I'm Still Here: The Lost Years of Joaquin Phoenix

[number8]

It’s far from the Joaquin Phoenix you’re used to seeing onscreen: snorting cocaine, ordering call girls, having oral sex with a publicist, treating his assistants abusively and rapping badly. And not, apparently, playing a role — or was he?

...

Several buyers said the film overflowed with Hollywood debauchery, including more male frontal nudity than you’d find in some gay porn films and a stomach-turning sequence in which someone feuding with Phoenix defecates on the actor while he’s asleep.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2010/05/joaquin-phoenix-documentary-even-buyers-arent-sure-if-its-a-prank.html

[MadMan]

WTF? :lol:

[Grouchy]

Hahah, awesome.

[baby doll]

I seriously hope this is for real. And while we're talking about Phoenix, other than the three movies he made with James Gray (The Yards, We Own the Night, and Two Lovers), has he been in any particularly memorable films?

[DavidSeven]

His films with Shyamalan were memorable. Whether they were good or not is up for debate. (I think Signs is passable, and The Village is an extremely interesting failure). But they're certainly memorable. And I think if there's anything that Wahlberg and Deschanel proved in The Happening, it's that not everyone can pull off the whole Phoenix/Willis stoicism thing.

[Raiders]

I seriously hope this is for real. And while we're talking about Phoenix, other than the three movies he made with James Gray (The Yards, We Own the Night, and Two Lovers), has he been in any particularly memorable films?

I guess that depends on your definition of "memorable." To online film geeks, maybe not (his Shammy films perhaps). But to the general public, Gladiator and Walk the Line would probably be considered memorable.

[Adam]

Clay Pigeons is a personal favorite and To Die For is good, too

[Milky Joe]

He was great in Signs, but something tells me you're aware of that one and are perhaps pretending it doesn't exist.

[Spinal]

His best performance that I have seen is in Return to Paradise.

[Ezee E]

He was the only half-good thing about 8MM.

And despite the crappiness of Ladder 49, he gives a blandly written character some life.

[Mara]

He was probably the best part of Gladiator.

If he'd been the main character of Gladiator, I would have liked that film.

[number8]

If he'd been the main character of Gladiator, I would have liked that film.

Yes.

[Rowland]

I love U-Turn, and he's very funny as a brutish good ol' boy.

[MadMan]

I liked him as Johnny Cash, even though Walk The Line was rather generic. And of course he was great in Gladiator. We Own the Night was a good movie, as well. I think Signs is one of the best of 2002, but that's just me, and yes I agree that The Village is an interesting failure, although I rate it a bit higher than most do.

[Spinal]

Sandra Bernhard already used this title by the way.

[B-side]

This movie is gonna be brilliant.

Here's the crappy poster, btw. (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3566632960/tt1356864)

[Dukefrukem]

Gotta be fake. Gotta be.

[[ETM]]

I think Signs is one of the best of 2002, but that's just me, and yes I agree that The Village is an interesting failure, although I rate it a bit higher than most do.

The Village is so much better than Signs, it ain't even funny. Phoenix is great in both, though.

[MacGuffin]

This movie is gonna be brilliant.

Here's the crappy poster, btw. (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3566632960/tt1356864)

There's nothing wrong with that poster.

[Grouchy]

Hahah that's a good poster.

A good Phoenix movie that hasn't been mentioned yet - To Die For.

[Boner M]

teaser (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiwPDOvVWIc&feature=player_embedded)

[number8]

Ahahahahaha, this movie is narrated by Edward James Olmos?!!

Will it stop getting awesomer and awesomer?

[Dukefrukem]

Yeh i can't wait to see this.

[baby doll]

I'm Still Here definitely and officially a hoax. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/movies/17affleck.html?_r=1&ref=movies)

[MadMan]

I'm Still Here definitely and officially a hoax. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/movies/17affleck.html?_r=1&ref=movies)Bummer, although not completely surprising. I'm now interested in seeing the movie.

[MacGuffin]

Bummer, although not completely surprising. I'm now interested in seeing the movie.

This post doesn't make much sense.

[Spinal]

I'm Still Here definitely and officially a hoax. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/movies/17affleck.html?_r=1&ref=movies)

I thought this was pretty apparent throughout this whole process.

[Qrazy]

Doesn't it kind of defeat the purpose of what he was attempting to tell people this now before it's had much distribution or viewership?

