Tag: film

  • A Bit Of A Chat with Ken Plume & Robert Popper 3

    bitofachat-header.png

    lucyline.gif

    I’m Ken Plume, and soon you’ll be listening to “A Bit Of A Chat” with me, Ken Plume.

    In this episode, I have another chat with the creator of FRIDAY NIGHT DINNER and the man behind Timewaster Robin Cooper, Robert Popper, about chicken in a basket, Emo Phillips, notes, whispering, and Robin Cooper Walking Tours. Recorded live at Bill’s pub in London, England.

    Hope you enjoy…

    Download “A Bit of a Chat with Ken Plume & Robert Popper 3“:

    [audio:http://traffic.libsyn.com/bitofachat/bit_of_a_chat-robert_popper_3.mp3]

    SUBSCRIBE
    Subscribe to this Podcast via iTunes

    ##

    patreon-fred.png

    Drop Ken a line HERE.

    ##

    You can also find more of my interviews by clicking HERE.

    lucyline.gif

  • A Bit Of A Chat with Ken Plume & Robert Popper 2

    bitofachat-header.png

    lucyline.gif

    I’m Ken Plume, and soon you’ll be listening to “A Bit Of A Chat” with me, Ken Plume.

    In this episode, I have another chat with the creator of FRIDAY NIGHT DINNER and the man behind Timewaster Robin Cooper, Robert Popper, about Thatcher pranks, fleas, injuries, mutt birds, pawns, dinners, and Simon Death.

    popperharm.png

    Hope you enjoy…

    Download “A Bit of a Chat with Ken Plume & Robert Popper 2“:

    [audio:http://traffic.libsyn.com/bitofachat/bit_of_a_chat-robert_popper_2.mp3]

    SUBSCRIBE
    Subscribe to this Podcast via iTunes

    ##

    patreon-fred.png

    Drop Ken a line HERE.

    ##

    You can also find more of my interviews by clicking HERE.

    lucyline.gif

  • A Bit Of A Chat with Ken Plume & Jeri Ryan

    bitofachat-header.png

    lucyline.gif

    I’m Ken Plume, and soon you’ll be listening to “A Bit Of A Chat” with me, Ken Plume.

    In this episode, I have a chat with actress Jeri Ryan about tomatoes, kicking ass, and dead bodies.

    Hope you enjoy…

    Download “A Bit of a Chat with Ken Plume & Jeri Ryan“:

    [audio:http://traffic.libsyn.com/bitofachat/bit_of_a_chat-jeri_ryan.mp3]

    SUBSCRIBE
    Subscribe to this Podcast via iTunes

    ##

    patreon-fred.png

    Drop Ken a line HERE.

    ##

    You can also find more of my interviews by clicking HERE.

    lucyline.gif

  • A Bit Of A Chat with Ken Plume & Robert Popper

    bitofachat-header.png

    lucyline.gif

    I’m Ken Plume, and soon you’ll be listening to “A Bit Of A Chat” with me, Ken Plume.

    In this episode, I chat with the co-creator/co-writer of LOOK AROUND YOU, creator/writer of FRIDAY NIGHT DINNER, and the man behind Timewaster Robin Cooper, Robert Popper, as we explore birdsong, feces, flowers, and cell-napping.

    Hope you enjoy…

    Download “A Bit of a Chat with Ken Plume & Robert Popper“:

    [audio:http://traffic.libsyn.com/bitofachat/bit_of_a_chat-robert_popper.mp3]

    SUBSCRIBE
    Subscribe to this Podcast via iTunes

    ##

    patreon-fred.png

    Drop Ken a line HERE.

    ##

    You can also find more of my interviews by clicking HERE.

    lucyline.gif

  • Soapbox: SUMMER HOURS

    soapbox-header.png

    SUMMER HOURS

    lucyline.gif

    summer_hours_dvd_coverThe family that Olivier Assayas tracks with his latest film, Summer Hours, is such a well-to-do, bourgeois clan that, initially, one can scarcely imagine many people identifying with them, particularly in a global economy that has placed millions of previously middle-class citizens in a position lower than that of this family’s maidservant. And yet the film remains one of the most profoundly humanistic and relatable movies of recent years. It is a work of quiet grace, a gliding, meditative elegy that passes over generation gaps so gently and effortlessly that the poetry of its movement alone exposes the fragility of such a compartmentalizing concept.

