Review: 'Being Evel'
The legend of Evel Knievel is one that is told every day in these modern times. At the dawn of this wee millennium, his spirit rose like a phoenix through the booming action sports mania that continues to pulse through today. It found itself in the belly of the early days of reality television as, back in the 70s, Knievel was its first superstar. A particular gang of boneheads somehow got a television deal, named their show Jackass and made millions in the same way that Knievel did: putting their bodies in danger for, not ego and fame like Knievel, but for the sake of laughs and loony, teenage fun.
This past week, the Jackass team was in attendance for the premiere of the documentary Being Evel, not as fans, but as film-makers honoring the late motorcycle daredevil. Producing under their Dickhouse production banner with Academy-Award winning director Daniel Junge - whose last feature documentary, Beyond the Brick: A LEGO Brickumentary, saw release only a month ago - in the director’s seat, Being Evel is a rather heartfelt tribute for clan of such doofuses.
Angry and complicated, he is an outlaw - a true American cowboy and perhaps one of the last.
The subject of the film speaks for himself. For those who grew up glued to Kneivel’s stunts on ABC’s Wide World of Sports, his unflinching rockstar ego comes alive again, full force through career-spanning archival footage. He is a rich documentary subject. Angry and complicated, he is an outlaw - a true American cowboy and perhaps one of the last. Junge allows the most honest portrait of Knievel by not holding back; the jumps, the missed landings, the scuffles with the press - it’s all there. The film is a museum piece to the daredevil.
The interviewees both legitimize what is already on screen, and also provide a fascinating depth to the man. To begin, there is a very impressive spectrum of personalities who give their Knievel tales from miners in his hometown of Butte, Montana, to his close family, to the modern action sports celebrities who have given a legacy to his stunts. While the movie theater location of the interviews is rather hokey and some of the dialogue sounds curiously pre-written - see Knoxville’s awkward, though wildly passionate and knowledgeable interview that runs throughout the film - this lineup adds an incredible narrative to the piece.
Being Evel does feel particularly long despite its average 100 minute runtime and rapid pacing. Perhaps this is because of the saturation of interview subjects that weave in so quick, you forget their relation to the man. Or perhaps it is the nature of a documentary that is so comprehensive of its subject from beginning to end. Whatever reason, it is baffling that a narrative feature has not yet been filmed about Evel Knievel, a man that Being Evel nearly resurrects to reveal one of the more bizarre and fascinating personalities of the 20th century.
Being Evel is now playing at Sundance Cinemas West Hollywood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MFAQ368E3s
Review: 'Southpaw'
Jake Gyllenhaal’s resurgence as a bankable, “serious” Hollywood actor only speaks to the long list of films he has starred in to date. His current string of stunning performances dating back to 2011’s Source Code and leading up to last year’s snubbed Nightcrawler has been dazzling. The kid from Donnie Darko has actually grown into a pretty daring actor. He’s always been one though. In 2001, he flipped from the demented Bubble Boy to the seedy surrealism of Donnie Darko, 2005 saw him play his, at that point, brawniest role as a Gulf War soldier in the underrated Jarhead and then gather an Oscar nomination for his most tender and vulnerable role as a gay cowboy in Brokeback Mountain. Gyllenhaal has been a chameleon his entire career. With Southpaw, he is proving it louder than ever.
Southpaw follows the trials and tribulations of Billy “The Great” Hope (Gyllenhaal), the light heavyweight boxing champion of the world. Coming up through the system, Hope has risen to superstardom and great wealth alongside his wife Maureen (an impressive performance Rachel McAdams) and his daughter Leila (Oona Laurence). After his wife is tragically shot at a charity event, Hope falls into a pit of despair and poverty. When Leila is taken into child services, Hope turns his life around to get back into the ring and fight - literally and metaphorically - for his family and the good of himself.
If anything, the film is a triumph for its performances and a victory for Fuqua proving he can capably direct more than popcorn action.
The film is an impressive turn from director Antoine Fuqua, himself in a commercial renaissance following the back-to-back action success of Olympus Has Fallen and The Equalizer. Southpaw is a strong return to his dramatic peak over a decade ago with Training Day. The direction here is confident, though also vulnerable, something that Fuqua seemed to lack during the energetic masculinity and action ferocity of his preceding filmography. Not to undermine the aggressiveness in Southpaw, however, as it’s possibly the most brutal boxing film in more than a decade.
The boxing sequences themselves are, appropriately, the most visceral moments of the film. Gyllenhaal is a brute force in the ring eating up the scenes and spitting them out, bloodied. His punch-drunk performance is a spectacle, though unfortunately despite Gyllenhaal “The Great” Hope’s best efforts, he cannot lift the dramatic moments out of all too familiar territory. Southpaw is no Million Dollar Baby or The Fighter.
Fuqua’s directorial hand falls far too hard especially in the film’s former half. TV veteran Kurt Sutter’s screenplay is manipulative and inconsistent, to boot. A great performance by Forest Whitaker as Hope’s trainer in the latter acts adds a much-needed humanity that hoists the film up into the later rounds.
If anything, the film is a triumph for its performances and a victory for Fuqua proving he can capably direct more than popcorn action. Through all of the film’s dramatic tribulations, Southpaw is impossible not to root for.
Southpaw opens nationwide this Friday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D68vmev7KZc
Review: 'What Happened, Miss Simone?
This year has already positioned itself as a banner year for music cinema. This month has seen the celebrated releases of Eden, a love letter to the 90s Parisian electronic scene, and Love & Mercy, the idiosyncratic biopic of The Beach Boys' brainchild Brian Wilson, to glowing reviews. Brett Morgan’s chaotic Kurt Cobain documentary, Montage of Heck, revolutionized the structure of the rock-doc for a what may be the most personal peep into a musician’s life this decade, while the upcoming self-titled Amy Winehouse documentary, Amy, won over the likes of Cannes and critics thereafter as well. Debuting nationwide this week after its Sundance premiere alongside Montage of Heck, is What Happened, Miss Simone?, a documentary that follows the rise of "the high priestess of soul," Nina Simone.
What Happened, Miss Simone? is a very traditional documentary about the most un-traditional of musical artists. In an era of unconvention in documentary film making, Simone’s story is told in familiar fashion. The visual fabric of the narrative is predominantly archival–black & white performance footage and photography, radio interviews with Simone herself, etc.–which gives the film a very classic aesthetic. Simone’s story unravels like a VH1 Classic special, from her humble Carolina beginnings singing in her church, through her early jazz club days into her stern civil rights activism in the 1960s. There may be a little too much "Behind the Music," however.
Much like the title suggests, she presents her subject as a cautionary icon, an over-advocate whose own anger became a threat to her own wellness. It’s a cautionary tale for our own era of advocacy that reigns in this new century, though also a portrait of an artist we rarely see any longer in popular music.
