Tampilkan postingan dengan label Interview. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Interview. Tampilkan semua postingan

Minggu, 06 April 2014

SDCC 2013 Video Interview: Alfonso Cuarón on the Long-Takes in ‘Gravity’

Gravity

[MTV & Film.com Exclusive] With “R.I.P.D.” finally screening tonight, Alfonso Cuarón’s “Gravity” is now our most-anticipated film of the year. In fact, it was was our most-anticipated film of last year as well, until it was unceremoniously bumped from the schedule due to the fact that it wasn’t going to be ready in time to make its original November 2012 release date. An incredibly ambitious film that invited the “Children of Men” director to perfect the intricate long-take strategy that he first developed with his brilliant 2006 dystopian saga, “Gravity” tells the story of a medical engineer (Sandra Bullock) whose first mission to space, a seemingly banal technical exercise, becomes a breathlessly intense fight for survival when she and her veteran co-worker (George Clooney) experience a malfunction and are separated from their ship with just a limited reserve of oxygen to keep them both alive (peep the trailer here). Reportedly opening with a nearly 17-minute shot and containing fewer cuts in its 88 minutes than most films do in their trailers, “Gravity” is a classic suspense yarn with a mind-boggling technical flourish.

Cuarón brought the film to Comic-Con today, and sat down with MTV’s Josh Horowitz to discuss the film’s remarkable shooting style, the particulars as to why it was delayed for almost a full year, and how it was inspired by an unlikely Steven Spielberg movie. Enjoy this revealing five-minute video interview, and then try your best to go into cryogenic sleep until “Gravity” opens on October 4.

Note: If you’re having trouble playing the video, click through to MTV’s embed here.

For more great exclusive coverage from Comic-Con 2013, check out MTV’s Livestream!

Categories: No Categories

Tags: Alfonso Cuaron, George clooney, Gravity, Sandra bullock, SDCC, SDCC 2013

Kamis, 10 Oktober 2013

Video Interview: Olivier Assayas on Sex, Marx and Revolution in ‘Something in the Air’

olivier2

“I’ve always believed more in movement than narration.”

With his new film “Something in the Air,” revered French filmmaker Olivier Assayas (“Irma Vep,” “Carlos”) has effectively made his version of “Almost Famous.” A sexy yet sincere reflection on the post-revolutionary times of his youth, Assayas’ film – torn between past and present – is almost certainly among the most entertaining movies he’s ever made, but also one of the most conflicted and layered.

In Film.com’s full review of “Something in the Air,” I described the film as follows:

“The film begins with a floppy teenager named Gilles (Clément Métayer as Assayas’ blank but perceptive proxy) running around the February 9, 1971 demonstration, in which a branch of French maoists were teargassed by the Parisian police force. Originally titled “Après Mai” (or “After May”), “Something in the Air” rages with the orphaned energy that lingered in the aftermath of the May ’68 revolution, introducing us to the kids who were there to devour the crumbs of the counterculture. Gilles’ friends – the most memorable of whom is played by Lola Créton, perhaps the most compulsively watchable ingenue in all contemporary cinema – represent a generation of agitated adolescents so idealistic and impossibly beautiful that their physical presence alone is enough to suggest that this is a personal story told through a political lens, and not the other way around. Like a fire with nothing to burn, they have all the zeal in the world and no cause into which they might channel it.”

It was a hell of time to be young, and it’s obvious from the film that Assayas has plenty more to say on the subject than what he could fit in a single movie. That being said, IFC was kind enough to offer Film.com an exclusive clip from this Sundance Now video interview with the filmmaker, in which he talks about some of the ideas that informed his new work.

“Something in the Air” hits theaters tomorrow.

Categories: Interviews

Tags: Apres Mai, Director, Ifc films, Interview, Olivier Assayas, Something in the Air, Video Interview

Selasa, 01 Oktober 2013

Interview: Michael Shannon on ‘The Iceman,’ Boring Romances and Murder

the-iceman-michael-shannon_0-670x349

When one thinks of actor Michael Shannon, the image that comes to mind is not necessarily puppies and fields of daisies. And he’s fine with that. 

The burly actor is known for roles in “Take Shelter,” HBO’s “Boardwalk Empire” and other brutal characters. Shannon, who stars in this weekend’s “The Iceman” as real-life serial killer Richard Kuklinski, under contract for the mob and leading a double life that not even his wife knows the depths of, takes parts the he finds challenging and interesting. Things he doesn’t find interesting: Romance. “Who the hell wants to see that?!” he asked. 

We sat down with Shannon in New York ahead of the release of “The Iceman,” where the actor ate continuously from a bowl of pistachios and sipped on a glass of red wine while discussing romance, his perfect murder and which of his films you should give a second chance.

Kase Wickman: I find you very intimidating.

Michael Shannon: As you should! No, I’m just kidding. I’m a goofball.

Do people recognize you on the street? Are they scared of you? What do they do?

They usually say, “Hey, I know you! You’re so-and-so in such-and-such! Can I get my picture with you?” Okay! I Do the picture and say, “Have a nice day, buh-bye!” I always say, beyond the initial act of recognizing somebody, the funny thing about it is there’s nothing to talk about. There’s no conversation to be had, it’s literally like tag. it’s like ah, I got ya! I need to let you know that I see you. The only time it irritates me is when people say “I know I know who you are, but I don’t know why, so will you explain to me why I know who you are because it’s really bugging me.”

They’re like, “What were you in!” I say, “A lot of things.” And they’re like, “No, seriously, what’ve you been in?” I say, “Really, I’ve been doing this for over 20 years, I’ve worked on a lot of projects.” And then if they insist, I say I was in “Bad Boys 2,” because that’s honestly probably the movie I’m most known for.

Do people quote lines at you ever?

“I have my rights.” Some people quote that to me, but they don’t do it very often.

In this movie, you play a hitman. Was there anything new for you in that?

I really just went to the source material, which is the interview that Kuklinski did for the America Undercover series they did on HBO, and I got a full unedited copy of the interview, which is like over 20 hours long and I just watched it.

Did you imitate mannerisms? How much of it’s you and how much is modeled specifically on him?

A part of the film that is a direct lift from the interview, it bookends the film, starts it and ends it, that I tried to get exactly the way it was. I tried. I mean, I don’t really even look, despite the makeup and everything, I don’t really look like him, but I tried to get that right. But for most of the rest of the film, I used my imagination. I went off things that he said about himself, but it’s tricky because I don’t think anybody really knows what happened. I don’t think he ever really told anybody what happened. I think he told different people different things. It’s hard to know what to make of a guy who says he killed between 100 and 200 people. I mean, that’s a large difference. It’s like saying, you know, I bat between .300 and .400 in baseball, it’s a big difference. You would know.

What do you think would be the perfect murder?

Well, Kuklinski came up with this Mr. Freezy character. They would explore ways where you could literally walk down the sidewalk past a person and kill them without touching them or them even knowing what happened. You didn’t even have to stop walking. It had a lot to do with the cyanide system. Like what you see in the disco in the movie, when he dances by the guy and sprays it in his face. That’s pretty good. Although that’s the way you wind up getting caught, by trying to buy cyanide off an undercover cop.

I eat cyanide every day for breakfast.

“Princess Bride” style, to build up resistance?

Yeah, exactly.

How do you think you’d kill someone? 

Huh. I just can’t imagine killing anybody. That seems like such a horrible thing. I mean, life is so precious, I would not want to be responsible for ending someone’s life, I could never shake that off.

Somewhere down the hall, the publicists are very relieved and they don’t know why.

