EXCLUSIVE: Imagine if you’d written a 1974 autobiographical masterpiece of a screenplay about compulsive gambling directed by Karel Reisz and starring James Caan. Imagine also if you just found out it was being remade by writer William Monahan, director Marty Scorsese, and actor Leonardo DiCaprio and no one told you. What is most incredible, and also despicable, is that neither the original studio Paramount nor the original producers Irwin Winkler and Bob Chartoff bothered to reveal they were going back to Toback’s creative well without him. On Saturday, Toback phoned me and asked if he could write about this surreal experience for Deadline Hollywood. Here in its entirety is his sadness and anger mixed with his trademark humor, against the backdrop of the late, great, and heady filmmaking days of that decade:
Close to 3 AM on this past Friday I got my daily call from my friend and LA housemate, Brett Ratner. I was at my desk working on my 22nd revision of the John DeLorean script I was hired by Reliance and Ratner to write with Ratner directing and the legendary Bob Evans producing.
“What are you doing?” Brett asked.
“What do you think?” I said. “This is by far the toughest script to get right of any I’ve written in 35 years.”
“What about The Gambler?”
“That was lightning fast and easy,” I said. “Of course, it was my own story.”
“That’s not what I meant,” he said. “Did you read Nikki Finke?”
“Always,” I said.
“How recently?”
“What are you getting at?” I asked.
“She just reported that DiCaprio and Scorsese are remaking The Gambler at Paramount.”
“Not my Gambler!” I said. “That’s not possible! No one said a word to me!”
“Who owns it?” Ratner asked.
“Paramount.”
“I guess they didn’t have to.”
“Legally, I guess you’re right,” I said.
“Maybe that’s all anyone gives a fuck about: whether something is legal.”
The film in question, The Gambler, was financed and distributed by Paramount in 1974 and directed by the late Karel Reisz. It was derived without a syllable of alteration from the final draft of my blatantly autobiographical original screenplay and starred James Caan as Axel Freed, a City College of NY literature Lecturer whose addiction to gambling overrides every other aspect of his richly diverse life. It might seem odd that my initial response to the news of the purported remake would be something south of “flattered and honored,” but the truth is that my main feeling was one of disbelief that I was learning of these plans at the same time and in the same fashion as any of the regular devoted readers of this column. It struck me as particularly odd since I have been a friend and unlimited admirer of Leonardo’s since our initial encounter in 1994 when we were, in fact, all set to close a deal on his playing the lead in Harvard Man – a deal sabotaged only by Bob Shaye’s overriding the greenlight which Mike DeLuca had conveyed to Jeff Berg and Jay Moloney. Equally odd was not hearing anything from Irwin Winkler who, I was soon to learn, is to be the producer on this projected new version as he was on the original. Perhaps my inability to view this “tribute” as primarily flattering was additionally influenced by a recent and infinitely more felicitous experience which involved remarkably similar circumstances. My movie, Fingers, was remade as a Cesar prize-sweeping film, The Beat That My Heart Skipped by Jacques Audiard, the great French filmmaker who called me from Paris and then flew to New York to discuss Fingers in great detail before redoing it, apparently not sharing the current group’s quaint — if indeed entirely legal –notion that as long as they “own” something — even a movie — they are fully entitled to do whatever they wish to it without even bothering to consult its creator.
Of course, the French have always had an entirely different set of laws and values governing intellectual property based on the poignant notion that a writer’s work cannot be tampered with by anyone even including someone who paid money to take ownership of it. This current experience conjures up memories of a banker who owned Harvard Man and once said to me: “To you this is a movie. To me this is a pair of shoes. My pair of shoes. And I will do whatever I like with it.”
I would like to offer an unexpurgated chronology of the history of The Gambler since the movie seems, after 37 years, to have ignited the energies of all these busy and important people. So here it is, covering all incidents — in the words of Winston Churchill — “from erection to resurrection.”
