Review: 'Mr. Turner'
What a monumental undertaking to tell the story of a master painter of historical significance, art and otherwise- an even bigger challenge to bring to life the story of British painter J.M.W. Turner, whose last quarter century of living was filled with quick-to-rapid deterioration amidst the modern evolving social swerve. In director Mike Leigh's film, Mr. Turner, Leigh mirrors the genius painter's health and mental digressions along with the sweeping and evolving Aristocratic-bourgeois society, as Turner the surrogate stands as the post-modern death of art and of a time gone by itself.
Not many, apart from University art-school majors and the intelligentsia abroad, will likely be familiar with the portly, snot-snarling artist, played impeccably by Timothy Spall, who fully embodies whatever version of the man anyone would expect. Clocking in at a near three hour run-time, Spall is all gusto and intrigue throughout, throwing his weight around in scenes of personal loss (the early death of his father) and artistic flourish (when painting and waxing philosophic in high-society conversation about art itself, when he isn't grumbling the other majority of the movie).
Although the film, subject matter, and effort might sound daunting to watch at best, it's a story of death and societal change that comments on the trappings and loss that can even be seen today.
Rather than a traditional birth-to-burial biography, Leigh finds his movie's theme wrapped up in Turner's final stretch of life, taking place from 1775-1851. The gorgeous camera work in the English countryside introduces us to a Turner as organic and pure as the rolling hills themselves. Returning from a trip abroad, Turner's otherwise fidgety and nervous mannerisms convey a sense of distracted brilliance, in the mundane trappings of life around him. We see his most personal vices-exercised, the death of his father William (Paul Jesson), the sexual use of his housemaid (Dorothy Atkinson), and the further sexualization of an innkeeper (Marion Bailey) who Turner commits in marriage to, all slow-burning and early on. This is a film that captures loss in measurement and exactness, slowly thrusting Turner into the fated and uncertain life changes to come.
Fine moments of Turner's spiraling loss are captured, such as Turner's first sitting for a new technology and form of art- the camera obscura- in terrible and awkward fashion- making for very heartfelt watching. It's a film of study, of history and the human moments that fictionally fill it, which can read as so inauthentic in the context of what biographies attempt to do. But Leigh, like Turner, is a master himself, using fine actors, writing, and camera work, to mold a story as stable and permanent as a time that, ironically, begins to break down in the face of new modernity and wonderment in that early 1800's turning point in Europe. Here again is where Leigh shines- the allusion to technology and economy that is only ever referred to in subtlety (steam trains that arrive suddenly), or seen in the changing background around the ever-dwindling figure, is a credit to how Leigh makes his statement about the death of a certain kind of man and mythology.
Although the film, subject matter, and effort might sound daunting to watch at best, it's a story of death and societal change that comments on the trappings and loss that can even be seen today with incredible significance and timeliness. Mr. Turner is the kind of film that, the more committed and willing to take it on that you are, the more you will understand its fullest scope and artistry that is poured into it. The discipline and brilliance of the thing shows the point immaculately of how such a self-congratulating progressive-society often leaves behind people of yesterday's brilliance in unfortunate forgetfulness.
Mr. Turner is in limited release now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn4zSR_5ioI
Director Liv Ullmann on 'Miss Julie'
Admittedly, this self-proclaimed film buff does not have as worldly a knowledge of cinema as one should have when using the signifier, "self-proclaimed film buff." Though this lack of in-depth knowledge pertains more to foreign and world cinema, I'll ask that cinephiles hold their breath when reading the following omission, that I cannot recall ever having seen a film by Swedish director Ingmar Bergman. This is relevant, because, the 1888-penned naturalistic play by August Strindberg, Miss Julie (or in its native Swedish tongue, Fröken Julie), is now seeing a big-screen adaptation, written and directed by Bergman's former muse of eleven films, Liv Ullman. The fact that I knew only this about the writer/director before seeing the film (starring Colin Farrell and Jessica Chastain as the titular character) extends to show further proof of my ignorance- a more proper introduction of Ms. Ullmann should shy away from focusing on her being "Bergman's long-time on-again, off-again lover and artistic companion," and rather on her accomplishments as an actress (nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award for 1978's The Emigrants) and director (nominated for Cannes Film Festival's Palme d'Or for 2011's Faithless). Uncovering this knowledge, I prepare myself for an even more rich conversation that I am to have over the phone on one rainy weekday morning. I informally begin by asking her where at she is currently talking to me from, geographically (for context reasons, rather than obtrusive geo-locating reasons). She casually responds, in her warm Norwegian accent, that she won't be telling me. While I make light of the first communication I have with her, it simultaneously frames the rest of our conversation: she seems wholly disinterested in modernity and its new-found technological offerings (as much as a phone interview is 'technological'), and that some things should remain a mystery, such as her appreciation for the time gone-by of the experience of watching a film at the cinema, which she intends to restore in her latest period piece drama. Oh, yeah- and as mysteries go, she also happens to compare her newest film to what this country can learn about dealing with the Ebola crisis.
DO YOU IMAGINE WHAT THE EXPERIENCE OF WATCHING A FILM WILL BE LIKE AS YOU ARE MAKING THE FILM?
Well I'm, you know, I'm so old fashioned, and from where I come, in this mysterious place where I am, I look at it as something to be shown in a theater, you know, where the lights slowly go down, and then it becomes dark, and then the curtain goes up, and there you are. And that's why this movie was made as a film, it's not digital, and there was a lot of fighting, but I had it in my contract so they couldn't take it away, and they tried but, no way, so it is filmed. And so, what you see, the visions and so are so much more beautiful the way I see it because it's made of film and not digital.
So I believe it is for people to sit there and maybe like you with a friend, or maybe other people not knowing each other in the dark, and then they are experiencing, people up there experiencing so much of the same as they may go through, and recognize, and see maybe it's not only from (the year) 1890, but it could be today also. And these are thoughts I have, and these are feelings that I have, that's how I feel I would like my movies to be seen.
And when you talk about the experiences, to be able to get three such actors, and they all combine the best of theater and film, because they all know theater very well, where you can really show them in big rooms, and the big woods, and then you can go very, very close to them and to their face, and really show what they're thinking. And so, you can only do that with great actors. And I really feel what they're doing is something incredible, the three of them, incredible.
I wish this was a big block...what is the...
BLOCKBUSTER.
Blockbuster! So that people would see these performances because I think what they are doing is Oscar-nomination worthy. I've seen Jessica in a couple of movies this year, and this one would push her, be Oscar-worthy for me. So I agree, I think you said that you loved the performances, and I do too. I'm in awe of what they did.
BEING THAT THE FILM IS ADAPTED FROM THE STAGE PLAY (OF THE SAME NAME), HOW DID YOU APPROACH THIS- AS A STAGE PLAY OR A FILM, OR BOTH?
Well you see for me, cause sometimes movies can be like stage plays- you can have the best of the stage that, like you also described, you know, the big woods, the big house and everything, you can show everything which are around them and where they are smaller, but they are there, they are living, and then you film, and you go close, close, close, with the camera, and you see their face, and their mouth, and everything they are thinking which you cannot show on stage.
