FRED Entertainment

Category: Trailer Park

  • Trailer Park: WALL-E Giveaway

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    WALL-E was one of the best films to come out of 2008.

    Disregarding the moniker of “animated film” the movie was simply head and shoulders some of the best moviemaking to come to the masses. To boot, the film played well to kids as well. I take back a lot of what I initially thought about this film, namely that it cribbed from SHORT CIRCUIT (although, come on, the similarities are alarming) as the quality of the movie was superb.

    Now, I am in the position to give away 5 (five) triple disc sets for this film during this holiday season. Now, if you want one drop me a line at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com. To make this fair, if you’ve already won something from me in the past 30 days, sit on your hands and let the other kids have a chance…

    About the film…

    What if mankind had to leave Earth and somebody forgot to turn off the last robot? Academy Award®-winning writer-director Andrew Stanton (“Finding Nemo”) and the inventive storytellers and technical geniuses at Pixar Animation Studios transport moviegoers to a galaxy not so very far away for a new computer-animated cosmic comedy about a determined robot named WALL”¢E. After hundreds of lonely years doing what he was built for, WALL”¢E (short for Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class) discovers a new purpose in life (besides collecting knick-knacks) when he meets a sleek search robot named EVE. EVE comes to realize that WALL”¢E has inadvertently stumbled upon the key to the planet’s future, and races back to space to report her findings to the humans (who have been eagerly awaiting word that it is safe to return home). Meanwhile, WALL”¢E chases EVE across the galaxy and sets into motion one of the most incredible comedy adventures ever brought to the big screen. Joining WALL”¢E on his fantastic journey across a universe of never-before-imagined visions of the future is a hilarious cast of characters including a pet cockroach, and a heroic team of malfunctioning misfit robots.

  • Trailer Park: BURN AFTER READING and THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    Who couldn’t love the moment when Brad Pitt pointed out to John Malkovich that his bike was not, indeed, a Schwinn?

    The things that I liked about BURN AFTER READING weren’t so much in the huge plot points, of which there were many, but in the nuance of the performances from the likes of J.K. Simmons and even David Rasche. True, the film is no FARGO, MILLER’S CROSSING, yadda yadda yadda. However, when you’re as talented as these boys are the Cohens are allowed a film or two that are simply pleasurable to watch and this definitely was.

    When it comes to THE MUMMY, there is a reason why some call films critic-proof. If you were to tell Brendan Fraser that this seems like an obvious cash-in I am sure he would tell you blankly, “Sure was.” And he’s right in doing so. This film knows what it is, doesn’t aspire to anything more and is a nice way to cleanse the palette from all the frou-frou Oscar quality films you’ve been cramming in as of late. This movie delivers on what it promised, even though the absence of Rachel Weisz is deeply felt, and is just a fun romp. Those looking for more need not even take a look.

    E-mail me at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com if you want a crack at this. And, as always, if you’ve already won a contest by all means would you kindly let someone who isn’t trolling sites looking for free stuff have a chance?

    About THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR…

    The blockbuster global Mummy franchise takes a spellbinding turn as the action shifts to Asia for the next chapter in the adventure series, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. Brendan Fraser returns as explorer Rick O’Connell to combat the resurrected Han Emperor (Jet Li) in an epic that races from the catacombs of ancient China high into the frigid Himalayas. Rick is joined in this all-new adventure by son Alex (newcomer Luke Ford), wife Evelyn (Maria Bello) and her brother, Jonathan (John Hannah). And this time, the O’Connells must stop a mummy awoken from a 2,000-year-old curse who threatens to plunge the world into his merciless, unending service.

    Doomed by a double-crossing sorceress (Michelle Yeoh) to spend eternity in suspended animation, China’s ruthless Dragon Emperor and his 10,000 warriors have laid forgotten for eons, entombed in clay as a vast, silent terra cotta army. But when dashing adventurer Alex O’Connell is tricked into awakening the ruler from eternal slumber, the reckless young archaeologist must seek the help of the only people who know more than he does about taking down the undead: his parents.

    As the monarch roars back to life, our heroes find his quest for world domination has only intensified over the millennia. Striding the Far East with unimaginable supernatural powers, the Emperor Mummy will rouse his legion as an unstoppable, otherworldly force…unless the O’Connells can stop him first. Now, in The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, the trademark thrills and visually spectacular action of the Mummy series will be redefined for a new generation.

    About BURN AFTER READING…

    At the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency in Arlington, Va., analyst Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) arrives for a top-secret meeting. Unfortunately for Cox, the secret is soon out: he is being ousted. Cox does not take the news particularly well and returns to his Georgetown home to work on his memoirs and his drinking, not necessarily in that order. His wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) is dismayed, though not particularly surprised; she is already well into an illicit affair with Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney), a married federal marshal, and sets about making plans to leave Cox for Harry.

    Elsewhere in the Washington, D.C. suburbs, and seemingly worlds apart, Hardbodies Fitness Centers employee Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) can barely concentrate on her work. She is consumed with her life plan for extensive cosmetic surgery, and confides her mission to can-do colleague Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt). Linda is all but oblivious to the fact that the gym’s manager Ted Treffon (Richard Jenkins) pines for her even as she arranges dates via the Internet with other men. When a computer disc containing material for the CIA analyst’s memoirs accidentally falls into the hands of Linda and Chad, the duo are intent on exploiting their find. As Ted frets, “No good can come of this,” events spiral out of everyone’s and anyone’s control, in a cascading series of darkly hilarious encounters.

  • Trailer Park: THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN and WANTED Giveaway

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    The two biggest surprises this year had to be WANTED and THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN.

    One I wasn’t expecting much out of and the other I was just hoping would be interesting. Call me nutty but after being amazed by the fun ride WANTED was and the better execution of THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN versus its initial shot across the filmic bow I had to jump at the chance to let the world in on some solid storytelling.

    I have copies of WANTED and I have copies of NARNIA. E-mail me at Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com and let me know which one you want and, if you’ve already won something in the last 30 days, let the little boy in the back who didn’t push to the front of the line have a crack at this.

    About WANTED…

    Based upon Mark Millar’s explosive graphic novel series and helmed by stunning visualist director Timur Bekmambetov – creator of the most successful Russian film franchise in history, the Night Watch series – Wanted tells the tale of one apathetic nobody’s transformation into an unparalleled enforcer of justice. In 2008, the world will be introduced to a hero for a new generation: Wesley Gibson.

    25-year-old Wes (James McAvoy) was the most disaffected, cube-dwelling drone the planet had ever known. His boss chewed him out hourly, his girlfriend ignored him routinely and his life plodded on interminably. Everyone was certain this disengaged slacker would amount to nothing. There was little else for Wes to do but wile away the days and die in his slow, clock-punching rut.

    Until he met a woman named Fox (Angelina Jolie).

    After his estranged father is murdered, the deadly sexy Fox recruits Wes into the Fraternity, a secret society that trains Wes to avenge his dad’s death by unlocking his dormant powers. As she teaches him how to develop lightning-quick reflexes and phenomenal agility, Wes discovers this team lives by an ancient, unbreakable code: carry out the death orders given by fate itself.

    With wickedly brilliant tutors – including the Fraternity’s enigmatic leader, Sloan (Morgan Freeman) – Wes grows to enjoy all the strength he ever wanted. But, slowly, he begins to realize there is more to his dangerous associates than meets the eye. And as he wavers between newfound heroism and vengeance, Wes will come to learn what no one could ever teach him: he alone controls his destiny.

    About THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: PRINCE CASPIAN…

    The characters of C.S. Lewis’s timeless fantasy come to life once again in this newest installment of the “Chronicles of Narnia” series, in which the Pevensie siblings are magically transported back from England to the world of Narnia, where a thrilling, perilous new adventure and an even greater test of their faith and courage awaits them.

    One year after the incredible events of “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” the Kings and Queens of Narnia find themselves back in that faraway wondrous realm, only to discover that more than 1300 years have passed in Narnian time. During their absence, the Golden Age of Narnia has become extinct, Narnia has been conquered by the Telmarines and is now under the control of the evil King Miraz, who rules the land without mercy.

    The four children will soon meet an intriguing new character: Narnia’s rightful heir to the throne, the young Prince Caspian, who has been forced into hiding as his uncle Miraz plots to kill him in order to place his own newborn son on the throne. With the help of the kindly dwarf, a courageous talking mouse named Reepicheep, a badger named Trufflehunter and a Black Dwarf, Nikabrik, the Narnians, led by the mighty knights Peter and Caspian, embark on a remarkable journey to find Aslan, rescue Narnia from Miraz’s tyrannical hold, and restore magic and glory to the land.

  • Trailer Park: Scoot McNairy


    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    This film is something you need to see before the year is out.

    IN SEARCH OF A MIDNIGHT KISS is everything you wish you could have in a date movie but without all the annoying treacle that usually accompanies films of this variety. The picture has a warm gooey heart that sucks you in right away with its premise that a man who wants nothing more than to be alone on New Year’s Eve has a good buddy of a roommate who convinces him to post a personal ad on Craig’s List and has it answered by a woman who will provide the spark he needs to get out of his funk. The journey is sweet, funny and is simply one of the best films of this variety that I was able to see all year. When I had the chance to chat with the film’s star, Scoot McNairy, I absolutely jumped at the opportunity as this was a film that rekindled that sense that you can make a movie about two people coming together without it being overly contrived or false.

    You can catch the movie on DVD December 23rd and could not be coming out at a better time.

    SCOOT MCNAIRY: Hi Christopher. Where are you?

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: I’m in Scottsdale, Arizona.

    MCNAIRY: Oh nice.

    STIPP: The dust bowl of the West.

    MCNAIRY: I’ve been to Phoenix and Tucson but never been to Scottsdale. Isn’t Scottsdale the prettiest of the three?

    CS: Yeah, it’s got the most, I think “life” would be the word for it.

    MCNAIRY: OK. Like most golf courses and what have you.

    CS: Right…Now, I have to say that I loved the film. Roger Ebert made some hints, not even so much of a hit but flat out says, that it feels like a Linklater homage in a way ““ instead of Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke, we have you two.

    MCNAIRY: I heard he wrote a great review. I haven’t read it yet but someone read it about a week ago and was like, two thumbs up from Ebert. And I was like, “No way.” I think you are the first person to tell me that so I need to go online and look at that.

    CS: It’s very nice and I couldn’t agree more with everything he said about the film.

    MCNAIRY: Thank you so much.

    CS: Explain to me ““ this film has been playing in the UK before it ever came here. How did that work?

    MCNAIRY: Yeah. We got it over here in February and they decided to push it and when they did as the UK as well, we were going to go ahead and go with it and they cleared it with America and they really got behind it and put a whole bunch of money into marketing and advertising. We were nervous about it but it went over to the UK and was just floored at the response. So we were really excited so coming back to America, the US, we were excited about the success it had in the UK and thought, “Well the Europeans liked it so”¦hope the Americans do to.”

    CS: I think they see what I see which is a well made romantic sort of comedy, not so much comedy in the wackiness but it’s got heart behind it.

    MCNAIRY: Yeah, my hat goes off to Alex Holdridge. I just cannot give him enough kudos. The guy is the director of the film and he’s so smart. The film was thought out for two years before a word was written. We’ve know each other for ten years and I don’t have that kind of trust with any other director. I know this guy so well and think that everyone else involved in the film was so close which gave a really rare organic chemistry to the whole film. Also we let Alex do whatever he wanted with us.

    CS: And you were obviously helped…I read a little bit about Alex that he kind of got scooped in a way by SUPERBAD when it came out based on the content of this film.

    MCNAIRY: Yeah. My first movie made, called Wrong Number, ten years ago, was made when I was 19. I don’t speak too freely about it but the similarities from the two films are ironically very similar. So he came out four years after that to make that movie. I’ve been working with him for so long rewriting the script and he said, “Hey guys, there’s another movie out there like this.” He was so frustrated and I watched him go though it and decided to make another movie and this is the movie he’s been talking about for 2 years. Really, I just called up a friend, Robert Murphy, we used to hang out 10 years ago, he was a DP and just got a new camera and knew Alex was really upset. So Alex said, “Do you want to shoot something?” So Alex wrote the script in two weeks and Robert got on a plane, flew out here, and we thought we were shooting a short film. At one point Robert looked over and said, “What’s that?” He said, “That’s the script.” To which he said, “Oh, I thought we were shooting a short.” Alex said, “No, Robert, we’re shooting a feature.”

    (Laughs)

    So it was just a whole bunch of guys getting together who used to make films together on the streets of Boston for no money and we all got back together to make another film in our life and we had no idea it was going to get the legs that it got. Everyday has been a surprise for us the last two years.

    CS: Now, obviously, based on the UK reaction it has some legs. When you go into a project, what do you hope comes out at the other end ? You obviously hope and you wish that it’s huge, but going into it are you realizing the odds going in?

    MCNAIRY: Yes Obviously, you hope for the best with every script that you read. But not every script that you read turns out to be what you thought it was going to be and some of the ones you think aren’t going to be so great turn out to be great. Alex’s last two films got critics awards and gone to festivals and stuff so it was kinda like when he said he was making another movie, everyone just dropped what they were doing and hopped on-board this film.
    That and making movies is just so much fun.
    There’s just a freedom you don’t really get with other projects because the time constraints. We just sit around and work things out. It’s not like we gotta move, we gotta make our days, but we’re like, “If we don’t make our day, we’ll just come back here tomorrow.” So there’s so much freedom and everyone is so relaxed and there is no pressure to get this done because I’m wasting everyone’s time and what have you. Everyone is just there to sit down and hash it out and make it the best they can. So I think when Alex said he wanted to make this film, everyone said let’s do it. We know it’s going to turn out amazing with Alex. He will spend so much time with it and he does ““ he nurses it and nurses it in the editing room. Like I said, my hat is totally off for the quality and the intelligence of the project.

    CS: Regarding the physicality of making it, I was reading that you would have to reshoot many times because you were on such a low budget, and you were filming out in the open in the city, people would be coming into the scene, you were bumping people, you didn’t even have a Steadicam”¦

    MCNAIRY: Yes! That was the strangest part about it. It’s weird for any negative critic that said anything about it I want to turn to him and say, “Dude, we made a movie for $12,000. Lay off. Do you know how hard that is?” We were not perfect but it was such a huge feat. We had nothing so the fact that it got distribution ““ people were trying to size it up against Batman. Golly. Easy.

    CS: That’s an excellent question about what you learned about the filmmaking process. You are credited as a producer on this film. Going into it and when you have the finished product did you eyes open to this whole new world of distributorship?

    MCNAIRY: ABSOLUTELY. I learned so much. I produced other things like some trailers to music videos and some shorts but nothing that ever had to deal with the business aspect of it. This was a huge learning curve for me and through the entire journey anything that happened, like, “Let’s go to Tribeca…should we get a publicist?” I was like I want to get a publicist, I know we don’t have the money for it, let’s just find it and we’ll put the money up for it because at the end of it I want to know that this film failed, if it does fail, I want to know that we did everything right and the film failed because it wasn’t good.
    So going down the road I made a whole bunch of mistakes and put money in some places that I shouldn’t have and it was a huge learning curve but at the same time it was a learning curve that was only $12,000 vs. a learning curve on a film that was half a million to a million. So I’m really glad I learned all this stuff on this particular project but it was hard. Distribution stuff ““ a lot of letdown stuff ““ that was really hard to go through but after talking to a lot of people they said your film got distributed, it got a theatrical release, you should be very excited about that because a lot of films right now aren’t even getting that. So, the other things I wished I would have changed on this last one was more advertising and more marketing because we did a lot of it, grassroots, ourselves but I felt like we should have put in another $35,000 for commercial spots, newspaper ads, but other than that it was fun. When you aren’t expecting anything any good news you get turns out to be great but sometimes there were letdowns but people say that’s normal in distribution but for me I worked so closely on this film for two years. I spent my entire life and all my money and all my time on this film.

    CS: One of those things about the film, you just mentioned, black and white, any decision about why black and white vs. color?

    MCNAIRY: It was supposed to be in black and white because it was a film that was a throwback to old actors and old movies. The reason we shot down in the old theatre district was it was a kickback to the Vaggo era and how LA was booming in the 20’s and 30’s and how it’s been completely abandoned and has this modern feel to it ““ we’re texting and IMing and internet dating but we never mention the year the film was made so we wanted to give it this beautiful old feel and old vibe of the film that is timeless. We never mention the date of the film. So you would know this movie had to happen between 1995 and 2010. It wasn’t New Year’s Eve, 2007. So the black and white just painted it so you get the feel of it’s romantic, you are feeling the buildings around you but hearing the characters talk and the connection to each other let down their walls and in color, it kind of takes away from some of those distractions.

    CS: It does. It’s more intimate in a way because it doesn’t allow you to focus on anything else.

    MCNAIRY: When we did some of the screenings it was so odd. Only 50% of the audience were like “Why black and white?” And then the other half didn’t even realize it was in black and white until after it was over. They just weren’t even paying attention to that. So we really fought for it. We shot it in color but when we watched the dailies, no one every saw one frame of footage in color. We always just turned the color and the tint off so we could see what it was going to look like.

    CS: The film itself, is like you mentioned, the era’s in which you filmed, it’s kind of like a love letter to Los Angeles and for all its negativity that people throw upon it, was it hard? I know Alex was from Austin. Is there something really romantic about Los Angeles in general?

    MCNAIRY: It’s a love/hate relationship, I think that really comes from Alex. He never wanted to move to Los Angeles. When he finally did, most of the script is sort of autobiographical to his life. He really did roll his car on the way out here and so much stuff that happened in the film, happened to him. But it was love letter. He did have a negative attitude towards Los Angeles and over the two years that he was living here, all these negative things happening, he was able to find all these beautiful things about it. The movie was going to be called, “If LA Fell Into the Ocean, I Wouldn’t Care”.

    (Laughs)

    But I think it changed based on his views from being out here and it turned into, and I don’t know that he even realized, it turned into a love letter to Los Angeles. There is hope in this town and people are so cruel out here but that’s OK because there is hope out here and things aren’t that bad. You just have to adjust your thoughts. Look for the best and try to find good people you can actually connect with.

    CS: And you certainly do with Sara Simmonds. I know you two knew each other before filming. Obviously, that must have helped with the filming ““ making this a believable love story.

    MCNAIRY: Absolutely, everybody, actually, had worked together. The DP, the director, Me, Sara, Brian. Me and Brian are really close friends and that really did help. Sara, when I hadn’t even seen her or hung out with her in at least a year, when she came to work, I went and picked her up at her house that day she had just come in from Texas and then all these people thought we were really good together but it was just two friends not seeing each other for a long time and connecting again, on set, and talking together on set “Hey, what are you up to, how’s your boyfriend?”, “Oh, I broke up with him”, “What, no way.” While were shooting we’re catching up with each other. So I think you get to see the two of them get to know each other but also what’s going on behind the camera we are actually re-acquainting ourselves. It came off very, very organic and the chemistry was great.

    CS: It did. It recalibrated my own expectations for what a film like this should be. It seems that this film, and why the movie is getting wonderful reviews, is that this film feels more genuine than anything Matthew McConaughey or any of his ilk put out.

    MCNAIRY: Well, it’s definitely a more real take on it. I think everyone that was involved in the project has all gone through that. We all moved out to Los Angeles. My first year, I was the first one of the group to move here, that first year you have no friends, know nobody, I hung out with this homeless guy at the gas station just to get out of my apartment and we just didn’t know anybody. I always told people, if you are going to move to Los Angeles, your first year is hell. If you can just get past your first year, your second year is alright, the third year you are really starting to enjoy the city. So I think everyone had that common ground of what it’s like to be in LA the first year and I think cautiously we all wanted to tell that story. Some people asked me, “So, you moved out to LA, how is it? Yada yada yada.” And you don’t want to tell them it’s horrible as hell.

    (Laughs)

    You want to be like, “Oh, it’s great. It’s really amazing. You guys should move out here. Really, please, move out here.” So I think that’s where that came from. Everyone really, really identified with that idea.

    CS: I’ve also read that instead of finding your own work, you have become a producer so you can actually produce and work for your own. How did that evolve? I looked at your resume and you’ve done these things over numerous years, where did you come to the point where you said, “You know what, I have to make my own magic if I want this to happen?”

    MCNAIRY: I’ve always been like that since I was a kid. I remember asking people, “Hey will you do this…or…help me build this fort?” I just learned at a very young age if you want something done, do it yourself. And I’ve been like that since I was a little kid and I think it came down to after four or five years went by out here it kind of hit me why did I change from doing it myself when I moved here? Let me go back to the way I was. I had a landscaping business when I was a kid. I’ll just do it myself. So I guess this is the product of that and since then my manager and my old agent we all decided to start a production company and make movies. So my manger shut down his office and my agent left his agencies and rented offices and started this company with a group of friends and just started plowing through movies. Making two more next year.

    CS: I saw that. You are obviously keeping really busy.

    MCNAIRY: Yes, busy producing and acting. Now that KISSING has opened up some new doors and”¦

    CS: Speaking of which, you said the critical reception has been phenomenal and this is everyone dream to make a movie and have it as well received as this, have you noticed a flood of new material coming your way?

    MCNAIRY: Yeah, but people who have projects that I’ve known for a while are just now thinking of me for their projects vs. thinking of me as an actor. It was before the movie was released but DVD’s were floating all around this town and so I get random calls. One day, Josh Radnor from How I Met Your Mother called me on my cell phone and said “Hey, I just want you to know I was just at a screen of MIDNIGHT KISS and you are amazing, I think it’s great, I just wrote a film and I’m interested in you to play the part” and I get another call from some other person at some other production company saying, “Hey, just saw the film, it’s hilarious, we love you, would you take a look at this project?” So, if anything, I gained a little bit of respect. Not really respect but some hats off from the peers out here in the town that weren’t’ thinking of me for projects that are now thinking of me. I’m on people’s radar I would say. But at the same time, I still go back to the way I was before Midnight Kiss.’ I’m still going to be making movies and not think about that kind of stuff.’ Keep doing my own thing and doing it myself.

    CS: If I could I just want to ask you one more question.’ I read about your project that you are thinking about, how serious you are I’m not sure, but I think it was rather interesting, that you want to do a movie about the apocalypse?

    MCNAIRY: Yes! Roland Emmerich ““ I just found out two nights ago he’s making a movie called 2012 and I was like “Oh, it’s not Revelations” but it’s pretty much like I think the film I want to make and he’s making it for $200 million which is around the budget that I would want to do too.’ We’ll see when the thing comes out. Maybe it’s the same. Maybe it’s different. I really want to focus on the second coming of Christ and what happens ““ planes crashing, two people that didn’t get taken in the resurrection and are here on this earth, what happens afterwards. We’ll see. I want to make a movie that begins with the new world after that happens.

  • Trailer Park: David Furnish Interview

    By Christopher Stipp
    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    It’s just got to be tough when your husband is Elton John.

    His closet has just GOT to be bigger than yours, he’s just GOT to have an ego much larger than yours and he just HAS to be impossible to deal with. When David Furnish turned the camera on his then partner, Elton, for the documentary TANTRUMS AND TIARAS you just had to think that all this would be captured much to the chagrin on Elton when he saw the mirror looking back on him. The funny thing is, though, there is all of that but Elton seemed much more sanguine about the process which chronicled a piece of his life that debuted to the world almost a decade and a half.

    The movie, which starts out with a genuine tantrum about the process of getting Elton to make a music video (he hates them) and follows his opinions on flower arrangements (he doesn’t much care for them either) transforms into a love letter from one human being to another. Furnish is even-handed in his depiction of Elton as a tireless marketer of himself and his music but also as a man who is partially trapped by the small things in his past that has made him who he is. The film is slightly shocking when you see how much actual clothing he travels with while on holiday, how much space he needs to house his CD collection but we get an intimate look, and by intimate I mean an honest and truthful dissertation on how Elton sees himself, on the spectacle that is Elton John.

    The movie was recently released on DVD and is available everywhere. While, like I mentioned, the film is nearly a decade and a half old the small steps that Elton was then taking to make himself a better individual is heartwarming when you see how fast he could have been lost to the booze and drug fueled lifestyle he was on so many years ago.

    Want an indication of how much has changed? Long before it became fashionable to wear your red AIDS pins Elton founded the Elton John AIDS Foundation which, up until that point, had raised a few million dollars. To date, the work Elton has put into it has raised over $150 million to the cause of obliterating the disease. David Furnish had a few moments to spend with me a few weeks ago and we chatted about life now after the documentary.

    CS: David, nice to talk with you.

    FURNISH: And to talk to you as well.

    CS: I have seen the film.I’ve never seen the film until this weekend.

    FURNISH: Oh really?

    CS: And I didn’t know about it when it came out 13 years ago and found it a fascinating portrait of Elton and from the title I think I was expecting more tantrums than I got.I think it was a rather well rounded documentary and the only thing that was rattling around in my head the whole time is how do you look at it now, 13 years removed from it?

    FURNISH: It had a much more significant effect on our life and our relationship I think that either of us appreciated at the time.I look at it today and we’ve been together 15 years now and when I made the documentary it was very early on into our relationship and I was almost ““ kind of want to call it video therapy ““ I was using the camera ““ I was very much an outsider in Elton’s world and the world of celebrity and music touring and the lifestyle that goes with it and used the camera almost as a weapon in a way and gave me the chance to interrogate and really get to the bottom of things that seemed odd to me and the way Elton looked at his life.

    I’ll give you an example.I found it frustrating that we go away on a holiday and my idea of going away on a holiday in the south of France would be going for a ride in a boat, going to visit places, lying in the sun kind of stuff and Elton at that stage would tend to spend most of his time in his hotel suite not going anywhere and there’s that funny scene on the terrace where I sort of interrogate him and ask him would you do this, would you do that, and he says, no, no, no.He was different then.I was different then.I think the documentary helped us, to answer your question correctly, to see a lot of ourselves and each other from a relationship standpoint, but when I look at 13 years later I don’t think I could make a film like that about someone like Elton again because I think I’m too accustomed to that world now.I don’t think I’d bring that same level of objectivity that I brought 13 years ago.Does that make sense?