[MacGuffin]

Doesn't it kind of defeat the purpose of what he was attempting to tell people this now before it's had much distribution or viewership?

Yep.

[Derek]

Doesn't it kind of defeat the purpose of what he was attempting to tell people this now before it's had much distribution or viewership?

Unless he wants people to view it with that in mind, which I would imagine he does if he's telling them up front.

[Spinal]

Joaquin Phoenix: LOOK AT ME! I'M CRAAAAAZEEEEEEE!
World: Yeah, that's pretty weird.
Joaquin Phoenix: JUUUUUUUUST KIDDING!!!!!!!
World: Ah. Yeah. Good one.

[MacGuffin]

Joaquin Phoenix: LOOK AT ME! I'M CRAAAAAZEEEEEEE!
World: Yeah, that's pretty weird.
Joaquin Phoenix: JUUUUUUUUST KIDDING!!!!!!!
World: Ah. Yeah. Good one.

Basically. This whole project is just a little sad to me.

[Derek]

Joaquin Phoenix: LOOK AT ME! I'M CRAAAAAZEEEEEEE!
World: Yeah, that's pretty weird.
Joaquin Phoenix: JUUUUUUUUST KIDDING!!!!!!!
World: Ah. Yeah. Good one.

Well, obviously, if that's all there is to it and it's only purpose was to be an Andy Kaufman-like prank, it probably won't be that good. I'm simply suggesting the possibility that the doc will bring a little more to it than that and that people shouldn't assume what it's purpose is before anyone sees it.

[balmakboor]

This post doesn't make much sense.

He's bummed out that the movie is fake, but he's excited to see it now because he loves to be bummered out. Makes sense to me.

[Milky Joe]

I think the Joaquin Phoenix thing is pretty cool. It's funny to see people get all worked up about celebrities' behavior, then find out they were being duped, and then get all indignant about it.

It should happen more, not less often.

[Spinal]

I think the Joaquin Phoenix thing is pretty cool. It's funny to see people get all worked up about celebrities' behavior, then find out they were being duped, and then get all indignant about it.


To what end?

[MacGuffin]

He's bummed out that the movie is fake, but he's excited to see it now because he loves to be bummered out. Makes sense to me.

How is the movie "fake"? It seems to me like he is bummed out that Joaquin Phoenix didn't actually quit acting, which strikes me as rather bizarre. Then he goes on to say that he's excited for the film, which doesn't make much sense after saying he is bummed out about it.

[Russ]

From Ebert's review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100907/REVIEWS/100909992):


All of this is true. At least we must assume it is. If this film turns out to still be part of an elaborate hoax, I'm going to be seriously pissed.

[Milky Joe]

To what end?

Nothing more than to point out how hilariously dumb and self-righteous and absurd people have become w/r/t their celebrities.

I'm sure you and everyone else will come back and say "AS IF WE DON'T ALREADY KNOW!!!!1!111" or "BEEN THERE DONE THAT" but whatever. They really don't, and we really haven't, at least not to this degree.

Ebert's review, if it isn't itself a clever hoax, is easily the most unintentionally hilarious one he's ever written.

Going to see this in under an hour, btw.

[Spinal]

Nothing more than to point out how hilariously dumb and self-righteous and absurd people have become w/r/t their celebrities.

I'm sure you and everyone else will come back and say "AS IF WE DON'T ALREADY KNOW!!!!1!111" or "BEEN THERE DONE THAT" but whatever. They really don't, and we really haven't, at least not to this degree.



Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't really seen people get all that worked up over Joaquin Phoenix. Mild curiosity. That's about it.

Haven't been there? Andy Kaufman did this for basically the entire length of time that he was in the media spotlight.

Also, I do not know what "w/r/t" means.

[MacGuffin]

Ebert's review, if it isn't itself a clever hoax, is easily the most unintentionally hilarious one he's ever written.

Actually, all of his reviews seem to be kinda like that these days.

[Grouchy]

Actually, all of his reviews seem to be kinda like that.
.

[Ezee E]

I think the Joaquin project would've worked anytime before the existance of social media and how easy it is to debunk the fact that it was never real several months ago...

[Milky Joe]

Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't really seen people get all that worked up over Joaquin Phoenix. Mild curiosity. That's about it.

