DVDebut: Winona Ryder & Wes Bentley in Geoffrey Haley's THE LAST WORD

After making its debut at Sundance in 2008, this little movie, the first "full-lengther" from camera-man Geoffrey Haley (shown left), turns out to be -- despite the use of too much coincidence and some not-thought-out-enough content -- quite worth the 94 minutes you'll spend watching it.

THE LAST WORD -- which makes its straight-to-DVD debut today --

involves a young man, Evan, who writes suicide notes for a living. If this job does not yet exist, you can bet a few people will adopt the profession after seeing this movie. As played by the fine young actor Wes Bentley, Evan is a complicated fellow, and his character comes nicely to life as written by Haley and played by Bentley. Opposite him, as the sister of one of Evan's "clients," is Winona Ryder, who is as beautiful as ever (maybe more so as she matures) but not quite up-to-snuff here. This may be more the fault of Haley's not fleshing out her character as thoroughly as that of Evan's, but instead of trying to locate some "specifics," the actress gives in to experiencing many "moments," some of which are played out a tad too heavily. The surprise of the film for me was Ray Romano in the role of the "client" we get to know best. Romano is funny, specific, strong and weird as hell -- much more interesting here than I have yet seen him.

As a writer Haley knows how to pique our interest but not tell too much. Only toward the end do too many coincidences pile up, and an explanation or two (why the brother chose to die is one of these) comes across as both too easy and yet not believable -- given what we already know. Still, the movie held me pretty tightly in it grip because, despite its bizarre situation, it feels so real so much of the time. Haley has come up with an unusual idea and managed to bring it to life; his is a very decent first film.

Photo of Geoffrey Haley by Jeff Vespa - courtesy of WireImage.com

De Felitta's Little-Seen but Must-See Doc -- 'TIS AUTUMN: The Search for Jackie Paris

How ironic and oh-so-fitting that, within a month of each other, two documentaries would appear, one in theaters the other on DVD, that deal with a nearly identical subject: musicians praised by their more famous peers as top-of-the-line who then languish for decades out of reach of commercial success. Anvil: The Story of Anvil, about the heavy metal band, has just been greeted with rapturous reviews

and non-stop praise (deserved, too, with me among those praising). However, another small documentary also appeared on DVD this month, after a very limited theatrical release well over a year ago, that tells the story of a musician who, a half-century ago, looked to be the toast of the town yet disappeared into obscurity.

There will come a point for most viewers of 'TIS AUTUMN: The Search for Jackie Paris when all the praise that the narrator/filmmaker Raymond De Felitta (shown above) has been heaping on this little-known singer will come clear. For me it happened when Paris began to sing the Hoagy Carmichael classic Skylark. If butter could cut into steel, this is what it would sound like: soft, sweet and pure yet intense and acute. De Feliita, evidently a jazz maven, first hears, then hears about Paris, whom he also hears is dead. But no. After a little tracking, he discovers the man himself, aging but still singing. With that, we're off and running, as the filmmaker interviews this jazz singer, as well as many of those who knew and still know him, piecing together how and why someone this special could have slipped through the cracks.

De Felitta,who also gave us the rich and moving Two-Family House and the new City Island, does a splendid job of investigating and still honoring his subject, keeping the private areas as private as possible -- under the circumstances of decent documenting, in which things are due to both one's subject and one's viewers. One of the people interviewed opines that Jackie just didn't have the killer instinct required of those who become stars. Slowly, however, we learn of this performer's darker side. There is, finally, one area about which it becomes clear that the singer has simply lied to the filmmaker -- or perhaps has deeply denied to himself. When De Felitta finally tracks down the result of this, he offers us one of the most quietly staggering scenes -- a shocking waste of humanity coupled to a profound sadness about what might have been-- that I can recall witnessing.

Yet there is so much here that is joyful -- the singing, the reminiscing, the times and the tunes -- that, for the most part, the movie goes down like a glass of very good Merlot. (I'm sure there' a better alcohol metaphor here, but I only drink wine.) Three decades separate the Anvil duo from Jackie Paris. The latter's older age means that we don't get quite that feel-good thrill that the former, only in their 50s, provide. As to the depth and realization of the themes we encounter in both films -- the meaning of success, its price and rewards; where family fits into the life of musical performer; the ravages (and odd blessings) of time -- 'Tis Autumn: The Search for Jackie Paris proves every bit as memorable and profound.

I have never been much of a jazz fan (neither am I a fan of Anvil's heavy metal). The type of music in either of these two documentaries, I should think, will not prevent any viewer's enjoyment. After watching De Felitta's film, I went to Amazon and downloaded (for just under $10) , the complete Jackie Paris album of Skylark. I'm listening to it as I write, and, I suspect, turning track by track into more of a jazz fan.

IL DIVO -- whew, stunning! -- and a short interview with Paolo Sorrentino

If you care much about film and its future; about what can be done to bring to imagined life a still-living, quite powerful and frightening ex-head-of-state, who remains about as private a personage as you're likely to encounter; and about how riveting visuals can hold you fast, even while events and people you don't fully understand are flashing by at breakneck speed -- then line up Friday to experience IL DIVO.

As all of the above is happening, you are likely to cling, as the film itself does, to writer/director Paolo Sorrentino's ace-in-the-hole: his leading character Giulio Andreotti, an Italian politician whose career has spanned a half-century and who has been accused, tried and convicted of everything from murder to conspiracy and has yet to serve a day in prison. In fact, the fellow is now serving as a "Senator for Life." As played by the award-winning actor Toni Servillo (unrecogniziable here from his role in Gomorrah), Andreotti is the eye of the hurricane. Unnervingly quiet while all about him are rushing, screaming (or dancing the frug), he maintains his calm and keeps his own counsel. Already enormously decorated (for this and other roles), Servillo deserves every award in the book for his look-alike/bone-deep recreation of Andreotti. (The real Giulio is shown below, left; Servillo's version appears at right.)