Director Liz Fischer chooses to spend the heftiest portion of the film on Simone's political aggression, yet shies away from outright anointing her. Much like the title suggests, she presents her subject as a cautionary icon, an over-advocate whose own anger became a threat to her own wellness. It’s a cautionary tale for our own era of advocacy that reigns in this new century, though also a portrait of an artist we rarely see any longer in popular music–a pop artist innovating whilst making grand political statements. However, What Happened, Miss Simone? would stand out if it featured just that: more of Simone’s music.
To Fischer and her editing team’s credit, they have a keen sense of knowing to not cut from Simone’s performance footage swiftly. The film’s best moments are these extended single takes that let Simone’s undeniable presence on stage breathe and come to life. It is in these moments, the documentary is magnetic–it really does bring Simone back to life. Coupled with the extensive, well-restored interview audio of Simone herself, What Happened, Miss Simone? gives the chanteuse a voice again. And that is something that we need, especially in this second wave of activism.
What Happened, Miss Simone? will premiere exclusively on Netflix and opens theatrically in LA at Laemmle's Music Hall 3 Friday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moOQXZxriKY
Review: 'Manglehorn'
Some performers are so ubiquitous, so ingrained in the American cinematic consciousness that no matter how hard they try to break away – or in this case, reappear – their attempts seem futile. Al Pacino is one of those artists – one of the great leading actors of cinema’s young life. In the last year, independent Hollywood seems to have re-discovered his talents and finally re-adjusted his role. He is now the wise elder looking back at his better years with existential longing for the love and compassion of decades past. His last three lead roles - an aging mobster in Stand Up Guys, an aging actor in The Humbling, and an aging rock star in Danny Collins, all mirror his latest in the streak: the ever-prolific David Gordon Green’s Manglehorn.
Debuting on last year’s festival circuit in Venice and Toronto, Pacino’s eponymous Manglehorn is an aging locksmith who longs for Clara (Natalie Wilemon), the one who got away. Not much is revealed about her, or their relationship through Manglehorn’s voice-over musings, though it is clear that they had something very special. His emptiness hinders his connections with his successful yuppie son (Chris Messina), the charming bank teller he visits every Friday (Holly Hunter) and an old athlete from his high school coaching days who drags him into his greasy massage parlor (Harmony Korine), as he half-heartedly moves through the daily motions, finding little ways to reinvigorate his life and relationships.
It’s an awkward amalgam of indie drama and magical realism that on occasion, is exactly that – magical. In very specific moments, Gordon Green diverts from the stale narrative to give Manglehorn, the character, a mystical aura that is much more fascinating than his all-too regular story.
If this all sounds fairly flat – it is. Manglehorn is not a film that lacks any substance or style. It has plenty of both, though too much of it falls into the cracks in the subtext, and not enough appears on the screen. It’s an awkward amalgam of indie drama and magical realism that on occasion, is exactly that – magical. In very specific moments, Gordon Green diverts from the stale narrative to give Manglehorn, the character, a mystical aura that is much more fascinating than his all-too regular story. The ending, for example, may be among the most beautifully baffling final moments in recent cinema.
Unfortunately, there isn’t much to love about Manglehorn himself. Despite his cranky nature, he is endearing. However, this makes him so hard to understand, except through very vague voic-eover about his lost love Clara. Pacino does his best, though at times he feels almost too good for the movie. Harmony Korine and Chris Messina give strong turns in underwritten supporting roles, yet Pacino outshines them for simply, well, being Pacino.
This is the issue that comes forward in Manglehorn. It all feels like a Pacino vehicle, an outlet for a living legend to make a big return in a small feature. More than anything, it showcases David Gordon Green’s unique abilities for tonal shape-shifting, a technique that almost pays off for Manglehorn – a film that would work so well, if it only knew what is was really about.
Manglehorn opens limited in LA at the Sundance Sunset Cinema today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoPT7UpEjro
Review: 'Shake the Dust'
Hip hop’s cultural dominance is unrivaled in today’s society. The influence of the movement that has blossomed from the streets of the Bronx in the middle of the 20th century has risen to monolithic proportions across the globe – and not only in music. Our fashion, our design, even the way we speak, are all peppered with the soul of the movement and its evolution from humble street corner reflections to big money hooks and diamond-grilled ridiculousness. Shake the Dust is the necessary film that traces hip hop’s roots by looking at the present– a necessary introspection that recaptures the original energy of a divided genre.
Shake the Dust is a documentary that follows an ensemble of hip-hop listening, breakdancing crews all over the world. Hopping between slums and impoverished inner city environments in Uganda, Columbia, Yemen and Cambodia, director Adam Sjöburg showcases the talents of youth who find an escape in the rhythms of hip hop culture. Shot with stalwart and spirited energy, the film is a patchwork of the children’s stories of hope and their rather impressive dance routines on their dusty neighborhood streets.
Shot with stalwart and spirited energy, the film is a patchwork of the children’s stories of hope and their rather impressive dance routines on their dusty neighborhood streets.
The film’s necessity comes from its enthusiastic look at the soul of hip hop. One that, in America, is slowly diminishing or becoming misconstrued. If anything, the film reveals that hip hop is a healing force – a storytelling device for young communities. This concept, often forgotten by the dollar-sign-eyed rappers of the modern hip-hop incarnation shines in Shake the Dust. Sjöburg is gifted in finding and sharing these young talents with the audience and linking the kindred spirits of breakdancers across the globe.
As energizing as the dancing may be, Shake the Dust feels stuck on repeat very early in the film. There is a lot of energy to the stories in this film though there is a lack of dialogue beyond the film’s surface subject. It’s understandable that a documentary about break dancing would be jammed with dance montages, but for an hour and a half it may be a bit too much. The dancing is the glue between each community though there is a lack of distinguishing philosophy behind each one. This communal nature of Shake the Dust is, however, what makes it sail across continents: a small, though important, victory for good old hip hop.
Shake the Dust opens in Los Angeles at the TCL Chinese Theater today, followed by a national, limited theatrical release. The film will be available on iTunes and additional VOD outlets on May 19.
https://vimeo.com/124246503
Review: 'The Surface'
The world, according to film, is very small. For blockbuster audiences, New York, London, Abu Dhabi and Rio are the usual vacation destinations filled with action stunts and speedboat chases that are, at once, both exhilarating and exhausting.
The Surface, a two-man thriller that made its festival run last year, finds tension in the most unlikely of locations: the empty waters of Lake Michigan and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. For the sheer fact that a local, independent film from an unsung American metropolis is reaching national theaters (in limited release) is a remarkable achievement and a reason to consider seeing an oddly compelling drama starring two longtime character actors despite it's very schematic and - pardon me - surface-level narrative.
