Saturday, December 15, 2007

Finding Viggo Mortensen

By Susan Thea Posnock


Viggo Mortensen is missing. Yes, that actor on the screen looks like him—and he certainly possesses the same quiet assurance when he speaks and physicality when he fights. But more like a magician than actor, he has disappeared into the world of Eastern Promises.


As much as I’ve admired his work before—in movies like my beloved The Lord of the Rings trilogy, A Walk on the Moon and A History of Violence—I wasn’t quite prepared for the total character immersion displayed in the film, as he morphs into Nikolai, the enigmatic driver/undertaker/protector of Kirill, (Vincent Cassel), the “prince” of a London-based Russian crime family.


The story follows Anna, (Naomi Watts) a midwife of Russian heritage, as she investigates the diary of a young girl who dies during childbirth. It reveals a London underworld of drugs and prostitution as a form of modern slavery. Mortensen’s morally ambiguous character both warns Anna off and pulls her into this world.


Mortensen and I chatted on the phone for a little over 20 minutes Friday night. I found him polite and soft-spoken, yet at the same time very talkative, with his answers going far longer than I thought they would. Anyone who recalls my obsessive Rings column, “Diary of a Hobbit Fiend,” will be surprised to know that I managed to keep my fangirl impulses in check, squelching the near constant urge to coo: “Viggo, I love you!”


Discovering Nikolai


Mortensen, 49, says when he first read the screenplay for Eastern Promises he was eager to work with David Cronenberg again, but wasn’t sure he could pull off the part. The script by Steven Knight was one of several he and the director were considering as a follow-up to their collaboration on Violence. It demanded that he not only master a Russian accent, but tap into a world and culture he knew nothing about. The actor is of Danish descent (his father), but he grew up in Venezuela, Argentina and New York before living in Denmark after college.


“I thought it was interesting, but I realized that I’d have to at least feel like I was contributing what I needed to in order to tell the story,” he says. “I’d have to do a lot of work, a lot of research to get it ready; more than most roles.”


Finding the time was a challenge for Mortensen, who is also an artist, photographer and poet. After determining he could dive into the project, he said yes.


He began a process of discovery that included re-reading Russian novels and poetry, listening to Russian music and spoken-word recordings, and watching tons of Russian movies. Additionally, he worked with a University professor on translations of the script, and made the acquaintance of a Russian who shared a similar background to Nikolai.


“He had done time in a maximum security prison and had a couple tattoos, [the body art serves as a kind of physical resume in the Russian crime universe], and knew a lot about that world that my character’s supposed to come from,” he says. “He helped me speak all the translations, to make it have the appropriate slang and double meanings specific to the character.”


Mortensen was diligent about the details, like how long Nikolai had lived outside of Russia and the subtle differences between how he’d speak English living in London, versus a Russian speaking English after spending time in America. That effort manifested itself in other ways too—like how he carried himself in the film.


He says the icing on the cake was visiting Russia and observing people, places, weather, food, style and even humor.


“What people make jokes about and what they laugh about in any culture, it says a lot about people’s dreams and fears and history,” he explains. In the case of the Russian sense of humor, he notes there’s a certain fatalism to it, because it’s a comic sensibility that comes from suffering.


All of this background helped to create Nikolai and explore who he was beyond the parameters of the script. That kind of investigation seems fitting for a film that alludes to the origins of one’s humanity (or lack of it). Yet it’s something Mortensen does with every role.


“As soon as I know I’m going to do a part, the first thing I ask myself is: ‘What happened between birth and page one of the script?’ There’s no end to what you can imagine or figure out for yourself about that,” he says. “That’s the foundation for me, no matter what approach I need to take.”


It plays itself out beautifully with Nikolai, who is a living and breathing entity. What the audience doesn’t know about him—and Mortensen has endeavored to discover and put in his performance—is as important as what’s explicitly revealed.


Violence and Compassion


Despite the films’ brutality, Mortensen says he was moved by the compassion that underlies the story. While his character and the one played by Watts are hardened to the cruelties of life, they still have this very human, hard-to-explain quality.


“For some reason they go to extreme efforts to do the right thing, only because it’s the right thing—there’s no real logical explanation,” Mortensen says. “They’re not gaining anything from it and it’s actually pretty risky for both of them. That’s what compassion is about, this thing humans do sometimes that surprises us.”


In looking at the web site for Perceval Press, the small publishing company he co-founded, it’s clear that these are themes that resonate deeply with Mortensen.


On the home page there’s a quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson that reads: “An eye can threaten like a loaded and leveled gun, or it can insult like hissing or kicking; or, in its altered mood, by beams of kindness, it can make the heart dance for joy.”


All aspects of that quote—including its violent implications—are often played out in the parts that have made Mortensen famous. Nikolai joins the ranks of shaded portraits that include the swashbuckling Aragorn from Rings and the family man with a past in Violence.


“I’ve played roles that exercise violence. That’s a continuing thing that I’m not entirely sure about,” he says. “It’s like, are you encouraging it by doing it or what? And is violence ever justifiable?” His emphatic answer is no, but adds that it can be understandable.


And he says that even in the midst of the most violent moments in Eastern Promises—like that audacious bathhouse brawl—there’s an inexplicable bond between people that Cronenberg captures expertly.



In looking back at the film, one is struck by the scene that closely precedes the bathhouse, the ceremony initiating Nikolai as a full-fledged member of the mob family. He tells those present, “I’m already dead.” But the tattooed, nearly naked man is in a sense being born again. The symbolism—if one wants to read into it—is even more evident in the bathhouse scene. There, fully nude, his bloody birth is completed.


“He’s going to kill me or I’m going to kill him, but we are looking at each other,” Mortensen says of the final moments in the scene. “Cronenberg isn’t going to let you blink—it’s right in your face. He shows it to you in a way that’s actually morally more responsible than most directors. This is what it is: it’s not pretty; it’s not gratuitous. I’m looking at this person and we are touching. It’s horrible, but there’s this weird connection between these people.”


He compares that to a much different moment near the end, as he, Watts and Cassel play out a dramatic dance—a child’s life at the center. Death (and perhaps birth) is the subject of the former, love (and perhaps death) the subject of the latter. Whatever the true meaning of these beats, they both intriguingly display the human connection.


The Cronenberg Illusion


Besides being able to challenge his limits as an actor and learn a new culture, Mortensen says the experience of making Eastern Promises solidified the working relationship and friendship he has with Cronenberg.


“I got to know him better and if anything it confirmed in my mind that if I ever were to direct a movie, I would want to do it like that if I could,” he says. “In other words, treat people that way, prepare myself that way, be efficient or try to be, the way he is.”


That aspect of the filmmaker was crucial in establishing an environment which Mortensen says fooled the crew into believing they had all the time in the world to make each scene work. “Cronenberg helps you create that illusion. Everything’s relaxed, there’s no hurry and there’s no pressure, when in reality there’s a huge amount of pressure to get things right and get them done in time and have the work be good,” he offers, laughter in his voice.

That style enhances the work by taking what is essentially a very foreign world and making it feel more real and accessible. At the same time, it fully and purposely retains a level of mystery—both interesting and frustrating to viewers.


In addition to his director, Mortensen praised the work of his fellow actors, including Cassel, Armin Mueller-Stahl (as the head of the Russian crime clan) and Watts.


In playing Kirill—a complex character who’s both evil and reckless—he says Cassel added dimension to the role.


“He was quite brave in it because he’s loathsome, and yet you come to like him or at least you come to understand him—even if it’s not forgivable. He gets to you,” he says.


As for Watts, he feels she hasn’t gotten enough credit for her work in the film.


“What she did was very subtle, she doesn’t have big flashy scenes, but it’s very well done,” Mortensen says.


The Road Ahead


A true renaissance man, Mortensen’s schedule isn’t likely to let up anytime soon. On tap are new offerings from Perceval—both his own book of images and writing, and from others including documentary filmmaker Alix Lambert—two exhibitions (in Iceland and Denmark), and he begins filming The Road, a Cormac McCarthy adaptation, in February. Two other films—Good and Appaloosa (the latter directed by Ed Harris)—are set to open next year.


“I shouldn’t be doing another movie, but it was too good to pass up,” he says. “I’m too busy.”


One can only hope that doesn’t change anytime soon.


Author's Note: This post first appeared at Awards Daily.

Nikki Blonsky Graduates

By Susan Thea Posnock


Less than two years ago, Nikki Blonsky was singing for tips at an ice cream shop and performing in high school musicals. Today, she’s one of the stars of the ultimate high school musical for the current generation, Hairspray, matching upbeat song verses and dance steps with John Travolta, the star of the ultimate high school musical from my generation, Grease.


Plus, she’s busy winning the onscreen heart of Zac Efron, star of the actual High School Musical, while overcoming the nastiness of Michelle Pfeiffer—herself a veteran of the ultimate bad high school musical, Grease 2.


Like Tracy Turnblad, the character Blonsky plays, there were twists and turns on the road to achieving her dream.


At 16, the Great Neck, Long Island teenager had been turned down as too young for the role of Tracy on Broadway. A year later, she saw a casting call on the Web site for Hairspray. With the help of her manager at the time, she made an audition tape that was sent to New Line Cinema via an emailed link. Impressed by what they saw, Blonsky got invited to an open audition in New York. After several callbacks she headed to Los Angeles in May 2006 for a screen test.