If this were all Il Divo had to offer, it would be plenty, but Sorrentino probes for more and finds it: the magnetism of power, the way Andreotti achieves it, and how to make that power and the world around it come to eye-popping visual life. I do not recall another movie -- not even my favorite film "find" over the past year, Valzer -- that achieves such consistently stunning visuals. I'd describe a few of these, but why ruin your own discovery? I'll just say that the director's use of motion and repose, light and dark, composition and color (and how he finds the right music to accompany all this) is special indeed. (As is his use of the great -- and uncredited, except where fashion is concerned -- Fanny Ardant.)

There's a caveat here, however, and for some it may be a deal-breaker. Sorrentino packs in so quickly so many characters and so much information (often via titles that are then subtitled, making the screen awfully word-heavy) that he will have you reeling. Steady yourself and proceed, as most of this will eventually become clearer -- if not clear. So impressed with this movie was I after a first visit that I arranged to see it again and enjoyed it even more. Normally I feel that, if a movie cannot explain itself properly the first time you see it, then it is at fault. Il Divo -- a work of art -- is so good in so many ways, it proves the exception to the rule.

Sorrentino's film opens this Friday, April 24, in New York City at the Lincoln Plaza Cinemas and at Landmark's Sunshine Cinema. I presume some sort of limited-release, national-rollout will follow soon. It had better or expect a film-fan mutiny.

I met Paolo Sorrentino (shown above, shooting) in the bright and airy lounge of one of New York City's newest venues, the spectacular metal and glass Standard Hotel in the city's meatpacking district. So very chic that it possesses not a bit of signage to let the wanderer know that he's arrived (I asked the doorman about this: "The local community group won't allow any signs," he explained), the hotel provided exactly the right bizarre visual in which to meet the director of one of the most spectacular and visually innovative films in a long while. Along with us are the PR representative, Susan Norget, and our translator, Lilia Pino Blouin.

While chatting with the two women prior to the interview, I learned that Sorrentino has actually shown his film, at a private screening, to its leading character "Senator for Life" Giulio Andreotti, and that Andreotti had not -- surprise! -- been pleased. In fact he threatened to walk out, but then stayed for the entire film (How could he leave? Il Divo's too riveting!) while particularly hating and complaining about the scene in which his character "confesses" -- which is one of the many smart and richly imagined pieces in this fascinating puzzle of a movie.

TrustMovies: It seems to me that your film is a character study more than anything else -- about a man whom we cannot know completely because he is so closed. But you get into him by imagining what is going on.

Paolo Sorrentino: One of the things most important in the film is this study of the character because I was very curious, very intrigued, by his character because he was so mysterious and so hard to understand. When it is so hard to understand a person, you study about what you can. So I finished with what I could study and then I invented something which I felt was reliable… about him.

The wife (Anna Bonaiuto, left) and the secretary (Piera Degli Esposti).

It stuck me a reliable. Even if it is not exactly true, perhaps it can still be reliable.

Ah, yes. I hope so.

Your movie made me want to be an Italian so that I could more fully understand all the ins-and-outs of the people and the politics. But Il Divo also made me grateful I was not an Italian so that I didn't have to live under the power and control of "leaders" like this. Of course, we did live through Mr. Bush over here… (Sorrentino laughs) But it is not the same.

No, it is not the same.

Bush had his eight years, but this guy has had…. fifty?

Italy, I think, is a rather strange country for democracy.

Why?

Because I think that democracy has not completely developed here. Italy has one foot in the west, but its other foot in some country like the third world or like Latin America. So we have what we call two shoes in different situation. For example, the fact that Andreotti has now been made a "senator for life" is something like a dictatorship. And so we weave between, hmmm, the United Kingdom and… Zimbabwe.

From Il Divo: the Andreotti entourage

When I was watching the film, despite all the evil things that Andreotti was doing, I kept thinking, Wow-- this could be a great man! But he has gone greatly wrong. Does that make sense?

That is true because there is a greatness in Andreotti. Certainly he is greatly fascinating. And evil is greatly fascinating.

But Andreotti had such skills in surrounding himself with this cadre of powerful people and making use of them so well for his own purposes. This is certainly a skill. We hope Obama will have such skills -- but will use them toward better ends.

I think this happens when you have a man who loves power for the sake of power and not for the greater good. I believe that Andreotti is a kind of man who loves the power and so all his actions are finalized around the idea to hold onto this power. Not for so much money or women. Just for the power.

And this is what your movie explores so well.

I hope that my film will really be seen by an international audience, not just by Italian people, because this characteristic of power and its use is common to many other statesman and in many other countries.

I think the film has a very good chance of doing this because of your visual skill. I have never seen scenes like this in any other movie: the cat in parliament, the night club scene in which everyone is dancing and Andreotti is just there, so quiet, like a center of stillness that rivets your attention. And your actor, Toni Servillo, is amazing. I have never seen a performance like this. It is memorable.

Yes, Andreotti is still -- in a world that moves very fast, yet he is always very calm and very private. This is part of his fascination.

There is a scene in which you come in very close in on Andreotti and his wife -- you can see the pores of their skin! I have seen things like this done in other films but not in the same way, not accomplishing as much.

That was the idea: for me -- for the wife, too -- to know very well who he is. So we have to go close in!

In Il Divo, a kidnapped Aldo Moro haunts Giulio's dreams.

