Thursday, November 20, 2008

EXCLUSIVE: PHOTOS FROM NEW YORK "MILK" PARTY


Sean Penn, the man of the hour, excuses himself from a conversation with talk show host Charlie Rose and director Julian Schnabel. Contrary to this image, Penn seemed to be in very good spirits over the course of the evening, even taking drink orders and collecting them from the bar for friends.


This photo captures the meeting of two generations of beautiful and talented actresses: Natalie Portman, on the right, came over to introduce herself and pay tribute to Lauren Bacall, seated in the middle.


You may have to look closely, but this photo actually captures a reunion between the key players behind last year's Best Picture winner No Country for Old Men: the bald head in the foreground belongs to co-director Ethan Coen, two folks in front of him is his brother and co-director Joel Coen, and in front of him is the film's star Josh Brolin (wearing the red scarf). The trio were heading outside for a smoke when this picture was snapped.

Posted by Editor at 14:51:08 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Saturday, July 05, 2008

I KNOW, SOOO 2007!

I've just gotten home from spending the 4th of July with some family friends. After dinner, they sought my advice about which DVD we should watch, and so I ran through the major players from last year's awards season. Upon realizing they had not yet seen The Diving Bell and the Butterfly—a film I first saw at a private screening in early November, then watched on DVD three different times with three different groups of friends in order to make sure they saw it, and still have not tired of—I aggressively urged them to give it a chance... as the good folks at Miramax found last awards season, though, it is anything but easy to coax people into watching a French-subtitled movie about a stroke victim during their leisure time, least of all on a happy holiday! Nevertheless, they relented, and by the end of the evening were, like the other groups of friends with whom I had watched the film, completely awestruck. Reactions of first-time viewers like these, as well as my own sense that the film holds up strongly on multiple viewings, lead me to believe that Diving Bell may well be the 2007 film that most impresses cinephiles years from now. Don't get me wrong: I still adore the characters who populate Juno, and respect the craft of No Country, and admire the ambition of There Will Be Blood, and revel in the brilliance of Gone Baby Gone, and enjoy the rollercoaster of Michael Clayton, and embrace the humanity of Lars and the Real Girl, etc., but the longer that Diving Bell saturates in my mind, the more I feel that each and every frame of it is a carefully considered piece of art, filled with layers of meaning, and that even one false move by screenwriter Ronald Harwood, director Julian Schnabel, or cinematographer Janusz Kaminski could have easily ruined the film, and yet there were none. If you haven't yet seen it, get on it. And if you haveor once you do—check out my conversations with star Mathieu Amalric, who plays Jean-Do (and will next play the villain in the latest James Bond installment, Quantum of Solace) and with supporting scene-stealer Max von Sydow, who plays Papinou, both of whom offer much further enlightenment on the film.

Posted by Editor at 14:33:32 | Permanent Link | Comments (2) |

Sunday, November 18, 2007

ATWI... INTERVIEW SERIES

FROM BERGMAN TO BAUBY

50 YEARS AGO, A YOUNG MAX VON SYDOW STARED DOWN DEATH IN THE SEVENTH SEAL. NOW, AT 78, HE HAS COME FULL CIRCLE, AGAIN FACING HIS MORTALITYAND HIS SON'SIN
THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY.


The legendary actor Max von Sydow has meant different things to different sorts of people. To the art house crowd of the fifties and sixties, he was
the actor used most frequently by director Ingmar Bergman in essentials like The Seventh Seal (1957), The Wild Strawberries (1957), and The Virgin Spring (1960). To lovers of the horror and action movies of the seventies, he was the go-to bad guy in later films like The Exorcist (1973) and Three Days of the Condor (1975). To moviegoers of the eighties and nineties, he popped up all over the place, from the Bond movie Never Say Never Again (1983) to Woody Allen's Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) to Penny Marshall's Awakenings (1990), along the way garnering his only career Oscar nomination for the small Swedish film Pelle the Conqueror (1987).

Now, in a new millennium in which he has already appeared in a range of projects, from Minority Report (2002) to Rush Hour 3 (2007), Max von Sydow is back on top of his game in a small but pivotal part in one of the best films of the year, Julian Schnabel's The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (12/19, Miramax, trailer). Earlier this month, I spoke extensively with von Sydow about his humble beginnings, his illustrious career, and the role for which he is now generating Best Supporting Actor Oscar-talk, Papinou, a handicapped old man whose son is suddenly afflicted with a paralyzing stroke. I had been warned that von Sydow can be a tough character, but he proved anything but—to be sure, he is an actor's actor, and thus terribly serious about his craft, but he also knows how to laugh... after all, how else could he retain a place in the top-ranks of his profession for over half a century?

I have a heavy question to begin with. I’ve read that your birth name was not Max. Where did that come from?
[laughs] Well, this is kind of a long story, but cut it out if it’s not of interest. In the days when I was born, it was in fashion in Sweden to give little boys double-names like they still do in France, like Jean Paul, Jean Pierre, etcetera. So, in Sweden, they called them Lars Erich, or Carl Anders, etcetera, etcetera. And my parents decided to baptize me Carl Adolf. Why? Because my father’s name was Carl and my maternal grandfather’s name was Adolf. So here we are—Carl Adolf. And that was okay until the war came when I was ten years old; then, suddenly, Adolf was not a very good name to listen to. And then, up in high school, when I decided to try to become an actor, and got into the Acting Academy with the National Theatre, I was accepted as a student Carl Adolf von Sydow. And when the press started getting interested in us new students, they came and made reportages there, but they always misspelled my name, or they gave me some other names—they called me Carl Anders, or Gustav Adolf, or something like that—and I got fed up with this. And if they managed to get the name right, they couldn’t spell my last name, which is not a Swedish name—it’s a German name, originally. And so I decided I had to do something about it. And then I remembered that in my days during my military service, we had at the end of the years—whatever it took—we had an evening to entertain the regiment, and I appeared in a comedy number with an imaginary flea circus. And the star of that circus was Max. And I performed this thing, and it was very popular, and after that day, the colonel of the regiment started calling me Max. And my buddies, you know, did the same. And so, in the Academy—I remember this—I thought, “Max von Sydow? That may be better.” It’s sort of not so historical as Carl Adolf, which was sort of very serious and very old-fashioned. And I tried Max von Sydow, and it’s more artistic, and it worked so that people started to remember it. [laughs] But, in fact, I am baptized after an imaginary flea. So that’s the story.