Geek hero Sean Astin (The Lord of the Rings) stars as Mitch, a depressed Milwaukee fellow reeling from his life's misfortunes. While taking his father's vintage boat out on a day trip that he intends to be his last, he come across the wreckage of a plane crash in the middle of Lake Michigan along with its lone pilot survivor (Chris Mulkey, Captain Phillips). After pulling him to safety, Mitch's boat loses it's propeller, leaving the strangers stranded with only their troubled souls to keep each other afloat while the boat begins to sink.
For the sheer fact that a local, independent film from an unsung American metropolis is reaching national theaters (in limited release) is a remarkable achievement and a reason to consider seeing an oddly compelling drama starring two longtime character actors despite it's very schematic and – pardon me – surface-level narrative.
It's a simple set-up, reminiscent of 2013's magnificent All Is Lost in its conceit, though far less powerful. Where Lost found its power in the solitude of the ocean, Surface finds itself telling far too much back story about the shipmates' lives that is too poorly developed and overly melodramatic. Fortunately, and rather surprisingly, Astin's sea legs are strong and able to carry the 'made-for-TV' styled drama, and with great charisma. Mulkey does a good job as well and their chemistry is a casting miracle.
Surface's direction though, like these open seas, is choppy. Director Gil Cates, Jr. handles the conversations very well, with the result being effective chemistry. When it comes to adding narrative heft and tension, however, there is a lack of trust in the bleak setting and the quiet power of subtext. What makes Lake Michigan such an interesting setting is its close proximity to its shores. The sense of being lost on a lake, so close to civilization, adds a very dynamic thematic element.
The story becomes further bogged down with tales of drug deals and backpacks of cash that add nothing but false tension. There's an awkward scene that sees Mitch sulking next to a team of celebrity boaters as he sets sail, an example of red herring drama that goes nowhere and plays as unnecessary and distracting. In these regards, then, The Surface feels cheap and manipulative. However, it's a film that is compelling enough to stay afloat for its brisk run time.
The Surface is in theaters today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlcgPgfGZXA
Review: 'Chasing Yesterday'
Chasing Yesterday is a film about second chances. However, it is also a film about first chances. As the debut feature from New Jersey filmmaker Joseph Pernice, the film is a remarkable little dramedy - a minuscule film that pushes forward to keep up with the bigger films at festivals nationwide. It’s a motion picture that is the – much apparent – work of a young filmmaking team, though in the best way: a film that is far from perfect, but so close to the winners circle you cannot help but root for this underdog independent feature.
The film follows Junior (All My Children’s Eric Nelsen), a washed up, former high school track star working in the kitchen of his father’s Asian fusion restaurant and struggling with drug use. A series of mockumentary-style interviews at the film’s beginning serve as a clever – though overplayed – exposition to his glory days as a small town hero. After a minor delivery run accident, Junior meets Jenny (Sharknado 2’s Courtney Baxter), who convinces him to train for the local marathon invitational, despite antagonizing from Junior’s old high school acquaintance Matthew (One Life to Live’s David A. Gregory).
It’s a film that leaves you smiling - a small triumph for its central characters and the team behind the camera.
That last paragraph sounds all too cliché. And in a sense, Chasing Yesterday is very much cliché. Think about Silver Linings Playbook; David O. Russell’s runaway hit was a fable of equivalent contrivance but had the charm to outweigh its standard rom-com beats. Chasing Yesterday earns favorable comparisons as a very low-budget counterpart in both story and sentiment. Pernice’s control over his actors performance is erratic, though, as the film moves forward, the chemistry between Junior and his surrounding characters becomes more and more endearing and the extremes of both Nelsen and Baxter’s performances find a grounding as Chasing Yesterday finds its own footing under Pernice’s more steady sentiment.
Pernice’s own directorial assuredness and hand are apparent as the narrative hits the homestretch. Despite a rather weak climactic race, the emotional core of the movie rings true in the final act. The authenticity of the relationships really clicks and the film’s charm shines through. It’s a film that leaves you smiling - a small triumph for its central characters and the team behind the camera. Chasing Yesterday is an ode to the power of community pushing to achieve the little victories that are only possible with a great team. The team behind Chasing Yesterday are the winners of this motion picture - champions of the low-budget heart.
Chasing Yesterday screened on Tuesday, April 28th at the Newport Beach Film Festival.
Review: 'Lambert & Stamp'
The film industry and the music industry are really not that different. Buckets of money, inflated egos, thirst for fame and a dash of genuine creative genius propel each industry and always will. The post-war arts movement, best known as rock and roll, may have been one of the rare times where both industries set aside the vices and found a true artistic inspiration in the possibilities of modern technology and ideology. Lambert & Stamp is the rare music documentary that looks at not just the music of this pivotal time period, it looks at the familiar characters of the movement and does not introduce them as icons. They are the puppets and products of other rock artists– a beautiful collaborative symphony where, ironically enough, nobody knew what they were supposed to be playing.
Lambert & Stamp tells the story of the titular duo of Kit Lambert and Chris Stamp, two young filmmakers working in mid-century London trying to make it as directors. After rock and roll music began to sound from the radios of the British youth, the duo thought of the bright idea to make a film about managing a band and turn it into their breakthrough film. Thus began the legend of the band soon to be known as The Who. Now, of course, Lambert and Stamp were never a part of the group, however Pete Townshend - The Who’s lead guitarist and composer - credits them to be just as much a part of the band as the four core members.
Now, of course, Lambert and Stamp were never a part of the group, however Pete Townshend - The Who’s lead guitarist and composer - credits them to be just as much a part of the band as the four core members.
The film is a fascinating look at the role of managers and musicians. Lambert and Stamp’s cinematic interests give a directorial spin to the band, almost treating them as actors. Never in a manipulative way, however - the manager/band relationship in Lambert & Stamp is painted as a collaboration, not the circus that is often associated with management and artists. This insight gives the band a more intimate and humanizing persona. Townshend and frontman Roger Daltrey discuss their collaboration with Lambert and Stamp with such honesty that it will tug on the heartstrings of any rock fan.
If there is one thing that Lambert & Stamp makes apparent, it is that rock and roll is still alive and kicking. The Dave Grohl’s and Jack White’s of the world - the last great rock stars of this generation - may cry foul about how the genre is on its last legs, and how evil record labels are taking money and creativity out of the hands of the artists. That money part may be true, but the creativity in sonic experimentation and theatricality is just as innovative as it was fifty years ago. The anarchic and youthful spirit of bands like The Who and their manager companions may have started ‘rock and roll,’ but it’s only now just getting started.