How did you choose you music? We never hear Sibelius very much in films and it's wonderful to hear him again and used like this. And rock songs too -- what a great combination of classical and popular!

During the writing of the film I heard this music, both the classical and the rock, and I found out that they work very well together. So I decided to combine them.

How do you get to your visuals? Do you storyboard them? I'm asking because I've never made a movie, and I don't know how things get from the mind of the moviemaker onto the screen --and particulary in a format so spectacular as you have here. This is the kind of film where people will leave the theatre and immediately go screaming to their friends, "You've gotta see this movie, you've gotta see this movie!" (Sorrentino laughs, and I ask the PR representative Susan Norget, who is sitting across from us). Don't you think so, Susan?

Susan Norget: Well, we hope so!

So, what's next for you? Tell me about La Partita lenta, your short film that I found on the IMDB?

La Partita lenta is a short film that I did for an Italian bank. Two other directors did this, too. The bank called us and proposed that we make …

A commercial?

It's not a commercial because we don't do a commercial about the bank. The bank helps finance movies because they want to do sort of … some thing humanitarian. To promote the arts.

Ah, yes, banks always love to promote the arts!

Yes! (he laughs) We pretended to believe them and we did it.

Will we get to see this?

Yes, the film is on YouTube. Go there and ask for La Partita lenta.

Is it subtitled?

There is no dialog -- well, only one word.

Massimo Popolizio, as "The Shark," has second thoughts.

Do you know Salvatore Maira's film Valzer ?

No, I didn't see the film but I know Salvatore Maira.

You should see it. It's another great Italian movie.

I don't think it got such a good distribution in Italy.

No, I don't think so. But maybe now with your film and Gomorrah and some others, we'll see a deserved resurgence of Italian film?

I hope so.

Thank you so much for your time, Paolo. And for your help in translating, Lilia.

Smart Film Panel Talks About New "Waves" -- of movies, distribution and other topics

From left: Kovarova, Vanco, Jensen, Peña, Scott, Almozini
and Hernandez; photo by Yusuf Sayman

Putting together a good film panel -- like a good party -- depends quite a bit on whom you choose as your guests. Last night's sterling example came via the panel's moderator and program curator Irena Kovarova, the Czech Film Center representative here in New York City and herself an independent film programmer. Kovarova corraled a diverse group whose intelligence, wit and love of film, coupled with their ability to do terrific work in their "day jobs," resulted in a most interesting and enjoyable evening titled Disappearing Act: European Cinema from New Wave to New Wave. Taking place in the auditorium of the Czech Center at Bohemian National Hall, 321 East 73rd Street, New York, the program proved a full 90 minutes of pay-attention fun.

(If you'd like to watch the complete hour-and-fifteen-minute video with sound and visuals of the entire program plus Q&A, Ms Kovarova has kindly provded same: Just click here.)

On the panel were Richard Peña (director of the New York Film Festival, program director of the FSLC and professor of film at Columbia University), A.O. Scott (film critic for The New York Times), Jytte Jensen (curator, department of film, MoMA), John Vanco (vice president and general manger of the IFC Center), Florence Almozini (program director of BAMcinématek) and Eugene Hernandez (editor-in-chief and co-founder of IndieWIRE.com). The evening got started a bit tardily -- which was fine with me, as I arrived late -- but immediately took off. Highlights (as this interpreter saw them, at least) follow:

Ms Kovarova began with having the panel take a stab at defining what these "new waves" -- whether Romanian, French, Slovenian or Czech -- actually were, turning the program over first to Mr. Peña, who suggested that perhaps good-old-fashioned marketing concepts were involved in christening any group of movies from anywhere in particular under a common rubric of "new wave." Indeed, from the French Nouvelle Vague onwards, the concept has worked rather well. Peña also mentioned earlier "waves" such as Italian neo-realism of the 40s and German expressionism of the 20s (although the latter never really coalesced, he explained, because so many of those directors left so quickly for Hollywood). Other waves included that of Iran, China (and its "fifth generation") and the Czech new wave that heralded the end of Stalinism.

Mr. Scott suggested in his mild manner that the use of "new wave" as a description was not simply a marketing technique. While any such description should not be taken as gospel, the Times reviewer noted, it often made a handy guide that film buffs might find useful.

Kovarova suggested this description could act as a double-edged sword, and Ms. Jensen agreed but insisted that this was perfectly OK because, since it is so difficult to entice people to see cinema from other cultures, these "waves," particularly the older ones, can help draw attention to the newer variety. "They can show us the route," she offered.

Mr. Hernandez brought up the idea of thinking about the very definition of criticism and asked why critics look for these connections that seem to result in the "wave" theory.

"Yes, these are just buzz words," Scott admitted, "but they are a way to connect. He then offered up the buzz word he seems to have coined in his recent Times article on neo-neo-realism, which, another panelist pointed out, appeared to have sent The New Yorker's Richard Brody into an unhappy state.

From left: Jensen, Peña and Scott; photo by Yusuf Sayman

"A movement becomes a movement only when it transcends its national boundaries," or at least I think that was how Ms Jensen stated it, noting how a wave from one country can influence a filmmaker from another. Her example was Roy Andersson, who credits the Czech new wave for some of his inspiration. (Mr. Andersson, by the way, made one of TrustMovies' favorite films: Songs from the Second Floor. If you have not seen it, do.)

The IFC's John Vanco talked about the difficulty of getting a foreign film to its proper audience, telling the story of how, when one of the recent Romanian New Wave movies --- 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days -- made its Cannes debut, everyone loved it but no one could figure out how to market it. Yet the movie went on the be a foreign language arthouse hit, while another Romanian movie -- California Dreamin' -- though well-received, didn't make the same grade.