Take me back to your childhood—where you were raised, what you parents were like, what your interests were before you discovered you were an actor…
My father was a professor at a university in a small town in the south of Sweden, in Lund, and his subject was folklore—Scandinavian folklore, but he was also very interested in Ireland. And this was, you know, a long time ago—he was fifty when I was born, so he was already before 1920 on Ireland to record old folk tales, and folk traditions, etcetera, etcetera, and was a pioneer in that respect. So I grew up with lots of fairy tales and folk tales from Sweden, from Scandinavia, but also very much from Ireland. But that was my world. In the summers, we were in the country. My parents came from the country; they were both born in big farms in the country, in the forest district. So that was my world. Theater was something that did not exist in my little town, but when I was high school, a neighboring town—a larger town by the name of Malmo, in the south of Sweden—inaugurated a big, new, modern, municipal theater, and we students at my high school were sent there to, you know, see particularly the classical productions. The first one, I think, was A Midsummer Night’s Dream, by Shakespeare, and that impressed me extremely much. And my buddies and me—we decided we had to do something like this. So we created a theater society in high school and made plays, with great pleasure. And I decided I had to do this in my life. And after my exam on my military service, I applied to the Acting Academy with the National Theatre, and I was accepted, and that was the beginning. And, at that time, it was important for the young actors to get into one of those schools we had. There were several municipal theaters in the country, and several of them had their own acting academies, so you tried to be enrolled in one of these schools. And, if you did, you were immediately exposed to the interest of directors, etcetera. I’ve never really auditioned for anything except getting into that academy—I’ve been very fortunate. Every year, the students had a show and showed what they had been working on during the year, and all the directors, and other theater directors and film directors came to watch you. And, on my second year there, I was already offered a part in a film.

You’ve mentioned how you discovered theater, but I wonder how you first discovered movies. Did you go to see movies growing up? And did you have any favorite films or actors who impressed you or influenced you as a young man?
Yes, I did. Of course I went to the movies. But my parents were both brought up in very strict, religious homes where, you know, movies and theater was not really accepted, so I had a tough time, in the beginning, to convince them that theater or acting might be something good. But this meant also that they did not take me to the movies very much. It took me a few years, really, before I discovered the wonder of movies. When I was a young boy, in those days, it was Errol Flynn, you know, James Cagney, etcetera, and the British ones—Leslie Howard and, later on, of course, Michael Redgrave, and all these wonderful classic actors. I think Trevor Howard made a particularly strong impression on me—

Oh, I love Brief Encounter, sure…
Yes. Oh, did I say Trevor Howard? I mean Leslie Howard, sorry—Leslie Howard, who became the hero during the war in Scarlet Pimpernel, and Pimpernel Smith, etcetera.

In preparing for this interview, I was somewhat surprised to read that one American actor you were particularly fond of was Gary Cooper…
Yes, yes, very much.

Who was not a particularly trained actor…
No, no, but he impressed—he impressed by his strong personality. And somebody who really impressed me very much was Spencer Tracy. Spencer Tracy was the hero after—what’s it called? The Kipling film?

Oh, Captains Courageous?
Yes! Yes, Captains Courageous. Yes, yes, yes.

It’s interesting to me that the actors you have mentioned were at their height right before a turning point for acting. They were largely untrained, unlike the generation that followed them—Brando, Clift, and all of them—who introduced us to the idea of the Method and other formal techniques of acting. You came into the industry around this turning point, having been to school for acting, which leads me to wonder how you approach a part—what technique do you employ to get into a role?
I can’t say that I have a technique. I think the basis was what I learned at the Academy, and that was just doing it, doing it, doing it—doing scenes from the great classics, and watching the great actors who at that time were working at the National Theatre in Stockholm. There was particularly one wonderful actor whose name was Lars Hanson—he was here during the early days, the silent days, with Victor Sjostrom and Mauritz Stiller. When I came to the Academy, he was a man of—well, he was in his early sixties, I believe. But he was one of those who had such a strong personality on stage he didn’t have to do anything. You just couldn’t help looking; you had to follow whatever he did. He had such a strong presence. And I admired him enormously, and probably imitated him very much in the beginning. [laughs] But I don’t have a technique, really; it is just a matter of finding out what is behind what you are reading in the play or in the screenplay you have—what has happened to this man before, and why is he the way he is? And you have to understand him; you don’t have to love him. You can’t love all the crooks you have to do, but you have to understand why they are crooks, and why they are behaving in the way they are behaving. Then, it’s a matter of trying to translate your vision into something that the audience will understand. I think, also, for every new scene, you have to know exactly what your character wants to do in that moment. It’s not about what he feels; it’s about what he wants to do. And then all the rest will come. And characterization will also come—or at least it should. [laughs]

I’m interested to know from you, since you are someone who has achieved great success on both the stage and the screen, what you consider to be the main differences between theater and film, what the positives and negatives of each are, and if you ultimately prefer one over the other?
If I had to—if I had to choose one of the two, I would choose the theater, because you have the continuity, and you have the direct contact with the audience. Films give you a wonderful opportunity—you get very close to your audience in close-ups, and whatever you do, most of the time, is closer than you ever will get in a theater. But, then, you have all the machinery around you; you have to respect the technique all the time; and you don’t what is going to happen to the material when the editor is working—they might change all of what you have done, and they might cut you out. On the stage, you are there, and you give directly to your audience what you want to. For me, the immediate contact with the audience is very exciting. But it’s tough—it is a tougher discipline, I would say, than the film acting is, because you have to be there every evening, and you have to be just as good every evening—there’s never a take two. You have to be good on take one, and that’s it; that’s your only chance. You have to force the audience to come back the following evening if you want to give another version! [laughs]

It has now been fifty years since the release of the first two films that you made under the direction of Ingmar Bergman, The Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries. When you look back on the fifteen films on which the two of you collaborated—
Eleven.

Was it only eleven?
[chuckles] Only eleven, yes.

[laughs] When you look back on them now, especially after his passing, what goes through your mind?
Well, I cannot choose one film being more important than the other. To me, it’s one piece of work, so to speak. And, of course, it has been extraordinarily important for me. And I was very privileged that I got a chance to work with Mr. Bergman when I was very young—he was still young, also. And we had a few years together, in the beginning, where we worked almost all the time; in the theater, during the theater season, he produced or directed maybe two or three productions every years; then, in the summer, he shot a film, maybe two. And you can find the continuity, somehow, that some of the plays he directed inspired him to choose subjects for his films that he made at the time. And it was a very positive, very fruitful, and inspiring time. I was very, very privileged. And, you know, if you are at the right spot and meet the right people at the right moment, that’s very important. And I was very privileged to do that. I’m thinking of all the people who didn’t but might be just as talented, and they just haven’t got the chance. I got wonderful chances, and opportunities, and I’m very grateful for that. And many, many, many of them I got from Mr. Bergman. And I owe him so much I cannot tell you.

People who look back at those films today and really study them—and study both of your careers—feel that, in a way, you brought out the best in each other. That is not to say that your work apart from each other wasn’t also excellent, but rather that something magical happened when the two of you collaborated. Do you believe he or you did anything different than normal when working together?
I don’t know. I cannot tell. He was just very inspiring—and very demanding, of course. And he had a very, very strict working discipline, which I think I have learned, and which I’ve tried to maintain through my career. But there was a great joy in the work. People who didn’t know him, they might think that he was a very, very serious, very—how should I say?—very old-fashioned, serious, and maybe even boring person. No, he wasn’t. He was a funny man to work with, with lots of jokes around the sometimes very intense and very tough takes and the theater productions that he directed. But there was a lot of joy and a lot of laughs, also.

