Thoughts on Recent Cinema Releases

'Untouchable' is the best film I've seen this year.

And how great is Emma Watson in 'The Perks Of Being A Wallflower'? It's one of those films that you think is going to be just another teen high school movie, but it ends up being so much more. 

'Liberal Arts' is immensely watchable. Probably because Richard Jenkins is in it. Does that guy ever do bad work? 'Killing Them Softly' is probably his least interesting role in ages, but Brad Pitt? He OWNED that movie. And it's great seeing Scoot McNairy getting such interesting roles. Look at how far he's come since 'In Search of a Midnight Kiss'. 

'The Perks of being a Wallflower' really sticks with you. For the most part, it's only pretty good, but the ending is masterful. How to describe the movie? I think if you mash together 'Starter For Ten', 'Adventureland' and 'High Fidelity', you'd get an idea of what this movie is.

It has great insight. That's what separates the great movies from the average. 'Ruby Sparks' is a fun concept, but that's all it is, a concept. There are some laughs, purely because of the situation (a writer's invention comes to life), but nothing resonates with you.

Yet every moment of 'Untouchable' rings true. The great thing about French films is that they're really films -- they tell a story that's dictated by the story; and not by the genre or by some toy that the film studio wants to sell. 'Untouchable' is hilarious, it's uplifting and it's liberating, but it's also painful and upsetting. You'll love it from the opening sequence.

'Killing Them Softly' was a good movie, some great moments-- but it was so obvious about its intentions. Nearly every scene had a TV in the background with an Obama or Bush speech talking about messed up the economy is. That was how the director pushed his theme on us. But 'Untouchable'? It just told the story. One character was rich, white and disabled, the other black and poor--- yet it didn't spell it out. It went for a more subtle approach. It's great when a movie doesn't treat its audience like a four year old.

'Liberal Arts' was a great watch. Nothing out of the ordinary, it's just one of those 'Garden State' movies; a few white people fall in and out of love with a cool soundtrack over the top. But it had the needed ingredient: insight. The film is immensely inviting. You don't want it to end because you're having such a blast hanging out with Josh Radnor, Elizabeth Olsen and Zac Efron.

Zac Efron is hilarious in this movie. 

And we need to talk more about Emma Watson. It's not easy to be a great actor after being known for such a huge franchise. And honestly, she proved me wrong-- she's got talent. I saw 'My Week With Marilyn' and thought she would be forever reduced to bit parts, but now I want to see her in everything.

But I want to see her do interesting stuff, the indie films. Don't just put her in a Twilight reboot.

As for 'Ruby Sparks', the trailer is enough. A funny concept, ha ha, but spend your hard earned cash watching something else.

But I must say I've become a big fan of Chris Messina. Funny how opinions change. I used to find his performances lacklustre, but now I enjoy everything he's in. He's worked with Nora Ephron, worked with Woody Allen, and did you see 'The Giant Mechanical Man'? A must-watch film for anyone who is a romantic but close to losing heart. 

My favourite moment in 'To Rome with Love' is when we first see Woody's character. Allen hasn't been on the screen since 2006's 'Scoop'. But no-one saw that, so you could say he has hardly been on screen since the turn of the millennium.

But his intro in this movie--- we hear him talking, moaning about the flight (he's on a plane), but we don't yet see him. The camera gentle rolls past each row until, finally, it reveals little Woody Allen--- it's like the reveal of a superhero. But instead of Spiderman...

..We get Woody Allen. And I loved it! He's hilarious in this movie, but perhaps only if you're a fan. The dialogue is so throwaway that half the audience don't know he's joking --- while the other half laugh more than they have in years.

Is Woody's recent output as good as the glory years? No, but there's still gold in there. Woody is like an old relative that everyone in the family loves--- he's not as lively as he once was but you still cherish him. 

I guess I should see 'Taken 2' and 'Paranormal Activity 4', but why? We already know what happens. What I love about movies is that a whole new world gets invented. But sequels are just made to sell some tickets. Liam Neeson kicks some ass again -- do I really need to give up two hours to witness it?

I can't bring myself to see 'On The Road'. I love the book too much. Usually I'd give it a go, but not this one --- the version of 'On The Road' that I read, which lives in my heart, is too precious to me to be influenced by a movie version. Don't get me wrong, I'm massively tempted! I just can't do it.

