E-MAIL THE AUTHOR | ARCHIVES By Christopher Stipp

August 5, 2005

V FOR VENDETTA AND C FOR CHUBBY

The very first thing you notice about Natalie Portman, if you’re really paying attention, is her eyes.

Those soft, rounded globes pierce right through you and, I dare say, they were able to see my soul when I asked her a total of two questions during the press roundtable, which was more like one dude who felt compelled to ask every twit-laden question rocking around in his noggin and not letting anyone else ask anything, and when she looked back and answered my queries with a friendly countenance. Now, most fan boys seem the need to fawn over the notion that Natalie is the embodiment of all their geek wishes and dreams wrapped in this perfectly shaped feminine vessel. Well, she’s obviously more than that but I do admit that I felt a tinge of something very boyish as I managed to work in a question about THE PROFESSIONAL, a quintessential must-see for any person wishing to start on their education when it comes to Ms. Portman.

Even more than that, though, and I have to be honest, I think I was more in awe with the wattage that Joel Silver brought to the table more than anything else. I know the common “cool” thing to do is say his real name is Joel “Fucking” Silver, an moniker born out of homage to the man who made wearing black leather trench coats by every burn-out and overweight, goth wannabe disciple of Neo and Co. so badass, but please. How old is your average writer on most of the movie sites? Grow the hell up. That said, the guy commands a lot of fucking respect. When he talks, he does it so smoothly that you wouldn’t never guess that this man who is speaking no more than 3 feet away from me has been a part of a lot of big movies.

I do, though, have to give a sorry shout-out to the other two dudes there, the director and co-creator of V, who were all but ignored by the billowing amounts of backed-up sperm producers who almost saw their presence as an intrusion as they tried to get Natalie to speak even more.

It was a weird panel, one that would be repeated by the same kind of pole smoking at the Jack Black panel, which kind of freaked me out and I’ll discuss more of that later, but I liked the way things were going with the kinds of things people were asking about the nature of the movie. V FOR VENDETTA has a weird hybrid as the Wachowski brothers were tightly involved in the production, writing and day-to-day operations of the movie. That’s fine with me, though, as the brothers Wacho are a talented duo who needed to get the hell away from THE MATRIX for a while, yeah I liked Monica Bellucci in tight latex rubber but that only goes so far, and get back to making films.

Anyway, enjoy the panel transcription. At the conference was Natalie Portman, Joel Silver, director James McTeigue and producer by Grant Hill.

Natalie, I noticed in the clip that they played you had a British accent. Can you talk a little about that?

Natalie: I worked with a dialect coach, Barbara Berkery, for about a month and a half before we started shooting and she was with me the whole time and we would do exercises every morning before we started. So, I was pretty comfortable with it by the time we shot but it definitely is an extra thing to think about.

If you could, give us an idea of why you brought V FOR VENDETTA to the Comi-Con…

Joel: Well, V FOR VENDETTA comes from a graphic novel, comes from a comic book. So, it’s uniquely suited for this.

Yes, the kinds of things that are associated with this kind of genre, young male, young female, fan base seems to be drawn to Comi-Con. It seems uniquely suited because it is a comic book but it’s a great place to launch something because the viral Internet connection between the convention and the world is enormous. It’s an epidemic. And if something is really cool, and effective, and it works here, people seem to know about that pretty quickly. And I think it is run very well. This is a group that understands what we’ve done. It’s a pleasure to come here, bring everyone here and talk about the product.

The interaction here [at the Con]. You don’t get that at a lot of places. Talk about the kinds of fans you’ve met here…

Natalie: They just seem very passionate about this project, they really seem passionate about the comic book, the film coming out, and they seem united in their passion and I’ve seen it in other places.

Do you find any part of your life that you’re passionate about outside of your career?

Well, I definitely never attended a gathering like this. I mean I love music and I would travel far to see a band I liked if I had the time and cash to do it. Like, if I found myself in the position to do something like that, I would do that.

When you first got the script and you found out that your character is going to be shaved did you think if you would have to put on a skull cap? When did that conversation take place?

The first time I met Larry [Wachowski] and James James McTeigue. They asked me, “Would you shave your head?” And I was like, “Yeah!” Everyone else made such a bigger deal of it than I did.