Ms Kovarova mentioned another foreign film -- the unusual docmentary Czech Dream -- that also, while eminently worthwhile, failed to click with arthouse audiences.

BAMcinématek's Ms. Almozini told us about the difficulties of programming and getting it right: presenting the films that need to be seen and at the same time corraling a decent audience. Explaining that Brooklyn has proven a fertile location for her venue, the program director did say that, these days, the idea of forking over $12 for most audiences means that you'd better give them something they will like.

"Don't blame the audience," insisted Peña. "Blame the era from Reagan through the latest Bush." He then mentioned a quote from right-wing culture czar William Bennett, something to the effect that, "When I was young I used to go to those foreign films from directors like Ingmar Bergman. But thank god I grew out of it." This attitude, so prevalent over the past 30 years, noted Peña, has not helped interest most mainstream Americans in other cultures - or their films.

Ms Jensen told us about MoMA's encouraging experience of showing foreign-language films to high-school-age audiences. "Initially," she explained, "60 per cent of these kids were really frightened about whether they would be able to handle viewing a film and reading subtitles simultaneously. But after the experience, a huge percentage of them enjoyed it and said they would do it again."

Regarding the blame game, Mr. Hernandez pointed out that it has been 25 years since Stranger than Paradise made its theatrical debut and helped created a market for the alternative film. But now, Hernandez worried, that market has developed into an audience that thinks it is viewing an alternative film when it sees Juno or Napoleon Dynamite. Peña agreed and suggested that American independent film has cut heavily into the market for foreign-language films.

So have the new technologies, noted Mr. Vanco. "We don't know yet how all these -- home video to on-demand and streaming -- will finally shake out. But I have to believe that there will still be a place for theatrical viewing." Mr. Peña wondered about that, suspecting there will be a huge decrease over the coming years in theatrical venues.

What about the category of the undistributed film, asked Ms. Kovarova? Mr. Hernandez offered that indieWire is working on bettering its annual list of worthy films still seeking distribution. "I find it almost impossible," he told us, "to look at film through the eyes of a marketing person. I just don't know how they do it!"

Post-panel, Scott (left) and Vanco shake on it; photo by Yusuf Sayman.

Around this time, Kovarova opened up the program for a Q&A, and many good questions were asked and then tossed about by the panelists -- from globalization and the seeming loss of national film identities to new models for distribution and the long- and short-range effects these may have. Audience member Mark Lipsky (President of Gigantic Releasing, the company that simultaneously opened theatrically and streamed the well-received documentary Must Read After My Death) told us that Gigantic intends to open up its releasing facilities to anyone who wants to make use of it -- an interesting possibility, I would think, for some of these so-far undistributed foreign and independent movies.

The final question was given to me to ask of the panel, and I may have blown it by blathering on too long. My question was why -- at this time of the worst economic downturn in over 75 years, and with many distributors of foreign and independent films closing up shop over the past year or two -- is there such a glut of new foreign and independent films being released every single week: often between 6 and 12 of these? It's beginning to seem like a golden age for foreign films, independents and documentaries -- as bizarre as this appears. The panelists seemed to feel that this is due to all the new technologies for both theatrical and home viewing. Whatever: Foreign-language films opening over the past few weeks have included Gomorrah, Shall We Kiss, The Country Teacher, Paris 36, Tulpan, Sin Nombre, Oblivion, Song of Sparrows, Tokyo Sonata and Tokyo! -- to name a few. This week we got Lemon Tree and Sleep Dealer. And next week? One of the great films of this still new century: Il Divo!

Are we blessed, or what?

.

LEMON TREE -- and an interview with writer/director Eran Riklis

Israeli writer/director Eran Riklis' Lemon Tree opens today in New York. Though I covered it at length for GreenCine when it made its American debut during the FSLC's Israel @60 festival, I jumped at the chance to meet the moviemaker for a short one-on-one. Of all the directors, actors and film people I've interviewed so far, Mr. Riklis -- when first I heard him speak at Lincoln Center and again at our sit-down earlier

this week at the Soho Grand Hotel -- seems by far the most accessible, genuine and self-assured.

His just-folk personality appears to spill over into his movies, too -- at least the two I have seen and enjoyed enormously: The Syrian Bride (2004) and Lemon Tree (2008). The former is a wonderfully vital "family" film with political over/undertones about a wedding that may or may not occur, and the latter offers a kind of metaphor about the Israeli/Palestine conflict ("What Palestine? Show me its borders?!" I jest, but I am growing awfully tired of hearing this particular argument), with the violence always threatening but thankfully remaining just out of reach. The film tells what happens when the Israeli Defense Minister moves his family into a home next door to a lemon grove owned by a Palestinian woman, and then -- for security reasons, of course -- demands that the grove be chopped down. The story, based I believe on an actual happening, make prime fodder for both sides and allows the viewer to experience the it all. Hiam Abbass in the role of the lemon farmer -- she was also the young immigrant's mother in last year's The Visitor -- gives a rich performance that captures us without any special pleading or sentimentality.

Lemon Tree opens today at Lincoln Plaza Cinemas and the IFC Center.

I arrive a bit tardy for my interview and make apologies to the gracious Mr. Riklis:

Sorry to be late, but I just came from interviewing Paolo Sorrentino, and his interviews were running late. Have you seen Il Divo yet? What a fabulous movie!

No, not yet, but I met both the Il Divo and Gomorrah guys at the European Academy Awards They were sitting right next to each other and there was very much competition between those two films.

Yes, and they both ended up winning something.

It's funny -- because I just got an email this morning from somebody in Italy telling me that Lemon Tree has been nominated for Best Foreign Film in the Italian David di Donatello Awards.