    CS: Yes it does.That was one of the more amusing parts, apart from his take on flower arrangements,

    FURNISH: (Laughs)

    CS: I thought it very curious that he wouldn’t like to sit out by the pool or go out on a walk with you or wouldn’t want to do any of those things on holiday.Where does that come from?

    FURNISH: It really comes from him being a prisoner of his celebrity more than anything else.It’s a dynamic that still exists in our relationship.There are all sorts of things we do do and we get better at.You find those places you can go and places he can slip in really easily and places like the south of France and having security with you is a must and holidays are a time of rest, relaxation, and recharging and we do lots and lots of different things we didn’t do back then but now I understand that world better and understand the vulnerabilities in public situations from time to time and how to manage it and we do manage it and I take a much more active role in all that sort of planning now.We do lots of stuff and it’s great.

    CS: I know there was some to do a few years ago about his spending ““ his excess spending and again it was that south of France moment when we saw the amount of wardrobe he brings with him. Has that curtailed at all in the wake of recent years?

    FURNISH: It all depends.We need to define excess spending.A lot of that stuff came out of a trial where people were trying to paint Elton as being a financially irresponsible person.Elton is not a financially irresponsible person at all.Actually when the figures came out and they said you spent a whole lot of money in a short period of time, what Elton did was spend it on property and on collecting art work. All art work which creates a beautiful environment in your home which inspires him and myself artistically and also pieces of art that have hugely increased in value and actually proved to be an investment, so in the end he’s actually quite prudent with his money.I wouldn’t call it irresponsible or excessive.At the end of the day he earns what he earns and works very, very hard for what he does and gives more back to charity.

    The Sunday Times publishes their annual rich list and Elton is always the top ten most charitable people in Britain.He gives the highest percentage of his net worth to charitable time and charitable activities.Much more than any of his contemporaries and he wouldn’t view it as excessive, and I wouldn’t either, it’s just Elton’s zest for life and the way he loves life and appreciates life and one thing when you are a celebrity of the magnitude of Elton and you are so well known and so well recognized, going out in the world can be a challenging thing and so your homes become a very important environment.They become your sanctuaries.They become the places where you spend time and bring your life in and bring life inside and a lot of that spending that was brought up at that trial had to do with the acquisition of our house in the south of France which is probably gone up about 30 times in value since we bought it.I couldn’t even begin to estimate how much that has gone up.That house is such an important sanctuary to him and myself ““ it has brought us so much joy and so much pleasure I don’t consider that irresponsible spending.I consider it smart spending because a) it’s created a beautiful sanctuary, a place of peace and love, and secondly it’s turned out to be a bloody good investment.I would certainly shy away from the phrase irresponsible because I think it was actually quite responsible but because of that court case it was positioned in a different light.

    CS: Exactly.And you touched upon something there that I definitely want to talk about and that’s Elton’s charitable givings. At one point in the documentary we see, I think it was a figure of about $9 million that he already gained to the Elton John’s Aids Foundation and this was well before our little red lapel pins that everyone seemed to wear in the late 90’s early 2000’s ““ How has that foundation evolved since you actually did the documentary?

    FURNISH: The foundation has been a huge success.We are well over about $160 million now based worldwide.We work in 35 different countries, getting very successful projects and the foundation’s very much seen as being kind of a leader in terms of approaches that are taken in the fight against aids.There are programs that we pilot and pioneer in countries like the Ukraine, India, South Africa, where we come up with a particular approach or find something that seems unique and innovative and when we find success with it, a lot of bigger funds like the Gates Fund or the Clinton Foundation, they come in and not only match what we put in but actually multiply it and we are able to take those programs and roll them out to more and more people.It has become an increasingly big focus in our life and certainly when I was learning all about it, I’ve had friends that have contracted the disease and I lost a few friends to aids that have touched me personally, but now I sit on both boards and we are both very heavily and actively involved.The foundation is very well run ““ we just got the Charity Navigator award in America, the Four Star award for three consecutive years, which I think only about 8% of charities get that award three consecutive years in a row, our overheads run at about 5% which is incredibly low and we are very proud of the foundation and what it achieves but we continue to invest a lot of time and energy to it because the problem is so big and the need is so vital.

    CS: Right.There is another touching moment in the documentary of Elton’s reflection on the way he felt sort of remorse for his ex-wife ““ that whole situation ““ and looking back at 1995 that was still pretty fresh of a wound at least, and tying into all that as well, when you played bat for him the therapist talking about Elton’s buying people’s friendships and his response to it, how has he evolved in the last 13 years as a result of seeing this?

    FURNISH: One of the many things I love about him is he has this incredible capacity for change and for growth.I think at the time the documentary was made there as some unhealthy relationships in his life and I think he wasn’t in control of his life and feeling good about himself as he is today.He has never been in better form than he is now.His confidence has improved.His self esteem has improved.His sense of independence has improved.He’s more control of his career and his destiny.He’s diversified himself in so many ways.

    We just had Billy Elliott open in New York a couple weeks ago, at that time the Lion King was just a successful film and now 13 years later, he’s written 4 musicals and that’s opened a whole area for him that he loves and is very passionate about.The Aides Foundation, as I mentioned to you, he’s much more active and personal as the hands on approach that we take to it and events that we host and where we host them.We are incredibly happy ourselves.15 years is a wonderful time to be in a happy relationship and we are still very much in love and very happy and to have the laws change in Britain to allow same sex partnerships which afford all the benefits that marriage does in Britain is a real advance and is something that we were very happy to embrace and be a part of.The past 13 years since that’s been done has been a period of incredible change and growth for both of us and I think we will always have these moments when we just pinch ourselves and just say aren’t we so lucky to live the life that we live and to be blessed in the way that we are.We are very grateful for that but at the same time we don’t want to take it for granted.Just want to keep going forward and be good people and do everything we can to help the world be a slightly better place.

    CS: The other thing that I noticed in Elton’s creative process was that he was able to just knock these things out.These hit songs, he’d spend an hour with it.

    FURNISH: And that was a line in the documentary.I used to talk about him about his creative process because that used to fascinate me ““ the way that he writes in such an organic and it’s just unbelievable ““ he just channels something from somewhere and when I filmed him writing that song for Lulu in the studio, no one had ever filmed him writing a song before.So that’s one of the things in the documentary I admire very much.

    CS: And certainly if I have one more question for you, looking back on what you created 13 years ago finally now on DVD, how do the two of you look at what you made?Was it a snapshot of where you were or are there parts of it now that you look at as representative of who you still are now today?

    FURNISH: We both watched it together.We did an audio commentary for it and we both watched it and said, wow, it still continues to hold up so well.I think it stands up incredibly well 13 years later.It is very much a snapshot in time and it’s really nice to have it captured because you appreciate it even more how much life can move on and how things can continue to grow in your life and be positive so given it’s a marker in time it’s nice to see what progress has been made and where growth has taken place.I think in many respects it was a precursor to a lot of reality television we are seeing today because I don’t think a celebrity of Elton’s magnitude, not many famous people or infamous people have allowed that unlimited access to their lives, and now we live in this world where there seems to be so much television based on following people around with camera crews and getting inside their lives with a lot of detail, and really getting inside their lives.

    I think what Madonna did with Truth or Dare is a terrific documentary and is very entertaining and I remember loving it when it came out but I don’t think it nearly cuts below the surface in the same way that Tantrums does on the same level of intimacy and reality.I think that was done to paint a particular portrait and Tantrums was really was a year and a half of Elton’s and my life together.Sharon Osborne will openly admit that when she saw Tantrums she said that was one of the inspirations that she had when they did the Osborn’s on MTV.I thought well our life is crazier and more entertaining and look where that world has grown since then.

    It’s an astounding change in our cultural landscape.

  • Trailer Park: Danny Boyle Interview

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    This had to be the most deceptively easy and rewarding interview I have done all year.

    When I had a chance to speak with Danny Boyle I was brimming with questions even prior to meeting him. I had seen his movie weeks prior to talking the man, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, when it was just a whisper on cinephile’s lips as the one to watch out for. There was no trailer, no marketing, no clear direction of how to bring this movie to the masses. The story’s tough and it’s hard to explain to someone looking for a jolly flick to catch on the weekend but this film rewards you tenfold if you just give in to where it leads you. Every moment where you have a talking head talking about this film’s chances for Oscar gold isn’t just baseless chit-chat but the movie is a bonafide contender against any of the mindless noise that are going to be propped up against it.

    Talking with Danny was a delight in that he was expressive, excited and simply open to discussing the nuts and bolts about why this film was a different process to make when you compare it SUNSHINE, 28 DAYS LATER or even TRAINSPOTTING. The latter of which holds a special place in my heart, almost literally, as it was the movie I took my bride to on our first date. True, this really bucked against every innate voice in my head that said it probably wasn’t the perfect choice but I was not expecting to meet the man who made it to give me the response he did when I divulged the eventual Cupid’s arrow that came out of that viewing.

    SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE is currently in theaters.

    DANNY BOYLE: Where are you from?

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: I’m from here. I live in Scottsdale but I came from Chicago.

    Boyle: Are you? A bit warmer here isn’t it in the summer? But it’s hot in Chicago too I suspect but the winters are pretty brutal.

    CS: Yeah.

    Boyle: The winter is pretty brutal. I’ve been there in the winter.

    CS: Oh, but I miss that. I don’t like living here at all. I pine for colder days.

    Boyle: Why do you live here then?

    CS: Family. Wife. Kids. So, I’m here but planning for colder days someday soon.

    Boyle: I’ve just come from New York and it was one of those days in New York where the sun is blistering but the temperature is cold. I love those days.

    CS: I love those days as well.

    Boyle: You can just walk and walk and walk and feel good about yourself. Anyway”¦

    CS: But we digress. Off the bat, I’ve been reading a lot about this film even though there has been no promotion at all for this film as of yet. This is no hyperbole, it is one of the best movies I’ve seen this year.

    Boyle: Fantastic. Cool.

    CS: It seems like it’s in the vein of everything that you’ve done. I took my wife on our very first date I took her to see TRAINSPOTTING. I still have my movie stub from our first date.

    Boyle: It’s a weird one to take her on a date but”¦

    (Laughs)

    CS: It absolutely was looking back on it.

    Boyle: At least you won’t forget it.

    CS: No. This movie fits within that but I wouldn’t say it’s weird. In fact, I took the wife to see this one she agreed that it was a breath of fresh air of what’s out there. I read how when you initially got the germ for this film you read the initial treatment but you essentially said, “I’ll do it as a favor…I’ll read it and say it’s not my thing.” At what point did you read this and say, “I simply have to do this.”

    Boyle: 10 or 15 pages. I remember that feeling. I can’t remember exactly what scene it was but I remember it being about 10 or 15 pages and thinking, you can just feel it. You read some scripts which are better probably. I read a script the other day by David Benioff who is a brilliant writer and it’s a brilliant script and you just have it in your head but if it doesn’t vibrate or if you don’t think it’s anything special you can bring to it personally ““ I remember reading the first 10 pages of TRAINSPOTTING and having the same feeling. All three of us were reading the book because we hadn’t adapted it yet and just thought, “We are going to make this film. I don’t care what anybody says.” And you have to trust those instincts.

    It’s such a calculated business this business, because there is so much money involved, even at a very low level. A very calculated business on everybody’s behalf. So when you get a chance to be instinctive you’ve got to follow it. You mustn’t abandon that because you are not going to have that all the time. You are going to be making calculated decisions. But, you must keep enough organic decisions going as well. If you follow them and you’ll be OK. What that means is, I think the higher up the ladder you go into the money the more difficult it is to retain those instincts because there is just so much at stake financially. At the kind of level I work at now you can stick to certain decisions.

    For instance it’s clear when we got there you could not do the film in English and have 7 year olds. You just couldn’t do it. You had to translate it into Hindi. Now that is an instinctive reaction. You can just see that straight away. So you ring them up and have these terrible conversations about what they are going to think about that but you can follow your gut instincts. But if you make a film for one hundred million dollars, you gut instinct wouldn’t be important because what would be important is the hundred million dollars. Obviously. And do it in English. Find kids who could do it in English or you’d make them older so they could cope with English, the kids you are casting. And that’s the result you would see. You would never see the result that we did. So that is why It’s really important not to take too much money. You’ve just got to not take too much money. Sometimes you are tempted because people say, “Listen, we could do this, we could do that.”

    You gotta keep your focus on as many of those gut instincts as you can, you know?

    CS: Right. And on that point that it was almost a run and gun approach ““ you did it in three months, was it January, February, March?

    Boyle: No, November, December, January.

    CS: Sorry, right. But you had it ready by this September.

    Boyle: Well, August in fact. Yeah.

    CS: That’s a very tight, tight schedule.

    Boyle: We didn’t really get back from Mumbai until March with all the equipment for editing, so we did March ““ basically ““ finished by August. And that was deliberate because of the energy of the city.

    Instinctively you just thought “We’ve got to do this quickly” and I remember being in the editing room and the editor saying, “Oh, I think we should tell them we are not going to be ready for that day.” And I said, “No, we are going to be ready.”

    I was just hell bent ““ I did a sci-fi movie before that which took an eternal time to edit, too long, [it’s not] creative when it’s that long, you distort it when it becomes that long because you keep editing and you’re distorting and you arrive at where you should be but actually you keep going because there’s another 6 months left before the CG is finished so I knew there were advantages to just push it through, push it through.

    The city felt like that.

    What was wonderful about Fox Searchlight about picking it up and saying “Let’s release it before Christmas” is that you thought “Yeah, but it’s over that day” already because that city is just in fast forward. So get it out there as quick as you can. Just absolutely do it. And I can’t believe like Pathe and Europe are waiting until January. What’s the point of that? Do it now. Let’s just do it. Let’s get it out there and let people make up their own minds. They are all so nervous about things. They want to have a proper run up, they want to get their materials right and the web campaign, and blah blah blah. And Searchlight hadn’t had enough time really to get it out there because you can talk to a lot of people who still have not heard of it yet you feel like you’re doing massive publicity. But I much prefer it that way because it reflects the momentum in the way the film was made.

    CS: And speaking of momentum, the way your approached filmmaking within the city of Dharavi, one thing that genuinely struck me when I read about what it was like to shoot there was that when you asked to film in that location you were told that National Geographic had once been there and they said to them “Just please don’t say we’re poor” and they promptly did. A couple of times. And you were subsequently not allowed to film there. How did that affect you when you went in there, and you were in the middle of it, as you essentually had to say, “I’ve got to make my film.” Obviously gurella style isn’t what you wanted to do but how did you handle that?

    Boyle: I come from a very small place and not a poor background, I come from a very nice background, a working class background. So I understand that feeling of it’s kind of fierce dignity and shame and it’s all mixed up together. It’s a mixed up, weird feeling, about your background. So I thought, I’m not going to lie, you are poor, to the people looking at this it’s going to look poor but I knew the spirit of the film it would not be pitiful. That’s the way you balance it. Because you can’t lie. You aren’t going to say they are all millionaires in spirit. That’s a whitewash. But you show it like it is. There is terrible poverty and there is incredible cruelty that goes on but there is also a spirit that transcends it, so the journey of the film moves toward that and that is accurate.

    I don’t care if people say that’s sentimental. It’s accurate how I find Mumbai, which is resourceful how the people are. I think it’s absolutely exhilarating that this kid is typical of the place that this kid can get on that terrible glitzy, glamorous TV show which thinks it’s going to eat him up and spit him out and he can run it, he can hijack it. That’s the spirit of the thing. That’s what they want you to show. Not, oh so poor. Oh what a shame. And oh, what can we do about it? Let’s give him some money. They don’t really want that. They want to harbor a figurehead like that who goes and uses it for his own and then he hijacks the show for his own ends. He’s not interested in the money. He’s beyond them. Way beyond them. He’s actually on for a different reason. I love that spirit.

    CS: Which leads to the poster itself. It’s Who Wants to be a Millionaire with the answer being Destiny. What does that say about the movie? Was this really made as a love story between these two individuals who are trying to find”¦

    Boyle: It’s not really a full love story because she’s absent too much to be a classic. To be a classic love story she’s absent too much I’m afraid. Which is one of the reasons we cast it. She’s so extraordinary, memorable. And you need someone like that because she ain’t going to be there. So she has to be worth all this trouble and she’s got to be remember her in a way. So, it isn’t really a love story like that. It’s a life story. It’s ironic that life stories usually are fed from an 8 year old death bed, they are usually reminiscing from the death bed. Extraordinary tale of the life is told.

    And it’s told from an 18 year old who’s going to walk off at the end with 20 million rupees and he has set his life free by his memories and he’s still only 18. So it’s incredibly a radical idea in a way. The problem with memory films is they are old. And he’s got a lifetime of memories already and he’s only 18. It helps he wins the gold, it helps he wins the girl and it helps he walks off in the distance.

    CS: And that’s part of it too. It felt fluid. The whole process. The first time you see it you wonder if it’s going to go back and forth, back and forth, but it’s seamless.

    Boyle: It starts with the writing. Doesn’t feel like flashbacks. Very few people describe them as such because they don’t work like flashbacks. Everything feels like it’s now. Even though you know it’s not because he’s 7 and he’s the same guy and we’ve see him and he’s 18. He’s obviously different but it feels like now. It feels like it’s all happening now and you can visit – and you can go backwards and forward just for a line. You can go back 10 years just for a line and then come straight back again. There’s no whiplash. His mental strength going on that show and being able to access this terrible past and some of the things that has happened to him ““ to access that and use it is amazing. I love that kind of determination. You need to have that in the actor. And he does have that despite the rather charming exterior. The only thing he’s done before was kind of a goofy comic part in a TV show in Britain. He’s got that kind of determination. He was 17 when we flew him to Bombay and dropped him in it and sent him to work in all these terrible places to give him a taste of the city and he was shocked but also determined to get through it, you know?

    CS: It’s shocking to us as Westerners but to them it’s their life. It’s what they do and how they survive. When you went there…

    Boyle: And you would go there too if you were there. We are like that. We forget that because we surround ourselves with such comfort now and we’ve separated everything from us but basically if there’s no where to shit you are going to shit there because it’s just a human function and that’s it and you have to confront that in Mumbai because, boy the first time you see the people on the street”¦it’s just nature. And they make best use of it always. The city is built on recycling and has been since time immemorial. Not like the last 10 year fashion that we suddenly realize we are ruining the planet. Their whole lives are based on recycling. They throw stuff away in a way that is shocking. They eat something and just chuck it away. The reason they do it is because there are people who’s life is built on picking that up and recycling it. Everything is inter-connected. The most extraordinary thing. You don’t find any loose ends.

    Everything is built in to everything else and it’s inseparable. And you can’t discern it as a pattern ““ you can’t go “Oh, I see…” you get little glimpse of it but most of the time it’s way too complex to understand. You just have to go with it to understand and learn from it really. And you would fit in there if you were dumped in there with no return ticket, you would make your way and you would benefit from it as well. You would find yourself a better person in a way. I did. I certainly learned from it and you do learn from it. The hippies were right. I’m not a big hippie fan but you do learn about yourself. It takes you back to something very pure about humanity as to how we are all connected. Basically what we do in the West is separate ourselves from other areas. We pretend it’s a free movement society but actually we secure our place. Clear away people from the bottom of our buildings.

    CS: Talking about actually making the film, you had a smaller crew than you’ve had, you were physically in a tighter spot than you’re used to. What kind of opportunities did that create for you? I would say challenges but you are obviously thinking, “How can I do this? We will do this.” What kind of opportunities sprung up for you?

    Boyle: It’s just exhilarating to kind of abandon ““ I mean we had a very good narrative which gives you the confidence to abandon objectivity ““ so you abandon objectivity and you make it subjectively as possible. And by that I mean, sometimes you’d shoot and have no idea if you got the scene in the way conventionally as a director you are controlling the scene until you think, I’ve got it enough sufficiently. There you cannot have that coldness when you look at something with a steely eye and go I’ve got that or no I haven’t got it, let’s go again. Often you can’t go again. It’s just impossible to go again so you go with what you’ve got and find out ““ I’ve sensed it enough that I thought ““ it’s when you get to the editing you realize that you have much more than you ever thought you’d get. Much more, you know?

    CS: What came through in the editing?

    Boyle: The sense of the city. That’s what we abandoned everything to try and get. The sense of the city, the energy, the exhilaration of the city living there, the cruelty, the randomness of it, and that came through really, really strongly immediately and I kept that. Didn’t try to clean up the sound too much because again ““ we would try experiments to clean it up and it seemed fake. I’d come in the morning and look at it and think it doesn’t feel like the city. You know when you clean up the sound so that somebody’s voice sings clearly and then you add a bit of background noise, the miasma of sound there is just unbelievable and you can hear it when it’s convincing, so you go with that. And you go with people who know the city and know how to deliver the city to you. Whether that’s the first assistant director, the casting director became the co-director, or whether it’s the composer

    CS: Rahman.

    Boyle: What’s happening in India is this huge fusion of different influences at the moment. And a lot of that comes from America ““ rap, hip-hop is just pouring in, R&B. The Euro disco house from London and European cities ““ they love that ““ connects with the dancing ““ pushes the dancing much further in their music videos. He just uses that. You say use that and that’s the city. That’s the heart of the sound of the city blazing away at you. Very tinny. Very loud. Hysterical strings spill in. A sitar buried in there somewhere. I never thought I’d make a film with a sitar in it ““ used to make me grate ““ but you get there and you know it’s just got to be heard.

    CS: I know we have to wrap up but one of the final questions I have for you ““ I keep coming back at how you made this film so swiftly, you edited it swiftly, so what has it told you about the movie making process? You learned ““ you obviously went to Mumbai and had this experience there ““ went to editing and did it fast ““ how have you reflected on SLUMDOG as to how you want to make movies? Has it changed it?

    Boyle: Definitely. It makes you much more able to deal with extremes really, which is obvious, but it’s true. The only way you can survive there is you accept the extremes. You can’t do anything about them. You have to learn to accept them and see them side-by-side and that’s what it’s like making a film sometimes. What happened on this film, 10 weeks ago, is that we lost the North American distribution because Warner Brothers closed down Warner Independent but that normally would make you fly into a rage, an impotent, vengeful rage because it’s a big a blow as you can get. It’s like losing your actor to illness halfway through the film. There’s just about nothing worse than you can think of. And I remember not thinking like I would have. You just learn being in India you go, “OK, maybe that’s for the best actually.” And extraordinarily it was. And you get a different distributor, Fox Searchlight is actually a better distributor for the film than Warner Brothers because they are skilled at this sort of difficult sell and they not only wanted that, they wanted to put out the film immediately which was extraordinary because we weren’t ready with all the materials like a poster, the campaign, the trailer and all those marketing things, the soundtrack. None of them were ready to sell. You need four months to get all those things in place. But they said they wanted to release it now because it was the right time and you think, “Yeah. It’s already out of date because that city changes so much.”

    So it’s wonderful to get it out that quickly so I think you make benefit from stuff really without really knowing it. It’s like abandoning yourself to it really rather than trying to get a rigid kind of control of it, you know? Anything, that the thing I love about filmmaking. You probably can’t do it on a lot of different films and a lot of places, but certainly for that place I learned a lot about that. I learned to not have that kind of control we have here.

  • Trailer Park: Nacho Vigalondo

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    There is no question that Nacho Vigalondo is doing the kind of filmmaking that many of his peers wish they could do.

    His film TIME CRIMES, which took home the gold at last year’s Fantastic Fest as “Best Feature,” is a mix of horror, comedy and drama. The blend sounds like a haphazard cohesion of elements but it works so well that you can’t believe the film is able to clock in at a swift 88 minutes. And why not? Nacho was nominated for an Oscar for the directorial work he did on the short 7:35 IN THE MORNING and he seems effortlessly able to know where to cut, trim and tighten; a Godsend in this age of bloated run times and critics who constantly crow that some directors could have cut 15 minutes here, 20 minutes there. Nacho has his eye comfortably on the whole picture and knows what seems like overkill. Never mind the fact that the subject matter in TIME CRIMES, a man travels back in time, accidentally, and sets into motion a series of events that seem to be pulled from the episodes of the Twilight Zone, is all but engrossing. The film is wide sweeping, as I mentioned, as it goes from genuine thrill to comedic moment without ever seeming false.

    This was an interview I did not want to pass up and I am glad to have been able to talk to Nacho after seeing the film.

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: Nacho. How are you doing?

    NACHO VIGALONDO: Great.

    CS: I’ve just seen the film last night and loved it.

    VIGALONDO: Oh, thank you. Great.

    CS: I’m blown away that it is one of those films you don’t see a lot nowadays.

    VIGALONDO: Yeah. When I found this opportunity of making my first feature film, I felt the need to make the very first feature film in terms of making this wild crazy films that maybe you can only make once in your life so I decided to make this kind of crazy film ““ first time.

    CS: Of all the ideas that you’ve had, and I’ve read in other interviews that you’ve had oodles of ideas as you prepared to jump into feature films, why was this story the one to jump out at you?

    VIGALONDO: I like science fiction and I love the complexity of these stories and at the same time I love how funny they are and I wanted to take that kind of stuff into the movies. Sometimes when science fiction goes into movies you feel that there’s a fear to challenge the audience to some level and I really wanted to make a story that really challenges the audience in the same way this kind of story, this kind of novelist challenges the reader.

    CS: And you make a very good point. Karra Elejalde, you mentioned he’s a well known comedian in Spain.

    VIGALONDO: Yes, he’s a well known comedian and at the same time he’s an actor who has made a whole lot of characters. I like that quality that one minute he can be a clown and two frames later he’s a psycho killer. I like the quality of his work. He can be an average man and at the same time he’s an extraterrestrial. I love when an actor can transform himself but without you noticing. Close to magic.

    CS: The film speaks to the idea of what would happen if this happened to normal people. It’s that normalcy.

    VIGALONDO: Yes. I like to work with those roles instead of trying to work with specific heroes or specific villains. Love to work with this outrageous stuff.

