Thursday, July 23, 2009

Want major misogyny with your gore? Sarmiento/Harel's DEADGIRL arrives


"I am not going to watch any more of this." TrustMovies said that aloud and angrily a half-dozen times before he realized that he was indeed going to watch more -- in fact, all -- of DEADGIRL, the bizarre, ugly, shocking and ground-breaking (yes, a film can be both juvenile and ground-

breaking) movie co-directed by Marcel Sarmiento (shown at right: Is that blood on his pants?) and Gadi Harel, and written by Trent Haaga.

The fact that Deadgirl appears to be perhaps the most misogynistic movie ever made will automatically entice certain viewers to its fold. Yet it becomes clear along the way that the movie-makers are somehow aware of this fact and are shoving it in our faces to make us deal with it in a manner we haven't previously come near. Their setting is high school, that venue of bullies and peer groups, flaming hormones and the first big battleground in the war between not only men and women but differing types of boy-men. In this case, the division's between those who initiate and those who, under duress and some protest, go along for the ride. Basically, though, the question is Chicks, right? Whadaya gonna do with 'em?

What they do with them in Deadgirl is barely to be believed, which is OK in its way, because (spoiler ahead) the movie knocks down one genre door after another as it morphs from what initially appears a teenage trauma movie into something like an updated River's Edge and then into a kind of high-school Hostel that goes on to reinvent (yet again) the zombie franchise. Along their route the movie-makers -- by design or chance (more likely in the manner that all artists, good and bad, tap into their subconscious) -- bring up the subject of the female. How the male looks at her, wants her, gets her, uses and abuses her. And, to some extent, why. It's the latter that marks the movie as one made by youngsters. They're on to something, and they know it, but they can't quite bring their ideas to artistic resonance. (What David Cronenberg did with William Burroughs' Naked Lunch was a great success in this regard. And Boaz Yakin came pretty close just last week with his Death in Love, though that film is more misanthropic than misogynistic.)

Deadgirl's cast is game, good-looking and -- given what it is asked to do here -- better than most you'll encounter in this teens-make-trouble genre. It is also probable that the demands of commerce played the largest part in the final cut of the film. Today's audiences must have their blood, gore, sex and sleaze -- in reams and bushels -- and if you deal in symbol, metaphor or subtlety, you'll leave out the young macho guys who make up the lion's share of the audience and must have the obvious to "get off" on -- the question of "why" be damned. I am not sure what females will make of the film, but I will read any distaff reviewers with great interest. In fact, I hope Camille Paglia sees the movie and reports on it. (I had hoped to wangle an interview with this filmmaking duo, but it looks like this will not happen. If it does, I'll post later.)

Meanwhile, Deadgirl, according to its PR people, has been deemed too controversial to release in any conventional week-long-or-more manner. Yeah, right. Believe me, if they thought it would make enough money, they'd release it around the globe and on the moon. But instead it will play, via its distributor Dark Sky Films, only at midnight shows -- and only this coming weekend. After which, 'natch, it will arrive on DVD. Am I recommending it? Of course -- with caveats -- and if you've read this far into the review, you've been properly warned.

You can see Deadgirl at the following locations across the country (and one in Canada), with personal appearances noted by an asterisk:

Music Box Theater- CHICAGO
3733 N Southport Ave
Chicago, IL 60613
(773) 871-6604
Screening July 24th & 25th @ midnight
*Cast member Jenny Spain in attendance for Q&A

Alamo Drafthouse Cinema- AUSTIN
320 E 6th Street
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 476-1320
Screening July 24th & 25th @ midnight
*Director Marcel Sarmiento in attendance on 7/24 for Q&A

Grand Illusion- SEATTLE
1403 NE 50th St
Seattle, WA 98105
(206) 523-3935
Screening July 24th & 25th @ midnight

Inwood Theater- DALLAS
5458 W Lovers Ln
Dallas, TX 75209
(214) 764-9106
Screening July 24th & 25th @ midnight
*Director Marcel Sarmiento in attendance on 7/25 for Q&A

River Oaks Theater- HOUSTON
2009 W Gray St
Houston, TX 77019
(713) 524-2175
Screening July 24th & 25th @ midnight

Nuart Theater- LOS ANGELES
11272 Santa Monica Boulevard
West Los Angeles, CA 90025
(310) 281-8223
Screening July 24th @ midnight
*Cast members Noah Segan & Shiloh Fernandez and Writer Trent Haaga will be in attendance for a Q&A

Sunshine Cinema- NY
143 East Houston Street
New York, NY 10002
(212) 330-8182
Screening July 24th & 25th @ midnight
*Director Gadi Harel in attendance for Q&A

Fantasia Film Festival- MONTREAL
Screening July 24th @ midnight

(All photos courtesy of DEADGIRL,
except that of Mr. Sarmiento, which came via the IMDB.)

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Armando Iannucci's "LOOP" is more like a noose; Q&A with "new" star Mimi Kennedy


It's funny, all right. Boy, is it funny. And I don't mean the kind of laughter that catches in your throat. Armando Iannucci's new comedy IN THE LOOP -- with its cast-to-die-for and smart, snappy dialog that races by so fast you'll have difficulty keeping up -- is genuinely hilarious. It's only after the fact, perhaps as soon as mid-credit roll, that depression begins to set in. This is due to the fact that what we've just viewed is probably the best imagined creation of the sort of political garbage, on both sides of the Atlantic, that gifted us with the Iraq War and its "Downing Street memo."