Yeah. I mean, every once in a while I go off, I have a little temper tantrum or whatever. It’s not like I’m an unemotional person, I mean if I was, I wouldn’t be an actor. Most actors are prone to fits every now and then, but the idea of actually hurting anybody, I couldn’t stomach it.

Your characters are often very violent. Do you have a favorite stage fighting move?

I’ve done a lot of stage combat over the years because I’ve done a lot of plays, and I’ve done a lot of plays that have had combat in them for whatever reason. I’m not trained in martial arts or any sort of, you know, soldier maneuvers or anything. I basically just go on my experience on stage, doing stage combat.

I like the fake punch. I like the punch, fake punch. I mean, my favorite fight I’ve ever done on stage was the end of “Killer Joe.” When we did the play, the fight at the end is very savage. That was my favorite fight sequence ever. It ended with me, like, getting shoved into a refrigerator and all the shelves falling out and him slamming the door on me and crushing my legs and then my sister shoots a shot into the air and everybody freezes and I come out of the fridge, and I’m like, “Sister!” and then she shoots me in the head.

Wow.

It’s an intense play.

Sounds like a light comedy.

It’s what I’m known for.

You’ve definitely got the bad guy thing down pat. Would you ever do something like a rom com?

With you?

Sure.

Yeah! Let’s do it! Who’s gonna write it?

What would it be about?

It would just be about two people having the time of their lives, just enjoying each others’ company, going on long walks in the park, having, you know, brunch together. Just having a nice life! That could be the name of it: “A Nice Life.” But who the hell wants to see that?! That’s my point. Every time someone asks me, “Why do you do this?” I’m like, there has to be something going on. There has to be an event, a conflict, a struggle…something! Catharsis, you know. Ever since the Greeks, that’s what it is. Something hot has to happen. It can’t just be everyone having a good time.

There can be conflict in romance too though.

Yeah, but that’s all, like, ahh, I got her the wrong shoes! She wanted the blue ones, I got her the red ones. Oh well. I mean, there are artfully constructed romantic comedies, but I haven’t seen any recently. The tend to be kind of antique.

What are some good romances, then? What is Michael Shannon’s favorite light fare?

“Philadelphia Story” is the best romantic comedy ever made, in my opinion. Um, maybe something like, you know, “Carnal Knowledge.” That’s a great movie. I don’t know if it’s necessarily a comedy. This crap nowadays, I can’t even stand. I don’t even go to the movies anymore. I really don’t. I don’t watch TV, I don’t do anything.

Do you watch your own movies?

Oh yeah, yeah, usually I go to the premiere or whatever. I mean, that’s fun! I mean, you did all that frickin’ work, you might as well go see the damn thing.

My favorite movie last year was “Amour.” That was the best movie of last year. It’s the best one. My grandma had a stroke about 10 years before she died, and I had to watch her in a similar state to the character Emmanuelle Riva plays, so for me it was a very emotional experience, very personal.

Are there any of yours that you really like?

I’ll revisit some now and then, if the opportunity presents itself. I don’t sit at home and obsessively watching my movies. The movie I’m most fond of is “Take Shelter,” really, out of all the movies I’ve made. I have a lot of them though that I’m fond of. I was in Sidney Lumet’s last picture, for chrissakes, that was pretty cool. The last one before he died.

What do you think is your most underrated film?

Yeah, yeah, I got two of ‘em: “The Missing Person” and “Grand Theft Parsons,” did you see that? I wish more people would see those two movies, because I’m actually very proud of those two movies.

Were they just under-marketed, or not received the way you would have liked?

“The Missing Person” was released by a company that, honestly, should just go out of business. Strand Releasing can just roast in hell. “Grand Theft Parsons,” I don’t know what happened with that. I don’t know what released it. It’s tough. There’s so many damn movies. There’s more movies out there than there’s any need for. It’s ridiculous. Our “Iceman” movie is coming out the same weekend as “Iron Man 3.” I think we’ll do alright per screen. I hope so.

That sorority girl letter video is one of my favorite things ever. Did that voice come naturally to you?

I did it seven times. Two wides, two mediums, two close and one profile. And I didn’t get it until the profile, and the profile is when I nailed it. The wide, medium and tight, they’re okay, but the profile is really where I understood what was going on.

So what did you understand?

I found the voice, the rhythm. It’s not like a rational thing, it’s more like, it’s very ethereal. Acting is a very ethereal thing that’s not easy to explain in words.

Was it your idea to turn this into a monologue?

I had nothing to do with it. I didn’t even know about the letter. I never go on the internet. I read my emails every once in a while, that’s it.

Can you tell me anything I don’t already know about “Man of Steel”? 

It’s about this guy named Superman, and he flies around and he, like, does stuff.

“The Iceman” arrives in theaters tomorrow. Check out our not so hot review.

Categories: Interviews

Tags: Michael shannon, Michael Shannon Interview, The Iceman

Jumat, 27 September 2013

Tribeca Interview: Matt Creed & Amy Grantham (‘Lily’)

large_lily_pubs

So I’ve been pretty outspoken about the fact that, of the approximately six bazillion films premiering at this year’s Tribeca Film Festival, my personal favorite is Matt Creed and Amy Grantham’s “Lily.” Because I’m super lazy and exhausted on account of not sleeping through nearly as many films as I have in years past, I’ll just re-post what I wrote about “Lily” yesterday when Film.com ran an exclusive clip from the movie:

“Lily” is a beautifully rendered portrait of a young woman preparing to take the next step as she finishes treatment for breast cancer, a film that’s tiny but true, as precise as it is universally relatable. Indebted to the free-flowing spirit of John Cassavetes and inspired by lead actress Amy Grantham’s fight with cancer, “Lily” is the kind of movie that proves – among other things – that there’s hope for indie film beyond the likes of Sundance and SXSW, and that Tribeca is full of buried treasure if you know where to look.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Yesterday, Matt and Amy were kind enough to sit down with me and chat about “Lily,” all of the choices that made the film possible, how such a personal story can be so universally relatable, and how a blog can save a life.

David Ehrlich: So this is a pretty unusual situation for me because I know nothing about you guys other than the movie, which is not typically how I go into these things, so if I ask you some super asinine questions… well, sorry about that.

Matt Creed: No you’re good.

Amy Grantham: (laughs) it’s okay.

David: So this is your first feature?

Matt: Yeah.

David: Your first festival…

Matt: First festival… first film-related experience, really. I’m learning, trying to figure it out.

David: Do you come from a film background?

Matt: No, more like art history and fine arts…studio art stuff. But, I watched films while I was growing up like crazy.

David: “You’ve seen movies?”

Matt: (laughs) Maybe just a couple. You know, I just started making a bunch of short films about five years ago and then about three years ago I was like OK, I really want to make a feature. So I started writing a couple, just kind of dedicating all my time towards writing and finding the right project, and then I met Amy and I found her story.

David: So you guys met as a result of this, you didn’t know each other before?

Amy: No we didn’t.

David: And you’d been acting before?

Amy: In my apartment, if that counts.

David: It definitely counts.

Amy: In my wildest dreams, I thought, ‘yeah that’s definitely something I’d like to do someday, but I have no idea about doing it. How about we just write a script?’ (Laughing)

David: How did that conversation even start since you didn’t look at her as an actress, first? How do you make that leap from “I don’t even know this person” to “you should be an actress in this movie?”

Matt: I don’t know, I kind of just had this idea for a story that I wanted to expand and, I had been reading Amy’s blog and she’s a great writer. I asked her if she’d be interested in taking this little idea I had and writing a short story because she had been telling me that she wrote them, so she was very interested and then went into chemo, and then, obviously, disappeared into chemo world.