I really like the combination of that. I love to show Miss Julie, she's sitting in a chair...but you see it's in this big kitchen, and there's a door behind her, and the way she's sitting erect in this strange chair, and she's head of the whole house, and then you see her commanding a servant and his territory, and his kitchen, and he has to walk back and forth and follow his commands, inside being so angry, but knowing he cannot protest, knowing he can do nothing, but his whole body is stiff and awkward and angry, but he cannot be like...actually many people play that part, they are big macho men, but the way Colin does it, stiff and erect and angry, like a little boy that is not allowed to play, and has to do like mama says, I love the combination of theater and movies.
And since it is a film, and you are using real film, you can do this.
DID ANY OF THE ACTORS HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH THEATER BEFORE THIS FILM?
Well, a lot of film actors wouldn't be able to be on the stage, because it's a different media, and these actors, they would all be really good on stage because they know what stage is, but they are not acting as if they are on stage, but they would know more than all film actors how to be able to move around a big room. You can see film actors that you know, are good, and even same as some, and they have costumes, you know, from another time? And they are supposed to walk through big rooms, and you can see, they don't know how to walk in big costumes and do things like that. Stage actors know that. With these actors, yes, they can walk distances and they can sit in a close-up, because they know both the things.
And I actually didn't know that about Colin, because I didn't know if he had done theater before. One rehearsal time with him, and he can go on whatever stage he wants and do what he wants to do.
THIS PLAY HAS BEEN ADAPTED MANY TIMES, WHAT WERE YOU DRAWN TO ADAPTING TO BRING TO THE STAGE WITH YOUR OWN VISION?
I want, it's always difficult to be man and woman, and for us to understand each other, and on a deeper level. And I wanted to show between these two where it's not only that they are man and woman, but they are also from different classes, and all of us also want to be seen and understood, and listened to. And for all these three reasons, I wanted to show a life of a woman, and the life of a man, meeting each other, failing completely to connect and exist for each other, although they are saying so many things that would be great and wonderful for the other person to hear, because she cannot hear because she is tormented by her own conflicting impulses- she cannot accommodate herself to another man, and he's stopped by his class. He wants, I think he really was in love with her when he was a child and I don't think it was a lie, although he tells her after it was a lie. The class is in the way all the time, that she's from an upper class, that he doesn't hear what she's saying, he's just hearing what he thinks belongs to his class when confronted by a woman from the other class. It's difficult for a man and a woman, and it's more difficult when they are from different classes.
And I think that goes today too, it maybe goes even more today, because we are scared, from where we feel we do not belong. Look at the Ebola, what happened with that, people suddenly say, "we don't want any of them to come to our country," we don't look for love, we don't look for compassion, we just don't want them on our doorstep, and if somebody wants to go over there and heal them, please don't come back, because we are scared to what doesn't belong to us, and that is also what this play is about.
WHERE DO YOU SEE A FILM LIKE MISS JULIE STANDING AMONGST ALL OF THE MORE MODERN FILMS OF TODAY?
Well, I think that it is sad that we are coming to a time where these movies will be more and more seldom, but they still are made, wonderful movies, I've seen some also from this year, where we start to think about other things that may seem so far away from this, just as I talked about Ebola, where your thoughts start to wonder, and it is part of the movie, but it's so far from the movie. It's sad that movies are only to entertain and get thrills and violence and horror. That's sad. We are losing what it means to be human beings in movies.
Miss Julie is in theaters now.
Review: 'Reality (Réalité)'
It's an interesting thing to judge something about a film so early on, such as when a filmmaker's new movie holds such a gigantically-ambitious sounding title that it in some ways suggests it to be a film of universally-commentating scope and total expanse, such as say, a title like Reality. Though in the case of writer/director Quentin Dupieux (who also did the cinematography, editing, and music, as usual), his audience should know that, no matter the title, they won't be getting a life-defining opus–or even something of grand ambition in their full course helping of his off-brand cinema. Or for that matter, a movie made with any seriousness to it at all. Which is all for the very best. No, Reality (And in its native tongue, as the French-born, recent L.A. transplant filmmaker titled originally, Réalité) once again falls in line with Dupieux's other reality-bending comic send-ups, which also makes for his most realized and best film yet.
With this third feature film, Dupieux (AKA electronic music heavyweight Mr. Oizo) has settled into a story that he finally seems ready to tell, even if he did conceive and start writing it before making his first film. Gone is his freshman debut with the easy-play killer car tire gag in Rubber, gone is the sophomoric clean-up hitting in the further midnight-movie shenanigans-laden Wrong Cops–here, is the piece-mealed story about a film director, who discovers that his alternate-reality self has already made the movie he intends to make, and...ya know–other things.
The movie opens in a wordless sequence where a back-woods rifleman sets in his sights, and takes down, a majestic deer, which is taken back home and gutted. Much to young Reality's (Kyla Kenedy) amazement, the young girl sees a blue VHS tape fall out of the insides, but when she presses the issue, her father dismisses the notion that a tape could get into the belly of such a woods-creature- because that would be crazy. Meanwhile, the filmmaker/documentarian Zog (John Glover), wide-eyed, waiting, and hands folded in anticipation from a remote screening room, watches Reality's real-life drama unfold in real-time, as she stares back into the camera, all the while his waiting for a climax of sorts to reveal itself.
Where Dupieux's wheelhouse is in all-out absurdity, Reality finds itself operating on a much more operatically-meta stage, and somewhat more narrative-driven then previous works (somewhat).
Beyond following that rabbit-hole, the movie mainly centers around a public-access channel camera operator by day/budding filmmaker by later-that-day, Jason (Alain Chabat), whose meeting with the eccentrically-odd movie producer Bob (Jonathan Lambert) results in having his killer-microwave B-movie (a sly wink to a former Dupieux movie) greenlighted–on the caveat that he find the correct human shriek and death sound effect. With appearances by Reality's cross-dressing principal Henri (Eric Warheim) and public-access show host in-an-itchy-rat-costume, Denis (Jon Heder) (it's also obvious to see Dupieux aligning his comedy with the Adult Swim oddness of Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! here), the film circles around to these seemingly non-connected stories, but finds a common (if long-shot) thread to pull the entire story together.
So, where does a film like this, one built on the honest intention of being purely meaningless and non-logical, stand with his other films, and movies moreover? Where Dupieux's wheelhouse is in all-out absurdity, Reality finds itself operating in a much more operatically-meta stage, and somewhat more narrative-driven. Jason the director, trying to take his mind off of the stress of finding that perfect excruciating scream, goes to the movies- and sees his movie about a killer microwave playing, and, panicking, tries to block the projection and tell the audience that they aren't supposed to be watching a movie that hasn't come out yet.
No doubt, as much as Dupieux wishes to claim that he is all detached dead-pan shenanigans, he is at his best when he allows himself to dip his toes into the pool of substance, but only just-so. New audiences might find themselves unprepared for this off-beat brand of subversively alt-anarchic movie mayhem, but those with patience to try out a new midnight-movie with flair, and definitely for his fans already familiar with his devilish brand, should find themselves pleasantly entertained. Because, as he's proven in his third time out, even when this director seems to be spinning his wheels, the wheel ends up finding the ability to growing telekinetic powers and kills an entire town, usually. Or something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr6D6Z7IAAg
Marion Cotillard on 'Two Days, One Night'
It's no surprise when Marion Cotillard's personal publicist tells a roomful of reporters that photos of the actress are not allowed today (it's mildly heart-breaking, but not surprising). Cotillard, the Academy-Award winning actress is known for her successful crossover into American and Hollywood cinema, which is also no surprise, having such a multitude of audience appeals. An incredible performer in artfully-minded film (The Immigrant, Rust and Bone), as well as roles in Big Event Studio movies (Inception, The Dark Knight Rises), and of course- her unparalleled beauty, which is the source of today's publicist's friendly reminder. Intriguingly, the French film actress seems to always showcase her visual beauty (which of course, isn't hard), but studied further, this physiological appeal can perhaps better be linked to a different factor that drives her rich and absorbing work - her expressiveness, and total commitment to her characters, which always shines through and lifts any project she is involved in. This was, in part, what she talked about, at a recent press conference at the Beverly Hills Four Seasons, in support of her next indie-film, Two Days, One Night (Deux Jours, Une Nuit). Cotillard steps into the room, and taking her place in front of the French-styled double doors, with a gorgeous L.A. backdrop and afternoon golden light bathing over her, she opens up about her preparation for such emotionally demanding films, working with the Dardenne brothers, and still keeping the door open for a future of comedies.