No kidding? That is great! You had said during the Q&A after the Lemon Tree screening during the FSLC's Israel @ 60 festival that the film, though not successful in Israel, had been very popular practically everywhere else it has screened in the world.

Yes. And even though they opened Lemon Tree in Italy during the Christmas season (Ed's note: this is not what anyone would call a Christmasy film) it was a huge hit there. It really has done well everywhere else. In South America-- in Brazil it has been running for seven months! But in Israel, unfortunately not. Well, as I said at Lincoln Center it is always nice for me to have a winner on the home court, but on the other hand, it is very nice to have something that works around the world

That's one of the reasons I love films so much, especially foreign films, is that we Americans, if we're interested, can keep in touch with what is happening all over the world. And not like a current event that you see in the newscast . But what is happening inside Israel in more subtle ways. Good filmmakers are more interested in what is happening with the people of their country and what their country is feeling and doing -- as you were with Lemon Tree and Syrian Bride -- which was a more feel-good movie. Was that one a hit in Israel?

Yes, and not just because it was more feel good, as you say. But also because it I not so Palestinian. For the average Israeli the world Palestinian is more threatening. But the dreams of an obscure community on the border was somehow less of a threat.

In my mind I thought that those people were Palestinian.

Well, they are Druze, and perhaps in some way this puts them on the same level as Palestinians. They are Islamic and have a secretive religion, and they are split between Israel, Syria and Lebanon. Those who live in Israel actually must serve in the Israeli army.

One of the things you said during Israel @ 60 that I was particularly impressed with was that there is no censorship of filmmakers in Israel: No matter how critical the filmmaker might be of Israeli actions or policy.

It's true, and for me, it is, you know, almost like a non-question. Because it is a free country. I never had a feeling of a problem about this, or a feeling that, by accepting the funding from the government, that I had to do or change anything. After all, all many of the major governments of Europe have also invested in my films and in other, and if they are doing it, then why should Israel not?! We got major funding from Germany and France and major television outlets in Europe. So how can Israel say no when a film has already gotten that kind of support? Lemon Tree was basically pre-financed by French and German television, German regional funds, the film board of France, and so on.

Also, a good script is a good script, and a bad script a bad script. I think when you come up with a creditable director and a good script people just don't say no.

You wrote the script, right, so of course you know it's a good script!

From the institutional Israeli perspective, I am not considered a... you know, an extreme left-wing filmmaker. So over the years, I think I have managed to put myself into sort of a mainstream position and am able to do what I want to do. You can't argue so much when a film is a success worldwide. That’s a good position to be in.

I try to see as many Israeli film as I can, but still, I don't see that many. Yet I would say that every film I do I see from Israel seems to be a critique of Israel -- including your films.

I think it is about being honest. As long as you criticize with honesty and show the truth -- well, whatever the truth is…

It's sometimes hard to know.

Yes, it is hard to know. But I think that if you repect even that, that there is no one truth, or one "right"…. I really try very hard to do that, without being, on the other hand, politically correct, because that also is kind of boring.

In Lemon Tree, you let us see several sides and even sides within a side -- how people feel about it all. And you embrace all of those sides yet we still come down on the side of the lemon trees and the orchard. What do you think of the new Benjamin Netanyahu presidency? Is going to be more or less right-wing that he was before?

Well, I can't say that I like the guy… On the other hand, he's a smart guy. I have to give him credit because in this day and age, when you have Obama as President over here, it is clear that the world is shifting in so many directions…. I don't think that Israel can any longer say that "Well, we are going to just stick with our old impassioned ideas!" With what is happening the world, you have to keep being up- to date, being realistic about what is happening. This constant war, it just cannot keep going on forever. (He pauses a moment) Well, of course it has been going on forever….

Do you really think it can't go on forever? I used to wonder about that. And it seemed like it would. But then I also used to think that the fighting between Ireland and Britain would go on forever, but that has changed and gotten better.

Exactly. It's like the old "Never say never." In a strange way, despite recent events in Gaza and everything, I am pretty optimistic that things will get better, despite what has happened under certain American Presidents. People in the end, in a modern world, I think there is always hope of bridging the gaps.

I hope you're right. I haven't heard anyone say this for awhile.

It's funny, because when I was first writing Lemon Tree, I felt very bitter in a way. I was angry about the constant conflict between Israel and Palestine -- and I was writing with anger. Then I calmed down and really came to the film with a different kind of approach, one that I have kept ever since. Not being naïve and not being an idiot about all these things, but really trying to keep an air of optimism, because otherwise why keep going? I think the main problem, not just in Israel but everywhere in the world, is not so much about hatred or about prejudice It's more about indifference. People finally say, "Well, who cares?" A thousand kids die every day in Darfur and you hear it on the news, and you shake your head madn in the morning when you see it on the news. And it’s just something that finally just ends up on the back page.

And that's why we will tend to remember Lemon Tree, for instance a little longer than we will remember a newscast.

I agree. Maybe films are probably the alternative to the media in a way, because everything on the media just comes and goes quickly all the time. But films get a few more minutes with you, and maybe they can do something in your memory.

Something you use or hear later will set off a memory of Lemon Tree and what you got out of it. Or maybe if you see the wonderful actress Hiam Abbass in something else -- like The Visitor -- it will jog your memory, and Lemon Tree will come back again. What are you working on now, by the way?

I am sort of fully-financed already on my next film which is called Human Resources --

Like that wonderful French film by Cantet!