A month later she found out that she’d won the role during a candid-camera set-up arranged by New Line. They told her they wanted to tape a behind-the-scenes segment with each of the finalists, so the studio sent a crew to Cold Stone Creamery—the ice cream chain where Blonsky worked. Instead of viewing other auditions (as she’d been led to believe) they filmed her ecstatic reaction as director Adam Shankman told her (via laptop) that she would play Tracy in the movie.


That decision is validated by Blonsky’s performance. The 4-foot-10-inch teen bursts off the screen from the first bars of “Good Morning Baltimore,” becoming the worthy center of the story.


Like Ricki Lake in 1988’s more subversive John Waters original, Blonsky makes Tracy—who fights for racial equality, her own self-esteem and the chance to dance on local television—the kind of heroine that’s easy to root for and love. She’s a positive role model for girls of all ages—a welcome break from the repetitive messages telling women they’re too much of anything: fat, thin, loud, bold, dumb, brainy or old.



When I found out I’d have the opportunity to interview her, my first thought was of my six nieces. The two eldest—Hannah, 12 and Jessica, 8—are big fans of Blonsky and the film. So I asked them what they’d like to know about the 19-year-old actress.


Blonsky was more than happy to answer the girls’ questions and enthusiastically asked me to say hello to them from her.


I caught up with her as she took a break from her busy schedule. She recently wrapped the film Queen Sized for television cable channel Lifetime and has several music projects—including a concert in Dallas on Dec. 16—in the works. Here’s what she shared with me (and where noted, the girls):


Jessica, 8: Is your real life the same as in the movie?


Nikki Blonsky: No. I live in 2007 and Tracy lives in 1962. A lot of things are different, technology wise, culture wise. But I’m very similar to Tracy and you know if I could run down the streets singing and dancing everyday I probably would, but I think somebody would have a problem if I did that today. [Laughs]


Jessica: How much hairspray did you really use in the movie?


NB: One hundred cans of hairspray in four months.


Hannah, 12: Were you wearing a wig?


NB: I was wearing three wigs over the course of filming. Everyday we would have to tease and play with it until we got it that perfect round shape.


Hannah: Do you have plans to be Tracy on Broadway?


NB: Right now I’m focused more on film and my music. There’s always room for Broadway in my life and my heart, it just has to be the right role. It’s something definitely to think about and something that has been talked about. Just not right now.


Susan Thea Posnock: How do you approach singing versus non-singing scenes? Is there a difference?


NB: For me it’s really just about putting your whole self into something and giving it 110 percent whether it’s a singing scene or acting scene or both put together. It’s just about living in the character’s brain and being in the character’s body and just surrendering.


STP: Do you think there’s acknowledgement and respect out there for singing as part of the performance in a musical film?


NB: I think so. If anything for me, as the performer, I think it’s even more of a testament when you are singing. It’s singing your feelings. What happens in a musical is you can only speak for so long before your emotions get so high and heavy that the only way to get them out is through song.


STP: How much has your life changed as a result of being in the film?


NB: I just travel a little bit more. I still live at home with my family. I still do my normal things, [like] my chores. I’m a very happy 19-year-old because I’m doing what I’ve always wanted to do. I thank god everyday that this was the life that was chosen for me because this was the life that I wanted to live.


STP: Does your family help you to keep your perspective?


NB: I think it’s the remembrance of what [I’m] really doing here. I’m really trying to be a working actress and I’m really just trying to make movies that not just touch my soul but touch the audience’s heart and soul.


Living at home with my family they don’t just help keep me grounded, they help me with everything—it’s their love and support that have helped me to get where I am.


STP: What kind of example do you want to set for young girls?


NB: Never try to be anyone else but you. Enjoy yourself, love yourself, take care of yourself and just don’t be afraid to be yourself and don’t be afraid to share that with the world. If you have a dream, you can do it—anything can happen, you never know. Dreams really do come true, I’m a living, walking testament to that.



Author's Note: This post first appeared at Awards Daily.

Friday, December 14, 2007

The Waking Nightmare of No Country for Old Men

No Country for Old Men is a violent poem and wayward adult fairytale that held me in its grip from start to finish. My heart never stopped racing, even in the film’s more quiet moments. When it ended—yes, that ending that has confounded some—chills washed over me. I couldn’t move or speak. I wanted to be comforted (or to help comfort) Tommy Lee Jones’s solemn and reflective sheriff. To have him protect me from the big bad wolf who stalked my nightmares.

The wolf—fully embodied by Javier Bardem’s Chigurh—with his twisted honor and menacing benevolence, prowled through my mind. His presence would infect my mood for days to come.
Two weeks and two screenings later, I’m still digesting the film. In the first viewing, I watched everything, yet I was like a frightened child peeking from under her blanket. The second time, knowing when it was safe and when to look away (to keep those bad dreams at bay) I was able to observe it more closely, more critically. I admired it more, even as I didn’t have the gut reaction that comes with an initial viewing.

When it comes to considering the merit of a film, I admit that while my own opinion matters most, I can get caught up in the tide of feeling (you know, buzz) that surrounds a particular work. Over time I’ve recognized one full-proof way of countering the noise: My physical reaction.

Does it make my heart race, are my palms sweaty, does it transport me and most powerfully, does it give me chills? Or, is there no physical reaction and I’m merely watching, unmoved except to wonder: Do I like this and why?

If my internal barometer ranks films from one to 10 (10 being the highest reaction), No Country for Old Men scored a 15.

Had it only worked on that gut punch level, it would have been great. What makes it close to being a masterpiece—praise I can only bestow after a film has stood the test of time—is the intellect behind it. I have not read the Cormac McCarthy novel it’s based on, but from what I’ve heard from fans of the book, Joel and Ethan Coen’s screenplay succeeds in capturing its ethos. The nature of violence, the passage of time, good versus evil, death, the West—both its reality and myth—are all explored in the adaptation.

This weekend I saw an exhibit of photography by Richard Prince—who among other things appropriated the images from Marlboro cigarette ads in order to shine a light on those robust men who roamed the fictional frontier. Looking at that cowboy archetype captured by Prince, I couldn’t help but think of the film and the questions it raises about the West and how it stands for America as a whole. Like the photographs, the film presents its ideas without providing neat answers.

Its unsettling tone—not just the tension, but the silence that surrounds it—may make it a tough sell for best picture, but at least for me personally, it currently leads the pack.

*Originally posted on Awards Daily

Film Faces

By Susan Thea Posnock

The final close-up of Charlie Chaplin’s hopeful yet heartbreaking face in City Lights has reigned as my favorite movie moment since I first saw it in college. The silent star knew that even with the burgeoning popularity of talkies, an image (the face) was still worth 1,000 words.

While the silent era is a thing of the past, the face remains one of the most powerful ways for filmmakers to tell a tale.

During a Q&A at the New York Film Festival, director Gus Van Sant said he recognizes this when casting his projects. More important than a performer's level of experience, he looks for actors who can convey the story and emotion with their faces alone.

With the face of Gabe Nevins, a Portland, Oregon teen who makes his screen debut in the director’s latest Paranoid Park, Van Sant hit a bulls eye. He plays skateboard punk Alex, a kid who isn’t exactly neglected by his own family, but suffers alienation envy as he gazes at the less-loved outcasts who haunt the titular skate park. Based on the novel by Blake Nelson, the film follows Alex as he deals with the repercussions of a tragic accident.

While Nevins has a somewhat amateurish delivery, that doesn’t hurt his performance, it enhances it. Teens, real teens, aren’t the smooth-talking pros of the High School Musical tele-movies, but bumbling and messy as they interact with the world. Nevins is a doe-eyed beauty. But unlike a number of other young actors, his face has character and depth. There's something more complex going on behind those eyes (or at least it seems like there is). His words are mostly shallow teen-speak, his feelings unassailable.

Another notable face on film this year is the tragically frozen one of Mathieu Amalric as Jean-Dominique Bauby in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Locked in a body that can’t move, but a mind that’s fully alive, Amalric brings life and emotion to the amazing story of the former French Elle editor, who became paralyzed except for his left eye when he suffered a massive stroke.

Amalric narrates the film, which is partly told from Bauby’s visual perspective. While I understand why director Julian Schnabel pulls out of that locked-in mind for outside views, part of me wishes we could have remained in Bauby’s head. Nothing else can so dramatically convey the frustration and sadness he must have felt—his mind vibrantly humming, his expression frozen in time. The fact that he was able to learn how to communicate from behind that veil gives even more poignancy to the idea that the eyes are the window to the soul. In this case, it’s just one window—but what a view.

Portraying another kind of sickness through their faces are Philip Bosco in The Savages and Julie Christie in Away from Her.

In the case of Christie, she’s an early favorite to score an Oscar nomination and is very good as a woman dealing with Alzheimer’s disease. But while the performance deserves praise, it’s another actor’s face I’m haunted by. Gordon Pinsent, who plays Christie’s husband Grant, painfully registers the grief of witnessing his wife’s unknowing mental betrayal. He layers that anguish with the guilt of his character’s past indiscretions.

Finally there’s Bosco’s dementia-ravaged expression. What I found most compelling about his performance is the innocence in his expression: he’s forgotten the pain he’s caused his children. Will they be kinder to him in his waning days, than he was to them in their youth? Now he’s the problem child, hoping they can forgive and forget.

Whether or not Oscar will remember is another question, but like many screen faces before them, these are burned in my memory.