    The film opens upon, and symbolically concerns, a quaint manor in the south of France, one of the world’s most beautiful regions. The people there are, if at all possible, more stereotypically self-absorbed and haughty (and therefore “French”) than the Parisians, but it is exceedingly difficult to fault them for feeling superior in such a place. Many French productions exist only to show other countries, and remind its own citizens, of the South’s beauty, and part of Summer Hours’ charm is its sly adherence to this style for just the right amount of time to make us think that it’ll be yet another artistic tourist video before heading in another direction.

    Instead, Assays focuses upon that wonderful brand of refined middle-class folk who populate the region, here typified by Hélène, a 75-year-old connoisseur who is as much a curator of her home as she is a resident. A fearsome matriarch, Hélène filters her considerable knowledge through the mannerisms and directness of a mother. She has that ability to calmly, even lovingly, point out flaws in her children’s professional and private lives, speaking without judgment as if her criticisms are facts and therefore not worth editorializing upon. Played by Edit Scob, 72 at the time of filming, Hélène scarcely looks 60 and would look even younger if not for her silvery hair; like her house, Hélène is immaculately preserved. (It has always puzzled me why so many Europeans went off to die in the Everglades looking for the secret to youth when it clearly existed somewhere in France already.)

    So sharp is the matriarch that she knows her days are numbered. At the 75th birthday party that opens the film, one of her sons, Frédéric (Charles Berling) gives her a cordless telephone set, and the woman who immediately afterward receives a French translation of an art textbook to proofread suddenly looks confused and ignorant as she takes one look at the phone and its accessories and throws up her hands. Hélène takes Frédéric aside to discuss her will. Here the film ceases to be a paean to Southern France and becomes something far deeper. The son, the only of the three children to still live in France ““ Adrienne (Juliette Binoche) lives in America designing for a Japanese company, while Jérémie (Jérémie Renier) has relocated to China as an executive for shoe company Puma ““ wishes to hear none of this morbid talk, and he assures his mother that the various artworks and artifacts that line the manor shall pass down the line. But Hélène knows better, and she gives her son instructions on what to sell and how to divide the effects and the house.

    summerhours

    A few months later, Hélène dies, an event left entirely off-screen. There are no long shots of Hélène tending her garden and collapsing à la Vito Corleone, no jarring telephone rings in the middle of the night; Assayas merely cuts from a cold, literally blue shot of the old woman sitting in her vacant home and Frédéric discussing burial plots with a funeral director. It is at this moment that the film truly begins and, while the narrative itself continues to slowly and unremarkably progress, it also marks the moment where Summer Hours begins to rapidly set itself apart from its contemporaries. The elision over the typical cinematic details as seen in the jump between life and death starts a recurring subversion of nearly all the screenwriting tropes that come with what could condescendingly be called “this kind of movie”.

    Watch the way the three children interact with each other when the time comes to discuss the inheritance. Frédéric assumes that his siblings will want to keep the house in the family, as he does, but Adrienne and Jérémie clearly do not agree. Yet neither openly states dissent, sheepishly mentioning how far away they live (Adrienne even says that she’s been living away so long that France itself holds little intrinsic value). They also do not say aloud that Hélène was the only reason the siblings ever got together anymore, and her funeral will likely be the trio’s last time together for years. Frédéric understands his siblings perfectly without them outright saying it. Later, when he and Jérémie discuss appraisals and tax deductions with an adviser, Jérémie lets slip that he’d spoken with his own realtor about selling the house for some time, which the more sentimental brother notes but does not use as the basis for some melodramatic attack. Assayas is above such shortcuts, preferring instead to show these people as actual people.

    Indeed, were it not for the advanced camera movements, one might mistake Summer Hours for docufiction. So many of the film’s indelible “little moments” stand out because they feel as if we are being allowed to share them with these characters rather than advance trite character development. When Adrienne mentions her engagement, the brothers and their spouses slowly crack up with amusement, moving from the tittering, nervous inhalations of suppressed giggles to open laughter. We are not told what, exactly, went wrong with Adrienne’s previous engagement, which is right. As it is, the moment is warm and quietly revealing, telling the audience about Adrienne’s impulsiveness and the teasing and distant but loving dynamic between the siblings without wasting time with a story that has no sway on this narrative. By way of comparison, watch the scene early in Attack of the Clones in which Obi-Wan and Anakin make awkward, meaningless chat over a “nest of gundarks” that gives us no insight into its characters and instead clangs like a wrench bouncing off the wall of a canyon.

