On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Joe Coughlin <[email protected]> wrote:
> No, all people who liked his previous stuff won't all see "Red State", but > there will be horror fans who will. (Red State is actually officially in > pre-production. They start shooting next month in Los Angeles) Yeah, after the Weinsteins passed on it, and he spent nearly four years seeking backers and distributors. He ultimately went out-of-pocket for many of the expenses himself, which would be fine if he was still producing low-budget indie flicks, but he isn't anymore. Don't get me wrong, I like the premise and the casting -- I just hope Smith can execute it successfully. > As for him being a caricature of one of his characters, yes, he likes to do > SModcast high on pot. But I wouldn't ever call into question his ability to > parent because of it. He and his wife have done a very good job raising > their daughter. I have no evidence of this, nor do you. If you heard his podcasts after "Zack & Miri," you heard him spiral down quite hard into pot and depression. Recreational drug use is what it is, and I am neither for nor against it. But as alcohol doesn't mix well with depression, neither does the wacky weed. How he could toke as much as he did without it negatively affecting life at home, I wouldn't begin to guess. Maybe things were fine, but my life experience (and family history) would suggest otherwise. > As for him being taken seriously by the industry, he doesn't have to be. All > he has to do is make movies the way he prefers to make them, cheap and his > way, and he'll remain successful, critics be damned. I don't see his drug use as a problem for critics, and I doubt the majority of his fans would care one way or the other. I pointed to it as an industry problem. Health insurance companies must insure all major members of a film crew, and they are reluctant to do so when one of them has an open/current history with drugs (they'll do it, but at a substantial premium/cost to a production). And when a studio is seeking a director for a production, an executive may be less likely to go with the guy who produced four or five hours of live-to-tape weekly broadcasts while high as a paper kite. I used to be a regular listener of the Smodcast, then dropped back to semi-regular, and now I am an infrequent listener. Every toke Smith takes, the quality of his work goes down. Different people have different metabolisms and the occasional hit might inspire some people. I have not witnessed this with Smith's work. And that's what it boils down to. If he can produce quality stuff while baked, more power to him. But if his work declines, he has a problem. I mentioned his recent show with Jeff Anderson, Anderson (and the crowd) have several moments when they are laughing at Smith's inability to comprehend basic things (like measuring the height of a mountain from sea level). Smith laughed, too, because he was high and he seems to find everything funny when he is high. But I got the distinct impression he was being laughed at more than he was being laughed with. Maybe that was just my jaded take on the show. It was nice to hear what Anderson was up to, but enduring Smith was a rough part of the deal. -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
