'Escape From Tomorrow': Shot Guerrilla-Style on the Grounds of Disney
When you hear the words 'fantasy' and 'Disney' together, you definitely won't think of what you're about to see in this film.
Morphing nightmarish faces. Sexual perversions of giggly underage girls. Sci-fi benders of mind-controlling corporations. Until now, these elements had nothing in common with the Disney brand. Now, thanks to writer/director Randy Moore and his daring cast and crew, these things have all come together in a movie that you will not soon forget exists. Escape From Tomorrow is one of those movie's you need to see to believe.
The most prominent water-cooler conversation that will arise from this film is likely to be that the majority of the movie was filmed inside the actual park of Disney World (and Land), without the House of Mouse's knowledge. As a guerilla-shot feat, using prosumer aimed Canon 5D digital SLR cameras with minimal audio recording, the attempt is made (and achieved) to pull off a feature film production in the famed theme park. And yet...
Further propelling the film into buzz-worthy territory is the psycho-sexual dips into madness that beset the film's narrative that manipulate the iconography of the theme park that we all know and love. When grouchy father Jim (Roy Abramsohn) takes his vacationing family to the Happiest Place on Earth, demons from his personal life slowly infiltrate the Magic Castle's walls to find him, be it in the transforming evil faces of the international animatronics in It's A Small World or in the very nude woman who appears on another ride.
Further propelling the film into buzz-worthy territory is the psycho-sexual dips into madness that beset the film's narrative that manipulate the iconography of the theme park that we all know and love.
Included in its larger narrative is an even weirder plot of the park's princesses as high-priced escorts, mysteriously threatening illnesses, and secret corporations controlling memories and happiness. I can only imagine work on Monday morning in Disney's Legal Department when they heard about this movie.
Coming out of Sundance Film Festival earlier this January, the film became one of the must-see/must-talk-about films, even garnering rave reviews from the now deceased, legendary film critic Roger Ebert. However, nobody thought that Disney would let it out alive to find any chance of distribution for a larger audience to see.
And yet...
There is so much to love about this movie. While as a "movie," it might suffer from a semi-aimless structure, at least until the second half, when the crackpot craziness comes flying fast and hard. But I contend that this movie should be appreciated in its own right, as an entertainment experience that centers around its mythological production. Stellar black and white cinematography by director of photography Lucas Lee Graham and a wonderfully appropriate dark fantasy soundtrack composed by Abel Korzeniowski definitely lift the film, giving it a stronger cinematic experience.
Escape From Tomorrow should definitely be included on your films to see this year, as its very existence should alone be appreciated. A glorious achievement that would best play to midnight audiences looking for a fun B-grade alt-art movie, the film is sure to excite all audiences.
Well, maybe not for Mr. Mouse and company...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nfU_5NWBoE
'The Summit' Relives the Deadliest Day in Modern Mountain Climbing History
In cinema's earliest beginnings, there stands the Lumiere Brothers' historic film, The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat (1895).
There is one main reason why this short film, less than a minute long and comprised of only one shot, is so important. For audiences who had never even seen "moving pictures" before, the sight of seeing a locomotive pull into a train station, towards the camera and incidentally, themselves, the feeling of realism scared audiences into believing the train was plowing straight towards them.
Boy, how those people would Gasp at watching a film whose camerawork transports them to the death-defying Summit of K2, the second-highest mountain on Earth.
A feature-length documentary, The Summit is a mixed collection of film devices, including interviews, real footage, and reenactment, that serve to tell the gripping, real-life account of the deadliest day in modern mountain climbing history.
The mountain is K2, located along the northwestern Himalayan mountain range and second-highest only to Mount Everest. Known as Savage Mountain, K2's fatality rate claims one of every four climbers who attempt to summit (climb to the top), earning its reputation as the second most murderous mountain. And though its deadly power is known, it did not stop 22 climbers of several different international expeditions from attempting the climb on one fateful day in August 2008, leaving only 11 alive to tell the tale.
The threatening conditions, insurmountable odds, and dooming luck, all might beg to question why anyone would want to do this in the first place.
Directed by Nick Ryan, The Summit stands as his first major work as a feature-film director, a totally impressive feat for how much material is brought to the screen. The accomplishment of watching the camerawork, from helicopters above the mountain, on rigs and pulley systems to capture shots from stomach-churning angles, does as good a job to put the viewer right on the mountain save for being right there on the mountain. The impressive visuals alone are noteworthy, and add the right touch of tension while highlighting the power and beauty of the location.
As a narrative, the story shows, through real-life footage, the entire journey of the mountaineers. Focusing on a few veteran climbers, the first Irishmen to summit K2 Ger McDonnell, and a local sherpa to help others climb the mountain, Pemba Gyaljie Sherpa, the film tells all angles to attempt to discover what many are still unsure of; how exactly eleven veteran climbers were claimed by the mountain.