Amy: That put a damper on the writing (laughing).

Matt: And then I hadn’t seen her and we kind of crossed paths accidentally and decided to meet up one afternoon in a coffee shop towards the end of her treatment. So I said to her ‘Oh, you must be excited that your treatment is coming to an end’ and she said ‘no, I’m not’ and I was just struck by that. She said ‘it’s the only thing I had ever done from beginning to end. It’s my purpose, but it’s weird, how can it be?’

She was only 31 at the time. And I just, related to that and was a little weirded out at first because I’ve never had cancer but what I realized was that I related to her vulnerability. I was just getting out of a relationship and was feeling the same way, very unsettled, so I thought it would be interesting to explore that through Amy’s story and I found that to be so much more interesting and unique. I mean, if you’ve ever felt unsettled or vulnerable, you can relate to Lily.

David: It felt to me like a coming of age story in a way, with higher stakes. So, Amy, it seems like your experience with cancer was something that you wanted to communicate and express, as opposed to something you wanted to internalize.

Amy: Yeah, as Matt was saying, I already had a blog to chronicle the treatment as it happened.

David: So you started the blog when you were diagnosed?

Amy: I started it the day I was diagnosed. I just thought this could be really important because I was so young and there was just nothing out there for me that was the least bit comforting.

I thought it was important when we talked about doing the script to show what for me was the hardest part emotionally, which surprisingly was when it all came to an end because you know, everyone was happy for me. My friends were ecstatic, the doctors were ecstatic, other patients were ecstatic…but I went from having a very tight-knit family of doctors and nurses, assistants, other patients, and then literally overnight waking up and everyone was gone.

David: There’s a certain inertia of being in that life and then…

Amy: It’s hard because you’re supposed to wake up the next day and it was the hardest day of my life. You know, get out of bed and there’s supposed to be little Disney birds flying around your head and it wasn’t like that at all. It took me about three weeks to get over being really bummed out.

David: Yeah, I was struck by the obvious intimacy between Lily and her various doctors.

Amy: Luckily I get to see some of them because I still have to go pretty frequently for check-ups, and its ridiculous because I kind of get a little excited when it’s time to see my oncologist and I’m like ‘Hey, how’ve you been?’. But it really is like seeing an old friend because these are people that were with me constantly for almost two years of my life and its intense – that’s a long relationship.

large_lily_2

David: To what extent is the film autobiographic in that sense… how much of the details explicitly reflect your story?

Amy: Yeah, 80-85%. A lot of it.

Matt: I mean, it’s like some things are true but then you embellish them a bit to make it more cinematic and you kind of give it that narrative pleasure.

Amy: The cancer stuff is all real, like having that gene and you know, doing the egg retrievals.

David: Well, the gene thing really struck me because so much of the film is about the rift between the things we choose and the things that choose us, especially as it pertains to Lily’s parents. There’s the hereditary nature of the disease, but also Lily’s relationship with her parents, which is strained on both sides, and inspires her to she make a very clear decision to become her own person…

Matt: The film is definitely about choices, and making choices from kind of this little window we all get every so often. Not to sound sentimental in a way, but every so often you get this opportunity where you have this clarity and I find that comes from being very vulnerable, and it’s one of the purest state of minds we can be in. A lot of people don’t want to stay there very long because it f**king sucks and you see yourself and you see everything and it’s really scary so we tend to stay where we are and not try to move forward and just not deal with things.

For Lily, she really sees it and is like ‘alright, I need to do something here. I don’t need to do something insane but I need to take a step in the right direction, or in the opposite direction of what I’m going into’.

Amy: Yeah. The day you’re diagnosed and it’s decided you’re going to need treatment because surgery isn’t enough, you have ‘x’ amount of time mapped out for you from there.  In my case, they said you’ll do two surgeries, chemo and then do radiation, so you know from this month to this month my life is planned and it’s kind of great, but then afterwards you have to make decisions again.

In regards to making choices, we had someone ask a question last night that at the time, I kind of tried to brush it off, but she was saying how she wished that Lily had just said something to her dad, or emailed him or anything and, I have to be careful not to get defensive because it is a character, but I found myself thinking about it this morning when I was walking around and thought it was a really good question because it shows how different our choices are for each of us as individuals because she might’ve been projecting her life onto me with that question.

Maybe she’s got a great relationship with her dad, and it would be devastating to her if he didn’t know, and maybe it’s hard for her to understand that someone might not have a relationship at all with her father and then vice versa, like it’s hard for me to understand what it’s like to have a good one.

David: That might be the healthiest response to a Q&A question in the history of film festivals.

Amy: (laughs) But truly, I think with most questions in an environment like that, that’s a reaction to art or any form of music, cinema or painting. I think a lot of questions that come up for us are obviously from us, you know, we’re projecting in some way. So that was a good question, emotionally difficult, but good.

David: Well, the art is important to that moment as well because to me, I didn’t read it as a decision for her not to reach out to her father at all, but just her expressing herself in a particular way and her father not being especially engaged.

Amy:  And that was just one moment. Who knows what could happen later.

Matt: To me, my response to that question is that she just opened a dialogue. There is just so much she hasn’t seen in three years or spoken to him in three years and, she immediately sees him and he’s just a fucking asshole.  I think Lily really wants to tell him but maybe just not at that moment. Maybe she goes back later on, but that’s just another film, right? And you can’t just cover everything.

Amy: Well, we were at asked if we’re doing a sequel.

David: Like a trilogy.

Amy: (laughs) “Lily: Part Two.”

Matt: We had talked through the writing process but to me, that was a very honest response and the moment was very human. I think a lot of people want to go and tell someone something and they have the opportunity, and they just can’t do it because it doesn’t feel right or that person has scarred them enough to where… you know, obviously there were some medical things there with the gene, but I think it was one moment.

Amy: For sure.

THE CONVERSATION CONTINUES ON PAGE 2.

Categories: Interviews

Tags: Amy Grantham, Director's cut, Interview, Lily, Matt Creed, Tribeca film festival

Selasa, 18 Juni 2013

Interview: David Zucker on How Spoofs Have Changed from ‘Airplane!’ to ‘Scary Movie 5′

timthumb

Film scholars may be quick to overlook his massive contributions to the medium, but David Zucker is a key figure in the world of contemporary cinema. Between “The Kentucky Fried Movie,” “Airplane!,” “Top Secret,” and “The Naked Gun,” the writer / director practically invented the spoof, and made the films that still endure as the genre’s finest examples, continuing to vindicate the form even when the likes of Friedberg & Seltzer (“Disaster Movie”) do their worst to make us wish that spoofs would go away.

When the “Scary Movie” franchise found itself in need of a new mastermind after the Wayans brothers opted out of a third installment, Zucker was a natural choice. After directing “Scary Movie 3? and “Scary Movie 4,” he contributed to “Scary Movie 5” as a writer / producer. We spoke to the comedy legend about why he opted against returning to the director’s chair for the latest chapter, and also about how cinematic comedy has changed over the 30+ years that he’s been in the business.

Film.com: We interacted by email a couple years ago.

David Zucker: I think I do remember, yes. What was that about?

I had written something at Film.com about the Marx Brothers’ “Duck Soup,” and about comedy and the making of it, and you sent me a very nice email about your own experiences with making “Airplane!” and “Top Secret”!–

Yes, that’s why I recognized the name! I think you wrote something and I thought, I can’t let this go! Because I know a lot about the Marx Brothers!

So you directed “Scary Movie” 3 and 4, but you were not credited as a writer — but those movies are clearly your style of humor. As the director, how involved are you in the creative process of actually coming up with the gags and so forth?