It seemed the brothers [Wachowski] have done a little more on a movie that they weren’t the directors of. Can you explain the relationship between where the one relationship of producer ended and director began?

Joel: It’s the boys’ vision. No, it’s David Lloyd’s vision. And they [the director and producers of the film] took their vision and crafted a script, which they wrote even before we made THE MATRIX. The first draft they made of V was many many years ago and they came back to it after MATRIX REVOLUTIONS and they wanted to give James the chance to direct the picture. But, they were there. I mean, they were there everyday. They were on the set and they were very involved with the look and the feel of the movie. I mean the movie was directed by James, produced by myself and Grant…

Natalie: I also think that they are the second unit directors, they are also the producers and the writers which is more than most second unit directors so I think, just in that nature, they were a lot more involved than usual. In that respect they gave James the chance to create his own vision and do his own work. It was just they, you know, helped with ideas as writers and producers and second unit directors.

Joel: Grant, why don’t you comment on how they worked together?

Grant: Obviously, there’s a key family group which has developed through THE MATRIX films and into this. Larry and Andy developed a strong relationship with James as well as several other key people involved with the production. It’s very much a symbiotic thing. It’s very hard to sort out where the demarcation lines are, they are very much in it for James to make his movie. As Natalie has said they wrote it, they wrote the screenplay and they were very active in producing it and, fundamentally, want to make a good movie. And they wanted to give James the opportunity to do that.

Boo-yah, here’s question one of two that I was able to ask on my own. Not that anyone cares but I just thought to point that out for my own erudite and shameless reasons

Natalie, Luc Besson to George Lucas. Do you find that when you’re working with a European director versus an American director there are any fundamental differences that inform your performance or technique?

Natalie: I think it’s more an individual difference than a European/American difference. I mean, I worked with a few non-Americans. It’s hard to make generalizations but individual differences…all over the place. It’s very different of how people will direct you, like Luc Besson, like Larry Wachowski, like Anthony Minghella will shout things out to you in the middle of a scene, and there are other directors who will never say a thing. Woody Allen I don’t think ever said anything to me the entire time I worked with him.

(Laughs)

I don’t think he knows I worked with him. But, I think, it’s very individual difference but I think it has to do personality.

In the comic V is a terrorist but he’s also a good guy. How do you handle that in this movie?

James: You say he’s a good guy but he is a good guy, in the one sense, but he is a homicidal maniac. He’s not heroic in the sense that he only kills people that deserve to be killed. He has complete, absolute dedication to wreaking vengeance on people who maybe have changed their ways, who have reformed. He’s not really a good guy and I think that’s kept in the film. He’s very complicated, he’s a great character. I was quite disturbed when the idea of making a Hollywood movie about this guy because it would be so easy to make him a good guy. In fact, he’s not. He’s a very complicated character and he actually has a lot of the traits of the terrorists who wreaked havoc on London. It’s that complication, those nuances that are still in the screenplay and I think that’s very good.

Me again

Joel, you have a penchant for taking ideas and making them big. When I think of big picture, I think of you. When you got the comic book what did you see where you could say, “Oh, I could punch this up right here…”?

I acquired this thing many years ago in the late 80s when I acquired The Watchmen; I had them both and I was not able to hold onto Watchmen but I did hold onto this. I was intrigued by it. When I read it, it was black and white galleys. It hadn’t even come to America. It was just beginning to be seen by people.

I was just intrigued by this incredibly weird society and this story about this guy and this girl. And I thought, “I could make this movie.” And that’s how you do it. It’s almost 20 years later when we’re finally making it but it exited me and I thought we could find a way to make it great. And, when the boys wrote it and, again, it was before they made THE MATRIX, their script was effective but nowhere near as it was when they went back and did it again because it really came to life. It’s a remarkable film. It’s quite thrilling to watch it all come together.

Ditto, Holmes.

Is Watchmen out of your hands now?

It was one of the only DC comics left over at Warner Brothers. I was head of Fox at the time and I acquired it there. So, when I went back to Warners it was gone. And then it moved about town. But, I don’t know. There are now so many pieces of material that tread on Watchmen territory that I don’t know. When it came it out it was a blinding beacon that now it will just seem derivative because so many things have come since it that are based on ideas that are in that book.