The takeaway is this: after seeing this film, you will feel immense respect for the all-powerful fate that nature has over man, and for the brave men and women whose thirst for adventure and exploration dare to defy it. The threatening conditions, insurmountable odds, and dooming luck, all might beg to question why anyone would want to do this in the first place. Though when you watch the scene of each mountain climber reaching the top of the mountain, taking pictures with their native country's flag, hugging and kissing loved ones, and simply watching them look at the never-ending view around them, you can't help but understand why the risk was worth it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV6iZRvilwc
'Una Noche' Shows One Night in the Life of Three Teenage Cuban Natives
While it may only be 'presented' by the esteemed director himself, Una Noche takes, and furthers, the themes of oppression and self-empowerment of an individual in a minority that has made Spike Lee a champion of exploring socially conscious issues throughout his residency in film history.
Written and directed by Lucy Mulloy, Noche marks her first feature film directorial effort, and the experience of watching is a reward.
Running at a solid ninety minutes, the film, as you might expect, centers around 'una noche,' or, 'one night,' in the life of three teenage Cuban natives, living another frustrating day in their poverty-stricken life in Havana. Employing a similar 'Spike Lee' cinematic device, the film uses the narrative voice-over of a primary character which links multiple characters, with shared points of view. Partly narrating the story is the young and pretty, yet shy and bullied Lila (Anailín de la Rúa de la Torre), whose only social comfort is with her nearly-twin brother, Elio (Javier Núñez Florián), who tends to her insecurities with care and affection. It is when Elio's attention turns to focus on Raul (Darriel Arrechaga), an attractive yet frustrated and troubled friend, that Lila notices her relationship with her brother is interrupted. With Raul nearing his breaking point, feeling trapped in his sub-squalor life, he plans to sail to Miami with Elio, hopeful of a better life that could be offered only in America. Yet Lila's unshakeable bond with Elio only serves to further jeopardize the boys' plan, against an unforgiving world that may devastate them at any moment.
While small, digital cameras could be easier to maneuver and work with, the task is still insurmountably hard, and this is where Mulloy hangs most of the emotional payoffs.
Mulloy proves herself here, as the film stands on solid legs throughout its runtime. Perhaps employing more documentary-like techniques (the film looks as if it were shot handheld on a digital video camera, and wonderfully so) allowed for capturing authentically-calling footage of the world of Cuba, revealing an underbelly of a world that so traps these characters. Equally impressive is the film's sprawling story structure, which extends to show us more characters afflicted by hardship; seeing Raul's sickly mother working as a prostitute, and a compassionate medic underpricing HIV medicine for Elio reveals an even richer world of characters, further strengthening the film's themes of the individual's triumph through oppressing forces.
Yet the film's most impressive accomplishments occur in its final reel, of the trio's rafting journey to Miami. Never has it been an easy thing to shoot a movie at sea, and that is exactly what happens here. While small, digital cameras could be easier to maneuver and work with, the task is still insurmountably hard, and this is where Mulloy hangs most of the emotional payoffs. These moments are set alongside environmental conflicts, in the sky, and below the sea.
If Noche swings and misses at anything, it may be in its relatively un-stirring emotional range. While the argument could be made that these characters are so desensitized and unaffected by the brutal and unfair justices of their loves, where, in these cases, we see Raul react by lazily getting drunk and Lila and Elio only quietly internalizing their emotions, the audience is never given any show-stopping or vulnerable moment to connect with the characters, which the film could have masterfully used.
This strongly scripted and directed effort brings all that is good in this movie to the surface; even its 'first-time' actors add a spark of authenticity in roles that couldn't have called for anything else. All of the visual riches and scenes show a side of the typically tourist-ridden Havana that a non-native wouldn't know, in artfully crafted fashion, while themes of finding identity through frustration, desperation, and liberation are channeled in a unique, impressive form. Perhaps the only thing more impressive than all of this is seen in one of the film's final frames, a black title card reading: "Inspired By a True Story."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKLXDk4NFrA
Director Jill Soloway and Jane Lynch Talk 'Afternoon Delight'
Longtime friends and performers from the Chicago improv scene, firstime writer/director Jill Soloway and Emmy winning Jane Lynch turn in a real winning effort with "Afternoon Delight." When Rachel (Kathryn Hahn) invites young stripper McKenna (Juno Temple) to live in her home, her life gets turned upside down, threatening to tear her marriage with Jeff (Josh Radnor), apart. Helping with Rachel's woes is her therapist, the intellectually dry Lenore, played by the wonderful Jane Lynch. I recently sat down with the director and co-star, who offered amazing insight and perspective about the world of comedy, the "revolutionary plot" that centers around the female anti-hero, and much more. Special thanks to Ginsberg/Libby.
CINEMACY: What made you decide to shoot in Silverlake? It felt like such an intimate portrait of the city.
Jill Soloway: I live in Silverlake, and at some point as we were getting closer to shooting it was like, you know I think my first dream was to shoot it in Chicago. I had an idea of Jane and I going on a victory lap, shooting the movie with all of the people from The Annoyance (Comedy club in Chicago where both performed)
Jane Lynch: Right, yes. Hiring and firing them randomly. "No! Yes! Yes! No!"
JS: Go back and rule Chicago! Then there was a moment where it was like, "Oh, what if it was in San Fransisco?" And they did a rewrite, and then it was like, "Nope, the movie's gotta happen in LA. And I thought, "OK, What do I know of LA? My neighborhood, Silverlake," and I wrote it in Silverlake and it was actually the best version of it cause I knew every little nuance and every little detail.