*Originally posted on Awards Daily

No Country Geeks (and the Fans Who Love Them)

By Susan Thea Posnock

Almost a year after tackling the lovely Kate Winslet at a Little Children screening party (I still think back fondly to the moment she whispered conspiratorially in my ear), history repeated itself Wednesday night as I took part in another round of celebrity-cornering with Nathaniel R over at The Film Experience. (You can read his take on the evening here.)

We were fortunate enough to be attending a screening and party for No Country for Old Men. Not only did we get to see the film again—believe the hype—but had the opportunity to mix and mingle with the cast and crew afterward. While we were both too lust-struck to approach Javier Bardem, we did manage to lasso-in Josh Brolin. I introduced myself and immediately started spewing praise not only for his work in the Coen brothers’ film, but also for his delicious turn in Grindhouse. While I guess you never know with a professional actor, he seemed genuinely pleased by our love of that Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino project (and our clear preference for Planet Terror, which he played a key role in). He also said he was disappointed with the way the film had performed in theaters, perhaps because of its lengthy running time. In the course of the conversation he referred to himself (and Nat and me), as geeks, since we’re the type of people that will gladly sit through a three-hour plus double feature film extravaganza and LOVE IT.

Brolin was a cool guy (self-proclaimed geekdom notwithstanding). It heartens me to inform him that the last time I approached a celebrity was at the aforementioned Little Children soiree when I chatted not only with Winslet, but Jackie Earle Haley. Both went on to get Oscar nominations. I'd advise any potential nominees to get in line now.

*Originally posted on Awards Daily

PosMeter: Geeks, Nannies and “Dumbledore” cinema

By Susan Thea Posnock

1. McLovin: Superbad’s side story involving supergeek Fogell (played by newcomer Christopher Mintz-Plasse) got me reminiscing about how this particular character—the geek who is so fully self-assured in his geekiness that he’s actually (to some degree) cooler than the marginally geeky leads—shows up regularly in film. From Jerry Lewis in anything to Charles Martin Smith in American Graffiti to Napoleon Dynamite, geeks (or nerds) are part of movie history.

Some of my favorite forerunners to McLovin (a name that’s so perfect I wish the trailer hadn’t spoiled it beforehand) include Anthony Michael Hall’s three-peat geeks in Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club and Weird Science, Jason Schwartzman in Rushmore, and even Jake Gyllenhaal’s oddball Donnie Darko. Who are some of your favorite movie-character geeks?

2. Who’s your nanny? The Nanny Diaries opened this past weekend with queen of blasĂ© Scarlett Johansson chasing spoiled tykes and dealing with Upper East Side bitchery. I missed it. I’m waiting for another nanny movie, Shoot ‘Em Up, to debut. Personally, I’d much rather watch star Clive Owen display impressive child-rearing/gun-toting skills whilst seducing the tot’s mom, played by Monica Belluci: “I’m a British nanny and I’m dangerous,” he warns. One can only hope so.

3. Mumblecore versus Dumbledore: DIY cinema may be all the rage, but if you type “mumblecore” into a Google search it asks “Did you mean Dumbledore?” Let the countdown to the new “Dumbledore” cinema begin. I’ve always felt the more they deviate from the books, the better the Harry Potter films are. Now some hot shot 20-something filmmaker can throw out the entire story and shift the action to New York City, where Harry’s got a dead-end job, commitment issues, and a crowded subway commute from Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Dumbledore would be the old homeless guy on the L train, spewing snippets of wisdom (when he’s not passed out). The new title: Harry Potter and the Half Hour Commute.

*Originally posted on Awards Daily

PosMeter: Can this actor be saved, “Bestest," and Nothingness…

By Susan Thea Posnock

1. Oscar Drop: When it comes to the post-Oscar decline, it’s hard to come up with a past winner who has had a more dramatic plunge than the likable Cuba Gooding Jr. It’s one thing to be in sub-par films, but Daddy Day Camp looks “direct-to-video” bad. To be fair, I haven’t seen the film, but a Rotten Tomatoes score of 2 percent doesn’t make me want to run out to the theater. It’s depressing when one considers the potential Gooding once had in films like Boyz N the Hood. The bright spot on the horizon is American Gangster, in which he plays heroin pimp Nicky Barnes (who has his own doc coming out, as per Rollerboy’s earlier post) opposite leads Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe.

It sounds like a huge improvement over the roles Gooding has been getting since he peaked in 1996 with Jerry Maguire. Despite the dismal depths he’s sunk to, I think he’s always had talent and presence. Here’s hoping this is a real return to form and not just a caricature.

2. “Bestest Friends”: Rather than bitchy enemies, High School Musical stars Ashley Tisdale and Vanessa Anne Hudgens are “bestest friends,” according to Tisdale, who plays semi-evil Sharpay in the hit Disney movie and its sequel. What a relief.

I haven’t seen High School Musical 2 yet, but I will grudgingly admit I enjoyed the first one. On a scale of 1 to 10 it scored a 50 on the Pos-perky-meter. And it’s hard to be dismissive about Tiger Beat’s new generation of poster boys and girls. When I gave my niece a copy of that tween mag with Zac Efron on the cover, she shrieked with excitement and then gave the “pull-out-poster” of the young HSM and Hairspray heartthrob an honored spot on her bedroom wall. While his acting skills are negligible, Efron has broken out of the Disney channel mold. Will the others follow? One thing’s for sure, they’re much shinier than my gritty, dirty boys from The Outsiders.

3. And then…nothing happened: I watched Old Joy recently and while I enjoyed the music, images, tone and performances, I wondered afterwards about the nothingness of it all—the film is so low-key it barely has a pulse, yet it’s also oddly moving. It got me thinking about an indie called Jones I saw last week with Nathaniel at New York’s Anthology Film Archives. The film is too indulgent in its desire to slowly (very slowly) set the mood as the Jones of the title spends a couple of not-very-eventful days and nights, interspersed with bars, slept-through-subway stops and Asian hookers, in New York City. Director/writer Preston Miller does manage to create some funny moments, in particular a scene involving what has to be the dullest profession on the planet: filming an insurance company deposition. But what’s the point to all this nothingness on film? Do these empty spaces have meaning?

*Originally posted at Awards Daily

PosMeter: Vampires, Hobbits and Action Distraction

By Susan Thea Posnock

1. Depp Shadows: Now that Johnny Depp is involved in the development of a feature based on spooky soap Dark Shadows (as reported the end of July in Variety), I’ve finally gotten around to viewing the 60’s cult phenomenon. Depp, who has said he was obsessed by the series and its infamous vampire Barnabas Collins as a child, will likely take on the role of his toothy antihero. After watching a number of episodes on DVD, I think the show’s mix of camp and pathos makes it ripe with cinematic possibilities. Depp, whose stylistic tics range from brilliant to annoying, is the perfect actor to resurrect the iconic Barnabas. I just wonder if he’ll intentionally flub some of his lines as a homage to Jonathan Frid (pictured above), who originated the role and often seemed to stumble on the clunky dialogue.

2. Hobbit-y Goodness: Let the speculation begin anew. As Rollerboy wrote earlier today, it looks like Peter Jackson and New Line are at least on speaking terms with regard to The Hobbit. Not surprisingly, there are conflicting reports, including one from IESB.net that cites sources who claim Sam Raimi is still in talks to direct, while Jackson would produce. (Thanks to Dan for pointing out these rumors in the comments. More can be found at TheOneRing.net.)

I have to admit that when the Raimi rumors started circulating last year I was open to the idea. But then Spider-Man 3 came out and I suddenly worried that in his version Bilbo would have a feisty Aunt, “May the Grey” who spews deathly boring, homespun wisdom. On the plus side, maybe Bruce Campbell will show up.

3. The Bourne Disorientation: I saw The Bourne Ultimatum Saturday night and agree with this spot-on critique at Reverse Shot regarding the action sequences in the film:

The shaking, haphazardly zooming camera prevents us from following movement or comprehending space, while also making continuity editing nearly impossible. Time and again, Greengrass gives us a single establishing shot and a subtitle with a vague geographic location (“Madrid, Spain”) and then plops us in the middle of a cinematic nowheresville.
I’m not saying it was all bad. In fact, I found it to be a viscerally thrilling and entertaining film regardless of the erratic camera work. In fact the herky-jerky motion added to certain sequences (for example, the chase in Tangiers, because like the viewer, Bourne is anxiously trying to find the other assassin and his would-be target). But in other places, like the car chase on the streets of NYC, it’s just pointless and hard to follow. And it made my date sick!

To review:
Johnny Depp reciting lines like “The name Victoria is so beautiful to me. I couldn't possibly sacrifice a syllable of it,” as Barnabas Collins;
Peter Jackson directing The Hobbit;
Clutching my date’s hand nervously during the Morocco-chase scene in The Bourne Ultimatum;

Good.

Most of the dialogue in Dark Shadows;
Sam Raimi directing The Hobbit;
My date leaving the theater during The Bourne Ultimatum because of motion sickness;

Bad.

*Originally posted on Awards Daily

The First Real Taste

You know what it’s like. You’re watching and perhaps being entertained by a movie, but you’re not enveloped by it. Then something happens—a shot, a line, a kiss, a sigh—and you are magically and profoundly transported to a place deep inside yourself.

Up until seeing Ratatouille this week, I hadn’t experienced that kind of sucked-from-your-seat moment in the cinema this year. It could be the first true Oscar contender of the year—not surprising given it comes from Pixar and the creative mind of Brad Bird, auteur of the Oscar-winning hit The Incredibles and the critically beloved, if under-seen The Iron Giant.