After graduating from Harvard in 1966 I taught literature and writing in a radical new program at CCNY whose additional faculty included Joseph Heller, John Hawks, William Burroughs, Donald Barthelme, Adrienne Rich, Mark Mirsky and Israel Horovitz. I also wrote articles and criticism for Esquire, Harpers, The Times, The Voice and other publications. Most of all, I gambled — recklessly, obsessively and secretly. It was a rich, exciting double life with heavy doses of sexual adventurism thrown in for good measure. Inspired by the life and work of my literary idol, Dostoyevsky, I embarked on the writing of The Gambler intended originally as a novel. Half way in, it became clear to me that I was seeing and hearing the “novel” as a movie and I abruptly decided to turn it into one. When I hit full stride I felt as if I were a recording secretary, simply putting down on paper dialogue and images I heard and saw as if they were not sounds and pictures at all but rather real life action existing in my brain.
When I finished the script I showed it to my high school friend Steve Witty who gave it to his Yale buddy Mike Siris and they brought in a producer named Alfred Crown. Peter Boyle, the star of Joe, expressed a profound desire to play Axel Freed. Six months later, the group reluctantly admitted it couldn’t find financing for the film.
At this point, my dear, beloved and late friend, Lucy Saroyan, daughter of the great and hilarious William Saroyan and a budding actress said: “I know the actor you must use. I study with him. I’ve fooled around with him — but that’s not why I’m telling you he’s the one. It’s because he’s a genius. I’ve known Marlon since I was a little girl. I’ve fucked Marlon. I love Marlon. And this is the only guy on earth who is going to be as great as Marlon — Bobby DeNiro.”
“Let me meet him immediately,” I said.
Lucy set it up. Bob and I had an instant communion. He read the script. He didn’t just learn it — he digested it. He became Axel Freed. And since Axel Freed was I, he became James Toback. (He even got a Caesar haircut from Carol at Vidal Sasoon because that’s where I had my hair cut and how I wore my since vanished locks.) He wore a navy Cardin blazer with a French collar shirt and jeans because I did. He had the character inside out, up and down, front and rear.
The problem was that at that point no one except Lucy Saroyan was calling DeNiro a genius and I still couldn’t raise the money. Ed Pressman — a friend from early childhood and a budding independent producer at the time — tried to get financing and met with similar frustration. Finally, my literary agent, Lynn Nesbit, gave the script to Mike Medavoy, head of the Motion Picture Division at what is now ICM.
“I’m gonna get this picture a ‘go,’” Medavoy barked on our first conversation.
“What’s a ‘go?’ ” I asked.
A long silence ensued as Medavoy drank in the inference that he was talking to a rube.
“I’m gonna get it made.”
“Great,” I said. “How?”
“I’ll call you in a week,” he said and hung up.The next week Medavoy called. “Get ready,” he said.
“I am ready,” I replied.
“Good. You’re going to London.”
“Why?”
“Karel Reisz, the best director in England, wants to direct the movie and Paramount is buying it. You gotta meet with him in 48 hours.”Medavoy also told me that a producing team called Chartoff-Winkler was being put on the movie by Frank Yablans, the New York head of Paramount, at Medavoy’s suggestion. Chartoff would be off on another movie and Winkler would be the half of the team assigned to us.
The next day I learned that I was to receive $50,000 and, concerned that the whole thing might be fishy, I demanded the money before I left. Medavoy said: “That’s not the way things are done.”
“I need the check before I’ll go,” I insisted.A check for $50,000 was delivered to me by messenger. I went to the bank at the Gulf & Western building (Paramount’s home at the time, the current Trump International at present, and a former property of my grandfather’s for forty years.) I presented the check. “Cash it, please,” I said. I was told I needed a signature from a Paramount executive. Paramount was run at the time by Yablans and Bob Evans in Los Angeles. Since Yablans was closer I took the elevator up to his office and told his secretary that I needed to see him immediately.
“He’s busy,” she said.
“We’re all busy,” I said and walked by her into Yablans’ office.
“Who the fuck are you?” Yablans queried.
“James Toback. I wrote The Gambler, the script you just bought.”
“Congratulations. What do you want?”
I told him I needed his signature on my check. He looked at me as if I had three heads but went ahead and signed the check. I ran back down to the bank and was told that they needed the signature from the head of Business Affairs, not from Frank Yablans. I went back upstairs and told Yablans that his signature was insufficient. He accompanied me back down to the bank and told the manager of the branch that every dime of Paramount funds would be removed from that bank if the sufficiency of his personal signature was ever doubted again.I flew to London and met Karel Reisz. Within a week Karel and I formed not just a friendship and highly constructive working relationship, but a mutual love as well which lasted to his death in 2002 and which continues in my heart to the present. Karel, the son of Czech parents who were carted off from Prague by the Nazis into the gas chambers of Auschwitz, was shipped to England before he had reached puberty. He eventually joined the RAF, became a loyal British citizen, a critic, an editor and finally, a great director.