Care to share?

Tweet

GREG MOTTOLA - Film Director Interview

GREG MOTTOLA wrote and directed "ADVENTURELAND", which anyone who reads this blog will know is one of my favourite movies. He also directed the fantastic "SUPERBAD" and last year's "PAUL". His other credits as a director include Judd Apatow's "UNDECLARED" and the hilarious "ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT". He recently shot the pilot for the Aaron Sorkin penned HBO series "THE NEWSROOM", as well as numerous additional episodes.

This conversation gives us some fascinating insights into the production of "THE NEWSROOM", the difficulty of getting films made in the Hollywood system, and the struggle to find time to write when you're raising three children. Enjoy!

You've been working on 'The Newsroom' recently, is there anything you can tell us about that? It's all a little mysterious so far.

I can't wait for people to see it. It's an hour long show and it's very much -- it's much more comedic than 'The West Wing', it's a real comedy-drama. I mean, some of the drama is very serious but there's a ton of comedy. Every episode it goes through major tonal shifts, which I find really interesting.

When I first read the script I was really excited about the chance of working on it. I think Aaron Sorkin post-'The Social Network'; I think his writing has changed slightly. I think he's branching out, he's flexing different muscles. There are people who, y'know, will say he's doing what he does, which is write speeches and making characters exceedingly clever but, y'know, that's a lot of the fun of his writing and I'd hate to see him stop doing that.

It's an amazing cast -- it's sort of a mixture of people that you would have heard of like Jeff Daniels, Sam Waterston, Emily Mortimer.

There are two generations in the cast, there's an older generation and then the younger people are largely indie film and theatre actors. There's this guy John Gallagher Jr who's been in a few indie films, who's fantastic, and Alison Pill who's in 'Scott Pilgrim' is one of the leads, and she's unbelievably funny.

I'd done a lot of TV back when I first met Judd Apatow, and it's fun. But for a director, with television, you always feel like the writers and producers are having more fun than the directors, it's really their medium.

I wanted to ask a question about that exact thing. Something I always find interesting about directing for television -- you've been with this one since the pilot, but with something like 'Arrested Development' where you're coming in, and the characters are already set, and the visual style; and the actors know what they're doing -- I'm always curious about what the role of the director actually is.

It's a very specific kind of skillset. There are a lot of directors I'm quite impressed by, who work a lot, who do a lot of the HBO shows for instance. They'll move around to different shows that have very different styles,  and the fact they can work so efficiently in different styles is kind of amazing to me.

For this show, it was fun, because we were doing the pilot and we were really trying to create a very specific style for the show. I hired the English DP Barry Ackroyd to shoot it. Barry comes from documentaries and Ken Loach movies, and he did 'The Hurt Locker'. His way of shooting and his eye is very documentary and multi-camera style, and it would be very different from 'The West Wing', for instance. And it was kind of a style I was interested in for this show and Barry does that extraordinarily well, so getting him involved, we approached it differently to other shows of Aaron's.

Well that's the thing -- Aaron's shows have had such a distinct visual style, if you look at 'Sports Night', 'The West Wing' and 'Studio 60' they all had that certain style. So do you think that this is perhaps a departure from that?

I think so. There are hints of it, because Aaron's writing is very romantic, and there are times when you do want to have camera moves and beautiful lighting. But at the same time I wanted it to play against it, -- it's so beautifully written, so I wanted to play against it, so it feels a little bit like you are there. Part of that is the style that Barry employs; you get far back from the actors with long lenses, and you don't have to be super precise about marks, it doesn't get so technical, it becomes about the scene -- so maybe it'll be handheld, maybe it'll be on dollies that are all moving at the same time, depending on the feeling of the scene. We'd watch the scene first. I had a sense of what I thought the shooting style might be but I really let the scenes and the acting dictate. It was a good way to break out of what I've sometimes felt TV would be, which is that you have to adhere to a formula. But you know, when I worked on 'Undeclared' with Judd Apatow I was also a little spoiled, because Judd didn't care if every episode matched the style of the last episode. He really let us come in and do our own thing. He let the directors really be involved with the writers, re-writing episodes and it was extremely creative.