Haven't been there? Andy Kaufman did this for basically the entire length of time that he was in the media spotlight.

Also, I do not know what "w/r/t" means.

The Kaufman comparison is really getting tiresome. It was 30 years ago. Ok, so one guy (a comedian) made a name for himself doing something sort of similar. Does this then mean that nobody is allowed to do anything like that ever again, lest they be dismissed as derivative of the almighty Kaufman? Just for a change, name somebody else who's pulled this kind of stunt, particularly someone with at the same level of fame as Phoenix.

"w/r/t" is something I took from David Foster Wallace, shorthand for "with regards to".

Having seen the film, it's more about the media zeitgeist and its influence on the 'fans' than it is about the 'fans' themselves. And beyond that it's a surprisingly personal film about identity, and ends up managing to be rather moving, despite how stupid a lot of it is. I'm glad I went in knowing it's a performance, because a) it made it all a lot funnier and b) it's better to not be wondering about 'if it's real' the whole time, because as the youtube douchebag at the end says, it really doesn't matter whether he's 'performing'. I think the question he wants us to ask is why are we watching.

[Spinal]

The Kaufman comparison is really getting tiresome. It was 30 years ago. Ok, so one guy (a comedian) made a name for himself doing something sort of similar. Does this then mean that nobody is allowed to do anything like that ever again, lest they be dismissed as derivative of the almighty Kaufman? Just for a change, name somebody else who's pulled this kind of stunt, particularly someone with at the same level of fame as Phoenix.

Of course someone can do it again. I was responding to your assertion that they hadn't. I named one person. Why do I have to name someone else? Andy Kaufman was at least as famous as Joaquin Phoenix when he started wrestling women. Probably more so.

[Sven]

I think the question he wants us to ask is why are we watching.

Hmmm. My skepticism alarm went off.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, 'why am I watching this?' is one of the last things I want to ask myself when watching a movie.

[Milky Joe]

Well, I shouldn't have framed it in those terms of what 'he wants us' to do. I considered editing it to say simply, "I think the question we should be asking is..."

And I'm skeptical of the idea that Kaufman was more famous than Phoenix, but mostly because you can't even really compare the levels of exposure that existed in 1970 to what's going on right now.

[Qrazy]

Unless he wants people to view it with that in mind, which I would imagine he does if he's telling them up front.

Then why did he distinctly say he wants people to not know if it's real or not unlike say Spinal Tap? Hrmmmmmmmmm???

[Qrazy]

I think the question he wants us to ask is why are we watching.

Oh is that it? Well I know the answer to that one. Thanks for saving me 12 bucks!

:)

[Spinal]

And I'm skeptical of the idea that Kaufman was more famous than Phoenix, but mostly because you can't even really compare the levels of exposure that existed in 1970 to what's going on right now.

Have you heard of Taxi?

[Milky Joe]

Oh is that it? Well I know the answer to that one. Thanks for saving me 12 bucks!

:)

There's a reason I hardly ever write about my reactions to films. It never fails to sound trite as all hell.

[Milky Joe]

Have you heard of Taxi?

No, what's that?

[Qrazy]

There's a reason I hardly ever write about my reactions to films. It never fails to sound trite as all hell.

I was just teasing. :) I enjoyed your thoughts, please continue to write them in the future.

[Milky Joe]

Aw, shucks.

The real answer is that we all secretly want to see someone take a dump on Joaquin Phoenix's face—nevermind why.

[Derek]

Then why did he distinctly say he wants people to not know if it's real or not unlike say Spinal Tap? Hrmmmmmmmmm???

So he said he doesn't want people to know if it's real and then told everyone it's a hoax? If that's the case, I don't know what he's thinking other than that most people who see the film will not have read that article.

[DavidSeven]

EDIT: Just saw the discussion in FDT from earlier. Will leave the link for anyone who missed it.

The whole thing was officially a ruse. (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/more-from-casey-affleck-on-im-still-here/?scp=1&sq=casey%20affleck&st=cse)


In talking Thursday about his documentary, Mr. Affleck was clear that David Letterman was not in on the game—that Mr. Phoenix was in character for a fictional film—when he appeared on the show as a mumbling, stumbling mess back in 2009. But one reader maintains that the reality was slightly different. Marc Allan sent a link to an interview he did with Letterman writer Bill Scheft last year. In it, Mr. Scheft said “Dave knew about it and Dave loved it because he could play along.” Mr. Scheft said he occasionally tried to tell people that Mr. Phoenix’s weird appearance was an act. But they would tell him he was wrong, that Mr. Phoenix, “is a schizophrenic and he needs help.”