Lambert & Stamp is now playing at the Landmark Theatres.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fxv9fvhmFI
Review: '5 to 7'
Look at the poster for 5 to 7 and try to not be reminded of the romantic comedy’s mid-century heyday - the times when Audrey Hepburn and Dustin Hoffman seduced the American youth and their parents alike. Perhaps it evokes echoes of Woody Allen’s endearing word-vomit diatribes to Diane Keaton, or Mia Farrow down Manhattan sidewalks. Perhaps it is only a corny photoshop job of a millennial stock photo. Television writer Victor Levin’s debut directorial feature actually treads each of these impressions rather well as a romantic comedy that is at once classic in its sentimentality and very modern in its ideology.
5 to 7 tells the story of a twenty-something writer named Brian Bloom (Anton Yelchin) living in New York (those Woody Allen impressions are already pretty accurate). The lack of interest from publishers and ‘law school’ pressure from his parents heighten his frustration with societal structures and squander his social life. That is until he meets Arielle (Bérénice Marlohe), a lovely French woman or Brian’s "Mrs. Robinson". They fall for each other’s child-like charms, however Arielle is a married woman. Luckily for Brian, Arielle’s family is full of open relationships as her husband (Lambert Wilson) - also involved in a ‘5 to 7’ relationship - and children welcome Brian into their family and help him find success.
Television writer Victor Levin’s debut directorial feature actually treads each of these impressions rather well as a romantic comedy that is at once classic in its sentimentality and very modern in its ideology.
It all seems much more complicated than it actually is. In fact, it all plays out with simplicity and elegance. Levin chooses to not over-convolute his plot with excess romantic drama and conflict. Instead, he plays it lightly, focusing on the smaller joys of teaching others about your interests, culture, and the environment you live in. An absolutely charming sequence finds Arielle teaching Brian how to decipher French wines, cut to Brian doing the same with cheap American beers. Scenes often play without cutting from long takes, often in wide shots giving distance and room to breathe, a directorial choice that brings genuineness to the film’s largest fault. It is slightly tough to buy into Brian and Arielle’s relationship, but Levin’s theater-like sensibility gives the odd-couple pairing that much more believability.
Just when the earnestness of it all starts to get a little sticky in the sap, Glenn Close and Frank Langella make a delightful, all-too-brief appearance as Brian’s disapproving, but supportive parents. Give them both an Oscar nomination for playing some of the more dimensional parents in recent cinema. As 5 to 7 wraps up in a pleasant, but frustratingly cliché resolution, Levin’s skills as a writer become most apparent. Though, his narrative sentimentality feels either fresh or dated, he’s a gifted wordsmith with his dialogue and the authenticity of his characters is charming in molding the corny classic ways of the romantic comedy for an all too ironic modern millennial audience.
'5 to 7' is now playing at Landmark Theatres.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HimzZ6QG2o
Review: 'Serena'
On paper, Serena is the textbook prestige picture. The most obvious element that gives it this outward appearance is the reunion of the dynamite, Oscar-magnet pair of Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence. For their third film together in three years (until they are paired again for David O. Russell’s Joy this December), they are guided by Danish director Susanne Bier who’s In A Better World took home the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar in 2011. Couple that with a period-set screenplay based on a New York Times bestseller and you have the making of an early Awards favorite. But so the film arrives, muddied and bruised from a rough road to theaters and VOD. After two years of production delays, recuts and hazy press, it is, admittedly, really quite difficult to separate Serena from its production woes. Alas, even taken with a clear perspective, the film arrives rather lost.
Set in late-1920s Appalachia, the film follows the lumber magnate George Pemberton (Bradley Cooper) as he flattens acres of North Carolina woodlands before conservationists, led by the town sheriff (Toby Jones), pass a bill to preserve the area as a national park. Pemberton falls in love with a logger’s daughter, Serena (Jennifer Lawrence), and their swift marriage is marked with tacky equestrian sequences and awkward sex scenes. She becomes a respected manager in George's endeavors, much to the frustration of Pemberton’s business partners, beginning a murderous Macbeth-ian turn of events that threatens George and Serena’s lives and relationship.
Serena plays like a fable that aims for the complex morality of There Will Be Blood, but gets stuck in the swamps of generic period sentimentality.
It is all very classic melodrama, almost to a fault. The plot often dirties itself with the fascinating paradox of the reverence for this country’s great beauty and its destruction allowed to pursue the American dream. These conversations of Industrial Age greed are all too brief and quickly washed away with soap opera theatrics. Much of this is attributed to Lawrence and the Serena character. She belly flops in the titular role giving a bipolar performance that is both robotic in dialogue and hammy in its physicality. It is really a disappointment that the character is handled so poorly. Serena is a strong female foil that is should be much welcomed in Hollywood, but her feminine qualities are unfairly dramatized by the sloppy direction. On the contrary, Cooper shows off remarkable control over Bier’s misguided hand, despite how selfish and unlikeable Pemberton is. The supporting cast does some great work as well, especially a compelling David Dencik as Pemberton’s right-hand man.
The classicism all feels very dated. Not as in: “Wow! This is really evokes the 20s!” More like: “Wow! Jennifer Lawrence hasn’t aged a wrinkle since the 90s!” Serena plays like a fable that aims for the complex morality of There Will Be Blood, but gets stuck in the swamps of generic period sentimentality. The soft lighting and distracting score attempt to squeeze any emotional significance left in the meandering narrative. The choppy editing only magnifies the disarray, highlighting poor coverage and bizarre plot organization. It twists when it doesn’t have to conjuring disorder instead of dramatics and the last act may be one of the more berserk half hours of this cinematic year. It is a strange experience. It should be an event only because of its star power, but ultimately it is only a fascinating flop.
Serena is in theaters March 27th.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaCAby0GicI
Review: '71'
If you look closely, 2014 was a banner year for the war movie. Bradley Cooper single-handedly turned American Sniper into a national phenomenon to (eventually) become the highest grossing film of the year– the first non-franchise film to do so since Saving Private Ryan, coincidentally. Early Oscar contenders, Fury and Unbroken rallied in a cool sum for ‘prestige’ pictures behind "Brangelina’s" respective star power. The Imitation Game found pathos in the unsung genius of Alan Turing to find well-deserved critical and audience success. Even the daffy The Monuments Men found a lot of box office legs in the early months of the year.’71, which debuted last year before any of these films were released at last year’s Berlin International Film Festival, finds its way into American theaters this weekend and it stands as a riveting independent counterpart to its studio companions - a showcase for a war story both rather simple but effective during a conflict that may not find itself in international history books.