A lot. In 3 and 4?

For example, yeah.

I think it was 90 percent Craig Mazin and Pat Proft having written 3 and 4. Five was Pat Proft and me.

Right, so 5 is kind of the other way around, where you wrote but didn’t direct it.

Right, I wrote, and then Malcolm Lee directed.

I think that is not a common scenario for you, is it? To write something that you didn’t also direct?

That’s right. Well, I can’t remember what the last — on the third “Naked Gun,” I was also done with directing those.

I can tell you the last one you wrote but didn’t direct. Do you want to know?

Sure!

“High School High.”

Wait a minute, I DID direct “High School High”!

You did?

No, I didn’t! Oh, I need you to remind me! Hart Bochner directed it!

I was gonna say, I was going off of IMDB…

[laughter]

You know, in one of the interviews I did, somebody said, “Ashley Tisdale’s character in ‘Scary Movie 5' is listed as Jody Campbell. Did you do that on purpose, to link it with Sidney [Campbell], Anna Faris’ character?” Wait a minute, that’s — no we didn’t do that. In fact, her name in this movie was Jody Sanders, and that was a mistake.

IMDB does make mistakes sometimes.

That was a HUGE mistake! It’s the main character!

How is the process different when you’re on just the writing side of it and not as the director? I mean, here you were also producing, so I’m sure you could make your opinions known.

You know, I have to do all the work as a director. I mean, it’s so much work. It’s a year of your life. I have to find something about it that I’m passionate about, and I found that on “Naked Gun” 1 and 2 and “Scary” 3 and 4. And “Airplane!,” the first “Airplane!” But it’s just hard to do a 3 and maintain that passion. To power you through all that work, and all that — you have to run down every single little detail. I just didn’t – like the “Naked Gun” franchise – I didn’t want to do it again. I’d just rather write and produce, let someone else direct. So that’s how that decision was made. And it’s different because you have to sit back and let the director do it. I have to train them on the job, as I did Pete Segal [for "Naked Gun 33 1/3"], Hart Bochner, and now Malcolm Lee. Because this is unlike something they’ve ever done!

With “Scary Movie 5,” where you directed the previous two, so you could have directed this one too, if you’d wanted to. I certainly understand all the energy involved. Was that a hard decision for you, knowing that you’d have to, as you say, sort of train them on the job?

It was just what I had to do. I mean, I was resolved not to direct it. I just, I can’t do it. And that was it. And the studio tried for two years to get me to direct. That’s why it’s been so long since they’ve done a “Scary Movie.”

Oh really?

Yeah. And so – well, partially because no movies came up that they really – there hasn’t been a “War of the Worlds” or “Grudge” or “Signs” or “The Ring” in a while. In fact, we kind of went with this one without the necessary movie that we needed that had a physical monster. In 3 we had the scary girl from “The Ring,” “War of the Worlds” had the big aliens, and “Signs” had an alien. So we started out with “Paranormal Activity,” which is not any kind of visible demon, and “Black Swan,” which doesn’t have a demon, and “The Planet of the Apes.” So that’s why we added “Mama” later.

You bring up an interesting point. The early spoof movies, “Airplane!” and “Top Secret!” and so forth, were not very specific. Watching “Top Secret!” recently, I was surprised by how few dated references there were. Whereas now the trend in the spoof movies is to be very specific, very of-the-moment.

Right, no, it’s very specific, and so you really recognize those movies. [But] we spoofed different movies in “Airplane!” I mean, that movie was the forerunner of this, and kind of invented that style or genre, if you will, of doing specific movies. The one specific movie that we did — you know, outside of just the “Airport” movies, I suppose –

Sure, the genre.

But you don’t recognize those as such because the plot was from an obscure 1957 movie, “Zero Hour.” But we did “Saturday Night Fever”! I mean, the movie’s clippin’ along, and it’s an airport movie, and suddenly the audience is in “Saturday Night Fever,” and our guy is John Travolta. You know, we didn’t set out to invent that whole concept in the genre. It was just what we thought was funny. And that’s what really started that whole genre, when we did that specific movie within another movie.

At the time, were you thinking about trying to avoid jokes that would not last the test of time, or was that even a conscious thought?

It was not a conscious thought.

Just the way it turned out.

Yeah. I mean, if we had cared at all, if we had been conscious at all of “test of time,” we wouldn’t have done those stupid jokes on commercials. The coffee thing? ["Jim never has a second cup of coffee at home!"] That’s idiotic, if you want to stand the test of time.

The one in “Top Secret!” is there’s a joke about “I put your name on the Montgomery Ward mailing list,” or something.

Yeah. What’s Montgomery Ward? What’s a Pinto?

But, it’s like the only joke in the whole movie that’s like that! I think that’s impressive, that almost 30 years later it pretty much all still holds up.

Yeah, it’s funny, and some of these funny references are funny in their obscurity.

That’s true too. Sort of a time capsule.

Right.

You’ve been in the business a long time now. How is the process of making these movies now different from the way it was, say, 30, 35 years ago.

Well, definitely we made our own movie 35 years, and 30 years ago, and 25 years ago, and 20 years ago. And now, you know, I mean, the studio controls this franchise. And so we were directed to do “Paranormal Activity,” “Black Swan,” I think we added “Planet of the Apes.” And also “Mama,” and “Evil Dead,” and “Hunger Games,” “50 Shades of Grey” — all these things are stated by, demanded by the studio.

Is that difficult for you creatively, to not have that control?

Oh yeah. That’s like — it’s — but it’s the “Scary Movie” franchise, and the studio owns it. So it’s not like they’re taking my baby and taking over control. This movie comes from the studio. I get it. Some things I’ll argue with. Like I didn’t want to do “Hunger Games,” but they insisted “Hunger Games” had to be in it, so we shot it.

That makes sense. It’s the job they hired you for, so you do what you have to.

Right. Or they wanted to do “50 Shades of Grey,” which isn’t even a movie! So I said, “What? What is the visual on this?”

“Now you’re just listing things that are current!”

Right! And “Evil Dead” comes out a week before we do! And so we had to spoof the trailer! It’s really – there is more insanity in making this movie than there is in the movie.

I can believe it. How did you come to this franchise, anyway? They had the first two, that you had nothing to do with.

Yeah, the first two, the Wayans Brothers did the first two, and they were unable to arrive at a deal for 3. So that was kind of a break-up. And Bob [Weinstein] called me because I had done probably the only Ashton Kutcher movie that didn’t do any business.

“My Boss’s Daughter.”

Yeah. It ended up making money, it just wasn’t a big hit. But Bob said at the time that he thought I was a better director than the material. Because that was a – I didn’t like the script. So I could blame it on that. But he knew that the spoof stuff I could certainly do.

Well, it makes sense. If you’re not sure what to do with a spoof franchise, bring in a Zucker. See what a Zucker can do with it!

Yes, bring in somebody who invented it! Let them have a shot.

Who have been some of the writers and performers and filmmakers who have made you laugh, within the span of your career? Who do you find funny?

Well, you know, mostly before my career: the Marx Brothers and Woody Allen. And now – you know, I don’t find – I thought Mike Myers, that stuff was funny. “Austin Powers.” I think Will Ferrell is funny. And I think Kirsten [sic.] – who’s the one who did “Bridesmaids”?

Kristen Wiig.

Wiig, yeah. She’s funny. It makes me glad when I can go to a theater that makes me laugh.

What have you seen recently that made you laugh?

[pause] I think “Bridesmaids” is the last thing that made me laugh. [laughter] It’s already been a couple years!

As a comedy nerd, I’m always interested to know what makes funny people laugh.