And I was lucky with 'Arrested Development' because I was one of the first directors in, so the show was still figuring out what it was, so I at least felt like I was a fly on the wall to watch Mitch Hurwitz and his writing staff -- and of course, all the actors were developing the voice of the characters. I mean it was, y'know, that show was so unique.

It really was something special. There's all this talk of it coming back, I don't know what you know about that. They're doing something with it aren't they?

It sounds like it's definitely happening. Just as a fan, I can't wait to see it.

You've worked with all these really strong, unique writers, but what I find also interesting is that, with 'Superbad' and 'Paul' you directed films that have been written by cast members. I'd imagine that can be difficult. Was there ever conflict or disagreements?

It can be tricky but what I like about it, and because I also write -- writers get treated so poorly in feature films, and they get sort of kicked out the door, and uh-- the writing doesn't get the attention it deserves often. So when you have the writer on the set you can; if the scene's not working, or you come up against a problem--- like on 'Paul' we just had to constantly change our plans. Even though it was the biggest budget I'd ever worked with, we had a ton of limitations-- the CGI was very expensive, and that made our actual production budget challenging. We were shooting in New Mexico and it turned out to be the rainiest season they'd had in a decade and we were constantly having to stop and I'd have to throw shots away every day because we were being rained out. And we'd have to think, 'how do we get this?' -- It wasn't the kind of movie where they'd let us do an 'Apocolypse Now', a hundred days over schedule. [Laughs] -- no-no, you're not gonna get an extra day. So with having Simon and Nick there, we'd get to figure it out.

I have to talk to you about 'Adventureland'. It's one of my favourite movies -- and I watched again last night to remind myself of it again before talking to you-- and it's just, I don't know -- I think it's a rare kind of movie. First of all, what made you first sit down to write it, where did it come from? Did you do it for yourself or did you have a chance to make it?

I started a version of it when I was working on 'Undeclared' actually. I'd had a heartbreaking experience after I made my first super-low budget indie film 'The Daytrippers', I wrote a script called 'Life Of The Party' that got set up at Sony Pictures, and I thought I was going to get to be one of those really lucky filmmakers that gets to, y'know, go straight from indies to a personal movie at a studio.

It was a very personal movie, it was about intervention and it was a black comedy. The basic premise was, a group of friends find out their old buddy's a raving alcoholic, and living in the South of France. They all go their to save him, but they're all as fucked up as he is.

We had cast it, John Cusack and Steve Zahn were the leads and we had an ensemble around them, it had a greenlight. And then Sony decided, y'know, that the film's a little risky, a little dark. They just sort of changed their mind after a few years of pushing the boulder up the hill. While I was trying to figure out what to do, I decided to do some TV for a while because I was just dying to direct. I wasn't sure what to write next, and working on 'Undeclared' with all these young actors, writers---- and Seth Rogen was so young when we were doing that show. I started getting to thinking about writing something about young people and about that period in my life.

There was a version of it where they were high school age. And then 'Superbad' came up. Ironically it came up the week I was about to send out the script of 'Adventureland' to try and get it set up and see if anyone was interested in making it. So I just kind of put it on the back-burner and made 'Superbad'.

After 'Superbad' I changed the characters into college age, because I didn't want it to overlap too much.

Yeah.

Y'know, they were still extraordinarily immature, I mean I was still immature even after I came out of college. But I think I wanted to have this feeling that---- I hoped it would be interesting to some people to make a movie about young people, that wasn't just an out and out mainstream teen comedy thing. I mean, I loved making 'Superbad', I'm very proud of it, but I wanted to do something different. Something that I could treat more like an intimate drama.

Even though theoretically a movie about people working in an amusement park over the summer --and y'know, that's unfortunately kind of how they sold the movie, y'know, the rollicking 'Meatballs 2' comedy. And I wanted to do something that was somewhere between a teenage Woody Allen movie and an indie film, all that kind of stuff.

I think the marketing of that film is really interesting. Even when I recommend it to friends, and they ask 'what is it about?' -- whenever I describe it, it doesn't excite them. It's just one of those films I think that you have to sit down and watch to 'get' really.