[number8]

No, what's that?

It's a massively popular 1970's sitcom. That's where Andy Kaufman is known from. There is absolutely no question that he was more famous back then than Phoenix is now.

[Ezee E]

It's a massively popular 1970's sitcom. That's where Andy Kaufman is known from. There is absolutely no question that he was more famous back then than Phoenix is now.
Outside of Walk the Line, is Joaquin Phoenix even known outside of the filmwatching community? Other then the stunt on Letterman...

[number8]

I believe his known nickname is, "Isn't he the brother of that dead guy? I think he was in Gladiator..."

[Raiders]

I think Phoenix is likely a little more famous than we're giving him credit for (not comparing him to Kaufman). There really isn't anyone I know who isn't familiar with him and certainly if they see him they'll recognize him.

I think Affleck would have stayed silent if this had picked up a wider distribution as to allow it to appear as a shock-piece. After all, despite my above statement, many people do not know the existence of this film. I think now that it isn't likely to make huge waves, perhaps he is trying to sell it as a piece of performance art. The "watch the fall of Joaquin Phoenix" pitch sort of failed, so now it is "watch the amazing and daring public performance of Joaquin Phoenix." Or perhaps with Phoenix coming back into the public eye (he has a new Letterman appearance where he is back to himself plus I'm sure he is going to start taking new roles soon) they simply didn't wish to try and continue the joke any longer.

[number8]

That was my take on it. Movie's done, joke's over, no one particularly cared, so now they have to do damage control to Phoenix's career, so as not to give him the Tom Cruise curse.

[baby doll]

Yeah, 'why am I watching this?' is one of the last things I want to ask myself when watching a movie.Sounds like a good question to me.

[Milky Joe]

Sounds like a good question to me.

Have I ever told you that I love you?

[D_Davis]

I can't help but think this is just a bunch of uber-egotistical, bullshit wankery.

I think all art is, in a sense, egotistical, but when coupled with sincerity, and the artist's desire to share something with his audience, it can become something more than just self-serving, mental masturbation.

So far, this project just seems absolutely retarded to me.

[Chac Mool]

I can't help but think this is just a bunch of uber-egotistical, bullshit wankery.

I think all art is, in a sense, egotistical, but when coupled with sincerity, and the artist's desire to share something with his audience, it can become something more than just self-serving, mental masturbation.

So far, this project just seems absolutely retarded to me.

Perhaps Phoenix just wanted to do something different for once in his life -- maybe it wasn't so much about tricking or wowing the public than about seeing if he's good enough to actually make people believe it.

I admire the guy for trying.

[Milky Joe]

Yeah, I'm not seeing how this is "just a bunch of uber-egotistical, bullshit wankery." I mean, if that's how you want to see it, I guess you can, but it seems to me an awful cynical way of looking at things. Who's to say that he's not sincere, or that he doesn't desire to share something with his audience? I'd say it's close to 100% certain that he is both of those things.

[eternity]

If this would have been picked up by a major studio (not Magnolia), this would all be going a lot differently. Just sayin'.

[MacGuffin]

If this would have been picked up by a major studio (not Magnolia), this would all be going a lot differently. Just sayin'.

Obviously. What are you getting at?

[eternity]

Obviously. What are you getting at?
Nothing, really. Just had to throw a penny in this pool of misplaced anger.

[number8]

I think this is all a movie, to be honest.

[Dukefrukem]

He admitted it (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/buzz-log-casey-affleck-hoax.html) (for some reason).

The clip at the bottom is awesome.

edit: David beat me to it.

[Milky Joe]

Roger Ebert interviews Casey Affleck about I'm Still Here (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/09/casey_affleck_levels_about_im. html)

[Henry Gale]

I've been watching Letterman my whole life, but tonight I honestly couldn't tell if he genuinely wanted Phoenix and Affleck to pay him $1 million for using him in the film without his permission.

Really bizarre but entertaining interview.

[soitgoes...]

This is awesome.

[soitgoes...]