I really don’t go to a theater unless like three different people tell me it’s funny. I can’t remember what was out recently as far as comedies. Can you think of any?

Let’s see, what were some of the recent big comedies. “The Hangover,” “Horrible Bosses.”

Yeah, “Hangover,” that was funny, although I didn’t think it was as funny as everybody else I was with. But I got it. I thought it was a trip. Todd Phillips is good. He’s excellent.

This is an unfair question. If you had to choose one movie from your career to be the only one saved in the movie annals of history, or whatever, which one would you choose?

Well, I think that’s an easy one. I think “Airplane!” “Airplane!” is the one.

Fair enough. When did that come out? ’80? ’81?

’80.

So it’s been, my goodness, 33 years? Do you ever get tired of talking about it, or of people wanting to talk about it?

No, it’s fine. It’s great, I’m so proud to have been a part of it, and it’s a part of my life. Probably I’ve never done anything as good as that, but that’s fine! They can’t take that away from me. There’s a lot worse things than having been the director/writer of “Airplane!” It only gives me joy.

Scary Movie 5 hits theaters this Friday.

MTV Movie Awards 2013Categories: Interviews

Tags: Airplane, Charlie sheen, David Zucker, Eric Snider, Interview, Lindsay lohan, Naked Gun, Scary Movie 5

Senin, 18 Juli 2011

Interview: Errol Morris on Tabloid

In light of the release of the new documentary Tabloid, we recently sat down for a roundtable discussion with filmmaker Errol Morris about his unique perspective on books, crime and of course, Tabloid.

Q: You had a little time as a private investigator, correct?

Errol Morris: I was a private investigator briefly in Berkeley, but that was very, very briefly, this was probably in the seventies.  My film career, which really never amounted to a film career per se, went completely belly up. And I had to find a way of earning a living and so I worked as a private detective in New York in the early 80s.

Q: And did your work as a detective inform your interview style?

EM: I think it’s the other way around.  I started interviewing murderers, I interviewed Ed Gein, I interviewed a whole number of different murderers in Northern California, and Wisconsin.  I’d gone to all these trials I was going to write a PhD thesis on the insanity plea, in those days there were three mass murderers in Northern California, the “Big Three” Ed Kemper, Herbert Mullin, and John Frazier.  I had gone to the Kemper trial and part of the Mullin trial, and I was really interested in writing about them because they all involved the insanity plea.  I believe those were my first real interviews and then I went back to Wisconsin, I’d been an undergrad at Madison.  I started interviewing people in Wisconsin, and I developed this whole style of interviewing and I would play this game, where I tried to say as little as possible.  So I had tapes that I was particularly proud of where my voice wasn’t on the tape. I’d see if I could get the person I was interviewing to talk for a full hour without my voice being on the tape. The idea was this pure stream of consciousness, it’s the “Joyce-ian” interview. And that certainly informed Gates of Heaven and it became the idea behind Gates of Heaven. And I never included my voice, I always excluded my voice, in editing these movies.

Q: What books were you reading at the time you were making Tabloid, and which of those influenced you?

EM: I’ve always been a fan of Frank Norris, I don’t know if I’ve read everything he’s written but I’ve read a lot. It’s interesting because they always pair The Octopus and The Jungle together, and they’re really disparate, they really have nothing to do with each other they come from different traditions.  What I didn’t understand was there was a relationship between Norris and Dreiser, and why was I thinking about Norris and Dreiser was because Joyce McKinney told me that when she was in high school, she had read a short story by Theodore Dreiser called The Second Choice.  And I got the short story and read it and I started compulsively reading Dreiser. I read a lot of Dreiser, and Second Choice is just an amazing short story, it’s one of the most amazing short stories. It’s not by accident that Dreiser called his greatest novel an American Tragedy. And it’s about a woman, and the short story starts with a series of letters written by her lover. It’s clear the guy really isn’t as interested in her but she is completely in love with him, he is not in love with her. And there is a man who wants to marry her, but she’s not particularly interested, she doesn’t want to end up like her mother who has a very boring marriage, and in the end, she settles for the guy she’s not really in love with and she ends up like her mother.  I think simply to call it bleak is an understatement, it is one of the darkest American short stories. And Joyce told me about this, I know about it from Joyce, she had decided this was not going to happen to her, she was never going to end up as this Dreiser character in a loveless marriage, and the question apropos of books, is whether what happened to Joyce is worse?

Q: When Kirk Anderson was taken away, why did [Joyce McKinney] come to California?

EM: I don’t know. Maybe she believed she could earn a living in California.  I don’t know why anyone comes here.

Q: How do you decide the course of the documentary before you begin to make it?

EM: These stories have a logic of their own, it’s not really a decision per se.  Once I made the decision to put Joyce on film the rest of it follows in due course, the other interviews and the material is certainly funny, it’s sad, and I would say it’s also sick.

Q: It’s a love story, but it’s also a film noir.  Can you speak to that?

EM: I like the idea of it being a film noir, I love film noir.  One of the things that has always fascinated me about noir is that people don’t really have control over their lives in noir, they’re part of some infernal tapestry or design, there’s a sense of inexorability.  There’s a sense of inexorability in this story, the books ends to me are the strongest element, I feel very lucky to have stumbled on that material.  Trent Harris had filmed material with Joyce in the early 80s and very kindly allowed us to use that material which is at the very beginning and very end of Tabloid. And the material of Joyce reading from her still unpublished book is amazing because it’s a self fulfilling prophecy among other things.

Q: With the recent Casey Anthony trial, did you watch that with different eyes than the rest of us?

EM: I was never involved, it came as a surprise to me. It’s a terrible thing to admit to,  but I did not follow the Casey Anthony trial but I’m aware of it now, and I wasn’t following the whole story about News of the World but of course I’m aware of it now.

Q: Did you follow the McKinney case when it was happening?

EM: No. That was a case not known over here, for all intents and purposes.

Q: Why didn’t you ask Joyce how she made her money?

EM: I’ll give you one simple reason, I didn’t interview Kent Gavin until long after I interviewed Joyce, so the whole LA story was unknown to me until months after I did the initial interview with Joyce.  I’m not sure how much I would have learned asking her questions about LA, she’s not really inclined to talk about it.  But no, people love adversarial journalism, like you’re supposed to ask the difficult questions and back people up against the wall, and I think I would have learned very little by asking that question and certainly wouldn’t have cleared up anything.  I think the material is there.

Q: Does Joyce [McKinney] like the film?

EM: No, she’s had lots of problems with the film, and she said, I believe, that she thought she was going to be the only person interviewed, I mean I haven’t really had a chance to say this to Joyce directly, but I’d be perfectly happy to.  This is all part of her story, for me not to talk to anyone else, that’d come back to haunt all of us, it’s not as though that material is just going to vanish, or just go away, it is part of her story and I think I’ve told her story in a very complex and interesting way that actually works to her benefit.  She’s kind of an amazing romantic heroine of sorts.

Kamis, 30 Juni 2011

Interview: New York Times Reporter Brian Stelter on documentary Page One

Ever fondly wished to be a fly on the wall in the hallowed halls of the iconic New York Times newspaper? Or feverishly wondered if the media institution would soon be extinct, blogged and YouTubed out of existence by internet news? Find the answer to all these questions and more in our interview with Media Reporter Brian Stelter — one of Page One‘s central figures.

Christine Champ: First off, I have to ask … paper or digital?