Well it's hard to, y'know-- the truth is, I like things that are melancholy, I like things that are character based and episodic. I mean, I love comedies but I don't only want to make those. Especially, in a culture of giant tentpole movies it's hard to convince people to see it.

But what's been nice about 'Adventureland' is that it's had a life after its theatrical release, more-so than anything else I've ever made. I've had people tell me they saw it after the fact and were surprised by how much they liked it. Because I think people do hear that premise or see the trailer for it and think 'oh that's kids stuff', or --

--Well I remember it was just a film that I'd had on my rental list and I'd looked forward to seeing but, y'know, when it eventually came around and I got to see it I was blown away by it. I just think it's one of those films that has to find it's audience.

Yeah.

The films I've always loved and been most passionate about, tend to be by writer-directors with a unique voice, like Chaplin, Woody Allen, Billy Wilder. With 'Adventureland', I get that sense of a unique voice, of knowing the filmmaker a bit. And I wonder, does that interest you? Ideally, would you be writing and directing more features of your own, or do you think that's harder to do now?

My wife and I get to socialise with Woody, we'll go out to dinner or lunch with them a couple of times a year (Greg's wife used to be Woody Allen's assistant). And I asked him the question, just to see what he would say. I said, "do you think if you were coming up today you'd have had the same career?" - and he said "absolutely not". He thinks he was very lucky, and he thinks it's not, well, the world has changed too much. I mean, he has an unprecedented deal--- from the beginning, basically entire creative control, it's in his contract-- he won't work unless he has this control. He has more creative control than anyone outside of maybe James Cameron.

I started out just wanting to be a writer-director, but the truth is I'm a slow writer and there's a lot of things I wanted to try and I was very stubborn and turned down some potential movies after my film fell apart at Sony Pictures. And then when Judd came through with 'Superbad' I really felt that I knew how to make that movie, and I had a possibly unique perspective on it. And the script was great-- and I thought, if we get the right kids for this movie we can make something good. So my approach now, when I get sent material -- is do I have something to bring to this, that the other guy wouldn't?

I don't want to have a production company, I don't want to produce other people's movies, y'know. I don't care that much about box office, except that box office success allows you to keep working and gives you more leverage. So I just look for things that I would be good at. Of course, there are the practical realities of trying to pay the bills and -- but so far, I haven't done anything that I didn't want to do. And I've certainly passed on movies that would have made me a lot richer.

Yeah definitely.

That's not to say that I'm so great or anything. I just know it would be a mistake for me to do something that I didn't really like, because I'd probably screw it up.

But what's been the challenge, I mean, I've been dying to get back to my own writing but it's hard because now I'm a Dad with three little kids. And it's hard to carve out any time--

Are you good with the discipline of writing? I know that you're writing something at the moment -- how are you with the writing process?

Um, I'm pretty good at, yeah-- the problem I have as a writer is that I am extremely hard on myself, so I lose faith constantly. So it's just a matter of-- the only way I can do it and feel good about it is just put in a lot of hours. I'm quite jealous of people who write very quickly and churn out things that they love immediately. But I think everyone has their own path.

Greg On the set of 'PAUL'

I don't know how true this is, but a friend of mine had a long chat with Joel Coen - of the Coen Brothers, last year. And he said they spend six months locked in a room, working every day, nine hours a day, and that's what it takes for them to get a screenplay they're happy with. That actually cheered me up. When you get hired to write a script in Hollywood they give you eight weeks to write it. And I can't write a script in eight weeks, not when I'm also taking my son to school and y'know--

With my writing I actually write extremely fast -- just simply because it keeps the self-criticism away. I try and get all the writing done before I allow myself the chance to be self-critical-- does that make sense?

Yeah I mean I've actually gone more in that direction where I write and write and write, and then go back and say 'okay, what's any good here?' That can be a little frustrating when you go back and read it and realise only 20% of it is any good.

Everyone's different, but I do believe in re-writing. I think what's hard when you work in the Hollywood system is that there's a lot of impatience, people don't have faith in the process, and so they want to see stuff before it's ready to be seen, so that's always a bit of a battle.