    CS: I was actually reading up on some of my own favorite short stories ““ the thriller, Richard Mattheson’s Button came to mind, the idea of that short story. These little snapshots. TWILIGHT ZONE as a film did very, very well. When you were making this, this is obviously your first feature length film, did you have any reservations that you wanted to hit 88 minutes? Or did you say to yourself as you were writing it, “Do I have 88 minutes of material here?”

    VIGALONDO: Something very personal, I love short feature films. I love when a feature film instead of going two hours fits into the 80 minutes. I love that kind of energy. That’s what I love about that mini franchise. Those films are pretty short. I wanted to make a short story but at the same time I wanted to make a story that felt not like a short story but like a feature film. We had characters, we had locations, we had a few situations, it was pretty hard to make a movie contain in time but at the same time felt like a real feature. Did I answer the question?

    CS: Yes, you did. Absolutely. You’ve also mentioned that horror can be high art while it can also make money. What do you think about the idea of marrying both high art and money when it comes to making a film like this? A feature film like this is very commercial but it can bridge the gap. People can either turn their nose up if something makes them think too hard. Our horror here in America is largely been brain dead, blondes going out and slipping”¦..

    VIGALONDO: I understand. My first concern as a filmmaker is ““ I don’t believe in the frontier between the arts and the commercial stuff. My favorite directors of all time destroyed that frontier which is the art and the funny thing. Those are the directors I really like. For example now, if you check the films of Alfred Hitchcock ““ today we don’t separate both dimensions of the same picture. For us Hitchcock is art and at the same time is general. The same with Don Siegel or early works of William Friedkin or in the modern days, Valentino was the one that destroyed that too, he makes art films but pretends to reach a large audience. From my point of view all the time I wanted to make an interesting and clever film but I never forget that the most important thing is to make a funny thing. I hope to manage to do this my whole career.

    CS: You made the film completely without having a distributor in Spain. How did this whole process come from making it without a distributor in Spain whereas now you have a guy here in Arizona who has seen your film…

    (Laughs)

    VIGALONDO: Laughs. Yes, it’s like jumping off a plane. Once you jump off the plane you have to discover if you have a parachute. That is what happened with the film. We put the money in the film and from that point it was worry. Are we going to find a distributor? And at last, we found it. It took a years. 2007 was the worst year of my life because nobody wanted to get involved with the film but finally we went to Austin and went to the Fantastic Fest at the Alamo Drafthouse and we won, we sold the rights so things went much better from this point. I spent a horrible time trying to find a distributor.

    CS: How did you get through that? How did you get through the period where you made the film, you did something you really wanted to do and then once you had it you said, “Now I have a finished film. How am I going to share this with everyone else?” What is that process like?

    VIGALONDO: Oh, it is something left up to the production company. I just made the film and crossed my fingers and I joined my producer at film festivals. The worst part was trying to sell the film. It wasn’t complete. As you can imagine Time Crimes is a movie that if you put the music out and no special effects it is a really naked film. I had to sell the film with that naked copy. Without the music, without the sound and it was really horrible. It is not easy for me to remember those times.

    CS: And if I can speak a little bit about, you mentioned different directors who are primarily American, Hitchcock, Tarantino, and I’ve seen interviews where you dropped the names of very famous Italian directors. What is it that you think about film in general that has such international crossover appeal? I mean you look at books, books can be hit or miss because they don’t often translate well but movies seem to transcend that.

    VIGALONDO: For me, when I was a teenager, the situation I live in now was impossible. If we wanted to make a film like this in Spain, you are lucky if one American festival shows your film in one country. But now all of the reels are falling down and in that case with our film we first have this little hype in United States, Italy and then we went to Spain. It’s a Spanish film in Spanish language so that’s our situation. Now that barriers are broken and thanks to internet it’s easier to know films from foreign countries. We, the filmmakers we are more free than in the past. We have more opportunities to work with different languages, different cultures and not so fixed in one place. Stephen Soderberg shows us that you don’t need to be so fixed in one place or one film. You can jump from one kind of feature to another ““ even different countries.

    CS: I guess if I had one more question for you, Nacho, it would be what is it about Spain, Spanish language pockets around the world and even Mexican directors who gravitate so well to the horror genre, to ghost stories and the like?

    VIGALONDO: We are pretty much the same age and we are a bunch of filmmakers who can make this genre of films. It’s like a response to the lack of this stuff in our country. It is so complicated to make. What I like about this is we make such different films. If you check films like The Orphanage, TimeCrimes, films like this, you can say we are pretty different from each other so we are trying to make different films but each one in a different way.

  • Trailer Park: SPECIAL Giveaway

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    I’ve talked about the film, I’ve interviewed the guys who made it and I’ve been stumping for you clowns to go out and see it.

    SPECIAL is the second film in Magnet’s “Six Shooter Film Series,” a series of six films highlighting the vanguard of genre cinema from around the globe. Opening the series is Swedish film LET THE RIGHT ONE IN with four other films to follow over the coming months: Nacho Vigalondo’s TIMECRIMES (Spain), Ollie Blackburn’s DONKEY PUNCH (UK), EDEN LOG (France) and BIG MAN JAPAN (Japan).

    Now you can own a piece of this little indie that will not go away. I am giving away one (1) poster of the film which will be signed by the film’s directorial/writing team of Hal Haberman, Jeremy Passmore and star Michael Rappaport. Shoot me an e-mail and I’ll pick the one person who I think should get this thing. It’s awesome. So is the movie.

    Shoot me your entry to Christopher_Stipp@Yahoo.com. Thanks for playing…

  • Trailer Park: Chin Han from THE DARK KNIGHT

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    What was so important that Batman had to be dragged away from Gotham?

    I love to do interviews like this. Forget about the talks with the leads, the men and women who have more invested in keeping you entertained with their zany stories from the set than they do the actual nuts and bolts of making the film. I don’t fault those who are able to talk to these individuals and are granted their five minutes but when you have to serve an audience that is interested in these celebrities the last thing that will come out of their mouths will be talking about the kinds of things that make people like Chin Han completely fascinating to me.

    Operating on the fringes of what was a cinematic, fiscal juggernaut this summer THE DARK KNIGHT didn’t just break box office records it redefined the notion of what it means to be successful. Just name the moment when this film jumped from jazzy summer actioneer to tent pole classic. What I can tell you, from my standpoint, looking back on it now, was when Batman was lured away from Gotham. Where and when else has any of our heroes left the safe confines of their own turf, to take the fight somewhere else. This moment defined Bruce Wayne’s own insanity. Forget about the parallel line between Heath Ledger’s Joker and Christan Bale’s Batman you have everything you need to know about how far Bruce Wayne is steeped into his own self-righteousness in those moments.

    Chin Han knows about Batman. When he and I spoke months ago it was just after the world premiere and still when everyone was in the dark about what was behind all the hype. People were still wondering whether it was worth it. It was. Every moment. It’s amusing now, looking back on the level of secrecy surrounding every plot point and the highlight of this interview has to be Han’s reaction to seeing Bale in all his rubberized goodness…

    THE DARK KNIGHT is now available on DVD and Blu-Ray.


    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: I looked over your resume and, after talking to a few people, am I to believe that this is only your third feature length film?

    CHIN HAN: Yes, this is my one, two three ““ yes, this is my third feature length film.

    CS: How did you land this part?

    HAN: I landed it. Let me qualify that first question. It was my third feature film but I’ve worked in television before that and I was doing a lot of classical theatre as well ““ theatre basically. How did I land it? I think I did it old school basically. I auditioned for John Papsidera and I didn’t hear from them for a few weeks and then I heard from them and they wanted to see more of my work and I didn’t hear from them for another couple weeks and then other people wanted to see more of my work and then they called me back in again. So, all together it took about 6 weeks. It was kind of grueling.

    CS: I’m curious, just from the standpoint that you walked into this knowing that it was going to be a big movie. How is it being at the center of this swirl that this whole movie has taken on a life of it’s own and the media and marketing campaigns and what have you ““ what’s it like to be that fly on the wall?

    HAN: I’m still taking it in actually. We were at the premier two nights ago ““ I had to pinch myself to just make sure I was there on the red carpet with Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Christian, Maggie and Morgan. But I’m still taking it in. Obviously, it’s very surreal and very humbling at the same time but I think I’ll get a better sense to what this means to me in a couple weeks.

    (Laughs)

    CS: And I’ve heard that Christopher Nolan’s IMAX material…I heard it’s amazing that the way he shot it is absolutely spectacular on IMAX.

    HAN: Yes. You’ll get vertigo watching it. It’s very stunning. And on top of that I think there are new vistas in this movie. I think some of the scenes were shot in Hong Kong as well so you get to see some very different sights and sounds basically in this film, which are stunning. He’s done a magnificent job on this film.

    CS: Did you shoot your scenes in Hong Kong or were you part of the Chicago shooting as well?

    HAN: I was part of the Chicago shooting as well. I shot in Chicago. I shot in London, for the most part of the movie.

    CS: The character you play, without giving anything away, how does Lau fit into the film?

    HAN: He’s an Asian business mogul who has now joined the ranks of these shadowy figures that have appeared in Gotham because of the demise of Carmine Falcone. I think that’s as much as I can tell you. I think you will have fun with this character because I did and he’s one of those characters that are quite hard to read.

    CS: Before any of this happened, did you go into this with an “I don’t care what my role is, I want into this”?

    HAN: Absolutely. I would do anything with Chris Nolan. I love his previous films. I love Memento, The Prestige, and I loved Insomnia as well and so I was very thrilled when they were interested in seeing me or reading me but when I got the type and they don’t give you the full script obviously on a movie this top secret, I was looking it over the sides and said there is something special here because there is just so much to his writing. It’s interesting to play those types of characters so that was the icing on the cake. But I would have done it, sight unseen.

    CS: How was that just getting part of the script? This whole idea of secrecy – I know there are a few directors out there, J.J. Abrams is notorious for secrecy, were you just given a few pages, were you like, “Come on, is this really necessary?”

    HAN: Even when I was looking at the sides for Lau you really had no idea how big the part is, because you have these few pages and obviously these few pages would let them know if you could carry the role but how do I feel about it? I think it makes the job of preparing for the audition challenging as well because you don’t know what to expect next. And when I got the full script I read it through and just delighted to have this kind of a role in a movie.

    CS: Now moving forward to where you’ve been as an actor, how was it working over in Singapore and thinking, “I want to make the jump to American films and American media”? What lead up to that moment where you said, “I’m going to give it a go”?

    HAN: I was doing television and I wanted to direct more so I wanted to take a break from acting and direct more and then this film came along, which is Blindness quite some time ago and I had fun on that but it wasn’t enough to warrant my taking a break from directing or producing. So I did a couple other projects and then I did 3 Needles with Thom Fitzgerald and that film was shot in 3 different countries that really whetted my passion for acting and that was a few years ago. So it just came at the perfect time. I was thinking of making the move to Los Angeles at that time so it came at the most perfect time really. It was not an overnight process. It took 8 years I think.

    CS: And if you have success in this it will be overnight success. Where I’ve looked at your 20 year career and you’ve been doing this for lots of years.

    HAN: Yes.

    CS: I’m also looking at the way some films overseas play. A lot of times when American films get released here they will do OK but in the international market it does very well. You’ve come from a market in Singapore where there is a different sensibility when it comes to movies and theater and what have you ““ is it a different sort of theatrical language if I can use that coming to working within American boundaries? Are there basic differences between Asian films and American films?

    HAN: I think that there are there are some differences ““ some differences in story telling techniques ““ the way Asians and Americans express themselves so that effects the way our scripts are written as well and how our actors communicate their emotions to the audience too. There are some differences ““ yes.

    CS: Where did you go for 7 years since your 1998 debut? There is a big hole for 7 years. What happened?

    (Laughs)

    HAN: That’s when I was producing and directing. I had produced the Asian premiere of The Blue Room which was the play that got a lot of attention on the West End of Broadway because Nicole Kidman did that play. But we did it with a Singapore cast and I was producing a lot of plays which subsequently moved me to musical theatre and I was one of the producers of the musical adaptation of Ang Lee’s The Wedding Banquet. And had wonderful success in Singapore and Taiwan as well. So, those years were spent being on the other side of production.

    CS: Why did you go back? It seems like you have a lot of success doing that.

    HAN: Why did I go back to acting?

    CS: Yes.

    HAN: I don’t know. After working with Thom Fitsgerald and shooting in Taiwn for the most part with Lucy Liu, Sandra Oh, I just realized that my passion really was in acting because of the scope of films. Not just the skill of production, which is very exciting but it’s the reach of film. And as an actor, as a person who creates, you want whatever you create to reach an audience.

    CS: Now going back to your Dark Knight experience and being directed by Christopher Nolan. I won’t ask what it’s like to work with him because I think I know the answer to that, but I’m curious to know behind your eyes when he was directing things on the set, what did you take away from the way he manages the film set?

    HAN: I think Chris Nolan is the picture of grace under pressure. Watching him direct on set you would never know he was directing a $180 million movie. I never heard him raise his voice. He’s always very collected and he’s always really precise in his direction and instruction. So that’s one thing I learned that you can ““ you don’t have to be a jerk that you sometimes find in the theater ““ the directors who have very unique visions but at the same time behave in a way that might not be constructive for actors and production and the thing I took away from it is that you can be talented and have that vision and at the same time be the perfect gentleman. I think Chris Nolan was that.

    CS: That’s insightful. I think a lot of directors get a little taste of their own hype and you hear stories of some that like to yell and make actors go through 40-50 takes in order to do that.

    HAN: You probably know who those directors are as well.

    (Laughs)

    HAN: Yes, Chris definitely isn’t one of them.

    CS: Growing up, were you familiar with Batman? Is that the international appeal for a movie like this that it will do well in other markets because everyone knows who Batman is?

    HAN: Batman has a 70 year history if I’m not mistaken. I remember reading the comics when I was younger and I remember when the first Batman movie came out so I do remember the time ““ there are a lot of good comic book movies and some bad ones ““ that was also the time of Superman, Superman II, Batman and yes, I was very familiar with the movies and a big fan of the series. When I heard that the sequel to Batman Begins was going to be called The Dark Knight that secretly gave me goose bumps because that movie didn’t even have the name Batman in it and you will see why when you see the movie tonight and you will see why it’s called The Dark Knight, it resonates on so many levels that way.

    CS: And even on that level, the giddy schoolboy, did you have a chance to see Bale dressed up as Batman and was it neat on some level?

    HAN: Yes, it was. The first day on the set they flew me in from Los Angeles to Heathrow. I got off the plane, been traveling for 15 hours now and then I think one of the production assistants tells me Chris is ready to see me. I go to the set which is huge and the first thing in front of me, the first thing I see day one is Christian Bale in the Batman outfit. That was pretty amazing.

    CS: I know a lot of actors I know would say “It’s work”, “It’s a job” but that just has to be a thrill on some level.

    HAN: No. On every level.

    (Laughs)

    HAN: I’m not going to pretend to be too cool for school here”¦

    (Laughs)

    HAN: I really did get a big kick out of seeing that and working with Bale as well.

    CS: How was he? The guy is not out there a whole lot in public ““ kind of introspective ““ how was it being as an actor being on the set with him?

    HAN: Two aspects of the business ““ one is the job at hand and the job of the actor and the other aspect in this business is you are doing press conferences or doing interviews, like this, and I think with Bale, as reserved as he may be, I found working with him to be quite wonderful because I think he’s very generous as an actor ““ he gives us a lot to work with and I really enjoy working with him.

    CS: And now I see you have gone from one small film to another small film, with 2012..

    HAN: Yeah, a very small film…

    (Laughs)

    CS: Not a lot of people are going to be able to see it so good luck to you on that one ““ you are shooting in August for 2012? Does this mean a bigger part for you?

    HAN: It’s a very interesting movie and I think that I would describe it as an ensemble cast and I am more than happy with my part in it. It’s hard to ask an actor that question because it’s all objectivity with respect to the importance ““ my part, yes, it’s very, very important”¦.

    (Laughs)

    But I will reserve judgment on that and say I am happy to work with this group of actors. Moving from one excellent group of actors to another. Another pretty impressive budget. I mean, John Cusak, Woody Harrelson has been added to the cast ““ a lot of people whose work I love. So, I’m very excited about it.

    CS: I’m trying to get a handle on it ““ is it a bunch of eco-warriors to prevent disaster?

    HAN: It’s about the end of the world basically.

    CS: Oh, one of those…

    HAN: It’s about the end of the world as we know it. 2012 in the Mayan calendar represents the end of the world and basically this movie is about the apocalypse. So obviously I go from one quiet movie to another one.

    (Laughs)

    CS: Well sir, I don’t want to take up any more of your time but I have one more question for you. You’ve done a lot of theater, a lot of classical training which I respect, these movies aren’t going to win any independent spirit awards ““ when you look at what jobs come on the horizon are you all for throwing yourself at whatever comes your way or do you have a plan, a trajectory of where you want to be in five years?

    HAN: No, I don’t have a plan. Different kinds of movies satisfy different appetites in me. I think The Dark Knight is a very unique movie ““ much more than a comic book movie so in terms of that I think I approached The Dark Knight as I would a drama really ““ like I did 3 Needles. Now Blindness which I did was a small movie, is more film noir and I always enjoyed that type of film. In 2012, obviously, we know the movie is going to be balls-out excitement and action so that fulfills another perhaps boyhood fantasy of wanting to be in a movie like that. So they all satisfy me in different ways and I don’t have a plan so to speak, as an actor.

  • Trailer Park: SPECIAL Interview

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    I remember seeing the trailer for SPECIAL almost three years ago.

    As you can see here, I was enamored with the premise and the promise for what it could be. Like many films with trailers that are seemingly on the horizon their release dates sometimes get pushed back and back until their very existence is only proved by a 2:29 preview.

    Many times, films that don’t hit their suggested release, only to resurface in the time of year when you see films dropped like detritus on the street, are the kinds of turkeys that deserved a quiet and silent death. When I heard SPECIAL was actually getting its debut, premiering not only in theaters but on HDNet and video-on-demand I had to admit that I was more than interested. This film surely had a story to tell and when I was able to see the film I was taken aback by not only its fascinating execution but that you had this seemingly no budget movie that had the kind of special effects that are usually reserved for films larger in scope. And that’s what’s so endearing about this movie: the characters, the sets, the story is steeped in averageness but when the super powers plot line kicks in you are thrust into a world that meshes the supernatural within it.

    I had the chance to talk to the film’s directorial/writing duo of Hal Haberman and Jeremy Passmore along with star Michael Rapaport.

    CS:  What has happened in 3 years?

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: What’s happened?  Not so much.  We got distribution coming out of Sundance and apparently there was some problems and it fell through and got lucky and Magnolia came along and now they are putting it out and in between I think we stopped hoping it would come out.  We just gave up hope on it.

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: I didn’t.  But it was heartbreaking.  Tired of thinking of it all the time.  It was hard.

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: That was the thing.  We came out of Sundance with distribution and then to lose it, it was heartbreaking and it took a long time for that to even happen.  It was like getting dumped by your girlfriend and you move on with your life and out of no where she comes back and says, “I changed my mind, I want to marry you.”

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: And then she leaves you again.

    (Laughs)

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: And then she comes back and says, “I won the lottery.  This time it’s real.”  It was weird.  It was just sort of odd to be doing it now but it’s also very nice because as Hal was just saying, Magnolia, the way they are putting it out, is much better than the way it would have originally.

    CS:  Yeah, it’s being released through pay-per-view and then on Mark Cuban’s HDNet movies.

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE:  I know I’ve had friends call me up and say, “I just watched your commercial which is on pay per view.” It’s kinda unbelievable.

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: Secretly, there is this fear that it’s all going to fall apart.

    CS:  Michael, what brought you to the project in the first place?  These guys are really first time filmmakers, how did the script get into your hands?

    RAPAPORT: Oh, I got it from my manager who read it and liked it and he suggested I read it.  So I read it and then met with the guys.  It was pretty straight forward and pretty simple.  There wasn’t any interesting, fun story, it was just casting when it worked in a good way.

    CS:  What really spoke to you when you read the script?  What made this one stand out?

    RAPAPORT: I loved the way it was written.  I thought it was very elegantly written.  I love the character and the arch that he had and I was just able to relate to him in a bunch of different ways and I love that the story had humor in it.  I just liked the tone I imagined it would be.

    CS:  Hal and Jeremy, when you first came up with the idea of this, was it just one of you who came with it first and the other one helped develop it?  How did the process come about?

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: We decided to make a low budget move together and bounced ideas around and when we came to this one, which was Jeremy’s, I just knew this is one we had to do.

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: And at first I thought he was nuts because my first thought was like special effects.  I mean I’ve done stunts in my thesis film at film school and it was brutal.  I mean it was really hard to do it.  So my first thought was that it would be all stunts and special effects but then the second you have that thought you think, “Why not?”  I’ve never seen a low budget movie with a bunch of stunts and special effects.  Suddenly it was like, no body would be every crazy enough to make a super hero movie with no money, therefore, that is exactly what we should do.  That was the feeling of it.

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: And we didn’t have to talk about it too long before we could imagine the character too and I think it was a character that we both related to and cared about on a lot of levels and that was the final nail in the coffin.

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: It was just very universal.  This feeling of “Crap, my life isn’t what I thought it would be” and that desire for something more and like “When I was a little kid my mom said I could do anything” and I said, “What’s so special…and now I’m stuck in this job I don’t really like.” It’s just very universal.  Especially these days.  Those feelings are, often to take the edge off, a lot of people do turn to medication.  So it just felt universal and unique at the same time.

    CS:  Michael, when you were developing who this guy was, what did you want to make sure came through in the performance?

    RAPAPORT: I just wanted the character’s genuineness and his honesty and I wanted him ““ I knew the character was very emotional person, an emotional character, and I just wanted to just make every sort of beat he was going through make them clear and distinct and just very honest and relatable.  I wanted to make him relatable and human.  Which is really the thing we go for in every character but because of the way the script was written it was all kind of laid out there in my hands to just kind of bring it to life.

    CS:  Hal and Jeremy, the premise itself almost seems rather post modern considering the kind of year we’ve had this year with super heroes.

    (Laughs)

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: Yeah. Are you talking about reality or just movies?

    CS:  I think the superhero genre in general this year.

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: That’s what was funniest to us because the movie is really about a guy going crazy but within that we really tried to adhere structurally to the traditional super hero origin story which is not your normal three act structure.  It’s like the discovery of powers ends with I’m going to fight crime and it’s not really until halfway through the movie that the main villain is usually introduced.  So structurally we are in the drama genre but to us it was always about this guy we liked going crazy more than anything else.

    And we were always breaking with the genre too at some points.  Superheroes with dark undersides or superheroes with problems. There is something about the way we made this movie on such a low budget and in such a crazy direction that those movies feel like a whole different type of movie to me.  That don’t feel like anything that what we were doing because what we were doing ““ it just has a level of danger.

    As well, it’s a commentary on the superhero genre, the whole idea of a superhero, just that part of it, the genesis of the idea was just looking at the superheroes, the big ones, and realizing that you are reading Superman comic like it could just have easily been that he has a split personality.  The very idea that I’m this normal guy with this normal boring day job and then when no one is around and when no one is looking, suddenly I am invincible is completely nuts.  And so there was that aspect of deconstruction.  What if we just took that metaphor out and suddenly that’s your guy?

    He is crazy the way that psychosis manifests he thinks he has super powers.

    CS:  Was it always that intention to have him just devolve further and further into his own sense of what he thought this was?

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: I think so.  I think once we realized we were making a movie about insanity, we realized that it was going to go as far as we could possibly take it.

    And there were so many things working together to push it in that direction.  Part of it was just the natural arc of the character.  Like you want to see him go from one extreme to the other and that necessitates that he has got to be so high on the drugs that he’s completely insane which means we kind of wanted the audience to feel insane and also tying into it was that we had this philosophy that we really wanted to make the movie unpredictable.

    All of that fused together to just make it to this point ““ we were half way, three quarters through the movie and it’s kind of like, it feels like, anything can happen.

    CS:  Right.  Exactly.  Michael, you ““ I don’t know if this is one of your most physical roles to date but there was obviously a lot of running, a lot of jumping, I can only assume that it wasn’t a huge budget, but how involved were you with everything that you were asked to do?

    RAPAPORT: Well, first of all this was a No Budget movie.  New category.  Not low budget ““ it’s Not Budget.

    (Laughs)

    I did as much as I could but I wasn’t going to try and hurt myself for bravery.  We had a great stunt guy and it was in the best interest of the film to let him do his thing.  He was the Rocky-ist stuntman.  He just kept going and was really fantastic.  His name was Brian Hite.  I didn’t try to do anything that would jeopardize me walking away the same way I walked in.  But there was a lot of running, some jumping, some wires and all this stuff but the real heavy stuff Brian did and it is a tribute to him and they way the guy shot the movie.  The way the shots were set up lent itself to make the stunts look as real and natural and as violent as they wound up doing.

    CS:  And I absolutely agree with you.  I think Hal and Jeremy did a wonderful job making it feel real.  Can you gentleman talk about the “no budget” angle?

    (Laughs)

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: I think it worked in our favor a lot.  One we got lucky finding the right people to do it.  Brian is the only stuntman who would do the stunts with the authenticity that he did.

    And Nelson the cameraman, who’s perfect to shoot the movie, he’s happy to make it look realistic and lit it with fluorescents and no highlights ““ so it was a mix of what we were going for and what everyone was able to bring to us.

    There was a point where I worked with Brian on my student film and it was crazy.  It just had these brutal stunts.  We were talking to him and we’re like we were thinking we could do this with wires and kind of shoot the angles and he just looked at me like I let him down.  He was so disappointed, he was like, “No, we’re not going to do that.  If I want to get hit by a car, I want to get hit by a car.”  It was just so funny.  Of course, that’s what we wanted but didn’t want to injure the guy.

    CS:  Exactly.  But it’s something you can’t compare to other films with 10 times the budget.

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: There was one night when we did a stunt”¦That he said it was the hardest stunt which was jumping off a roof and tackling someone.  He missed the first time and landed”¦He said  “Do you want me to do it again?” and I was very scared to.  So I said, “Dude, if you can do it again we should do it again.” And he did it.  It was amazing.