CINEMACY: And also, congratulations on winning the Directing Award (In the Dramatic Category at Sundance Film Festival).
JS: Thank you.
CINEMACY: We were just talking to Josh and Kathryn, and they said that they had to fly back before you received it?
JS: That's right they didn't get to be there.
CINEMACY: So you received it by yourself?
JS: Yeah, my producers were there, everyone was gone!
CINEMACY: What was that experience like?
JS: Just...
JL: You were almost gone!
JS: Yeah, I was thinking about leaving, actually.
JL: And they said, "Don't go..."
JS: Yes, somebody gave me the heads up not to miss the awards ceremony. I tell people that Sundance is like being inside of a dryer with a shoe, it was like GUNG-GUNG-GUNG-GUNG-GUNG! (Onomatopoetic license taken). So that was the moment where somebody took me, took the shoe out of the dryer. They were like, "And that's all!"
I think as artists, and you (to Jane) probably know this feeling from winning your Emmys, I think we're all in some ways waiting for that moment where you're on stage holding our award in the air. "I did it!" You know?
JL: Yeah.
JS: And to have that moment for the first time on this movie, and to have that "I did it" moment, I think when we're little kids watching the awards ceremonies it's almost like what makes us even get into this business.
JL: Were you able to take it in?
JS: Yeah, afterwards!
JL: Cause when I won the Emmy I could not, I didn't take it in.
CINEMACY: (To Jane Lynch) What was going through your head?
JL: Oh, let's make this about me for just a second!
JS: That's fine! I'd be happy to!
JL: It was kind of like, I felt I should give it back, and they do have you give it back, because they give you the real one later, I think that's the Emmy.
But yeah, that's why I was interested, because I would've been surprised if you were to say that you weren't present for it, because you were so present in the making of this movie.
JS: Oh, thank you lady.
JL: I was, without sounding condescending, very proud of her, because she did it in a really organic way. And she empathized with every character, she was right there with you, it was one of the safest places to create and go to emotional places you never thought you would. And it was kind of a love fest, and you were so present for that, that I bet you'll never be un-present for anything like that in your life.
JS: Oh, lady, you're so sweet! Yeah I think afterwards I danced my head off at that big party
CINEMACY: Was there a stripper pole? (Laughter)
JS: There was no stripper pole, but um, a lamp post outside in Park City had to do the trick that night.
CINEMACY: I think I read that one of the things you were interested in was taking these established comedians, specifically, and giving them a deeper role, which made me think of what Jerry Seinfeld once said, that comedians are always wanting to be taken, for as funny and hilarious they are to everyone, seriously?
KS: Well, we come from from this improv world in Chicago, which is a "Yes, And...," "Be in the moment," "Safe space," "Anything can happen," We're playing,"...in fact we were playing. Our first play together, we were pretending that Jane was Carol Brady and we were doing the Brady Bunch, just this feeling of play, play, play. And then you get in the TV business and comedy gets sort of reduced down to, the joke is on the page, did you hit the joke or not. And I just got excited about coming to a place where we were marrying sort of the past and the present, which is marrying this sort of improv-y feeling of Just be present, these are funny people, you can write jokes or not write jokes, you can cut the joke or not cut the joke, they can quote-unquote land the joke or not land the joke, they're funny, if they play it real, the movie will be funny, as way of just kind of reinventing process for ourselves.
JL: And I think that "funny" people, people who do comedy and are kind of adept at that, are your better actors anyway, if I can claim that. I think there's a certain amount of risk-taking and jumping off the creative cliff that happens when you're a "funny person." You know, cause sometimes it doesn't work, and you have to get back up and do it again, and I think if you just are schooled in drama, I don't know how you're able to portray life's ironies.
And the truth of anything, unless you can also dive into what is funny about yourself, and what is maybe not so attractive about yourself, and you have to be more open to exposure, and so I think that I will take someone who knows their sense of humor, and is naturally funny, over someone who can maybe, shed a tear.
CINEMACY: Comedy almost seems like it's on the opposite side of the coin, or it's just one push away from being totally tragic.
JL: Exactly.
JS: Yes.
JL: That there's a rawness and a vulnerability that I think was so clear in this movie that people walk away, everybody that I know walk away from this movie says they find themselves so invested, and there's such a particular flavor that really inspires an emotional truth in people, and I think you get that from people who aren't afraid to make a fool out of themselves!
CINEMACY: Jane's character is so particular down to where she puts her feet on the foot rest, and her glasses; can you guys talk about how you crafted that, and is she based on somebody that you know?
JS: My real therapist! That's my real therapist's chair, and foot rest. We went over to her office and got the chair and the foot rest the morning that we shot. And we even, one of those lines, "Baccarat Crystal," "Clear Mirror," that's something my therapist has said. And then she's kind of Lenore Benny Smith! Jane and I, before the days of viral videos, we were making viral videos that no-one ever saw.
JL: And I always played a very particular, kind of, (in character) precious, female empowerment person, be it a lawyer in one scene and a therapist in the next. Or a talk show host.