Brian Stelter: Totally digital [laughs]! Actually you know here’s what I use paper for … I was in Starbucks just now since I figured I had to have one since I was in Seattle, and The Times was on the newsstand and I went over to pick it up to take a look at where my story was placed in the paper today. I still care about print for that reason: I still care about where they place my stories because it’s still a judgment by the editors about the importance of a subject. For better or worse placement in the print paper still matters a lot at The Times. Getting on the front page of the print edition still matters a lot. But as a reader I could care less, and as a reader I would prefer it online.

CC: So you’d be fine if print news went away?

BS: I wouldn’t subscribe to it in print. Although over the weekend with my new girlfriend I loved sprawlin’ the paper out on the kitchen table and diggin’ into it for a couple of hours—that was cool. I could get used to that. Maybe Sunday I’ll read it in print, but not the rest of the week. The Sunday paper is meant to be read in print, isn’t it? But no digital … if we were going to reinvent the news ecosystem from scratch today, we would not print anything on paper, except maybe glossy magazines. We would put it all online and on iPads.

CC: Do you think print will eventually disappear?

BS: I think print will keep being diminished … I can’t imagine it disappearing altogether. The Times DNA is just too much a part of me to imagine that. But I’d be lying to say it doesn’t come up in meetings (the question of whether we’re going to stop printing the paper). The publisher has always said there’s no plans, which is a way to hedge that answer. I’m sure there are no plans right now. Print is still so valuable. We make so much money off the print edition. But it would be great to wean people off of print and shift them over to the web–especially shift them over to tablets and mobile devices because I would think the margins would be a lot higher. All those poor trees and stuff being cut down …

CC: Yes the environment is a major reason to go digital, though I know a lot of people who resist because they love the smell and texture of paper.

BS: Maybe the iPad in the future will have a smell.

CC: A paper smell …

BS: A scratch-and-smell sticker. There must be some way to do it. I’m such a tablet advocate. I realize it will take many years to get tablets in everyone’s hands but some day that’s the way these papers should be read in my opinion. It’s the way I think my mom would love to read the paper. It creates less garbage at the end of the day, and lets you read only what you want to read. I’m pretty bullish in the long term about what tablets could do to not necessarily replace print, but to supplement it.

CC: Speaking of the web, at 18 what made you decide to create a site like tvnewser.com rather than just update your MySpace page like many other teens your age?

BS: The blog? I guess I started it because I was obsessed with television news. Probably part of me was thinking to myself: “this could be a job someday”. But most of me was thinking “I love television news and I don’t think it gets enough attention”. My real motivation was—this is true—The New York Times does not cover cable news enough. They’re obsessed with the broadcast networks. Back then it was Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather … they were obsessed with these nightly newscasts that fewer people were watching. They weren’t covering Fox News, CNN and MSNBC which more and more people were watching. So I thought my blog should be about that topic, cable news. It was a hobby–something fun to do in college. Pretty quickly it became pretty popular and less of a hobby and more of a job. It was the perfect college job—I got paid basically beer money to keep it going. And what I didn’t know at the time was it was a resume for The Times. It was a resume for companies to consider hiring me when I graduated. But it was out of curiosity about the media. I was a news junkie and a television junkie so it was a nice intersection of the two… If you ask my mom she’ll say I always wanted to get a job out of it but I genuinely don’t think I was. It would have been a weird way to get a job. Although now I tell students that’s what they should do. Figure out what you’re obsessed with, what you’re passionate about. I don’t understand sometimes how there’s 25 reporters out covering a political campaign. How do you stand out in that pack? I think it’s smarter to go find something you can stand out doing, especially if you’re young and trying to get a start. And for me that just happened to be TV news.

CC: Moving from your own blog to an institution like The Times, was there any downside or loss of freedom?

BS: There was a loss of freedom because I was suddenly being edited. Everything I write is edited and not only edited but everything I write is a result of a decision making process about whether we should even be covering it. So it’s not just editing it’s also the assigning process. But that loss of freedom didn’t hurt that much. They very much allowed me to roam freely. And they’ve continued to allow me to roam very freely and cover television as broadly as I want to, to the point where I went over to cover Aljazeera. They’ve been very open to my ideas so it hasn’t been as restrictive as I thought it would. I thought there’d be much more ageism. I thought I would get marginalized for being young and that didn’t happen at all which was surprising to me. It is a little weird to be swimming upstream to go from digital to print but there’s a nice balance. I like that I can start a story online … this morning we put up a story at 6 am, updated it, and it is in the paper tonight a little better, a little improved, because it was online all day… I like that we can marinate a story online—enhance it, improve it, and get feedback on it then it ends up on the paper. It’s a nice relationship between print and web.

CC: Coming from a web background and younger generation, what do you think of the Tribune Company owner Sam Zell’s sum up of what young audiences want from the news, as basically–puppies first … and then, maybe, Iraq—that was spotlighted in Page One.

BS: I don’t know what 20-something Sam Zell knows, but the 20-somethings I know sometimes want Iraq first. That doesn’t mean they don’t love puppies, but there’s a keen interest in the world that I find from people of all ages. We may have to do a better job of packaging it, and that might involve writing about puppies in Iraq once in a while. That reminds me of the dog on Navy Seal Team six–the dog that helped in the Bin Laden raid. We had a big story about that dog, that’s great. We also had a dozen other stories about all the elements of that … I think reaching younger people is a challenge generally. I think we’ve got some tools we could use to do it better–Facebook being a big one of them. But I rolled my eyes a bit when I heard that comment. Maybe the sentiment that we should put puppies on the front page so people would pick it up is what he was trying to say. I guess what’s legitimate in my mind is gosh it’s annoying for a journalist that people are willing to pay a dollar for a song, or four dollars for a coffee but not a dollar for a newspaper. I can sympathize with that frustration. News is not meant to be always enjoyed, it’s meant to be consumed I suppose. And we might be able to do a better job of making it more enjoyable. I don’t know. But the notion that people aren’t interested in the world rings false to me.

CC: Your comment about people’s willingness to pay for their news also brings to mind the web-prompted trend in recent years of major media outlet like The Wall Street Journal switching from paying experienced journalists to free bloggers. How do you think that changes the news?

BS: I definitely detect a downward pressure on salaries and compensation for writing across the board. I don’t think there’s any easy solution to that other than an unwillingness to write for free. Now of course I wrote for free for many months on my blog and then for only pennies, but I viewed it as a hobby not as work… I think maybe part of the solution, although not nearly all of it, is for there to be less commodity journalism and more original journalism. What I mean by that is the 25 people covering a campaign. That doesn’t make a lot of sense. To have 25 people chasing the same shiny object … if you have 25 people gathering the same quotes the organizations paying those people aren’t getting the most for their money necessarily. In a situation like that it’s a matter of spreading out resources more efficiently and effectively. In the same way that any capitalist society would, but more probably there are a lot of stories that need to be told. So hopefully there remain enough news organizations that have the budgets to send people out. I was in Joplin on Monday covering the tornado. I just happened to take a break from television for a day and did disaster reporting and I have to go buy new shoes today because my shoes are filthy and this sounds really silly, but someone’s going to have to bear that cost. We need literal shoes on the ground in disaster areas and at some point you’re going to have to buy new shoes. If we can have The Times and a half a dozen others that are in this business keep doing that I think we’re lucky… if we can keep that contingent of journalists out there I think we’re going to be better off. I love that the movie talks about the notion “consider the source”. Even I as a journalist haven’t done enough of that. Try to find the original source of information as opposed to rewrites. Find the boots on the ground not the people that are rewriting the stuff…That’s the message I take away from the film but I hope it seeps through for others as well.