Eventually, people in Hollywood couldn’t help but notice the great work that you were doing, and they wanted you to come, but you resisted for a while. Eventually, though, you made some Hollywood films while still keeping one foot in Europe. What were the main differences between working in European cinema and American cinema?
Well, in a way, for me, as an actor, there was no difference, really, between the work, the conditions, etcetera. It has to do with the size of the production, it has to do with the size of the budget, it has to do with the number of machines being available, etcetera. The productions in Sweden, at the time, were small—small groups working together, everybody knew each other. Most of the American productions I was in—in the beginning, particularly—were big productions with hundreds of people, and lots of technique that we did not have, at the time, in Sweden at all. But, for me, as an actor, I was doing the same thing. I learned a lot. I think I learned a lot from George Stevens, for example, who was a very tough director, in his way—he shot so many takes, and he shot so many angles on every scene, and he forced his actors to match their action from one take to another. He could spend days and days with the same sequence, but shot from every, every imaginable angle, and from every imaginable distance between the camera and the actor or the actors. And you were forced, consequently, to really do the same every time, which may be difficult. But it’s difficult, also, to give the same intensity, or whatever it is that’s demanded from that particular scene every time when you go on, and on, and on, and on forever. But it was a great school—tough school, but interesting.

The American film with which you’re probably most closely associated is The Exorcist. I want to ask you about the experience of making that movie, and also the trend to offer you very similar parts for years afterwards, which I gather caused you great frustration…
Well, I think The Exorcist is a very good film. I think it’s a very well done film of its genre. And it was a challenge for me because Father Merrin was so much older than I was at the time—it took four-and-a-half hours every morning to put on the makeup, but thank God Dick Smith was behind it, the master makeup artist of the day, which he I’m sure still is, even if he doesn’t work. But it was interesting to try to play, in close-up, a so much older man. I have done that after that many times—I played older than my own age—which is fascinating. [laughs] I find it interesting. But it was a clergyman, and producers, of course, they are interested in their money, and they don’t want to take risks, so if they need a clergyman in a film, they look for actors who have done clergymen before, and done it well—who have had certain success with that. So they look for somebody—“Ah! Max von Sydow has played Father Merrin. He has played even Jesus, etcetera. We take him!” So I have I don’t know how many religious characters of this kind I have done—but many—and how many I’ve been offered and turned down. I try to avoid them now [laughs], unless they are particularly interesting. But I enjoyed Father Merrin, at the time.

You found a different sort of role—and I assume that is why you took it—in the film we’re all talking about now, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, as Papinou, the father of Jean-Dominique Bauby. How did this role come to you, and what you decide to do it?
Well, it came to me in form of a wonderful, wonderful screenplay. And this little gem of Papinou—I read many screenplays, and most of them—most unfortunately—are very bad, are very boring. But this was an extraordinary, wonderful screenplay, and after just a few pages of reading I knew I wanted to do this, and I’m very happy that I did, because I enjoyed it very much, and I think that it has come out as a wonderful film. I hope it will have a large audience.

One thing that is very touching about it is the relationship between Jean-Dominique and his father—
It is.

I hope you can talk about working with Mathieu Amalric, the actor who plays Jean-Dominique. First of all, I don’t know if it’s just me, but I thought I saw even a physical resemblance between the two of you, like you could have been a father and son. But, beyond that, the characters have a very emotionally close relationship. How did you two get on together?
Well, we had never met until that day, and we just found immediately a sympathy. Mathieu improvised a little bit, which I had difficulty to follow, because I’m not that secure in French. But then we found a path which we enjoyed together, and I’m very pleased that it happened. He gave me a lot of inspiration during that day—we shot it in one day.

Just the shaving scene or all of them?
No, no. My two scenes were shot in one day.

The shaving scene is especially touching because we have an idea of what’s to come—
Yes, yes.

Can you talk about that scene?
It’s a great scene because it’s moving but it’s also funny, in a way. Papinou is very honest [laughs] with his opinions about what he thinks about his son, and the advice he gives to his son, and the little things he tells him about his own life, and about his own relationship to women. And I think it’s very moving that he does, this old gentleman who is stuck in his chair, and is happy to be visited by his son. It’s a wonderful scene. I was very pleased. After having read the script, I sent a fan letter, actually, to Ron Harwood, telling him how much I enjoyed the script—I had never done that before.

I think the script provides an observation for your character that is very true—when Papinou speaks with Jean-Dominique on the telephone for the first time after the stroke, he mentions that their situations are perhaps not all that different, that they’re both sort of trapped…
Yes, yes. Well, this is also moving because, I mean, in a way it’s a very naïve observation by the father. He tries to say something to encourage his son, and whatever he says it’s sort of wrong. [laughs] He asks, “How are you?” [laughs] And he says, “No, no, that’s a silly question.” And the son says, “Yes, it was a silly question.” [laughs] And then he comes with this comparison, and it’s no comfort, but he tries to comfort his son. [laughs] And it is this comical quality which makes it more moving.

One thing I have to ask you about—and I don’t know that it’s always the most comfortable thing for actors to discuss—but we are now approaching the awards season, and with that comes a lot of talk from people who stand on the sidelines, and observe, and pick out who they think may or may not be a contender down the road. Your name has come up a lot as a potential Supporting Actor nominee—it’s not a large performance, but it’s a very powerful one. It seems remarkable that you’ve only been nominated once in the past. Would another nomination have any meaning to you?
Well, yes, of course it would. Of course it would. It’s wonderful to get recognition. But, I mean, that’s not why you work as an actor—at least, I don’t. I work because I love working. I choose a part and I do it because I think, “There’s something I can do to this particular part.” But I don’t aim at any awards. If they show up, it’s wonderful. Of course, it’s wonderful.

You are clearly as sharp at acting as you’ve ever been, and people still connect with you, and they enjoy what you’re doing. What is your outlook for the future? Do you have any specific role you would particularly like to bring to the screen or anyone who you would particularly like to work with?
Well, well, no. Just good parts. Good parts, good directors. We’re talking a little about a few things, but whether it will happen or not I don’t know yet. But there is something I would very much like to do—but I’m not going to tell you because I’m very superstitious.