BONJOUR.
Bonjour.
WAS THE BELGIAN ACCENT DIFFICULT TO DO FOR YOU?
Um…yes or no? Kind of. Because I didn’t want to have like a Belgian accent, I wanted to have a flavor. And I needed it because all the other actors, and especially the actor who plays my husband (Fabrizio Rongione), and the two young actors who play my kids, they have an accent. And it is actually one of the first things, if not the first thing, the Dardenne brothers asked me. It was to lose my Parisian accent. When you’re asked such a thing, usually, I mean, Jim (Jean-Pierre)’s great, wanted me to have a Polish accent, or (he) wanted me to have an Italian accent, so you have a dialect coach, and you work, for hours, days, weeks, months, when you’re lucky enough to have months…
But then here, it was losing my French Parisian accent, so I thought, “I need to replace it by something, another accent.” I mean we all have accents, or we’re robots. So I thought, "OK, I need to have a Belgian accent." But it was not what they asked me. And they are very precise in their, demands. So I knew they were not asking me to have a Belgian accent…
And then the month of rehearsal that we had was very helpful because I listened to all those people around me who had a different kind of Belgian accent. And yeah, I was kind of nervous that it would be too much, or not enough, because I was working by myself, no dialect coach this time, sometimes I got a little nervous about it. And sometimes they would say, “Oh no no, this is too much of a (Parisian) accent, and I was very happy about it. But then I knew that I needed to reduce so it would not be disturbing because some people in the audience know my face already, which was kind of new for the Dardenne brothers, to work with a well-known actress, and I knew that I really needed to fit in their world, but that the accent shouldn’t be disturbing, for the audience. That was a long answer...
THIS MOVIE IS KIND OF LIKE A ROAD MOVIE, BUT IT'S ALSO A REAWAKENING OF A ROMANCE WITH SANDRA'S HUSBAND. SO FOR YOU, WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THIS FILM WHEN YOU FIRST READ THE SCRIPT, AND HOW DID YOU PICTURE IT, GENRE-WISE?
When I first read the script, it resonated with some deep questions and reflections that I had a year and a half before, when I read a letter of someone who decided to end his life, because he was working in a company, and at that time, a lot of people in that company took the same decision as this guy. So it was a big thing in France. And one of them left a letter, explaining that he was putting an end to his life because he felt useless. And some other, another person had kids too, and I started to really question, I mean I’ve always questioned our society, and the decisions, and how it functions, or how it dis-functions…
But I was reading, at the same time, I was reading things about some Indian tribes and African tribes, and I read somewhere that an individual in those tribes question his or her places in the society. So of course I came to the conclusion that we, our society, the society we all live in here, creates isolation, and this question that should sound crazy in a perfect world, where everybody on Earth has a place. Otherwise, this person wouldn’t be here, if this person didn't have a place or a purpose. So when I read the script the first time, it really like brought back all the questions and refections that I had, and it made sense for me to experience from the inside someone who feels useless, and worthless.
YOUR PERFORMANCE IS FILLED WITH SUCH RAW VULNERABILITY- DID THE REHEARSAL PROCESS HELP YOU IN EXPLORING AND FINDING THOSE EMOTIONS?
Rehearsals always help, because...I remember when I started being an actress, I read this biography from (a French film actress) Romy Schneider, I don’t know if you’re familiar with this ingenious actress, and at the beginning of her biography she says, she always worked a lot, preparing for a role. And she was kind of a model for me, she is still. And she says, “I’m gonna work on a character, and I’m gonna explore fifty ways. Most of the time, the first way is the right way, but, it’s enriched by exploring the forty-nine other ways. And when you have the time to rehearse, you try things, and you can go wrong, because you’re not shooting. And then the next day you’re gonna try something different, and it’s gonna be richer, because you’ve experienced what was not exactly what you were looking for, but then you experienced it.
And especially when…well I always need a preparation time, because, I love it, first of all.I love this process of exploring, because when you find something, it’s like a gold, searcher? You don’t say that…a gold…when you search for gold and you have the gold! And then suddenly, Wah! That’s it! And you have time to digest, to make it better.
And I need that time because I...one of my favorite parts, there is one, because I love the whole process, and it’s when you start feeling the character in your body. And I cannot work only on what’s in her mind, what was her life before, which was something that I loved to do, but when I start feeling the way I walk, the way I talk, the way I breathe, becomes her...and then I see myself disappearing. And rehearsals…it was the first time for me I did this process of rehearsing with the directors, and we rehearsed all the scenes on set, with the actors, and even in costumes. This process of rehearsing was not focused on acting, it was finding the dynamic of the camera because it was all sequenced shots. Sometimes you have a scene that lasts ten minutes, and we really had to create the choreography, and the Dardenne’s cinema is…the rhythm, is really, really important in their movies, and they’re very demanding, I mean in terms of rhythm. Sometimes I would have this scene, I get off the bed, put my shoes on, and I put the left shoes, and when I put the right shoes [snaps finger], I burst in tears- we did it like eighty times. And sometimes it would happen on the left shoes, or when I would put my foot back on the floor and they would say, “That was great, but if you could really burst in tears exactly when you put your shoes on…”
[Laughter]
That level of precision. Which I really, really loved.
But then the rehearsal time was really like focused on finding the dynamic, and of course, finding the dynamic is also about acting, because what you give gives a rhythm. And then you try to do beautiful cake with al those elements. But then, when you’re on set, it’s all about acting. They focus on acting, which is heaven, for an actor.
WHAT KEEPS YOU FOCUSED?
A good director, that’s the key. If I don’t want to give, because I don’t trust the director, it’s really, really hard for me to give anything, and to find the authenticity, to find everything I need to give everything I have to give to do a scene. So that’s the first thing. And then…[pause] if I feel, free, and if there’s a strong connection with the people I work with, it’s not hard for me to stay in character. But sometimes I know that I need a process, I need time by myself, before the day. When I did La Vie en Rose, for example, an hour before the call, because I needed this hour to, do stuff, to get in…but yeah, when I feel free, and trusted, and I trust the people I work with, it’s simpler.
YOU GO DEEP INTO YOUR ROLES...
Well, I try.
HOW WAS THAT FOR SANDRA? HOW DID YOU GO INTO HER, AND OUT?
The thing is, as much as I find the process of ‘getting in’ very interesting, I find the process of ‘getting out’ very interesting too.
[Laughter]
I didn’t know before La Vie en Rose that I would have to ‘find a way out,”…I thought it was a job, and that after the last cut, I would go back to my life, and go back to normal…what is normal anyways?