JS: Professor of feminist theory.
JL: Yes, exactly, and every time Jill talks about this character, "her voice does this." And she's a very particular...one of the hardest scenes to shoot because we kept laughing was, "I brought some quinouae." (Laughter) That was her line, in her little container.
JS: Yeah, we were very specific about her container.
JL: Yeah! Remember you had to go out and get the right-
JS: I had to go out and get another container. Well, because Lenore would have a certain kind of, actually Lenore is also my middle name, so I think in some ways, this character is my shadow, very serious feminist. And I get some of my best moments when I'm falling asleep or waking up and I just had this moment where I was like, "Tilda Swinton! Hair in the air! Hard glasses!" I've never seen Jane like that. Hilarious! Just that, swept back, diva, intellectual, academic diva. It was a home run for her.
CINEMACY: Did that inspire any additional conversations between you and Lenore, making a movie about your real-life therapist? Did she say, "Now let's talk about why you'd want to make a movie about your therapist...
JS: We definitely have talked about it.
JL: Yeah, we flung the depths every time.
CINEMACY: Another thing I found really interesting about the movie was the presence of that strong female voice. When we've seen a lot of these male comedic characters as flawed people. Do you think the playing field is even among both genders? Can women have the same issues of being...
JL: Lost in what it means to be a woman. Yeah absolutely, I think that the culture just doesn't pick up on those stories. We love them for men, and their long suffering wife standing next to them, and it's great that they're getting their story told. But I think that it's just as important for women to tell their particular stories, you know, what it's like to be a mother, where you feel like you have to sacrifice everything in order to be a wife and mother, and the way she (Rachel) breaks out is she goes to a strip club...
It's kind of like the Madonna/whore complex, is alive and well in so many women. It's like, I've gotta shake out of this so I'm gonna go see how sex workers do it.
CINEMACY: We were talking earlier that usually in movies when we see Kathryn on screen, she's hardly recognizable, or really comedic in her appearance, so to see her in this movie, very vulnerable and stripped down and very raw, it's amazing. So how did you come to the point where you knew you wanted to cast her, and how did you guys kind of craft that character?
JS: Well I've been a longtime fan of hers, and she definitely fits into that paradigm we were talking about of like funny people who can play it straight. And I had a Skype with her, and she was so emotional about how much she loved Rachel, that I felt like the way Kathryn felt about Rachel was the way I knew Rachel was going to feel about Mackenna. She was like, "I know her! I know this woman, I can feel her!" And Kathryn's so empathetic.
JL: Yes, she is.
JS: She's just, she lives empathy as a person. And you know, it is a bit of a bye, you have to be on her side as she goes back to the strip club and brings a stripper home. When you talk about the heroes that we're used to, the bumbling, they're anti-heroes, they fuck up. They do the wrong thing. Even "The Heartbreak Kid," which is sort of a movie that has been made twice, which is a classic movie about men, his wife's hanging out in the hotel room, and he's sort of out there chasing this "blonde object," you know we're rooting for him, we're used to that story. It's the Philip Roth story, it's the Albert Brooks story, it's the Woody Allen story. Ok, what does it mean to take a Jewish woman and make her the person that's going after this ideal of youth, this ideal of other, and potentially harming her marriage, you know, putting her marriage at risk by this flight of folly. Well men can do it, the anti-hero can do it. To have Kathryn do it, to have our lead do it, as odd as it seems, it's revolutionary. As odd as it seems, it's a revolutionary plot to ask audiences to root for a woman who's doing something that's...
JL: Maybe not the best for her wife and children, for her husband and children.
JS: Yeah, and then to ask audiences to root for her and to still love her when she's risking her kids and her husband, I think that it feels like we're doing important work even if it wasn't funny. If it was just a documentary, kind of be like "America needs to see this!" But luckily it's also funny.
Kathryn Hahn and Josh Radnor Talk 'Afternoon Delight'
Perhaps better known for their other comedic efforts, as seen in "Step Brothers" and "How I Met Your Mother," Kathryn Hahn and Josh Radnor star here in first time writer/director Jill Soloway's indie hit "Afternoon Delight." The pair play Rachel and Jeff, whose unsatisfying marriage leads Rachel to bring young stripper McKenna (Juno Temple) into their home, leading to unexpected revelations that challenge the couple's faithfulness to the core. With its distinct tone and strong feminine point of view, the film landed Soloway the Directing Award in the Dramatic Category at this year's Sundance, while also giving Hahn and Radnor the opportunity to showcase their dedicated acting chops. I had a chance to sit down with the pair of longtime friends to talk about all things "Afternoon Delight" in this winning effort of a film. Special thanks to Ginsberg/Libby.
CINEMACY: So you took the film to Sundance, it had the reception that it did winning the Directing Award for Jill, what was it like when she won that award?
Kathryn Hahn: Well we had all left at that point, but it was so exciting, I mean I got a flurry of e-mails and texts when she won, I was just so excited for her. It’s awesome for her first feature, just so thrilling.