A film that shares its predecessors’ wit and anarchic spirit, it is a scene toward the end that really resonates. If you haven’t seen it yet, there are semi-spoilers after the jump.

The beat I’m referring to captures the inner life of a somewhat secondary, though crucial character: famished food-critic Anton Ego, who is voiced wonderfully by Peter O’Toole. When tasting the titular meal, we are thrust into his memory as he recalls a moment from his childhood.

The scene offers a euphoric rush of recognition for both the audience and the character. It’s that sensation we get when a taste, a smell, a moment, touches a nerve in our psyche. That unforced sensory reaction—which can come in many different forms—is oftentimes what makes a good film great. Simply, it is in understanding and showing this emotional link between art (in this case through food) and audience that makes you walk away thinking that Bird truly gets “it.”

Beyond the most obvious message of the movie, “Anyone Can Cook,” what Ratatouille really hits on is how we’re all hungry—rats, restaurateurs, chefs, critics, people in general—for something deeply real and satisfying.

It’s very hard in the world we live in today not to be hardened and cynical, or even bitter. But the hidden optimist in me likes to believe the reason for that edge—at least for most people—is a yearning for something that takes us not just outside ourselves, but makes us recall our most real, and hopefully best, selves. By making such a strong connection with the audience with something as simple as food, Ratatouille does just that.

So, thank you Pixar and Brad Bird for that little, satisfying taste.

*Originally posted on Awards Daily

Poscar Winners!

By Susan Thea Posnock

It's too late. No matter who wins the First Annual
Poscars, the ballots for those other little awards,
(hint: rhymes with Poscars), have been cast.

I planned to offer up my personal favorites of 2006 on
Valentine's Day, but I was too busy trying to decide
what to wear to the big event. And while it's true
that the "big event" only entailed my sitting alone in
front of my computer, you just never know. Perhaps
ThinkFilm, in their infinite wisdom, planned to have
Ryan Gosling personally deliver a screener of Half
Nelson
to my door. Or what if Joan Rivers decided
to stop by and see what designer I was wearing? (For
the record: Gap sweats.)

But enough preamble: no need to sit through three
hours of bad production numbers and rambling speeches.
In fact, I'll start with the "big one."

Best Picture

The nominees are:

Volver
The Departed
The Last King of Scotland

And the Poscar goes to:

Volver: I tend to be impulsive about these
things and right now I'm caught up in the flush of a
"movie crush." Pedro Amodovar's complex, melodramatic,
funny, quasi-feminist fairytale makes me want to rush
up and kiss it (loudly and exuberantly) on both
cheeks.

Best Performance by a Prop

The nominees are:

Cell phones, The Departed
Yellow VW bus, Little Miss Sunshine
The painting, Duck Season

And the Poscar goes to:

Yellow VW bus: It was unfair to place the family bus
in the prop category, but where else to put it? Best
vehicle? Best Transportation? Regardless, no other
prop contributed more. It's literally and figuratively
the vehicle for the plot. It takes the characters on
their journey and presents challenges that unite and
divide them. Cinema road trips are a dime a dozen, but
the bus (and the fine actors trapped in it or dashing
along side) make this one special.

Best Actor

The nominees are:

Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson
Clive Owen, Children of Men
Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland

And the Poscar goes to:

Forest Whitaker: Of all the performances in 2006, none
stayed with me longer. The fact that Whitaker is so
soft-spoken in real life adds to the impact of seeing
him explode on camera. It may be popular to bestow
awards on actors who bring historical figures to life,
but I'm not honoring an imitation (I wouldn't be
familiar enough with Idi Amin to know how accurate the
portrayal is anyway). This is a great performance,
period.

Best Actress

The nominees are:

Penelope Cruz, Volver
Helen Mirren, The Queen
Meryl Streep, The Devil Wears Prada

And the Poscar goes to:

Penelope Cruz: This performance-so vibrant, sexy,
funny and smart-is like the fulfillment of the filmic
crush I've had on Cruz since Belle Epoque.
Perhaps those pent up feelings factor into my choice,
but I still think her Raimunda is perfection.

Best Performance by an Animated
Character


The nominees are:

Robert Downey Jr., A Scanner Darkly
Steve Carell, Over the Hedge
Steve Buscemi, Monster House

And the Poscar goes to:

Robert Downey Jr.: Offers up among my favorite line
readings--both live action and animated--of the year.

Best Supporting Actor

The nominees are:

Jackie Earle Haley, Little Children
Steve Carell, Little Miss Sunshine
Mark Wahlberg, The Departed

And the Poscar goes to:

Steve Carell: I re-watched Little Miss
Sunshine
recently and was even more impressed
with how his performance shifts from near dead to
dancing machine over the course of the film. He
underplays the transition beautifully. That's probably
one reason why (unfortunately) those other awards
failed to recognize him.

Best Supporting Actress

The nominees are:

Carmen Maura, Volver
Emily Blunt, The Devil Wears Prada
Shareeka Epps, Half Nelson

And the Poscar goes to:

Carmen Maura: Yes, the Volver love-fest
continues. This was a close one with Epps, but
ultimately I had to go with the comic depths of
Maura's portrayal. She's so sublimely flawed, yet
irresistible.

Best Director

The nominees are:

Martin Scorsese, The Departed
Pedro Almodovar, Volver
Alfonso Cuaron, Children of Men

And the Poscar goes to:

Martin Scorsese: Even as Volver surpassed
The Departed as my favorite film of 2006,
Scorsese comes out on top with bravura filmmaking. I
watched the movie on DVD last week and I was even more
impressed by how it relentlessly (and skillfully)
pulls the audience along the edge. The adrenaline rush
ultimately negates the problems (less pronounced on a
second viewing) I have with the ending. I can't
imagine anyone but Scorsese blending this story, these
actors and all the other ingredients so expertly. (And
yes, I've seen Infernal Affairs, the film
it's based on.)

Best Performance by an Article of
Clothing


The nominees are:

Stretchy pants worn by Jack Black, Nacho
Libre

Coats tossed by Meryl Streep, The Devil Wears
Prada

Push-up bras worn by Penelope Cruz, Volver

And the Poscar goes to:

Stretchy pants: The pants take the prize, but the
costumes in Nacho Libre were inspired across
the board. This surreally stupid comedy was also among
the most underappreciated of the year. Perhaps a
guilty pleasure and acquired taste, but no film made
me giggle more in 2006. And if I were adding the
category of "Best Weapon" to the Poscars, corn on a
cob would surely win.

Dumbest behavior by a character that should
know better
(Possible spoilers)

The nominees are:

Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy) for sleeping with one
of the wives of his crazy dictator boss, The Last
King of Scotland


Ofelia (Ivana Baquero) for eating grapes at the Pale
Man's buffet, Pan's Labyrinth

Tobacco industry spokesman Nick Naylor (Aaron
Eckhart), for sleeping with the reporter who's doing a
profile on him, Thank You for Smoking

And the Poscar goes to:

Nick Naylor: Not only is he presented as the smartest
of the three, he's a master of spin and should be
savvy enough to know that words have consequences.

****

So that wraps up this year's Poscars. I apologize for
the delay. Hope it didn't put a damper on any
Poscar-reading parties or Poscar prognostication
pools.

I'm sure the nominees who didn't win were comforted by
the fact that they didn't have to wear a perma-grin
and clap politely as someone else walked up to claim
their Poscar. Better luck next year.

Speaking of which, I'm the queen of procrastination.
Those of you who wish to influence the 2nd Annual
Poscars should start now.

*Originally posted on OscarWatch (Awards Daily)

The First Annual "Poscars"

By Susan Thea Posnock

Yes, the Academy Awards are important, but I know that
in secret [perhaps super-duper secret] what people in
the film world really yearn for this time of year
isn't the Oscar. It's the Poscar.

What? You've never heard of it? Well, okay, I did just
make it up. But if Martin Scorsese is brutally denied
another directing Oscar for The Departed, he
will rest easy knowing this was the year he snagged
the Poscar.

In coming up with these "prestigious" awards, I must give credit to my friend Nathaniel over at The Film Experience, whose brilliant (and recently completed) Film Bitch Awards provided inspiration.

Unlike the Oscars, the Poscars have only three nominees per category. I'll announce the winners around Valentine's Day in honor of my true love, the world of cinema. This will also allow me to wield my unstoppable influence over those voting on the Oscars. While I promise to use this awesome power for good, I'm willing to go to the dark side in exchange for a "pow wow" with James McAvoy, Ryan Gosling and Leonardo DiCaprio.

The nominees are:

Best Picture:

Volver: It took more than a year, but I
finally fell in love again. (Don't get
excited mom, with a movie not a man.)

While watching this lush slice of melodrama from Pedro
AlmodĂłvar, my mouth watered at the feast before me.
The colors, the performances, the food and the music
combine to make a beautiful and complex buffet. The
film demonstrates that some of the most moving
cinematic experiences come from humor, not pure drama.

The Departed: If Volver made me love
again, this cops and thugs thriller broke my heart.
That's because for about three-quarters of its running
time I was on the brink, enraptured by the kinetic
storytelling with its sharp acting and dialog. But in
its last half hour, I felt it needed a bullet to the
head. I was so disappointed in the dénouement, it
nearly spoiled the entire film for me—but not quite.