But that was a very, very interesting process, that took me a long time. And then I realized that I needed to do it for almost all the movies. And I never know how it’s going to happen. So I’m always looking for this experience. It can take the form of someone who will tell me something, and we’re going to enter a discussion, and then suddenly, yeah, I will feel that it’s going away…it’s really hard to explain, but I learn a lot out of it. It’s kind of hard to explain, and I never know how it’s going to happen.
This is one of the greatest experiences, if not the greatest experience I had on set with directors, and the relationship I had with them was total osmosis.
YOU WORK WITH SO MANY GREAT AND DIFFERENT TYPES OF DIRECTORS, FROM WOODY ALLEN, TO CHRISTOPHER NOLAN, TO TIM BURTON- WORKING WITH THE DARDENNE'S, WHAT WAS THAT EXPERIENCE LIKE FOR YOU?
I need to work with directors who need more than anything, to tell a story. I work with directors and I found that working with them, that if they were there, or anywhere else, it would make no difference. And it was painful, because I need it to be almost a matter of life or death. Because first of all, when you do a movie, it involves a lot of people, who trust you. And you will ask people to come to see what you want to say, and if it’s not something that you really need to say, I’m not interested. Because it’s too painful for me. And it happened, and I was totally lost, because I was with someone who was not in the deep need to tell a story. So that’s one thing.
The Dardenne brothers...something that I loved about, I loved everything, this is one of the greatest experiences, if not the greatest experience I had on set with directors, and the relationship I had with them was total osmosis. They always talk about the audience. When sometimes on set, “audience” is like, a bad word. They always talk about the audience, and that’s what I love about their movies, because they take you somewhere, and they’re gonna surprise you, and they’re gonna move you, they’re gonna…I mean, I’ve seen all of their movies, I love them all. For me, The Son (L’enfant) is a masterpiece, I don’t know if you’ve seen this movie, but this is, I mean, for an audience, taking a road and then suddenly somebody is going like [mimes footsteps], and then you turn and the story is totally different from what you thought entering the theater. And for thirty minutes, you think that, I mean, I won’t ruin anything if some people haven’t seen this movie, but obviously, you think something! You think this guy is this kind of person, and then suddenly it unravels something totally different. I mean, as part of an audience, it’s like…it’s what cinema is for.
And on the second day of rehearsals, they were talking about the audience, and that was funny because it was really new for me and it was really like, a little more freedom. They had already given me a freedom that was beyond freedom. But this was, I loved it so much. And they turned to me and they said, “Oh, you know, we talk about the audience all the time.” And the first scene is, “No, we don’t want the audience to see your face," as in almost all their movies..."and then the audience will think this, and they’ll be surprised by this,” and, I found it relieving.
WHAT ARE YOU WORKING ON NEXT?
I did a movie at the beginning of the year. A British movie based on Macbeth. So I think that’s gonna be released next year…
YOU’RE LADY MACBETH…
I am…I hope.
[Laughter]
IS IT TRADITIONAL?
Super traditional. And we went to the purest Shakespeare you could find. Because sometimes they kind of adapt a little bit, for people to understand. If you don’t, it’s normal. It took me a long time to understand everything, but I’m French [laugher].
SO YOU’VE CHOSEN TO FOLLOW UP THIS MOVIE WITH A COMEDIC MOVIE…
[Pause]. I’m not talking to you anymore.
[Laughter]
I would love to! Honestly, when I accepted my next movie, first of all my boyfriend was like, “Ohh, it’s gonna be a fun year.” And then, well already, I was not supposed to do a movie after the Dardenne brothers’ movie because I was kind of exhausted, and then (director) Justin (Kurzel) came with this offer, and I always knew I would play Macbeth, but I always thought it would be on stage, and in French, and I thought, "Well this is an opportunity that I cannot miss." And same boyfriend said, “Are you kidding me?” Because he knows I want to do comedies...he’s like, “Are you kidding me? Lady Macbeth! I mean this must be a joke!”
[Laughter]
And my next movie is, not funny…drama, drama, drama, drama. It’s a French movie, from a French actor-director, Nicole Garcia, and uh, no, it’s not gonna be a fun movie. But I mean, I’m looking forward to it…
DID YOU HAVE FUN DOING THE BIT IN ANCHORMAN 2?
I was so stressed out! Because I’m not used to doing comedies, and when you’re not used to doing that you never know if the level of what you do is too high, or too low. Plus, you’re on screen with genius Jim Carrey, and all those people, who are just my heroes. And I was just, yeah. I felt…I had fun, and at the same time, I was so stressed out, that it kind of ruined a little bit of the fun. Especially that I…can I say that…I was supposed to shoot the next day, and they pushed the day before, and I was totally hungover-
[Laughter]
because the Met Ball was the night before! But no, I mean, I had so much fun, I really want to do a comedy. I don’t know if I would. I mean I would have a lot of work maybe, maybe more work than for a drama, because I’m more familiar with drama now. But that would be, yeah, that would be a risk – that I would love to take.
*Update: This interview was edited on 11/20/2014 to identify the name of the French film actress, Romy Schneider.
Review: 'Foxcatcher'
In the none-too-distant past of late nineteen-eighties America and its settling, fading Reaganism, a former and forgotten Olympic Gold Medal-winning wrestler, Mark Schultz, was approached by a private investor and old-money heir, John du Pont, of the du Pont family fortune, who offered to sponsor Mark's training efforts so that together, they could become victors of the 1998 Olympic Games in Seoul. Mark was taken in to train, and live, on the sprawling du Pont Pennsylvania countryside estate. The name of the compound, was Foxcatcher Farms.
While you might already know the devastating aftermath of what this real-life relationship would bring in its wake, you won't have imagined its story told quite like this; quite so acutely distressing–if not just on this side of overly-restrained, in director Bennett Miller's latest film, Foxcatcher.
In telling this real-life story, Foxcatcher employs a wide variety of expectations-deviating elements, including bucking the traditional sports-biopic-murder story–its interests lie in broader, more thematically engulfing and idea-presenting territory. Miller enlists here the acting talents of a careful selection of some of Hollywood's most currently coveted film starrers–who also all seemed to be wanting to scratch the same acting-itch at the same time in their careers, for stepping into these characters required a good amount of evaluation and preparation as to the exhaustive, destructive journey that would lie ahead, and were collectively unsure if they would be better in the end for doing so (Read Ryan's interview with the cast, director, and screenwriters, who talked at length about the emotionally turbulent film-making process.) In a seismically charged one-two punch, Channing Tatum gives his most intense and best on-screen performance to date yet as Mark Schultz, and Steve Carell loses himself (attempting to, in the most acknowledged version possible) as the upper-class outsider John du Pont, with Mark Ruffalo as the film's more personable life-force, older brother to Mark and former wrestling champ himself, Dave Schultz.
Mr. Miller seems to revel in taking his inspiration in the form of channeling Foxcatcher Farm's dead-moving and thickly-engulfing morning fog that wraps each character and prop and film frame into an impressionistic version of itself.
To understand a film like this–a real-life tale spun deftly off-kilter as an American tragedy of history's greatest and modern and faulted men–is to know the films of director Bennett Miller. While his name, or films, might not revel in the same excited movie conversation amongst typical movie-goers, it is to his strength that his focus is on circumventing conventional narrative-telling, in the sense that 'scenes' find their importance and meaning more-so in their conclusions, in the next scene's beginnings and first shots, so that things can align for meaning only when looked back upon, and definitely appreciated as the sum of its parts (at least it's that way here, excessively so). Stubborn wouldn't be the correct word, for how he chooses to so joyfully deny the audience their expected place in steering the cart while chipping away at his films' meanings–but it comes close.
