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
Jake Gyllenhaal on 'Nightcrawler'
[soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/174246168?secret_token=s-dKDwK" params="color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false" width="100%" height="100" iframe="true" /]
In today's modern movie age, there are perhaps only a handful of actors that can play double-duty in commanding both big event Blockbuster films as well as more artistically-driven specialty films. Among those select few is Jake Gyllenhaal, whose incredibly varied and consistently high-performing career always seems to circle back to his involvement in these slightly twisted, left-of-center specialty films, as a man with a darkness that just can't seem to escape him. So it makes sense to see That Gyllenhaal here, taking the night-shift in this new indie thriller, and dropping a reported twenty pounds to play gaunt-faced Louis Bloom, (perhaps a distant relative of Norman Bates in terms of eerie kookiness) who finds himself gravitating to the frenzied world of freelance crime scene filming. The performance is delicious and unnerving, and among one of his most enjoyable and weirdly fun roles (Read Nic's glowing review here); the film is Nightcrawler, an L.A.-set hypnotic ride-along (that might be this year's best midnight movie), and the directorial debut from The Bourne Legacy reboot penner Dan Gilroy. At a recent press day, Jake Gyllenhaal spoke of the movie, and about the modern age of journalism (which makes for interesting conversation when expressing his reservations about its current state to a room full of journalists), his infamous weight loss, and his love for his hometown, L.A. (and he's not quoting Randy Newman). We begin:
YOUR LAST STRING OF FILMS (PRISONERS, ENEMY) AND NOW, NIGHTCRAWLER, ARE EACH SO CONCEPTUALLY AND ARTISTICALLY INTERESTING FROM A DIRECTOR'S POINT OF VIEW. DO YOU HAVE ANY AMBITIONS TO BE A DIRECTOR AT SOME POINT?
My father’s a director and my mother’s a director too now, actually. I know from my experience in watching people do it, and I’ve had the opportunity to work with people who are really good at it, that it would be presumptuous of me to say that. I would like to try my hand at it at some point, yeah.
WHEN IT CAME TO PIECING TOGETHER LOUIS, DID YOU DO SOME RESEARCH IN THE WAY MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKERS TALK?
The hand gesturing, that was all… I don’t know if you’ve met Dan Gilroy, but Dan and I talked a lot about how there’s somebody I base the character on who used his hands a lot, but Dan is also like…[Makes hands gestures].
But no, I didn’t study anybody who did self-help; the words just guided me there. I didn’t veer off on word or one period, or any commas throughout the whole thing. That way guided me to be very specific.
WHAT ABOUT THE WAY YOU MESSED WITH YOUR HAIR? WHAT THAT SOMETHING YOU READ IN THE SCRIPT?
I just thought, what if when Lou was headed into filming his hair gets in his way?, ‘cause my hair was pretty long at the time, and there’s actually a moment in the movie where my hair is all in my face and I’m filming- there was a lot of inspiration coming at me from all over the place.
I said to Dan, "Wouldn’t it be great if I was talking to Rick in the car, giving him speeches, and as I’m talking- like we all do who have driven cars in Los Angeles- drive with my knee while putting my hair up. There was something about it that was like a ninja, he thought he was a ninja. Like when he stole that bike, he was a f*cking ninja.
There’s nothing I love more than another actor who is gonna side-swipe me. It’s so much fun.
YOUR CHARACTER IS LIKE NORMAN BATES-MEETS-TV NEWS- DID YOU SEE SOME SOCIOPATH IN HIM?
My belief in using that word is that it takes the owns off of us in the creation of Lou. I feel like he is our creation, without our desperation for information of all sorts in a world where unimportant information is now important and important info is unimportant, people like Lou can thrive. He is the product of a generation where jobs are scarce and they are transforming the idea of what someone does. Like the other day, someone said ‘I don’t write articles, I post.’ Whole generations of people are coming into the world thinking, "What is a job?"