    There must be some point to all of this, however, and the key to the film lies in the manor. Frédéric does not wish to part with his mother’s house because of the memories it contains; the extreme value of the artwork Hélène stored in her home means less to the son than the memories they connote. Thus, the pieces of art and architecture that pass from the family to private collectors and to museums for the tax write-off stand as blatant symbols, but symbols whose meaning speaks to the characters more than the analyst in the theater. It is, after all, silly to place such import on trinkets, but Assayas uses Summer Hours to examine how ordinary, even banal objects, gain importance, be it artistic or personal. Many of the house’s most valuable paintings are the work of one man, Hélène’s uncle. Hélène kept them because of her close, possibly very close relationship with him – this too is left largely unsaid and leads to a character insight rather than a mystery – and through her eyes we see these invaluable originals as naught but sentimental sketches given to a muse as a gift.

    summer-hours

    Adrienne and Jérémie have little time for such reflection, blithely taking stock of their mother’s effects so that they may sell them and return to life outside of France. These are not bad people, of course, but they have their own set of priorities. They are modern people, connected to the businesses that employ them instead of outdated ideas of settlement and lineage.

    It’s a typically American point of view, given our own shallow past and the perception of the nation as a place to start all over and make a new life. In fact, the younger characters of Summer Hours subtly reflect a mindset that has become as much American as French. Adrienne lives in New York with her American fiancé, and the children of the brothers are – like all youngsters, we’re told – infatuated with American fads. Jérémie represents the speed with which people can adapt now to new environments, what with his flippant attitude toward moving halfway around the world for work. He mentions that his daughter will spend a term in San Francisco, the city where Asian immigrants traditionally landed; his daughter not only wants to see the America she’s fascinated with but she’ll arrive more as a Chinese visitor instead of a French one, vaguely reminiscent of the pure-French Arielle referred to as “La Chinoise” in Arnaud Desplechin’s Kings and Queen.

    That these Americanized characters are chiefly unconcerned with the artifacts being auctioned and donated without a second thought should not, in my humble view, be seen as some sort of attack on the United States (although one could easily make that case, given the rabid anti-French sentiment egged on for nearly all of Bush’s years in office and Hollywood’s ever-strengthening chokehold on genuinely artistic cinema). Rather, Assayas considers how modernization shapes culture: in the age of the Internet, instant worldwide connection erases, at least partially, cultural divisions – is the censorship of Google or Twitter not the modern sign of a repressive regime? When a group of visiting American teenagers walks among the family’s donations in the Musée d’Orsay they look and act no different from the French teens, who would likely be just as bored by the tour. Thus, we have all become one people, which is great, but unification brings with it side-effects: if everyone adopts one civilization and one language, what will become of the art that is tied to a specific culture?

    Summer Hours remains a quietly incisive film after multiple viewings precisely because it finds the intersection between these larger concerns and the more personal ruminations on changing generational attitudes toward tradition, even family. Adrienne and Jérémie have drifted away from home, and Hélène’s grandchildren appear even more separated from the passion of the older generation. As such, Summer Hours calls to mind the work of the Japanese legend Ozu Yasujiro, that great cartographer of the generation gap and family relations. Ozu has long been misinterpreted, by those who only watched Tokyo Story and decided to extrapolate an entire career from it, as a director who lamented the passing of the older generation and looked down upon the modernized youth. While Ozu certainly eyed the Western influence on culture and tradition with suspicion, even regret, his attitude toward characters was always nonjudgmental, just as Assayas’ is with these characters. He does not write off Sylvie, Frédéric’s teenage daughter, as just another dead-eyed, shiftless millennial, nor does he condemn the two ex-pat siblings for abandoning their heritage.

    Instead, the director gently sculpts these characters, giving them such dimension that the story and themes come naturally from them. Adrienne, who hypocritically disapproves of Jérémie working for a company that exploits cheap labor while wearing a pair of Converse sneakers made the same way, would in any other film be the flighty, self-absorbed bitch denied her chance to prove any hint of humanity until a hackneyed breakthrough near the end. Here, however, she displays three-dimesionality from the start, setting aside her modern conventions to marvel over an old, silver platter, justifying her admiration of it to her mother by claiming that beauty is beauty, regardless of age. Later, as appraisers storm the house to attach price tags to everything, Adrienne discovers the platter and can barely contain her pure joy, and we see that even a whimsical nomad like her can assign meaning and memories to objects just as strongly as the more sedentary and traditional.