What's interesting about this film is that it's set up for any educated viewer to understand that there's just so much gold to mine here that isn't being seen or known. This is a film of silences, whether when framing Mark and his early kinetic anger, who is seen early on getting by talking to apathetic middle-school assemblies for hamburger food, and what those moments speak larger of. Seeing du Pont's almost-humorous actions of ordering a tank from the indebted U.S. government, yet not accepting it without it's mounted machine gun, are mere instances of being given the close-up of the trees, where audiences will have to forcibly step back and acknowledge the larger forest that encloses them. This choosing to leave open the ideas that populate these odd-ball situations gives way for interesting realism and freedom, but it still never puts its finger on any one idea, which is this film's problem. And what small and very real miracles the film does employ in each scene, consistent in relief and management (to its praise), Mr. Miller seems to revel in taking his inspiration in the form of channeling Foxcatcher Farm's dead-moving and thickly-engulfing morning fog that wraps each character and prop and film frame into impressionistic versions of themselves. Fear and bubbling animal instinct is dulled, as a result, as if the concern that connecting these historical dots would convey a sense of easiness, which this director seems himself terrified of doing.
It is for this same point, however, that the film stands as something unique and singular, among modern-day films whose studio heads and financiers would find themselves clearing their desks Monday morning over. This is filmmaker-champion Megan Ellison's (Annapurna Pictures) big-scale home movie–and to be honest–we as a movie-going audience are all the better for it. This is last year's Inside Llewyn Davis, a film that was undoubtedly made with real artistic awareness yet similarly quietly hushed for its universal inaccessibility (a film that I believed was worthy of last year's Best Picture Oscar). It's a filmmaker's movie, a "movie person's" movie, which means to say, it should be praised for what it sets out to achieve, rather than what it actually does.
Gorgeous camera work further works in this artist's favor for his choice of storytelling. What starts out as a more documentary-like photographing (Miller's first film being a documentary, 1998's The Cruise), becomes something ever so subtly grown into a more tunnel-visioned disorientation (look for how the growing mental instabilities of Mark and du Pont are referenced in its evolving and more lofty camerawork, including an enormous wide shot of Mark zig-zagging wrestling moves on the estate's frame-filling lawn, similar to Kubrick's penchant of creating trapping and fated set pieces such as in Barry Lyndon and The Shining). Sound designs grows uglier and more confrontational as the film wears on, including the raw knuckle-punching and mirror-smashing of a Tatum untamed in a one-take show-stopper. In fact, there are so many things that the filmmakers did behind the scenes that the audience might never know. Like how the actors were directed to improvise in most scenes ("Ornithologist, Philatelist, Philanthropist..."), as much as twenty to thirty percent, according to Ruffalo. As well as Miller's direction for having his actors write down their most private secrets, of which weren't known even to their spouses, and kept in their pockets during shooting- so that they wouldn't ever feel too comfortable on set. The million-dollar question is- do these incredible techniques come together to make for a great picture, or are they misaligned in fulfilling a different satisfaction? (At the moment, I myself am not even sure, but I raise the point).
I'm sorry–did you want out of this more specifics? Would you rather have had more tangible forms of evidence provided to you to weigh out this film from? Has this rolling commentary, more concerned with world-framing then with world-explaining, denied your expected takeaway of what this review would be? Then I'd argue that this is the head-space you should prepare yourself for before seeing (and it's no doubt that this is a film to be seen) and taking in this masterfully performed, gorgeously shot, expertly-directed, if only too tragically and inwardly-trapped, modern day master-work attempt.
Foxcatcher is in theaters Friday, November 14th.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8361stZ8n0w
Steve Carell, Channing Tatum, and Bennett Miller on 'Foxcatcher'
A proven Hollywood Blockbuster-starring leading man. A former hit-Television comedy actor with mild-mannered film roles. An A-list film director with only three previous films to boast of (though he never would, with an observed self-restraint for media discourse that would cause any to speculate about what's even going on inside that quiet yet sure to be whirlishly-spinning mind). These are the pieces that were assembled years ago, to tell the based-on-a-true-story movie about the fated relationship between a former, forgotten Olympic Gold winning wrestler and his socially-suspect private investor-turned-surrogate father, whose shared intent to achieve Olympic greatness left in its wake a shocking ending that nobody saw coming. Director Bennett Miller (Capote, Moneyball) fearlessly leads an entire legion of cast and crew, including the aforementioned Channing Tatum, in his best screen-performance yet as Mark Schultz, and Steve Carell, who arguably delivers as equally a career-changing performance as John du Pont, into new, terrifying territory for all, in his latest film, from Annapurna Pictures and Sony Pictures Classics, Foxcatcher.
At a recent press conference with the three, along with the film's credited screenwriters Dan Futterman and E. Max Frye, held at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, the actors and filmmakers opened up about the film, speaking both honestly and in length about the film's emotionally demanding shoot and aftermath, yet were still carefully selective about over-explaining its plot and narrative, so as to serve the film's deeply atmospheric, detached, and mysterious make-up. Our conversation was surprising and revealing, in a way that will undoubtedly spark audiences' interest into seeing this incredibly made, American-tragedy, modern-day masterpiece.
*Warning: Potential spoilers to follow
CHANNING- IT LOOKS LIKE YOU TOOK SOME HARD HITS IN THIS FILM- CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT WAS LIKE? AND ALSO, HOW WAS IT WORKING WITH MR. CARELL AND MR. (MARK) RUFFALO (PLAYING MARK SCHULTZ'S OLDER BROTHER, DAVID)?
Channing Tatum: Oh, yeah, the hard hits...I don’t think they’ll ever leave my body. For sure. You can’t fake wrestling. We learned very, very quickly, you can fake a punch. Camera-wise, you can fake it. But with wrestling, you just have to go ahead and do it. I mean, you really need to see the hand hit the side of the face, and the head bloodying, and everything. So it was by far, and I don’t say this lightly, the hardest thing I’ve ever done physically. I’ve done a lot of sports, lot of martial arts...it was a suffocating and very painful thing. But I gotta say, I’m so, at the end of the day, I’m so, just in awe, of those athletes, and very, very proud to have been given such amazing time and focus through some of the most amazing athletes I’ve ever moved with. I mean, it was a blessing.
And working with Steve-
Steve Carell: Yeah, I’m curious...
[Laughter]
CT: His physical ability is...
[Laughter]
We actually had to-
SC: He picked me up like I was a sack of sugar.
[Laughter]
He laid me gently down on the mat.
CT: I think Bennett’s probably a better person to answer this...but, Steve’s actually a great athlete. And we had to sort of be like, less good, than Steve. And I was in awe, just to get to work with them. I mean, they’re such, I guess just, so in control of what they do, acting-wise. And Steve’s ability to stay in a scene, where I was just, I was confused, and just being like, “Wow.” Because the way Bennett shoots, he just does real. He just turns on the camera and you just go. And Steve’s ability to just stay in it is pretty, unbelievably, deep.
And Mark, I mean, he’s actually like, my literal big brother now. Like, I’ve said it, to him. I’m like, “Whether you want it or not!” I’m your little brother now.
FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, CHANNING- THERE’S A SCENE WHERE YOU AND MARK ARE PRACTICING (WRESTLING) BLOCKS- IT’S SORT OF THIS PURELY VISUAL FORM OF COMMUNICATION. THERE’S A LOT IN THIS FILM WHERE YOU’RE DOING TREMENDOUS THINGS WITH SILENCE. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE SILENT ASPECT OF WORKING IN THIS FILM?
CT: Wrestling is...there’s a lot being said to each other, without talking. You know, you’re in a quiet gym, and you just hear grunts, and slams, and slaps, and breathing hard. And the way that you hand fight is, it’s a bit of a chess match, you know, and you’re constantly baiting, and trying to set up something that you want. And it’s really interesting that, I think, throughout Mark and I’s sort of journey through finding these two men, and us, we had to go through a lot of very humbling, and kind of...you don’t feel like you’re doing very well, especially in the beginning when you’re learning, and one person is getting something better than you are, and I think Mark and I both just were there for each other, throughout that learning process. And knowing what each other was struggling with, we learned on a very, kind of very small, small level, what it really is to be there for someone on that level. And that scene, specifically, there was about twenty other pages before that scene, where Ruffalo and I have scenes together where we’re talking, where he’s being a big brother, and we could just throw it out. Because you see it all in that one scene. And I think it really has to do with all the time, and sort of just, friendship, that we created through wrestling.
WHAT STRUCK ME FROM BOTH YOU AND MR. CARELL WAS YOUR MOVEMENT. CHANNING- THERE’S A VERY SPECIFIC WALK THAT YOU HAVE, AND WITH STEVE, YOUR MOVEMENT REALLY BLEW ME AWAY, BECAUSE I’VE ONLY KNOWN ONE “OLD-MONEY” PERSON IN MY LIFE, AND YOU MOVED JUST LIKE HIM.
SC: So all “old-money” people move exactly the same?
[Laughter]
DID EITHER OF YOU WORK WITH A MOVEMENT COACH, OR WAS IT FROM WATCHING VIDEO, OR HOW DID YOU GET THAT PART OF IT?
SC: Yeah, I don’t know...[To Channing] I mean You had Mark....
CT: Mhm.
SC: To emulate and observe...
CT: Yeah, I got to hang out with Mark a lot. So I mean, the way he moves is so, I mean, I just copied it. I can’t say that I had some sort of “actor” reason of why I wanted to move like that. That was just sort of...how he (Mark Schultz) held his fork, I mean it was just really, he was just like a really, dangerous animal. And just kind of moved through life in that way. He wanted people to be afraid of him.
SC: And there was tape on du Pont. I watched as much as I could.
MR. CARELL- COULD YOU TALK ABOUT EMOTIONALLY PREPARING TO PLAY THIS CHARACTER, TRYING TO GET INSIDE HIS MINDSET, AND UNDERSTAND HIS MOTIVATIONS FOR YOUR PERFORMANCE?
SC: I thought a lot about how sad a person he was. He’s a guy, his parents divorced when he was two, he grew up in this enormous house, essentially with just he and his mother, who, by all accounts, was a pretty chilly person. So, I thought a lot about that- who he was growing up, and, surrounded by wealth, and I think insulated by that wealth. I think he was lonely, and in need of things that he didn’t have the tools to acquire. So, starting with that, I think that helped me along the way. That was at least what I thought about him in...I’m trying to think...he was somebody who was in need of assistance, he was somebody that didn’t have a circle of friends- he had a circle of employees. So no-one was going to intervene. He didn’t have anyone who was there to see the red flags, and that’s incredibly sad, and tragic to me. So I never approached him as a villain. I thought of him, in that way.
TO BENNETT, MAX, AND STEVE- WHAT DO YOU THINK WERE THE REAL REASONS JOHN DU PONT KILLED DAVID SCHULTZ, AND WHAT DID YOU PUT IN THE MIND OF THAT CHARACTER IN THAT MOMENT?
Bennett Miller: I’ll start out...
The film really resists the temptation of concluding anything, and part of the style of the film is to not slap a label on anything, and to allow that satisfaction that would allow us to stop thinking about what we’re seeing, and what this complex is, created by these relationships for these characters. There’s a lot within this film, to mull over, about his condition, his character, and I think those are the relevant things. But, the film kind of purposefully denies you that satisfaction of saying, “Oh, that’s what it was.” And denies the invitation at least, to stop thinking about it. But you guys might want to add to that...
Dan Futterman: I just will say, I think that actually, to go along with what Bennett just said, that it was to our benefit that there was no explanation. John du Pont never gave an interview where he said, “I did it because...”, or there was never a reason given. So that allowed us to pursue into the open. That, and address just what Bennett said, about how there’s no conclusion for the film, because there was no conclusion in real life. John du Pont never said why he did it, so I think that’s basically up to the audience.
FOR MR. CARELL AND MR. TATUM- YOU BOTH GO TO SOME DARK PLACES HERE. HOW DID YOU COME OUT OF THAT? DID YOU HAVE TO DO THAT ON A DAILY BASIS, OR JUST AT THE END OF THE SHOOT?
CT: We’re still there.
[Laughter]
SC: I heard Channing chuckling...
Was it on a daily basis? I don’t know about you [To Channing], but I feel like the whole thing was a...it was all pretty dark. You know, and a lot of it I think was because Bennett sets a tone, and it’s not a light, lively, effervescent place to be...
[Pause]
BM: Thank you.
[Laughter]
SC: But I think that was important. Everyone took it very seriously. And I think added to that were the (real life) people that were there, you know, Mark (Schultz) was there, and Dave’s widow was there for a time, and they were being very generous. And I think we all felt a responsibility to them, and to be as honest as we could to the story and to kind of to stay in it. So yeah. It wasn’t fun.
CT: Yeah, I can’t say it any better than that. I mean it was...yeah, we all just came in and with the intention of really just going on this ride with Bennett, and, he says to jump and we just said, "how high?" Or, "how low?" And we just stayed in it. And that was it.
THERE’S A MULTI-GRAMMY WINNING ALBUM BY POPULAR RECORDING ARTIST, DRAKE, CALLED, NOTHING WAS THE SAME. IN THAT RESPECT, DID ANY OF YOU SIGN ON TO THIS FILM THINKING OF HOW SPECIAL THIS FILM COULD, OR WOULD, BE, AND HOW YOU AND YOUR CAREERS MIGHT NEVER BE THE SAME?
SC: Well, based on this press conference, people are referring to me as “Mr. Carell.”
[Laughter]
That in and of itself is a change.
[More laughter]
I’ve never experienced that before. I don’t know...I mean, you get to work with somebody like Bennett, and with actors like Channing and Mark, and it is a different experience. And, the change for me is that I want to do more of this. It was challenging, and exciting, and exhilarating, and I felt like it meant something. And in terms of so much of the response that the film is getting, it’s very rewarding, that it is resonating with people.
So, the change for me is, this is something I want to...I don’t know if I’ll ever do anything on this level again, but I would aspire to, because it’s been a great feeling.
CT: I just think they’re all different muscles. Comedy doesn’t come easy for me, you know. I’ve only done two movies that are really comedy-styled films, and I have to work at them, and they’re just as scary, in a way. And I hate labeling all these things as comedies, love stories, whatever, “mysterious-dark dramas,” like, whatever. But they’re all just different muscles, and this one...I’ve only played one other person that was real before, and it is, the stakes are very, very high, and I have to live with Mark Schultz in the world, and hoping that I did some amount of justice for him. And so, things are a little bit more tangible. And they’re not just in some make-believe, high stakes game that movies are.