CINEMACY: As far as pole dancing, and the exercise form that it’s become for women, is that part of some larger feminine “owning of sexuality”? It’s a relatively new thing.
KH: I don’t know, I mean I’m not sure myself but I- yes I think there definitely seems to be that happening right? Like we were, Jill and I were talking about like how moms that go install stripper poles, and that’s just how they work it out at night. It sounds exhausting to me, to be totally honest. I can barely go to a spin class. But yeah, I get it. Especially post-children, for a lady, if you want to reawaken that
Josh Radnor: Inner pole dancer
KH: Exactly
CINEMACY: Was this the first time that you had learned about pole dancing?
KH: Yeah they wouldn’t let me pole dance in this movie for some reason.
JR: Insurance wouldn’t cover it.
KH: And also who needs to see it!
CINEMACY: Moving on, I think it was Jerry Seinfeld who once said that in every comedien, there lies the desire to be taken seriously. How does that work into both of your efforts as comedians and taking these sorts of projects?
KH: (Laughter) How serious do I take myself?
CINEMACY: What’s that draw, or that balance?
KH: I mean I probably should take myself a little more seriously. It’s so weird, because I don’t look at is as, I just so can’t believe that I’m able to work so I think any kind of project that comes my way, that I’m lucky enough to be cast in, I feel like it comes from the same starting point, right? I mean I think that you can smell that a mile away too if someone’s taking themselves too seriously with their work or their “precious-ness.” It’s just never that fun to be around even on a set, so I feel that you have to have loose borders, and not take yourself so seriously, in order to just be open.
JR: I also feel like there’s an idea that actors are constantly like, mulling over which direction they’re going to go-
KH: There’s like three people that can do that.
JR: Yeah. It’s like fifty percent, “OK, I have an intention or this is kind of what I’m looking for,” or maybe, well OK, it’s like twenty five percent that, and seventy five percent is like, “This is what’s in front of me!” Like, this is my next job . And one of the things for me, I never though of myself as a comedic actor, I just thought of myself as an actor, and I got known for this big comedy, which I still get to do pretty serious stuff on, but I’m just looking for interesting stuff to do, like very simply. Like one of the things that’s kind of hard about doing a long running show, like I love going from thing to thing, and doing lots of different things, so when I’m not doing the show I want to do something that feels like it’s exercising muscles that aren’t getting used, more than anything else. But if I do something super heavy, I want to do something light next time, if I’m doing something too light, I want to do something a little heavier.
KH: I don’t have those options by the way. That would be amazing!
JR: Well I get to, I write stuff.
KH: And he makes his own, I just make children.
JR: What I do is more important.
CINEMACY: Can you talk about any specific challenges you faced while making this? While it’s very intimate, and there are moments that are light and funny, but then it also is very heavy towards the end.
KH: The thing that I’m the most proud of with this actually is this relationship that we were able to make because I feel like it’s really, I shouldn’t say rare, but it was very imperative that it not be, to me and to all of us, a cliche marriage, that you see immediately this history like the second you see them together, and I’m really proud that we were able to get that. Like we know each other socially, which sometimes even makes it that much harder to get that intimate with somebody like in front of cameras! Especially knowing my “hubs”-
JR: Yeah, I know her husband.
KH: But I’m really really proud of that. I remember us talking, like one of our code phrases early on was like, we kept talking about “soft belly,” about how like when you’re with someone for a really really long time that you don’t have to like...
JR: Suck in.
KH: Suck in!
CINEMACY: That’s true love.
KH: That’s true love!
JR: Jill had a line in the script that I really loved, she said something like, “Casual married nudity,” like the kind of like, you’re just not thinking, it’s so not a first date, it’s like your fifty-thousandth date, so things change, and a certain self-consciousness goes away, that also in some ways can hurt things. You know, you hear different people talk about like, the genius of separate bedrooms, or like separate bathrooms-
KH: Or separate apartments!
JR: Yeah to keep, you get the sense that there’s a danger of overfamiliarity, you know? I love the scene, it’s just a one shot when they’re in the bathroom together, he’s flossing and she’s, what are you doing?
KH: Cutting my bunions.
JR: Cutting things off her toes! And then you know, you think, ten minutes later we’re going to make sweet love. Like, no! There’s too much that’s been seen.
KH: Yes, this is real. No party manners.
JR: And I think there was also a thing, we talked through how we met, when we were together, when we were not together, what was the arc of this fourteen, fifteen, seventeen, however long they were together...Kathryn’s actually had this kind of, she met her husband in college, I haven’t had that long term relationship, so it was just about creating a very specific world where we were together.
CINEMACY: Can you guys talk a little bit about Juno, because I feel like you share a really-
JR: I’d rather not (Laughter)
KH: She’s not here to defend herself.
CINEMACY: A really natural chemistry!
KH: She’s amazing, are you kidding me? She just sets the bar like, I just think she’s extraordinary. The way the schedule was set up, was that it was kind of very “Juno-heavy” at the beginning of the shoot, and then it was our marriage towards the end. And so it was actually, there was a second where I thought like, “Oof, we gotta believe in this marriage, but this relationship is so intense, I’m so glad we were able to like, I mean we really did, it totally not only balanced out but I feel like you really want Jeff and Rachel, you root for them, but we fell madly in love. I just think she’s extraordinary. I’m so excited to see where she goes.