Right. The full name is actually The Mission of the Human Resources Manager. It's a wonderful story. It's basically about a human resources manager at a large bakery in Jerusalem who has to take back to Russia the body of a foreign worker who died in a suicide bombing. It's basically a journey movie, with a dead body. And it was written by somebody else, not me, whose producer submitted it to me. And I liked it and thought it was great.

Do you usually write all your films?

Not always. I am always involved in the writing in some way, or am the co-writer. But a good script is a good script And it is not about ego or about having to write it myself. And anyway, a director usually does get involved in the script.

You mention ego -- that is something that impressed me a lot when I first heard you speak -- you just seemed so… regular. And it did not seem like a mask, either. Just something natural.

It’s like a philosophy. For me it is just the only way to keep in touch with the subjects I want to direct. How can you live one way and then direct your films in another way? I was thinking recently about American "stars" -- and I am not going to mention any names here -- but how can this star who lives in this big mansion play some little working class guy? There's no real bridge. Filmmakers do have to connect with the glory at times, but they also have to keep in touch with the spirit, with what they really want to do.

Another thing I've noticed is that you don't seem nearly as pushy as most Israelis that I've encountered in my life.

That's because I grew up here in America.

You grew up here?!

I was born in Israel but my father, who was a scientist, got his Ph.D. in Montreal and then he got some work at Columbia, and so for about five years when I was kid I lived here in NYC. Then we came back to Yale for one year, and then I was in Brazil for some years, and I went to an American high school there

No wonder your English is so good! And there's not even that much of an accent.

No, not really. It's kind of a strange accent. Not clear. In fact, people often think I am American.

Around this time, we get the high sign from the publicist
that our time is up. We wish Eran Riklis great good fortune
with his American debut of Lemon Tree, and look forward
to his upcoming The Mission of the Human Resources Manager.

All photos by Eitan Riklis, courtesy of IFC Films

A Talk with BILL MILNER and JOHN CROWLEY re method, movies and stage

So. Rex Reed in this week's New York Observer has come down heavily against IS ANYBODY THERE? While I don't think this alone will sink the film's chances at finding its audience, I must admit that an earlier retiree/rest home movie, also featuring its title in the form of a question (How About You?), did not set the world on fire during our last Christmas season. Still, I'm counting on intelligent foreign/independent film audiences to seek out a movie like this and give it a chance.

At the press event for Is Anybody There? (the lion's share of which was posted yesterday), our final meeting took place with Michael Caine's co-star, young Bill Milner, and the film's director John Crowley (shown above, left, with Sir Michael). Here are highlights of that conversation between Crowley, Milner and six of us bloggers, all sitting around a very large conference table at the Regency Hotel:

Q (to Milner, shown just below): How was this movie different for you from Son of Rambow?

Milner: Son of Rambow, I think, was about growing up and about living. This film is more about death and letting go.

When you first met Caine, did you know who he was and what his stature was -- that you were working with one of the top 20 actors in the whole world.

Yes! I was aware, but at the same time it was quite exciting. When you answered the question about the differences between Son of Rambow and Is Anybody There? you were very analytical. I am wondering how that analytical part of you functions when you are on the set. What are you thinking about? I don't know. I think…. I don't know if I can answer the question… Crowley: I can help you out with that.... Questioner. No -- let him. (To Milner) When you go onto the set and are about to play the scene, what are you thinking about? That particular, isolated moment? The longer story? What? Or does all that disappear? I don't know…That's a tough question. First, you have to really get a sense of what the character has been through before, and then you understand how he is feeling. You have to understand the scene just before that one and what he has done then. And then that scene takes you in the next.

Crowley: This boy takes his brain with him onto the set. Then, somewhere along the way, his instinct takes over. Directing him is not like directing other kids. He's never let me down.

(To Crowley) What is the biggest difference between British and American humor?

I think the British is flinty and tough, with an irreverence toward death. That's probably the main difference.

How do you find the right balance between entertaining the audience and provoking them into emotion?

There is no easy answer to that. You spend a lot of energy and a lot of time trying things out. It's like three-dimensional chess -- played in the dark. Editing, of course, is there, too, and to me this is the most purely cinematic part of the whole thing. It is astonishing how meaning can develop through editing. You have to keep doing it and doing it and then step back and get a pair of fresh eyes to look at it. I was very lucky to have had producers who allowed me the time to get it right.

How long were you working on this film?

We finished it completely just before Christmas last year. We actually finished editing it last August.

Do you find it is even more difficult because of all the extra footage after editing, and now, with the DVD to consider, how you can put in so much of that footage as "extras" on the DVD?

No. Because you are always after the best version of the film. It's horrible, of course, what you lose in editing those scenes. But the one consolation is that those scenes are not lost forever because you can put them on the DVD.

To Milner: After making the two films, have you thought that you might want to get into something like directing or writing?

Well, I have written and I do have a camera I like to take out with me.

Crowley: And he's very good!

(To Crowley) Regarding how the movie keeps changing focus -- from Clarence and the boy, to the boy's parents to the occupants of the retirement home -- was this planned more in the original script, or did much of it happen in the film's editing?

The movie was always planned to be about the main character Clarence and the boy, but to find the emotional through-line you must weave in these other characters so that you feel they counterpoint and mirror the difficulties and the choices that Clarence faces. You have the boy, who's on the threshold, the father in his mid-life crisis, and Clarence who is wrestling with the end. Within that you have all these other stories of the residents, and you could pick any one of them and it would a major one, equally rich.

Can you talk about the difference between your work on the stage and now on film.

There is something incredibly satisfying about capturing on film a particular moment. On the stage, it can be equally brilliant, but then it is gone. But if you've caught it on film, it is there forever.

What other film directors do you admire?