The film follows a young soldier Gary Hook (Jack O’Connell, of the previously mentioned Unbroken) who is left disoriented and abandoned by his unit during a violent Belfast Riot in the titular year of 1971. The riot occurs at the beginning years of the Troubles, a three-decade era of violence between Northern Ireland’s Irish nationalist and the country’s unionists, which included British and Protestant citizens. Taking place over the course of around 24 hours, the film follows Gary Hook’s interactions with the civilians and soldiers from both sides of the conflict and the violence that is surrounding them.
It is rather vibrant for a war film; rich color contrasts its dark subject matter.
To begin, Jack O’Connell is going to be a big star and you feel it in’71. He carried the weight of the Angelina Jolie’s heavy-handed Unbroken direction on his shoulders and his under-seen turn in the prison drama Starred Up showed a ruggedness reminiscent of a British Ryan Gosling. He’s the broody everyman– somebody who observes the cinematic environment as opposed to eating it up. He can build drama just through his presence and that is showcased in ’71. He has the understanding to simply inhabit the environment and guide the film– never steal the show or demand the center of the conflict. He’s a movie star in the making, similar to Josh Hartnett in Black Hawk Down (which Cinemacy contributor H. Nelson Tracy deftly compared to ’71 in his Sundance review of the film). His stardom will be determined, but in a war film so reliant on character over heavy action, he holds his own.
The film itself is visually quite impressive as well. It is rather vibrant for a war film; rich color contrasts its dark subject matter. The realism is rewarding and rather brutal - very opposite of the studio-movie war zone O’Connell inhabited in Unbroken. It’s also swift in its pace which make for a very tense, involving watch. The momentum from the film’s beginning won’t rock you, but it involves you enough to really feel along Gary’s side.
It is a terrific war story, though maybe not a revelatory one. It’s not a film about triumph, but about survival. Unbroken was a survival picture on the surface, but it ended on a note of American triumph. ’71 portrays a conflict that– has it ever actually? – depicts no triumph for either side, but rather the effect war has on the individual.Overall, ’71 is refreshing, as the film does not have the same need for significance that the Hollywood system puts into war cinema.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIYDNyEkJP4
Review: 'What We Do in the Shadows'
The myth of the modern vampire is admittedly a very fascinating one. Their existence is one of great power, but great loneliness–a need to be accepted by humanity, despite their deadly inhibitions against them. For the most part of the last decade, the mythic race has been defined by Edward Cullen’s brooding angst–morphing this generation’s perspective into a more romantic than fearful vision. But in all honesty, despite their mysterious sensuality, vampires are pretty f*cking goofy. What We Do in the Shadows exploits this notion to its fullest capacity, creating a mockumentary about the daily go-abouts of a troupe of vampires in New Zealand. The result is the smartest vampire movie since Let the Right One In and already one of the funniest movies of the year.
Written and helmed by kiwi funnymen Jemaine Clement (Flight of the Conchords) and Taika Waititi (Green Lantern), the faux-documentary follows four centuries-old blood-suckers living in a quiet Wellington suburb. They share chores, discuss their troubles with women, go out to clubs (what else is there to do when you can only go out at night?), trick the cops when they get called on for noise complaints and make all other kinds of merry around the town. The even get into a hilarious tiff with a group of rival werewolves led by fellow kiwi comedian Rhys Darby (Yes Man).
What We Do in the Shadows exploits this notion to its fullest capacity, creating a mockumentary about the daily go-abouts of a troupe of vampires in New Zealand. The result is the smartest vampire movie since Let the Right One In and already one of the funniest movies of the year.
In the same way that Jim Jarmusch’s moody, contemplative Only Lovers Left Alive reimagined vampires as city dwellers, seamlessly learning to assimilate into the modern urban society, What We Do in the Shadows finds a sweet spot between humanity and the supernatural. Where Jarmusch’s film bore its Detroit-cool fangs–Clement and co. guffaw with a menacing laugh that would make old Count Dracula’s belly ache. It takes the minutia of human life–the excitements and disappointments of the modern world–and plays them as the struggles of a vampire attempting to live in the 21st century. It’s an idea that should have already been explored, especially since vampires are the closest mythological creature to humans. Let the Right One In (and its under-appreciated 2010 American remake) did this, but in a very realistic and horrific way. The mockumentary style is so far from realistic, almost cartoon-like, that it gives the vampires a self-awareness that has been absent from the genre in recent years. Well, maybe in that Twilight parody Vampires Suck…although that movie probably did suck.
Each of the players are individually fantastic. Their deadpan delivery, the banter between the vampires, the differentiation in their characters, is the makings of a fantastic television show. Like many of the best documentaries, What We Do In Shadows begs for the world its subjects inhabit to be explored much deeper, here done Christopher Guest (Spinal Tap) style. There is a surprising amount of depth to a the explorations of love and aging that act as subplots. Some of these themes are explored with much more comical than dramatic, less mythological counterparts. That is the success of What We Do in the Shadows. It’s hilarious, for one, but there are so many mundane elements of daily life it sinks its teeth into (at least one vamp-pun, right? Ok, maybe two) with such acerbic wit that its hard not to love any moment of the film. Well-paced and relatively brief, it will be a search to find more joyous and lively comedy in theaters very soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAZEWtyhpes
Review: 'Enter the Dangerous Mind'
Opening with a Youtube-news clip montage about recent American violence soundtracked by generic dubstep womps and circuit sounds, Enter the Dangerous Mind seems to begin as a commentary on the same sociopathic notes that films like The Purge have explored with such shallow– though admittedly entertaining– comprehension. Violence comes from the most dangerous of minds in reality, but to be quite frank, it becomes apparent that there are some very dangerous minds in Hollywood when films such as Mind appear in theaters.
The film follows a computer geek, Jim (Jake Hoffman, son of Dustin), who finds solace and minor fame as an internet-based dubstep artist. His inept social and romantic skills give his only friend, Jake (Thomas Dekker) plenty to act all kinds of obnoxious about. Despite mutual affection with a social worker’s assistant, Wendy (Nikki Reed, Twilight), he slowly begins to spiral out of control until his Jake is revealed as, what it seems the filmmakers hoped would be, the 21st century Tyler Durden. Jim’s violent ways begin to overcome him and the film never really looks back at the rest of narrative.
Violence comes from the most dangerous of minds in reality, but to be quite frank, it becomes apparent that there are some very dangerous minds in Hollywood when films such as Mind appear in theaters.
Despite its dated nature (the film actually played the festival circuit two years ago as Snap), it begins rather well. Hoffman and Reed have an awkward, but likeable chemistry and do the very best with the flat material. Their early charm provides an easy-to-digest charm against the harsh underground-EDM score. One particular scene finds them describing why Jim loves to produce dubstep so much. He calls it “the noise in his head.” There is an interesting psychological study right there - given the genre’s rise post-9/11 and the technological boom. That’s a discussion for a very different movie though it seems. Mind has a mild interest in exploring violence and mental illness, but only as an excuse to be “psychological” so to speak. It’s a thriller– like too many now adays– that attempts to find an interesting framework to disguise itself as smart, only to spin in a very swift spiral into the most decades-old of cinematic clichés.