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: But it was harrowing.  I was really kind of sick.  It was like, “I don’t want to be the guy who puts him in the hospital.”

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: To a certain extent we had boxed ourselves into a corner because we felt like we wanted those stunts to play in a big static wide shot because it’s like you are looking at it and you know it’s real.  We didn’t fake it in the editing.  He really jumped off a roof and tackled that guy.  So on the one way it’s really brutal like a skateboarding video on the other hand it’s getting into a bit of a Keystone Cops kind of feel.

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: On the third hand, that’s exactly how a superhero movie would not do it.

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: Exactly.  It’s exactly what you wouldn’t do, so that’s exactly where we ended up going.

    CS:  I know my time is short but I definitely want to find out from all of you, now that it has taken years for this film to make the light of day, how do you look at this process and look at this film with regards to your faith in the process of making a movie?

    RAPAPORT: Aside from the distribution delay, it couldn’t have been any better.  It was a great experience.  Great, great, great experience for me.

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE:     I’m in the same boat.  To me it was empowering because we didn’t have any money and we just said we’re going to make a movie and go to Sundance and that’s exactly what we did.  So in the back of my mind I feel like I really want to make a movie but can’t because the problem is I really want to do one with more money.

    STIPP:  Has this movie been able to allow you to do that now that it’s out there?  Have those “in charge” taken notice?

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE:  Oh yeah.  They are pounding on the doors.

    (Laughs)

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: It’s weird.  We don’t expect that at this point.  It’s just this movie is what it is and if people love it then that’s great and if they don’t, then oh well, but I don’t think we’re going to get to direct ROCKY VI.

    (Laughs)

    HABERMAN/PASSMORE: What’s actually kind of cool with this delayed release -  Coming out of Sundance I would have had my hopes so tied up into it, whereas now, I’m just really glad people are going to see it.  It’s really weird.  I’ll be in a meeting on something else and halfway through they’ll go “Wait a minute. You were one of the guys who did SPECIAL. I love that movie…” or something but they don’t even realize it because it’s been so long.

  • Holiday Havoc: Trailer Park – Denis Leary Interview

    holly.jpg

    Some people hang the holly, others decorate the tree, and a few even terrorize the neighborhood with off-key caroling.

    Not us.

    Here at Quick Stop Entertainment, we’re celebrating the holiday season by giving a little something back to you, our readers (you know who you are).

    Every weekday leading up to the holiday break, we’ve got uber-exclusive gifts provided by a whole range of artists, actors, comedians, and studios. One a day, straight from them to you (and you can check out last year’s fun here).

    Ain’t that cool?

    Today, Quick Stop’s own Christopher Stipp brings us an interview with Denis Leary…

    holly.jpg

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    He just had to be sick of answering the question.

    As I read Denis Leary’s book WHY WE SUCK I remembered why I cannot suffer through a Dave Barry column. I’ve tried. I’ve had countless people try and recommend his musings as something worth reading but, let’s be honest, he’s basically a folksy Andy Rooney. Denis, though, gives you something to laugh at, not laugh with, and genuinely delivers on his promise at the outset of this book that there’s something offensive in it for everybody. Everybody. From opining on nicknames, that Mick Jagger’s “Nigger Lips” was apropos, to talking about the destructive nature of parents who toss their kids into acting at a young age, just read what his response would be if his own kids wanted to get into acting, Denis’ book is the one thing this year that has make me laugh out loud.

    A lot has been made of whether Denis’ act is just that, certainly his wife’s own outing of Denis as a genial family man who eschews the trappings of popularity and famousness, whether he’s act mirrored too much of Bill Hicks, but I frankly have felt Denis is a comedic powerhouse. I remember buying his first CD (remember when they came in longboxes?), watching every movie he put out (I’m still worked up over TWO IF BY SEA but he made up for it with THE REF) and being amazed by his television work on The Job and Rescue Me. Now, Rescue is bar none one my favorite shows on television and as well as it should be; it’s well acted, sharply written and it has genuine laughs. So, when it was time for this book to come out I was all over it. His writing is wicked funny, he has some really honest points about parenthood, celebrity and where else are you going to find a chapter entitled Matt Dillion is a Giant Fag? It was another one of these suggestively titled chapters, Autism Schmautism, that stirred a controversy when a paragraph was taken out of context and made its way into the irrelevant arena of people pontificating on nothing more than hearsay.

    We open the interview with us talking about the incident that seemed to be inescapable. The book is out now and comes recommended as the funniest thing you’ll read all year.

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: Can you explain what happened with the recent flap about your chapter entitled Autism Schmautism? I read the chapter and if anyone possessed an ounce of reason they would see exactly what you were getting at. You absolutely were not belittling this condition.

    DENIS LEARY: It was a paragraph that was taken out of context by the New York Post and then raced across the Internet, so yes, people are led to believe that I was talking about actual parents of kids who have actual autism.

    I released a private statement by email to a lot of the parents that emailed me and I put a public statement out but I never apologized for what I wrote but I asked people to give me the benefit of the doubt and I apologized for the effect the released paragraph had on people because, look, I always answer to myself, my kids, and my wife but when it comes to comedy, there is no comedy in saying, which I never said, “there is no such thing as autism” or that “autism doesn’t exist.” I never said either one of those things although that was actually listed in many newspapers and on online.

    There is a ridiculous aspect to people in this country who are so desperate to explain away their kid’s bad behavior and their own bad parenting by getting low-level versions of autism diagnosis and that’s what I was talking about because in the same chapter the paragraph after the one that was quoted by the New York Post, I talk about ““ specifically, one autistic child that I’ve known for years and her parents struggle with it and again, I’m not a real doctor, I wouldn’t define autism but I like discussing it. I know people who have dealt with it and know how difficult it is. The idea that other people in America would actually seek Special Needs designation for their kids, to me, was ridiculous and that’s what I was going after. I’ve said it this morning and I’ve said it before. Publisher’s Weekly did a review of the book, they always do every review, and thank God they gave me a good one. They talk about the book and called it wildly entertaining and gave it 3 or 4 stars but that was a week before the New York Post thing and it just kind of struck me as odd that if they thought I was making fun of autistic children why didn’t they mention it because someone read the entire book?

    And so now it will be very difficult for people to ever realize what I was talking about and some people will never, ever buy the book but now that it’s my turn to speak I hope it’s obvious to people what my point of view was and that there is no comedy to be found in the other point of view. My point of view was, and by the way, there are people in the autism community that have been complaining about this issue for years which is where I became aware of it and came up with the idea to write about it. You know?

    CS: Right. It’s hilarious. It’s clear as day as what you are saying and shocking to me that people are coming out of the woodwork when in fact they probably haven’t read it or considered actually reading the whole thing.

    LEARY: I think what happens to a lot of people, and again, I don’t blame them is they saw this paragraph on the Internet and said, “What is wrong with this guy? Why is he making fun?” And once you start that fire, it’s a very difficult fire to put out. I had a lot of my friends who have kids with autism who were just banging the doors down saying they wanted to come out and speak on my behalf and I said you know what? “I don’t want you to do that. I didn’t ask you to give up your privacy and go out and defend me. I can do it myself.” I just hope that some of these people that ran down to the center of the village with a torch in their hands will be just as willing to read it and if they are wrong, turn around and say “You know what, I misjudged it” but I don’t hold any hope out for that happening. It’s not a great comparison but when they announced that Daniel Craig was going to be the new James Bond, everybody in the world went after that guy and once the fist movie came out everyone realized that he was an unbelievably great James Bond. Very few people took the time to say, “I was wrong about the James Bond guy.” The press doesn’t like to come out and say they were wrong basically.

    CS: And that’s funny you bring that that up. It leads right into something I was very surprised by, and really respect that you kind of went in thinking that Oprah was going to be a target, and ended up saying “You know what, I was wrong about that” and ended up genuinely enjoying the experience of delving into it further.

    LEARY: Hey man. I got to tell you I was hell bent for leather on her and every single thing I tried ended up falling apart and I end up with the complete opposite point of view. By the time I found out you could break your penis and that Oprah about 6,000 entries about what happens if you break your penis ““ I’m like, “Wait a minute. Why isn’t this stuff on SportsCenter? Oprah is in charge of our penis’s? What’s going on here?”

    (Laughs)

    CS: It raises some fundamental questions about the cult of personality that she’s developed.

    LEARY: I tell you something. There is a reason that she is elevated to the cosmos of television and the media because she has control of almost all the information you will ever need about anything. I’m telling you, if Jesus comes back tomorrow he’s going to be on Oprah. Forget Larry King, forget the Today Show. He’s going to be on Oprah and he’s going to be on Oprah for about an hour.

    (Laughs)

    CS: A couple of my favorite other chapters in this book was the combo of the “Self-Esteem This” and “Matt Dillon is a Giant Fag.” One of the reasons I responded so well to it, I believe, was when you and Lenny Clark were on local television during a Red Sox game. Mel Gibson was freshly put into rehab and the two of you were just riffing watching the Boston Red Sox. I think that those few minutes, after they made their way around the Internet, just proved everything that you were talking about with regard to tolerance and ignorance.

    LEARY: It was just one of those organic things that happened because we were talking about Kevin Youkilis and his nickname at the time was the Greek God of Walks. I was asking an honest question “Is he Greek or what is he?” and they started talking that he was Jewish and the next thing you knew we were talking about a couple Jewish players and there was a great play made by a Jewish player and it was the week that Mel Gibson ““ his anti-Jewish tirade. It was just one of those moments in time. I ended up writing a song called the Mel Gibson which we played at quite a few charity gigs after that. I don’t know, it was just kismet.

    CS: One thing I did pick up while doing some research was your mother’s influence. The conversations that you have within the book, it kind of took on a life of their own. How did that come about?

    LEARY: My mother has obviously been a big influence in my life and my brothers and sisters and everybody so I just thought if I’m going to be talking about raising kids in America and what I think is wrong with a lot of the ways in this country that we treat and raise kids, my mom is just, as I say in the book, there has never been a day that she has been on this earth that she isn’t who she is. She never drank. She never smoked. She was always at home. She was highly aware of everything that we did and if she wasn’t aware, when she found out you had to answer to her. So I think she’s just a really common sense woman and I wanted to put her take on America ““ she’s got a really great take on what it is to be an American because she came here as an illegal immigrant with nothing and she loves this country and is not afraid to express her opinions. She has been, because of me, been around some very famous people and she walks right up to famous people, whether is Conan or Bobby Orr or whoever ““ she says whatever is on her mind. We were at a charity event and Bobby Orr was there.

    My mother loves Bobby Orr.

    As a young hockey player he had a weird haircut and dressed a little down when everyone else would wear a suit. My mother walked up and said, “Why can’t you be a little more like Bobby Orr? Look at him. He’s got a short haircut. He doesn’t look like a slob.” We are just laughing our asses off because when somebody’s mother is talking to you, you feel like you are talking to the virgin mother. So I wanted to include her in the book so people could get a taste of what it was like around my house.

    CS: What separates this book apart from many other non-fiction narratives is that you have that sort of commentary but also that point of reflection. You talk about growing up and how your parents taught you to be centerted and grounded as you point a finger at those who want to coddle their brood to the detriment of knowing how life is really going to be like.

    LEARY: There was no self-esteem crap. If you wanted to win a trophy, you actually had to win. If you wanted to learn how to hit a baseball you actually had to have a ball pitched at you and you had to hit it. There was no hitting it off a tee. It was just all that stuff ““ just common sense when raising kids. No one is going to hand you anything. You actually had to go out and get a job and earn it. There was no being spoiled around our house. You got one big present and one small present at Christmas time and got a cake on your birthday. You never felt like you weren’t loved. You always felt like you were loved but you were also accountable. You were accountable to your parents and the rest of the family. It’s the age old thing, if you got smacked by the nuns at school, there must have been a reason why you got smacked.

    CS: Exactly. You are obviously a celebrity and you’ve had your kids who are now are moving towards college years. What is it about our culture that every kid needs a trophy and every kid needs to feel entitled? Can you explain why or where this has all come from?

    LEARY: There has been a wave of parents who have kids but don’t necessarily want to spend time with their kids and selfishly they work on their career, and their free time, and their hobby. But the problem is when you have children, children do what they are supposed to do and take over your life. So what you do for a living, hopefully you like but whatever it is you do for a living, the money is for the children and whatever you do with your free time the children are the first thing that should come to mind; there are a lot of people in this country who have kids and that is not necessarily the truth. They put the kids in day care, not because they have to because both parents are working, but because they want to and they want to have their free time.

    You can’t have it both ways.

    That’s where a lot of these kids come up with self-esteem issues because the kids are never around their own parents and when the parents are around they feel they have to say yes because they are never around enough time with the kids and the next thing you know it’s the kids who think they can get away with everything because the parents never yell at them. To me it’s a pretty simple mathematical formula. We all know what the rules are and you are supposed to teach them to your kids and that produces a hopefully pretty productive citizen. You are not just supposed to hand the kid everything and tell them it’s OK to do anything they want and never learn to lose.

    Hey, losing sucks. So learn it really early so you never want to lose. If we didn’t have losing, we’d have two presidents right now. John McCain and Barack Obama. Doesn’t work.

    CS: Right. And that leads into your bit about celebrity culture. Shows like Sweet 16, celebrities like Anna Nicole Smith, somehow there is a subset of Americans who love to celebrity worship and dote on these people who don’t live by any sort of rules to begin with.

    LEARY: If Anna Nicole Smith gave us nothing she will, at least in my book literally and figuratively, be famous for having taken a narcotic lollipop out of the hands of sick children and turned it into an adult drug. Apparently, I think I say this in the book, she out Elvised Elvis. If Elvis knew there was such a thing as a narcotic lollipop, he would have tried desperately to live another 10 years so he could have had one in his mouth. I think not only is it amazing that she was sucking on narcotic lollipops, which they give kids who have cancer, but I’d like to name a band after Narcotic Lollipop. As a matter of fact, later today I’m doing the Daily Show and I’ve printed up a Narcotic Lollipop t-shirt that looks like a band shirt and I’m going to wear it on the Daily Show just to try and start a trend.

    (Laughs)

    CS: The book itself, the way it reads is great because it balances both your past growing up and your present with commenting on current events in popular culture and sociological issues that society is dealing with. When you were writing this was there any sort of overriding thing that you didn’t want to sound too preachy? How did you go about laying it all out by saying, “I want to make this fun and entertaining but I definitely want to get some things off my chest”?

    LEARY: Well I tried to be organic. As a comedian I’ve always tried to work ““ if I go on stage for half and hour or 40 minutes I talk things out in front of an audience. I might have 5 words written down on a piece of paper and that would mean 40 minutes of material for me. If the audience is good, I’ll just keep spinning through these ideas I have in my head. So in book form, I had to be sure I was formalizing things and some other things popped into my head as I was going. When I finally started to sit down to write it, it was during the screen writer’s strike, so I had three months to write it and I wrote it in order as I went so it just seemed to flow.

    CS: As you were writing it, were there some things that just didn’t make it into the book or was everything you wanted in this book?

    LEARY: No. I think there was a lot of stuff. I’m never satisfied with a project. Whether it’s a movie, or an episode of Rescue Me or whatever. I could always go back and add more but when I was done, I felt like, like my mother talking to Dr. Phil seemed like a great ending.

    CS: That was. It certainly wrapped up the book in a nice package. Looking at it now, was the experience at least a good one for you from a creative standpoint?

    LEARY: Yes. I loved it. I thoroughly enjoyed it. The process was difficult to get used to but once I got into it, I really enjoyed it.

    CS: If I had one more question…looking forward, now the book and with Rescue Me going back into production, how do you look at where you come from since starting eons ago in clubs and now being an established author, Emmy nominated television star? Is there anything left that you want to achieve? Some guys feel they have accomplished it all and just disappear, do you still have a fire to keep doing something else?

    LEARY: Yes, definitely. I don’t have that problem. I’ve got a couple ““ my hero has always been and especially once I’ve worked with him and picked his brain, I didn’t know anything about making movies or how to do it but Ted Demme was my partner in crime and his uncle Jonathan and Robert De Niro, in particular, were two guys very early in our careers who pulled us aside and said, “You guys need to start production companies and learn how to do this and this and this.” And I’m really glad I learned so I can self-generate. I had to learn how to act on film because I was a stage actor and comedian, I had to learn how to write and produce and when I worked with Bob and I was a huge fan of his and picked his brain I realize now that I watched that guy do his work as an actor and director and I got a couple projects in my back pocket.

    I always wanted to do a Rock “˜n Roll movie because I have a comedy band, but the guys who are in my comedy band are the same guys I was in a real band with when I was a teenager so I’ve always wanted to do a Rock “˜n Roll movie about a guy, like what if Mick Jagger or Sting or a guy like that hadn’t made it? I know a couple guys who are really talented rock guys but nobody knows. They are 50 years old and still do it for a living but they still have to hustle. So I always thought that that was an interesting idea to make a funny movie about a guy who was supposed to be Mick Jagger but didn’t get the break. So I have things like that. I have a gangster film I want to make, so I’ve got other stuff I want to do and I’ve been lucky enough to play dramatic roles and comedic rolls.

    Hey, I’ve worked with Dustin Hoffman, De Niro and Clint Eastwood. My old man would not have believed that I made it that far. So I’ve been to the top of the mountain as far as I’m concerned. Everything else from here on end is gravy. I got to do the George Carlin Mark Twain memorial tribute last Monday with Jon Stewart and Lewis Black and Jon and I were looking at each other and even called each other the next day and said, “This is ridiculous man. This is one of the guys that made us go into comedy and we are at his wake.”

    So, I’m not asking for anything else. I’m good where I am. I was supposed to be driving trucks.

    CS: Thank you, Denis, for your time. I’ve been a fan…

    LEARY: Yeah, well then tell Kevin Smith to put me in one of his fucking movies!

    (Laughs)

  • Trailer Park: The Turkey Trots

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    Boy, oh boy, how long has it been since we last connected? A while, I know

    One of the things that has been keeping me busy as of late has been a spate of genuinely interesting opportunities to talk to people I would have never otherwise been able to chat up for a bit. From TIMECRIMES (o LOS CRONOCRIMENS for the Spanish language readers out there) director/writer Nacho Vigalondo, ELTON JOHN: TANTRUMS AND TIARAS director David Furnish (his partner), the directorial team behind SPECIAL along with Michael Rapaport, asshole extraordinaire Denis Leary about his new book Why We Suck, director Danny Boyle about SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE (easily the best film I’ve seen all year) and then capped it off with a chat with director Darren Aronofsky about THE WRESTLER (a movie that earns every moment, every emotion). Now, with regard to Darren, there was a little matter of a lunch that brought out a wide array of inconsequential information, as it relates to THE WRESTLER, but when I get to that piece in a couple of weeks I’ll explain how, between mouthfuls of salami and spinach and artichoke dip, I heard a little bit about his feelings on the handling of THE FOUNTAIN DVD and an array of tidbits I would never of thought to as during our interview. (The lunch was wicked good…)

    Now, it is that time of year when mens thoughts turn to turkey and, as I have been doing every single year (or close to it), I hope each one of you dust off your copy of PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES to watch during Thanksgiving. I have had it up to here about people talking of their greatest Christmas films (we all know if it ain’t A CHRISTMAS STORY you ain’t shit) but you ask someone to rattle off their favorite Thanksgiving movie all of a sudden their lips don’t flap as quickly.

    One of the more delightful additions to the John Hughes canon there isn’t a whole lot you can say negatively against PLANES, TRAINS.

    Regarding one of the the truly remarkable things about this film I would have to point to John Candy’s performance as the reason why this is a perennial classic. His comedy is thankfully not family friendly, he is actually allowed to be a guy you don’t laugh at but laugh with as he takes Steve Martin’s sanity down to nothing. And Steve Martin deserves the kind of credit that he no longer gets from me or a lot of people who could say he’s traded every ounce of comedic goodwill and invested it in Disney/PINK PANTHER pabulum. It’s one of those films that no matter where you catch it as its playing on television you can watch it midstream and love it. Do yourself and family a favor, watch this one on Thursday and know that you’re seeing is the demise of not only one man but of the other man’s edge.

    Another option available to you if that tryptophan hasn’t finished you off is to turn into IFC FREE (VOD) at midnight on Thursday for your chance to see a hilarious and introspective look at goth culture in GOTH CRUISE. The premise makes you think this is completely made up and/or a set up but this film takes you on the 4th Annual Goth Cruise where 150 British and American Goths sail around the Caribbean for five days. During this cruise they have a masquerade ball, a charity art auction and oodles of other activities that you or I would want to participate in should we find ourselves a Royal Caribbean looking to sip a Mai Tai or a pina colada.

    The film is a hoot. Flat out this will be the most intriguing thing you will watch all week if for no other reason than it gives you a good appreciation for the sub-culture that has for a long time been relegated to the confines of people who wear blood red crushed velvet and do nothing but listen to Siouxsie Sioux. Turns out, a lot of these people enjoy goth culture and indulge themselves in it when they can and not necessarily on a full-time basis.

    What’s even more interesting is that, as you watch this film unravel, you notice that there is a line of demarcation between those who are American goths and those who are British goths. Both groups have 90% of the things they hold dear in common but they diverge where they come down on how they express their goth-ness. Americans, loud and outspoken as we are with our emotions, don’t think that way when it comes to expressing it on film. In a recent article she wrote for the Huffington Post director Jeanie Finlay talked about the differences a little more with regard to the cultural divide between what one fears of being perceived as and what one does without regard to the opinions of others when it comes to their goth indulgences.

    One of the reasons why I asked to look further into this sub-culture and got a screener of this film was that every year when I go to Comic-Con I see people who are willing to let their freak flag fly and it fills me with an inexorable amount of happiness to see these individuals in GOTH CRUISE do the same with the kind of aplomb I see every summer.

    To some degree a lot will be made to look at these cruisers as somehow funny looking or bizarre but to me this film was yet another entry into a film series that show people who ensconce themselves in dress up and camaraderie with other like-minded individuals is a liberating to some degree. It’s heartening to know these people are out there, human beings who want to spend their time with other human beings, making the world a little darker, and crushed velvety, place. You will not be disappointed.

    And, speaking of being devoid of disappointment, have any of you heard about the released WRESTLER trailer? If you haven’t already checked it out I would recommend you view this thing and really pay attention to what is going on in this thing.

    It kills me, genuinely, that I can’t talk at all about this film for many weeks but thankfully I didn’t see this trailer before seeing it. There is something about not knowing a crumb about a movie before going in and it was a delight to witness this film without any preconceptions.

    The reason why I would urge you to see this trailer is that it is simply succinct and leaves you not knowing exactly what is going on. The music, the mood, the glimpses of what Mickey is getting a dump truck worth of praise for, it’s all there.

    Now, while I can’t say a word I can say that one of the more fascinating effects this movie will hopefully have is that it doesn’t really hit you right away. It lingers for a bit and you slowly come to feel the one question that I posed to Darren: Where did The Ram end and Mickey Rourke begin? It’s just too good.

    And now, what would your Thanksgiving be like without some Ray Schillaci action? This week’s entry into his Worth Revisiting series has him catching up with Montana Wildhack. Not sure who that is? Confused? Read on and be ignorant no more..

    Montana Wildhack and Other Wonderful Oddities

    In 1972, my parents asked me what I would like to see on my 16th birthday. Growing up as the kid with unusual taste in cinema, I found an art house film that was playing in a limited engagement in Westwood (a once “hot spot” in L.A. to hang out in the 70’s). Critics praised the little film. The story sounded originally wild; a man becomes unstuck in time, bouncing from his involvement in WWII to his ridiculously “Leave it to Beaver” life to being abducted by aliens for observance and procreation with a softcore porn star, Montana Wildhack!

    If that was not enough to spark my interest – the young starlet playing the softcore porn queen was none other than Valerie Perrine, who was naked nearly throughout her screen time. My teenage hormones were kicking into overdrive. There was no way I was going to wait another year before I caught it at a revival theater and I had no shame duping my unsuspecting parents into taking me.

    What neither of us realized is that “Slaughterhouse-Five” was a brilliant piece of work that just had the added attraction of two of the best breasts ever to grace the screen. Valerie Perrine would go on to be the first actress to bare her beauties on national TV with the debut of Bruce Jay Friedman’s “Steambath” starring Bill Bixby (Hulk fame) and Kenneth Mars (the crazed Nazi playwright in Brook’s The Producers). She then went on to co-star with Dustin Hoffman in “Lenny” not only baring her breasts but also committing to a very racy (at the time) lesbian scene. Ms Perrine went on to be nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress for that amazing and touching performance. There was always a sweet earthiness that followed her performances that captivated the audience. But later she ended up in a few turkeys and eventually played a third banana (as opposed to second banana) comic relief in the Christopher Reeve “Superman” movies. One cannot help but wonder what happened to such a talent. The same could be said for everyone else who was associated with Vonnegut’s “Slaughterhouse-Five”.

    Director, George Roy Hill would go on to direct “The Sting,” but eventually peter out after that. The supporting cast didn’t even have a chance to really break out, remaining in thankless supporting roles that would never do them the justice of the talent they once displayed in Vonnegut’s, near-impossible-to-translate-to-film, tale. Yes, I can go on about the picture perfect cinematography, the haunting score, insightful dialogue and so much more ““ including an unnerving and unforgettable performance by Ron Leibman as Paul Lazzaro, the chip-on-his-shoulder narcissistic lunatic who maintains a list of everyone that has ever wronged him and vows lethal vindication while following our lead character, Billy Pilgrim, from WWII, the concentrations camps to the last breath Billy takes on Earth.

    There are so many gem moments in this movie and yet one would think that it sounds like a jumbled mess when jumping back and forth in time. But George Roy Hill is in perfect form making sense of it all while capturing the lunacy of an out-of-whacked Norman Rockwell existence and matching it with the horrors of Nazi Germany. The juxtaposition is amazing. Billy Pilgrim’s journey is touching, funny, frightening and thought provoking all at once.