But I really enjoyed going deeper than I’ve ever gone into a character, for sure. And, I don’t, I can’t say that I want to do this forever. I think that I’ll just find the people that I want to do them with, and then go do them.
I don’t think we left a day feeling amazing, feeling, “Oh my god, I crushed that scene!” You just don’t on a movie like this.
THE MOVIE WAS SUPPOSED TO COME OUT LAST YEAR- DO YOU THINK IT'S BETTER THAT THE FILM IS COMING OUT THIS YEAR, IN WHAT MIGHT BE ARGUED TO BE A SLIGHTLY LESS-CROWDED FIELD FOR BEST PICTURE CONTENDERS?
BM: Well, first of all, you’re right, that the film was originally slated to be released last year, and it got pushed. But the reason that it got pushed was that we were still working on it. We needed a few more months, and there’s no other factor to it. And, I should pause and acknowledge the producers who stood at that juncture, and determined that we could work hard and fast and make the date, or, at some expense, to Megan Ellison, she could determine that, what she cared about most was that the film became what it wanted to be. And with Jon Kilik here, the decision was made then, after some expense and some inconvenience to the distributor, Sony Classics said we wanted to work on it a little bit more. And that’s the only consideration that went into that.
BENNETT- IS THERE A SCENE THAT CHANGED THE MOST FOR YOU, IN AN INTERESTING WAY, BETWEEN THE PAGE AND THE SHOOT?
BM: The first thing that comes to mind is the helicopter scene.
The way that we worked on developing the film, and the way that the screenplay was written, was, for me, more novelistic, where, an attempt to really understand deeply, who these people were, and what happened, and how to coordinate these facts into something that can work on a larger than journalistic level, but that there’s an element of allegory to it. And let that inform everything we do, and become a guide. And so necessarily, more was understood, more was written about that could ever possibly fit into a little film, with the understanding that all of it is going to inform the shoot.
And on the (shooting) day, things happen. And in the case of the helicopter scene, which Steve can speak to also, it was just a spontaneous moment of this “Ornithologist, Philatelist, Philanthropist,” moment. But how that kind of thing happens, I think is, begins with the material, the research, the understanding and the atmosphere that sort of allows actors to explore and be spontaneous. So, when you say “change,” I feel like, it’s the final realization on the day of shooting it. But I wouldn’t say...I don’t know...anybody else?
DF: Well, I’ll just say this- when Bennett and I worked on (writing) that particular scene, Mr. Carell was a gleam in somebody else’s eye. We had no idea who would play that role, and I think that that’s a testament to the actors, and when they’re on the set- I don’t care what’s on the page, that’s what you hope actors bring to it. You hope that they can do things like that, that that was never written down, and so, thank you Mr. Carell.
AND THIS IS A PERFECT SEGWAY FOR THAT - MR. CARELL, WAS THIS A PERFORMANCE YOU KNEW YOU HAD IN YOU, OR-
SC: Oh yeah, I’m really dark. I’m very dark inside.
[Laughter]
WAS THIS A PERFORMANCE YOU KNEW YOU HAD TO DO?
SC: I didn’t question it. I really, again, I didn’t think, necessarily, that...it’s not a part I would’ve campaigned for. Had I read the script, and looked at that, I wouldn’t have thought, “I need to get in touch with Bennett,” and throw my hat into the ring. At the same time, when Bennett called me in, and we discussed it, I, I trusted him, frankly. The fact that he thought I was capable of doing it allowed me to believe the same.
I’D LOVE TO FOLLOW UP WITH SOMETHING YOU SAID EARLIER, CHANNING- ABOUT HOW YOU HAD PLAYED ONLY ONE OTHER REAL PERSON BEFORE, AND I THINK YOU’RE REFERRING TO A GUIDE TO RECOGNIZING YOUR SAINTS-
CT: Yeah.
WITH THE DIVERSITY WITH ALL OF THE MOVIES THAT YOU’VE DONE, WHAT KIND OF PERSONAL SATISFACTION AND FULFILLMENT DOES A MOVIE LIKE THIS, WHAT DO THOSE DO, FOR YOU?
CT: I don’t know, I mean...it’s really the journey that you get to go on, with the people that you do them with, I think is part of it. And then just, you are playing someone else. But ultimately they’re just, they’re versions of the person, because you have to go do them. I mean, I can’t put everything that Mark Schultz is in a ninety minute movie, it doesn’t work like that. I really am just telling Bennett’s story. And really, trying to be as honest as you can possibly be, on the walk, and just keep digging, every day. And I don’t say this as a bad thing, I don’t think we left a day feeling amazing, feeling, “Oh my god, I crushed that scene!” You just don’t on a movie like this. It’s a constant, “I think we did alright, I think we got the scene, I think it’s in there...” because it is precious, and you just keep digging. And I think the satisfaction of walking away from it, of just being like, “I know I left it all out there. I know I gave all the colors that I could possibly give so that now someone can go paint a picture.” And that’s it.
FOR MR. FRYE- AS AN ACTOR (JUDGING AMY) YOURSELF, WHO TRANSITIONED TO WORKING BEHIND THE CAMERA, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADVICE FOR MR. CARELL AND TATUM, IF THEY HAVE ASPIRATIONS FOR WORKING BEHIND THE CAMERA?
EF: I was very frustrated, at a certain point in my acting career, largely due to my own limitations as an actor, where I was getting certain kinds of roles, and not all kinds of roles, and I wanted to...there was, I got very hooked on the story of Truman Capote writing In Cold Blood. It was something I wanted to explore. Whenever I’ve written, I can always think of other actors who would be better playing those parts than myself. So I have no interest in writing something for myself. But, I can’t tell you the joy of seeing this movie- it’s a Lazarus-like experience. Bennett and I spent years together, and before that, Bennett and Max spent a long time together, thinking about these characters, talking through every scene. Bennett is incredibly meticulous, by examining every moment. And then you hand it off, and it’s take and make something out of it. And these guys breathed incredible life into these roles. It’s an absolute thrill to see that happen, and it’s rare.
Whether they should get behind the camera, I made a transition because I felt like I needed to. If they’re moved to do that, of course they should, and I think their talents are incredible and they’re on display in the movie.
BM: I’m gonna just discourage it- they shouldn’t do that.
[Laughter]
SC: And based on that, I will never direct.
[Laughter]
Because whatever Bennett says, I will do. I have complete faith in him.
CT: I’ll go do it, and then fail, and then be like, “You were right, I don’t know what I’m doing.”
BM: I don’t know about Steve, but Channing is going to do it, and he’s going to do it before too long. And I have high confidence in it. I think that when you step forward it’s gonna be special, I really do.
CT: Thanks buddy.
FOXCATCHER is in theaters Friday, November 14th.
Review: 'Showrunners: The Art of Running a TV Show'
It has recently been said, and nearly unanimously agreed upon both publicly and critically, that we currently live in a "Golden Age of Television"; just stumble into any water-cooler conversation to overhear what "shows" you're watching, plural, to see its complete cultural takeover. In recent years, TV has gained this undeniable foothold by creating stories that have taken the very best from cinema (as mid-level dramas are all but vanishing from the cinematic language altogether) and seeing new distribution channels that put the programming into the very hands of consumers themselves. High-brow storytelling, in the form of finely-packaged acting, writing, and directing, are all brought together by way of the once-little-known job of Showrunner. The days in these stress-filled lives are captured in this new documentary from director Des Doyle- Showrunners: The Art of Running a TV Show.