Lou is a walking metaphor. That’s how I look at him. He is enabled by (Station News Director) Nina (Rene Russo), Nina is enabled by the guys at the station, and they are enabled by us. There is a world, ideally, where someone like Lou wouldn’t end up being the head of a huge major network, but I feel like the world we live in now, he probably would.
HOW DO YOU FIND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JOURNALISM AND ‘CELEBRITY CULTURE’ ENTERTAINMENT?
Celebrity culture is very different between life and death, and what Lou does is find the difference between life and death. When you’re following somebody who’s just living their life, it’s not comparable [to journalism].
CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WORKING WITH RENE RUSSO, AS A PERSON AND AN ACTOR?
In the restaurant scene, Dan, her husband, gave her very little to survive with. I would say that Lou is given a figurative 50-caliber machine gun in that scene with his words and she is given a spoon. I walked into that scene expecting to just, win. And eventually he does win that scene, but Rene came in and made it a struggle for me in that, even with close to nothing to defend with, she was a fierce competitor. The choices that she was making moment to moment, like when she touched my leg, that was a choice she was doing underneath the table that no one will see. She was just trying to mess with me.
There’s nothing I love more than another actor who is gonna side-swipe me. It’s so much fun.
CAN WE TALK ABOUT YOUR LOOK?
[Laughs]. Well I have an extraordinary makeup artist who worked with me on the movie Prisoners. We had extraordinary department heads on this movie, from Robert Elswit, who shot our movie, all the way to our production head. It was nuts.
One of the biggest things is that Lou only sweats once in the movie, and that was a very particular thing that we talked about often. The only time he sweats is out of excitement when he’s going through that house, because he’s f*cking psyched! Every other exchange is a cool-confidence to him.
So those types of things, in terms of my face, the choices we made, losing weight, that was just months of getting into it. As we were shooting I would run to set, and at a certain point I was running through Griffith Park all the time- 8 to 15 miles a day- picturing myself as a coyote with all the coyotes. I wasn’t really aware of [my physical transformation] until a few months ago when we were going through all the cuts.
WHEN THE FILM COMES OUT, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO MAKE AN INDICTMENT TO THE NEWS BUSINESS AND HOW WE COVER STORIES AND PUT OUT INFORMATION. ARE YOU COMFORTABLE BEING PUT IN THAT POSITION?
My form of communication is through the movies I make. I think this movie is incredibility fun to watch and entertaining, as well as I feel like some kind of commentary. When you can get the two in one movie, those are the types of movies I wanna make. I don’t think any story is good unless there’s some kind of commentary somewhere. Dan Gilroy has a point of view, and I think he’s created this character to shine light on the fact that I don’t think a character like Lou could exist unless we created him.
I have been more moved by the media emotionally, my heart has swelled as a result of stories I’ve read, and I’ve been disgusted at the same time from other stories I’ve read. I think that is what’s beautiful about the job you all do.
IN THE MOVIE, L.A. IS LIKE ITS OWN CHARACTER, AND IT’S BEAUTIFUL. HOW DO YOU DESCRIBE L.A., AND HOW DID THAT PLAY INTO YOUR CHARACTER?
L.A. is where I was born and raised. I live in New York now, and every time I fly in, I love L.A., and I don’t want to quote Randy Newman.
[Laughter]
The movie would not have been able to be made anywhere else. This is a Los Angeles movie. Every time I talk to anybody who has seen the movie and I say, ‘I base this character off of a coyote,’ they all go, ‘Ohhh!’ Like, who hasn’t been eye-f*cked by a coyote? They are not intimated by you at all! In fact, they are looking for the most vulnerable aspect of you. They’re a beautiful animal, I’ve grown to love them cause I’ve done so much research and felt like I was one of them for so long playing this character.
Nightcrawler is in theaters this Friday.
Review: 'White Bird in a Blizzard'
Much like young heroine Kat Connor, who, amidst a kerfuffle of dizzying major life-altering events, struggles to make sense of the whizzing elements around her, you might find yourself less than impressed with the overly-stuffed and acted, White Bird in a Blizzard.