Natalie, Now, what do you think of the message in the book?

Natalie: I don’t think necessarily there is a message. That’s part of what David is saying. It’s not a manipulative story that says “This person is the good guy, you should fall in love with him. This is the bad guy…” I mean, you definitely have one who you can probably identify with more but who’s heavily flawed and you can also criticize him more. I think it’s more of a provocative piece than a “This is what is what you should think” piece and trying to make you think, make you criticize, make you object, find faults in someone’s ideology or agree with parts. It’s not black and white and that’s why I liked it. It made me have questions I couldn’t answer or I had different answers to every five minutes and it has continued to be that way for me.

Did you see the script first or did you read the comic book, then the script?

Natalie: I saw the script first. The script had to condense a lot of the sub-plots to make it a film but it is very faithful to the graphic noel. I think that story…things that explore how we define violence is very interesting because we have many categories to how we define violence. Was it intended? Was it state sanctioned or is it individually sanctioned? All these things, we make sort of moral judgments and categorizations. That’s why some of these categorizations are in the eye of the beholder and that’s why some people who watch this will identify with the government and that’s why some people will identify with the revolutionaries. And that sort of openness, that sort of ambiguity, is interesting.

Last one, I swear

Women and the parts for them. It’s fairly common to see women in movies in the subversive roles and this part really has you in the dominant position. Do you find a good mix of interesting roles coming to you?

Natalie: Well, I see a lot of movies that aren’t very interesting for women or for men. And, in terms of things that I do, I have been able to find things that I am interested in and, when I don’t, I like not working.

(Laughs)

But I wouldn’t, like, cry over it if I couldn’t find something interesting. And, if you can’t find something interesting, make something interesting that isn’t movies. There is plenty out there that is interesting that doesn’t involve movies.

---

THE ARISTOCRATS (2005) Director: Paul Provenza Cast: Jason Alexander, Hank Azaria, Steven Banks, Shelley Berman, Lewis Black, David Brenner and a veritable ton of others… Release: August 12, 2005 (Limited) Synopsis: One hundred superstar comedians tell the same very, VERY dirty, filthy joke–one shared privately by comics since Vaudeville. View Trailer: * Small (QuickTime) Prognosis: Positive. Note to self: Sarah Silverman is in this trailer and I imagine I could watch an entire movie of her lounging around, like she’s doing here, on her couch in a snug fitting tank top. However, this is an awkward trailer but it still works. In David Mamet’s wicked awesome movie, THE SPANISH PRISONER, Scott Campbell creates something that’s worth a lot of money. The thing is, you’re never really told what it is or how much it’s worth even though he writes the figure down. See, the amount is shown to everyone else in the movie except the viewer. That’s brilliant. That’s good filmmaking. Essentially, that’s the same thing going on here and so it’ll either be frustrating to some people or lure some people into what the hell everyone’s talking around, but never stating. I could do a Google search and yield something but I don’t want to because the idea of deliberately not being told something is playful. I like that. Drew Carey leads off what must be an in-joke with every comedian known to man. He starts off with the premise. “A guy goes into a talent agent’s office and says, ‘I’ve got the greatest act in the world…” Bill Mahr continues: “’It’s a family act…’” Bob “Blue” Saget follows: “And the agent goes, ‘Well, what do you people do?’” The whole time this joke is being set up, countless names of performers in this movie flash and dissolves by on the screen. Whoopi Goldberg chimes in with aside about how it’s tough to shock people nowadays. Quotes from established press are pimped out to show how darn hilarious this movie is. George Carlin states his modus operandi for comedy. What seems to be materializing, though, with everyone who is appearing on the screen is how comedy seems to function from those who have been doing it for so long. Andy Dick’s comments not withstanding, it’s good stuff; seriously, Dick was great when he was part of Newsradio’s ensemble but, on his own, he seems like a man desperate to hold onto just the premise of his own funniness. Jake Johansson, another great comedian, comes back into the original topic of discussion and states that people could be put to death for some of the variations of this hardly told joke. I admit, I want to know what in G-d’s name they’re all talking about but it’s working me into a crescendo. “I actually was an aristocrat.” Sarah Silverman comes to tell us how she embodied the aristocrat persona but what is it? I don’t know what’s so funny about this joke but to see that Rolling Stone say that I’ll laugh till it hurts is quite the kind of hyperbole that’s usually reserved for Stephen Segal movies. The classical music delicately playing in the background as Jon Stewart, Billy Connolly, Eric Idle, Paul Riser and Gilbert Gottfried all continue the joke’s narrative is just aggravating because I’m simply tempted to go to Google to find out what could be so uproarious. I haven’t read what it could be but in the time that I’ve written this critique and have endured the onslaught of publicity this film has received I am already knowledgeable about the whole thing but I can’t figure out, for the life of me, what could be so damn funny about one joke.