“I don’t know this world of yours,” he said, “but I read your autobiographical memoir on Jim Brown and I think I see possibilities in your script that you haven’t fully developed. If you want to talk to me and write more, I would be willing to go to New York and Las Vegas, meet your family on whom you’ve clearly based some of the characters and the gangsters you seem to know as well and then decide if I can actually make this movie.”
“Square deal,” I said.
Bob Evans was an irresistibly charming, glamorous, witty and powerful figure in Hollywood. He had just decided to quit his executive job at Paramount after having overseen an unprecedented string of excellent and financially lucrative films to become an independent producer on the Paramount lot. His assistant and friend, Gary Chazan, called me and said: “Bob is going to make The Gambler his first production at Paramount and that’s great for you because it will give the movie top attention.”
“Sounds terrific,” I said. “But Karel hasn’t agreed to go ahead yet. I have a lot of writing to do first.”
“Don’t worry. It’s going to happen.”
“There’s another problem,” I said.
“What’s that?”
“Irwin Winkler has already been put on the movie.”
“Fuck Irwin Winkler,” Gary said. “Evans will offer him five other Paramount movies in exchange and he’ll jump ship in a minute.”The next day I got a call from Winkler.
“You and I don’t know each other,” he said, “but you’re gonna learn something that Bob Evans is going to learn too: Irwin Winkler ain’t no whorer! Bob Evans can offer me fifty movies. It don’t matter. No one is getting me off The Gambler.” He turned out to be right. And Evans ended up producing Chinatown instead.Meanwhile, Karel’s ideas inspired me to write a widely expanded and deepened movie. I had been in psychoanalysis for two years with Gustav
Bychowski, one of Freud’s last proteges, and my meetings with Karel often resembled analytic sessions in the Freudian style. They also involved my tutoring him in the nuances of American university lectures and student-teacher relationships as well as the intricacies of degenerate sports and casino wagering. After a few weeks we went to New York and Las Vegas and he agreed to make the movie. The next task was casting the lead actor. Winkler proposed Warren Beatty (later to become one of my closest friends but a stranger at the time.) Medavoy wanted Redford.“Axel Freed is a New York Jew,” I said.
“Redford’s a great actor,” Medavoy countered, “he can play anything.”Karel interviewed Richard Dreyfus and Chris Sarandon and others, but inexplicably resisted meeting DeNiro whom I relentlessly pressured him to hire.
Finally, shortly before a legitimate deadline would be transgressed, Karel –having followed every other suggestion I had made — agreed to have dinner with DeNiro but insisted that I not come along. I spoke to Bob and he said: “Call me as soon as Karel calls you after the dinner!”
Late that night Karel did call and asked me to come over to Joel Schumacher’s apartment which he had sublet.
“Jim,” he said firmly, “I want to make your movie. And I want you — I need you — to be with me every day until the end. In fact, I can’t make this movie without you. But if you are going to insist on my using DeNiro I will not make the movie.”
I was stunned.
“He’s the guy! How can you not see that?”
“I’m sorry. I won’t discuss it. He’s simply wrong for the part. He has the wrong temperament.”
“Let him read for you. He’s sensational!”
“If you continue trying to persuade me, I’ll have to resign from the movie tomorrow,” Karel said harshly. “We can talk about anything else. I will not talk about him.”I knew Karel well enough to know that any further entreaties on my part would be fatally counterproductive. Later I called DeNiro and gave him a virtual transcript.
“Jim,” Bob said in a state of high agitation, “the guy didn’t even let me read. You’ve gotta get him to let me read.”
“I can’t,” I said. “He won’t do it.”
“You don’t know the business the way I do. You’ve gotta tell him you won’t work on the movie if he doesn’t let me read.”
“He’ll quit.”
“No. He won’t. He wants to make the movie.”
“Yes. But not with you. I don’t get it myself. I’ve never seen him so resistant.”