Posted by Editor at 15:52:56 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

DON'T KISS ME GOODBYE

Here is a short sample of the song "Don't Kiss Me Goodbye" from the upcoming film The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (11/25, Miramax), which has been stuck in my head ever since I saw the trailer of the film and then the film itself last week. The song is performed by Emmanuelle Seigner, a very attractive blonde who is the lead singer of the popular French group Ultra Orange (now known as "Ultra Orange & Emmanuelle") and also the actress who plays Jean-Dominique Bauby's ex-wife in the film, a performance for which she is generating some minor awards buzz.

alt : http://static.last.fm/webclient/inline/3/inlinePlayer.swf Ultra Orange & EmmanuelleDon't Kiss Me Goodbye
Posted by Editor at 04:16:00 | Permanent Link | Comments (2) |

Monday, November 12, 2007

FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS

The 2007 AFI Fest's Audience Awardthe festival's People's Choice Award, if you will—has been won by The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (12/19, Miramax), the wonderful, moving film directed by Julian Schnabel (Basquiat, Before Night Falls) and starring Mathieu Amalric, with Max von Sydow in a key supporting role. (Last week, I spoke with both actors; the Amalric interview has been posted, but von Sydow is still to come.) It will be an uphill climb to get a foreign language (French) film into the Best Picture top 5, but this one is certainly worthy, and this honor cannot hurt...

Posted by Editor at 12:12:11 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Sunday, November 11, 2007

ATWI... INTERVIEW SERIES

IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE...

FRENCH ACTOR MATHIEU AMALRIC GIVES A BEAUTIFUL PERFORMANCE IN THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY AS A STROKE VICTIM WHO SEIZES BACK CONTROL AND REMINDS US THAT LIFE, EVEN AT ITS HARDEST, IS BEAUTIFUL


Last week, I got an early look at The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (12/19, Miramax, trailer), and came away almost certain that it will have a place on my end-of-the-year top ten list. First, it is one of the most visually innovative and stunning films you will see this or any year
—I believe credit for this should probably be shared between the immensely talented cinematographer Janusz Kaminski (who won Oscars for Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan) and the eccentric director Julian Schnabel, who is also a world-class painter. Second, it is a simply jaw-dropping story—I would have used the word 'unbelievable' if I had not been forewarned that it is actually based on a true story. And third, it marks another wonderful, challenging performance by a Frenchman who never wanted to be an actor in the first place, Mathieu Amalric.

If you've been keeping up on your French cinema, then you know Amalric has popped up in a number of prominent roles over the past decade-plus, most notably in the critically acclaimed Kings and Queen (2004). If not, you'll almost certainly remember him as the wheeler-dealer who does business with Eric Bana in Steven Spielberg's Munich (2005). It was during the filming of that controversial film that Spielberg's longtime producer Kathleen Kennedy saw something in Amalric that led her to recommend him to director Julian Schnabel (Basquiat, Before Night Falls), who was then attempting to cast The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Despite considering a number of more famous stars, including Johnny Depp and Bana, Schnabel decided to take a gamble by casting a French actor to play a French character in a movie shot in France that would, most importantly, have to play in America.

While it remains to be seen whether the gamble will pay off financially (aside from featuring subtitles, the film is admittedly a bit of an emotional rollercoaster that is sometimes upsetting), it will be hard for anyone to argue against its cinematic merits. It is one of those rare films that leads you to take a long look in the mirror and ask yourself some hard questions when you get home, and that's not a bad thing. Just two days after seeing the film, and just an hour before discussing it with its supprting actor/film legend Max von Sydow, I had the pleasure of speaking with Amalric, whose English could use a little polish, but whose endearing charm, intelligence, and humility were anything but lost in translation...


I hope you can talk a little about your background. Where were you born, what did your parents do, what was your childhood like?
[laughs] That’s a question I am asking myself every day, you know? I’m born—I know that I’m born on the twenty-fifth of October, ’65, in Paris. My parents were both journalists—and I say were because they’re not dead, they stopped working now. So my father worked for Le Monde in political exterior affairs—you know, foreign affairs—in journalism, so I lived in Washington, D.C. between five and eight years old, and then in Moscow between eight and twelve, and then back to Paris. And then, in fact, I started in movies when I was seventeen years old, but on the other side—I was a trainee, A.D., assistant editor, you know, all those jobs, and I directed my short films as a director. And that was my dream. And when I was thirty years old, Arnaud Desplechin, t
he guy that did Kings and Queen, we did another film nine years agomore than thatand he was the first guy who had the idea that I could act, in fact, but I had never acted before. Never.

You never had any desire to act before it was suggested to you?
If I had a desire, it was very, very unconscious. I was so shy. Acting, for me, is like a vengeance on adolescence, you know? All the things that you are not able to do—to invite a girl to dance in a party, you know, if you know stay near the wall all the time. That’s the sort of guy I was. So maybe I’m acting now just to, you know, to forget that period. I don’t know. [laughs] Well, sometimes, shy people become completely, you know, more crazy than the others. And I continue to act because irresistible things happen to me—I mean, friends-directors ask me to act in their films and, in the same time, I just finished writing another script of mine. I directed three feature films already, and I’m starting to prepare another one for this winter.

You’ve said in the past, after you’d become an actor, “I don’t want to be a star.” What led you to feel that way?
[laughs] Oh, you think I said that? That seems quite modest. Yeah, well, you know—no, no, how can I say? Being in movies, for me, as I’ve worked both sides, I mean, it’s such a part of my breathing, my life, you know? What I like is to work on films like Munich and then work on a short film for free with friends, you know what I mean? Try to continue to be in different places, not just do one sort of movies. You know, that’s more that. And then, it’s also because sometimes—you know, I just love having my life where nobody recognizes me, you know? I can just have my kids, and have a normal life, you know? And that is very precious for me because I think that then you can’t observe the others anymore; you’re always obsessed by how people are looking at you, but you can’t look at the others, you know? And as I’m more—well, my vocation is more to be a director, I like to be hidden, and observe the others, and life.

As you noted, you got into acting later than most. Did you ever have any formal training? Did you ever acquire a method of how you do it? Some people claim that they approach a part using the Stanislavski Method, or some other technique. What works for you?
Well, I think, as I have no technique, I have to work much more than the others, because I’m afraid that people will see that I’m not a real actor. [laughs] And then the thing that I need is to feel that the director, I don’t know, that we are together, you know? That somebody is looking at me and we’re sharing something. That’s the most important thing, I think. You can’t be an actor by yourself. You have to be re-looked by somebody. That’s why, sometimes, good actors can be very bad in a film, and absolutely amazing in another, but it’s almost not their fault—it’s just because something happened. It’s like a love story—I mean, it’s just desire between an actor and a director. That is my guide, in fact. And then I think that movie actors have to do more with circus than with ideas—I mean, it’s very physical. It has to do with practice. For example, for Kings and Queen, I spent two months learning hip-hop, you know, or violin. For the Schnabel film, I, of course, practiced on how to know the alphabet, how to keep my eye open, how to not move—it’s very physical not to move, in fact. It’s true. But, each time, I love it when you have to learn, I don’t know, anything—how to be a carpenter, how to fall by the window, you know? You just do physical stuff. Yeah, that’s more my practice, each time.