Adapted from the Young-adult novel of the same name, YA book-to-screen favorite Shailene Woodley is tasked here with trying to keep this sagging Coming of age thriller afloat as Kat (who provides casual and unconvincing voice-over narration throughout), a high-school aged girl who is met with two very different life-changing circumstances, and at the same time: that of realizing her new body and self as a young woman (and with that, embarking on a wildly-charged sexual maturity), along with the disappearance of her unhappy, if not outright paranoid, once-beauty-turned-homemaker mother, Eve (Eva Green).
Now, as is fully recognized- books, by their nature of giving audiences total creative freedom by making us picture the entire story in our heads, will always have the advantage of having perfectly played subtlety and nuance with all things. With this acknowledgment, it's less than fair to compare a movie to its book form. However, when a movie tries to earn the same elaborate and emotional victories without providing the carefully selected words and prose that the author (in this case, Laura Kasischke) would use, a movie can quickly feel flat and imitative, which does not escape this film's doings.
Blizzard operates in a highly staged, highly dressed up world, which is furthered by its time era. Set in the noticeably costumed world of 1980s and New Wave rock, and before familial drama knew the politics of New Age parenting, we see that Kat lives the life of a single child, a high school rocker who just grew into her most attractive qualities, and not to the non-noticing of her desperately kooky mother, a former beautiful young thing herself. Here, Eva Green gives a meaty piece of manic performance, which spurs the film with some intrigue, but feels a bit too played up nonetheless. It's when Eve and her controlling nature suddenly vanish one day that sets in place the story of a young girl who must brave her own life, and through the lens of her disappeared mother.
While these dreamy elements might make for rich abstract world-making for any novel, the insurmountable task of bringing those elements to life in a harmonious way is the true challenge, which is noticeable here in this R-rated thriller.
In its earliest opening sequences, it's immediately clear that there is a visual interest to the flick that director Gregg Akai (Kaboom) dials into here, bringing a dreamy-realism that drives this created world and its' mysteries and intrigues ever forward, for a story that might have otherwise easily felt trite and boring. While these dreamy elements might make for rich abstract world-making for any novel, the insurmountable task of bringing those elements to life in a harmonious way is the true challenge, which is noticeable here in this R-rated thriller. The film threads a handful of reoccurring fantasy sequences, showing Kat edging ever closer to a nude lifeless figure in the snow (don't worry, it's a fantasy sequence), the rest of the movie tries to make Kat and her young life just as interesting- but neither Woodley herself or the story around her provide anything to grasp onto except for moderate entertainment.
One of the more interesting parts of the film- and for reasons other than you might expect- is Woodley's decision to bare all on screen. A handful of these nude scenes show Kat embarking on her sexual life with dumb hunk Phil (Shiloh Fernandez) and Detective Scieziesciez (Thomas Jane), but these scenes feel so detached from the character and the larger story at play (seriously Kat, you have no reservations about your missing mother?) that the emotional impact from such scenes is hard to feel.
It's not that the film doesn't generate interesting, stirring, and worthwhile watching. Each component is rich, and the end film certainly won't leave you thinking you didn't get a full meal (with a twist that lifts the film ever slightly). Christopher Meloni as Kat's loser dad and disappointing husband Brock is a devilish joy to watch, even while his character is so obviously cut from the cloth of creepy weird hermits who may or may not have a secret to keep. But with too many dovetailing elements, including an unnecessarily long third act that sees Kat go off to college, and stays with her until she comes home to learn the truth of Eve's vanishing, White Bird in a Blizzard's attempt to fulfill both artistic and commercial expectations falls short.