The Last King of Scotland: My third contender
was an endurance test of a film that has haunted me
since I screened it more than two months ago. It felt
a little like Malcolm McDowell's eyes-pried-open
moment in A Clockwork Orange: I wanted to
look away, but those images—and that tornado of a
performance from Forest Whitaker, held me transfixed.

Best Performance by a Prop:

Cell phones, The Departed: They rang! They
texted! They bled! Plus, they helped Leonardo DiCaprio
communicate with the dead.

Yellow VW bus, Little Miss Sunshine:
Miraculously manages to be funny (good mileage?)
throughout the film.

The painting, Duck Season: Perhaps it's a bit
too tidy, but I found its representation of reality
(divorce and separation) and escape (a tranquil
environment) moving. It was a good year for Mexican
filmmakers and this debut from writer/director
Fernando Eimbcke didn't get as much notice as some
others—but it should.

Best Actor:

Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson: I've already
waxed poetic about Gosling's
soulful eyes, but his portrayal of a
crack-addicted schoolteacher is much more than that.
(Though the eyes don't hurt matters.)

Clive Owen, Children of Men: If I'm ever in
the midst of a dystopian universe, I'll want Owen's
Theo by my side. His unconventional action hero made
me feel safe.

Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland:
He cannot be denied. I've seen his Idi Amin described
as a possession more than a performance. I agree.
Whether exploding with anger or speaking softly,
Whitaker uses his imposing stature to menacing effect.


Overall, this was probably the toughest category to
whittle down to three. Just missing were Leonardo
DiCaprio (for The Departed) and James McAvoy
in The Last King of Scotland.

Best Actress:

Penelope Cruz, Volver: I've actually loved
Cruz since I first saw her in 1992's Belle
Époque
, so it has been disheartening to see her
career meander in English-speaking roles. But she
survived Tom Cruise and now, as Raimunda, shows the
world that she's much more than a babe. (But she is a
babe, and the film gloriously celebrates that fact.)

Helen Mirren, The Queen: I think the biggest
flaw in this performance is how easy she makes it
look. I even struggled with whether or not it should
make my top three, but when it came down to it, it was
just too good to leave off. She's the Queen, period.

Meryl Streep, The Devil Wears Prada: If
Mirren rules the British monarchy, Streep is the Bitch
Queen of Fashion. The last time I loved a hateful boss
this much was when Sigourney Weaver ruled over
Working Girl.

Just missing: Jennifer Hudson, Dreamgirls:
While Oscar has chosen to consider Hudson in
supporting, I found her Effie so central to the real
story—and the heart of the film, that I couldn't see
her as anything but the lead. The biggest testament to
her success is how deflated the film feels without
her.

Best Performance by an Animated
Character:


Robert Downey Jr., A Scanner Darkly: Forget
the jittery animation and nonsensical Philip K. Dick
"plot." Downey Jr. offered up some of the best line
readings of the year. My personal favorite was his
take on the word "murdered."

Steve Carell, Over the Hedge: His hyperactive
Hammy the squirrel was my favorite, but what looked
like celebrity stunt casting on paper (William
Shatner, Bruce Willis, Garry Shandling) actually
produces fine voice work across the board.

Steve Buscemi, Monster House: Finds the
layers (yes, really) in cranky/scary old
Nebbercracker.


Best Supporting Actor:

Jackie Earle Haley, Little Children: Utterly
creepy, yet still manages some sympathy. That's not
easy to pull off.

Steve Carell, Little Miss Sunshine: Like the
entire cast, takes what could have been a cliché and
turns him into a fully fleshed out character. Bonus
points for Proust.

Mark Wahlberg, The Departed: Turns the
delivery of foul-mouthed (hilarious) dialogue into an
art form.

Best Supporting Actress:

Carmen Maura, Volver: I didn't feel the
emotion at first, since the character is so
wonderfully comic. By the end of the film, it's as
strong as those winds in La Mancha.

Emily Blunt, The Devil Wears Prada:
Acid-tongued, yet you can still see the insecure,
belittled career-gal beneath the surface. Also
delivers one of the year's best lines: "I'm one
stomach flu away from reaching my goal weight."

Shareeka Epps, Half Nelson: Not only commands
the screen as well as her experienced and charismatic
co-stars, but perfectly embodies the territory
somewhere between naĂŻve child and knowing adult.

Best Director:

Martin Scorsese, The Departed: For creating a
jolt of a film, propelled by his sure hand.

Pedro AlmodĂłvar, Volver: Considering its
plot—an audience member in the row behind me called it
"contrived" and that's an apt description—he gives it
just the right tone. A lesser director would choke on
the material.

Alfonso CuarĂłn, Children of Men: Quickly
becoming among my favorite filmmakers. Finds the
humanity in this bleak story, without being heavy
handed.

Best Performance by an Article of Clothing:


Stretchy pants worn by Jack Black, Nacho
Libre
: "When you are a man, sometimes you wear
stretchy pants in your room." Enough said.

Coats tossed by Meryl Streep, The Devil Wears
Prada
: Perfectly and comically conveys the "you
are as significant as a coat hanger" attitude of the
ultimate difficult, diva boss toward her employees.

Push-up bras worn by Penelope Cruz, Volver:
Va va voom.

Dumbest behavior by a character that should
know better:
(Possible Spoilers)

Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy) for sleeping with one
of the wives of his crazy dictator boss, The Last
King of Scotland
: Character thought process: "On
one hand this Amin dude is kind of paranoid and
psychotic. On the other hand, his wife is hot. Plus
he's got so many wives, he won't care or do anything
drastic if he finds out, right?"

Ofelia (Ivana Baquero) for eating grapes at the Pale
Man's buffet, Pan's Labyrinth: Character
thought process: "I know the faun explicitly told me
not to eat anything from the buffet and these
grapes don't look very tasty, plus there's a creepy
looking Pale Man at the head of the table, but what
the heck, I'm a princess!"

Tobacco industry spokesman Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart)
for sleeping with the reporter who's doing a profile
on him, Thank You for Smoking: Character
thought process: "There's no way some hot young
reporter is going to get the better of me...what's
that, you want me to explain the intimate workings of
the tobacco industry while we're having sex?
Kinky."

Honorable mention goes to almost every character in
Babel.

Special cross-reference film moment of the
year:


Vehicles that won't start: Little Miss
Sunshine
and Children of Men

Thoughts on who should win (and any additional extra
categories) are welcome.

*Originally posted on OscarWatch (Awards Daily)

Interview: Patrick Marber

By Susan Thea Posnock

One aspect of being a writer is to dream of immortality through words.

For a screenwriter, an Academy Award is the ultimate way to achieve this. But, as I discovered over a recent chat with Best Adapted Screenplay nominee Patrick Marber--the comedian-turned-playwright-turned-screen scribe of Notes on a Scandal--restaurant menus offer another way to grasp that “Holy Grail.”

Sitting in the lobby of Manhattan’s famed Algonquin Hotel, our conversation veered off on a tangent about one of its most notable regulars, Dorothy Parker.

“You can buy a Dorothy Parker burger here,” he pointed out. “In London there’s a hotel where there’s a Virginia Woolf burger. I’ve always thought that was hilarious.”

Throwing good taste to the wind I wondered aloud, “Do you dip it in water?”

“Exactly, it’s a drowned burger,” Marber replied, not missing a beat.

While recognizing the absurdity of the topic, I couldn’t resist and asked him what food item he would want to be named after.

“I think an egg dish would be quite nice, a ‘Boiled Marber,” he quipped. “Yes, I’d quite like to be a breakfast dish.”

Joking aside, the 42-year-old Londoner, up for his first Oscar in his second major effort (the adaptation of his hit play Closer failed to earn him a nod, despite much acclaim), recognizes Oscars are more important than eggs.

“I’d prefer to win an Academy Award than be a boiled egg variety,” he candidly admitted.

While he may share the same acerbic wit as Barbara Covett, the aptly named anti-heroine of Notes on a Scandal played by Best Actress nominee Judi Dench, its clear he’s not deluded.

Marber, who is married with three young children, adapted the story from the novel, What Was She Thinking?: Notes on a Scandal by Zoe Heller. After finishing at Oxford University, he toured the UK comedy circuit, catching his break in the early 1990s when he hooked up with actor Steve Coogan and Armando Iannucci for radio and television shows. They created iconic, pseudo-media personality Alan Partridge (brought to life by Coogan). From there he went on to write his first play, Dealer's Choice, in 1995.

He said his background in stand-up comedy prepared him for the role of screenwriter.

“As a comic you’re changing your material all the time, so I’ve always been someone who knows a script is a work in progress and constantly evolving,” he explained.

That was definitely the case on Notes, told from the perspective of Barbara's diary entries in the novel, but opened up on film to incorporate the viewpoint of her friend and nemesis Sheba Hart, (Cate Blanchett, nominated for Best Supporting Actress). The two, teachers at the same school, become intricately involved when Barbara discovers Sheba canoodling very inappropriately with a student. The film tackles serious issues like loneliness and self-delusion, but with a twisted comic lens.

OscarWatch: How challenging was it to broaden the perspective of Notes from the book?:

Patrick Marber: I think when you see the film now it looks quite simple, but it took a lot of drafts. The trick of it was to give you access to both of the women, yet still make you feel that Barbara was the teller of the tale.

OW: Was there a big difference in adapting your own work versus the words of another author?

PM: Closer was an easier job because [director] Mike Nichols wanted the film to be very much a version of the play. I was all for opening it out and having shorter scenes and less dialog. But he was very clear and brilliantly persuasive.