    Perhaps the influence of such artistic keepsakes can be traced to the participation of the Musée d’Orsay, which not only loaned the art but funded the film as part of their recent focus on making films as a way of expanding the museum’s artistic boundaries. But the relation between objects and assigned importance has purportedly been a recurring theme in Assayas’ corpus, of which I must shamefully admit ignorance. The director certainly uses this partnership to its fullest potential, and the artwork he places in Hélène’s estate is as priceless as it is perfectly suited for the film. Apart from the use of Jean Berthier as the matriarch’s famous uncle, Assayas particularly highlights a few works by Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot and Odilon Redon. Corot, one of the great landscapists, operated in the nebulous territory between the Neo-Classical movement and Impressionism. Classical art strove to depict subjects as they were, while Impressionism captures subjects as they strike the artist. Summer Hours, with its honest depiction of character and its analytical probing of inanimate objects until they take on a resonance, could be said to walk the line between the two as well. One should also remember that Impressionism grew, in part, out of the redundancy of realistic art in the face of the invention of the camera, a technological development that reshaped art as a response. Redon, on the other hand, was a Symbolist painter, though the designation suggests a more didactic approach than the artist really took. “My drawings inspire, and are not to be defined,” he once said. “They place us, as does music, in the ambiguous realm of the undetermined.” Summer Hours contains plenty of symbolic imagery to chew on, but Assayas’ structuring of the material places it in a more contemplative context than one that stresses its message over all else.

    summerwi

    But I fear that I’m losing control of this review now. Discussing Summer Hours can be a tricky proposition, as so much of its power and insight is directly tied to what’s on-screen. It is easy, for instance, to point out an arcing track-pan of a shot of a desk in the Musée d’Orsay after being moved from Hélène’s house and say that it symbolizes the ephemeral nature of the transformation of an object from something of deep personal significance to a sealed-off artifact to be disinterestedly ignored by schoolkids. In that one shot is the crux of the argument that modernization desensitizes and demystifies us all, that email and planned obsolescence of so many of our goods will rob everything of its spiritual value, that nothing will even last long enough to gain significance.

    Far more difficult, however, is putting into words just why that shot can evoke a deep sadness and a sense of loss, even in this Mac-loving, nature-averse writer. Or why pointing out the scene’s symbolism is less fulfilling and thought-provoking than simply recalling a moment early in the film when Frédéric tours his kids through the house and recounts the history of the paintings and tries to sell the children on it just like the tour guide trying in vain to hook the teens in the museum. “It’s from another era,” the kids flatly tell their deflated father. This scene is echoed once more at the end, when Sylvie invites her friends to the gutted manor to give it a sort of farewell party, where the kids kick around footballs and blare music as if living out their fantasy vision of a museum field trip.

    Yet it is this coda that cements Summer Hours as more than just the patient but cranky rambling of a ranting old man. As the teens smoke and drink and generally font les quatre cents coups, Sylvie and her boyfriend move to the outskirts of the garden, where the previously bored young woman quietly reflects upon her own memories in the house and wonders whether she will lose something she cannot get back when the house changes hands. “It’s my youth,” Hélène told Frédéric when she surprisingly surrendered her family’s hold upon the artwork stored in her house, and the meaning of that dismissal becomes clear only at the end. As he has delved into this topic before, the director by now understands that our own attachments to trinkets and keepsakes cannot be transferred to another. Hélène understands this too, so she releases her family from the burden of hanging on to objects that can never mean as much to them as they do to her, and in the process she frees them to build their own collections, whatever they may be. Thus, a relatively plot-less film ends with the director releasing his final major character, setting Sylvie off to make her own story, one that will make an interesting update of this one in a few decades.