Going back to 'Adventureland', there are so many subtle moments in it and little lines -- and you almost don't notice them. And I find that so rare in Hollywood movies. And that's the thing I think I crave, as a viewer, more than anything. I like when I'm not force fed something. Whenever there's a film like 'Adventureland', I guess I'm just surprised that it managed to get made and happen, with all these subtle moments left in it.

Yeah. I tend to write with a real eye towards some ambiguity and dryness, and there's no clear villains or heroes. There's protagonists but y'know the protagonist will often be as flawed as the antagonist. And not surprisingly when people read my scripts they seem confused--- they don't understand that there's an actual plan behind it.

My first film, 'The Daytrippers', some people, when they read the script they just shrugged and didn't get it. But some of those same people came back when they saw the movie and said they really liked it, they just didn't see it on the page. And I had the exact same reaction on 'Adventureland'.

I tried to raise the money for it in this window in between the time 'Superbad' was done, but people were hearing about it and heard good things. And I felt maybe this would help me get some money for this other thing. I got a lot of confused reactions, people would just say things like, "well we liked the secondary characters, but I don't really care about the main characters" -- or they would say "we'd consider making this but it needs to be a lot funnier, it needs to be contemporary, why is it set in the eighties?" I just decided, y'know, I'm going to make this my way or not make it at all.

That's what I find amazing, I think, is that it got made in that way, you can sense it when you watch it. When I watched it last night, what I noticed more than ever before--- I watched it almost from the perspective of Joel's character.. there's something quietly hilarious about him the whole way through. He seems to be in love with Kristen's character, or maybe he's jealous of them (of Kristen Stewart and Jesse Eisenberg's characters; Em and James). It was these little subtle relationship things that, yeah-- it's just great that you got to keep them in.

That was something that I talked about with Martin Starr, but never really made explicit in the writing. That's the kind of texture of life that I remember, as opposed to turning it into melodrama.

I get disappointed that a lot of movies-- frankly a lot of movies that I'm told are great movies and get nominated for Oscars, often fall into the world of good guys and bad guys, white hats and black hats. That's fine, that can be tremendous fun -- it's just not that interesting to me. I prefer a movie like 'Win Win'.

That's a great movie.

It had very very flawed characters and that was interesting.

Looking back at your first movie, 'The Daytrippers' - what are you most happy about?

It was a bit of an experiment, in form, in some way. The idea was to take this very simple premise -- a wife is looking for her husband -- and then have all these interruptions and digressions throughout, that relate to issues of familial love or romantic love. It's kind of like, theme and variation. Some worked better than others. The movie was shot in 14 days for $60,000, it's as low-budget as you get.

But I feel like, y'know, some of those ideas of people who are in denial being confronted with their reality in a very stark way comes through. I think it's a movie that gets better as it goes along.

When I was in film school we didn't have digital video, so we didn't even get to shoot that much. So, I was learning on the job. I feel like there are some ideas in it that really still work. Now to me it's a curiosity, because it's like New York City pre-internet, like y'know, people often didn't even have cellphones back then. It seems like a hundred years ago.

I haven't watched it in a long long time, but the rights are reverting back to me and the producers, including Steven Soderbergh, so we're going to try and make a decent transfer of it finally.

Do you have anything else you can add onto it -- like footage or behind the scenes?

I'll probably get the cast together and interview them all. We'll have a little reminiscence about it, they've all gone on to do really interesting things. Campbell Scott and I-- we've spent a million years working on it, but we wrote a script together that I may try to get made in the next year.

You mentioned the lack of digital technology when you began working in film. I think now, although there's great opportunities for directors because of equipment, the other problem is that, y'know, independent filmmaking is flooded with a gazillion writers, directors and actors. How do you see the next generation of filmmakers standing out?

A movie like 'Daytrippers' got a very specialised release, there were only a handful of prints made and it would show from city to city, but it finally got to an audience that was hungry for indie films. I mean, it was a small audience but the right audience.

Now, it's true, it's very hard. As someone who loves movies and has very little free time, I can't figure out which fucking mumblecore movie to see.

Exactly, yeah!

A lot of them sound interesting but some are gonna be great and some are not. Someone who's talented might have like four really good movies and one not so good movie, and I see the lesser one and it turns me off.