CC: You need a source that you can trust especially with news traveling so fast, or you risk the new outlets manufacturing news, on purpose or not, as the documentary points out with NBC’s mistaken announcement of the end of the war in Iraq …

BS: Yeah you need those deliberative bodies to think through what you’re seeing and hearing. NBC news comes on and makes that announcement. A lot of people heard it and believed it and went about their day. The Times made a decision not to run that story because we did not feel it was news that merited space in the paper. If we didn’t have all those editors around, if it was just me, I would have splashed the story up on the web site … I was so glad there were those editors processing it, thinking it through, calling The Pentagon, calling Baghdad, making a decision even if it offended NBC. It’s great to have checks and balances on other news organizations. We talk a lot about journalists being checks and balances on the government,well, they can also be a checks and balances for other news organizations. And I think that’s what we were doing on that day.

And the other thing is the way we can all influence the news process the way we couldn’t before. We have these tools online to engage reporters and editors… It doesn’t mean we’re always going to change how we’re behaving or our minds, but I know my work improves all the time thanks to reader emails and tweets and Facebook comments. It’s not always obvious because a lot of it’s subtle … it’s nice there are ways for readers to get in the middle of the process and either push us to cover something we’re not covering, or push us to cover it a different way. It’s pretty powerful.

CC: Or leaking information ahead of the major media like WikiLeaks. What was your first reaction when Assange’s footage released?

BS: My first reaction was that we should all watch this video [laughs]. That we should all have to watch this video. Bill Keller’s comments about WikiLeaks struck a cord with me. Later in the year he what this materials about is knowing what your government is doing in your name. That really made sense to me… It was not easy for The Times to figure out how to treat that information. People will continue to debate how we did it, but it’s hard to argue the notion that more information is bad. If we can go back to that as our core tenet–that more information is good in the world–then it becomes a debate about how to handle it in the most responsible and safe way. That’s the debate we had at The Times. But I love that WikiLeaks is front and center in the movie. If I had to guess what was going to make the final cut it wouldn’t have been the Iraq war video, but in the context of the broiling debate over it last year it makes perfect sense.

CC: What do you think is the best thing that will come out of WikiLeaks for journalism or news?

BS: I hope that it has shown people that have access to private, important information that they have ways to share it with the public that are not just dropping it off on the front steps of The New York Times as Daniel Ellsberg says in the movie about the Pentagon Papers. The Journal has come up with a site to upload secret documents. I think Aljazeera has a clearing house for documents as well. The Times has talked about having a site like that. It makes a lot of sense that we would give people a way to leak information because after all that gets back to the checks and balances on the government. It doesn’t mean we’re going to publish everything or put people in danger. But it makes sense that people should know there’s an avenue or outlet for information they have that deserves a public hearing.

CC: What’s you take on how social media has been used both sides of political struggle, as it has recently in Egypt—protesters using Facebook to organize and the military using it to stop them?

BS: Right, we should harbor no illusions that for all the good of social media bad actors can use it just as effectively—if not more effectively. Look back at the internet being turned off at some points. The series of revolutions to me have been so eye opening because the people are using the same tools we have to organize and to communicate—and to broadcast. Especially broadcast being the pivotal word because when you see it, you have video of it it’s so much more powerful. To have YouTube loosen the restrictions on video has been really important, and you can’t really necessarily rely on the networks to show you what’s going on there. The most violent content in Syria last month the networks would never broadcast, but you have access to it on YouTube and websites, and you can aggregate it on sites like The New York Times site. I don’t know if there’s any historical parallel there but I’d like to think that conflicts would last a shorter period of time when we have more access to what’s actually happening in a conflict.

CC: After being in documentary, have you thought of making your own? Is there a big story or topic you’d like to investigate on film?

BS: That’s a great question … My editor … we’ve talked briefly about what we would do.

CC: Puppies in Iraq?

BS: Yeah. I’ll tell you what interests me right off the top of my head. I’m interested in how television as a medium sort of manipulates people and manipulates public opinion. It’s really hard to write stories about. It’s really hard to write 1000 word stories about. In fact, almost impossible so far for me. But I’m really interested in it as a subject, and I bet you could do it more effectively in a film than you could in a print story. Sometimes it’s about matching up topic and medium, right? Whether it is the Iraq war, or Libya or the political campaign in 08, the idea of television effecting our public opinion is really interesting to me. So I could imagine a film about that. That’d be pretty cool. But I hadn’t given that a thought before. It’s cool. It’s a good idea. I should think about that. And I’m also a mass transit geek so I’d love to spend time doing history of subways or something but that’s random.

CC: What’s next for you? Will you stay at The Times?

BS: When you’re at The Times four or five years there’s a whisper “what would you like to cover next”? Some people stay on the same beat 20 or 30 years but others move around at the paper. So I’m starting to think about what’s my next beat. What would I be doing if I wasn’t doing media … I’ve tried writing a couple of stories about politics and I haven’t found that other perfect beat yet… it makes for well rounded journalists. But now I need to think about what documentary I want to make …

Sabtu, 25 Juni 2011

Interview: The Whistleblower Director Larysa Kondracki

We discussed the B word (“Bosnian sex trafficking”, okay so it’s three words) with The Whistleblower director Larysa Kondracki. Her debut feature, with an envious cast that includes Rachel Weisz and Vanessa Redgrave, tells the true story of Kathryn Bolkovac, a Nebraska cop who finds more than a fast and fat paycheck when she accepts a contract as a U.N. peacekeeper in Bosnia—i.e. a sex trafficking ring that stretches beyond the locals to the peacekeepers themselves and beyond.

Christine Champ: So this is your first feature, why did you choose sex trafficking as the topic?

Larysa Kondracki: Well I’m Ukranian-Canadian so it was a topic that people were talking about in my community. It was sort of before the phrase sex trafficking was popular, and it was just unbelievably interesting and compelling. When I found Kathy’s story well … it’s just something that grips you and you gotta do it.

CC: How did you discover Kathryn’s story?

LK: I had read a book called “The Natashas” by Victor Malarek, a Canadian reporter. He talked about the U.N.’s involvement in this in it, and sort of sex trafficking and what it is . It was a great book and in it there was this part about Kathy and it was just a small part, but I found it very interesting. I Googled her and the press was huge. She’d just won her tribunal. It was mostly in Europe though. I found her email in a chat room and I wrote her a letter, and the next day she wrote me back. She had just won so apparently she’d had some interest from European countries but she wasn’t able to entertain them. Within a few weeks I wrote a letter to the Ukranian Canadians. My mother distributed it forcefully and we had 30,000 dollars and Eilis [co-writer Eilis Kirwan] and I spent two years based in Dublin while Kathy was in Amsterdam. We spent two years traveling all over Eastern Europe meeting everyone from high level diplomats to underground NGOs that were hiding, and really getting a sense of the world and writing the whole time.

CC: So Kathy was directly involved with the writing of the script?

LK: Oh yeah she was always very available.

CC: This seems like the sort of topic you often see in documentaries, why did you decide to make it a drama?

LK: I guess I just don’t know how to make a documentary. I was at film school at Columbia and films like Monster, High Art, Boys Don’t Cry, were coming out and it just seemed very much in the now at the time. It was very possible… with last year’s films like Black Swan, Winter’s Bone, even King’s Speech I think we’re getting out of that five-year period where, and to be fair I’m just as guilty of this as anyone else, we were going through– I don’t like to call it the war on terror–that issue and economic decline and people needed to get away. But you look at Tree of Life which did really well this weekend, so I think people are hungry for good stories again.

CC: What do you think is the advantage (if any) of making it a drama vs. a documentary?