    When I first saw Summer Hours in a cozy arthouse in Columbus, Ga., I knew instantly that I’d seen one of the most charming, insightful and meditative films in recent years. Repeat viewings only enhance the feelings of regret, acceptance and hope as the familiarity these characters already exhibit with each other becomes ours as well. Open without being obvious, thematically occupied without losing its human element, elusive in a manner that makes everything inescapably clear, Summer Hours has a piercing vision but a soft touch. So very little actually happens, and yet every shot reveals something – an interaction, a reflection, a thematic advancement – and gives the feeling of immediacy despite its lax pace. At various stages in the development of this review, I pointed to one aspect of the film as being the most arresting, yet as I continued to write I would erase the last assertion to spotlight something else as the film’s true triumph. After watching it again, I think I know at last what truly makes the film so memorable: every time this film is set to make the usual cinematic choice, it doesn’t. What does it say about the state of cinema, then, that each of these diversions feels truer to life than anything playing at the megaplex?

    Summer Hours is available now on DVD and Blu-Ray from the Criterion Collection. The Blu-Ray boasts excellent color levels (particularly the greens of the estate’s gardens) and a nuanced DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack. Included in both versions are: an informative half-hour interview with Olivier Assayas, who describes how the project came to be and how his interests and those of the Musée d’Orsay aligned; a half-hour making-of documentary; and another, hour-long doc titled Inventory, which details the art loaned to Assayas for the film and the way it is used. Also included is a booklet featuring an essay by British critic and editor-at-large of Film Comment, Kent Jones, who pens for Assayas’ first entry in the Criterion Collection an introductory (and personal) overview of the director’s career in addition to his appraisal of this film. Praising Criterion’s Blu-Ray treatments is becoming an increasingly redundant gesture, but it’s fascinating to see how a simple, quiet film like this can be just as gorgeous as the company’s restoration of Days of Heaven and its flawless presentation of the digitally shot Che. The set comes almost as highly recommended as the film itself.

    Jake Cole

  • Trailer Park: TERMINATOR SALVATION

    By Christopher Stipp

    The Archives, Right Here

    So, I was able to sit down for a couple of years and pump out a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.

    And now, you can follow me on Twitter under the name: Stipp

    A lot of talk this week about Quentin Tarantino’s newest film screening at Cannes. Consensus? It’s talky, light on action and seems like a WWII DEATH PROOF.

    TERMINATOR SALVATION – REVIEW

    terminatorThere absolutely shouldn’t have been any blessing given from James Cameron with regard to TERMINATOR SALVATION. The only religious intonations given over this movie should have been its last rites.

    Now, I can’t stop you from seeing this movie. You will see it irrespective of anything I have to say on this. I realize this.

    You’ve been sold on it, I was sold on it, director McG’s P.T. Barnum huckster antics during preview showcases to fanboys teased and titillated audiences everywhere (“I really fought hard for those mammaries to be in there, fellas!”) but there is no escaping the fact that behind the tell-tale daa-daa-daa-daa-daa drum beat we all know as the sonic opening calling card for this franchise is nothing but a lot of smoke and a weak film. A film, mind you, which McG himself said should speak for itself. If it did it would say: Don’t spend $10 on me. Wait for Netflix.

    There are a few things that make this a truly remarkable misstep in a franchise that should have ended 2 films ago but one of them comes early on as we meet John Connor (Christian Bale) who absolutely owns the first few minutes of the film in the way he carries his heavy burden as the leader for the resistance and the Batman-like voice with which he wants reality to conform to his own. He’s badass, he chews nails for fun and he’s not going to let crashing in a helicopter, which is a great special effects moment in this film, stop him from thrashing a terminator that deserves leaded violence.

    The problems begin with the moments following when Bale is flying over an ocean, wanting to get back to resistance headquarters. He’s been beat up, almost killed and is denied entry to the underwater base of operations. But that’s not going to stop him from getting in! Much like another summer movie hero from over two decades ago, Jack Ryan in HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER, he’s going to get on that damn sub. The fundamental issue which is wholly representative of what ails this movie is that in OCTOBER there was some emotional weight, genuine drama as he unhooked himself from that line to get in that submarine; there was tension, mood, atmosphere, a real sense of danger. Bale’s bullheaded bravado, masked by the tired trope of cinematic bullheaded machismo as he flippantly tosses himself out of the low flying aircraft into the ocean, is nothing more than a cheap way to try and make this guy seem like a real tough guy.

    When next we see Bale, he’s sitting in a chair looking all kinds of torqued, moody, getting chewed out by Michael Ironside, playing a character I am not unsure of whether is any different than we saw from any number of 80’s movies where his role is to try and be an even tougher character than those he’s acting opposite of, all the while it begs the question of how much suspension of disbelief is going to be required of me in this film?