Following the big Fight Club reveal about half-way through the film, any narrative tension that had been built is smashed anvil-flat. Hoffman’s performance, though not entirely his fault, shifts from alright to almost atrocious. Again, this is not his fault as he does all he can with the paper thin writing in a deplorable, logic-defying third act. Scott Bakula’s social worker is thrown in the mix to add some tension as he pursues a key to Jim’s troubles. But, he does not do too much.
That is really the case of Enter the Dangerous Mind. Especially following a banner year for the thriller genre, it's frustrating to see such a low-initiative narrative in the independent realm. However proficient in its low-budget technical success, it's a film that already feels dated. Maybe it is just those dubstep screeches in the film’s score...yeah, definitely. However, it lacks any innovation in concept. It's tired, clunky, jumbled and very flat, and nothing that hasn't been screened before. So beware; you do not really need to enter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pDly2QWqbA
Ethan Hawke on 'Predestination'
Ethan Hawke is trending- with the highly praised release of Richard Linklater's Boyhood and now the Spierig Brothers' film Predestination, he is proving once again why he deserves to be on top. Playing a time traveling agent who is on a mission to stop future crimes from happening (click here for our review), he creates this thrilling, yet emotional journey for audiences to fall in love with. Our contributing writer Jasper talks to Ethan about some really interesting topics at the press day in Beverly Hills, getting into Ethan's creative process of choosing the roles he plays and the prospect of time travel, to which Ethan exclaims, "we are all traveling through time, all the time." We begin:
WAS IT STORY OR DIRECTOR THAT BROUGHT YOU TO THIS PROJECT?
I made Daybreakers with these guys and I just believed in them. I’ve been doing this long enough to recognize a certain look in somebody's eye and they had this sensibility of people who are going to make great films. They work so hard and care about every detail. They obsess about every situation. Daybreakers was a good experience for me and I really liked it, but I could also tell that they had better films in their future. They're such serious young men that I really wanted to work with them again.
HOW DID YOU MEET THE SPIERIG BROTHERS INITIALLY TO GET INVOLVED WITH DAYBREAKERS?
They made a really strange movie called Undead which they made with their friend for about five dollars and their own computer. It has a little cult following and my brothers really liked it so I’d seen it and when they came to me with Daybreakers, I knew who they were. They’re so good with playing with computers they did a little mock-up of me as Jess in Before Sunset as a vampire and I immediately liked them.
Click here to read our interview with Peter and Michael Spierig.
HOW DID YOU MAKE THE CHARACTER YOUR OWN?
Part of the way that I work is making sure that it is going to be a good movie. Thinking about it from my character's point of view is something I do, but one of the things you have to do is get yourself in a position to succeed. This is a really hard movie storytelling-wise. I mean, it’s extremely original, but whenever you're doing something original it's easy to fail because you're not walking down terrain that hasn’t been walked a lot. One of the things I really liked about this movie is that it is unapologetically weird. Most movies now are trying to please a certain demographic, and this movie is really just original. It’s is own voice and that’s the genius of Robert Heinlein. He was a sophisticated thinker and science fiction in general, at its best, has an ability to talk about deeply philosophical themes without being pretentious or boring.
For me, what was unique about the character was the loneliness. I really felt that this is a deeply, deeply lonely person. The transgender aspect of the character is so interesting. All of us, to lesser or greater extents, have felt alone. And when you feel alone, like you don’t belong, it can be very painful. If you felt alone all the time, if you really had no home and no family, there would be a deep loneliness to it. But, of course, the lion’s share of the performance of this movie fell on Sarah. She just give such a phenomenal performance and you know our performance are tied together. I remember when was doing Gattaca, it was Jude Law’s first big film. It was fun to be a part of introducing the world to Jude because he’s such a special performer and I felt the same way about Sarah. The movie hinged on an unknown actress giving a dynamite performance. She couldn’t be known or the twist would be screwed and she needed to be great.
Sometimes, I’ll read something really good, but I know in my heart that I’m not the right actor for this. There’s another actor. I don’t love this enough.
YOU HAD EMPATHY FOR [SARAH], BUT IT TOOK AWHILE. I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO GIVE [THE NARRATIVE] AWAY IF YOU HAD MIRRORED SOME ASPECTS, BUT THERE WERE SOME SIMILARITIES THERE. [PAUSE] I JUST ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION FOR YOU.
[Laughs]The trick is to be truthful, but not making it so obvious that you give it away. It was a real dance with that. In a way, it was something very, very beautiful in the movie, which is about masculine and feminine at war with itself, hunting itself. You can make a case that that’s to be true of all of us and that until will find some balance we’re going to keep traveling through space and time hurting ourselves. Something about the movie stumbles upon something really rich to me.
DID YOU LOOK INTO A LOT OF GENDER THEORY BEFORE THE ROLE? I WAS TALKING WITH SARAH AND SHE SAID SHE OBVIOUSLY DID A LOT.
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about that over the course of my life. It's interesting, I think a lot of the best writing really does deal with that, but it was particularly acute for Sarah which I think she does beautifully. The hard thing for her is that she’s giving this unbelievable performance and it's a genre film. If this was a small little movie about a transgender person she would win awards for this, but because the concept of the movie is so huge, you know science fiction never wins awards.
YOU SAID SOMETHING REALLY INTERESTING [IN THE PRESS NOTES]- YOU SAID THAT IN OUR PAST, WE ARE PREDETERMINED TO DO WHAT WE DID, YET WE ALWAYS HAVE THE AVENUES OF THE FUTURE. THAT THE IDEA OF THE PAST IS PREDETERMINED.
Definitely. It seems like he is in this rut of this "figure-eight" in time that he can't break out of. Its interesting, you know, why can’t you change it? And that’s how I often feel. We all have certain nights where we can’t sleep, you don't know what to do whether it's a relationship, job decision, life decision, whatever it is. You have no idea which way you're going to go. And two years later, it was so obvious that you were going to go the way you went. Why is that? Why does it feel like our life is walking on a razor’s edge? And then in hindsight, it's like “Oh obviously!” It’s so strange. Somehow the movie always makes me think about that. Then, of course, there is another level of the movie that is that amazing line: “I know who I am. Who are all you zombies?” I don’t want to ruin it, but why are we all so asleep? We’re not asking ourselves these questions about why we’re born, who our ancestors are and where we’re going. That’s the part about Robert Heinlein that I just love. That line is right out of the short story.