I am impressed with work of Steven Soderberg, Ang Lee and Peter Weir. They never seem to make the same film twice. Being a film director seems a bit like being somewhere between a creative force and a gun for hire. I mean, look at John Huston's career!

What is the difference between what a live audience gets from a legitimate theatre play and what a film audience gets?

Obviously in legitimate theatre, it is an event, and something that is being shared by the audience. The audience is involved is a very subtle way because the audience is also informing the event -- by silence, by laughter. Maybe not consciously. With a new play, there is nothing as exciting as the first performance in preview. I found that true both in London and here in NYC with The Pillowman. The audience does not know what it is in for -- and there is that sense of discovery, moment to moment. That is very, very special. It is an incredible thing to have helped engineer that event. But film is so much more about internal emotional landscape, and in subtle ways. It's like you are trying to get behind somebody's eyes. It is not so much about the event in the room. There is nothing better than to stand in the back of the auditorium during a screening in which people are really "getting" the film, whether they are quiet or laughing . I don't see the need to have to choose one or the other of these art forms. I am lucky enough to be able to go between them.

IS ANYBODY THERE? Yes! A meeting with Caine, Milner, Crowley & the producers

So many worthwhile movies sneak in under the grid these days, languish briefly in a theatre or two and then disappear, reappearing on DVD much later (often after their small but interested audience has forgotten that it even had wanted to see them). When a small film manages to garner attention, celebration is in order, and so it is with this quiet little tale that features a very big star: Michael Caine.

IS ANYBODY THERE? tells the story of an elderly retired magician (Caine) who places himself in an old-age home run by the parents of a young boy (Bill Milner from Son of Rambow) who is obsessed with the after-life and the possible presence of ghosts in the home.

The film's focus keeps changing -- from the relationship that develops between the characters played by Caine and Milner to the parents, who are having their own problems (David Morrissey, from the original State of Play) and Anne-Marie Duff of The Magdalene Sisters), and finally onto the aged tenants of the home -- starry geriatrics who include Rosemary Harris, Leslie Phillips (Jimmy Blake in the Chancer series and Venus), the late Elizabeth Spriggs, Peter Vaughan (Tom Franklyn in Chancer, The Remains of the Day), Ralph Riach (chauffeur Willy Stebbings in Chancer) and the amazing Sylvia Syms. With its constantly shifting focus, the movie puts us in touch with a lot of people and events -- and the connections and feelings that rise from these. It proves an interesting way to tell the story: removing us somewhat from any heavy identification with its two main characters while putting us nicely in touch with the entire world that they inhabit.

Caine is wonderful (he seems to get better with each new role), bringing such a rough, alternately-in-and-out-of-touch reality to his character that it's almost as though the viewer has never seen this actor before. Young Milner, quite accomplished considering his few years and short resume, make a fine foil for Sir Michael. The entire cast is equally accomplished and my only quibble is that I'd like to have seen more of each of them. The movie -- at 94 minutes including credits -- is short yet covers a good deal of territory. Screenwriter Peter Harness has based his story on his own life growing up in a retirement home run by his parents, and he's done a creditable job of giving us enough information to carry us along without overloading.

Is Anybody There? has a lot to say but never shouts. It tells its story, whispering between the lines and leaving us to draw our own conclusions with feelings that, though mixed, should contain many more positives than negatives. There's an abundance of humor here, some of it pretty quirky and dark (the magic show with Caine and Peter Vaughan -- whew!) and sadness, too, often coming nearly on top of each other. All in all, a nice little movie.

<><><><><><><>

Granted, I've only been working the review route for a few years now, but the press experience with this particular film was unlike anything else I've had. Press time lasted longer than any I've experienced, with a full roster of producers, stars and director on hand.

Our little group of six bloggers gathered around a long and wide conference table in Manhattan's ritzy Regency Hotel. (It was pouring rain that day, and when I departed the doorman graced me with a classy black umbrella. That's what I call courtesy.) At one end of the conference table sat three of the film's producers: David Heyman, whose credits run the gamut from a classic indie like The Daytrippers to the Harry Potter film franchise; and Peter Saraf and Marc Turtletaub, who have produced a number of films from Little Miss Sunshine and Sunshine Cleaning to Chop Shop and Sherrybaby. For reasons perhaps more obvious to others than to me, film journalists seem to care little about producers. While I admit they may not be as creative (in a certain fashion only) as directors, writers and actors, we wouldn't have our movies without them. There are all kinds of ways to be creative, after all.

First the three men told us the tale of how the film came into being, starting with a single page of a story/reminiscence from the screenwriter Peter Harness, about his growing up among a flock of seniors in a retirement home run by his parents. One of the producers gave this page to another of them, who took it with him on his way to the "loo." When he came back he told the other that he'd quite liked it, and there began what ended up as Is Anybody There?.

One of the unusual things about this project, explained the threesome, was that at several points along the way, when the script seemed to be getting out of hand, the producer actually asked Harness to go back to an earlier draft and work from that. This evidently is not the way screenplays often take shape. It is usually: forge ahead with changes, changes and more changes. Here, instead, what the writer has put on that original page contained the idea and spirit that the producers most wanted to remain. And, yes, Michael Caine was the first major name attached to the project, and no other real possibilities were ever floated to essay the leading role.


Following our Q&A with the producers, a few minutes later Sir Michael arrived. "Class" was never the first word that came to my mind regarding this actor -- who, in the early 1960s, made his major film debut in Zulu, followed by the first in the Harry Palmer franchise, The Ipcress File, followed by Alfie -- and was suddenly a major star. Yet class was the only word that seemed to fit this leonine fellow who, utterly gracious without appearing to give it a thought, sat down, smiled at us all, and proceeded to effortlessly answer questions and tell funny stories about his youth, his mentors, and his early learning of the acting craft via the legitimate stage.