TrustMovies has never seen Mr. Iannucci's famed labors for British television, although he is familiar with some of the work of the crack actors that this highly intelligent and attuned co-writer/
director uses. Iannucci (shown above) has assembled some of them here (Steve Coogan and Peter Capaldi (shown three photos below) with the addition of other well-known Brits (Tom Hollander and Gina McKee) and a most interesting and disparate array of American thespians -- starting with James Gandolfini, and moving on to the likes of Anna Chlumsky (shown two photos below: remember My Girl?), David Rasche (from theater, film and TV) and Mimi Kennedy (seen just below). The latter actress has a name with which I was vaguely familiar, though I could not remember any of her specific work. That has now changed. Ms Kennedy not only holds her own with the rest of the amazing cast but gives a performance that is as (maybe more) memorable as those of her remarkable peers.

Beginning with a chance moment in which a sweet but silly British politician (Mr. Hollander) offers the media his not-so-considered opinion about the possibility of war in the middle east, the movie takes off into a no-holds-barred demonstration of the practice of power politics, proving rather conclusively that those who wield it with maximum threat, nastiness and volume will win the day. While I do not for a moment believe that most politicians (or military men, even press attaches and the rest) are anywhere near this clever and well-spoken, the movie is a comedy, after all. It means to entertain us, and it does. Yet its points about who finally won the battle to go to war -- and why -- make perfect, sad sense.

Both the USA and Britain now have different leaders with different agenda and tactics. But In the Loop will remain, I think, a kind of primer on how things got done in the Bush and Blair admin-
istrations. When I say in my headline that the "loop" is more like a noose, I simply mean that the film is so entertaining and amusing -- the rope so soft and pleasant around your neck -- that you wont feel it tightening till it's too late.

How Iannucci achieves his feat is mostly a matter of bringing to life a parallel universe in which all his cast is on the same strange but believable page. Via performances, writing, direction -- and especially, I suspect, editing -- he creates an imagined-but-truthful environment that is not simply political and personal but all-encom-
passing. This movie is something to experience; I hope audiences rise to the occasion.

IFC Films is distributing In the Loop, which begins its US theatrical run this Friday, July 24, and will be available On-Demand starting July 29. So there's no excuse not to see it. (And with On-Demand, should you miss some of that great dialog, you've got 22-1/2 hours left to watch it again.)

***********

With a cast as starry and talented as that of In the Loop, how do you choose just one actor to interview? Considering Mimi Kennedy’s landmark performance in the film, this seemed to me a no-brainer. I caught up with the actress, shown below in a scene with James Gandolfini, by phone during a break between “takes” in a TV movie she’s currently shooting -- she in Los Angeles and I in NYC. We spent a half hour chatting easily (she’s a great interview). Below are the highlights:

TrustMovies: Let me begin by saying that, going into this interview, I wasn’t completely sure who Mimi Kennedy actually was. I knew I had heard of her, but….

Mimi Kennedy: You’re not alone there, believe me.

You’ve done a lot of television in your career, right?

Exactly. I'm newer to film.

And because I don’t watch that much TV, I’ve missed out. But, having said that, let me also say that you are so, so good in In the Loop, that if this role doesn’t put you on the map (not that you're not on it already), I will be really surprised.

I am so glad to hear this because I rather hoped it would do that, too. In the Loop, this kind of movie experience….. Oh, boy. I had pretty much given up imagining that this sort of movie would ever be on my agenda. And our director and co-writer Armando Iannucci is a genius, so it is a real badge of honor to be in his film. He has a sensibility that is so fine, as both a director and writer, and just as a human being.

He must be pretty special – because every single actor is so good in his film.

The experience was about as high as you can get, as far as acting is concerned. Nobody is tweaking you, this way and that. Instead, Armando just let us really go at it. It's the kind of acting I learned in New York at Ensemble Studio Theater: listen and react. They taught it for serious drama, but it's great for comedy. Because if the situation is insane and you're acting serious, it's probably going to be funny.

I really laughed and laughed and laughed throughout the movie. It was so funny, moment to moment. And then at the end, while the credits rolled, I sat there, growing more and more depressed. It seemed like he and all of you had shown us just about everything --in terms of human behavior, motive, covering our asses -- regarding why and how we got into the Iraq War.

That last shot where everybody is in the office, doing business-as-usual -- which is now a war -- and the credits roll and the lights are about to come back in the theater, that's when we go, “Oh shit, we killed, like, 750,000 people for...?” This is what Shakespeare did in his plays – for his audience. Instead of directly criticizing powerful people, he did relationship comedies and dug up all those history plays as a way to show the English people their own culture and relate it to the present.

How did this role come to you?

By audition. The way it is supposed to happen. No sitting around at Schwab’s lunch counter here!

How many times did you go back before you got the part?

Just twice. But I did lay down something on videotape. Then I met the director. I remember saying to my agent, How can it be that this role is really open? That it’s not going to Meryl Streep or Glenn Close or Christine Lahti or Joan Allen -- or whomever? Maybe it was a budget thing…. So thank god for smaller budgets.

After my first audition, when Armando came back and we improvised a little, and he laughed, I thought, Oh, maybe….! And we talked about seeing politics the same way. He told me about being in DC and seeing staffers go gaga over an actor who was on The West Wing. I'd seen the same thing, as an activist on Capitol Hill - people star-struck over celebrities who merely played someone powerful!

It was a fun-house mirror. Because the people in Washington are the ones who are doing powerful things. But the staffers feel like they are laboring in anonymity all the time, so when there's someone who portrays them in the limelight, it's exciting. But Armando said – in fact we both felt that we wanted to say this to the congressional staffers -- you should not go all shivery about being around these people. You have the true power to change things. These actors can only pretend to be you!