I hope I can quickly ask you about three or four of your major roles leading up to The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Hopefully, you can offer for each maybe just a sentence or two of what the role meant to the development of your life and your career. The first one that I gather was pretty significant was The Sentinel in 1992…
Well, La Sentinelle, I had a very, very small part. But it’s more the other one that I did just afterwards, called My Sex Life, or How I Got Into an Argument, where I had the first part, the leading part. Well, that was the first time—Arnaud Desplechin told me that, ten days before the shooting. And, in Desplechin’s films, you speak a lot, so it was like I was doing my homework all the time, learning the lines and just hating myself having not been good in school and not learning my poetry, you know, because I had a very bad memory. So, just sort of unconscious, I don’t know, I said to myself, “Okay, the director is the guy who’s taking risks. It’s not me. He knows that I’m not an actor.” That was the first. And it, sort of, gave me a big confidence in directing my own films. Just afterwards, I decided to refuse to be an actor, because it was, like, a great life, you know? It’s like Cinderella to be an actor, and I decided really to go back to directing. So I just did a feature film of mine just afterwards.

The second one I want to ask you about is Kings and Queen. That was a major one in exposing you to many more people. You won the Cesar for Best Actor…
Yeah. Well, it’s the same director, Arnaud Desplechin, again. But what was really moving for us—it was nine years later. And so many things happen between thirty and forty years old, you know? Kids or not kids, dissolutions, sickness, death—all those things. And we are not close friends with Arnaud—that’s why, I think, we love each other that much [laughs], and we continue to work together. So it was, like, a new discovery together. And Rois et Reine, for me, I saw this director, Desplechin, being more and more touching, and more and more funny—I don’t know, like it was a painter that had more colors on his palette, you know? And so we went quite far in comedy and in physical stuff.

And then the final one is Steven Spielberg’s Munich, which must have been just a huge moment in your life…
Yeah. That was—[laughs] I didn’t understand what happened to me, of course. I was thinking of Francois Truffaut, who acted in The Third Encounters [clearly referring to Truffaut's cameo in Spielberg's 1977 film Close Encounters of the Third Kind], you know, and he was a director. So when I went to the casting, I cheated—I said, “I didn’t learn my lines,” you know? And I said, “No, but I’m not an actor, you know? I’m just a director. I didn’t know there was lines to learn—oh, shit!” And, in fact, I had learned it really very, very well. So I, sort of, start reading, and at one point I just, you know, acted. So, of course, they were impressed, because they thought— And then, of course, it was amazing because I saw this guy, Steven Spielberg, is just so enchanted by his life—I mean, his job. He’s like a kid! He’s excited, he loves actors, he’s having fun, he’s reacting at the moments at what’s happening. He had no storyboard—you can propose lots of things. I was amazed to see that on a big, big scale, there was so much freedom, you know, in the creation. That was amazing. And, of course, because of Munich, Kathleen Kennedy, on the last day of shooting, gave me the script of The Diving Bell—I mean, you know, it’s amazing. Amazing.

I understand that there were some other very, very high-profile actors [Johnny Depp, Eric Bana] who were considered for the role of Jean-Dominique Bauby in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. How did it all together for you?
Well, I think it’s luck again, I don’t know—well, luck, you know, at some point you don’t even know what it is anymore; sometimes it’s destiny, or things like that. Kathleen Kennedy saw me on Munich, had this idea, because Julian was telling her all the time, “I think it’s not a good idea to do this French novel in the States. I want to shoot it in French, in France, in the real hospital where the real story really happened.” That was Julian’s intuition on this film. So when Kathleen Kennedy thought of me, she talked of me to Julian, and, in fact, Julian knew how I was because he had seen me in a film ten years ago in San Sebastian. So, you know, something connected. And then I spent four days with Julian in his home, and it was a moment of Thanksgiving, I remember, two years ago. And we just spent four days cooking, speaking, going through the script, and talking about our fathers—and I felt that, for Julian, it was really a necessity to do this film because of his father, because of lots of things, and I felt that we had something to do to together. I don’t know. It was obvious. That’s how it happened, in fact.

For people who may not be familiar with the story, either from reading the book or from seeing the trailer or the film, can you give a general sense of who Jean-Dominique Bauby was, but also what the title The Diving Bell and the Butterfly really refers to? You know, what the metaphor is…
Yes. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was a very famous book in France when it was released ten years ago because the guy who wrote it, Jean-Dominique Bauby, was one of the chief editors of Elle magazine, and he had this stroke, and he couldn’t move his body anymore when he woke up. The only thing that was still working was his left eye—his eyelid—and nobody knew very well that sickness, at that time. And they discovered that, in fact, he could understand, so then he’d, sort of, blink one time for “yes,” two times for “no.” Then they, sort of, invented an alphabet, and he could start to say words by blinking. And this journalist, Bauby, always dreamt of being an author, a writer, and he started to have this amazing idea of writing a book like that. So he wrote the book with his eyelid, and a woman took the dictate, you know? And, the thing is, this guy had lots of sense of humor, and that’s how he found this ‘butterfly.’ The ‘diving bell’ is the moments when he finds himself so heavy he can’t move—he’s in this envelope in his body that just doesn’t respond. If he wants to itch himself, he can’t. If there’s a guy that closes the TV during an important football match, he can’t say, “No!” He’s closed in his body—that’s the ‘diving bell.’ And as he says, “There’s two things left to me—my imagination and my memories, and with that I can go wherever I want.” And that’s when he feels himself as a ‘butterfly.’ And it’s true—in fact, it’s amazing what you can do. With your thoughts, you can go anywhere you want, and that’s what writing is about, also. And the film is amazing because it has so much to deal with the miracle of life, and not about the desire of dying.

It’s interesting you say that, because The Diving Bell and the Butterfly has been compared with another film, The Sea Inside, which is also great, but features some stark differences that I hope you can talk address…
The Sea Inside
is the film with Javier Bardem?

Yeah. El Mar Adentro
El Mar Adentro
, yeah. Ah, The Sea Inside—that’s the Spanish title. Well, it’s exactly the opposite because Javier Bardem plays a guy who is fighting for the right to stop living—he wants to die. He wants to stop that. That’s what El Mar Adentro is about. Jean-Dominique Bauby—he didn’t want to die. He didn’t even think he was going to die. He was thinking he was going to write another book. It’s something very different. We thought about it, of course, because Javier Bardem is a very close friend of Julian—he acted in Before Night Falls—so it was something we had in mind. But, so quickly, we felt that they were not dealing on the same inner-life. It wasn’t the same subject, in fact.

Bauby is obviously a very unusual sort of part, and so I wondered—aside from reading the book—what you were able to do intellectually to play the part. For instance, I wondered if you had spoken with the real Bauby’s family or the staff…
Of course, I did.