JR: Yeah, you hand kind of two marriages in this movie, I mean you had two relationships that you had to really-
KH: And it was like really a fulcrum in the middle, it felt like there was just a fulcrum right at about like two weeks in.
JR: I always think of, like a chemistry experiment, like you have this marriage in this petri dish, and then, the “McKenna” character is like this dropper, or some other element that’s dropped in, and what it does to that existing thing-
CINEMACY: It alters it.
JR: Yeah.
KH: Oh that’s good!
CINEMACY: And I just have to say, I couldn’t even recognize you watching the movie initially, because of the characters that you’ve played before, but in such a great way.
KH: Ah, thank you!
CINEMACY: I feel like this movie totally expanded your range, like, completely.
KH: Oh that is the sweetest. I feel that way too, like I will hold this experience to my heart because it was so fun and meaningful to be asked this of, I guess as a performer, rather than just growing out my armpit hair and wearing a long gray wig. And on that note, “Afternoon Delight!"
'Drinking Buddies': Love Told Through the Lens of Disenchantment
As adult relationships go, they can be pretty childish. Childish in the sense that adults are just that: grown-up children. Still wide-eyed and without answers, hopelessly trying to join culturally warped fantasies of love with real life, grown up-y problems, the result is often an unglamorous reality that deconstructs and dismantles every typical trope that exist in the genre of the romantic comedy. At least that is what is happening here, in mumblecore alum Joe Swanberg's latest, Drinking Buddies.
For framing purposes, the mumble-core scene is distinguished and loosely attributed to films that operate as an extension of "indie" filmmaking, going steps further (or steps shorter) in cinematic storytelling to capture a sense of "real life," at least how that "real life" pertains to 21st century thirty-something caucasian Americans. Which is what this movie is all about. Kate (Olivia Wilde), a "one of the guys" craft beer worker, and Luke (Jake Johnson), are the kind of co-workers and friends with the sort of pal-around chemistry that reads as the most naturally compatible romantic pairing. Their playfulness is all very "charged," in that "we could jump each others' bones right here and now if we just acknowledged the sexual tension" kind of way. Perhaps they feel so free to act this way due because they are both in relationships; her with nice guy Chris (Ron Livingston), and he with the more timid yet Jill (Anna Kendrick). What leads to the foursome going away to weekend at a cabin brings the possible realizations of each finding the other's partner more desirable. This, while beer is so passively poured and gulped that it acts as the cultural cigarette break.
The best way to describe this movie is an adult's rom-com. Where the set-up of star-crossed lovers crossed up in each others' better half would act as any perfect setup for easily slicked Studio comedy-fare, this story is told through the lens of disenchantment, harsh and ugly truths of the real world that the characters have to acknowledge and put up with. Although "harsh and ugly" might be words too bold to use, which in this case, refers to the collectively attractive tribe's dealing with the "un-perfect-ness" of their situations. As in life, things are barely dealt with, and true emotions are scarcely expressed, and that slice of life is exactly with Swanberg and Co. offer here. One man and his cup of tea will appreciate the authentic capturing of this possibly very-real time in a possibly very relatable person's life. Another man's cup might overfloweth with indulgence and vapidness. Both arguments are perfectly acceptable to make, as they each act as a truth that compliment and necessitate the other, like two sides to the same beer-soaked coaster.
"Olivia had great ideas about Kate, and brought a lot of her own life to it, Jake Johnson and Anna Kendrick shared their own relationship experiences with me so that we could blend them with mine to make Luke and Jill as relatable as possible." -Joe Swanberg
The one thing that the movie definitely has, and what it solidly works off of, is its freedom. Working from only a general outline, the actors and director improvised the entire script. This creates an interesting effect, for many reasons. First, in a cinematic sense, we get to see these actors as the most real-life types of people that could be captured on screen in a fictional story. Following that, this allows us to see "Olivia Wilde" as "herself," mainly, and everyone else as "themselves" as they act (and react) and make decisions from their most basic of instincts. In fact, Swanberg even notes of his actors' involvement and contributions to their characters: "Olivia had great ideas about Kate, and brought a lot of her own life to it, Jake Johnson and Anna Kendrick shared their own relationship experiences with me so that we could blend them with mine to make Luke and Jill as relatable as possible." What results is seeing Wilde, Johnson, Livingston, and Kendrick, as the most likable, non-offensive people to exist in cinematic history. They're all so normal that it's not normal. The fact that Kate and Luke are so comfortable with their unacknowledged affections towards each other only heightens the level of non-committed cultural attitude they have towards anything they find "serious" in life, as flirting with another person's partner would prove. These adults are so cool with everything that Kate finds no qualms with skinny-dipping in front of Luke, while Luke finds no problem wearing that yearningly existent beard. Though I'd be remissed to not express how much I liked and enjoyed each actor's onscreen selves, so much so that the film feels very much on this side of a winning outing.