One of my friends who has been a staffer in various administrations says that Armando got it absolutely right -- the milieu, the behavior -- he nailed it. Regardless of whose policy you’re following, when you are behaving as an ambitious, self-serving, greedy human being -- and we all do sometimes -- it’s really best not to be making a decision to kill half a million innocent people. That’s what I believe this movie states so brilliantly.

Let’s get back to you and your performance. It is so real and rich and odd and specific and bizarre and amazing. As good as everyone else in the movie is – and they really are – it’s your performance that I came away remembering the most. And I’ve also gotta say: Your absolute lack of vanity is something to see. Your bleeding-gums scene: Oy…!

It’s just wonderful to hear you say those things. Armando did tell me when we met in rehearsal right after I’d been hired, that he was so pleased that I was doing the role. He told me he was in despair previously because he had not found his Karen.

And I love your saying that stuff about the lack of vanity because I think, in a way, as a younger actress, I sort of avoided film because it made me so self-conscious. But I think Armando created a reality for his actors that was so all-encompassing that there was simply no room to worry about the camera. The camera does not establish the reality for Armando. He himself establishes it. The cameras move around what he's set for us to do -- scripted then improvised -- and captures relationships. I can tell you one other thing, too: the gums bleeding and all of that -- it's a perfect metaphor for the things that women have to deal with when they are in power. Amando physicalized it via the tooth pain. Actually, it is my theory that once everyone has access to good dentistry we might have world peace.

The idea of tooth pain being the thing that stood between this woman and her ability to have complete control of her office and herself -- she's distracted by some very fierce tooth pain - - was really funny to me. Years ago I happened to read some of the book Balkan Ghosts, and there's an early scene where the author's on a bus ride and all the people smiling at him have no teeth, or very bad teeth. And I thought, oh God, what must that be like, to lose all your teeth, to have everyone you know be in the same constant pain with rotting teeth, and no dental care? I'd want to kill someone too. Maybe have a war to distract from the dull daily agony. Anyway, fifteen years later, to play someone whose tooth pain figures in the balance of war and peace reminded me. I still think it's a worthy theory.

How did Armando get all the actors to be so… well, so consistently on the same page? Everyone seems so real and right, it’s like you’ve created your own little universe of reality.

Well, first of all, he has some of his crew of actors on his TV show, so this helps. Several of the actors in the film are part of his crew. The other thing is that he rehearsed us. He came to NYC and by the end of one week of improvising with all the actors, it was so much fun and it gave us this real comfort level with each other. However -- and this is interesting -- as Armando tells the story, every single one of the actors, at some point along the way, went to him individually, and said, “Everyone else is so brilliant at the improvisation. But I am horrible, and I am so sorry.” What a brilliant way to build esprit de corps - let us know we admired one another and were equally insecure.

I can believe that: Actors have the most tender egos in the world, right? Well, maybe after politicians. When I was watching the movie, I wish I could have been quicker in deciphering the British accents. I’m afraid I missed some really good dialog early on, before my ear got properly attuned to the accents.

Yes. But that might be a good thing. Maybe people will want to see this movie more than once -- just so they can catch up on what they missed. (Editor's note: I think she's right. I intend to see this one again -- and soon.)

When we went to Britain to film, I had to ask several times about every single thing that was said to me because I kept missing it. And Armando said he had the same problem here in America. He would just smile at people and pretend to have understood.

One thing the movie seems to prove is that if you just scream the loudest and threaten the hardest and act the nastiest, you’ll win.

Yep. I like to think that things went particularly bad during this time of the “special” war. It was never part of the Pentagon budget, it was all extra, "supplemental." Peter Capaldi pointed out that he drew inspiration from another culture, a certain kind of agent prevalent in Hollywood awhile back. I remember -- they were called "screamers." It was during the cocaine times. It was a particularly ugly time for human relationships in Hollywood.

Isn’t it always that way in Hollywood?

Yes, but I think things do change. I believe that tactics have -- or will -- change a little in both England and America. What Armando understood and captured was the real sense of privilege and domination -- "Whether you like it or not!" This was the culture of the time.

Anything else you’d like to say?

No. But I’m glad I got to talk about dentistry and The Balkans and pain!

It makes me realize that's the difference we face: between inflicting pain on people or helping them out of pain. Maybe there's a fundamental shift. Maybe the movie is showing us that first kind of culture. And because we laugh at it as insane, maybe that culture is now passing from the corridors of power.

Well, things seem to come and go in cycles.

Yes, things do. But things like this kind of behavior, the kind that seems to win the day In the Loop absolutely does not have to be elevated as honorable -- or rewarded with power.

What’s next on your agenda?

I am actually writing a play about a 19th century suffragist named Matilda Joslyn Gage. I’ll be doing a reading of the play in October in Fayetteville, NY, the upstate city that Matilda was from.

Any new films in the offing?

No new movies at the moment. I am sort of waiting to exhale, in terms of my career just now. I am going to enjoy peoples’ enjoyment of this film -- and of me in it. It’s enough for me to hold on to that for now.

What was it you were working on today – and taking a break from when we talked?

It's a Hallmark Channel TV movie - The Christmas Gift. About adopting three older kids. Very Western-themed (a former stunt man, Dave Cass, is directing, and ohh! his stories!) so I'm liking that. I always wanted to grow up to be Dale Evans and my character isn't that far from Dale, since she's a very devout woman (Dale: check) who was cowgirl-feisty (Dale personified) who runs an orphanage (I think Dale and Roy had a few adopted kids!)