And did you read about or observe stroke victims? And, I don’t know, perhaps even someone you’ve known in your own life has been afflicted by a stroke? I hope you can talk about this mental process of preparing…
There were two persons that were really very important for me. A guy called Laurent, who was his best friend, who is played by Isaach De Bankole in the film—we spent nights talking about Bauby. He showed me photographs, he told me so many things that he hadn’t spoken about for ten years, you know? And he offered me this confidence, this material. And also the last woman that he loved—in the film, it’s not exactly his real life. In fact, at the end of his life, he was living with a woman who came every day in the hospital, because he didn’t live with his wife anymore—Florence Ben Sadoun told me a lot of things, also. And they all helped me, telling me that this guy was just not a saint. [laughs] He was continuing to seduce from his bed, looking at the legs of women; being like a baby; liking to be in grief, you know, sometimes; and being narcissistic, you know; and wanting to be famous; and all the complexity. It’s not because you have a stroke that you become a saint, you know? That was very important for me, not to take the vivacity of human life—you know, the complexity. And, the thing is, he became a writer, that’s true. So it’s amazing what’s happened. In fact, he’s a sort of hero. But like all heroes—real heroes—they’re not conscious of being a hero. You know what I mean? You don’t decide to be a hero. It happens because you do something. So that was very important for me. And there was also the medical crew of the real hospital where we shot, and some of the persons there are in the film—for instance, I’m thinking of Daniel, who is this guy, very strong guy, that is in the bathtub with me, you know? He did exactly the same thing with Bauby ten years before—the real Bauby—so he could, each time, tell me—I always asking him, “Am I believable? Am I believable?” And all the medical crew were really so generous with me, just telling me exactly how were the hands, how much he could move, what muscle he could move on his head. You see, I had this very, very, almost documentary vision of what could be. It had to seem real.

One of the things that made you seem so real to me when I saw it was the way you managed to keep your face frozen in such a contorted way so realistically. That must have been very, very challenging. We’ve talked about the mental aspect, but can you talk about the physical demands of playing this character?
I didn’t believe it but, in fact, I think it’s the most exhausting part I ever acted—much more than doing three hours of hip-hop. I was completely, completely exhausted every day at the end of the day; I couldn’t do something else in the evening. I just couldn’t do anything. Because, in fact, to play somebody that doesn’t move, you have to contract all your muscle, all the time, so you’re always contracted. And, as Julian shoots without any rehearsal, he can shoot at any moment. He tries to break the professional habits, you know, of a crew, so that something new—anything—can happen at any moment. I had to be in that sort of state all the time. I couldn’t prepare myself for shots. I had to stay like that. And I also wanted to stay like that to help the other actors because, for them—I don’t know, if you have this guy, this actor, that is lying at the last moment, just after taking a coffee, you know, and talking about your new car, and “Okay, let’s go with the scene!” How can they believe? So it’s true that I tried never to move, I tried only to speak with my lid, as much as possible. Because also I knew that Julian could say to them, “Okay, let’s shoot now! Now! Now! Let’s shoot!” And I had to be ready. And, with Julian, we said it would be said it would be stupid to have five hours of makeup every morning, you know? So we found a way that I had nothing—it would take five minutes, in fact. I only had a dental prosthesis that would push the mouth down—and I wanted it to hurt, because the pain could help me to act, in fact, you know? And it was just glue for my lip. And I had an eye lens with some blood in it. That’s all. And wax on the head—wax to be sweating all the time, because he was sweating all the time. That’s all. In fact, there were two parts for me in the film. There was the first part, when you don’t see him yet, so everything was the inner-thoughts—because the other actors, they were acting with the lens, in fact; it was very hard for them, and I couldn’t help them because I had no lines, you know? And they had to look directly in the lens. So, in fact, we had this idea of doing the inner-thoughts at the same time—so I was in another room, I had a monitor, I could hear what they were saying, and Julian told me, “Just say what you have in mind.” And that’s where Florence Ben Sadoun, Bernard Chapuis, and the book helped me to try to be as close as what I could feel of the sense of humor of Bauby. So, yeah, it’s true that I sort of improvised, I invented jokes; yeah, the inner-thoughts are not written. That’s where Julian is really great—I mean, you know, so much confidence. That’s why I say you can’t do a film by your own; it’s because we were together, you know? And the guy that had the camera, he could hear my thoughts, and he would frame the acting at my thoughts. You know what I mean? One moment, I said, “Okay, I don’t want to see them anymore,” so the camera would go to the wall, you know, or to the window, or down, you know?

The film intercuts a lot between Bauby’s life before the stroke and after the stroke, which leads me to wonder whether you shot in sequence or jumped back and forth between the period, in which case it I imagine it would have been quite an emotional rollercoaster ride for you…
We shot the flashback at the end of the shooting. And it was a strange period. It was strange to do that. In fact, I was more afraid to do the flashback—it was strange. I tried again just to be a normal guy, you know? Not a great guy, or not a stupid guy, just a normal guy, not aware of the miracle of what is a human body, you know, and things like that. And there is so little flashback—there is really very little.

Although one of the most powerful scenes—
With Max, no? The father?

That, too, but when—SPOILER ALERT—you’re in the car and you suffer the actual stroke…
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, that is amazing because Julian shoots very quickly—we finished ten days before schedule, you know, because he doesn’t believe in preparing something. If it’s prepared for him, it’s like if it was dead. It’s almost like his paintings, you know? I don’t know if you know his paintings, but they’re, sort of, big, huge paintings and he just [blows his breath to sound like the whoosh of a paintbrush flying through the air]. It’s more like a gesture, you know, like a scream, you know? Something like that. And the stroke at the end—I don’t know what it is to have a stroke. I don’t know what had just happened. I had to invent. It was very hard. I was afraid. But I remember that one thing that helped me is that I had the idea that the foot was stuck on the accelerator so it would go [makes a noise like the revving of an engine]. And that helped me to keep the tension of my body, the noise of the motor, you know, of the engine. It’s funny. And that’s how I found the tension, in fact. It was the idea that his foot was stuck on the [makes the revving noise again], you know?

Julian said of Bauby, “He’s kind of like Christ because he’s dying for our sins, in a way. He tells you, ‘Grab the presence. Look into your interior life.’” The film certainly makes all of us re-evaluate our priorities and think about whether or not we are living our life properly. But what do you make of his comment?
Oh, I never heard him say that. I know it’s very personal, more because of fright of death, and because he saw his father having the fright of death. I know that’s also something very important for him—the reason why he did this film. But I’m more now just every day remembering that the human body is a miracle, you know? But I’m not yet reaching God. I think that the human body is enough to believe in the absurdity and the marvelous thing of being alive, and connecting your thoughts to your body. And I think that Julian managed to do a film that doesn’t have one unique message. You know what I mean? It’s more complex, I think.