“I’ll tell you something else,” DeNiro said. “The changes you made are all wrong. He got you to turn a great script into something not nearly as good.”I don’t remember defending the script. I remember, rather, thinking: I’ll never know — because we’re only going to make one version. I’ve remained friendly with DeNiro over the years but we’ve had nothing like the creative collaboration which might well have evolved from his playing Axel Freed.
James Caan, fresh off The Godfather, met Karel and charmed him off his feet. As unresponsive to DeNiro as Karel had been, he flipped wildly for Jimmy to whom he introduced me and who charmed me with great dispatch as well, Karel met my mother and my grandfather and then a captain of a major Mafia family, the biggest bookmaker in New York, and some lower level wiseguys who appeared as semi extras in the movie. Karel also came up to my classroom at City College which we used as the classroom in the movie. (I used several of my students as students in the movie as well.) Karel and I practically lived together for the next year. Early screenings of The Gambler drew rhapsodic responses. Evans, Sue Mengers, David Begelman, Freddie Fields, Sidney Beckerman, Dick Zanuck, Ron Meyer, the Schneiders, Robert Towne, Warren Beatty himself and many others who effectively ran Hollywood got the word out that The Gambler was the thing!
Frank Yablans was equally excited and appeared in a 60 Minutes segment on Lauren Hutton, an actress in the movie, to bless it with his personal proud send-off.
However, in an unfortunate example of the all-too-frequent phenomenon of bad timing in studio politics, Charles Bluhdorn, the Chairman of Gulf & Western which owned Paramount, fired Frank Yablans one week before the movie opened. Barry Diller, who replaced him, had no personal stake in the success of the movie and the helium quickly seeped out of the balloon. Despite some great reviews and a virtual crusade by the immensely influential Charles Champlin, film critic for the LA Times, the movie never got anything like the top-drawer push a Yablans/Evans team would have supplied.
Over the years my greatest personal reward on The Gambler has come from members of Gamblers Anonymous, an organization whose meetings I have attended in dozens of rooms in cities around the country. I have yet to attend a single meeting without at least four or five members approaching me with the assertion that The Gambler is their story, that I know them and that they know me and that now they can finally be understood by their families and friends by simply saying: “See The Gambler!”
So learning of the plan to “remake” my movie at the same time and in the same fashion as any other devoted reader of this esteemed column, I suppose I should feel… what? That a tribute is being paid to a creation I left behind? I suppose. But one doesn’t always feel what one is supposed to feel.
As the late, great Jackie Wilson sang:
Just a kiss
Just a smile
Call my name
Just once in a while
And I’ll be satisfied.Rudeness, on the other hand, and disrespect yield their own unanticipated consequences.
A footnote: Now that such an esteemed bunch of luminaries seems so inspired by The Gambler that they are contemplating the devotion of masses amounts of time, money and energy to redoing it, perhaps the home video crew at Paramount will consider making The Gambler available on DVD and Blu-Ray which it presently isn’t. And perhaps by On-Demand as well — if it isn’t there already. They can look it up and find out if they have the time.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.







I don’t get the complaint. He doesn’t own right to the story; the studio is under no obligation to get his permission or hire him to work on it. Would it have been nice if they did? Sure, but how can this guy have worked in Hollywood for 40 years and be surprised by this? And it’s not like he’s a hot name. When was the last time he had a hit?
A portion of Robert Helinlein’s book “Friday” comes to mind in response to your query:
“I want to mention one of the obvious symptoms [of a sick culture]: Violence. Muggings. Sniping. Arson. Bombing. Terrorism of any sort. Riots of course–but I suspect that little incidents of violence, pecking away at people day after day, damage a culture even more than riots that flare up and then die down. I guess that’s all for now. Oh, conscription and slavery and arbitrary compulsion of all sorts and imprisonment without bail and without speedy trial–but those things are obvious; all the histories list them.”
“Friday, I think you have missed the most alarming symptom of all.”
“I have? Are you going to tell me? Or am I going to have to grope around in the dark for it?”
“Mmm. This once I shall tell you. But go back and search for it. Examine it. Sick cultures show a complex of symptoms such as you have named… but a dying culture invariable exhibits personal rudness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot.”
“Really?”
“Pfui. I should have forced you to dig it out yourself; then you would know it. This symptom is especially serious in that an individual displaying it never thinks of it as a sign of ill health but as proof of his/her strength.”