OW: Was Zoe Heller involved with the Notes adaptation?

PM: Yeah, very much so. I’ve always explained to her why I’ve made changes, so she’s been very aware of what I’ve been doing. She doesn’t always agree and we have quite amusing arguments. But she loves the film; she’s thrilled it got made.

OW: How much of your own voice is in the finished version?

PM: Line for line I’ve probably got about 10, 15, 20 percent of Zoe’s words in there and I’ve had to invent the rest. Obviously everything I’ve invented would be impossible to invent without the novel. But after a certain amount of drafts a weird kind of possessiveness occurs. I would think all adapters feel this. You’ve devoured the material and own it in some weird, horrible, cannibalistic way. You start to believe that you invented it in the same way that I think an actor has to believe that they are the character.

OW: What’s your perception of the characters in Notes?

PM: I’ve always been terribly fond of Barbara, I know she’s the villain of the piece, but I think she’s so exquisitely sad, lonely, bitter and funny about herself.

Sheba moves me and I think in the end I’m more moved by the characters than perhaps audiences are. [Laughs]

OW: I read that you envisioned both Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett while writing it.

PM: You’re talking about two of the best actors of their generation and two actors brave in their choices, not afraid to be unlikable and plumb the depths. But both have a charm and a sparkle and a wit and sexiness. And I include Judi in that; she’s a very feisty, sensual woman.

I didn’t want this ever to be a dry film. I wanted it to be passionate and emotional and funny and odd. I think it is all those things and we needed actresses who have great scale to their work.

OW: Are you proud that your words helped bring out Oscar-nominated performances?

PM: Well they didn’t need me to bring it out, but I was a factor. Sure I'm immensely proud. There have been some great performances of my work on stage and film. It is the most thrilling thing to watch brilliant actors being brilliant and then forgetting that you wrote it.

OW: How were you able to take the story’s serious themes and make them comic?

PM: I think knowing what genre you're in is terribly important. I never thought we were making a tragedy here. I think there is something moving about it, but fundamentally I think the form is dramatic comedy.

I think one of the things I like about the film is that it’s not demanding that you be moved by this. Its not milking your emotions, it’s not pulling at you to feel. And all the films that move me most never ask me to be moved. I just become moved.

OW: What other films do you think achieve this?

PM: This year I’m very moved by Little Miss Sunshine, but never is that film saying to me ‘Oh be moved by me.’ But the predicament of those characters moves me. I think that’s a beautiful piece of writing by Michael Arndt.

OW: What about all time influences?

PM: Anything Billy Wilder wrote and Joseph Mankiewicz. All About Eve is one of the greatest screenplays ever written.

OW: Who would you like to work with?

PM: I wouldn’t kill to work with Martin Scorsese, but I would crawl across broken glass with a protective body suit on. [Laughs]

I think it’s a good time to be a screenwriter, I think there’s a lot of good directors out there and I think the scale of film that I’m interested in writing is getting made. People are interested in $15 to $20 million films. It’s worked out where they can be profitable and great actors want to do them.

OW: Why do you think that’s the case?

PM: I think a lot of it is to do with there being a generation of actors who want to do great movies and are less concerned about being great big movie stars and getting paid fortunes up front. That means people like me get to write these kinds of movies.

OW: What other aspects of filmmaking are you interested in?

PM: I’m generally quite interested in the firmament around the film because I’m learning the business side of it. I find it very interesting that you have the film, which is the product, then you have the kind of super nexus of activity around it. It might be something I want to write about. More time and money are spent on promotion than creation. In a way the promotion is part of the creation.

OW: Do you want to direct?

PM: I’ll want to direct something when I find a piece of material that I can’t bear the thought of anyone else directing. I haven’t found that yet.

OW: Would you be interested in directing another writer’s script?

PM: I’d want to be the writer/director because I know how much the material is going to change. I want to be the one doing the changing rather than worrying what the writer thinks.

*Originally posted on OscarWatch (Awards Daily)

Interview: Roger Michell

By Susan Thea Posnock

I met with director Roger Michell—who guided the Peter
O’Toole to his eighth Best Actor nomination in
Venus—over lunch on a brisk afternoon last
fall.

Before I could begin my interview in earnest, he noted
the presence of failed presidential candidate, Senator
John Kerry, at a nearby table.

"The Oscars are a bit like John Kerry sitting over
there: vastly campaigned for," he said. "They're quite
corrupt in that way. They're not this sort of simple
meritocracy."

He would know. Michell, who was born in South Africa
but now resides in England, got his start as a theater
director (and still dips in those waters between
films), but has been helming features for more than a
decade.

His first effort was Persuasion in 1995. Not
only did it kick-off the Jane Austen big screen
movie-a-thon, but this beautifully understated film
remains my favorite among the numerous adaptations of
her works. Over the years Michell’s worked on a mix of
star vehicles and smaller, more personal films. He's
probably best known for 1999's Notting Hill,
with superstars Julia Roberts and Hugh Grant.

In Venus, which could be O'Toole's last grasp
at a competitive Oscar, Michell manages to combine the
intimate with the iconic. The famous thespian's own
history, life and former youthful celebrity inform the
fictional character of Maurice, a less lauded actor
than the real man. It's a film about beauty, aging and
life, as O’Toole’s character befriends a much younger
woman, played by newcomer Jodie Whittaker.

"It’s about being alive," Michell told me.
"Ironically, at the beginning of the film this old man
is practically dead, but he's far more alive than this
girl is. The film shows him infecting her with life."

Venus is also a more innocent companion piece
to Michell’s earlier film The Mother, which
starred Anne Reid and a pre-James Bond Daniel Craig.
There's no illicit, inappropriate affair here, just
the very fringes of one. He collaborated on both films
with writer Hanif Kureishi and producer Kevin Loader.

We touched on a number of topics during our free
flowing conversation, from the legendary O’Toole, to
how the Internet has changed the Oscar game.

OscarWatch: You’ve worked with a lot of famous and
celebrated actors. Where does Peter O’Toole stand?

Roger Michell: He’s a very engaging and interesting
man. He’s had a tumultuous roller-coaster ride, both
the ups and the downs. But he really was very
wonderful to work with, very committed, thoughtful,
responsible and professional--things that he’s not
always been famous for in the past.

OW: Was he the only actor considered for the role?

RM: We had a list but it was pretty short and he was
very high up on it.

It’s the first leading role Peter’s done for 20 years,
so he had to think about things in this script that
resonated with him. This is in some ways a valedictory
poem about his life.

OW: What parallels did you see between him and the
character?

RM: His very dignified frailty is part of the beauty
of his work in this film. It wouldn't work so well if
he was more robust.

I'd never met Peter before, but one of the things that
stayed with me for a long time was a documentary made
in the '80s about the re-release of Lawrence of
Arabia
.

They found an old print with a lost scene, but they'd
lost the sound. There was a moment in this documentary
[where Peter is watching the scene]. It was just this
shot of him staring at Laurence of Arabia
with such bewilderment and longing and strange serious
thoughts going through the face of this rather
ravaged, lived in, lived upon man. That idea found its
way into Venus. Peter's baggage really works
for the film.

OW: Did the thought ever enter your mind that you
could direct him to his Oscar?

RM: Well you never do think that, do you?

OW: But if it happens, is it something you would be
proud of?

RM: I think it would be wonderful for Peter to be
awarded an Oscar for a specific film, versus the
Honorary Oscar [which he received in 2003]. He'd love
to win one properly.

For a film of this size an Oscar would completely
change its fortunes. So I'd be delighted for Peter,
but I would be thrilled for the film. You become
accessible to many, many more people.

OW: How important is an Oscar to an individual?

RM: For some reason an Oscar is like a sort of holy
chalice that's bestowed upon a director or an actor or
a sound expert. It's completely different from a
Golden Globe or a BAFTA [British Academy of Film and
Television Arts Award]--they don't really count. The
Big Bertha of all awards is still the Oscar. It will
change your career.

OW: How has the web changed the Academy Awards and
films?

RM: I think the verdict's still out, but I think in
general its good. It's quite interesting when you go
on to sites like IMDB [Internet Movie Database] or
[other] sites where people post their reactions to
films. Everyone's a critic now. Everyone can write a
critical paragraph or two. In the same way, now if
you've got a camcorder, everyone's a director. I think
that opening up of the kind of hallowed, darkened
rooms can only be good for the industry, because
talent will emerge.

This is a very varied industry and some films are made
in such factory conditions, and they're released with
such a load of hype. You know that they're almost risk
free. At the same time, swimming in the same sea as
those kinds of behemoths are these little films, which
are like minnows in the shallows.

OW: Do you like to work on big films or do you prefer
the smaller projects?

RM: I like to keep a foot in both camps. The last five
years I haven't worked outside of London at all and
I've really enjoyed that. I'd like to do a bigger
budget film now, with a higher fun quotient and a
lower complexity quotient.

*Originally posted on OscarWatch (now Awards Daily)

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Interview: Maggie Gyllenhaal

By Susan Thea Posnock

We all have ways of working through trauma in our
lives and using those trials to learn and grow. For
Maggie Gyllenhaal, acting is a part of that process.