Q: What was the biggest difference in how you approach acting now and how you approached it w hen you were starting out?

Caine: When you become a star pretty much overnight, which I was lucky enough to have done, you tend to show a great deal of yourself and your own personality. Plus, you tend to get pictures which are pretty much the same. You get the girl, you lose the girl, and you get the girl again -- and it's all very glamorous. Then you get to a certain age where, what happened to me was that a producer sent me a script, which I read and sent right back to him saying, the part's too small. . He sent it back to me with a note that said, Don't read the lover, read the father. So I rushed over and looked in the mirror and thought, Oh my god, he's right. At that point you stop being the movie star -- who relies on personality -- and you start becoming the movie actor. And the point of all this is that for you people out there in the audience, you don't look at Michael Caine and say, "Oh, isn't he a wonderful actor. If you do that, I have failed. Instead, you should be sitting there watching and thinking, Oh, I wonder what's going to happen to Charlie Smith -- or whatever character I am playing. The actor should disappear, and so should the acting .And that's been the major difference for me now. Really, for the actor, this is a necessity. Because at my age you're not going to get the girl, anyhow. (You might get the odd widow, of course….)
Q: Since this movie is about a kind of mentor/apprentice kind of relationship, have you ever had a mentor like this in your own youth?

I started out at about the age of 7 at a little country school where and the head mistress was single and she decided that I was something like her son and she adopted me -- not legally but, still I was always at her house, spending more time with us than with my own mother on many occasions. She taught me to read, what to read, and I got an incredible education. She was a tremendous influence on me, as was my grammar school English teacher, Mr.Watson. My greatest influence was the cinema itself. I loved it! I am one of the biggest film fans anywhere-- whether I was in the movie or not. It was for me an escape from where I was. I grew up in a very tough project in South London.. It was very, very hard. At the movies, I could escape anywhere, I was fascinated by movie acting, and so I became an amateur actor. What happened was I did nine years of theatre, very small theatre . And when I finally got my first very big play in the West End, a producer saw me and signed me to do Zulu. And I never went back to the stage again. Ever. And I don't want to now. .I have become completely a movie actor.

Do you miss working before a live audience at all?

No, not at all!

What movies have you seen recently that you would recommend to us?

A French film called Tell No One which I think is the best thriller I have seen in my life. I thought it was wonderful. Really I have seen practically every movie via screener. I am a member of the Academy over here and in Europe, and so I get those too. I also loved The Lives of Others. I enjoy all sorts of films, blockbusters included.

How did you find working with your co-star Bill Milner, who is relatively new to films?

He is the most self-possessed little boy I have ever seen. And I think this is because he did not go to theater school. He was in an amateur dramatic society, and so he had no wrong ideas about movies acting nor any suggestions to make about anything. He was just a little boy! And he is highly intelligent. And his mother is not a stage mother, either and she is also highly intelligent. We rehearsed a little and became very close friends. He was a treasure to work with, and you can imagine what we would have gone through if we have gotten the wrong boy. The picture would have gone into the toilet!
What is the difference between American comedy and British comedy?

The Americans don't have much of a sense of irony. My favorite comedians are the great American Jewish comics. They are the best in the world, I think -- Milton Berle, George Burns -- they have a basic Jewish humor which is always self-efficient. But I also love the British humor like Monty Python!

You strike me as actor who is always growing and changing. How did you grow on this film?


I had some unfortunate help, actually, because while I was making this film, my best friend was dying of Alzheimer's. So I knew exactly what I was doing and where I was coming from the whole time I had been involved with my friend and Alzheimer's for four years before I stared this film. Really, this was the greatest training in how to be an Alzheimer's patient. I tend to choose roles like this. My next film, a small British called Harry Brown , I play a man who I much tougher than Clarence the magician, whose best friend is killed, and he must go out to avenge him.
Do you plan to retire?

That is generally a decision we actors do not make. This business retires you!

That does not seem to be happening in your case.

No. I don't plan to retire, and fortunately I have another Batman movie to make! But it could do, you know? If they decide not to make another Batman, and I sit here waiting for the next script. If it happens, I would not make any official announcement, of course. I would just not work again.
Are you interested in initiating your own projects at this point?

No, no. Too much hard work! But the reason I am here, doing this PR business is that I believe in this little movie. It's quite an obscure picture, really, and what do you say to someone who asks what's it about? Well, an old peoples home? People are not going to say Oh, I must see that! I want to show people this movie so that they see that it is not just this! If you can make a movie in which audiences roll with laughter and then cry their eyes out, as I have seen them do with this film, then, well…

If you could remake any of the movies you did earlier, how would you do it and whom would you cast in it?

I've never really been asked this question nor have I thought about it. (He does now.) Which? Hmmmmm. It would have to be one of the failures, rather than the successes, I think. (He thinks hard.) I' ll tell you what I'd remake: Gambit, and I would play the Herbert Lom part. The older man part. You know, I think I am saying this because I just heard form somewhere that the Cohen Brothers have bought rights to that script!

Do you think you could sink your teeth into pretty much any kind of role at this point in your life?

Well, yes, given the age and physicality of the role, of course. But yes, pretty much any kind!


After the heads-up from the PR contact that our time is up, Sir Michael stands and shakes each of our hands warmly and thanks us individually. As he departs for his next session down the hall, in comes young Master Milner and the film's director John Crowley.

My eyes are now boggling from sitting at the computer all day and evening, so the Milner/Crowley episode will have to wait. (But not too long, as it's too good not to transcribe and share.) Meanwhile, go see Is Anybody There?