What was once a little-known and unglamorous gig, albeit one requiring an incredibly balanced skill-set of left and right brain, creative and rationale, all responsible for unifying the overall years-long creative vision with the studio notes, is given its own spotlight with a fan boy's treatment. The creative person, or persons, responsible for shaping and helming the show's thorough-line creative vision and along with its entire below-the-line production staff (in good thanks to internet dissection and Comic-Con fandom), has gained recognition for the creative spearheading that whets national audiences week after week. But what this documentary does, for better or for worse, is profile different showrunners as they work through demanding schedules.
Well, it's certainly an unfiltered look behind what might seem a glamorous and fun-filled job, and unfiltered is putting it lightly.
While you won't see your Matthew Weiner's of Mad Men or Vince Gilligan's of Breaking Bad's, we are still exposed to enough culturally relevant shows here, from network, to basic, to premium cable, nearly a full behind-the-scenes production from Damon Lindelof (Lost), and the showrunners of TNT's Bones and Rizzoli and Isles, Showtime's Spartacus and House of Lies, as well as appearances from the doc's biggest names, J.J. Abrams (Lost) and Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer).
So, where exactly does a documentary like this fit into the larger conversation of today's television consumption and enjoyment? Well, it's certainly an unfiltered look behind what might seem a glamorous and fun-filled job, and unfiltered is putting it lightly. The footage and interviews here truly show what the large consensus is: that show running is a "grind." Manning all facets, stemming from nearly every showrunner's original starting point as a wide-eyed writer, has transformed into another arm of marketing, to steer the ship upright as media partners grow the show into something more, a social media presence that must satisfy itself to finicky audiences' whims on what shows live and what shows don't, and all in incredible real-time. If your show doesn't meet expected viewer numbers, then all of the whiteboard meetings (which is an entire percentage of a showrunner's day-to-day), the unbelievable amount of hard work and effort given, as well as the friendships fostered, can be ended at once, which is seen even here. Showrunners: The Art of Running a TV Show exposes more than merely the art of running a show; it reveals the more important quotient of the job- the heart of running a TV show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYWRgqRcSO4
Review: 'Horns'
Daniel Radcliffe has certainly shown that he at least has the strive to want to show himself as an actor's actor. Post-The Boy Who Lived film franchise, he's since attached himself to no shortage of consistently varied and unexpected roles and projects, including a serviceable 2011 run on Broadway in "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying" (and before that, dropping his Wizarding robes in the exposing 2008 stage play "Equus"), playing the homosexual Beat poet Allen Ginsberg in 2013's Kill Your Darlings, and now, a broody small-town deadbeat who is believed to have killed his ex-girlfriend. Oh yeah- and he weirdly grows horns through his head (or maybe it's not weird? It's to the movie's discredit that such a distinction can't be made) in the aptly titled, Horns.
Here, Radcliffe's character isn't so much as outright weird (until he transforms fully into an impressively CGI'd Sabbatic goat in the climactic third act),as is the whole circus show around him, which would have been a whole lot more fun if the film didn't suffer from such an identity crisis, wishing itself to be half black-comedy and half weepy romance-flick. Radcliffe plays Ig Parrish, whose very first steps out of his front door is met with hate-spewing townspeople and frenzied news media, all of whom out for his blood, believing him to be responsible for the death of their beloved small town beauty, the ever-lovely Merrin (Juno Temple), who also happened to be his ex-girlfriend and assumed soul mate. After a full day of frustrations in shouting back his innocence and personal heartbreak in the matter (of which Radcliffe once again tries to awkwardly plow ahead with an unconvincing American accent,) he decides to lose himself with his drink and a one-night stand with the local punk rock chick bartender. As he wakes up the next morning, however, he finds much to his surprise, the somewhat sprawling of bumps nearly protruding through the frontal lobes of his skull. What would be enough to kick-start a horror movie right then and there is instead flipped for comedy, as his hookup immediately (and weirdly) begins to spill her guts - how she wants to eat "all" of the donuts on the coffee table, and very oddly, begins to shove them one by one, all in her mouth, much to Ig's confusion.
So the stage is set for what appears to be the game of the movie: Ig walks around through the town, and, except for everyone freaking out that the Devil incarnate is now literally amongst them, the entire general public not only reveals their complete indifference to the horns, as they grow bigger and more bestial by the hour, but are invoked to act on their own deepest and darkest of self-serving impulses in highly theatrical and politically incorrect fashion. Which does in fact consistently happen- we see the doctor that he goes to for immediate surgery impulsively begin to huff the anesthesia and philander with his nurse right there in the surgical room, as well as a gaggle of news reporters entering into a playground fistfight for an exclusive interview with Ig, which make for the film's more enjoyable and worthwhile moments. Except this doesn't happen- at least not in a parade of charades that might have made for a much more entertaining time. No, this is not that movie. It's something that casts a much wider net, and with such a vast and rich world that the movie attempts to explain and explore, these moments feel even more out of place in the larger context.
What really derails the film is the relentless framing as being a fantasy film, and acts on sweeping romance reminiscent of a Guillermo del Toro inspiration, which isn't dialed in nearly enough to be successful here.
What follows, or rather what is so awkwardly intercut between these odd happenings, is an entire emotional construction that attempts to breed itself as equal parts romance. With flashback storytelling, which introduces his childhood friends, including his more loved older brother Terry (the entertainingly squirrely Joe Anderson) and best friend and eventual Defense Attorney (pro-bono) Lee Tourneau (Max Minghella), we are bogged down with a clunky and ineffective back story that so desperately wants to show the origins of his budding relationship with Merrin. We then see Ig and Merrin in a truly fantastical montage of true love-ing in their hideaway forest and storybook tree house, as well all of their googly-eye times together. After her death, we proceed to get a descent into drunken lovelorn obtuseness, a cacophony of genre and intended feeling that would be fun if it weren't akin to a gigantic eye roll.
What really derails the film is the relentless framing as being a fantasy film, and acts on sweeping romance reminiscent of a Guillermo del Toro inspiration, which isn't dialed in nearly enough to be successful here. Although director Alexandre Aja is no stranger to handling reality-blending (and bending) narrative, as seen with 2006's The Hills Have Eyes and 2010's Piranha 3-D (as well as writing the 2012 Elijah Wood-starrer Maniac), he seems to dizzy himself up and lose himself in the show. Based off of the novel of the same name, written by Joe Hill, we might've gotten a more cohesive textual reading if we had just read the book instead. Things might have all leveled out a bit more, and we might have even understood that Ig's (possibly) wrongful accusation by a crazed public might illustrate a larger symbolism of hypocrisy in realizing personal sins and those who don't acknowledge it, crucifying a guy who they all just deem to be guilty/evil. Or it might have come across as a more sentimental take at love lost, and of the tortured inner spirit of a man losing the love of his life. But when you have a film that wishes to be all things at all times, especially in a more literal and more unforgiving cinematic form where the abstract needs to be nailed down in a completely visual sense, it's a wonder that nobody could express the elephant in the room (or the horns on the forehead) that the story just needed to pick a tone and stick with it.
Horns is in theaters this Friday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8s_1UcdoNI