LK: I love documentaries you know and I think especially now they’re getting very compelling. I personally don’t know how to do that…I think what’s really interesting to people is that Kathy was an ordinary woman she doesn’t have a skill set that none of us can possess. And especially through a performance like Rachel’s which was so great, it’s a very relatable character and so possibly through a drama instead of a doc you’re able to experience what she goes through and that’s sort of part of the fun. I call it fun [laughs].

CC: How did you manage to cast such notable actors like Weisz and Redgrave, especially in your first film?

LK: At the end of the day the answer really comes down to the story. The script got out there… it circulated with agents. I thought Weisz was incredible. She was our first choice. At the time we gave it to her but she was pregnant and she couldn’t really go there, but she kept checking in. There where different permutations of the film throughout the years but then when finally we decided to make it a Canadian-German co-production the timing was great–Rachel was available. But in terms of all the other actors as well it was our first script but I think it was the story probably more than the script that –I don’t like to take credit for things. I suppose that’s encouraging: if you have a good product people will read it and actresses want to play good roles. And there’s such a dearth of good characters, or there were for so long that now suddenly it’s like “of course I want to play this, these are true complex people” … you haven’t played that before. And I think Rachel does a good job of not–you could go over the top–but it’s really the steely determination, that’s one o the reasons we thought she could be great. You can’t really pinpoint her. She’s someone that I think always goes for something different which is great and getting Vanessa–she’s amazing.

CC: Sex trafficking seems to be a hot topic lately. It was even the subject of another SIFF drama As If I’m not there. What did you hope audiences would take a away from your film?

LK: It’s still going on today if you look at the Congo, Liberia, the Middle East, Afghanistan especially–so yeah it’s not over. I think what’s cool about when I talk to people is they really don’t know how it’s going to end … so I guess the issue is that you want people to walk out and go “what did I just see?” and “what are we going to do about it?”. They’re totally different films but I think what Philadelphia did for AIDs by humanizing it and for the gay community people going “oh well he’s a nice man you know Tom Hanks” and suddenly if Tom Hanks can be gay and have AIDs maybe that’s something we can talk about… But he was so amazing in that film that you relate to it and I remember specifically a lot of people that would be homophobic went to see it and minds got changed. I think that’s the same thing here where you think sex trafficking is something that happens on a TV show like a Law and Order episode …it’s such a more relevant issue than we think. And there’s the issue of sex trafficking but there’s also the issue of large organizations with no accountability. Look at the banking system. I think it’s a microcosm for a lot and we knew that. You should see one of the early drafts it was like 900 pages that just didn’t end and people were like “focus, focus, focus” on the story of this one woman. I’m excited to see what happens in August and I hope it gets received well and not just as a film. That was I guess the point: make a good movie that then gets people talking as opposed to talking at people for two hours .

CC: It really makes you wonder about the effectiveness of U.N. peacekeepers especially when they’re outsourced. That could be a whole other movie.

LK: What’s interesting is people always say “how’d you find the story?”, and I’m like “it’s called the internet” . We haven’t really said anything that isn’t readily available for you but I think that’s what’s fascinating. I love when you see a movie even just Social Network or something, you wanna read the book you want to read the article, you want to go home and read everything, and I think there’s a lot to learn here.

CC: Are you working on any new films?

LK: We have a couple of things going they’re a little different in tone. One’s an adaptation of a book called “Burning Rainbow Farm” by Dean Kuipers. It’s an amazing book about these two dudes in love– they weren’t gay–but they had a farm in Michigan and the government tried to take it away from them because they had some dope on it. Really a kind of Thelma and Louise tone, great characters and a kind of sense of ownership of land—a very kind of iconic Butch Cassidy type of film. Then the other one is about a group of dentists and doctors that smuggled art out of the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. They were dentists for the Canadian national hockey team so they were smuggling during the Canada and Soviet big hockey summits sort of like Ocean’s Eleven meets The Lives of Others. It’s fun.

CC: So you’re attracted to true stories. Have you written any purely fictional scripts?

LK: Oh yeah I have done that too. I have a good one about a spelling bee. It’s a coming of age comedy . I guess I get so impatient about shooting films. So if there’s something great out there I’m ready to go. I like being towards the end of a script and getting ready to shoot more than sitting at home and writing… maybe I just don’t have enough of an imagination [laughs].

Kamis, 09 Juni 2011

Interview: Ewan McGregor and Mike Mills Talk Beginners

I recently sat down with director Mike Mills (Thumbsucker) and Ewan McGregor (Trainspotting, Ghost Writer) to discuss their new film, Beginners. Also covered? Melanie Laurent, the acting ability of a Jack Russell terrier, and the influence of Mike’s spouse, Miranda July, on his work. Enjoy!

Laremy Legel: We’ll start with an easy one. What did you shoot Beginners on?

Mike Mills: The RED. The last generation of the RED. And we hardly used any lights. No generator, one Kino Flo, and one Four PAR.

LL: So it’s a decent low light camera?

MM: You don’t really need that much light, it’s kind of a myth that you need all these lights.

Ewan McGregor: For filming?

MM: With the RED, the old RED even.

LL: I’ve heard that you wrote Ewan a letter to get him involved? Do you have good handwriting?

MM: Oh, I typed it. But I write a lot of letters, especially to actors. Because you’re asking them to go on this crazy boat ride for you, and start this pretty intimate relationship. To really put their heart and soul in. So you write a letter, it’s only the polite thing to do. And then also you’re setting the tone. It’s “Look, I’m asking you to reveal yourself, but I’ll go first. I’d never ask you to do something I wouldn’t do myself.”

LL: Ewan, did you open the letter and say, “Well what’s going on here?”

EM: No, it’s not that unusual. It’s surprising it doesn’t happen more often, but it’s not a strange thing to get a letter from a director. It’s nice to sit down and read a story when you’ve been introduced to the story by the person that’s offering it to you.

LL: Mike, had you seen Melanie Laurent prior to Inglourious Basterds?

MM: No, because when we were casting this, Inglourious hadn’t quite come out. Someone gave me her name, and I didn’t even know about Inglourious, but I started looking her up and found out, “Oh, she’s going to be in this [Inglourious Basterds] movie.” Then I saw all these interviews with her on YouTube — I do that a lot with actors, that’s a way you can maybe-sorta get to know someone before you meet them. There’s this one interview I based a lot of Anna on, and I have no idea what she’s saying because I don’t speak French, and she’s going off — and I’m thinking she seems really intelligent, strong, and un-precious. And then I showed it to her, and she’s like, “Oh my God, you were looking at that?? I’m hungover, I’m talking to someone from my college, I’m talking shit …” and I was like, “That’s great!”

EM: That’s what we want.

MM: Yeah!

LL: That’s a bingo. Did you have a rehearsal period prior to shooting?

EM: Yeah, we shot to two halves of the story separately, so we shot the father-son story first. We rehearsed with Christopher Plummer and shot that in its entirety for three weeks. We shot it as much as we could in sequence. I’d never done that before; I’ve always thought it was a bit gimmicky, because part of our job as actors is to be able to shoot things out of sequence, but I was surprised at how useful it was. Then we finished that story, stopped shooting for a week, then we rehearsed Melanie and myself.

MM: And Cosmo! [Cosmo is a Jack Russell terrier who appears throughout the film.]

LL: Cosmo is amazing in this film.

EM: He’s an amazing dog. It feels like he’s giving a performance. He is a character, and I can say that honestly because we had another dog, and once or twice we did scenes with this other dog, a lovely little dog, but when you’re acting with him there was this huge void. He didn’t have nearly the character that Cosmo has.

MM: He’s a very gregarious thousand-year-old soul.

LL: How do you define success with Beginners? Is it just getting it made?

MM: Yeah, that’s huge. In this day and age that’s not something you take for granted.