Great Heinlein quote. Thanks for that.
Thank you for sharing that Mr. Wilber. I think that succinctly sums up the current state of affairs in the world.
Yes. I have to agree with the sentiment in that quote. I worked for someone who dated Hollywood actresses. He was a prick.
There’s a difference between what you can do and what you should do. A simple phone call doesn’t seem like too much to ask. This is a guy’s life story they are remaking.
s
This town was always run by businessmen, but there was a time when they did respect the artist or, at least, pretended to. They don’t even pretend anymore.
I expect Leo & company will reach out now, especially if they’re serious about remaking the film, and you’ll hear a satisfied recant on these grievances.
I don’t imagine a too little too late ‘reach out’ will make him any happier. They way this went down, maybe a ‘reach around’ is more appropriate. It’s a lousy deal, and not much is going to make it less so.
You can more or less identify his complaint but not get it which makes me think you must not create things, you just sell them.
Though to clarify his complaint, it is less about not being hired to work on it and more about the fact that the current team had so little respect for a work’s original creator, especially on a story so personal, that they couldn’t even pick up the phone and extend that olive branch.
When you’re old and cranky writer, do you really need to ask the question why no one wants to consult with you?
Paramount knows the first thing Toback would do is try and get a producer credit and a pot full of money.
let sleeping dogs lie, it’s good policy, not just in showbiz but any biz.
It was a classy little movie. It would be a classy little movie remake. Why not be classy and have courtesy. Chickens.
Last I checked, once Toback received his check for $50k or whatever it was, he was as good as dead in terms of the rights to this + his involvement. And, now, we should feel sorry for him because 40 years later a company who has the rights to this story is going to be creating something new?
Give me a break.
Maybe Toback should spend less time writing pretentious essays and more time working on his 22nd draft of a script that will probably go straight to dvd.
charmed, I’m sure
True.
“…last hit”. A hit. It’s all about the “hit” with some of you.
James Toback’s documentary, “Tyson”, is an excellent piece of filmmaking.
Get educated.
You are a cliche. Different from the cliche you are complaining about, but a cliche nonetheless.
I could expect this poor behavior from a lot of people in this town… but coming from MARTIN SCORSESE – the man who rhapsodizes over Film History and great directors and writers – and knows how this town has road roughshod over talent’s contributions… well, I am terribly surprised. I didn’t know Scorsese was just paying lip-service and could care less. Guess he’s turned into another unfeeling Hollywood robot.
Here’s hoping someone pulls the same stunt to one of his biggest movies someday – like Taxi Driver or Mean Streets – and he winds up finding about the remake second hand in Nikki’s column. He should learn what it feels like to be forgotten…. it will happen.
uhhh, no it won`t
Your mentality is precisely what’s wrong with not only Hollywood, but with America. You have no respect for the past, and because of it, no understanding of the future.
@ Miffy — ahh yes, “it’s not like he’s a hot name.” I think we can safely deduce whether you’re interested in actual quality filmmaking and writing or you’re just another star-fucking “hot in town” name chaser.
Two years ago, Megan Fox was an awfully hot name. Man, wasn’t that long ago Josh Hartnett was going to be the next megastar and EVERYBODY knew it. Ooh, Orlando Bloom, he was a “hot name.” Oh man, remember It Girl Heather Graham? Ooh, Alex Pettyfer sure was a hot name, do you think he’ll have a body work people will still be talking about in 35 years?
Please. Toback’s been around a long time and has a body of work that speaks for itself. Go back to flipping through US WEEKLY and TMZ to get your fill of “hot names.”
Yeah, I can’t believe this is even controversial. They did the man dirty and folks are brushing it off as “just part of the business” but Scorcese and Leo should know better.
What happened wasn’t illegal but it sure wasn’t classy either.
Yes, you really don’t get it. Read the posts just after yours ….. though, as you are clueless you are probably hopeless.
That’s why movies suck because people have such disrespect for artists and think that super hero remakes makes a writer/director “Hot”…
Exactly.
Also, I actually just bought The Gambler about two months ago on DVD.
So it’s actually available.
While I dig reading about struggles to get films made, I have to question Toback’s rant a little myself. Yes, a phone call would have been nice, but they didn’t “owe” him one. That’s just my take and opinion. In theory, Toback himself was doing a remake, although 1949′s The Big Sinner was not as strict an adaptation of the Dostoyevsky novella.