In theaters this Friday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D1W_aH72-g
Whiplash
As films about music and musicians go, largely split between being dramatic biopics of a naive star navigating the turbulent waters of the industry itself or all-out pop-heavy musical celebrations, most have revered 'music' and regarded it in its most magisterial of ways. Characters' all-consuming torment or glee is typically played against its beautiful, romantic, and purified sonic elements to elevate the bigger, surrounding drama. It might be safe to say, however, that these filmmakers didn't play in the same demanding high-school music orchestra that second-time feature film director Damien Chazelle did. And what he learned there, was that music is nothing near related to "being safe."
A former jazz student drummer himself, Chazelle writes and directs the heart-pounding semi-autobiographical film, Whiplash (this year's Sundance Grand Prize Jury winner, the festival's highest award), about a similarly dedicated undergrad musician, whose discovery by the school's eccentric, if not outright hostile jazz ensemble instructor at the school's East coast music conservatory leads to a relentless obsession that pushes the boundaries of how far one will go, and how much one will endure, to achieve greatness. Chazelle, in a Director's Statement about the film, says, "There are a lot of movies about the joy of music. But as a young drummer in a conservatory high school jazz orchestra, the emotion I felt the most frequently was a different one: fear. Fear of missing a beat. Fear of losing tempo. Most overwhelmingly, fear of my conductor."
Check out our interview coverage with Miles Teller, J.K. Simmons, and Damien Chazelle, on Whiplash
From a voided black splash, our first sensory cue is the lone, echoing build of a snare drum. A single hit, like a gunshot, followed by another, and then by another, in ever-quickening measurement, culminates in a drum roll that sees jazz drummer Andrew (Miles Teller) playing in the school's practice room. As an ominous ghostly presence in slim-fitting all-black wears, Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons), head cue-balled, arms toned, and eyes unwavering, immediately barks drum beats for Andrew to play back perfectly. The mechanics of this scene alone, and serving as the film's opening, set the tension-filled operatic stage that is doomed to meet tormenting and self-sacrificing proportions.
From there, it's a film ablaze, where the next day Andrew is singularly plucked from being an "alternate," turning the sheet music pages for the "core" drummer and transferred into Terence's distinguished performance jazz ensemble as the lead drummer. Inspired and drawn in by Terence's initial warm-heartedness, Andrew finds that his too-good-to-be-true opportunity proves to be just that; in a dizzyingly-instant moment, he is blind-sighted by his instructor's immediate trial-by-fire teaching method, by way of hurling a drum-cymbal at his just-off-tempo drummer's head. Scenes of Terence spitting venom at his newly petrified protege take on ever-increasing suspense and tension, as head-spinning camera whip-pans and quick-cut editing nearly overwhelm and suffocate the audience's senses, a hypnotic and consuming experience of sweat, blood, tears, and paranoia.
I can say with total confidence that you won't see another movie so directorially confident from any other first time director this year.
The fast-rising Teller, whose earlier and smaller star-making billings (The Spectacular Now) are quickly getting replaced with bigger studio projects (his 'Mr. Fantastic' in Marvel's The Fantastic Four reboot is slated to come out next year) is able to show off his most sincere and honest acting chops, as well as a further dedication to the craft with this demanding role that sees him trading his cool guy charisma with a more reserved, laser-focused determination, with solemn inner-willing of wanting to be the next Charlie Parker, to be the best jazz drummer ever. Teller further impresses in this role that sees his character's incredible journey and range, from seething frustration, weeping angst, and a physical embodiment complete with bloodied raw hands and sweat-pouring exhaustion, bringing his real-life drumming experience to perform the film's incredible musical numbers himself.
However, the meat of the movie is in the crucially necessary performance needed from Simmons, who more than rises to this occasion. His comically gruff groucho persona wades deep into the thickness of vitriol-laced contempt for all who dare defy his expectations, making him the most transfixing and fear-making element of the movie.
Visually, and at its very best, Whiplash takes the eery yellowed and greened colors and ominously foreboding camerawork reminiscent of The Social Network, mixed with two heavy parts paranoia and obsession, served neatly as a devilish and spiraling-mad cocktail. How many more ways do I have to say, just go see this movie already?