GOING OFF OF THE TIME ASPECT OF THE MOVIE, YOU JUST DID BOYHOOD-
Which is a time travel movie in and of itself.
YES, OF COURSE. THE BEFORE TRILOGY ALSO DEALS A LOT WITH TIME. IS THAT A SUBJECT YOU FIND YOURSELF ATTRACTED TO?
Maybe it’s just because I started acting young, that it’s just something I constantly think about. I think I found a peer in Richard Linklater. I mean, he obsesses about it too. But, I’ll never forget even as a young person deciding what college to go to, realizing that it was the first decision that I was going to make that was going to be on my obituary. [Laughs] It’s this thing we get a finite amount of and we don't know what it is, yet everything is in relation to it. I’m even fascinated on the opposite side of it in terms of longevity. I mean, getting to work on Shakespeare plays. It's fascinating to be on stage and getting a laugh with a five hundred year old joke. [Laughs] It almost feels like time travel. Theres a couple of jokes in Macbeth, which I did last year, and the audience laughed at this line. And then you start picturing the thousands of audiences through time laughing. He murders the king, and this guy comes out and he says “‘Twas a rough night” and then he says “Twas a rough night.” It’s really weird. It makes you feel like you’re part of this time continuity. And that’s what I think something about Predestination, the movie, is getting at. That we are all traveling through time, all the time. But, the nice thing about science fiction is that it lets you talk about it in a fun way, as opposed to a preachy way. And, the beauty of Boyhood, is that it almost doesn't talk about it at all. It just presents it.
AND OF COURSE, IT'S BEEN GETTING A LOT OF ACCOLADES AND AWARDS CONSIDERATION. WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT IT IS ONE OF THE MOVIES FROM EARLIER IN THE YEAR AND IT'S STILL RESONATING WITH PEOPLE, AND PEOPLE ARE STILL DISCOVERING IT. ARE YOU SURPRISED AT ALL THAT IT STILL MAINTAINS THAT?
Yeah, I remember thinking last year it was funny when Before Midnight came out, I’d never had such a well-reviewed film. But, by the end of the year, there were so many other movies that were coming out and it’s a very small, little, delicate movie. It was hard for [Boyhood] to stay in the conversation about the year's best because, let’s face it, in December, all the movies for grown-ups come out. But, at the same time, you don't make movies to win prizes, you make movies to connect with audiences and that’s definitely happening, so that’s been beautiful. As much as the movie speaks to parents, it also speaks to young people. We worked on that movie for twelve years, so nothing’s going to take the smile off of my face about that movie.
HOW DO YOU GO ABOUT CHOOSING YOUR ROLES?
It’s probably the most important moment of an actor’s life and it’s probably the one thing you can't go to school for. How do you choose? As actors were only as good as our opportunities. Which thing is too challenging? Which thing is not challenging enough? I’ve kind of just flown by the seed of my pants for twenty-five or thirty years. Something about my gut lets me know whether or not it would be rewarding for me to try to do. In this particular case, if I didn't know Michael and Peter, I would have thought the script was too unyielding. The target is very small for this movie. There is a lot of things that can go wrong in telling this story, but I really respect them and think they’re so smart. They’re original. They have this love of 70s genre movies and, in a sort of way, it feels like a throwback, but they're using it in a modern way and I'm really impressed with them.
For me, this was an easy decision to make. I really believe in Peter and Michael and they're giving me a really fascinating character and a chance to make an original movie. [Laughs] I mean my wife read the script and she was like “What just happened?” I’m doing this movie! Don’t try and talk me out of it, I love this movie! And, thats how I felt about it. I rarely get the chance to be a part of anything original and, you know, I do a Shakespeare play for a different reason. I basically do that to learn. I just did a movie that is a reimagining of a moment in Chet Baker’s life. So, to get to play a real person presents a different challenge. Sometimes, I’ll read something really good, but I know in my heart that I’m not the right actor for this. There’s another actor. I don’t love this enough. There’d be somebody who would kill to do this. And, sometimes I want to do something and I don't get the part. It’s been a dance my whole life. Sometimes you do things that you're worried aren't going to be good, but you really need to work and sometimes you don't do something that’s really good because you work too much. I've missed some really great opportunities because I was doing a play. I wasn’t available. Had I known it was a choice, I would have chosen the other.
BUT, IT'S ALL PREDESTINED-
[Laughs] It's all predestined, yes.
Directors Peter & Michael Spierig on 'Predestination'
Directing duo Peter and Michael Spierig sat down with our contributing writer Jasper at the SLS Hotel for an intimate conversation about their new sci-fi film, Predestination. The film, which is based on the short story "All You Zombies" by Robert A. Heinlein, tells the story of a temporal agent, played by Ethan Hawke, who travels through time to prevent future killers from committing crimes. Part action film and part thriller, Jasper talks to the brothers about their cinematic inspirations, their collaboration with Hawke, and working with family. We begin:
ARE YOU A FAN OF HEINLEIN AND SCIENCE FICTION IN GENERAL?
PETER SPIERIG: Absolutely. It’s funny that Heinlein hasn’t been adapted more. Because he has such a massive catalog of amazing thing like Starship Troopers, which has been adapted, but also ‘Stranger in a Strange Land’ or ‘Moon Harsh Mistress’ and a lot of interesting novels that have not been attempted yet. I love all the old sci-fi guys.
THE SHORT STORY IS VERY DENSE. WHAT WERE THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES OF ADAPTING IT INTO A FILM? OBVIOUSLY YOU ADDED ANOTHER MAIN CHARACTER, SO TALK ABOUT THAT PROCESS.
P: We initially took the short story and put it into a screenplay just to see what it was in that format and then began to really break it down and say, ‘Okay, how does this go from a ten-page short story into a 110-page feature screenplay.’ You do that by thinking about structure and the way the characters interacts. And the great thing about adapting a short story as opposed to a novel is you get to expand rather than contract. With a novel you have to pull out so much and people complain a lot that it was never as good as the novel then when they see the movie. So, that was fun to be able to expand the characters. because the concepts were so interesting, but the characters weren’t fleshed out all that much. The other thing about the short story is that is it just a setup and a payoff. It’s almost a joke about how time travel can’t exist, so we really wanted to expand that and make the characters more complete.
HOW LONG WAS THE ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY?
P: It was about 30 pages. [laughs] So it was a tremendous amount of work.
IT SOUNDS LIKE ETHAN REALLY RESPECTS YOUR VISION-
MICHAEL SPIERIG: He said that? [laughs]
I remember we always watched the movies we weren't supposed to and our parents never stopped us from watching The Exorcist or Evil Dead or any of those films and that’s sort of a big influence on us.
WITH ETHAN AND SARAH [SNOOK], DID YOU GO OFF EACH OTHER CREATIVELY OR TAKE SUGGESTIONS FROM THEM?