Lastly, I’m interested to know what’s next for you. According to one article I’ve read, you have vowed not to work for the next year and a half, at least as far as acting. At the same time, pundits are putting you right in the thick of the Best Actor race, which I imagine might change that. What are your plans for the future?
Well, I try to have no plans because I think that what’s marvelous about life that—it’s the meetings, you know, the encounters that you didn’t plan. If you say to yourself, “Okay,” let’s say, “I want an Oscar in ten years. So in ten years I have an Oscar…” Well, you can manage to have an Oscar, of course, but it’s not very interesting—I mean, it’s so much funnier when it happens, you know, by chance. I always say that everything is like being Cinderella for me, you know? It’s like, you know, it’s funny. It’s just so funny. At the same time, what is very important to me is to direct my own film. That’s why I have to stop acting. But something just fell on me three days ago—but I’m not allowed to say.

It has to do with acting, though?
Yeah, with acting. It’s something that you just can’t refuse, so I’m gonna act again. [laughs] Yeah, in something incredible—when you will learn it, it’s so funny, it really is great.

Posted by Editor at 02:28:48 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

THIS WEEK'S BRIEFING


Denzel Washington plays a '70s drug lord in early Best Pic favorite American Gangster.
(photo source: ConcreteLoop.com)

Awards Chatter

  • It’s way too early to make a serious prediction of who’s out front for Best Picture, but my sense at the moment is that it may be a three-way race between Atonement (Focus), American Gangster (Universal), and Charlie Wilson’s War (Universal). Take this with a grain of salt, since prognosticators had crowned Cold Mountain, Munich, and Dreamgirls as frontrunners at this point in years past—but keep in mind that while the aforementioned films did not win, they still went on to play major roles in the race. I am hearing marvelous things about both Atonement and Gangster (not much yet on Charlie), and my early impression is that we might see a Picture-Director split (a la ‘00, ‘02, ‘05, etc.), since Atonement has more of a Best Picture pedigree, but Gangster is directed by the revered Ridley Scott, who has been around forever (started in the ‘60s), is getting up there (he’ll turn 70 in November), and has never been honored (he was the victim of the aforementioned ‘00 split), and will therefore engender more affection (see Scorsese in ’06) than the lesser-known helmer of Atonement, Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice). We’ll see.
  • I can’t say for sure until I see the film in Toronto in early September, but my gut—based primarily on a very well-done trailer and the way WB seems to be handling the film—is that Michael Clayton, which stars George Clooney as a lawyer dragged into scandal, is actually a lot better than people realize, and will be in serious play for a Best Picture nomination.
  • I’m being told that the magnitude of Reese Witherspoon’s role in Rendition as a grief-stricken wife of an alleged terrorist has been greatly overemphasized in advance publicity for the film, including the film’s trailer. It is certainly understandable that New Line would want to capitalize on Witherspoon’s box-office power, but awards watchers should guarded about her prospects as a serious candidate for Best Actress. In other words, she may be more Blanchett-in-Babel than Witherspoon-in-Walk the Line. (Supposedly, the film itself is more of the commercial than awards sort, anyway.)
  • Joaquin Phoenix fans have to be feeling good about his prospects. After struggling for years to emerge from his bad-boy rep and the shadow of late brother River, he made great strides with his awards-worthy perf in Walk the Line in 2005. Now, he is being heavily touted for a Best Actor nomination for Reservation Road, and if he does indeed make the cut, he could very possibly benefit from being the category's only nominee without an Oscar—likely competition includes past winners Denzel Washington, Tom Hanks, George Clooney, Daniel Day-Lewis, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Tommy Lee Jones. The only other anticipated contenders without Oscars are Johnny Depp and James McAvoy. (Note: The impossible-to-dislike Keira Knightley and Laura Linney may find themselves in a similar situation in the Best Actress field for their performances in Atonement and The Savages, respectively.)
  • Harvey Weinstein is revving his engines, and while he no longer has the resources of Miramax to work with, you can be sure his hunger for Oscar (which is directly responsible for the ’98 win of Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan) has not evaporated since his founding of The Weinstein Company with baby bro Bob. Therefore, when Harvey talks, I listen, and he is now on record with the following statement pertaining to TWC’s Bob Dylan bio-pic I’m Not There: “I may be jumping the gun, but if Cate Blanchett doesn’t get nominated, I’ll shoot myself.” (I have been independently projecting a Supporting Actress nomination for Cate the Great for some time now.) Aside from Woody Allen’s Cassandra’s Dream and the mid-season release Sicko in the Documentary category, Harvey’s got nothing else to focus on, so this is a strong indication of where he will be investing his considerable energy and resources this awards season.
  • I keep hearing from various sources about two films to keep an eye on as sleeper contenders in major categories: The first is Love in the Time of Cholera (New Line), which is adapted from a novel, depicts a love-triangle in South America at the turn of the 20th century, and apparently features a particularly impressive performance from Giovanna Mezzogiorno as the woman caught in-between Javier Bardem and Benjamin Bratt. The second is The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Miramax), a French film that I’m told is in the same vein as Life Is Beautiful—it is the story of Jean-Dominique Bauby, the former editor of Elle magazine, who suffered a stroke in 1995 that left everything but his brain and his left eye paralyzed, and who managed to write his touching memoirs using only those two functions. (I’m hearing that Max von Sydow, the great veteran of so many Ingmar Bergman classics, will get a Supporting Actor push for his performance as the afflicted man’s elderly father.)
  • To me, the category that is proving the hardest to get a read on is Supporting Actress. At the moment, with all things being relatively equal and based on a little buzz, I think one has to give the edge to the respected and versatile veteran Jennifer Jason Leigh (Margot at the Wedding), who has never before earned so much as a nomination, and is way overdue for some attention. That said, I’m hearing very mixed things about the film itself, and so she may be on shaky ground—in which case who steps into the frontrunner slot? The category’s recent winner Cate Blanchett (I’m Not There), who will in all likelihood be contending for Best Actress; Abbie Cornish (The Golden Age), who will have to contend with the dominating presence of lead Blanchett; past winner Mira Sorvino (Reservation Road), who many associate most with her dumb blonde in Romy and Michele’s High School Reunion and regard as an Oscar fluke; perhaps Evan Rachel Wood for playing the younger version of Uma Thurman in In Bloom; or any number of other options. The good news: the field is usually won by youngish, attractive women. The bad news: that pretty much describes all of them.