I've learned that TV movies for children extend one's career by a decade each time you make one -- if the script is okay. Children remember.

(All photos above courtesy of OutNow! Image Gallery.)

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

CLAIRE'S KNEE: Rohmer's famous anatomy lesson closes this year's Films on the Green


For the past two weeks, Films on the Green, co-spon-
sored by the Cul-
tural Services of the French Embassy and the NYC Dept. of Parks & Recreation, has presented two "premieres" of sorts by showing French comedies that re-
ceived no theatrical distribution here in the USA. This week, to close out the fest, look for a movie that needs little introduc-
tion for foreign film buffs: Eric Rohmer's international hit from 1970, CLAIRE'S KNEE. (The movie will be shown in Tompkins Square Park, between Avenues A and B and 7th and 10th Streets in Manhattan, on Friday, July 24, at 8:30 pm. Admission is free.)

Practically a primer of Mr. Rohmer's interests, Claire's Knee is full of philosophy about morals and behavior, likes and dislikes, "experienced" life vs the contemplative version and much more. As usual in the work of this director, there's a lot of talk and little action. But for those who love Rohmer's talk, the film is a feast. And even without much action, the movie's a visual feast, too -- considering its enchanting setting on a gorgeous lake amidst a French mountain range. Though Claire's Knee has existed on DVD for some time, in an earlier edition (shown above) and the more recent one from The Criterion Collection (below), Friday's al fresco performance will offer the opportunity to see it on a screen larger, at least, than that of your home TV.

In addition to watching a star turn from French matinee idol of the 60s and 70s, Jean-Claude Brialy, who is surrounded by a bevy of attractive women, alert viewers may notice an oddly familiar face among the supporting cast: the young man playing the would-be boyfriend of Béatrice Romand. Yes, it's Fabrice Luchini -- whose film The Girl from Monaco opened here only a couple of weeks ago -- in this, his second film role out of more than sixty. Mr Luchini is very good here, no surprise, but would any of us have begun to guess then that this fellow would go on to become one of France's most heralded actors and comedians? I certainly would not have, but I can attest to what a treat it is to see him here, so fresh and young and full of inquisitive intelligence. Which just whets the appetite for seeing him again soon, in one of his funniest roles, in Cédric Klapisch's upcoming Paris.

NB: The Cultural Services of the French Embassy would like to thank the generous sponsors who make this event possible: JC Decaux, BNP Paribas, Tablet Hotels, TV5 Monde, FACE (French American Cultural Exchange), UNEP (the United Nations Environment Programme), Pangea Organics, The French Mission to the United Nations, Green Drinks, and AirFrance Skyteam. For more information, click here.

Monday, July 20, 2009

Schmitt's CALIF. COMPANY TOWN -- quiet, beautiful, bracing -- opens at AFA; also Q&A

Of all the states in the USA, California has long held a place among the most popular -- and the most promising. Greeley's "Go west, young man!" remains as applicable today as when it was first uttered (1851). Over the decades a lot of people did just that, and many of them ended up in one or another of the 20-odd towns profiled by artist/filmmaker Lee Anne Schmitt in her unusual documentary California Company Town.

The companies included in CA Co. Town are (or were) involved in everything from logging to mining, and most of them managed to despoil resources, sometimes spreading toxicity in their wake. Most have also closed their doors, leaving their businesses bankrupt, their town a dead husk, and their workers to their own devices, which -- considering their low pay and the fact that some of the companies sold their housing out from under them -- amount to damn little. This is not a pretty story, yet Ms Schmitt does not beat it to death. Her voice (she's the narrator) is pleasant, intelligent and unraised; her film is starkly beautiful, quiet and unhurried. Lasting only 76 minutes, it covers a lot of territory, physically -- California is a long state -- and metaphorically.

What makes the film so fascinating are the many details Schmitt offers up along the way, as she travels from one desolation to the next. She finds visual beauty in the starkness, as artists are wont to do, as well as telling bits of information regarding the companies and their owners, the towns and their workers. In McCloud, CA, we hear snippets of religious radio, and Ms. Schmitt learns that, in the early days, Blacks (no surprise) and Italians (some surprise) were paid less than other workers. Did the Sacco & Vanzetti craziness take its toll here, too? We're made privy to the Utopian Socialist agenda of Kaweah, CA (a town that no longer even exists), and in Boron, CA, the Pacific Coast Borax Company -- which dug for Boron and produced Boraxo -- is now owned by a mining company in Spain. In Buttonwillow, CA, a two-bit circus appears to be one of the only games left in town.

The saddest portion of the movie? A toss-up between Eagle Mountain, CA -- where the choral group of the final high school class performs on the soundtrack, as the town literally closes down around it -- and Adelanto, CA, where toxicity levels, long cancerous, are still so, even though the town itself closed down in 1992. Wait: Maybe it's California City, CA, built to compete with the likes of Los Angeles, but today is the home of nothing more than one huge prison. Though many of these towns rose on the hopes and dreams of their founders, the film remains a critique of capitalism that barely mentions the word itself. Instead, Ms Schmitt's show-and-tell is dense with detail and empathy.