Worse comes to worse, Scorcese and co. could just go to the source material and do an adap of thier own. Right? I don’t know—maybe I’m wrong…
This movie (NOT the Kenny Rogers tripe) was terrific. I clearly remember the closing scene to this day. Axel was one sick puppy.
Besides, last I heard, Michael Jackson owned most of the Beatles’s songs. Who knows now? Be careful what you sign . . .
Just read this and a great statement and something the synthesizes history and present operations. Gambler is a great movie and something that still resonates today. This article should be readin every film school.
won’t dicaprio want to meet the guy he’s playing? since it’s such an autobiographical story, you’d think they would have reached out to the creator of the whole thing. toback is 100% right.
Who cares if he has the right to be upset, he tells a helluva story.
I’m not sure what Robert DeNiro not starring in The Gambler has to do with Scorses/DiCaprio remaking it, but okay. It’s an interesting story of how many people it takes to get a movie made.
That said, as crap as it is that no one at Paramount felt like letting the writer know they’re revisiting his material, they aren’t obligated to. Toback doesn’t own any rights so it’s not like his opinion matters to the bean counters who think this will be a profitable endeavor. I’m not even sure I’d call this “bad business”, as it’s pretty much business as usual in Hollywood. It’s just vaguely disrespectful, but again. That’s Hollywood.
I’m glad you took a stand, I hate the fact you took a stand. Your message is clear, you make no sense.
Why don’t you flip a coin to find out how you really feel?
Miffy
Your comment synthesizes so nicely the morality and lack of decency in the industry.
That a creative person doesn’t “own” his work and hasn’t had a hit in a number of years to you I guess is a reason that Scorsese or DiCaprio shouldn’t have had the common courtesy to let Toback know about this rather than hearing about it after the fact. The Gambler was a terrific screenplay, a decent film, and more so it is largely autobiographical. Of course he deserved to be told about this – he didn’t ask for consent or approval, just a modicum of courtesy.
Why that isn’t obvious to everyone is very depressing.
Interesting… He never spoke about how he ended the conversation or talks (as it were) with De Niro. Toback just kinf of jumped to James Caan…
I wonder if De Niro held a silent grudge? I know it’s childish conjecture, but isn’t it kind of poetic (justice or otherwise) that it is De Niro’s celluloid partner who has taken this script to be remade underneath Toback’s feet, without so much of an utterance to the writer… who perhaps in retrospect, should have fought harder for De Niro;
Hindsight is 20/20
“You don’t know the business the way I do. You’ve gotta tell him you won’t work on the movie if he doesn’t let me read.”
- © Bobby D. All Rights Reserved.
Hopeless Pedant,
Let me get this straight; I design a house, the house is built and the house is then sold. The owner, some four decades years later decides to knock down the house and rebuild it. Under what law/moral obligation is said owner supposed to contact me?
It’s not as if Scorsese and DiCaprio had commissioned Toback to write an original screenplay called The Gambler and then, after Toback had poured his heart and soul into it, the duo decided to bring in another writer without telling Toback.
Get real.
you obviously didn’t read the part of the post where the exec tells Toback “to you this is a movie, to me its a pair of shoes” or you would have known better than to use your insipid house analogy. False equivalency in the deadline comment forum is the easiest way to pick out the suits…
seriously, that house analogy is crap.
Ditto
Wrong.
A house is a house.
Your analogy is wrong.
We are talking about a property here, a work of art.
No… we’re not talking about art. Get off your high horse. It’s a movie made by a studio to make money. We’re talking about a commoditized property — which Toback emphasized here in his little rant with his retelling of how tough he was in bucking the system to make sure he got paid up front etc… etc…
This was his first screenplay and HE turned it into nothing more than a paycheck for himself by his own actions. Which frankly, for a first timer was the right thing to do. It started a grate career for him. Good on that.
But let’s get real. Announcing a movie and making one in this day and age are worlds apart. Let’s say somebody called him last week and said, “Hey Toback, we’re thinking about remaking this. There’s gonna be an announcement.” That woulda been fine. And yeah, a little courtesy goes a long way. But let’s flash forward a year and the deals never come together.