I can't quite wrap my head around this film. It has some of the funniest moments in film I've seen in awhile. I was laughing throughout (there are some absolutely golden lines in this film). Then there would follow a scene that made me feel awkward just watching it. I'd place the film more in the realm of Borat than anything else, but more successful because even though the Phoenix we are presented is a fake, we are still brought in close enough to his character in order to empathize. There's definitely a point Affleck/Phoenix are trying to get across, a look at celebrity from the other side, the fakeness and the slippery slope down to parody. All these thoughts are scatter shot, and a more solid opinion on the film will form after a day or two of pondering.

[Spinal]

This probably seemed like a genius idea in the planning stages. Unfortunately, the execution leaves a lot to be desired. The film is uncomfortable, but for the wrong reasons, as hardly anybody but the dimmest of pop culture leeches seems genuinely taken in by Phoenix's attempt to make a Sacha Baron Cohen film. It's clear that most of the big-time celebs with which Phoenix interacts rightly smell a (Bo)rat.

When a young, gifted actor like Phoenix has a sit-down meeting with P. Diddy in order to discuss a potential hip-hop album, it's not humorous or revelatory. It's just sad. Diddy shows professionalism and generosity in sitting through Phoenix's pitch, but rightly recognizes the whole affair as a waste of his time. David Letterman gamely plays along out of respect for Phoenix's reputation. But for a man who's played this game with the great Andy Kaufman, it's clear that this particular prank is small potatoes.

It's as if Phoenix, jealous of the legendary status of his late brother, attempted to stage his own funeral and found out that nobody really cared. Phoenix may have torpedoed his own career, but perhaps not in the way he expected. The exposé of behind-the-scenes celeb-culture superficiality is occasionally interesting, such as in a scene where we see how paparazzi goad stars into reactions. But it's not nearly enough to fully justify the indulgences of Affleck and Phoenix and their toothless bite of the hand that feeds them.

[trotchky]

Probably the only movie from 2010 that I feel actually taught me something. I've watched it...I don't know...maybe five times now. I didn't want to return it to Blockbuster until I had my own copy, and now I do, so I returned the rented copy today. My plan now is to watch this movie every day for the rest of my life, or at least until I've changed to the extent I think the film can [and should, obviously] change me.

Needless to say I think it's a masterpiece and it's my favorite movie of the year.

[trotchky]

oh and this is just a little thing but the film has the most awesomely, appropriately named production company ever

[origami_mustache]

Diddy shows professionalism and generosity in sitting through Phoenix's pitch, but rightly recognizes the whole affair as a waste of his time. David Letterman gamely plays along out of respect for Phoenix's reputation. But for a man who's played this game with the great Andy Kaufman, it's clear that this particular prank is small potatoes.


Diddy and Letterman are obviously in on it as well.

[balmakboor]

This starts streaming on Netflix on 12/23. I can't wait.

[number8]

I love this exchange.

Diddy: Weren't you in that movie I just saw?
Affleck: Um... Jesse James?
Diddy: Nah, that ain't the one. Jesse James was wack. What's the other one?
Affleck: Gone Baby Gone?
Diddy: That's it. That shit was HOT.

[MacGuffin]

This was way better than I thought it would be, but it was also much different than I thought it would be. It's funny how meta the whole thing actually turns out. Initially, I was under the impression it was a movie about the media and public reacting to Phoenix's change in persona. Knowing all along it was a hoax, I figured this was kind of stupid. Thankfully, the movie was actually more about celebrity identity and how an artist appears in the spotlight versus how they want to appear. Phoenix attempts to take on an entirely different persona in order to show his true self, but is he really doing that? Upon taking his new rapper persona, he continues to prove that celebrities are a mere object belonging to the public, morphing into whatever they want them to be. To actually know a celebrity is impossible, and so the film depicts that loneliness.

Ultimately though, it's a good idea poorly executed. No sense of direction, snip-snip editing; it feels like the idea for the prank preceded the idea for a movie.

[Rowland]

I almost forgot, my brother streamed this off Netflix on a whim on Christmas. Our father's stone-faced glare informed us we should turn it off after the third flaccid penis, so I'll have to finish it on my own soon. I'll reserve judgement until I've seen the entire thing.

[Ezee E]

Sure, it's a hoax, but Joaquin can't fake that gut he got. Good lord.

Blegh movie. There's not really anything that can be said about it... The whole movie can really be summed up in the Letterman interview.