CA Co. Town may help cure, or at least counter, our nation's increasingly short memory. Even if not (the short memory does seem a treasured possession for many of America's citizenry), it will stand as quiet, beautiful, sorrowful, irrefutable testimony. The documentary screens at New York City's Anthology Film Archives, beginning this Friday, July 24, through Thursday, July 30, daily at 7 and 9pm. Special 5:15 matinees will be added on Saturday and Sunday. Ms Schmitt herself will be in town taking Q&As on July 24th, 25th and 26th at the 7pm and 9pm shows. She may be at the 5:15 shows on the weekend as well.

************

Although filmmaker/artist Lee Anne Schmitt, shown below, had a friend's wedding to attend this past weekend, she made time for a half-hour interview prior to her coming appearance in NYC to introduce her film at AFA. Below are highlights:

TrustMovies: Is that you narrating California Company Town?

Lee Anne Schmitt: It is. A lot of my shorter pieces -- and now this one -- use my voice.

It’s a good voice. Quiet, pleasurable, intelligent -- but not lulling. When did you first make the movie?

I started out, as I often do, before I had a very clear idea. It stemmed from my move to California from Chicago. I moved here ten years ago, to go to grad school. I spent the first couple of years trying to get around the place. A lot of my work, even my photography, is based on industrial landscape. At first I drove around and got to know the place. Some of the places I went during my first year here, I didn’t even know what I was doing, exactly, but it has turned out that some of the film that I shot then, I have actually used now.

I think I began to have a clear idea for the film maybe five years ago. That was when the film really started. It began very specifically at the Tehachapi Loop in Central California. It’s very beautiful there and there’s a lot of history -- the Chinese workers who built the loop, for instance -- but a lot of it is hidden history.

One of the major things that kept my attention were all the really interesting details and facts you provide about the various towns, so different one from the other – both the facts and the towns themselves.

I am always looking for ways to view history that are much more interesting that what we often get here in the US. You want to see a process that you can carry from place to place. But you also what to honor the individual place and how it is indicative of its particular history.

I feel certain you must have read Howard Zinn’s A People's History of the US?

Yes, several times. The first time was in high school.

Wow --was it assigned to you?

Yes. I had a really great history teacher in High School. Sometimes you‘re lucky with just one teacher.

In the PR sent out to us about the film, it almost sounds like an art project rather than a documentary. Yet it is very political.

My roots in film are initially from image-based, art exploration. A lot of people I studied with do essay work. Although, if I look back at it (I went to school at Northwestern University), much of my early work makes a lot of sense in terms of what I now do. I think I come at things from the experience of image. But I also have a lot of background in issues of historical documentation. The two don’t separate that much for me. Nor does it in the films from other people whose work I really love -- Johan Van der Kueken, Jean Rouch, Chris Marker. There’s that old trope that form and content should not really cleave. You can look at something as film, but you cannot separate the film from its content.

What are you working on now?

The entire time I was working on this California Company Town, I was concurrently working on another piece – about the ideas of the west and the frontier, but via a look at the last, free-roaming herd of buffalo in the U.S. -- in Utah. There are free-roaming herds still in Canada.

What is this buffalo film called – and when will it be completed?

The Last Buffalo Hunt. I am trying to finish that one now, and I hope to have it done some time in the fall of 2009.

I am also, very preliminarily, starting up a new project to do with John Brown, the abolitionist. I sort of imagine this to be a complicated project, maybe ending up as a couple of smaller films that will speak to each other.

Is there anything else you’d like to talk about, while I have you in my clutches?

The thing that always sort of feels important to me, particularly here in the US, is to just have acknowledged that there is this whole line of alternative work going on with some of us filmmakers. Sometimes I think the very idea of documentaries in this country can get really limiting.

Wow -- for me, who am suddenly seeing more and more documentaries that are so different, one from another, it seems much less limited.

I'm not sure if things are much more vibrant now, but I know a lot of diverse types of work get made. I'm sure that a very diverse body of work gets screened here in the U.S. A lot of very different films have been seen, such as John Gianvito’s Profit Motive and the Whispering Wind.

How difficult was it for you to get this week’s screening at Anthology Film Archives?

Not hard at all. I guess it was organic. It actually came to me, a little bit. I have been very lucky in that way. People seem to respond to the film. There was a natural way that the film has found people. Though, for me, it’s been hard to get U.S. screenings, in general.

Is it easier abroad?

It’s interesting that my film has been shown a lot more abroad than it has been here. Although, because the film is about California and its shifting landscape, it does seem important that it be shown here. I shouldn’t complain because, as an alternative, independent filmmaker, I have been very lucky. I don't think it's the fact that audiences aren't interested in alternative documentaries, but rather that it's more a limitation about the way films are curated and discussed in this country. Genres are very rigid, and limiting.

I think American audiences look first to be entertained before they are willing to sit and learn.

Perhaps. They look for entertainment and for a way of finding information -- but a very specific way to find that information. And a specific way of seeing politics and information. Like the Michael Moore documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 or the film of Fast Food Nation. Not to disparage those films, but this is a little more limited way to seeing the subjects that these films discuss. Alternative documentaries seem to me to be a little more… philosophical.

(All photos courtesy of Lee Anne Schmitt.)

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Entire cast shines in John Hindman's debut THE ANSWER MAN; Q&A w/writer-director


For anyone who suffers from the occasional "bad back," a new film called THE ANSWER MAN -- the first from writer/director John Hindman (shown just below) -- should be a must-see, if only to revel in the facial expressions of its star (a sublimely funny, nasty and so-real-it-hurts Jeff Daniels), as he suffers the moment-by-moment degradations of a spine askew. However, there is so much more going on

in this light, bright and sometimes very sad romantic comedy that I will not concentrate for long on the chiropractic factor.