This guy’s probably throwing up another blasting rant… “They called me… They said they were making this… Booo hoooo… Now I don’t hear from them. Assholes lead me on, making me believe something’s gonna happen and then nothing…”
You know it’s true.
A house is not just a house. To an architect, a house is art. This is a common problem in capitalist societies, every object is art to some and only a product to others. The truth in America is that houses are both products and art, and so are movies. The smart movie people respect a movie as both art and product, and the fools at Paramount should have known this and rightly consulted Toback about his creation.
Precisely!
A great house, like a great movie, can make your heart just fucking sing…
Well, if it’s YOU designing the house then no one probably cares since it’s a stucco box. However, if it’s a John Lautner, or a Wright, and you’d like to remodel, then you respectfully contact the architect, or the architect’s protégé and pay respect to the artist by allowing them involvement. In architecture circles, this keeps the preservation community off your ass, and maintains the cultural value of your residence. But then, you wouldn’t know that kind of respect since you’re just building stucco boxes. Would you?
@ Pope — “by what law/moral obligation” are you supposed to contact the owner? None at all. Toback isn’t claiming any right to law or moral obligation, he’s talking about basic courtesy. If someone rams you in the grocery store with a shopping cart — is there a LAW (or even “moral obligation”) that entitles you to an apology? Not really. But it’s basic courtesy. It’s understandable you’d be pissed if they just ignored you and went on their merry way. It’s understandable that you’d communicate to others who may come into contact with the reckless cart-pusher what kind of behavior they’re exhibiting.
The house analogy is garbage on many fronts. For one thing, the owner isn’t knocking down the old house and rebuilding it — he’s leaving the old house intact and is building an ENTIRELY NEW house (with new profit streams) from YOUR design. And yeah, if you think a heavily autobiographical script which exposes your deepest personal flaws and failings and struggles for millions of strangers to see is the same as designing a house for a client, then I guess any appeal to reason isn’t going to reach you.
No. It’s not a house. It’s his life story. It’s something that he paid dues that most people can’t understand to create. He doesn’t own the movie rights, that’s true, but he occupies the position of progenitor, and holds the high moral ground. These guys owe him nothing but common courtesy and they failed in this, PARTICULARLY because he had a relationship with Leo. Leo is the one who should have made the call, but I suspect he was too frightened to pick up the phone so the news breaks from out of nowhere for Toback, a painful and shameful thing.
Just make another movie about gambling. Why remake The Gambler? Oh that’s right. Creating an original idea might take some work and some personal life experience. Raping Toback is easier.
On another note, there is no way that baby-faced, man-child DiCaprio can compete with the authentic James Caan in the lead role.
Your second point really struck home. DiCaprio has played howard Hughes and now J Edgar Hoover, but looks like a child in both cases. He may be a great actor, but physically doesn’t look right for these parts. Same was true on “Titanic”…..
So right! B/c TITANIC was a massive flop…
I happen to think he was fine in Titanic – his character was supposed to be young and pretty – but agree he was wrong for HH and JEH, but aside from any of that… what on earth does how much money a movie make have to do with this discussion?
No… It was actually a huge hit. But DiCaprio still looked more like a girl in it than Winslett…
By the way Danny Bigel is the douchebag I mean banker referenced in the sidebar above re: Harvard Man. A lesser man I never did meet.
Hey Yoyo, perhaps you have another beef with Bigel (that’s fine…it’s Hollywood) but Bigel was the passionate producer who actually got “Harvard Man” made — AFTER having collaborated with Toback on “Two Girls and a Guy” and “Black and White”. The “banker” referenced was the (now bankrupt) financier of the film, so get your facts correct!!! I’ve known (and worked with) Danny Bigel for over a decade and never met a producer who is more honest, sincere and true to his word. Yoyo, what have you accomplished in Hollywood??
JLN
What James Toback appears to be saying is that a little courtesy goes a long way. Sure, Paramount may own the rights to remake The Gambler, but as its writer, doesn’t he at least deserve notice that it’s being remade?
If all Mr. Toback wrote above is accurate, it’s the least he deserves.
Living with Brett Ratner must be amazing.