Whiplash should be further praised for being the gripping and original screenplay that it is, which Chazelle and company shot in a brisk nineteen days. This breakneck shooting schedule is successfully felt onscreen, with a rushed momentum that propels the movie forward, creating and heightening stakes in its second and third acts, and resulting in an all-out blitzkrieg of movie endings in one of the most cathartic of grand finales, taking place in Carnegie Hall. I can say with total confidence that you won't see another movie so directorially confident from any other first second time director this year. Chazelle's Whiplash, like the art of drumming, delivers precise and hard hits, moving from quieter moments of stolen vulnerability to blistering and primal rampage. And when it's over, all you'll hear is the silent echo of what you will still be wondering was controlled chaos, and what was not.
'Whiplash' is in theaters this Friday.
*Update: An earlier version of this review incorrectly listed Whiplash as being Damien Chazelle's first feature film. It is his second.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d_jQycdQGo
Review: 'Two Night Stand'
For this generation of hip young Millenials- whose philosophic outlook on life stems from an ever-non-bothered, life-is-good mentality, it certainly sucks when events outside of their control force them to acknowledge worldly inconveniences, and god forbid- awkwardness, with their contemporary counterparts.
This cultural awareness of today’s internet generation, in story, tone, and sex-driven humor, is nailed down exactly and casually, in the new soft-“R” rated romantic comedy, Two Night Stand. Starring fresh-faced up-and-comers Miles Teller (The Spectacular Now) and Analeigh Tipton (Crazy, Stupid, Love), Two Night Stand tells the story of Megan (Tipton) and Alec (Teller), who, after a night’s hook-up (initiated by a determined Megan by way of an online dating website looking for a night of meaningless sex- you know, to clear the head), find that an overnight snow storm has blocked the apartment’s front door exit, forcing them to spend an unplanned second day together.
There is quite a lot to like in this movie- it being manageably made with a finger on the pulse of this new turn of the century adult-kid culture, addressing how these new young adults are meeting existential crises and trying to make sense of new found larger-world consequences- but first, a bong toke (you know, to clear the head). At least that’s Alec’s decision-making, as he and Megan, having started the next morning off on the wrong foot, are forced to lazily pass the time. There’s also a dance party, ping-pong, and an elaborate snow storm-braving rescue mission to retrieve a neighbor’s plunger. And in a bigger series of events, Megan and Alec, with their detached-intelligence professed to override their emotional viewpoints, land on the idea that, since they obviously will never see each other again after this terrible time together, to use the forced shut-in to give some “pointers” to the other, so that they’ll at least improve their "skills" for their next partners. Of course, casual sex never lends itself to a clean break, which leads to further unexpected consequences.
There is quite a lot to like in this movie- it being manage-ably made with a finger on the pulse of this new turn of the century adult-kid culture, addressing how these new young adults are meeting existential crises and trying to make sense of new found larger-world consequences- but first, a bong-toke (you know, to clear the head).
On the whole, the film works, getting by on good consistent fun from the mix of all its parts. Screenwriter Mark Hammer writes a fresh story here that this 23-year-old found entirely non-cringeworthy (a high compliment), even if it felt a bit more mechanical than an episode of Girls might. First-time feature-film director Max Nichols, who, in our exclusive interview, said to “worship at the alter of John Hughes,” balances the characters' headstrong confidence with their deeper and more guarded insecurities, as the Breakfast Club auteur so magically did (as well as his father Mike Nichols with The Graduate). And of course, the presence of Tipton and Teller, who, at this point have already accumulated impressive and sizable projects under their belts, are so naturally and effortlessly charming. Teller, with his cool-guy quippiness, and Tipton, with her truly unique brand of comic delivery (think a few points bubblier than Aubrey Plaza) are fun-to-watch actors, whose shared chemistry alone is enough to drive the movie forward.