Chiropractory happens to be the new occupation of one of the film's three main characters, a warm and caring mother played by Lauren Graham. The other two are the alcoholic owner of a struggling used-book store, essayed by up-and-coming actor Lou Taylor Pucci, and a reclusive author (played by Mr. Daniels) who has written, some twenty years back, the most successful "God" book in history -- a tome titled "Me and God," purporting to offer answers to life's questions handed down from the big guy himself. How these characters meet, connect and join forces provides the humor and heart in Mr. Hindman's movie, which looks at some of the many ways we manage to sabotage ourselves in our quest for a "life."

The writer/director is on record as a fan of Frank Capra, and while his movie reflects this, it is certainly no slavish imitation: There's plenty of originality -- and specificity -- to the characters, situations and themes. From the "answers" Daniels offers Pucci during their sessions on the brownstone stoop (one such is pictured above), it's easy to understand why the former's book is such a success. And, as much as we come to care for our three protagonists, Hindman also makes it clear how they consistently manage to undercut their own very real possibilities.

In the interview below, Hindman makes plain the importance of casting to his film, and sure enough, everyone here, stars to supporting players, including a terrific Nora Dunn and an underused Kat Dennings and Olivia Thirlby (shown above right, with Ms. Graham), comes through in top shape. Daniels has a gift for physical comedy, including its rubber-faced mode, of which he makes fine use; when called upon, he's just as impressive as a dramatic actor. Graham brings reams of her usual warmth and ability to be sexily maternal (be sure to catch her work in the under-rated and under-seen Flash of Genius). There' a scene in Daniels' living room during which she cradles the Pucci character that is as moving as anything we've seen all year.

Regarding Mr. Pucci (shown right), who continues to mature and grow with each new role, he would steal the whole movie, were not everyone else so on-target. (Just the night before viewing The Answer Man, we watched this fine young actor steal the straight-to-video Horsemen, in a role about as different as possible from the one he plays in Hindman's film. Of course, in Horsemen, he has no competition, since from scene to scene, would-be star Dennis Quaid looks like he'd rather be anywhere else, and Chinese cutie Ziyi Zhang's command of English is so poor that she single-handedly sinks half the plot development. Still, due to Pucci's work alone, I'd recommend this weird plea for better parenting, even if arrives in the guise of a campy, slasher/horror flick.)

The Answer Man's not perfect. As it winds along to the finish line, the love story begins to play second fiddle to the bookshop, and Hindman appears to have used more of his originality toward the beginning than the end. Yet, such a bushel of good will has the movie built up, and so engaging are its characters, that I think you'll have little problem embracing the Capra-corn of its conclusion. The Answer Man is a lovely beginning to what I hope will prove a lengthy, if late-blooming, career.

Distributed by Magnolia Pictures, the movie opens this Friday, July 24, in a limited nationwide release, beginning in the Los Angeles area, New York City and (or course!) Philadelphia, where it was filmed. The Answer Man will hit other cities across the country in the weeks to come -- and is simultaneously being shown "On-Demand" via your local TV reception provider.

**********

John Hindman (shown below, with stars Graham and Daniels), the writer and director of The Answer Man, used to be -- among other things -- a stand-up comic. Think of this as you're reading the following interview to get a sense of his pitch-perfect and pointed delivery. He's got a great, bass voice, which he uses like a pro (it's easy to imagine him saying "Action" and having his actors jump to attention) and a sense of humor that seems to find something funny and ironic in everything. Because there are spoilers ahead (but, hey, the movie's a romantic comedy, so how "spoilable" can anything in this genre possibly be?), you may want to come back to the post once you've seen the film -- which I heartily recommend.

TrustMovies: We’re talking to John… How do you pronounce your last name?

John Hindman: Hindman -- with a hard “i” (Ed's note: as in “eye”).

I am guessing you’re in your late 30 or early 40s --

I’m 43.

--because of what is mentioned in The Answer Man press kit about your seeing the movie Rocky as a ten-tear-old. I just couldn’t immediately remember when that movie came out.

1976

Do you now have -- or have you ever had -- a bad back?

Yes. And the first time I threw it out, my daughter was, like, one-and-a-half. And I just found myself lying on the floor. I had foolishly decided that I didn’t need to hire movers -- this was two moves ago -- and so I did it myself. And well, you know… But the character of Arlen Faber was inspired by my father – who has always had a bad back and has always refused to go see a chiropractor. And that’s how, when you’re trying to write a story where three strangers meet in a way that makes sense… Well, I was then trying to figure out what the Lauren Graham character’s job might be. I was talking to my dad, one day and he says “Oh, goddamnit, I’ve thrown my back out again. Damn! Fucking damn it!! (Ed: This sounds very similar to the first bit of dialog we hear in Hindman’s movie.) So I say to him, Go to the chiropractor. And he says “Why? I’ve been there. So what?!” Then I realized: Oh, yes. My character is going to be a chiropractor!

I’ve had a number of problems with a bad back , so I really glommed on to your movie at that point. And Jeff Daniels does such a fabulous job with this role -- so funny yet so real.

Yes, he is! And not just when he throws out his back but when he’s wanting another chance with his girl. He does everything wonderfully.

It’s funny. Other than Dumb and Dumber, I am trying to remember some other comedies Daniels has done, but I tend to see him more now as a dramatic actor.

Well, Something Wild: he was pretty funny in that!

Right. I’d forgotten about that. Yes! Wow—that was maybe, what, 20 or 25 years ago? Can I ask about the last shot of the movie? It's so interesting: We watch Daniels and Graham finally together, but through the glass window of a little diner across the street from them. Were you thinking at all about Edward Hopper?