Miffy
James Toback is a living part of film history – and legally or not, one would hope that the studio would have the courtesy to contact him. They didn’t. And so it’s another in a long list of Hollywood’s absinthian moments. Oddly enough you have a lovely knack at adding gasoline to that fire. Your lack of sensitivity only suggests the stupidity of youth, a lack of film sense, and a monstrous gap of knowledge about the creative process. Remember the part about the banker? To the banker it was a pair of shoes? Miffy, you’re the banker and the lawyer. That must make you feel something inside of yourself, otherwise you wouldn’t have made such a deleterious comment.
I hope you take this the right way. Think suppository.
Very interesting indeed. I would be surprised if the new film even gets made.
Great read. When there’s a kind person in this industry, it stands out all the more because there are so few. Thanks Mr. Toback for reminding us of this simple but important lesson.
Thank you James Toback for speaking out. This is symptomatic of what Hollywood has become. So few original thoughts and a turn towards remakes. Remaking a bad film and attempting to turn it into a better movie can be interesting, but deciding to remake a terrific screenplay directed by an artist is a dangerous proposition. So the new players wanted to reinvent the wheel and perhaps thought it better to stay away from the creator. It’s an avoidance of confrontation and indeed quite disrespectful.
Yes, can you say “Straw Dogs?” Of course the director and co-writer of the original picture is no longer around to consult. I saw the original upon its release while in high school — it was not a date flick so I went alone. For the first time I heard people in the theater scream “kill the bastards” at the end–without a reshoot–because Sam Peckinpah was an artist who graphically put his own insecurities up on the big screen and was an expert at getting into the collective head (and insecurities) of his audience. The soon to be released remake looks interesting, in a different (American) setting, and we shall see, won’t we?
To Mr. Toback,
I have not seen the movie “The Gambler” but am also a writer, although to much less success than you have garnered through your career. I appreciate your frankness and openness about your experiences. It helps to provide further proof to writers who are trying to break in about the harsh reality of this business.
It is a shame that courtesy and respect are dead in Hollywood. It’s a further shame that many people, even some who have commented on this board, look only at what is legally permissible vs what is a simple token of courtesy.
Whatever solace this provides, know that a fellow writer is planning on watching “The Gambler” and that he will always connect its true ownership to you and to its original creators.
This is just a planned remake of a movie whose rights is owned by Paramount studio, to be made by director Martin Scorsese and screenplay writer William Monahan. They want Leonardo Dicaprio to star in the remake but I doubt if Leonardo has already been offered or accepted the part. He is currently Down Under making a movie and is scheduled to make another soon after. With several other offers currently coming his way he may not be able to do this remake for a long time, if at all. For Leonardo to reach out to James Toback at this time would be presumptuous.
If and when the remake is produced, once the shooting concludes, Paramount may be required under the Writers Guild agreement to list Mr. Toback as a participating writer in connection with the remake and, if he receives a writing credit for the remake, to pay him residuals from the remake.
re – Harvard Man. Going from Dicaprio to Adrian Grenier is like going from Giselle to Darlene Cates.
The Gambler (1974) is available on the Australian iTunes store for $17.99. I just bought it.
Mr. Toback does have one fact wrong. The Gambler is available on DVD. I bought a copy at Big Lots a few months ago for $3.
It is also available from Amazon for $9.99 as a digital instant video.
I can understand why he’s miffed, but not why anyone who expects and values civility and common decency would choose a career that puts him in contact with Hollywood. Isn’t that like a puritan deciding to work as a streetwalker? You’re just setting yourself up for disappointment.
“Forget it, James. It’s Hollywood.” Read the deed.
If this is how Paramount and numerous commenters on here feel about writers, then Paramount should get out of the creative business of making movies and focus on making chewing gum or bottle caps or something that isn’t created first and foremost in someone’s brain.
James Toback didn’t deserve anything more than the $50K he got. His screenplay might’ve been autobiographical but it was based on a short story by Dostoevsky. And it’s THAT short story that Scorsese and Monahan are adapting. Their film will have nothing to do with the 1974 work. Just because the news says they’re remaking his film doesn’t mean they are. They’re re-adapting the source novel. It just seems like Toback is looking for attention.
Interesting information here.
We all need to lay back at this point and track wehter its Dostoyevsky’s The Gambler they are thinking of making.
They probably called Dostoyevsky, then. Long shot
Not this time but they did have that seance when Scorsese did his segment of New York Stories.