    Billy, Michael Sacks in a remarkably sensitive portrayal, begins as an old man relaying his life to us. His children see him as a frail, confused man and just want the best for their father. Billy is at first accepting of his plight of never knowing where he may end up or not remembering with only an occasional hint of what’s to come. He bounces through time like a ping-pong ball across a table never landing in he same exact spot and sometimes spinning wildly out of control throwing us off, but always engaging us. We travel with him to the 30’s, all the way to the 60’s and onto the planet Tralfamadore in no particular order. One moment Billy could be asking for a kiss from Ms Wildhack with her pendulum-like breasts swinging in his face, the next he’s suddenly in a snow covered field hiding from the Nazi’s with his partner freaking out over Billy’s behavior (asking for a kiss). Billy’s experiences during WWII are just as captivating as his relationship with his overbearing and over weight wife who insistently promises Billy she has a new reason to lose the weight every time he’s made her happy. It’s priceless. The only down sides to the film as a whole are the makeup and special effects which were limited to not only the film’s budget, but also to the era as well. This can easily be overlooked ““ like that terrible suitcase in the “Dead Zone” that represented the final button to be pushed the event of a nuclear war. Everything else in “Dead Zone” was picture perfect ““ so one could forgive it and we do the same with Slaughterhouse-Five.

    Universal released a bare-bones DVD version of this fantastic film and one can only hope that somebody in the company get some smarts and give us a little more on a Blu-Ray edition. This is a must for sci-fi fans and required viewing by anybody that has a love for good strong, creative filmmaking/storytelling. For a true eclectic experience rent or buy this forgotten gem.

  • Trailer Park: KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN DVD Giveaway

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    I’ll go on record as saying this probably the first time I’ve given away a movie that gave William Hurt an Academy Award and was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay in 1985. I do realize the median age of some people who read this and know many of you were barely getting a grasp on the English language when this film was making waves.

    Suffice to say there is nothing that can be put into meanigful explanation as to why this film works as well as it does when you consider the subject matter. The movie is grippingly intense, made on the kind of budget you would usually reserve for art house indies nowadays and made quite a stir when it was released.

    I’ve got 4 to give away and, with regard to winning one, all I need to know is whether you’ve seen it or not. That’s it. Hopefully I’ll be able to give a couple to those of you who loved it a long time ago and a couple to those who need to see it for the first time. Shoot me a line at Christopher_Stipp@Yahoo.com.

    For you newbies who need an explanation of the film here it is:

    The film tells of the political prisoner Valentin Arregui (Raul Julia) and effeminate homosexual and statutory rapist Luis Molina (William Hurt). They share a Brazilian prison cell.

    Molina passes the time by recounting memories from one of his favorite films, a wartime romantic thriller that’s also a Nazi propaganda film. He weaves the characters into a narrative meant to comfort Arregui and distract him from the harsh realities of political imprisonment and the separation from the woman he cares about.

    Arregui allows Molina to penetrate some of his defensive self and opens up. An unlikely friendship develops between the two prisoners: the dreamer and the political activist.

    As the story develops, it’s clear that Arregui is being poisoned by his jailers to force him to reveal what he knows. Molina, it seems, may also have ulterior motives.

  • Trailer Park: HELLBOY II DVD Giveaway

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    Through the powers that be I have been given 5 copies of Guillermo del Toro’s actioneer HELLBOY 2 to give away on DVD. Those of you who have seen it know how well Guillermo has made a sequel that doesn’t feel like a cash-in and has every bit of oomph of its predecesor. The film is flat out fun and visually dazzling. It’s worthy of any fan’s collection and, coincidently enough, makes a great stocking stuffer come this Christmas. (Or, maybe you’re a greedy kind of person and want this magic all for yourself. I can respect that.)

    As always, the level of difficulty of getting a copy of this is quite high: Send me your name to Christopher_Stipp@yahoo.com

    (And, if you’ve won any previous DVD giveaways in the past month, sit on your hands. Seriously. Not everyone else is addicted to on-line contests like you…)

    For those who need some background here is the official synopsis:

    With a signature blend of action, humor and character-based spectacle, the saga of the world’s toughest, kitten-loving hero from Hell continues to unfold in Hellboy II: The Golden Army. Bigger muscle, badder weapons and more ungodly villains arrive in an epic vision of imagination from Oscar®-nominated director Guillermo del Toro (Pan’s Labyrinth, Hellboy).

    After an ancient truce existing between humankind and the invisible realm of the fantastic is broken, hell on Earth is ready to erupt. A ruthless leader who treads the world above and the one below defies his bloodline and awakens an unstoppable army of creatures. Now, it’s up to the planet’s toughest, roughest superhero to battle the merciless dictator and his marauders. He may be red. He may be horned. He may be misunderstood. But when you need the job done right, it’s time to call in Hellboy (Ron Perlman).

    Along with his expanding team in the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense – pyrokinetic girlfriend Liz (Selma Blair), aquatic empath Abe (Doug Jones) and protoplasmic mystic Johann – the BPRD will travel between the surface strata and the unseen magical one, where creatures of fantasy become corporeal. And Hellboy, a creature of two worlds who’s accepted by neither, must choose between the life he knows and an unknown destiny that beckons him.

  • Trailer Park: TWILIGHT Interview

    header_stipp.jpg

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    Does anyone have any idea how much people are willing to do anything to get close to those involved in TWILIGHT?

    Stores have been shut down, cops have been called in, teenage girls are crying at the mere mention of Robert Pattinson’s name, crowds have not packed and swelled malls to the kind of degree not seen since the last Menudo tour circa 1985 and some of those involved could not be more laid back and chill about it all.

    Edi Gathegi who plays Laurent, Rachelle Lefevre who plays Victoria and Taylor Lautner who plays Jacob Black could not have been more removed or reflective on the entire experience. They look at it with a bit of comedy, genuine amazement and are sanguine about how they feel towards any subsequent sequels.

    When I met them at the Valley Ho in Scottsdale, Arizona the film was about 2 weeks away from dropping, they were slated for an appearance at the local Scottsdale Fashion Square Mall where 750 teenagers paid $30 a pop for a t-shirt and a ticket that would allow them to get close enough for a photo and autograph. And I understand that. I won’t make fun of these people, although it’s awfully tempting when you see some of the nutters in line, but the real sports are the actors who put on a smiley face and braved the insanity.

    Note bene: This interview was conducted before me even seeing a frame of film or even reading a page of Arizona native Meyer’s book. So, keep your snarky comments to yourself. We join this interview with Rachelle and I talking, oddly enough, about how I once came from Chicago…

    RACHELLE LEFEVRE: You are? I’m a Bears fan.

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: Nice. Cubs fan?

    LEFEVRE: No. Not a baseball person.

    CS: Then I’m done with you for the rest of the interview.

    LEFEVRE: Hey, I’m from Montreal, OK and I was an Expo’s fan until the 1994 strike ruined us on our way to win a World Series and we’ve never recovered and then we lost our team because Jeffrey Loria, who’s an American, bought up the team and sold it off for parts like it was art. So I do not watch baseball anymore. I am scared for life.

    EDI GATHEGI: That was the Expo’s?

    LEFEVRE: Yea. Hard to respect the team that played the second half of their last season in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

    CS: Regarding the film I know Pattinson is making an appearance in Chicago tonight, actually, and there are cops are being brought in to get ready

    LEFEVRE: They canceled the event in San Francisco.

    CS: I heard that. Did you guys know going in what you were getting yourselves into?

    TAYLOR LAUTNER: No, not really. The first time we realized the potential of this thing I think was ComiCon and our first night in Seattle was a pretty big taste of ComiCon again. I definitely was not expecting anything near what it was and they were just great. The fans are very supportive and we are very lucky to have them.

    GATHEGI: They are about as enthusiastic as you can get right up to the brink before they start breaking each others noses.

    LAUTNER: Exactly.

    (Laughs)

    GATHEGI: I think I lost a little bit of hearing though all that stuff.

    CS: I was actually there at ComiCon during all that. I only had a baseline understanding of the book series because Stephenie Miller is from here. I knew she was a local author but I had no idea that young girls, young people, really have attached themselves to this book series. As you guys were doing the film, what did you come to understand why young people are so connected to the story?

    GATHEGI: I think there are a lot of questions that come up when you are in high school and are a young adult. There’s a lot of teen angst, forbidden love, like the whole Romeo and Juliet story, she can’t really be with him because they are different species but they’ve fallen in love with each other and what do…does she want to turn, live the rest of her life as a vampire… and I think Stephenie does a wonderful job painting these characters in such a truthful and honest way.

    She does.

    She sets up our world as we know it. It’s our world and then she starts to justify or asks all the questions of how vampires could possibly exist in our world the way we would naturally. And then she has an answer for each question and you think, oh my god, this is a world that could possibly exist.

    LEFEVRE: Totally plausible.

    GATHEGI: Totally plausible. And I think people are rooting for their relationship as they read and it’s just so interesting and intense, it’s engaging and a pretty easy read so people fly though the book and attach themselves pretty quickly.

    CS: A lot has been made of vampires lately. True Blood on HBO has gone gangbusters. People love a good vampire story. Why? I think was fascinated just as a boy growing up with vampires in general, but it seems to be when you do the property right as in True Blood right now, TWILIGHT, from what everyone is saying…If you look at it from the right way it could just be huge. Why do people gravitate to vampires the way they do?

    LEFEVRE: We’ve been talking amongst ourselves about this too and there is certainly something that there are certain genre’s that just appeal to us for certain reasons at certain times and so vampires have always been around, they just keep coming in an out of fashion.

    But we are fascinated by one monster group at a time it seems in the zeitgeist. The thing that strikes me now about the vampire methodology, like True Blood and in Stephenie’s books, the genre, the methodology is being turned on it’s head. From what I’ve seen of True Blood it seems that Alan Ball is using it. It’s almost politically subversive. He’s using it to make arguments about the nature of humanity in a really interesting way about the nature of prejudice and it’s like he’s posited them as this minority group facing human challenges, which I find really interesting and the thing I find that I love about what Stephenie does is that it’s such an incredible metaphor for particularly at a young age but also like the Romeo and Juliet thing, for something that stands between two people being together.

    Whether that’s species in this case, or a class system, or whether it’s different religions, there a million reasons still today why we can’t all just be one group and so it highlights our differences in an extraordinary way. So, I think that’s one of the fascinations in society right now, why vampires are big. It allows us to ask those questions in a way that’s harmless because we are not asking about ourselves, we are asking about a hypothetical world. Sorry, I just rambled.

    (Laughs)

    CS: You’re right. I think we’re done here.

    GATHEGI: [Pointing at Taylor] He’s got nothing to contribute on the subject because he will be a werewolf.

    LEFEVRE: Why do we love werewolves so much?

    LAUTNER: Because they’re hot.

    (Laughs)

    GATHEGI: Literally. 180 degrees.

    CS: Well, to that point, Taylor and Edi, what did you bring to your own parts? You are asked to play a werewolf and vampire, respectively, and you are asked to step into these roles acting in disguise. You are essentially playing a werewolf and vampire for a vast majority of your screen time without ever brandishing scary teeth, hair all over your body…

    GATHEGI: Stephenie does a lot of the work for us with the rules of her methodology ““ there are no fangs, there are no garlic, no crosses. We go out in the daytime, but just can’t be seen in the direct sun or our skin will glitter. It doesn’t hurt us. It’s not like we have to be in a coffin during the day so a lot of the work is done for us and for me I just thought what would it be like to not ever sleep? What would it be like if I didn’t have to breathe? Like those simple things we do without thinking.

    A vampire has to consciously think to blink. Because humans blink naturally. Vampires don’t have to. So to appear human, vampires have to think about those things. So for me it was the stiller I could be, the more undead I would be. So it was an exercise in the economy in movement. I almost needed to do less. But it was serious concentration. Then on top of that not to play vampire, I play this character, this being that was once human and what were his interests when he was human and what are they now that he turned? I thought it would be interesting if he was a contemporary of some great figure in the 1700’s when he was turned and I picked St. George, this Renaissance man. He was a fencer, a very regal character and I thought what if they were friends so that gave him his gate so then I just added vampire on top of that.

    LAUTNER: It’s hard because I haven’t been transformed into a werewolf yet. I transform in the middle of the second book in the series. So, basically all I had to do is pretend which isn’t hard to have a huge crush on Kristin Stewart.

    (Laughs)

    That’s pretty much all I had to do because Jacob and Bella used to be very good friends when they were young and it’s the first time they’ve seen in other in quite a while when she moves back to Forks. He instantly has huge crush on her and cannot leave her alone, so that’s basically all I had to bring to life for Twilight.

    CS: The production itself, they say it wasn’t intentionally done to have a woman director, a woman writer, but in the notes I’ve been reading, it kind of was. Was it irrelevant by the time you guys were producing it or, for lack of a better term, did it feel like it had a woman’s touch?

    LAUTNER: I think for Katherine it doesn’t have to do anything whatsoever. Katherine has just shown in her past, with 13 and Lords of Dogtown and now this she is a professional at relating to the young. She has so much energy she is infectious. She brings the best out of us. She has such a creative imagination and that’s what Twilight needs is to take this book that is in words and bring it to life visually for the fans so they can see on the big screen what been on their minds the whole time they’ve been reading the story. I just think Katherine was the best choice we could have chosen do direct it.

    LEFEVRE: And her history is a production designer and so she does have exactly that. She does have an appreciation for the visual. And this was a world that was so specific on the page and needed to be brought to life exactly as it was written and needed somebody who could read the book and the script and have that intense visual. I don’t know. Maybe a female made a difference there ““ maybe having a female imagination helped in the visualizing.

    GATHEGI: We have good imaginations too.

    LEFEVRE: You do??? Someone told me you think also. Is that true?

    (Laughs)

    CS: Everyone says you can get though this in a week but one page in her book and one page in a script, you have X number of pages have to cut. As well, some people got on this film without seeing a script, they just latched on to it. Can you tell me a little bit about A) Did you see the script before you came on and then B) What was important to Stephenie in your characters that she wanted to be sure she got in within the running time of the movie?

    GATHEGI: I’ll try to go fast. I did not see a script when I auditioned. I just saw the sides ““ which is a scene that my character was in and I was not into it because I could tell it was an other worldly project and that was not my thing.

    I’m really not a vampire fan.

    When I met Katherine and had a great audition with Katherine I wanted to work with her and when I found out they wanted me to play the part then I picked up the books and I went, now this is not your traditional vampire story. She’s turned it upside down. This is an amazing story. It’s a romance set in the world of vampires. I absolutely want to be a part of this. I’m in love with this. What was the second part of the question?

    CS: What she wanted to retain?

    GATHEGI: And like you said, it was a 500 page book condensed into a two hour movie so I think for our characters, the nomads, we are the antagonists. There is no movie without conflict and I think that we’re not introduced in the book until page 300’s so in the movie for dramatic purposes I think it was important that they showed we exist before we exist in the books so the impending doom is there kind of a parallel story with the love story so you know there are some things about to go down.

    LEFEVRE: I think it’s exactly the story of the book just condensed. Whatever is different is only different for the purposes of time. For the purposes of condensing the story. There is nothing that I can think of that is really far away from what Stephenie wrote. It’s all Stephenie’s stuff. And if it is contorted in any way in order to make it fit into a two hour movie, it’s still Stephenie’s world and still things she wrote, they are just condensed or rearranged slightly.

    GATHEGI: And I’ll add to that condensed or rearranged slightly ““ if anything is different it’s movie making. It’s not a perfect science. There are certain things like locations and budgetary things and the sun is shining so you literally have to move the location, so maybe differences in that way but other than that, the attempt and the success of the attempt is very good.

    CS: {To Taylor] Did you read the script?

    LAUTNER: No, I didn’t. Just the sides. What I actually did, Jacob’s character basically just gets introduced in Twilight and develops later in the series but what they did for my audition process is take just in quotes from the second and third books and made it into sides and it was very interesting for me and I knew immediately, I love intimate relationships between boy and girl, I’ve always been a romance fan so I loved the sides, loved the writing, hadn’t read the books yet and as soon as I got cast in the film, that is when I read the books and the script.

    CS: And now looking at this not just as a book, or a movie, you are looking at two or three, are you comfortable to signing your self on this trilogy? Any reservations about going on to do more?

    LEFEVRE: I had no reservations before I signed on. I read the first book right before my audition and read the other two before I was cast and I read the script before I agreed to do it but having read all three books and knowing that someone had chosen Katherine, it could have gone one of two ways. They could have gotten a director who was an action person for all the action sequences and the chase stuff, and they could have gone with somebody who was really great with that and had experience doing that and then just allowed them to do the romance story. But they didn’t. They went the other way. They knew that Katherine would be able to pull off the action stuff and gave her an amazing – Andy who was our stunt coordinator and second unit director was an incredible ““ so they made a great team in the two of them so they let Katherine really do what she does best is really have organic behavior and an intense story from young actors. So knowing they had made that choice, I trusted Summit implicitly with the series so for that reason there were no hesitations for me. The story was great and they picked Katherine.

    GATHEGI: And I can speak for them we would all love to do the subsequent films if there are any but there aren’t any right now. We’re going to see what happens in a week and a half.

    LEFEVRE: And we’re always the last to know anyway. The actors. Last on the phone chain.

    CS: The Internet seems to always know first.

    (Laughs)

  • Trailer Park: EXCLUSIVE MILK Screening In Phoenix

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    How many people are coming back for the Thanksgiving holiday early next week and want to see a possible Oscar contender slug it out on the screen as he fights ignorance, intolerance and homophobia? Well then I have a deal for you…

    Gus Van Sant’s film that chronicles the election of California’s first openly gay official opens December 5th but you can see it early if you drop me a line at Christopher_Stipp@Yahoo.com. The screening is this Tuesday night, the 25th, at the Scottsdale Camelview at 7 p.m. and if you shoot me your name and address you are in the race to get in. It’s as easy as that.

    The official synopsis follows…

    His life changed history. His courage changed lives. In 1977, Harvey Milk was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, becoming the first openly gay man to be voted into public office in America.

    His victory was not just a victory for gay rights; he forged coalitions across the political spectrum. From senior citizens to union workers, Harvey Milk changed the very nature of what it means to be a fighter for human rights and became, before his untimely death in 1978, a hero for all Americans. Sean Penn stars as Harvey Milk under the direction of Gus Van Sant in Milk, filmed on location in San Francisco from an original screenplay by Dustin Lance Black, and produced by Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen. Milk charts the last eight years of Harvey Milk’s life. While living in New York City, he turns 40.

    Looking for more purpose, Milk and his lover Scott Smith (James Franco) relocate to San Francisco, where they found a small business, Castro Camera, in the heart of a working-class neighborhood. With his beloved Castro neighborhood and beautiful city empowering him, Milk surprises Scott and himself by becoming an outspoken agent for change. With vitalizing support from Scott and from new friends like young activist Cleve Jones (Emile Hirsch), Milk plunges headfirst into the choppy waters of politics. Bolstering his public profile with humor, Milk’s actions speak even louder than his gift-of-gab words. When Milk is elected supervisor for the newly zoned District 5, he tries to coordinate his efforts with those of another newly elected supervisor, Dan White (Josh Brolin). But as White and Milk’s political agendas increasingly diverge, their personal destinies tragically converge. Milk’s platform was and is one of hope ““ a hero’s legacy that resonates in the here and now.

  • Trailer Park: TWILIGHT Review

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    I thought of all the different ways to review this movie and none of them seemed to be the right way to do it.

    You see, the overriding emphasis on what I want to get across about TWILIGHT is that this film was for sure, absolutely, positively not made for me. I am a 33 year old male who hasn’t read any of the books written by Arizona native Stephenie Meyer and have no inclination to read the series based on a vampire and his human ward/lady friend. But that’s alright, I would come to feel by the end of this movie, because of one fact alone: this is show business and this film is in the business of appealing to young ladies. It does it so well, in fact, that I dare say this should be the one movie on prepubescents’ lips come Monday morning as the one film that has defined their year.

    For the rest of us, however, this movie isn’t completely awful. Lord knows that the dialog is pretty bad, the characterization of our human love interest is beyond hackneyed and has been done before in countless other angst-y teenagers who hate life and whose parents just “don’t understand them” to say nothing of Bella Swan’s (Kristen Stewart) weirdly distant father who only adds to the movie’s forced narrative that this is, at its heart, a movie about teenage alienation. Like I said, it’s been done before in countless ways before in a lot better films. However, what I can say, like Edward tells Bella at the film’s prom scene that this all a rite of passage she deserves and needs to be a part of, is that this film is for the ladies.

    This movie is going to be the gateway drug (and, really, everyone out there who will find themselves sitting in the theater as Edward (Robert Pattinson) tells Bella that she’s his brand of heroin try not to completely fall out of your seat as your belly ripples with the giggles that are sure to ensue) for many disenfranchised teenage girls who don’t have a voice in the current cinema climate.

    The story of a young Bella who leaves the sunny and sandy shores of Scottsdale for the wet confines of Washington state, adjusting to life in a new high school and finding the boy of her dreams, only to find out he’s a member of the undead, is a relatively innocuous one. What we have here is a fairly basic flicks that has a shroud of vampirism tossed over it. And you know what? It’s a hoot. It’s a genuinely interesting film as we progress deeper into Meyer’s mythos, finding out what this brand of vampire is capable of doing, how they live, what makes them special, what threatens their existence, etc… It’s the exploration of these smaller bits that elevates this film from just being a shoddily produced cash-in.

    However, there are elements in the movie that would tell you otherwise.

    The wire work, effects and anything else that required even the slightest bit of modern 21st century technology to enhance was abhorrent. There are moments, for example in the penultimate fight sequence (and a sequence that answers the question of What would James Dean look like if he were in a roughshod martial arts film?)  between Edward and bad-boy James (Cam Gigandet) was nothing if but a comedic romp into bad action blocking. As well, Taylor Lautner’s performance as Jacob Black gets my Anthony Hopkins Award for racial blurring as that poor kid must have been given the C. Thomas Howell SOUL MAN treatment with enough self-tanner to make his olive skin turn a deep rusty hue in order to be the Native American representative of the werewolves. The aforementioned dialogue gets really, really bad at times and there’s even the sense that the players in this movie weren’t really given the ability to take Meyers’ work any higher than teenage melodrama. It’s more like a pilot for the CW at certain points in this film. And I cannot stress enough the grating attitude that Bella seems to carry with her throughout the film. My main issue with this is if you create a protagonist who is so easily pained with her own life that she projects it whenever possible how could anyone else, besides teenagers whose sole sphere of experience spans life in only two insular stages: inside of school and outside of school, identify with this woman? The answer, if you’re following close enough, is that you’re not. This book, this film, this series, speaks to some elusive trigger mechanism in young teenage ladies and it’s clear to anyone looking at the screen that unless you shop at Hollister or Hot Topic there’s not much you’re going to get out of this.

    There are  other members of the film, though, who actually do contribute to this film and elevate it just a little bit more than just a campy excuse to be doused in white flower. Peter Facinelli is one such actor and, to be quite honest, surprised me. His delivery isn’t stiff. He doesn’t lower his head and look forward to talk like some members of his vampy family. He speaks normally and acts, literally, as if he’s a vampire but just happens to live in a human’s world. Dare I say it I would have rather followed his story more than I wanted to follow everyone else’s. Rachelle Lefevre, one of the other “bad” vampires of this film, is a delight. She’s actually quite alluring and plays her role in a way that makes you feel a) like she could treat your neck like a piece of skirt steak and you would let her willingly and b) she is able to project a hint of evil without being obnoxious.

    In all, TWILIGHT is going to make millions off the backs of young girls who have been in need of a DARK KNIGHT for themselves. Honestly, I couldn’t be happier for them. This film does not try to be all things to all people, it does not want me to like it nor does it try too hard to, it hits the right emotional notes of those in its targeted sights and there is no way you could walk out of that film thinking that there is no way an audience could love that film because when you consider that in the land of show business this is one property that knows its market.

  • Trailer Park: Kaori Momoi

    header_stipp.jpg

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    Apart from the fact that it’s simply an awesomely constructed film that blends the traditional with the very modern SUKIYAKI WESTERN DJANGO will leave you wanting. For some, the movie was a jarring blend of styles but, for me, there wasn’t a better film that dared to be bold in its execution and was different not for the sake of it but for what it could be if it was.

    Of all the highlights in the movie, however, wasn’t Takashi Miike’s curious choices for locales or the way he decided to twist language but it was in the performance of Japanese film star Kaori Momoi that caught me unaware. It’s not to say that the rest of the cast doesn’t do well enough on their own but seeing Kaori in this film shows you the kind of respect this woman commands.

    Those who need a quick primer of why Kaori is so compelling all you need to know is that in her career she worked with Akira Kurosawa, is a two time Japanese Academy Award winner, and pursues a life in, “producing, directing, screenwriting, and design in addition to her acting.” And, she’s released some 15 albums. She’s a real renaissance woman. Needless to say, when the opportunity presented itself to interview her there was no way I could pass it up.

    Needless to say one of the peculiar things about this interview is that this is the first one I’ve ever done through a translator. Kaori’s English is quite good but there was still the language barrier to contend with. However, her jubilant spirit would not daunt her ability to answer the questions I tossed her way.

    SUKIYAKI WESTERN DJANGO is now out on DVD.

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: First I would like to thank you for taking time for me. I just want to ask you a few questions but want to start off by saying it’s a pleasure and an honor to be able to talk to you.

    TRANSLATOR: Please ask any questions.

    CS: Thank you. I know that Takashi Miike has made a film that has blended some various genres together ““ the American Western and Japanese Samurai. How did you respond initially to being asked to be in this picture?

    KAORI MOMOI: Now, I can speak a little bit English.

    I have to say that I love Miike. I love to work with Miiki very much because he is a genius and a genius director, and a crazy artist, and fun person. He looks like a youngster but he is a very nice person and a shy boy. He always experiments everywhere. I love to work with him. This movie is Japanese history. This is not just a Western movie. This is Heike Western. I love the sound of Heike Western. I love that. Maybe it’s my accent. What do you think?

    CS: As an actress, can you expound, or talk about how you approached the material in a way that could feel authentic, yet in the vein that Miike was going for?