No.

OK. Was there any sort of feeling that maybe the two people we see sitting alone in the diner might connect?

That’s actually the Snow White Diner in Philadelphia. Here’s my thought about that last moment. Jeff’s and Lauren’s characters have just experienced the end -- and then the beginning -- of the greatest journey of their lives. We’re been following them, worrying about them, laughing with them, cheering for them. And now they’re together at last. And then we come back, sort of across the street from them, and we’re inside this diner where a couple of people are just… buttering their toast.

So we’re not necessarily to think: Here are two other people who may be lonely, and ready to connect.

Maybe. If you want to see it that way. But it’s more about something else. Like if you are not thinking about these two people, who are just fifty feet away, and have no idea of what’s going on or the story that has just taken place. It’s like when you’re driving down the freeway, and you see people in the next car, listening to a different radio station and who have totally different lives that you know nothing about. Context: It’s all about the context. It’s really, really important -- but also simultaneously meaningless!

Since this is your first film, how did you get such terrific performances from literally everyone in your cast? You’re not used to giving direction, so how much or how little direction did you need to give? Or was it just a matter of how well cast each actor was.

Well, there you go!

Did you have a casting director or did you know who you wanted to cast from the beginning.

No, we had a great casting director -- Deborah Aquila out of L.A. – and she was wonderful. And we were lucky enough to work with Diane Heery, who brought in so many great local Philadelphia actors. From Tom Roy who plays Chris’ Dad to Max Antisell (shown below, left), the boy who plays little Alex. They’re both from Philly.

Yes, they are both very good: Max has just the right amount of reticence. He never did anything too much -- which is great to see in a child actor.

Regarding the actors, they are cast in their parts for a reason: They are right for the roles. So it’s just a matter of maybe giving direction on a couple of words here and there. You know, the actors don’t know the story nearly as well as I, who has written it. So, like, particularly in the last seven days of shooting – which included 35 pages of a 106 page script, all of which takes place in Arlen’s house, and that meant Jeff was in every single scene for the last seven days running. So it’s my job is to remind everyone where we are in the story—and why: “OK: see, here, at this point, you haven’t called her yet, but you really want to!” It's that sort of thing that I have to do. And also I have to not freak out.

How long was your total shoot?

25 days.

And your budget?

Under five million.

Wow — your movie looks awfully good!

The DP is a great guy. Oliver Bokelberg -- who shot The Visitor and The Station Agent. (Ed: He also shot the wonderful -- and gorgeous to look at -- Dark Matter.) He’s a German guy, (Hindman suddenly adopts a German accent) very, very German and really keeps thing moving, with the glasses and the blond hair: You know what I mean.

The second time I watched the film -- the first time was in a screening room with an audience -- but the second time was On Demand, at home with my companion, who wasn’t as crazy about it as I – which is always disappointing, when you want to share something you love….

I would cut him loose, if I were you.

Ah… I’ll let him know.

Yeah, you’ve got to find a gentleman of taste.

All right. I’ll definitely play him this part of the interview… Anyway, the second time, the movie seemed different to me. Sadder, because I was aware of more than just plot and style and such. The whole idea of books and bookstores – which could be disappearing for good for all we know, along with newspapers and magazines and the printed-on-paper word. While I liked the movie just as much, it's always good if you find new things in a film the second time, rather than only having all the things you felt the first time reinforced.

Right.

Regarding the subject of your film -- the Daniels character -- Are you an atheist? Or an agnostic?

No.

Ah-hah.... And what is your next project?

It’s called Christmas in New York.

Based on the old film?

Nope.

Oh… I’m thinking of Christmas in Connecticut.

No, I totally made this one up. It’s six stories that all drive toward Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, right here in Manhattan: a big, large, hopefully happy, funny, beautiful Christmas ensemble.

Six stories? That would mean at least a dozen major actors, right?

Yep. 14 of them!

Wow.

(Above: Tony Hale, as the fanboy/mailman of Arlen Faber.)

Regarding my not being an atheist: I’d like to quote Tolstoi, on the last page of Anna Karenina when the character says, “I will go on praying without understanding the reason why I pray.”

OK. I can accept that.

Thank you.

The piano player in the restaurant in your movie has your same last name --

Yes, he’s my dad.

Does he really play the piano?

Of course-- that’s what he is! In fact, Arlen’s inability to play the piano after his dad died, I wondered, what would that be like? How long would it be before I’d be able to listen to my dad’s CDs or before I could play a piano again?

So you dad is still with us.

Absolutely! During the montage where you hear Isn’t It Romantic being played, and all the characters are going through their paces, preparing themselves. That’s my dad playing there, too. I just loved the synergy of that: In a movie I made, with all the characters doing their stuff, there’s my dad playing an old standard….

What did you do before you actually directed this, your first film?

I was a young girl living in Austria, braiding my hair and milking the cows… (Ed: at this point, the PR person, sitting over to the side, breaks out in laughter.)

So you do believe in reincarnation?

No. I actually don’t believe in reincarnation. Unless you’re willing to admit that you can come back as a janitor. ‘Cause everyone says, Oh, you were an earl in your former life! Hey, muthafucka, you can’t hold down a job. How were you so awesome in a former life? In any life?

Basically, I wished and wanted and helped out a lot for decades. Anything I could do to keep a toe in the entertainment buisiness, while I could figure out how to be a director – which was the only thing I really wanted to do. I did stand-up – for like ten years.

Ah—so that’s where your strong presence and all the humor comes from.