While the film has its detractors, with its messy third act, and even in the finer particulars of the characters themselves (It’s hard to believe Megan was engaged for four years throughout Medical school but really only wanted to be a homemaker for her fiancé, and Alec being a simple dude who just “works at a bank,”) stand out as mental hang-ups that seem to peskily linger in the back of our minds. There are some further plot-driven events that move the story along at the exception of a few eye-rolls, and a bit more chaos ensuing in the prison-by-apartment scenario would have been fun to watch. But this is not that movie. This movie is a non-offending, charming, young-adult romantic comedy, that qualifies much more as serviceable date movie than generation-defining film. An of-the-moment soundtrack, led by hits from psychedelic electronica band STRFCKR (pronounced with its missing vowels) provides an upbeat and trendy backdrop for the New York love story to take place in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcSosCe0B-A
Max Nichols on 'Two Night Stand'
This writer will go out on a limb and say that, since this first-time feature film director is still working to make his name known to movie audiences at large, that most introductory paragraphs profiling the director will cut right to the part about his father being Max Nichols, director of the seminal 60's classic on the confusion of young adulthood, The Graduate. Even further, any number of write-ups probably make the next logical step in comparing this director's first film, about recently graduated millennials navigating the new-age waters of hook-up land, again, to the Dustin Hoffman classic. And while all of the above statements are entirely true, it's not all entirely accurate, in getting to know Max Nichols. A self-professed metal-head loving music video director, I recently spoke with the forty one year-old father, who, in a phone interview, relayed nothing but humorous and thoughtful conversation, honest self-reflection, and effortless cool. Max Nichols, delivering his first big-budget (or more accurately, bigger budget) film, talked about youth culture, his earliest film-viewing and on-set experiences, and what he learned to be extremely careful of when reading future scripts. We begin:
HI MAX, MR. NICHOLS. HOW ARE YOU DOING?
…I’m going to apologize in advance for the rambunctious toddlers in the background…
TWO NIGHT STAND OPENS IN THEATERS THIS FRIDAY- HOW HAS THIS JOURNEY BEEN FOR YOU?
It’s been thrilling every step of the way. I read so many scripts before coming across one that made me think, "Oh man, I gotta do this movie," which is exactly how I felt the moment I read Mark Hammer’s Two Night Stand. From that auspicious beginning, to meeting Analeigh (Tipton) and Miles (Teller), and winding up with this incredible cast and amazing crew, at the risk of sounding a little corny- it’s been a dream come true.
WHAT WAS THE FIRST FILM YOU SAW THAT TRULY AFFECTED YOU ON A DIRECTING LEVEL, THAT MADE YOU THINK, 'I WANT TO DO THAT'?
Probably The Breakfast Club. I was at the perfect age when that movie came out, in that I was a little bit younger than the characters but old enough to have an appreciation of how unprecedented the honest depiction of what it’s like to be that age. It just seemed completely different than any movie I had ever seen before.
Obviously I worship at the alter of John Hughes now, but at the time I was like "This guy gets it!" To provide this word of teenager-dom that I was so fascinated by- it was like John Hughes was some sort of wizard.
WHAT WAS YOUR FIRST EXPERIENCE LIKE BEING ON A SET? I KNOW YOU STARTED OUT WORKING IN THE MUSIC VIDEO WORLD.
Well my dad is a director, so I’ve spent a fair amount of time on set with him when I was a kid, including when I was just a little baby. So we'd probably have to turn to another source for a good anecdote about my very first experience on set...
One early set memory that I have, and it's certainly not a particularly elevated one from a "cinema" standpoint, was, I remember being on set with my dad in Texas, while he was shooting Silkwood. And I couldn't believe that there was a whole truck parked there, that could make you a cheeseburger anytime you want, and that you could have as many cheeseburgers as you wanted in any given day. And then there was a whole other place where there was just a whole stack of candy that you could just go take. I mean, more than anything, that probably told me, "This is where I need to work."
Honestly, it felt like an opportunity to bring my friends, or at least maybe younger versions of my friends, to life on the screen in a way that, at least it didn't seem to me, was happening at the moment.