    MOMOI: Well, I have never been in an action movie before. I am old enough. I was a ballerina. I wanted to play an action role and felt this was the last chance for me to do so.

    CS: You say you’ve never been in an action movie, how was it to actually see what eventually made it up onto the screen?

    MOMOI: I just say too heavy for my body.

    (Laughs)

    It was too cold. It was so scary like a bungie jump ““ I hate that.

    Laugh.

    CS: You mean it wasn’t fun?

    MOMOI: Yes! I enjoy it very much. It was fun, but it was scary.

    CS: I would definitely like to know your thoughts on the idea that many inside Hollywood like to take ideas and the riches of others like Japanese cinema, overtly, STAR WARS being influenced by THE HIDDEN FORTRESS being one example. In your years being in the film industry do you see a difference between how American’s like to see their films presented to them as opposed to, let’s say, the Japanese audience likes to have theirs presented to them?

    MOMOI: I do like to make films. Filmmakers make Japanese old movies ““ I don’t like it. We have to experiment. We have to have new directors to make new movies as an artist. Originality is very important, I think.

    CS: You’ve mentioned in other interviews about wanting to get work in some Hollywood productions. As an older woman in a market that loves it’s young talent, does going after jobs still thrill you as an older woman as it did when you were a younger one?

    MOMOI: I don’t feel so much different because I look young.

    (Laughs)

    Nobody knows about me in LA or USA or other countries other than Japan. As an actress, as a woman, no one knows how old I am. That’s good for me as an actress. I think actress has to be new. That’s good for me.

    CS: Speaking about your career, in other interviews I’ve read with you, it’s your energy to be relevant and to experiment with different ventures really exceeds anyone I’ve ever read about. Where does that motivation and that hopefulness and look-forwardness come from?

    MOMOI:     I’m so hyper and vocal. If you have power you have to smoke and drink lots of wine. That helps you.

    CS: You’ve challenged directors that you’ve worked with. How have directors responded to the idea that your job is not only to interpret the script but to add your own thoughts about the movie making process?

    MOMOI: Dialog is in English. I can’t speak English, somebody said. English is good for me. I can speak English dialogue. I was like a young girl in a conversation with Miike. I didn’t do anything. I was just loving him. The movie was so special for me. Some directors are not so great, and sometimes I have to kick them, and I will push them away and I will get the job as the director.

    (Laughs)

    CS: You got the chance to work with Akira Kurosawa. He’s revered here in America by those who really love film. How do you look back on the time that you got to spend with him?

    MOMOI: He is a great person. We Japanese are very proud of him. He is a great director now too. I want to work with him more and more. He was a big person for me. I worked with him on Kagemushma. He was a big person in the studio and every person was scared of him. I called him and said, “How are you today and what do you want?” I want to make him more relaxed. I asked him, “What do you want, my body or something?” Every morning I took him and made him feel not so lonely. One day he called me. It was his birthday. He said, “If you have the time, let’s have lunch.” Then I went to the restaurant and we had lunch ““ that was a memory. That’s all.

    CS: I know my time is short so I’ll ask one more question. You have done this movie with Takashi Miike, where do you see yourself going from here?

    MOMOI: I think I have to speak English more. Because I want the world to know more about Japanese movies and Japanese actress. Any Asian can speak English well. We have to speak English now. I want to speak English dialogue and I will get another country’s movie and I will live in Los Angeles some time and for my English. I will then give me the job!

  • Trailer Park: Juliana Hatfield

    header_stipp.jpg

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    This is one of the issues with conducting an e-mail interview: you could get one sentence answers.

    I’ve been vacillating between being thankful that Juliana Hatfield, whose new album “How To Walk Away” and new book “When I Grow Up” is now available, answered what I punted over to her in-box and downright disappointed at what followed. Yes, maybe she’s just not that into what I was asking. Maybe I was a wretched question asker. Maybe it was just me. What I am positive of, though, is that Juliana was at the nexus and genesis of a musical shift for me. I went from listening to Top 10 radio to being ensconced and swaddled in rough power chords that connoted a youthful sensibility that just spoke to me.

    On that same note, though, there is a trap you can fall in if you look at acts like Juliana or a host of other bands that just happened to be fronted by women. It was seen as a movement of sorts but no one asked those labeled as such if that was the intention. Many times it wasn’t. Juliana happened to be lumped into that group that was looked at with a feminine eye. She just wanted to express herself. And that she did as she scored big with “My Sister”, “Spin The Bottle” on the Reality Bites soundtrack and enjoyed a “guilt by association” lifestyle until the fickle tastes of music lovers went on to something else. Juliana didn’t change, though. Unlike the musical stylings of Jewel, changing from folksie to dance (!) to country, Juliana kept refining and experimenting with her sound. Her live shows were, and still are, unique in that she’s a true musician insofar that her concerts are shockingly more focused on the music than they are on the theatrics. While many of those acts many would remember from the 1990s have long since ditched their guitars for day jobs Juliana has been on an even keel of sorts in releasing music in the years following the alternative craze.

    This interview came about for the reason that, like the Remington pitchman, I’ve been financially supporting her operation one release at a time since 1992. I’ve become a lot less obsessive since my days in college when I had to absolutely, positively needed to own anything she put to CD and being able to promote her latest effort which is simply solid in every regard. It almost makes the rather brief responses worth it but I am still wondering it had anything to do with my delivery.

    Here, now, are the questions I sent out and what I received in return:

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: After listening to the first song of the new album, How To Walk Away, I was struck by the guitar bridge near the end. (It made me think of Fleetwood Mac back in their heyday) I’m curious to know a little bit about how the song came together. Did the melody come first or did the lyrics define where you wanted to go with this?

    JULIANA HATFIELD: Melody and lyrics kind of came together together, if I remember correctly. I probably had a chord progression before anything, though.

    CS: You’ve mentioned that when you look back at the 90’s you wish you would’ve kept your mouth shut on things. You were young, you didn’t know better, etc”¦ Is it really possible to just stick these songs out into the world without anyone knowing about the artist who is putting them out there? I ask this because your music, for the most part, has never strayed into superficial territory and there seems to be a complexity with your lyrics. A little background about the process of making the album, I would think, would help frame it as a whole.

    HATFIELD: Yes I think it is possible for an artist to maintain total privacy and/or a shroud of mystery or non-information. Look at, say, Jandek, or Bonnie Prince Billy. What do we know about them, really?

    CS: And, as a follow-up to the above question, what part of you wanted to make this album at this time? It seems a little more hopeful, if not melancholy, than previous efforts.

    HATFIELD: I feel a little more hopeful and a little less melancholy with each passing year and so the music is a reflection of that- of where my head and heart are at.

    CS: I haven’t been able to read your book but as a card-carrying member of the Juliana Hatfield Fan Club I will have to allocate money to buy it. I know you want to be able and give people a better idea of who you are and your reflections on what has come before this but what prompted you to break through the notion that your life is your life and no one needs to know anything more than what you give them, i.e. your albums? Was it liberating to write the book?

    HATFIELD: I really just wanted to write a book because writing prose is fun and exciting and so challenging.

    CS: I was, and still am, a huge fan, huge fan, of the video for What A Life. I managed to record it on my VCR during a rather good episode of 120 Minutes on MTV eons ago. You getting knocked around by unseen forces, the blood, it was stark. Where have these creative videos gone? I don’t care to watch dudes in their hoopties, sipping on champagne or women exploiting their sexuality to move a few more units. Surely you have a thought or two about the modern business model of music. It’s sad that I have to work really hard to find original music out there and it’s no longer the MTV’s of the world that are helping this situation out. By that point, and it should be obvious that I’ve been saving this question for years, over decade in fact, did you enjoy the video making process?

    HATFIELD: I did not love the video making process back then- I felt I was not a good actor and one must act in videos. I felt a bit like a fish out of water.now, though, the process is more fun for me, if only because I have more control over it and there is less at stake- I can mess around and do what I want, low-budget-style, and it’s just fun and another creative outlet. No high-profile directors or record companies breathing down my neck.

    Though I did make cool videos back then- I too love the What A Life vid. And I still can’t believe the record company paid for us to do that. The video’s really sort of shocking and subversive, don’t you think? I have to give the label (Atlantic) a lot of credit for bankrolling that sort of sick vision (the director’s vision, mostly. He is and was a good friend of mine.)

    CS: How has touring been for you through the years? I have to imagine that through the early 90’s you were seeing a much different crowd than the ones you’re seeing today. I remember going out to see a lot of different bands back then and I’ve seen that opportunity slowly evaporating as all those who I followed back then have stopped making music?

    HATFIELD: Touring is tiring and physically draining, over the long term. But playing shows is fun and cathartic so I guess it all works out in the end.

    CS: Speaking of that, a lot of your contemporaries have stopped churning out music at the rate you still do. One artist in particular, Tanya Donelly (who I interviewed last year and was an absolute gem to talk to), has taken a longer time between albums. I know you can’t speak to anyone else besides you but it seems to be a recurring theme with a lot of older bands; they just stop producing music. You, though, seem to be blessed with the ability to have new perspectives, thoughts and ideas. What do you do to keep things going, creatively?

    HATFIELD: I just try to work hard and work all the time. Writing, looking for ideas, reading, looking at art, keeping my mind open to new things and inspirations.

    CS: What things do you find comfort in with regard to making music? What makes you happy to put something to tape, CD, etc”¦

    HATFIELD: Writing is like worshiping or meditating. it’s spiritual. It takes the place of church/religion in my life.

    CS: Does performing live still hold a thrill for you?

    HATFIELD: See question/answer #6

    CS: I know you hate the notion of being a part of the women in rock explosion in the media landscape, Lord knows I didn’t know better but had it not happened I’m not sure I would’ve stumbled upon My Sister, but years after hearing that song I now find myself with two girls of my own, 2 and 5. I now have something vested in the way my girls come to know what it means to be a woman through the pop culture they’re going to be exposed to. You’ve managed to eschew attempts to co-opt your music though making you something you’re not (the video for What A Life is an excellent example of this) but do you think women are in a better place today than they were in the 90’s in the music industry?

    HATFIELD: Yes and no. it seems there are fewer females being played on the radio and in fact there just are fewer all-girl bands. Remember Luscious Jackson, L7, Babes in Toyland, Scrawl, etc. etc., etc? Where have all the all-girl bands gone?

    But on the up side , I guess, being a girl and playing guitar is not seen, anymore, as a novelty or as something out of the ordinary. It’s commonplace now for girls to play in bands. That is, I suppose, progress.

    But definitely not as much girl action on the airwaves today.

    CS: You listen to a lot of NPR. I do too. I think some of them are a bit smarmy at times but, on the whole, you can’t beat it. Are you hooked on any programs in particular? I was equally surprised to see you listen to a lot of baseball. Any teams in particular? I’ll share that I’m a Cubs fan so any other team listed from their division that you list will be promptly deleted and a “Refused to Answer” will be put in its place. Oh, and if it’s not too much of a problem, can you list one book you’ve read this year that you just have to recommend or talk highly of?

    HATFIELD: I like the Red Sox. I’m from Boston. “˜The Road’ by Cormac McCarthy was pretty devastating. Probably my favorite of all his books. But was that last year or this year?

    CS: It’s your life, it’s your career, you can obfuscate all you like if you so wish, but reading about whether this is something (making music) you want to keep doing is a bit disconcerting when you’ve said this might be your last album. I say this only because I don’t know where else I might spend the money I hide from my wife in order to buy things like your albums (I waited two weeks for the official release, with the b-side album”¦and the poster”¦I am officially uncool for admitting all this publicly) so that’s a bit of alarming issue for me, but, honestly, and seriously, does making music not hold that same kind of ambition to best your past efforts anymore?

    HATFIELD: I’m not as desperate to be heard and loved, anymore. Now I just want to make music for my own pleasure.

    CS: Lastly, and this is just something I’ve asked people over the years, when you’re accosted by some random person who tells you that they’ve enjoyed your work or they really enjoy X CD you’ve put out is there a point where that becomes white noise? Do these chance encounters or moments after a show do something inside of you that would have you believe that what you’re doing means something to someone out there?

    HATFIELD: It’s nice to be told that your work has had meaning in someone else’s life.

  • Trailer Park: THE INCREDIBLE HULK/THE STRANGERS Giveaway

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    I know, lots of people were wondering what in the hell was up with the latest INCREDIBLE HULK release even prior to its release. People were P.O.ed, message boards were aglow with fanboy man goo about the prospect of Ed Norton reprising the role and there was a general consensus of uncertainty regarding its eventual quality. The end result, however, was solid. The movie didn’t rattle the movie industry like Stark and Co. but this was nonetheless a sweet actioneer that was well-paced and left a better taste in people’s mouths than the first entry.

    Now, regarding THE STRANGERS, who would have put any kind of money on the fact that this film would receive the reception it did from people who were expecting nothing short of a straight to DVD kind of film and, instead, were treated to a genuine thrill ride that proved that great writing can trump any misgivings when it came to the casting. THE STRANGERS was one of those films that many missed but now can make up for by checking it out on DVD.

    I’ve got copies to give out and they are all yours. What do you have to do to get them? Just send me your preference for which one and shoot it to me at Christopher_Stipp@Yahoo.com. Easy as that kiddos…

  • Trailer Park: ZACK AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO – Reviewed

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    One of the real delights of ZACK AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO is Craig Robinson; it’s his brand of humor that succinctly explains why this film is a delightful diversion and honorable entry in the View Askew canon.

    It’s the mixture of actors who haven’t lived within Kevin Smith’s oeuvre that pump the much needed vitality and energy in order to make this picture more than just something limited to the characters and personas he’s used to creating. Without question a lot of the credit for what elevates the film has to go to Elizabeth Banks; it’s her bubbly effervescence, her commitment in playing a woman who would a) rock granny panties and b) allow herself to be ridiculed for doing so when she’s captured doing so on a cell phone and uploaded to YouTube but it’s also her natural charisma that make her an audience darling. We care about Miri’s plight, along with Zack’s, in her quest to find a way out of the abject poverty she and Zack finds themselves in. Banks just exudes the innocence that this whole film hinges on, Lord knows as an audience we would absolutely buy the premise that Seth Rogan would hump on cue in front of the camera, and it’s only through Smith’s writing we can believe the series of events that take this from just a clever idea, a one trick pony, and honestly morphs into a movie that is, perhaps, one of the best romantic comedies that has been released this year.

    As well, moving towards the moment when our two broke losers figure porn is the only way out there is no denying that Justin Long not only has one of the most briefest moments in the film but is pivotal to pushing the narrative towards its logical next step. Long is outrageous as Brandon, the throaty emperor of gay porn, and the moment he has with Zack at Zack and Miri’s high school reunion is one that, if nothing else, give reason for Long to shed any trace of the twinkling boy next door we all know from his stints as the Apple pitch man.

    The plot ripens in a way that isn’t reminiscent of Smith films, looking at this entry as you would any artist’s collection, as you won’t find long ruminations on pop culture, but Smith allows Banks and Rogen to develop a relationship with one another on screen instead of using them as conduits for his writing. These performers cement their believability as roommates and, more importantly, friends who have known each other for a long time and it works. It works to the film’s benefit as the two of them then become willing partners in a pornographic adventure that seems more to do with their relationship than it does with the excuse to have adult film stars flitting around making puerile jokes with one another. (And if that’s your bag there’s enough of that to go around so fear not.)

    Robinson, Jason Mewes, Ricky Mabe, Jeff Anderson and the rest of the cast are well-placed in this film’s tableau as they’re not immediately front and center of this film’s action. This is Zack and Miri’s movie in more than one way. Neverminding the production of this porno and overlooking the amusing steps along the way as the movie is put to tape it is the penultimate moment when Zack and Miri come together, witticism intended, that this movie explodes. The way this scene is framed, shot and scored it makes you wonder if this was the moment Smith had thought of when he came up with the idea. It just feels like an earned moment and it certainly is the brightest spot of the film for me. He earned the right to take the film where it went and all self-effacements aside it just worked, clicked.

    To talk about the intricacies of what takes this movie just beyond the making of the porno, the changed feelings Zack and Miri have for one another is just too easy not to see coming, would be a disservice to the film. In explaining comedy you almost have to give up the reason why it was funny in the first place and I’m not here to spoil the little surprises that pepper the film.

    Rogan should be the one, however, to surprise everyone. From KNOCKED UP to SUPERBAD the guy, funny as he was, was funny because he needed to be. In this film he doesn’t try to be that guy; his performance was naturally compelling because it was the closest iteration to what someone in his position would do should they find themselves in the unique circumstances he does. You believe his antics and actions. His comedy here seems stripped down and proves why someone took notice of him while he was on Freaks and Geeks.

    The film should be one of Smith’s centerpieces if for no other reason than this is one of the best examples that prove that he can make a movie that is filled with some of the most jolting moments this year, Dutch Rudder and constipation, that’s all I’m going to say, but marry it with a love story that is affective and tender. Too many times the criticisms about Smith’s inclusiveness with regard to his characters’ seemingly whip smart cadence is well-deserved. Here, though, Smith eschews it. It’s odd but liberating at the same time.

    I’ve always wanted more of Smith’s belief in himself, that his writing can absolutely go beyond his ken and stable of familiar and safe characters, and this film is the one that feels and acts different. It’s Smith putting himself out there for all those who have been lobbing their sound bites at his feet, telling him to leave the View Askew universe for a bit, and the end result is great. Great not only from the point that his regulars are relegated to the background but that he put his trust in his actors to let them distill his script and relay it in the manner which has made them good at what they do.

    ###
    Now, it’s Halloween and that means it’s time for Ray Schillaci to break down my virtual door to bring his own brand of insight on this most hallowed of days…but before I get to him there is a little bit of custodial quick hits:

    1. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. I saw this movie two nights ago and I have to tell you, honestly, no bullshit, this is one of the best films of 2008 that I have seen. While I am restricted and prohibited from saying anything more it is my honest wish that some of you put this film in your Must See queue. It’s beyond words for me at the moment but these next couple weeks will allow the film to replay and percolate in my mind as I craft a review. It damn near made me cry.

    2. “Kyle Clifford”. Who is he? What is he? What does he want? I dunno but he just deserves a mention. Guy should put on a one man show. He’s the next Danny Gans, the next Carrot Top without the props, the next Louie Anderson but not as portly. It’s my solemn wish that this guy realize his potential and bring laughter to the masses. As it is, the guy warrants a little ink. WWRBD, indeed.

    3. I made a mix tape. Remember when you made mix tapes in high school, maybe into college? Well, I was rapping to my man Thomas Stern and mentioned that this activity shouldn’t be limited to those in the younger grades as I remember getting my start in listening to some excellent bands from the trading of mix tapes. Since I can’t freely distribute this thing without getting hauled into federal court I will at least list the tracks for your perusal. I’m damn proud of this one and if anyone has a mix tape they would like to share I am always in the market for new music. Long live the mix tape:

    1. Elvis is Everywhere ““ Mojo Nixon and Skid Roper
    2. Sorry Again ““ Velocity Girl
    3. Lights Out ““ Santogold
    4. Heavyweight Champion Of The World ““ Reverend And The Makers
    5. Bitches Aint Shit ““ Ben Folds
    6. I Want It All ““ Dance Hall Crashers
    7. Reid’s Situation ““ Shadowy Men On A Shadowy Planet
    8. The Mayor of Simpleton ““ XTC
    9. Lonesome ““ Regatta 69
    10. White Winter Hymnal ““ Fleet Foxes
    11. Little Tiny Moustache ““ Stephen Lynch
    12. *Hidden Track Within The Mix And Therefore Isn’t Hidden*
    13. The Bigger the Figure ““ Louis Prima
    14. The Audience Is Listening ““ Cut Chemist
    15. Shower Science ““ Saint Etienne
    16. My Little Suede Shoes ““ The Robustos
    17. Into The Dark ““ Ben Lee
    18. Some Rainy Sunday ““ Juliana Hatfield
    19. Na Na Na ““ Theresa Andersson
    20. Building Steam with a Grain of Salt ““ DJ Shadow
    21. Unplayed Piano ““ Damien Rice and Lisa Hannigan
    22. Just Stay ““ Kevin Devine

    4. Giveaway. Anyone who read this far and wants to be entered into a drawing for a free ZACK AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO one sheet just send me a note to Christopher_Stipp@Yahoo.com. Yahtzee!

    5. Text Movie Club. This is a new site I write for on a regional basis, it’s out of Phoenix, and it’s creation is not why I’m including it today in my column. It’s due to this online social network that gets people into screenings early, gives them free shit and is a portal where people can go and just dish about movies. It’s as if Santa Claus and MySpace (not the part of it that sucks) had a baby and raised it to give away stuff nonstop. It’s an excellent concept to give fans of a film an early peek to movies that many of us have to wait until opening day to see and it seems to be branching off into other states as well. Give it a peek to see if it’s coming to a town near you. Who can deny the power of free films in this economy?

    6. Get your ass out and vote. So many of you lazy asses will sit on them and not get a vote cast. Be it McCain or Obama it is my hope that every one of you who are able to cast a vote do so. Even if there is just one proposition you want to vote for (Proposition 102 for example, in Arizona, wants to make marriage only between a woman and man. I’m honestly disgusted to be in a state where these religious fundies think this is a good thing. 30 years from now we’re all going to be laughed at for this type of thing.) just do it. Lots of people, a long time ago, worked especially hard to make sure you could do it and it’s honestly something I love doing every year. Even if I’m not proud of what other countries think of us based on the retarded ape we have as a president now I still think it’s a civic duty we should embrace.

    That said, go Obama…

    And now, without any further ado, my main man, my Toucan Sam, you know his name isn’t quite Pam, Ray Schillaci…

    Greatest Moments in Horror History

    While other people pontificate about the greatest horror films this season, which I feel so many have missed the mark, I decided to deliver my choice of the greatest horror moments (in no particular order) in scary movies. Some are automatic gimmes, others are a little out of left field, but well worth checking out if out have missed the boat. All are available on DVD.

    First the obvious:

    Psycho ““ Janet Leigh takes her last shower and we end up flinching every time someone steps into a bathroom in anything remotely resembling a thriller.

    Night of the Living Dead ““ It was bad enough that good ol’ George (Romero) was breaking taboos all over the place with a black hero and cannibalism, but he went and had a little girl (all of about 11 years old) die, come back to life and butcher her mommy before or very eyes. Sure it was black and white, but the visual chilled us to the bone.

    Diabolique (the original French version) ““ My dad still remembers after all these years the corpse suddenly reappearing, slowly stepping out of the bathtub, white pupils exposed and heading towards his spouse. It scared the crap out of him and it gave me the willies as well when I first picked up the Criterion DVD.

    The Exorcist ““ Sometimes it’s the subtle things that scare the shit out of us. Freidkin paced himself well, but nothing truly beat the eeriness of the sounds coming from the attic and Ellen Burstyn taking a lit candlestick and checking it out. What was she thinking!

    Halloween ““ There is a one-two punch here; when Dr. Loomis arrives at the sanitarium in the pouring rain, finds the attendees taking a stroll and Michael Myers leaps up on the car from behind. More people had their blood pressure shoot up ““ and it only built from there ““ but the pinnacle for so many was when he rose from the couch. I remember being at the Americana Theaters in Van Nuys, CA and the continuous screaming that accompanied it. Horrific.

    Now for something different:

    The Omen (original) ““ Richard Donner was in rare form when he choreographed the graveyard scene that had people leaping from their theater seats and popcorn flying. This is a good reason to go out and get a PS3 to see and hear this testament to horror on blu-ray that would never be surpassed by its sequels or remake.

    Alien ““ Talk about something eating at you. When that little bugger popped out of John Hurt’s chest, some people literally ran out into the lobby. Who would ever think they could find gothic horror in space.

    The Shining ““ The Twins. Need I say more.

    Friday the 13th ““ Before you toss out this opinion, think about the very first time you watched this and knew it was a low rate, who’s doing it with gallons of grand guignol to boot. When we though it was all over, Jason introduces himself in the most nerve-wracking way having some people screaming and crying through the credits. Of all the cheap jumping out bits this far surpassed “Carrie” or anything else in the cheap thrills department and it proved that at the box office with its continuous sequels. By the way, the beginning of Pt. 2 has a great jump-start as well.

    SAW ““ the very ending made so many of us gasp in terror and leave us sleepless for several nights while spawning sequels (some that are too good for this kind of tawdry tale of the macabre) that may become as regular as Halloween.

    Speaking of endings; “The Blair Witch Project” worked its weird magic into people’s minds and messed with us to no end after we ran into that building with all the small handprints and found you-know-who standing in the corner. Creeeepy.

    Wait Until Dark ““ At one time it was thought that the last 10 minutes of this nifty thriller was nearly as harrowing as it gets with Alan Arkin as the slimiest scumbag on the planet.

    Of course, Neil Marshall proved that wrong years later by frying our nerves with the last 50 minutes of “The Descent”. This could easily be labeled as one of the best horror films in the past 10 years. One claustrophobic scene after another accompanied by the feeling of being watched and not knowing what is around the corner. Oh, but when you do get around the corner what you find may cause an asthma attack.

    And, finally the granddaddy of them all; Texas Chainsaw Massacre and TCM 2 ““ Tobe Hooper initiated us into believing what we were seeing when we saw so little. It was a great exercise in suggestive sinema. And, the scene when the first couple encounters Leatherface’s home is as uncomfortable and terrifying as it gets. Just when you thought he could do no more, Hooper followed up with a sequel that was as blood drenched as everybody thought the first one was. He knew he started something, and so many lesser directors had jumped on the gore wagon. But Hooper’s sequel was different from the beginning, laced with farce, gallows humor and an over-the-top performance, not to be missed, by a double chainsaw wielding Dennis Hopper. In fact Hooper matched the first encounter with Leatherface with a reintroduction in the sequel that has to be seen. Just writing about it will not do it justice. But I will say he uses the talents of Danny Elfman and his band Oingo Boingo to the max! Pipe this through your sound system and crank it up. You won’t be sorry.

  • Trailer Park: Mike Leigh

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    I was waiting patiently to speak to Mike Leigh.