Like many New Yorkers and Americans, she struggled to
come to grips with the tragedy of Sept. 11. That
included a backlash when she made comments about the
attacks she says were misinterpreted to sound as if
she felt New York and America deserved to be attacked,
a sentiment she calls inconceivable. (While doing
press for the 9/11-themed film The Great New
Wonderful
in April 2005 she was quoted saying the
United States was “responsible in some way” for the
attacks.) Playing Allison Jimeno—whose husband Will
was a Port Authority officer pulled alive from the
rubble—in Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center
helped her come to terms with the event and her own
reaction to it.

In Laurie Collyer’s indie film SherryBaby,
she takes on the morally complex title role, a woman
just out of prison who must face the child she had
while still a child herself, as well as the siren call
of drug addiction.

Gyllenhaal, 29, also shined with fine work as Zee in
the computer-animated Monster House along
with parts in Stranger than Fiction and
Trust the Man. She’s deservedly up for a
drama lead actress Golden Globe for
SherryBaby and at this point is probably a
dark horse for an Oscar nomination. But perhaps more
significant than all those performances or accolades
was the birth of daughter Ramona, which she celebrated
with her fiancé, actor Peter Sarsgaard, in October.

I spoke with Gyllenhaal just as she was emerging from
what she called the “baby cocoon,” about her marquee
roles, her influence as a celebrity and the impact of
her biggest role yet: being a mom.

OscarWatch: What drew you to the roles in
SherryBaby and World Trade Center?

Maggie Gyllenhaal: I don't usually choose roles or
characters from an intellectual place in me. I think I
choose from a more instinctive place and sometimes
I'll just read something and I'll just know, not
necessarily I can do it, but I want to see what that's
like to go and have that experience. And if I don't
have that feeling about a character, I've found it’s
probably not a good idea for me to play it.

OW: What was it about Sherry in particular?

MG: I feel like when you see a movie with someone like
Sherry in it who does things that are morally
complicated and painful to a lot of people and can
seem very selfish and lost, I think watching a movie
like that is a way of practicing. And by practicing I
mean it’s a way of practicing being compassionate. I
feel like that's an amazing thing to ask an audience.

OW: You manage to make her likable even though she
makes some pretty questionable decisions.

MG: The one thing I knew intellectually and the one
thing I kind of had in my back pocket as I was working
on that character was she's in such dire straits and
things are so bad for her that she doesn't have the
luxury to feel the pain and the hurt and the anger.
Otherwise she'd just completely lose it because it's
so bad. I think all she has really, the only
thing that she's armed with as she gets out of prison,
is this kind of naive and fierce hopefulness. So in
every scene that I did I sort of thought, “How is this
good, how is this working for me, how is this hot, how
is this right morally?” All the scenes could have been
played crying through them [or thinking] “How is this
horrible, how does this feel awful?” I really tried to
go in the other direction.

OW: I understand you went to halfway house programs,
drug recovery and parole meetings while doing research
for the role. How did that help shape your portrayal?

MG: I didn't have a pen and paper in my hand and I
wasn't reading a lot of books about people who've been
in prison. It was just being in those places. For
three weeks before [we shot the film] I spent every
day in these halfway houses and with these women,
smoking cigarettes with them and sitting all day on
the couches they were sitting on. [I took] the train
to New Jersey and sat with this woman for two hours
waiting for her parole officer to see her. All of
those things kind of got inside me and I think they
were my rehearsal.

OW: What about the role of Allison Jimeno in World
Trade Center
?

MG: I feel looking at the movie and looking at my work
in it like there was something about 9/11, my feelings
about 9/11, my response to it, my political response,
my emotional response, my intellectual response, all
of it that was undigested. I think it was very hard
for most people to digest and I guess I felt like it
was sort of half way down my throat. By doing this
movie and playing this part, and then doing the press
for it, I basically sat for however many weeks and
talked about 9/11. I talked about people's response to
it and people's fears about a movie being made about
it, and it was really interesting to me. That was a
real part of my experience. But I think it really
helped me digest it. I got to sort of live through
things that I had imagined many times.

OW: You talk about being provocative, especially in
America today. Did the backlash from your 9/11
comments change your attitude at all?

MG: When I first heard about what was going on I was
really upset, really scared and really confused and
hurt. That lasted for a long time and it did scare me
and make me quiet. I remember doing press for
Happy Endings [in 2005] and everyone was
asking me about it and I was terrified.

Then when the press came up for World Trade
Center
I re-examined it. I looked at myself and
thought, “You know I'm not afraid to talk about this.
I’m actually really excited to talk about this.
Anybody who wants to can ask about what I said, what I
meant, how I felt about it, what was misinterpreted,
and how I could have said it better.

So I guess my feeling is it did scare me and it did
silence me for a little while. But in the end I don't
think it changed my feelings about saying what's
important and what I believe. I guess I wish that I'd
been gentler about it and said it in a way that was
easier to hear.

OW: Do you think being able to be heard on different
topics is something that's important about being a
"celebrity"?

MG: I think it's very important. I remember when all
of this 9/11 stuff happened people were saying, “You
know she's an actress and why do we care about what
she has to say about politics and I thought, ‘then why
is this being blown up this way?’” I think whether
people want to listen to what I have to say or not is
completely up to them and I totally understand if they
don't. But I think when you're doing press all the
time, and you're walking through press lines and
people are asking you what kind of lip-gloss do you
want this season, that I almost feel like it's a
responsibility to have a point of view about what's
going on. I mean that's how I was raised.

OW: Motherhood is a central aspect of both Sherry and
Allison. Now that you are a mother, has it changed
your own perspective on that relationship and how you
might approach the mother/child dynamic in future
films?

MG: Yeah, absolutely. Sherry was a baby when she
became a mother. I remember going and doing some Q&A's
for SherryBaby and being really pregnant and
thinking people are probably scared [laughs].

When I did that movie I completely believed in Sherry
and I believed she was a fantastic mother and that she
was a mother in a more awake, aware and innovative way
[than the other characters]. She was talking to her
daughter in a more truthful way than they were capable
of and I really believed in her.

When I look at it now of course I see how she's so
deeply flawed, but in a way I didn't really see that
when I was making it. So yes, of course it changes
everything to have a child and to think about the ways
that I imagined having a child would feel before. But
at the same time I don't know if there is anything in
particular I would have changed about those
performances.

OW: Has it given you new perspective on things like
award recognition? How important is that to you?

MG: It's complicated because I think, especially with
a new baby, it’s not the most important thing. And yet
when you're recognized for work that you're really
proud of it feels really good. Especially on a movie
like SherryBaby which really was a risk,
which was so hard to make, and I was involved in years
before we actually made it. For a movie like that to
get some validation makes me feel like taking that
kind of risk again.

OW: Overall, how do you feel the birth of your
daughter has changed what you want out of life and out
of your acting?

MG: I think that's an impossible question to answer. I
really don't have enough objectivity to delve into
that yet, but it’s changed me hugely. I don't even
really know how, but it’s blown my mind.

*Originally posted on OscarWatch (now Awards Daily)

Interview: Jackie Earle Haley

By Susan Thea Posnock

Hollywood loves comeback stories--real or
fictional--and perhaps no actor fits the bill better
this year than Jackie Earle Haley.

A child and teen star, he caught his first break at
age five as the voice of Dennis the Menace in cartoons
and Dairy Queen commercials. He went on to play
pivotal roles in two classic 1970s flicks: The Bad
News Bears
as rebel slugger Kelly Leak and
Breaking Away as Moocher, the diminutive
friend with attitude, who famously (and literally)
“punched in” a clock at work.

But like so many who've tasted that kind of success at
an early age, Haley was unable to make a smooth
transition into successful adult actor. Instead, he
found himself relegated to the low-grade movie ghetto,
then out of work and doing bit jobs that included limo
driver to the stars and pizza delivery guy.

He says it took at least a decade to come to grips
with the curve ball life had thrown him. Ironically,
it was only after he'd achieved a kind of peace and
happiness with his non-acting life--in the form of a
commercial production company and a new wife--that
Hollywood called out of the blue. Director/writer
Steven Zaillian contacted Haley for his adaptation of
All the King's Men and the dream the actor
had given up for dead was resurrected.

Now that new life has more kick to it, as Haley's
acclaimed work as a sex offender of undetermined
crimes in Todd Field's satirical drama Little
Children
is garnering best supporting actor kudos
with awards from various critic's groups (New York and
San Francisco among them), a Screen Actors Guild
nomination, and a possible Oscar nomination.

In what is looking to be the most contested major
category of the year, Haley gives a complicated and
disturbing performance that offers no pat answers or
insights into Ronnie’s behavior. He just is—a man only
a mother could love—and Haley presents him with
unapologetic creepiness.

I spoke to the actor about how this strange trip has
even more meaning the second time around and the
inspiration he took from his own life in bringing
Ronnie to the screen.

OscarWatch: What was it like to have early success as
an actor and have it taken away from you?

Jackie Earle Haley: It wasn’t so much taken away as
much as it just drifted away. It’s taken me a long
time to realize that Hollywood did not conspire
against me. That nobody had meetings and said, "Hey
this guy’s out."

It was during the transition from child actor to adult
actor where things started to get dicey and I think
that’s a difficult transition for anybody. That
transition is also the time where you leave the house,
you get out on your own and you find yourself faced
with monthly responsibilities. And when it started to
kind of drift and it just got a little quiet I found
myself being offered B movies or C or D movies--roles
that weren’t that great in movies that weren’t that
great. I think when I started to accept parts like
that the perception of me shifted and when you’re
doing D movies people don’t really want to put you in
A movies.