M: Yeah. Now that this is our second picture with Ethan, I think we’re more open with each other. There’s various versions of the rehearsal process. You can sit there and run lines over and over again, but that’s never the best thing to do. The best thing to do is to get together with the actors and just talk through the intention of each moment, each scene and what you are trying to get out of the scene. We had a very relaxed and sharing rehearsal process and I think that helped to create the natural feel of the bar scenes. Everyone was very open and it was a lot of fun.
WHO INSPIRED YOU TO GET INTO FILMMAKING?
M: We grew up in the 80s and its hard to not be inspired by Star Wars and Indiana Jones, you know, the Spielberg, Lucas stuff and James Cameron. But we also loved the early Sam Raimi stuff and closer to home, Peter Jackson, when he was doing his low-budget splatter movies. What was great about that is that were made on a shoestring. For us, it was amazing that a guy from Wellington was making these types of movies. And there are filmmakers like Kubrick -
I REALLY SAW STANLEY KUBRICK A LOT WHEN I WAS WATCHING THE FILM.
M: Yeah, I often like directors who a little out there like David Lynch and David Cronenberg. They are two of my favorites. I really enjoy films that are a bit weird.
P: We definitely grew up in the early days of VHS. I remember we always watched the movies we weren't supposed to and our parents never stopped us from watching The Exorcist or Evil Dead or any of those films and that’s sort of a big influence on us.
IT SEEMS LIKE YOU TOOK THAT INFLUENCE AND USED PRACTICAL SECIAL EFFECTS RATHER THAN GOING WITH CGI. I REALLY APPRECIATED THAT.
P: If we can do it practically, then that’s the way to do it.
M: We were saying this is our anti-CGI movie, but there is still 200 digital effects in Predestination. I get bored by CGI. A CGI thing fighting another CGI thing; it just loses all humanity for me. So we tried to do an anti-CGI movie.
P: Until we get $200,000,000 dollars. [laughs]
WOULD YOU GUYS WANT TO DO A BIG EFFECTS MOVIE?
M: Of course! It just depends on what it is. But, of course, if the project’s right, why wouldn’t you?
P: There’s a lot of good Marvel movies out there. There’s plenty of good $200,000,000 movies. But there are also plenty of films that you think are just a bunch of noise, as visual and audio.
M: We just want to work. To be a filmmaker now days is just so tough, so we’re just happy to have a job and happy we get to make the films we want to make.
AND YOU GUYS DO EVERYTHING. YOU WEAR ALL THE HATS. YOU'RE PRODUCER, DIRECTOR-
M: To some degree. We have a team of people that we work with. We do have producing partners. It’s like a family of crew: DP, designers, the effects people. Its all people we’ve known for a very long time. So it is like a family when we shoot our films.
YOU HAD A PRETTY SHORT SCHEDULE ON THIS ONE TOO.
M: 32 days or something like that. It’s quick, but so much of it took place in the bar. It’s almost like shooting a play. You can get so much done quickly. To shoot quick you’ve got to prepare well.
For our review of Predestination, click here.
SO ARE BOTH ON SET ALL THE TIME?
M: Yeah. We have split up and shot two units, but on this one we we both on set at the same time. People always ask us “How does that work?” And I think its a hard one to explain because we do so much preparation before we start shooting - we storyboard and we really test everything. Things don’t change when we start shooting, so I don’t go off and say one thing and Peter goes off and says another.So it’s pretty much 50/50 as we direct.
ARE YOU THINKING OF MUSIC WHEN YOU'RE WRITING, PETER?
P: I did. On this one in particular I had this audio track in my head when we were writing and this was the first time I've been able to translate the sounds that I heard onto screen. The scariest part of the whole movie was writing the score. If we get it all write up until the point where the music comes in, then I’ve ruined the movie right at the end.
M: It was such a different process because normally when you edit a movie, you put a guide track of music or temp track. You might use a Jerry Goldsmith track that you put in. With this, Peter was writing the music as we were editing so he would always have guides that we were thrown in so the film was being cut to the music we were going to use.
P: Which meant the film never had somebody else’s sound. Often what can happen when you put a temp track in is that you become so attached to this million-dollar score -
M: And then you get the worst composer. [laughs]
P: I made my temp tracks crap. [laughs]
DID YOU DO A LOT OF CASTING FOR THE JANE/UNMARRIED WOMAN ROLE?
P: That was a big search. We did the traditional thing which is to do a casting for every interesting actress in Australia and we looked at everybody. We knew of Sarah Snook and we knew the kind of talent that she was. She came in and auditioned, and we shortlisted a bunch of girls. It came down to two girls and we did makeup tests on those girls as a man because as good as they were we still need to see that to make sure that it would work. And Sarah was fantastic. She’s going to do alright that girl.
WHEN DID YOU BRING ETHAN IN?
M: He was the first person we had spoken to about the movie. We has spoken to him before we even to the film out to market. I remember it was one or two day after we handed him the script and he said, “I’m in.” And what that does it that it immediately legitimizes the project. We can now really get going and get the rest of the financing.
P: There’s something wonderful about Ethan though because he didn't know who Sarah was, but he just trusts us. He said, “Do you guys believe in this girl? You think she can do it?” Yeah. “Then lets do it.” And it's very rare that you can find an actor who will have faith like that. He’s wonderful in that he’s brave. “Okay, I trust you guys, let's do it.”
IT SAYS A LOT ABOUT YOU TWO, THAT YOU CAN HAVE SOMEBODY TRUST YOU THAT WAY. WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DO TO CREATE THAT TRUST?
P: Well I think that we’re pretty open and honest about things. We’re not pulling the wool over anyone’s eyes. We say “This what our intention is. This is what we want to do.” We talk about it great detail. I mean that’s the thing about Michael and I is that we are very detail oriented. Maybe that’s our German background, I don’t know. We make it a collaborative process. We are hiring good people, we want to hear what they have to say. We’ll absolutely take credit for it, but we want to hear what they have to say because they’ll come up with an idea that we would have never thought of and it just makes the movie better. So on Daybreakers, I think Ethan saw what we wanted to accomplish was on screen. I think that builds that kind of trust.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE PLANNED FOR YOUR NEXT MOVIE?
M: We have a project called Winchester which is based on the Winchester Mystery House in San Jose. We just delivered a screenplay on that one. It’s about Sarah Winchester. She’s the heir to the Winchester rifle fortune and she built this mansion in San Jose and believed that she was haunted by all the spirits who were killed by the rifle. This house is supposed to be haunted by all the spirits, so she would build all these rooms and these stairs that go to nowhere and doors that open to two-story drops to confuse the spirits. It’s an amazing story and we’re working on that at the moment.