Yes, yes. But that was just a blip in a life that was filled with waiting on tables, and being a production coordinator and a P.A and a production assistant on reality TV shows and just anything, anything, anything. And then, about 7 years ago, I decided to start writing screenplays – something I could do at night.

Were you based here in NYC or in L.A.

In L.A. I’m actually from Northern California.

Did you have what you consider a good childhood so that you have good memories of San Francisco?

Yeah, I mean, you know – life’s a bell curve. So most of it takes place in the middle. But there are certainly highs and lows. My parents got divorced when I was eleven, and that was terrible. But I had a good foundation early on, and had a good relationship with my dad -- where humor was the valuable thing. Even now, when the Hindmans get together, we still always try to outdo each other about who can make the other person laugh . And everyone in my family is smarter than I am. Everyone is so accomplished and so smart -- one's a physicist, another's a colonel in the army -- and I know that I will never be as funny and quick and smart as they are.

But you have made a movie.

Yes, I have made a movie. So I have redeemed myself.

When does Christmas in New York hit the screen?

I have to make it first. And I will be making it, this Christmas, here in NYC. So it will come out maybe Thanksgiving weekend in 2010. I will claim that weekend for myself: The Wednesday before Thanksgiving! Christmas in New York! Directed by John Hindman! Buy your tickets on Fandango.com!

--30--

All photos, including the one of Kat Dennings, above,
are from
The Answer Man except those of Mr. Hindman
and of the Hindman/Graham/Daniels ensemble,
which are by Dimitrios Kambouris
(© WireImage.com and shown courtesy of WireImage.com).

Friday, July 17, 2009

Max Färberböck's A WOMAN IN BERLIN: Location, location, location


Most movies are somewhat dependent for their overall effect on the home country of the viewer. Once in a while, however, TrustMovies encounters a film that relies on this factor much more heavily -- which is the case, I believe, with Max Färberböck's A WOMAN IN BERLIN. While the movie is a strong one and well enough written, produced, directed and acted, its appeal for audiences will likely be greatest in Germany and maybe Russia -- the two countries most involved in its story of the final days and aftermath of World War II, as Russia attacked and finally overthrew the Germans. (It had help, of course, from the Allies, but in this movie concentration is given over, rightly, to the Russians and Germans.)

Based on the famous-in-
Germany book of the same name, written by the world-renowned author Anonyma (who's given us so many interesting works over time), the story tracks the life of a successful, well-traveled journalist -- a good German who believed wholeheartedly, as she explains early on, in the Nazi philosophy and plan for world domination. When this tome was initially written, it could not be published in Germany. This was due, I suspect, not only to its frank remembrances of wartime rape but to the image it provided of the German character, particularly that of a somewhat typical upscale German woman. Once published, it became a best-selling sensation. Now we have the not-unexpected movie version, helmed by adapter/director Färberböck (above), who, a decade ago, gave us the equally fine though under-rated Aimée & Jaguar, and staring the exceptional actress Nina Hoss (shown above on poster and below), who also starred in Yella and Jerichow, and whose beauty is exceeded only by her depth and range.

Not having read Anonyma's original, I can only guess that Färberböck has had to cut and paste, taking what he felt were the most important pieces and combining them in a way that renders his movie episodic but never uninteresting. He's had the good sense to make these episodes alternately vital and humdrum (not that wartime is ever quite humdrum, but you get my point). Rape is everywhere, for women young and old, physically attractive or not. But so are other things -- from murder (we see two German women we don't know walking along a street together, as one of them is shot dead for no apparent reason except sport -- and that she happens to be there) to deliberate collaboration, sexual and otherwise, in order to get food and protection.

The characterizations are about as richly drawn as possible in a movie that includes so very many. From the tenants of the building that becomes a kind of second home for the conquering Russian commander (Evgeny Sidikhin, above, center) to the commander's Mongolian aide-de-camp (Viktor Zhalsanov, above right), the people here seem quite real. What the movie demonstrates -- and well -- is how war changes things so drastically for both occupiers and occupied that mortal enemies can becomes friends and lovers. What this does, not just to the primary people involved but to their own neighbors -- and husbands -- is another matter. These things do not happen easily or quickly, but they take place despite the memories of the horrors (sometimes described here quite graphically) perpetrated by both sides.

Interestingly, while the talk in A Woman in Berlin is often frank (note the comments of the older woman -- Irm Hermann, above, center left -- about her rapist's comparison of the Ukranian and German vagina), the visuals are remarkably restrained. Färberböck evidently was determined not to make his movie "sensational." I was OK with this, but the companion with whom I attended the screening felt that the situations at hand could easily have used a bit more of the sleaze-and-nudity factor, without undue sensationalizing.

To return to my initial thoughts about the home country of the viewer: Americans, who have never experienced another nation conquering and occupying their country, can only look at A Woman in Berlin through the eyes and minds of a history they've read and viewed secondhand. We'll each have our own understanding of Nazi Germany and Russia, and our feelings about either nation and its back-story may not be particularly generous. This, coupled to our own lack of occupied-in-wartime history may hold us back from full identification with the characters on view. Trying to imagine ourselves as these Germans (or Russians), not just at the end of the war, as shown here, but during Hitler's rise and reign (or under Stalin, in the post-War period) might expand our appreciation of the film, while opening up our own humanity a notch or two.

A Woman in Berlin opens today, via Strand Releasing, July 17, in New York City at the Angelika Film Center, followed, one hopes, by a limited rollout nationwide. An eventual DVD release is probable.