    It was an unexpectedly cool outside of the Hotel Valley Ho, the higher end resort-style lodgings actually looking more like a motel with all the rooms on the outside, and I was going over the questions I had after seeing the film days before.

    I’m naturally more apt to not go the “What was it like working…” route with any performer or person involved with the production of a film during an interview but I was prepped that Mike Leigh is a tougher interview to some people just because you really do have to dig a little deeper than the morning show retardedness that plagues so many programs that get the opportunity to talk to great people and then squander it on things like, “Did you enjoy making the movie?”

    As I reflected on what I was going to ask, the door opened and Colin Boyd walked out. He said that Mike was excellent, a great interview. However, he paused for a moment and whispered that Mike corrected him on some questions. “Be careful,” he said. It wasn’t ominous or something that caused me to rethink my questions but it did rattle me a bit. I’ve never been in the position to have someone be actively picking apart my questions in their head, make it known out loud, so I tried desperately to speak in specifics as best I could and avoid anything that could be constructed as lazy. And, as I saw the diminutive man with a thick beard, suspenders and an amiable greeting as he welcomed me into the room where we were to conduct the interview, all alone which was a different experience, he closed the door and went after it.

    Yes, it gets a little awkward at times, and I left those unadulterated moments in there, but Mike seems like the kind of guy who doesn’t mind telling you how it is…and how it’s going to be. You’ve got to respect that kind of assertiveness.

    CS: I think the film spoke to a few different levels, the most superficial being the positiveness of life. When you were fleshing this out, over the months of figuring out what you wanted to say, was it always the same story or during those months did you find something you weren’t expecting?

    LEIGH: Well, it’s all about finding things you’re not expecting. For me, the journey of making this film is the journey of discovery as to what it is. I started with a very strong feeling, a sense of the spirit of the thing, but the journey ““ the months I spent, which is what I think you’re talking about, preparing the thing are merely arriving at the premise of the film, but it’s shooting of the film that I make it up and define it as I go along.

    It’s a constant, endless harvest of feast of surprises, of discoveries, of revelations. That is what creating a piece of art is all about. So, if the question, which sort of is I suspect, has something to do with starting with a fixed notion and how much it grows or deviates from that, that really not appropriate because all you have is something nebulous and fluid and you move toward coming into existence and that, the act in itself, is where all the surprises are and decisions are made and you decide what it is ““ abstract, really is what I’m talking about.

    There you have it in a nutshell. I couldn’t elaborate. Picasso once said that if you know what you’re going to do before you do it, what’s the point of doing it?

    So, let’s move on.

    CS: Yes, absolutely.

    LEIGH: Let’s get more specific.

    (Laughs)

    CS: Let’s talk about Sally Hawkins.

    LEIGH: You can’t get more specific than that.

    CS: No, I cannot. I thought she was wonderfully effervescent on the screen. I want to speak more about her character itself, about Poppy. When you looked at it and as you were developing her… By the end, which I wasn’t expecting, I was completely amazed.

    LEIGH: I’m glad you were, but of course you were. You couldn’t know. But then you know it shouldn’t be possible to talk about any movie where you expect anything. Unfortunately with all too many movies you get what you expect.

    CS: Exactly. But there are some movies where you know exactly where things are going and sometimes rewards you for being that predictable.

    LEIGH: That’s true.

    CS: Can a woman like Poppy exist in our culture?

    LEIGH: Absolutely. Absolutely. Plenty of them around, and men too, of course. It’s about, I mean, you have to mean this is a cynical world and of course it is. Look, apart from anything else Poppy is a teacher and a good teacher and you know there are millions of good teachers out there and teaching kids in that positive kind of way is an act of optimism. You are nourishing the future. Those kids are the grandparents of the 22nd century. See what I mean?

    CS: Absolutely, I do.

    LEIGH: So, it’s a gloomy, cynical world and we are destroying it, etc. etc. etc. but there are people out there getting on with it while we may be gloomy. And Poppy is such… That is what the film is about. So, yeah.

    The truth of the matter is, apart from anything else, if I didn’t think, if I genuinely didn’t think that people like that weren’t feasible, then I wouldn’t make the film, because I made a film about life as we live it, life as it is and life with it’s real potential.

    CS: And this is a move about teachers and I think Karina Fernandez deserves a lot of credit. She’s a nice punctuation to what the film is saying.

    LEIGH: She’s wonderful. She’s someone I didn’t know. I got her in just to see what would happen. She’s never done flamenco at all.

    CS: You’re kidding.

    LEIGH: She’s not Spanish. She’s English but her father is Spanish. Sally and I were talking ““ I bring people in gradually ““ I contract them to join us but then not sure what I’m going to do with them and I said to Sally one day, we were talking about Poppy, working on Poppy, and I said maybe she needs to have another leisure. And she said I was thinking about salsa or tango. And because I like Flamenco I said “How about Flamenco?” and she said, “Yeah.”

    So I sent Karina off to Flamenco lessons every day for weeks. She’s an actress not a hoofer. So we created this character and sent her off to Seville for a few days. But all the characters…we create all these characters in 3 dimensional complete with their whole back stories and life histories and all that. That’s what motivates and makes it all live. Sometimes it’s great to be able to tap into a fascinating…Wanting to channel that emotion about the man who has cheated on her.

    (Laughs)

    So I said, “Let’s pull it out.” Whereas in other cases, like the wonderful performance by Stanley Towsend who is the homeless guy, there’s a whole life there and you just get maybe a sense of it, what he’s doing is too discombobulated you get a sense there is a man and a woman he’s talking about there. So, she is wonderful isn’t she, Karina?

    CS: Oh yes, I would never have known”¦

    LEIGH: Of course you wouldn’t and I expect you haven’t seen the last of her.

    CS: The homeless man scene ““ I’m glad you brought that up. I think this movie has a lot to do ““ you have multiple characters and they all are in their own orbits and we see what happens when you bring these orbits together. Could you talk about”¦

    LEIGH: What that scene is about?

    CS: Yes, please.

    LEIGH: Of course. It’s about Poppy. It’s about openness and the ability to connect, complete ability not to be judgmental, and not to act on preconceptions, and her bravery ““ she didn’t think about being in danger. Some people say it’s naivete. No, it’s not naivete. She not concerned with that. She’s inquiring ““ “What is this?” It happens at a moment when she’s feeling more reflective perhaps. And she really connects with this guy, whoever he is, she doesn’t know. And the next scene when she goes back to the apartment when Zoe says, “Where have you been?” She doesn’t say because some things are private. It’s about something she shared with this guy. She’ll never see him again but perhaps would betray. When we were planning that scene I said to the production designer and the cinematographer, “It needs to be somewhere.”

    We don’t know where we really are, and subliminally the audience needs to be pulled out of their comfort zone.

    CS: I was a little frightened for her.

    LEIGH: It’s about Poppy dealing with stuff. Being open. Warm. All that stuff.

    CS: The whole film, she doesn’t allow anyone to alter the trajectory that she’s on.

    LEIGH: I don’t know whether that’s”¦.I know what you mean you say that.

    She certainly doesn’t allow anyone to get her down but I think to suggest anyone to alter her trajectory would suggest a kind of inflexibility. You can see for example the final and traumatic thing that happened with Scott again being caring and sympathetic but also firm and tough and also dealing with a kid. which she is very inexperienced in doing. I very seldom in my films have actions where someone just walks about ““ that’s not what I do, but there, toward the end when Scott drives off, you see him walking around just reflective for a while. And you know what that is. And she’s affected by it.

    You can see it in the next scene but it’s only in the end, in the grander scheme of her life, the time she took a free driver’s lesson from this nutcase will pale in significance, of course it will but still, she’s affected by him in the sense that she’s obsessed because she cares. I think any sensitive person must feel someone else’s pain basically. And when Zoe says “Don’t you think we should call the police?” and she says “No, that’s not going to help him” that’s a caring, un-judgmental position she takes.

    CS: She does and I see that when she sees the boys go after one another. She’s concerned and takes the steps to”¦.

    LEIGH: I think it’s an important detail that they are not going after one another ““ one is attacking and the rest are victims.

    CS: Yes. And she does what needs to happen in order to take care of that. I want to be sure we stay on point. The overarching theme ““ there is a lot of teachers in this film, there’s a lot about learning, those who are in charge of teaching others to do some thing. In your estimation, what is the value of teaching in general?

    LEIGH: That’s too vague a question. It’s important, isn’t it?

    CS: Well, Scott doesn’t care.

    LEIGH: No, no, no. You said what is the value of teaching in general, and the answer is it’s important. If you want to talk specifically about Scott, that’s a different thing. What is your question actually?

    CS: In relation to Scott as it pertains to Poppy.

    LEIGH: What’s the question?

    CS: What’s the value? Are there two different ideologies of how to teach someone?

    LEIGH: Oh, I see what you mean. Obviously Scott subscribes to an old fashioned ideology that you learn by rote. But the bottom line is that Poppy is a natural, very good teacher. The flamenco teacher and hasn’t learned the number one rule of keeping your personal shit outside the classroom. Scott has no teaching ability whatsoever. He talks about it but he’s a very nervous, neurotic, isolated, frustrated and bitter individual basically.

    CS: And Poppy, with her relationships with her sisters who all obviously have some issue with one another, she doesn’t ever criticize her sisters for whatever faults they have. Scott and the other sister makes mention that Poppy lives in her own world.

    LEIGH: But, that is their perception. I’m not going to accuse you of saying this but one of the most stupid things against the film is because they say that then ipso facto is the case. But it is not the case. She is plainly all the things that Helen from her own insecurities is plainly isn’t and the same thing with Scott. I mean Scott says to her, “You want to be loved.” Actually, he says to her, “You had no intention to learn how to drive, you set out to reel me in.” Both her sister and Scott are talking from positions of their own insecurities and their own isolation and not seeing her for what she really is which is an open, generous, understanding, fulfilled person. So, any notion that Poppy is compensating for anything is rubbish basically.

    CS: She’s gotten along just fine without any…

    LEIGH: Because she’s intelligent and open and focused and you know, motivated, and committed, and serious, and caring and all those things and has a great sense of humor and has a great sense of fun.

    CS: What do people see in her, you just mentioned insecurities. She’s almost a mirror to some other people to show them how they are to themselves. And I’m speaking here of Scott and I’m going to use Scott and the social worker who eventually comes together with Poppy and that relationship seems genuinely healthy and he loves her.

    LEIGH: Because he is as centered and comfortable with who he is open to the world as she is and they are quite a good match I would say.

    CS: Absolutely.

    LEIGH: You would get the impression that they are good in the sack as well.

    (Laughs)

    CS: In your own estimation, the characters of, and again I’m going back to Scott because he seems so diametrically opposed to Poppy, what happens in life that Poppy retains that sense of wonder and hope and optimism that we all have as children and somehow”¦

    LEIGH: This guy has never been loved. You can tell he’s had a terrible family life. There are clues. But with all due respect he’s not as bright as Poppy, he’s not as sharp and he’s isolated. People have said you know he’s like the homeless guy. No, he’s not. The homeless guy has obviously had emotional experiences. When, this homeless guy breaks out into a piece of Sinatra, he’s got romance in his soul. You can see. He’s just damaged. But this guy Scott, he’s impotent, arid, paranoid, fascist, a sad case. Nobody has ever given him a coddle. He’s desperate for it. If a woman came along, we dealt with it in the back story, he just doesn’t know how to deal with it. So, classically, he’s the kind of guy who is in the teacher kind of role from his insecurity because dominating people is the only way he can be in power. He’s the classic case. Because you get reports of the other guy giving him a hard time.

    CS: Right. It wasn’t so much the student as the teacher. Now, I only have time for just one more question and want to ask about when you created this movie and went through the process of making it and putting it out there, how are you finding people responding to it? Not so much a like it or love it but, again, this is a piece of art because you put it out there and whether or not people like it or not is irrelevant, what are you getting back from people from what they are getting from the film after they have seen it?

    LEIGH: A multiplicity of things. The good news is ““ OK, there are critics and there are people. Today, for example, we got a lot of rave reviews. But actually I’ve been going to a lot of screenings doing Q&A’s. To enumerate what is too much of a chore except to say there is a wide range of reactions within an overall positive reaction. Occasionally there are people say they wanted to throttle, they say they couldn’t stand her”¦

    (Laughs)

    I don’t get that.

    CS: I don’t get that either.

    LEIGH: If you don’t fall in love with her then I don’t know what you do, basically. It’s just a character ““ somebody said to me, to be stuck on a desert island with her would be great ““ yes, please. Let me know when. I’m looking forward to it.

  • Trailer Park: HAPPY-GO-LUCKY, RACHEL GETTING MARRIED and SALO

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    RACHEL GETTING MARRIED

    I think if I explain everything I just could not, in good conscious, recommend about this little film that’s completely overrated, overexposed and represents everything wretched about art films that try and be too clever without giving the audience anything for their patience in sitting through this dreadful slop I might just be able to tell you why the good money should be on HAPPY-GO-LUCKY.

    When we meet Anne Hathaway, starring as Kym, in RACHEL GETTING MARRIED she is on the rebound. Rebounding from the dark floor of drug addiction she is trying to right her own personal plane from completely decimating any little humanity she might have left as it careens towards an ultimate crash course. She is saved, however, by a 12-step program. She seems committed to her recovery and to making amends for past abuses that we aren’t really let in on as an audience until it’s theatrically appropriate. You see, the whole film is supposed to be, as the title says, RACHEL GETTING MARRIED. Rachel. Instead, what we get is the impish and selfish behaviors of Kym as she desperately seeks attention, any attention, from those who have no doubt been through an emotional corkscrew as we learn even more about her past transgressions against her family. This is one of the problems that suffers at the hands of Jonathan Demme’s overwrought, overacted, melodramatic, bombastic piece of stillborn cinema.

    The reason why no one seems to be pointing out that this emperor has no clothes is that the movie seems steeped in a artful sheen that, itself, is screaming to be loved. The entire movie almost all takes place at Kym’s childhood home and the bizarre events that transpire there for their wedding weekend should be enough reason for you to steer clear of this film. Case in point, never mind that the movie’s best man to the dreadfully acted husband-to-be, Tunde Adebimpe, who looks like Kanye West but without the swagger, charisma or anything else endearing, fucks Kym in the basement of her house just hours before the rehearsal dinner moments, just moments, after formally introducing themselves to one another, both attending the same weekly 12 step meeting. We don’t know for sure whether he’s romantically linked to the bridesmaid who was, moments before Kym decides to have a meltdown about it, supposed to be the maid of honor but the casualness of this intimacy which isn’t is exactly what’s wrong with this picture.

    We’re supposed to somehow care for these characters, I think that’s the point of a good story, connect with one of them at least, and be happy for the couple getting married, but it is one strange person after the next that we’re introduced to in this movie. We have a live band, friends of the bride and groom, that keeps playing all weekend in anticipation of their big day, at the house. I’m not sure if that’s supposed to be a running joke but they are the most grating, annoying musical group put to celluloid this year. Their playing borders on unbelievable, unbelievable that any normal person would oppress everyone else in the home, seemingly throughout the whole film, with their practicing. You have a rehearsal dinner, the likes of which I have never even remotely come close to experiencing, that literally takes its time getting through to the end.

    I don’t know if Demme forgot to pay his editor, thus feeling like he didn’t cut an ounce of material from this scene, but since brevity wasn’t a chief concern of his and decided to treat this dinner as if it were one long tracking shot it is tough to sit through. As well, almost a companion piece to this, we get an obnoxiously designed and executed wedding reception that is so pretentious and unbelievable in its scope and size that I am loathe to even praise it for trying to be different. There’s a difference between different and interesting and these moments, filled with all sorts of hipsters, people much too cool for anyone’s school (especially one of the groom’s buddies who gives his toast rocking a pair of sunglasses) but, frankly, it is hard to get past the forced bohemianisms many of these players exude.

    Specifically, one of the more surprising disappointments is Bill Irwin. He’s so adept, and could run circles around some of the youthful screen actors who wouldn’t know how to carry themselves appropriately on a real stage like Bill has over the years, but yet he turns in a performance that is overwrought and melodramatic at moments that you wonder if we’re supposed to laugh or be horrified by what he considers to be dramatic acting during some key moments in this film. If this serves as any indication of his strengths on film maybe he should just stick to playing Mr. Noodle on Sesame Street. As well, Debra Winger is the real disaster of this film. Playing the part of a disassociated mother who wants us to believe that her wayward daughter Kym is less deserving of the affection she gives her “successful” daughter Rachel doesn’t work. By the end of the film she’s merely a skid mark on a disaster of what should have been a movie about how one family turns tragedy into something new, something worth making a film about. But, instead, the film grates and limps towards its final minutes, oppressing the audience through a long, drawn out wedding reception that, if anyone is being honest, no one ever wants to see unless you’re the bride and groom. The reasons for including such a long sequence are not valid if the point is to illustrate something more than letting the audience sit through a fake reception, with fake people, with no real point but to be lengthy and self-indulgent.

    Anne Hathaway, though, deserves some credit for turning in a performance that is genuinely a highlight to the other roles she’s ever had to play on film and, setting aside some of the more awkward moments (read here: her many outbursts), she does shine. She does. The film is not a complete waste and, if it were not for Anne’s dedication to making this character seem more real than the stiffs she’s surrounded with, is better for her being in it.

    HAPPY-GO-LUCKY

    There is something to be said about the power of a positive attitude.

    We could talk endlessly about whether people who seem perpetually happy are really delusional or are deluding themselves. In this film, written and directed by Mike Leigh, the real genuineness about Poppy (played deftly and tenderly by Sally Hawkins) when we first meet her is that she has not just a great attitude about life and its cruelties that seem to pepper our daily existence but that she simply has the closest thing to Leibnizian optimism that hasn’t been seen since Voltaire’s novel Candide. Amazingly enough her joie de vivre doesn’t become annoying and isn’t obnoxious. Poppy knows how to navigate through any situation and instead of letting water find its lowest point she elevates everyone else around her. For the most part.

    Now, she doesn’t suffer fools gladly, Leigh is smart and sharp enough to make Poppy a strong independent woman who doesn’t need anyone in her life to determine how she should feel, and she is equipped with the kind of humor that could be taken a few different ways. In one way, she is a bastion of delight to her friends who love her; she’s the kind of friend who would pick you up anywhere at any time. The other way her soulfully bright outlook on such mundane activities as learning how to drive a car is taken, judging by the reaction of her driving instructor, Scott (played with wicked precision by Eddie Marsan), Poppy acts like a life mirror for those she comes in contact and interacts with. To wit, her humor about things is genuinely meant to soothe, to trigger some sense of ease, but her very being reminds others who find themselves at rotten opposites to Poppy’s positivity that they are not good people. Again, it’s so simplistic to make the observation but for lack of a better metaphor she is like a walking piece of art; people have reactions to it, for good or bad, depending on how they interpret her.

    Hawkins’ performance, as I heard one person explain, could be likened to the supposition of what it would be like if the jovial best friend in all the films that have come out in years past were given her own film. In a way that’s a perfectly apt comparison and one I would agree with up to the point where she stops, however brief, being the unstoppably positive person and comes to the aid of a young schoolboy who is getting beaten in the schoolyard. As a teacher she is unmistakably compassionate and the subsequent moments where we meet a social worker, Tim (Samuel Roukin), who comes in to talk to the child, I half expectedly waiting to have this movie turn into usual Hollywood territory where we learn there is something sinister afoot and this social worker guy and Poppy team up to get to the damn bottom of things, things end with Tim finding out the core of what’s wrong and then works off-camera to resolve the issue. It’s in the moment where Poppy shows her sensitivity as a human being, the dedication to the children who have been placed in her care, and Hawkins’ range as a sophisticated actress that understands her role and embraces all its facets. The way that Tim and Poppy come together, and how Tim responds quite favorably to Poppy’s embrace of life, seems perfectly believable in that Leigh earns the moment these two people share with one another.

    Conversely, the same dedication and jovialness she displays in her classroom with the young kids she teaches during the week acts like an oppressive force as Scott sees Poppy in a complete and different way. Poppy’s humor and genialness is interpreted quite terrifyingly by Scott who has obvious emotional issues that at first don’t seem like they have anything to do with her. Poppy thinks the things that happen with Scott, for instance when he chats about the miserable students that he has to endure, are simply random. Scott makes his own misery and this is another aspect of Leigh’s movie that is so powerful; it’s not enough to just say “Be happy” but, Leigh seems to be saying, if I could be so bold as to make the assertion, your misery is your own making.

    Life is hard and scraggly, yes, and there is a moment that Poppy has with a homeless man that is at the same time tense, scary and completely disarming, but there is just something uplifting about the moment when Poppy enters the homeless person’s world willingly to try and understand, to help. Again, she doesn’t suffer any fools gladly but the response she has to the events that happen to her is what makes this film so different than anything you’ll see this year. You want her to react in ways we’ve been condition to react to tense emotional situations but she gladly disappoints you every single time in taking not just the higher road but the road less taken by many people in the world. She is not the Pangloss from Candide of her day but, rather, Candide himself who eventually looks at the hardships that have happened in life and confesses he must, “cultivate her garden”; it’s the recognition that, yes, these things will happen, and very unpleasant things will continue to happen but let your good soul be the better person.

    For sure, and as well, you have to credit the performances of Karina Fernandez who chews up screen time with an absolutely gripping scene as Poppy decides to take a flamenco dancing class and gets an introduction that no one has probably ever received and Stanley Townsend as a tramp who manages to shift the whole tone of the film for a few gripping moments.
    ###

    Not Worth Revisiting: SALO by Raymond Schillaci

    Some Movies You Don’t Have to See

    Christopher played a cruel joke on me. He went to Borders and purchased the Criterion Collection of Salo, The 120 Days of Sodom, and dared me as a film lover to view it before him. He herald it with praise ““ of course, this is only hearsay ““ he was like a little lemming ready to jump off the cliff. Well, I saved his ass and suffered through 145 minutes of literal torture involving sodomizing, fecal obsession, rape, old men and women getting their rocks off with disgusting stories that could just about turn anyone’s stomach and that is just at a glimpse of this dispassionate piece of psuedo-art.

    Why did I see this movie? Not to be unfair to Mel, but I felt the same way when I walked away from The Passion. Two hours of torture. Now don’t get me wrong, I understand the religious implications to “The Passion”. So to some (or many ““ the box office numbers prove that) there was a deep sincerity to it all that really needed no average story-telling techniques. But to those of us not of the religious persuasion it was an exercise in nausea. That is the only comparison that I will draw with those two movies. Many will see the redeeming value in “The Passion” while “Salo” is void of it.

    Some movies should just not be made. You feel dirty afterwards and it ruins 2 hours of your life, if not more, for what it has done to your psyche. As well done as some of them may be, they manage to cross the taboo line that makes you feel how unnecessary these people are to the film community. Their talents wasted on something so vile, one wishes to burn the film and ask the artists to go back and create something more palatable. Now don’t get me wrong. I think you may know from some of my reviews that I appreciate deep and avant garde films. I have sung the praises of Jodorowsky, Scorsese and Lynch. But for the life of me I can’t understand anybody putting themselves through the likes of “Old Boy” “Pink Flamingos” or “Salo”. As far as who wins out most disturbing and voted closest to want to burn in hell ““ Salo takes the number 1 spot and so does Christopher and Criterion for aiding and abetting anyone to try an view this disturbing onslaught on the senses. This is not a movie for one to own, let alone rent.

    I’m not in the minority on this one folks. Many have damned this film. Check out the reviews on Amazon.com. A few sickos out there have praised it as a masterpiece for its imagery and daring. I say, “Get a life!” We have seen similar imagery in films from past masters done much better. Any amateur film historian could recognize the influences of Kubrick, Fellini and perhaps Bergman. Yes, the decision to leave nothing to the imagination may be considered daring, but so was getting Divine to eat poodle shit in one disgusting take in “Pink Flamingos”. Is it art? I don’t think so.

    This is a story from the Marque de Sade and has all the earmarks of his disgusting fetishes. This is a tale reveling in the history of four powerful fascists men in Northern Italy, during WWII, who kidnap eighteen young people (men & women) and put them through physical and emotional torture. The lucky ones commit suicide early while the others endure stomach-churning stories from perverted old men and women, brutal rape, eating and bathing in human excrement over and over again, detailed visceral torture and eventually death, only to have two young fascist men waltz to the sounds of agony.

    There is no redeeming value to this film. It’s four lead characters start off repulsive and go downhill from there. This film makes “Eyes Wide Shut” & “Clockwork Orange” look like a piker for perversion. But those films actually had far more appeal. Yes, the film captures the decadence of the period, but who really wants to relive that. Some may argue the point that such films like “Platoon” or “Schindler’s List” have been labeled as masterpieces exposing atrocities set upon the human spirit. That is correct, but they also had a redeeming value that rose above the events themselves. Pasolini’s “Salo” has no desire to take what it may consider as the easy route. Instead it shoves your face into it, makes you feel like an outsider, forced to subject one’s self to the humility all the actors have put themselves through.

    What a nightmare this movie is and I curse Criterion, Christopher and myself for the viewing displeasure. I urge all not to even rent this. And, if you are offered to see it for free, beat the hell out of the person who offers it to you. I have urged Christopher to shred this DVD and rid it from our lives. By the way, it took me 3 sittings to get through this atrocity. I now have to bath myself in lime and get a good spraying of Lysol. Maybe then I will feel half way human again.

    God, I hope my family forgives me.

  • Trailer Park: Sean Anders

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    You can see how much I enjoyed this film.

    Watching SEX DRIVE in a crowded theater I was pleased that I was able to laugh along with what was happening on the screen without feeling sorry for the producers of the film. With abhorations like DATE MOVIE, EPIC MOVIE, MEET THE SPARTANS or any number of forgettable films that seek to be outrageous SEX DRIVE just wants to be funny. And it succeeds, in part, because of the man who helmed the co-writing and directorial duties, Sean Anders. It’s a name that not many people are familiar with but people should. Anders has crafted a movie that balances, like the scales of justice, genuineness and abject depravtity in a way that hasn’t been seen for some time.