    It’s a trick question, of course, as the film has moments like this peppered throughout the entire film. For example, the people who have been living without real homes since Judgment Day. They’re fantastically dirty and dusty but the glare coming off their teeth as their lips and faces are sullied with the detritus of a cataclysmic event reminds you that at least they have their Colgate. Another: When Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington, and you’ve got to appreciate the grade school irony in a script that names a man Wright) meets up with young Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) in one of the best sequences of the film as we have our first look at a terminator who is at once zombie-looking and completely sinister. Hours later, after escaping death, Marcus fiddles with a radio. He just happens to fix it at just the time when, speak of the devil, Connor is broadcasting his fireside chat with those out in the field regarding their next moves. Never mind the timing, the way they catch the signal at just the right frequency or the acknowledgment that it’s Connor speaking to them. It’s just all very convenient.

    Later, Reese is part of an escape from a very bad situation from a slew of terminating machines. He and Marcus are departing the explosive moment in a tow truck when moments later he has to pull a single lever at just the right time to make the scene work; forget logic, it begs us, as not only does Reese pull the right one at the right time from a literal array of choices it does nothing to help the dramatic thrust of the film. There is no danger here, no threat of imminent danger, because these guys have an exponential amount of luck on their side and this is the problem with the film.

    Further, in the film’s first hour, we find out early that the resistance has found a way to stop the machines, a poorly explained software program that is embedded on a jump drive that needs a clunky boombox to use. About this time, Connor sends his team to fetch an aqua terminator, a lot like the squids from the MATRIX sequels, to which they find one, bring it aboard, all the while being able to keep it from informing other aqua terminators that its been captured or of its current location. This sonic disruptor is one of the weakest McGuffins as it leads exactly nowhere. It’s a ruse, a poorly devised plot device whose sole purpose is used to an awful and regrettable convenience when finally employed to its strongest effect. The film is riddled with lapses in logic, and honestly if an action movie were on point doing what it has to, we shouldn’t care but from rain that just seems to stop on cue to a fiery explosion that singes nary a hair on the person who is caught in a fireball there is more than enough to puzzle at.

    Moon Bloodgood, for all that McG has made about her, is actually one of the more redeemable things about this film. Along with Sam Worthington and Anton Yelchin as the reluctant hero you have the three best reasons to see the film. I would even posit that their story, by itself, could have been a more entertaining diversion than what we build up to here. Marcus’ second lease on life is slightly introspective and rather interesting. Kyle’s progression from hesitant killer to lethal hero is wonderfully laid out. But that’s the most frustrating thing about this film. It has fits and starts of potential and has excellent action set pieces only to dumb itself down to appease the lowest common denominator as moments just happen to break positively for those we are supposed to care the most about in the movie. When the “big reveal” in the 3rd act happens near the end try and convince me otherwise that it doesn’t make you feel cheated. The shadows, the calculated angles, the careful placement of bodies, it feels more like a math assignment than it does a celebration of all that’s great in excellent action movies. The effects at this point felt on par with THE CROW. The penultimate battle between man and machine, in the bowls of Skynet headquarters, however, tries to win you back with a glorious display of physicality and menace but by then it’s too late. The film cannot elevate itself above a 2nd tier auctioneer when compared to more thought out films in its genre; leave it to Nolan to raise the bar for everyone else who comes behind him. I commend McG for not bowing to the pressure of actually integrating more of the terminators in the film, Lord knows that would’ve made it far more intriguing and add to the summer spectacle this should have been, but he demurs to telling a bullet ridden story with nowhere to end but with a whimper.

    For all his ruminations about how Bale said he flatly turned down this role until he was given a script that you would have thought came with gilded light pouring down from every page if it got Bruce Wayne to say “Yes” to it after turning it down what you have is a story that is full of logical missteps, plots that go nowhere, effect work that at times has you wondering whether it was worth the cameo and the questionable taste for an actor that proved with DARK KNIGHT you could have a great summer film that was designed, and whose sole purpose was, to make money for its cash master while being reasonably intelligent. TERMINATOR SALVATION is a wonder as it doesn’t want to be intelligent, it doesn’t even want to be smart, it just wants to be a throwback to the films you could enjoy on basic cable and be done with once you’ve seen it. It’s an embarrassment of spectacle that leaves a lot of money on the table.

    From a pure franchise standpoint, a solely economic exercise, McG may win the weekend but he will lose the summer war.

  • 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.