After hiring an actress whose reputation for being difficult and irresponsible would create publicity long before his film was even completed, director Paul Schrader has expressed surprise and dismay that that actress has acted difficultly and irresponsibly when it comes to creating publicity after the film was released. In a post to Facebook, where all disagreements are handled professionally, Schrader says he is “mystified and disappointed” by the behavior of his The Canyons star Lindsay Lohan, who has lately proved troublesome in a way that no longer benefits his film.
Hints that Lohan could prove to be less than asset to the production first arose when the words “Lindsay Lohan hired to star in The Canyons” were published. But it was only after the lengthily detailed accounts of her behavior on set came to light that Schrader seemed to realize that she could be a problem, in exactly the headline-grabbing way he and writer Bret Easton Ellis anticipated. In his statement he says that Lohan's behavior, which they were counting on, prompted him to threaten to “fire her for unreliability,” because that's how the story is supposed to go. Those problems of which he was already largely aware flared up again at last month’s Venice Film Festival where, possibly on the advice of her new benefactor Oprah, Lohan failed to appear to promote The Canyons. It was an absence that Schrader, at the time, seemed perfectly happy with, declaring, “Today I am free. In the past 16 months, I have been hostage to Lindsay Lohan” in such a way that got a Paul Schrader movie coverage in Us Weekly.
And yet, like all sufferers of Stockholm Syndrome and directors who want people to keep talking about their movie, Schrader wanted only to return to his captor, and maybe get them some nice profiles in the New Yorker. Unfortunately, Lohan refused to be a part of that promotional plan, choosing for some mystifying reason to no longer be associated with a movie in which she plays opposite a porn star, and whose tempestuous production was, by design, more interesting than the finished product. Probably because she's trying to have a healthy life or something:
I can only surmise that Lindz had decided that Canyons is part of a reprobate past she must put behind her in order to move forward. She was never comfortable working with James Deen and perhaps this still sticks in her craw. I assume those closet to her, her family and reps, had advised her to treat Canyons as an indiscretion. But, for me, the reality is the opposite. In Canyons Lindsay has given a bold, raw, naked original performance which vaults her from the s category of ingenue to leading lady.
Don't get me wrong. I want LL to move forward, have a healthy life and, if possible, a career, but I disagree with her decision to (passively not aggressively) turn her back on Canyons. It's an extraordinary piece of work and serves her well. Lindsay, your work is excellent. Own it!
Should Lohan fail to heed Schrader’s fatherly advice to, if possible, have a career—beginning with helping him create more publicity for a film that’s already had plenty of it—he'll be forced to find other ways to get people to talk about The Canyons. For example, this.
Send your Newswire tips to firstname.lastname@example.org