    CHRISTOPHER STIPP: I really liked this movie. I think I went from casually enjoying the trailers to, after I saw the film, to appreciating what you managed to do. As an aside, I think the older I get the more cynical I get about comedies. None of them speak to me anymore. American Pie? I thought it was just OK. This one I genuinely found myself laughing and having a good time sitting in a theater with other people.

    SEAN ANDERS: Oh good.

    CS: It was all over the board, in a good way. It wasn’t obnoxiously crude and, during those moments, it was done in a way that was fresh. How did you come in to all of this? Because I read the production notes, and it seemed like there were a lot of people pitching about what they wanted to do in order to make this movie.

    ANDERS: It started out as a book and the book was sent to us. We read the book and immediately liked the sort of throw back teen comedy appeal of the premise. Kid meets the girl on-line, and of course that’s not throw back, but the idea of the kid who feels a little bit of a romantic outsider getting an opportunity.

    We didn’t really go out to Hollywood with the intention of making a teen comedy. That’s not what we set out to do. We didn’t set out to do any particular thing except comedy in general. When that came up, it was all of a sudden really exciting. We grew up with those movies. Those were the movies that my friends and I, people that I have been friends with since high school, still speak to each other in quotes from 16 CANDLES. So the idea to have a crack at being a part of that world was really exciting to us. But unfortunately the book itself was not really the kind of thing that we do. I think it was focused a little younger and just wasn’t the kind of road movie we wanted to make. So we went back and said, basically to say no to it, to say we read it, we really liked these characters and the premise but the story that’s in the book, we don’t really want to screw up your book but it’s not what we do. And they said, “What would you do?” And we said, “Well, we would do something more like this.” And they said, “We love that, why don’t you do that?”

    And really from that moment on there was a lot of creative freedom of “What do you guys want to do?”, “OK, let’s try that.” So then what happened is not printable because it’s just a convoluted boring story but what happened was the movie was already set up at another studio. We went and pitched the idea for it and the deal kind of fell apart and the producers asked us if we would be willing to go pitch it around town to other studios. So we did. We took it around town, we pitched it and it didn’t appear that it was going to sell. Everyone told us the same thing. They said, “It’s very, very funny but there are no big stars we can put in this.” So, that was sort of the end of it.

    So then John and I went on to make a pilot for Fox and while we were making that pilot, which was so crazy and so much work, we got the call from Summit Pictures that they wanted us to write the script. We were so swamped and so freaked out working on this pilot that we almost said no. And instead of saying no, we really came out to Hollywood to do was not be writers but writers/directors/producers. So we told our agent that tell them we’d write it if we could be directors and producers.

    That’ll make “˜em go away.

    They called back and said, “Yeah, OK.”

    (Laughs)

    But they called back and said, “Let’s have a meeting and talk about it.” I think the thing that won me the job ““ there were two things that won me the job – in that meeting and one is that they asked me what my philosophy, my approach to comedy was and I said it was all the in the casting. Put funny people in a funny script and you’ll get a funny movie. And then the other thing I said that resonate with Erik Feig was I think in general, comedies are over-lit. And he was like, “Yeah.” So that’s where we started. On the same page. Comedies are over-lit and anybody who would read that would say, duh. But that’s always been a pet peeve of mine. So, they said, “OK. You can direct this if we greenlight it.” So we finished the pilot. Went off and wrote the first draft and they greenlighted it off the first draft. It was great.

    Because once they got the first draft and said they wanted to make this movie and hired a line producer, then we were shittin’ bricks because I was worried our pilot might get picked up. It’s very unlikely that any pilot is going to get picked up But we were like, “Please don’t let this pilot get picked up.” We were finished with the pilot at that point and we were so glad when we heard it wasn’t going to get picked up. Again, what we came out to Hollywood to do was to write and direct movies. I loved that pilot and would love to do some television down the line but that was job one. So we got the opportunity to do it that way. Sorry that was the really long version.

    CS: You are probably sick of telling variations of that “¦

    ANDERS: Again, I don’t know how useful that is because it would take forever to write all that but it was this weird sort of thing that didn’t look like it was going to happen but then when it did, it was first draft, line producers, scouting locations, casting. I m that thing ““ from the day that we turned in the first draft ““ a year from then we were already showing the movie to test audiences.

    CS: Really?

    ANDERS: Yeah, that’s how quick this thing got done.

    CS: You said that it’s all about casting and there are no big stars in this. However, they were all excellent choices. You’ve got Josh Zuckerman, Clark Duke and Amanda Crew, who I thought was a brilliantly cast because she doesn’t look like one of those vapid women we see in many comedies ““ I’m thinking specifically of AMERICAN PIE as all these kids look like they are straight off the runway but this one seems a little more natural, if I can say it that way.

    ANDERS: And I think that makes her so much more gorgeous.

    CS: Yes.

    ANDERS: Because she looks real and looks like that girl in high school that you would just be terrified to talk to, even though you know she would be very nice to you because she’s a real nice girl but she’s just beautiful and has this sort of inner glow to her.

    She’s actually one of my favorite stories because the studio had been pushing for more of a named actress for that part. The studio was always very good to us and at the end of the day they would always err on the side of making a good film, and they did in that case too but we were auditioning a lot of girls in LA and they would come in the room and we thought we had 4 or 5 very good choices for Felicia. Then we get this video from Canada and any actor will tell you it’s almost impossible to get a job on video because when the actor comes in the room you give them a little direction and kind of help them to let them know what you’re looking for and they adjust and we say, “OK, that’s good.” But when you see a video, you see what it is and then you’re done with it. So we see this video and we are gathered around this QuickTime of this video of Amanda Crew that was sent in from Canada and we all said, “That’s her. That’s Felicia.”

    And it became me going to the studio saying this is the girl ““ this is Felicia. And they were like, “Take it easy. Let’s see what else we got.” But of course they are thrilled it worked out that way because they love her and she’s great in the movie. She and I talked about what her job was in the movie and I told her you’re job is to make us fall in love with you. As an audience if we fall in love with you and we get why Ian is in love with you, we’re there with you.

    I think that’s it. What really separates this from the pack and why I’m a convert after seeing this movie Monday night and I need to see this movie again she felt like the kind of person that this could really occur among all the zany shit that happens around them ““ it just felt natural.

    [Sean asks whether I would be around to see an additional screening with Clark Duke and Amanda Crew in attendance. I ask about the marketing plan for the film and how high profile the film seems to be for a relatively unknown comedy]

    ANDERS: Well, what happened was the movie turned out so well that the studio wanted to have word of mouth screenings all over the country because they know this movie is a hard sell.

    The problem with selling the movie is that it doesn’t have the big cast members in it and we knew that any rated R teen comedy coming out a year after SUPERBAD was going to get, “Oh, they are trying to be SUPERBAD.” Of course, this was written before that. So we knew that the movie would have to speak for itself. So they have been having these word of mouth screenings all over the country because whenever we get people in front of the movie they tend to like it and hopefully will walk out and talk about it. So anyway, we were doing this one and I lived here for about 8 years so this is sort of my second hometown. I know a guy from Harkins [a local theater chain in Arizona] real well because he helped us with NBT, the first movie we made, and getting that going. So he asked me if I would come out and do some Q&A and I thought that would be fun. They set up this party for it and everything and we were talking yesterday he said that maybe we should get some cast out for this. So I said I would call them and see if they’re around and talked to Amanda and Josh and they said they weren’t doing anything so they said, “Yeah.” It’s totally a last minute thing that they are coming out.

    CS: And I have to mention before we go any further ““ Seth Green who I think absolutely steals”¦.

    ANDERS: How about him, huh?

    CS: You obviously approached him to do it but the performance he gave ““ that dry, sarcastic, sharp manner ““ it just works very well.

    ANDERS: We had written the character to be this dry, sarcastic, but hopefully loveable Amish guy. And a guy who just really enjoys being around non-Amish people and then when the name of Seth Green came up, it was absolutely perfect. He’s just great with sarcasm, he’s really funny, and he’s just great on so many levels. But even then, none of us knew how great he was going to be until he got there. We just knew it was going to be so funny. That scene with the buggy with Clark where he says the line about butt fucking that was in the script but every time we shot it ““ everything we shot we just let it keep rolling and let people go past the scene and try different things and every time Clark and Seth got to that line they would just rip on butt fucking for the longest time. We cut some of that together for the extended DVD. It’s hilarious. It’s so over the top, disgusting and funny and really sharp, sharp stuff.

    CS: His delivery is just wicked.

    ANDERS: Well, the thing is about Seth Green is he is so funny all the time. He could be just sitting there and he’s not one of those guys who’s bouncing off the walls and trying to be the center of attention trying to be endearing to everyone, he’s just fucking funny. The way he turns a phrase, he gets his point across. He’s just funny. He’s always on. It’s a little bit intimidating.

    CS: That part at the end when he talks to Fall Out Boy in front of the bus, was that all him? Did you know that line about [redacted for not wanting to spoil it] was coming at the end?

    ANDERS: No. We had follow up boy for such a short time. We wanted to do a bit like that but just didn’t have time. That’s why it’s jump cut the way it is. It was basically, “OK, we have an hour before we have to go inside, let’s set up a camera and put Seth and Fall Out Boy in front of the camera and just roll and see what Seth does to f with those guys. And they were great sports and he was really funny and we shot like 20 minutes of stuff and cut it down to a minute for that little extra piece.

    CS: It was a nice sort of kick at the end. How did that all come about when you are doing all these gags? It’s a thin line between obnoxious ““ in my advanced age, I’m 33 ““ I’m no foggie but when I see it ““ I get it, it’s supposed to be funny but you can have humor that just tries way too hard. But a massive majorirty of the gags here work very well and I don’t have any reason why they do ““ from your standpoint”¦

    ANDERS: Well, I think, and you work for Kevin Smith, and I think you know what he’s so good at, of the many things he’s so good at, you can have a character say really raunchy ““ my friends and I, all of our conversations are raunchy, even when we are being serious. So you can have characters that behave that way and talk that way as long as the characters have heart and care about each other and they have real flaws and issues ““ as long as they have that sort of warmth it feels kind of real, where you were aspiring to on this ““ it gives people license to just relax and laugh.

    And, one of the things that blew me away on the movie that I never would have predicted in a million years and almost the thing I’m proudest of the whole thing is ““ you do the test screenings for the test audiences and for a movie like this the studio cares far and away men 25 and under and then men 25 and older because this a movie that is going to be driven by guys and then the quadrant of girls 25 and under so females 25 and under but the women 25 and older, they don’t give a shit about. They know they are not going to go see it. Nobody’s mom is going to see SEX DRIVE. Nobody cares. So we go and we do our test screening and we get our numbers back and our number on women 25 and older were 98%.

    That’s insane.

    I’m sure those are numbers ““ like NIGHTS IN RODANTHE probably didn’t get 98%. For women 25 and older. It’s crazy. It almost seems like there has to be a mistake. And my mom saw the movie.

    (Laughs)

    And loved it ““ I don’t know ““ even though we are showing old man’s balls, I don’t know. All those things and despite that we can have a scene where we have a girl that almost shits on somebody.

    (Laughs)

    Or maybe does, depending on how you watch that scene, and that we still have women coming away loving the movie is such a huge compliment to us. We didn’t go into the movie trying to alienate any group.but you just know that when you walk a certain line people are going to be turned off by it.

    CS: Why do you think women are responding so well to it?

    ANDERS: Dude, I don’t know. I think the romance in the movie really works ““ that’s a part of it ““ but I don’t know. It’s mind boggling to me.

    CS: I do have to ask about Andy and Randy.

    ANDERS: If the movie does well enough to warrant a sequel, I already told the studio I will only do it if it’s a movie about Andy and Randy.

    (Laughs)

    Because I would love to do a whole movie about Andy and Randy.

    CS: How did these characters materialize themselves?  If the book isn’t like this at all and it’s openly exaggerated…When you were coming up with the ideas to incorporate Brian Posehn and Seth Green to fill out these characters, how did their names come up as probables?

    ANDERS: I don’t know. The way John and I write is we just sit around and bullshit all day and we’ll be talking about a certain topic and say, oh, this one time a friend of mine went to a carnival and then oh, there was this guy, this or that, and then it becomes an idea or a character. When we look back on all the characters we almost wrote and thought it was funny and look back and say thank god we didn’t try and put that in the movie. I don’t know man. I don’t know where that stuff comes from. You just sit around and talk about the idea and the characters until something funny comes up. And then there’s the arduous process of writing that first draft where you just write a whole bunch of unfunny shit and try to get to the end. And then go back through and try and find out why that stuff is not as funny was it needs to be and keep working on it. But I think a big moment in the movie was the moment when we wrote the line, “You love me, you love me too. OK.” Because we wanted to have that at the end because we knew it was going to be cheesy romantic we had written all this schlocky shit that was nauseating in the beginning. And then we just said “Fuck it. We don’t need big speeches. Let’s just simplify it and just let Ian be a man and step up and admit that he loves this girl” and when that line came up at that point in the script it was like I think we have a movie here. Because despite all the wacky raunchy stuff and at that moment writing that scene I really felt good. So, it’s weird. I’m new at this and I’m so proud of the movie. I realize it is what it is and is just one of those things that all I can do is hope that people like it as much as we do and they have a good time with it and hopefully 20 years from now that people would still be quoting it the way my friends and I quote 16 CANDLES and WERID SCIENCE and those great movies we grew up with.

    CS: And the last question ““ I will make it brief ““ It’s no secret that you don’t have a whole lot on your resume behind you. You’ve managed to go from independent moviemaker to studio filmmaker ““ what’s the biggest lesson you learned in that transition?

    ANDERS: I think the biggest lesson ““ man, there were so many, it was a lesson a minute all the way through that stuff. But, I think the one I’m going to apply the most is to just really try to enjoy it and have a good time and that seems to translate to a higher quality and that’s what we tried really hard to do all the way through it just not to get caught up in all the stress of the process but of course we did, and the next one even more so we will be able to because we know now that’s a formula that really works ““ to try and create an environment that’s really fun and laid back and have a good time and take that good time and put it on the screen and that’s something we learned from the Farrelly Brothers. They always sound like they are having a good time.

  • Trailer Park: Pornography, Made Sweet and Endearing

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    My column is filled with sex this week.

    Three things: One, I saw ZACK AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO last week and I saw SEX DRIVE a week and a half ago and I also saw a sexed up Bush a couple of nights ago during my screening for W. I’ve had a lot of randy goodness inside the movie theater as of late.

    Since I am embargoed from talking about the film at great length, or any length at all for that matter, I can tell you that the tag line for this week’s column is what I told my marketing rep about what I thought of the film once I left the theater. For all the shots Kevin Smith has to take from those who are contentious in their critique of his films they simply should not have anything to say about the very believable and tender relationship between Elizabeth Banks and Seth Rogan. As well, forget about everyone else in this film, Justin Long is a scene stealer. Fucking thief. He’s disarmingly hilarious. I’ll tell more when I can but, for what it’s worth, it’s on my top 10 for the year.

    Now, on to SEX DRIVE….

    I first talked about Sean Anders in April, 2005.

    One of the things that you can take away when watching SEX DRIVE is that this is a film that was written and directed by a guy who, last time we checked in with this artist, made only made one movie to his credit, NEVER BEEN THAWED, and spent $20,000 to create it. Why this is a valid point in critiquing SEX DRIVE is that critics will take something physically tangible like a CD or book and compare its value, and judge it, by what has come before it in order to assess whether the person who created it has evolved as an artist. Sean Anders’ evolution as a director and writer is one where you can talk in superlatives like superbly crafted, hilariously composed and completely likable. The latter point is really the difference between a dumb, vapid, insulting teen film and one that at least will respect you in the morning after it has had its way with you.

    Anders starts out by creating a world where you’re introduced to a leper of a teen, one who isn’t necessarily or completely socially retarded but is just awkwardly inept with the ladies, who looks like his world is defined by the opportunities to try and get with members of the opposite sex but can’t close the deal; his opportunity to do so with his Internet girlfriend, one who is under the mistaken assumption that he’s buff (he’s not), he’s smooth (he’s not) and owns a 1969 Pontiac GTO Judge (he’s not allowed near it by his homophobe brother, Rex), sets everything in motion. This is a road movie, something we’ve seen all too many times before, but as the film unfolds you can see where Anders is taking the audience. He uses the path of where movies like this have been before but he shapes a landscape that alters the paradigm a little bit.

    We grow to love our nerd in love, Ian, played by the smart and affable Josh Zuckerman, his slicker than silk best friend Lance (Clark Duke) and tag along buddy Felicia (Amanda Crew), who is uncommonly gorgeous and normal in a land littered with actresses that are better used as window dressing than they are actors. These three are the hard center for a film that is surrounded by weirdoes who stand in Ian’s way to getting to his “˜net lover. From the obnoxiously hilarious Beavis and Butt-head incarnates who have no shame or game, Andy and Randy, David Koechner’s turn as a twisted hitchhiker to Seth Green’s sarcastic Amish savior in disguise Ezekiel the movie knows it needs to go from one moment to another quickly but do it in a way that, bottom line, is funny to the rest of us. Anders teeters with going too far with the gross-out funny but, again, all the action on the screen sets itself apart by caring for the three members of the film who we follow through all of this.

    SEX DRIVE’s thrust is its dealing with the issues these teenagers have in understanding how each one of them reacts to the giving and taking of love. Lance is every bit of a fantasy for how many dudes wish they could have been at that time in their lives, Felicia wrangles with the common emotion of her cohorts by not knowing who she really wants to love and Ian wrestles with the idea that he thinks he knows who he wants but acts out of blindness when the one he wants doesn’t seem to want him. And Anders, and co-writer John Morris, have done something completely extraordinary and answered the question of how do you make a completely shameless sex comedy but imbue it with a real heart.

    The direction and writing meld in ways that the old adage of “at least there are more hits than misses” doesn’t even come close to applying. Anders and Morris get genuine laughs from moments within their scenes by having so many that there are bound to be a few in every one. Only the most cynical among you will be able to sit stone-faced throughout a moment where our buddy Lance hooks up with a gas station attendant in her mobile home and nearly dies because of it, where Ian, dressed as the worlds largest talking donut, has a dong attached to the front of him by some scallywags inside the local mall or the various awkward moments Ian has in the presence of his soon-to-be stepmother.

    These characters are of course exaggerated but to take a moment like one where Seth Green subtly plays his character with the kind of quiet sharpness that is usually reserved for shows like Monty Python or a Kids In The Hall sketch is refreshing to have when you know, in anyone else’s hands, things could have been watered down or played for yuk yuks when what we have is good enough.

    You can’t really deconstruct a comedy like this too much. One of the issues that you run into when talking about comedy is what can happen when you try and dissect a joke: it doesn’t work. This is one of those films where you can either get the joke that’s being made, and appreciate its uniqueness in a pool of films that can’t come close to what we have here, or you can take umbrage and lacerate the film for being puerile, obnoxious, horrifically scatological and offensive.

    I can see both points. I can.

    There’s the borderline silly homophobic Rex who seems like someone we’ve seen in many a film before, there’s the eventual ending anyone with half a brain cell ticking away can see coming and some of the jokes, specifically I’m thinking of the nut sack scene which seems to play on its surprise factor and little else, don’t all hit the target but there is something special here. There is genuineness with those we care about, an exaggerated sense of self with those we don’t and it’s completely a world where the horrors of youth are hilariously played out with no sense of decorum.

    SEX DRIVE deserves a second, third viewing in a theater where the experience of laughing along with an audience is worth its weight in heavily soaked underwear from a night filled with nocturnal emissions; it’s movies like this that make going to the movies worth it.

    George Bush does look like a simian.

    There is no doubt about the facts surrounding the Bush administration; there are some indelible moments that can never be adjusted or reinterpreted. The kind of film that Oliver Stone has created feels like one long dramatization of these facts and of some possible conversations that might have taken place.

    What’s infinitely more interesting than the facts presented, and elevates this movie beyond your usual Oliver Stone territory when dealing with a subject like this (re: NIXON, JFK), is that somehow, some way, Stone made me care about G.W. Bush. There were moments, like when he first meets Laura for instance, where he’s not a bumbling idiot we’ve placed in office but he comes across as a smitten boy who genuinely has the capacity for love.

    Stone creates a powerful portrait of a political artist as a young man, tracking his progress in his various ventures that don’t always work out well. He shows us a George Bush Jr. who is nearly incompetent in every capacity as he seeks the approval and love of his father. The performance that Josh Brolin gives is second only to Heath Ledger’s Joker as he completely sinks himself into not only the mannerisms but of the motivations of this man. Where this movie excels is in this dedication to giving the audience a story of G dub’s life that we’ve never really seen.

    Where this movie doesn’t do well, however, is composed of a couple of things. One is in its performance of Condoleezza Rice, namely Thandie Newton, which is wretched. Honestly, it’s one of the worst things ever put on to a screen in years.  Two, the pace seemed quite rushed. I know Oliver Stone had to get this movie out at a certain date in order to make sure it was out into the public before the election but it’s a hurried production. The unintended consequence of this, however, is that the movie briskly moves from moment. Don’t like a scene? That’s easy, just wait a few minutes. Thirdly, the film just seems to superficially give us the details of the events as they happened in George Bush’s life. We’re not allowed to linger too long and scenes don’t really develop how they should in order to have an appreciation for what Stone wants to say. If this is the extent of his message, though, I am afraid he’s stopped short of delving into the sick and depraved malfeasance this administration has been allowed to perpetrate on the American public, to hell with the legality of anything these mavericks want to do.

    Stone has missed the opportunity to drive a cinematic stake into the heart of this beast.

    What saves this film, though, is its nearly flawless cinematography; its attention to every moment and giving it its proper light and weight. It’s nothing short of wonderful to look at. As well, the development of the core characters, namely Laura, George Sr., Karl Rove, keep this film moving from moment to moment as, by the end, you can’t believe that it’s finished just as it was finding its footing.

    Charting this man’s life from college to his various odd jobs to his entering the political arena is no doubt difficult to do in such a compressed time space, I know. However, that doesn’t excuse Stone from now taking the time he should have taken in order to make a more effective and powerful political profile. What we do have, though, is a story of a man who never got his just due from daddy, who genuinely believes in his faith, who loves his wife dearly and is a complete fool and idiot.

    SUNSHINE CLEANING (2008)

    Director: Christine Jeffs
    Cast: Amy Adams, Emily Blunt, Alan Arkin, Jason Spevack, Steve Zahn
    Release:     October 3, 2008
    Synopsis: A single mom and her slacker sister find an unexpected way to turn their lives around in the off-beat dramatic comedy Sunshine Cleaning. Directed by Christine Jeffs (Rain, Sylvia), this uplifting film about an average family that finds the path to its dreams in an unlikely setting screened in competition at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival. Once the high school cheerleading captain who dated the quarterback, Rose Lorkowski (Academy Award nominee Amy Adams) now finds herself a thirty something single mother working as a maid. Her sister Norah, (Golden Globe winner Emily Blunt), is still living at home with their dad Joe (Academy Award winner Alan Arkin), a salesman with a lifelong history of ill-fated get rich quick schemes. Desperate to get her son into a better school, Rose persuades Norah to go into the crime scene clean-up business with her to make some quick cash. In no time, the girls are up to their elbows in murders, suicides and other”¦specialized situations. As they climb the ranks in a very dirty job, the sisters find a true respect for one another and the closeness they have always craved finally blossoms. By building their own improbable business, Rose and Norah open the door to the joys and challenges of being there for one another – no matter what – while creating a brighter future for the entire Lorkowski family.

    View Trailer:
    * Large (QuickTime)

    Prognosis: Positive. How can you not like Steve Zahn?

    He is the sui generis of his ilk and even though he has been in, let’s be honest, nothing that would be classified in the AFI’s Top 1,000.000 of all time he’s still a hard working actor who knows how to get work. If we’re talking about acting as a job, which is what most every single actor who doesn’t have their name scribbled somewhere on the A list will tell you it is, Steve Zahn is the journeyman of his trade.

    As well, this trailer doesn’t so much pop and sizzle as it does impress. The opening sequence doesn’t thrill, either, but that’s not what drew me into this thing. What did grab my eye, however, was its set-up. So many trailers squeeze hefty amounts of information though a tight hole that unless you’re paying attention you would only be able to assimilate its slick visuals if it hopes you to snag your cash.

    There’s a certain sweetness to Amy Adams and Emily Blunt taking care of Adams’ on-screen brood but it’s as we infer that she’s a single mom trying to make a living. Beyond that, the awkward exchange with an old high school friend who is quite obviously doing better than she is a bit hackneyed, I know that; the whole “What if the captain of the cheerleading squad ended up doing really shittily in life?” is every downtrodden nerds’ fantasy when they’re getting their neck wrenched by various members of the football team. Again, what separates this story from other trailers out there is that there is a real narrative flow to this.

    I understand everything that’s going on, I’m intrigued by the premise and when Zahn comes in and explains a new career opportunity of crime scene cleaner upper I’m even more dragged in to where we’re going. I think one of the major reasons why, you see, I’m still listening to what they have to say is because I don’t know where we’re all going. Zahn is the real wildcard in this situation as I’m not positive if he’s going to be the love interest or if he’s going to be something else entirely; from what I see he could be any number of things. And, who the hell here doesn’t love Alan Arkin? You’ve got a few reasons why you should stay tuned. It’s refreshing in a way, you understand, to not be ½ way in to a trailer and know where everything is going to lead.

    Further, I appreciate the dumpiness of their lives. From the trailers they’re having to clean up, to the hoopties that they’re driving to the gumption that both Emily and Amy have on display it’s the sum of many things that make up a film that looks like something easy and breezy.

    That’s a little bit debunked when we’re given an extended moment of Adams losing her shit when she protests that she’s the kind of lady who men want to poke like a pin cushion but not the kind of lady that warrants a ring. I’m pretty taken aback by the starkness of the moment and what comes after, a few other moments of emotional release and pain, is wonderfully chosen to give us as a portrait of what this woman is going through.

    The cut scenes at the end act like a delicate bookend to a movie that seemed to start out by the numbers but ended up being something worth keeping an eye on as it comes closer to its release.