News and Notes

  • I’m so happy that people discovered Superbad, which far exceeded expectations and opened "Supergood," in the words of every cutesy writer out there, to $33 million. Since seeing the film at a screening in late July, I was so excited for my friends to see it that I really built it up a lot, and then got a bit worried that I might have overhyped it. It turned out I had nothing to worry about, since they, like most people, thought it was absolutely hilarious. In this case, success couldn’t have happened to a nicer group of guys than Michael Cera, Jonah Hill, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who proved to be really nice guys when we sat down for an interview on July 25th—that chat will be a nice time capsule, because these guys’ lives will not be the same after this. (I have to admit I feel a little sorry for director Greg Mottola, whose name has been virtually ignored in favor of the actors, co-writer Seth Rogen, and producer Judd Apatow. In the industry, however, the film’s tremendous success is starting to pay dividends: he has been given a greenlight to direct Adventureland, a semi-autobiographical comedy set in the 1980s about a recent college graduate who, after his father is suddenly terminated from his job, is forced to abandon his elaborate plans for a trip to Europe and instead take up work at a local amusement park.)
  • If Superbad was a big winner at the box-office, The Invasion was a big loser. Most of us saw this coming a mile away: the fourth re-make of a beloved classic in fifty-five years that required multiple re-writes and directors? Additionally, it confirms that any past box-office success of its leads, Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig, can probably be more attributed to their vehicles—hardcore dramas and James Bond—far more than themselves. (This has to worry New Line, which has $150 million on the line for the December release The Golden Compass, which stars—you guessed it—Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig, and which also had its director replaced after production had already begun.)
  • True movie buffs will appreciate the following: Over the past week, I interviewed two legendary Academy Award winners for my ongoing book project addressing the history of the movies. Louise Fletcher won the Best Actress Oscar for her haunting performance as Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest in 1975, while Cliff Robertson took home the Best Actor Oscar for his heartbreaking turn as a man briefly given a reprieve from his mentally retarded condition thanks to a science experiment in Charly (1968). Both have worked relatively little since their big nights—Fletcher has been irreparably typecast as a villain, while Robertson exposed studio corruption as part of “Hollywoodgate” in the 1970s and has, for the most part, been a persona-non-grata ever since (with his small part as Peter Parker’s grandfather in the Spider-Man films being a notable exception).

Suggested Reading

  • Judd Apatow may be the man with a seemingly magic touch at the moment, and I’m certainly one of his biggest proponents. That said, I share Anne Thompson’s trepidations about his next film, Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, which will star the undeniably talented, Oscar-nominated actor John C. Reilly in a spoof of musical bio-pics like Walk the Line and Ray. I have yet to really buy Reilly in an all-out comedic role—he’s fine when he plays things down in movies like Boogie Nights, but I don’t think he clicks when he tries to be funny in things like A Prairie Home Companion and Talladega Nights. That said, he has the endorsements of Judd Apatow and Will Ferrell, so who the hell am I?
  • You may remember that, back in April, I was lucky enough to attend the first screening anywhere of S.O.P.: Standard Operating Procedure, an upcoming documentary about Abu Ghraib by the great Errol Morris. If that piqued your interest, be sure to check out “Will the Real Hooded Man Please Stand Up,” a fascinating piece Morris has written for the New York Times web site.
  • Poor Tom Cruise just can’t catch a break, huh?

Screening Room

  • An Unmarried Woman (1978), starring a young and attractive Jill Clayburgh, was a feminist groundbreaker when it came out and earned Oscar nominations for Picture, Director, and Actress, but it does not hold up particularly well today. Clayburgh, her daughter, her friends, and—to a somewhat lesser extent—her lover (Alan Bates) are all a bit grating. To me, the most invigorating part of the film is its soundtrack (especially “I’m Yours” and “You Make Me Feel Like Dancing”), which was incorporated into the film well.
  • A friend forced me to sit down and finally watch Contact (1997) for the first time. While it revolves around an interesting enough plot, it is overlong (153 minutes) and oversentimental, and seems to be the usually solid director Robert Zemeckis’ attempt to catch up with contemporaries Spielberg and Lucas in the science-fiction realm. Jodie Foster, in the lead, is good at playing the tough girl but very unconvincing at playing romantic scenes with a young Matthew McConaughey.
  • Over the course of several nights spread out over a few weeks this summer, another friend—a fellow film history guy—and I sat down and watched Kevin Brownlow and David Gil’s 10-part mini-series Hollywood (1980)—narrated by James Mason—which chronicles the silent era of film and features rare on-camera interviews with the likes of Mary Astor, Louise Brooks, Yakima Canutt, Jackie Coogan, Janet Gaynor, Lillian Gish, Colleen Moore, Hal Roach, Gloria Swanson, and King Vidor. While the film leaves a lot to be desired technically, it is a wonderful appreciation of the bygone era made well before it occurred to almost anyone else that it was worth chronicling.
  • Finally, just channel-surfing recently, I came across two movies that I had enjoyed when they were first released in 1993, and did not want to turn off once I started watching them today: Dave (1993)—directed by Ivan Reitman, Jason’s dad—stars Kevin Kline as the President of the United States and as the average joe who poses as him. Mrs. Doubtfire (1993) features Robin Williams near the top of his commercial appeal as a divorced husband who goes so far as to pose as an elderly nanny in order to be with his kids. (It only occurs to me now that they share this impostor theme.)

Shout-Outs

  • Kudos are in order for Jason Kohn, the young director of the documentary Manda Bala, which won Best Documentary at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival, began unfolding this past weekend on just one screen, and did enough business to place behind only Superbad and Rush Hour 3 in per-screen-average box-office intake. Back in March, I had a chance to attend an early screening of the film and then chat about it with Kohn--who sorta physically resembles a young Spielberg--over dinner with a few others. I'm very interested to see what he'll do next.
  • I also want to pass along congratulations to Collin Pelton, a young actor-screenwriter friend in Los Angeles who this week completed his first original screenplay, Subconsciously, which I plan to read soon.
  • My buddy Harley Yanoff, a Boston-based actor who earlier this year shot some scenes with Kevin Spacey for the upcoming film 21, recently had the opportunity to be directed by Denzel Washington in Boston, where the Oscar winner shot some scenes for his soon-to-be-released film The Great Debaters, which also stars Denzel Washington, Forest Whitaker, and--you can't make this stuff up--a young actor named Denzel Whitaker. Recent Weinstein Company press materials indicate that the film may be in theaters this December, although I see it probably getting pushed to 2008 to avoid any conflict with Washington’s performance in American Gangster.
  • And, finally, a shout-out to Andrew Percy, an old friend and fellow movie lover, who is celebrating a milestone birthday this week.

Coming Soon...

  • I am at work now on a piece related to 3:10 to Yuma (LionsGate)—which opens nationwide on September 7 opposite Shoot ‘Em Up—based on my interview last month with its supporting stars Peter Fonda and Ben Foster.
  • For my book project, I have scheduled interviews over the coming weeks with: Oscar nominated actress Sally Kellerman (M*A*S*H); controversial Oscar winning screenwriter Budd Schulberg (On the Waterfront); and perhaps most controversial of all, Aurora Snow, the adult film star, who has agreed to discuss that often-ignored genre, which cannot be swept under the rug when discussing film history.
  • Lastly, I have confirmed that I will be in Toronto for the Toronto Film Festival from Friday, September 7 through Sunday, September 10. I am currently in the process of scheduling a number of screenings and interviews, some of which will be videoed and placed on the site as part of an effort to make it more interactive. (It will be a lot of fun to catch up with my great friends Jamie Metrick and Sam Jonas, two native Canadians who may also step up and help out with some of the cameraman duties as an act of not only friendship, but true patriotism.)
Posted by Editor at 00:12:35 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |