Very similar scenes occur in the script, right-down to Laura wearing a red dress. The names, the tattoo, the cast talking about their roles in ways that corroborate the script. Just a few days ago I wouldn’t have said one way or the other but Stew and his fish and chips are looking pretty safe.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the script is edited or some stuff is omitted though. There are a lot typos and the formatting is weird. Perhaps it’s some hurriedly typed version of whatever McCarthy clanked out on his typewriter. I also wonder if the beginning was the same one Cruz saw. I got a chuckle when she said the first three pages blew her away with how new they felt.
I didn’t think the script was great either, but at least it got me to pick up 2666 again.
04 Oct 2012 at 10:25 pm #2134
If it’s McCarthy or not, fine. My interest lies in finding the genius in the script. I need some enlightening. Please, help.
05 Oct 2012 at 7:24 am #2135
I’ve not read this script, though some time ago I did read a very short quote from it (in this thread or another one) that I thought so thoroughly characteristic of McCarthy that if it was not by McCarthy it was certainly by someone who knows how to read him.
Time for me to join in the fun and games though. Would someone be good enough to send me a link to, or a .pdf of, this contentious piece of work? Many thanks.
peterfranzQuote05 Oct 2012 at 10:40 am #213705 Oct 2012 at 6:45 pm #2143
I like the multiple gender roles and the related issues. There’s a lot of wit in the exchanges between the characters, both of the same and opposite sex. I thought the sexual scenes were done well also. Plus, there’s a realness to the locations described and a kind of charm to the characters (those in love and not so in love). Each of their motivations and drive result in fitting actions that don’t feel contrived like in other works of popular fiction.
05 Oct 2012 at 8:59 pm #214806 Oct 2012 at 10:38 am #215306 Oct 2012 at 10:56 am #2155
Would somebody send me the link again so I can re-read The Counselor very carefully. If it’s as good as Mr. Stew says it is, I probably missed something, maybe missed a lot. Then, too, it may be an improved revision over what I read months ago.
Mr. Stew, Candy Mink, how about one of you good folks sending me the script? Thanks in advance.
06 Oct 2012 at 2:09 pm #2158
What Lee said. Nice post by Stew. I’m in the McCarthy-wrote-every-word camp. Looking forward to the movie, and the Child of God one as well.
GlassQuote06 Oct 2012 at 3:41 pm #2159
Earnestly, I was looking for another reason to read the script, not looking to open someone up for attack. I guess leaving oneself open for a barrage of jabs by forumers usually involves one taking a hard ideological or theoretical approach, so “Stew”, I figure, as long as you post a reason or two why it is a work of “genius”, I don’t think you’d be open for attack.
I decided to read it this morning with a cup of coffee, and the quick dose of caffeine couldn’t push me more than halfway through. After The Gardner’s Son, McCarthy’s made for film scrips, Whales and Counselor, suffer from the same maladies: contemporary society set against its glib concept of nature(whales and cheetahs), lack of convincing dialogue(the sex and gangster talk is incredibly off-base), concern with some technological or scientific niche products, and an incomplete musing on the “end of our society”. Yes, unfortunately, considering Counselor next to Whales, it appears to be officially “McCarthy Made for Film.”
For the failure of dialogue, as I mentioned to someone before, a 70+ year-old man who is reclusively shacked up in the hills of New Mexico isn’t going to have the feel for the sex-type talk necessary to recreate it on film that is to be sold to the many. McCarthy’s novels succeed by employ a higher-ordered rhetoric, so its not a surprise that his depraved and casual movie dialogue fails so dramatically. If McCarthy’s aim is “sex talk” he’d be better off watching reality tv or listening to the newest releases from Kanye West and Little Wayne. A viewing or two of some Scorsese flicks and the early seasons of The Wire would be of great help too.
Stew, I’ll meet you half-way: yes, I’ll concede, it could very likely be McCarthy, but, unfortunately, I can’t find any genius in it. It is a “virtue/vice” story, but I think it is not just missing something, but alot. I definitely think film is the wrong venue for a “virtue/vice” story. All the bird-brained actors and actresses speaking so gushingly about the script and film, don’t make me any more comfortable with the script. And, Ridly Scott, I’m just not a big fan.
You are in Alabama? Lucky man, I am in CA and pissed that they aren’t televising the ‘Cocks vs. the ‘Dawgs.
06 Oct 2012 at 7:42 pm #2160
As I’m checking in now at the forum I’m watching it live on ESPN 1. South Carolina’s up 21 to 0 going into halftime. I thought it would be closer!
08 Oct 2012 at 9:30 am #2168
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.