OW: What did you learn from the time away from acting
that you've brought to this second chance at it?

JEH: When it kept drifting away and when it kept
getting more and more difficult to make a living I was
faced with the decision: I either needed to start all
over as an actor, start from square one or take my
energies and try to focus somewhere else. And that
realization kind of came to me at about 30. I was so
used to opportunity seeking me out that it took me a
long time to realize that I need to seek opportunity.

My identity in a way was attached to show biz and
celebrity and things like that and it took me several
years to get real comfortable in my own skin and to
slowly learn how to not have my identity and my
self-esteem attached to that. And I think that’s been
really good for me over the years. This last decade
and a half has been a very maturing time of life.

I think what’s neat now is the contrast. It's really
awesome doing this at 45 and coming from a different
place in life. I think one of the biggest differences
now is it seems that the craft is more important to me
now than it was when I was 20. It was very important
then and I loved acting, but it holds a deeper meaning
for me somehow. I think it’s due to my place in life
and not taking it for granted.

OW: Before Hollywood came calling again, were you at
peace with a life that didn't include acting and
Hollywood?

JEH: I really did find a nice peaceful place. Actually
making a living and also making commercials, doing
what I love, making these little mini films. I also
met this great lady and yeah I think I really reached
this place in life where I finally started to feel
really good.

OW: So what was it like to have Hollywood call you
back to your old life at the point where you'd
accepted the new one?

JEH: There’s so many years of getting okay with it and
then finally getting completely okay with it and
liking where you are in life and then having the sky
open up and Steven Zaillian reaches his arm down and
says, "Hey man, you wanna do this again?" -- its just
absolutely gravy. And also I can’t tell you how
incredible it is for an actor that had to put the
craft away, put it on the shelf and let it sit there
and focus on this other area--I can’t tell you how
amazingly, wonderfully validating it is to be able to
after all these years pull that craft down and to
practice it again.

OW: How did you prepare for the role of Ronnie in
Little Children?

JEH: The first thing I needed to do was really just
look at the character, study the content and try to
figure out where he’s coming from. And then to really
examine my life and to look where things may somehow
parallel. Even though they may be completely different
there are always little parallels that one can
contemplate and try to hold those two realities and
two truths up to one another to see how they jive. For
Ronnie I had to look at a lot of different things, but
the most important aspect is his relationship with his
mom (played by Phyllis Somerville in the film) and so
I needed to look at my relationship with my mom and to
just focus on what a unique and special relationship
that is. I also focused on my brother’s relationship
with my mom. My brother Tru was a heroin addict and
even though that is a different obsession then what
Ronnie suffers with there just seemed to be some
parallels for me to look at and to examine.

Tru was a good guy and he knew he was in this grip of
this addiction, of this obsession and really wanted to
not want to use. During this time my mom was always
there for him. Whenever he needed it she would provide
a roof over his head. She would feed him and encourage
him. One day he took too much and got a bad batch and
it killed him. I remember during this whole process
that me and some of my siblings thought, "I wonder if
mom’s enabling him when he needs to go down further
and she’s kind of holding him up." After he died and
especially now when I think back I can’t tell you how
grateful I am that during all of that struggle that he
was never alone, that my mom was always there for him.
So you can see some of the parallels there.

OW: Ronnie really is someone who is deeply troubled,
but you make him human.

JEH: I think one of the best aspects of playing this
character was Todd Field’s vision and his
sensibilities. It really wasn’t a part where there’s
any sort of message. It’s a part of here he is, good
and bad, just all of him, you decide. The character
really is such a mystery; we really don’t even know
what he’s done.

One thing I do know about him is that he really knows
who he is. Of all the characters he’s the one guy that
isn’t trying to lie to himself or even find himself.
He's almost got a stoic acceptance of what his problem
is. As a result he loathes himself, he’s got
incredibly low self-esteem, he’s introverted and he’s
feeling all of these things to such a degree that he
needs to escape and for him his escape is in his
obsessions. And he’s definitely got impulses, he’s
definitely a creepy and horrible and confused
individual. But what’s interesting is that even though
he’s got these impulses we don’t know that he’s acted
on them in the way that he’s being accused of. The
other big thing about him is that he really, just like
my brother, he really doesn’t want to be this guy. He
would do anything to not be this guy and to not have
these compulsions and this miserable pathetic
introverted life. I mean the guy is all alone in this
world, he only has his mom. If you really stop and
think of what it would be like, it would be horrible.

*Originally posted on OscarWatch (now Awards Daily)

PosMeter: “Self” Actualization

By Susan Thea Posnock

Over at IMdb Pro (the paid subscription version of The Internet Movie Database) they have weekly MOVIEmeter and STARmeter ratings, nifty little charts that gage what movies, television shows or celebrities are "hot" based on IMdb user searches.

Fully aware of how the entertainment industry hangs on my every word, I've decided to create my own version of the IMdb meter. After at least 10 minutes of "intense concentration" (slacking off at the day job) I present the “POSmeter," a completely unscientific, unquantifiable, random and probably dated list of entertainment-related musings.

The POSmeter:

1. The IMDb "Self" Standard: I've noticed an odd quirk under the listing for “profession” on the STARmeter. Although a number of the personalities are
listed as “actress” or “actor,” many have “self” as their profession. Matt Damon? Self. Leonardo DiCaprio? Self. Johnny Depp? Most definitely, self.

This got me thinking about the existential ramifications of having “self” listed as your profession. Does it mean something in terms of one’s celebrity mystique? Is it the celeb-equivalent to reaching Operating Thetan Level VIII in Scientology (Coincidentally, Tom Cruise? Self.)

It does seem a “self” listing is a sign of success. The more famous the star, the more likely they are to receive this “self-important" title. Sorry Jessica Alba, you’re not big enough yet. But Brad Pitt? Hell yeah, you’ve been “self” since you were born! However, there are weird exceptions. For instance, Jack Nicholson is listed as “actor” and Paris Hilton (who I'm not going to link to, for fear of increasing her STARmeter rating) is listed as “self.” While I suppose it’s comforting to know IMdb doesn’t dare consider her an actress, wouldn't "self-involved" be more accurate? And why isn’t Nicholson at “self”-status?

On a personal note, I’ve determined my own professional title should be “self-deprecator.”

2. Ryan Gosling: I re-watched Half Nelson over the weekend and I think Gosling's is among the best performances I've seen this year. I guess it's time for me to rent his first film, The Believer, a film I've resisted because of its disturbing theme of a young Jew with anti-Semitic views.

3. Freaks and Geeks: I finally got around to renting this short-lived series, which had been recommended countless times. It didn’t disappoint. I’ve been feeling melancholy ever since I finished all 18 episodes. At least I can find comfort in the fact that many in its talented cast and crew have been successful since, including James Franco, Linda Cardellini and Judd Apatow.

4. The Grateful Dead: Thanks to Freaks and Geeks I can’t get their music out of my head. I even picked up “American Beauty” at the Tower Records "going out of business" sale. Yes, I realize it’s too late to become a Dead Head and go on tour.

5. The Queen: More detailed thoughts on this excellent film are forthcoming, but in the meantime an observation about the television ads. Based on the syrupy music and scenes shown, you’d think this was an earnest and weepy melodrama about the Royal Family's reaction to Princess Diana’s death. It’s better than that, with a
sharp wit. Too bad the ads dull the blade.

6. Sex offenders: I’ve decided that Little Children is positively quaint in its portrayal of sexual predators. Not only
does pedophile Ron McGorvey (the outstanding Jackie Earle Haley) take a dip in the local pool, he uses the newspaper personals. Hasn’t he heard of the Internet? Maybe someone should introduce him to the film's homemade net porn star, "Slutty Kay."

Author's Note: This list has been meticulously gathered from a variety of sources including: overheard subway conversations, email SPAM, and my Netflix recommendations. It can be considered a reliable source of what's on my mind and an excellent tool for buying me gifts.

*Originally posted on OscarWatch (now Awards Daily)

Altman Tribute

By Susan Thea Posnock

When I met and interviewed Robert Altman just a few weeks ago for OscarWatch I didn't see a man who, like a character from his swansong A Prairie Home Companion, was about to get a visit from the angel of death. Instead I saw a vibrant, quick-witted, slightly cranky film genius.

At 81, there was no denying he still had it. In the last five years of his life he brought one great film, Gosford Park and two good ones, The Company and the aforementioned Prairie to the screen. He was right when he guaranteed me that he would never win an Oscar in competition, but it wasn't for lack of quality. He just ran out of time.

And so the film world is a little less colorful today. A renegade and auteur, who had lived half his life by the time he became known as such, will no longer grace the world of cinema with his presence.

I was truly stunned when I heard the news of his death, even as I now recall how it took him a little bit longer to reach the stage at the Museum of Television & Radio event on Oct. 31. In fact, rather than just climbing directly onto the platform, he made his way to the stairs at the end, momentarily standing in front of the podium.

"I didn't come all the way to the microphone to say anything, I needed the stairs," he quipped to the audience, turning applause into laughter.

My interview with him that night felt too short and I was nervous and rushed. But now, I just feel honored to have had the opportunity. I think about a comment he made in those fleeting moments.

"Everything, including this interview is history. Or half of it is because we've already done half of it. But I don't think about those things," he told me.

And he didn't, he was already on to his next project.

It's sad that there will never be another Robert Altman film. But even if he wasn't one to look back, at least we can.