---

THE GREAT RAID (2005) Director: John Dahl
Cast: Benjamin Bratt, James Franco, Robert Mammone, Max Martini, James Carpinello, Mark Consuelos
Release: August 12, 2005
Synopsis: Set in the Philippines in 1945, THE GREAT RAID tells the true story of the 6th Ranger Battalion, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Henry Mucci (Benjamin Bratt) who undertake a daring rescue mission against all odds. Traveling thirty miles behind enemy lines, the 6th Ranger Battalion aims to liberate over 500 American prisoners-of-war from the notorious Cabanatuan Japanese POW camp in the most audacious rescue ever. View Trailer:
* Medium (AOL Player)

Prognosis: Negative. First rule of speaking like Patton in any movie: You…must…project…your…voice…and…pause…between…every…sentence.

I’ll be honest, and I know hardly any of you will be appreciative of this statement, but the last really great movies that I saw that had Benjamin Bratt in it were CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER and TRAFFIC. I really dug his style. MISS CONGENIALITY was a disgrace for any male who came into its tractor beam and I can’t write-off its sequel for any medical or mental condition.

That’s why I am hoping this isn’t going to be a cookie cutter Army kind of film but it looks like it’s headed that way with the kind of manipulation going on from the get-go.

“Based on a true story”

We first start off with slow, patriotic music. There’s a war going on and Benjamin is addressing his troops. Now, it’s at this point where I guess the filmmakers just say “Screw subtlety” and just have Benjamin give his tough as nails speech. This includes telling them that they’re the last hope anyone has, they’re going to save 500 P.O.W.s, that they’re all the best trained people “evar” in the whole world, that this is their only chance and, just in case you missed that, this is their only chance.

“They were husbands…sons…fathers…”

Geez. Voiceover Guy just lays into this one with all he’s got and it comes through awfully loud and clear. It’s really skirting the line of melodrama but it’s a war movie I guess, so it’s appropriate to try and weasel a tear or two even before the action begins.

We cut, sharply, to Ralph Finnes, who starts a voiceover of his own as he talks about the delicate little Aryan, and I am talking suicide blonde with blue eyes and deep red lips, almost like a human Barbie doll, flower he hopes to get some off of when he’s freed from his prison camp. What I don’t understand, though, is that the woman, besides being awfully good-looking, has a Kathleen Turner voice palate and gets busted for smuggling helpful medications into the prison camp for the guys who are going to be rescued during “the great raid.” What’s frustrating is that we don’t have any context for this woman but we spend more time than necessary trying to show how she, too, becomes a prisoner.

It’s just all down maudlin hill after this.

You get Voiceover Guy telling us that they’re were going to, “Try the impossible.” You have the actors on the screen saying there’s no way they’re going to get through this. You have P.O.Ws getting executed in front of the other prisoners; this, by the way, is to get more of a buy-in from you, the viewer. And you even get Mark Consuelos looking really too dashing, his George Michael “Faith” stubble projecting outward for the benefit of all the ladies in the house, for being a soldier of his caliber.

You even get, at the end, the whole thing about doing things based on faith and believing in yourself and that, yes, you will be the quarterback at the end of the game who throws the big pass that will win the whole game.

I am not a fan of the jingoistic patriotism that tries to get me to want to see this film. It’s a lazy way to inspire me to part with my money.

Comments: None

Leave a Reply Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website Δ