WHAT WAS YOUR FIRST DIRECTING EXPERIENCE? DID YOU MAKE IT A POINT TO HAVE THE SAME CRAFT SERVICES YOU REMEMBERED SEEING AS A KID?
[Laughter] Oh man, if only that had been possible!
The first video I directed was, and I had worked in the music business a little bit when I was younger, so I'd been on set with other music videos, but the first music video I directed was for a fantastic band named American Minor. Just like a great, contemporary classic rock band, if there is such a thing. And they had this great song called "Buffalo Creek," and we shot it in this basement in this hideous, disgusting basement in LA, that I've since been told many times has been used for pretty much every other either gore or porn movie out there, but we put it to other use that day.
And no, I mean, as far as microscopic budget, I think maybe one pizza, or a couple Subway subs for the whole crew to share at lunch time. And since all we could afford was to have the band perform, I think they performed for about thirteen hours straight. I hadn't quite properly factored in the toll that would take on them, and when we were done I was like, "Cool man, you guys wanna go out and get some drinks?" And I think they pretty much collectively collapsed.
DID YOU FIND THAT BEING THE SON OF A LEGENDARY FILM DIRECTOR HELPED OR HINDERED YOUR OWN BURGEONING CAREER AS A DIRECTOR WHEN FIRST STARTING OUT?
Um, I don't know? I came to directing through this music video world where it was sort of, you know, maybe a thing that people knew, or maybe they didn't? But it didn't seem to have sort of a tremendous cache in that world, because it primarily came down to, "Well, who else have you done videos for? What do they look like? Were they hits?" So I think it was nice for me to have an opportunity, through the many twists and turns that life takes, for me to spend a long time working in that realm, and have an opportunity to develop some, what I hope is at least a little bit of skill and talent as a director, before turning to a feature. Maybe it made the whole thing a little less loaded for me, than it might have been otherwise.
RETURNING TO TWO NIGHT STAND, ABOUT TWO YOUNG COLLEGE GRADS WHO ARE AWKWARDLY SNOWED IN TOGETHER AFTER A ONE-NIGHT FLING… THE FILM SO HEAVILY RELIES ON THESE YOUNG ACTORS' CHARM AND PERFORMANCES, AS WE'RE PRETTY MUCH TRAPPED IN THE SAME ROOM WITH THEM FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE MOVIE. WHAT WERE YOU EXCITED TO BRING TO THE SCREEN AFTER READING THIS SCRIPT?
One of the things that I was sort of most drawn to, in that regard was, the voice that Mark Hammer wrote and captured for Megan (Tipton). It just rang like, head and shoulders above so many other young female characters that I read as authentic, and was so evocative of so many smart, funny, sarcastic young women that I know.
Honestly, it felt like an opportunity to bring my friends, or at least maybe younger versions of my friends, to life on the screen in a way that, at least it didn't seem to me, was happening at the moment. And that when it came to Miles and Analeigh embodying those characters...there was something particularly when I first met Analeigh. She just seemed so singular, and distinct to me, and was sort of unlike any particular human I had met before, in this wonderful way that, I knew that if I felt that way over her, that people would buy having such a powerful reaction to her in their short time together. And I felt that audiences would feel really drawn to her in the short time that they spent with the characters as well. And I'm lucky to say that, at least so far, that's been the case.
THIS BEING YOUR FIRST FEATURE FILM, WHAT ARE YOU ULTIMATELY WALKING AWAY WITH, AND HAVING LEARNED AFTER MAKING THIS FILM?
I think coming off this movie in particular, I have learned to be very, very careful should I ever encounter the word "snow" or "ping-pong" in a script again, for completely different reasons. Both are almost impossible to re-create in a scene. I realize now that it is extremely easy to write: "Megan and Alec play ping-pong." Shooting and covering a scene where Megan and Alec play ping-pong, with anything resembling continuity...if there's a director out there effortlessly, my hat is off to 'em.