Secondly, since the actors don't (really) know what's going to happen in the moment of the scene, we are can only observe the scene as they observe and find (read: create) the scene in real time. For viewing purposes, this denies all audience participation, really, or at least denies us from having the type of experience where we feel connected to a film by relating to a more universally speaking message. Here, if you're not one of these four "types" of people, you're probably going to ask yourself: Why Is This Important? That answer: this movie, and style of movie-making, speaks more to a type of human than to the human "condition."
But maybe that's what it's all about. Maybe there is no objective "serious-ness" in adult life. That our romantic partners are nothing more than a continuously revolving door of companions to make easy conversation with. Nothing more than Drinking Buddies. As an "adult-movie," it's high-mindedness doesn't really invite the viewer "in." It can be said, then, that this movie acts with how it is; like grown-up kids at a bar with only four seats, as if to say, "You Can't Sit With Us."
Note: I found the movie's soundtrack to be quite enjoyable, and after the movie's climactic offering set to "It Soon Will Be Fire" by Richard Young, I felt compelled to find the music online. Follow the jump to hear all the songs (more than a few from Grammy Award winning artist Bon Iver's recording label 'Jagjaguwar') from one assembled Spotify playlist: http://playlists.net/drinking-buddies-soundtrack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsYBCof6NHU
Mumford & Sons (& Friends) & The Inevitable Unraveling Of Credibility In 'Hopeless Wanderer' (Analysis)
All dust-paved roads were leading to this.
How could they not? In an age whose generational youth can be broadly (or unfairly) understood by their misguided sense of identity through contradictions, by extension of the manipulative second life that digital communication allows, it should come as no surprise that the biggest band in 21st century American pop music is a folk quartet who play the banjo and still wear suspenders. And are from England.
The Times, They Are A-Changin'.
Grammy Award-winning music group Mumford & Sons, having released only two proper full-length albums to date, have already cornered the pop-folk market on the backs of such foot-stomping hits as 2010's "Little Lion Man," and 2012's "I Will Wait," whose rollicking hootenanny spirits have infected the airwaves as well as paved the way for more folk-type outfits' successes (warranted or not). But their latest move might have just undone the false facade that the Mumford gang had been so successfully operating under. Through the guise and get-up of old-timey ramblers, Mr. Mumford and his Sons might have just unintentionally ended the hoe-down.
"Hopeless Wanderer," a track from the band's 2013 Grammy-Award Winning Album of the Year Babel (not ironically defined as a confusion of sounds and voices), has just gotten its music video release, and the internet has (predictably) responded in unified approval. Conceived by Sam Jones, director of the thoughtful and stirring Wilco documentary I Am Trying To Break Your Heart, the initial concept was to feature well-known comedians acting as the band.
As the video begins with familiar golden hues of sun rays and close-ups of vintage threads and stand-up bass playing in a vast field, the audience finds comfort in knowing they're watching the right video. But a few pans and rack focuses later, we find that our folk heroes are not actually themselves; leading Hollywood comedians Jason Sudeikis, Ed Helms, Jason Bateman, and Will Forte instead are finally revealed as Marcus Mumford, Ben Lovett, Winston Marshall, and Ted Dwayne, walking down the dust-beaten road with a comedic amount of instruments strapped to themselves, while pushing an upright piano.
Yes, this is funny. The readably parodying shenanigans that ensue, set against the backdrop of such a forlorn and angst-ridden folk ballad, achieve that intended effect of being funny. We are allowed to laugh because now the joke is out there in plain, HD sight. Perhaps unconsciously, or even knowingly, fans of Mumford & Sons have all the while had to accept the slight ridiculousness in favoring a band whose image was so consciously contrived in modeling a time of antique fashion without the existence of Gangnam Style or Honey Boo Boo. To listen and sing along to one of their songs is to be transported back in time when times were simpler (at least what one may think that version of simpler is). American folk music, from its beginnings, was built on the foundation of Singers as Social-Activists, with a political consciousness where lyricism and songwriting were only as powerful because of the larger message that trumped their technical instrument-playing abilities and de-amplified acoustic instruments. The music acted as an extension of the mind, with such pioneers as Woody Guthrie, Bob Dylan, and Joan Baez bringing folk music to the forefront of pop culture, through social-activist grassroots movement. It was a music of the everyman, which validated its status as authentic and original, true and good. And perhaps the only move that can not be justified as authentic and original, is when A-list leading funnymen assume the characters of these folk-hero types. Forte (read: Dwayne) weeping singular tears, while Bateman (Marshall) wiping away and tasting them, Sudeikis' Mumford furiously making out with Forte, and the band's straw hat banjo breakdown, the joke is fully realized. And Mumford and Sons are now in on it too.
This is not all to lead me to drawing the conclusion that I find Mumford & Sons to be bad. Their music is infectious and plays to the widest common denominator, which spurs economic activity, which is (probably) a good thing. The commercial appeal of the band's music being at odds with the music's original roots devoid of capitalistic aspiration was until now, the irony that the band didn't need to openly address. While they toured internationally on private jets (I wonder if they still call them aeroplanes?), the elephant sat earnestly in the room, while all parties suspended their disbelief to let the music sing for itself.
Though now it seems obvious. While the fans have always had the ability to choose to accept the nature of the band on an as-needed basis, perhaps peppering in "The Cave" after Daft Punk's "Get Lucky" felt overplayed, the members themselves could never join in on the 21st century modernity of it all and assume a look that doesn't read "I Have To Walk To The Well To Get My Fresh Water." Although now it seems, they too, would like to take a break from "themselves," having let SNL and Arrested Development stars satirize their country-aesthetic cliches. Unfortunately, the move has poked a hole rather than poked fun.
The wagon wheel has spun full circle. And Mumford & Sons might have just accidentally, yet ironically, authentically, put the "Hopeless" and "Wanderer" into, well, "Hopeless Wanderer."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rId6PKlDXeU
Did Spike Jonze just cast ex- "Sofia Coppola" as love interest in newest film 'Her'?
If the above title sounds a bit too "National Enquirer"-y for you, I apologize. I am usually the first to acknowledge that there is rarely any time when gossip-style news should be discussed, let alone deemed "important," especially in relation to art, whose definitive artistic motivations shouldn't allow for any culturally-reflexive speculation to add further meaning to.
Spike Jonze, however, being the most self-reflexive (read: "meta") working director in American cinema today with such existential art-house hits as the Academy Award-nominated Being John Malkovich and the Charlie Kaufman-penned Adaptation, makes it impossible not to make culturally commentating mountains out of every mole-hill that arises in his work as a postmodern commentary on (his) life as art.
Which makes it impossible not to conclude that when he makes a film with the tagline "A Spike Jonze Love Story," he has indeed just cast his famous auteur-ex as the female love interest in his newest movie, titled simply, Her.
Now before I get too far along, I must acknowledge that the use of quotes around "Sofia Coppola" in the title is imperative to the theory at hand. As a quick debriefing, and as is my basic understanding of the situation, Spike and Sofia first met on a Sonic Youth music video set (of course), were soon married afterward, and four years later, divorced. And how else would any yearning artist document and internalize the experience? Enter: Sofia Coppola's Academy Award-winning Lost In Translation.
As can be substantiated by movie critics, perhaps probably by its cast, and (arguably) definitely by Sofia herself, the acclaimed indie was loosely based off of her frustrating marriage with (then) husband, Spike (or, Adam). The film told the story of a beautiful, yet neglected, girlfriend of a bumbling jet-setter photographer, whose shared trip to Tokyo resulted in him ditching her to photograph a beautifully dumb celebrity blonde, and leaving her to fall in love with Bill Murray. As rumor goes, this dumb blonde, "Kelly," played by Anna Farris, was supposedly based off of "Cameron" Diaz, who (allegedly) aroused a mutually-shared affinity for a married Spike on the set of his 1999 film, Being John Malkovich (While doing press for the film, Farris was suspiciously cryptic about who her character's inspiration was drawn from). The "Spike" in the Translation equation was played by Giovanni Ribisi, whose fidgety, nasally-sounding photographer character reads Spike to a comically obvious degree. And who did Sofia cast to play "herself," the quiet, introspective, lovelorn heroine?, but Scarlett Johansson.
And who did Spike Jonze cast as the leading lady of his newest love story, but Scarlett herself.
As the first trailer, released today, shows, Jonze's latest film (his first writer/director effort) tells the story of struggling, single, LA writer Theodore, played by Joaquin Phoenix. In hopes to better organize his schleppy life, and upon selecting the voice of a "woman," whose voice should pop up from the computer speakers than that of the faint, sexy, rasp of Ms. Johansson's, voice of the operating system, named "Samantha." Now, the film was shot with a different voice actress on set (Samantha Morton, whose name I'm sure is in no way linked to that of the OS's self-given name in the film), who acted offscreen to Joaquin, and whose voice was switched in post-production so that Johansson's dialogue was re-recorded to be the HAL-like voice in the movie. Was this intended all along? For any other director, whose work isn't as pointedly self-aware as Spike's, I'd say probably not. But in looking at a self-actualized species like Spike, all evidence should point to the obvious. And what is this obvious? That Spike would take the once "Sofia" character, and repurpose her as his own muse, trapping her in a lifeless, prison of a machine, developing an unrequited love for a sad-sack writer whose impossible love reads tragic, as the feelings and love shared by both lovers ultimately fail to bring the two together to live happily in reality.
As I (or anyone) have yet to see this movie, the above speculation should be taken as just that. Also, there is (supposedly) no bad blood between Sofia and Spike, and the rumor is that Spike himself was even on set for Translation, and fully aware of the deeper subtext of the film, and his role in it. But that's not to say that he doesn't still harbor any unresolved feelings about his failed marriage, as would any rational human being. And how else would any meta-working director deal with the emotions felt for the one that got away? Well, he'd probably make a movie.
A movie about Her.
Her arrives in theaters November 20th.
In the not so distant future, Theodore (Phoenix), a lonely writer purchases a newly developed operating system designed to meet the user’s every need. To Theodore’s surprise, a romantic relationship develops between him and his operating system. This unconventional love story blends science fiction and romance in a sweet tale that explores the nature of love and the ways that technology isolates and connects us all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne6p6MfLBxc