But it's true, there is a glut. Like you, I do love personal movies and writer-directors. I do believe in auteurs, people telling their own stories or stories that are important to them. I can feel the difference.

With this technology, there are going to be a lot of people who want to get into movies just because it's such a great job, an interesting job. And there'll be a lot of competent people. But to rise above and be the next Woody or something -- it's really hard.

I think it's tricky. When I was thinking of whether or not to do 'Superbad', I was thinking, "Will I then only be seen as a studio director?" Not that I was like crazy about film festivals and Oscars or anything like that. But when I do something that's different, will they not see it? Will they not take it seriously?

I was offered various things after 'Superbad' but I thought I have to do 'Adventureland' - for me, for my own sanity, but also to kind of say: I do this too.

I'm interested in getting your perspective, linked to what we've been talking about, on something I always blog about. For me, I guess I kind of preach this idea that it's about putting in the work, like the 10,000 hour theory. Like when you look at Woody Allen and the level of work he put in when he was younger. So y'know, it's not so much just about having talent or luck, it's about that journey you have to take.

Woody has a quote. It's something like, 80% of success is showing up. I think really what he's saying is just about doing it. People I know who are really successful are pretty much the hardest working people.

For me, like I said, my writing is slow. I just have to make the hours and do it. And say no to things I'd like to do.

Before you go -- is there anything else that you're working on that you can tell us about?

The only other thing that I'm officially working on is the adaptation of a book, that I'm writing for Brad Pitt and Natalie Portman to star in. And we'll see where it goes. I know that it's a long shot that Brad will actually ever do it.

Is this for you to direct?

It's potentially for me to direct and it's for his production company. There may be a version of it where it's Natalie and someone else. It's a book she optioned. It's been hard because of time, but it's been really interesting.

Does that add a pressure, if you think you're writing for Brad Pitt, is it better to write cluelessly and just get on with it?

It's a little bit of a psych-out, because he's so insanely famous. And I feel the pressure of wanting to write something that would interest him. But I'm not letting it color it too much because I think I'd just---

Go insane.

Yeah.

You can see my articles about 'ADVENTURELAND' HERE, HERE, and HERE. You may also be interested to read my interview with LAWRENCE SHER, who was Director of Photography on "PAUL", which Greg directed.

Tweet

Care to share?

Tweet

Midnight In Paris

I loved it. I loved 'You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger', too. Here's my analysis of Woody Allen's career.

1965-1976 - Discovering himself.
1977-1997 - Genius. 
1998-2007 - A bit lost. Lots of changes to his crew, changes to his filming locations, uninspired writing. 
2008-Present - Wisdom. Assured genius.

The thing that's great about 'Midnight In Paris' is how funny it is. The concept is hilarious, and the dialogue is full of the Woody Allen magic that we have been treated to so often in the past forty years (I am not actually that old, so I can only assume it was a treat). But now it's different. Woody doesn't chase after your laughs. He was always good like that, anyway, he'd make a joke without making a joke -- but now he does it to the extreme. The humor is so quietly embedded into the story and characters that you could quite easily miss it. 

I've seen 'Midnight In Paris' twice, in two different countries. Woody Allen has a big European following. Curiously, when I saw it in Poland, there were no laughs from the audience. Yet they turned out in big numbers. Back in London, yesterday, the audience was smaller but the laughs were bigger. 

The film isn't about laughs though. It's about Paris. It's about not appreciating the present. Gil (Owen Wilson) is not happy in the present; but finds contentment is the 1920's, where he is mystically transported back to. Ironically, once he's there, he finds that the characters are yearning for the 1890's. Everyone thinks the past is some golden era. Everyone thinks that. My seven year old cousin thinks that.

'Midnight In Paris' isn't a totally new idea. Woody did it with his short story 'The Kugelmass Episode' - in which the main character finds a magician who can transport him into any work of literature. He finds himself dating Madame Bovary in the 1850's.

What he didn't realize was that at this very moment students in various classrooms across the country were saying to their teachers, "Who is this character on page 100? A bald Jew is kissing Madame Bovary?"

This exact same device is used in 'Midnight In Paris'. 

Woody fans will also see a similarly to 'The Purple Rose Of Cairo' - a film in which Mia Farrow's character, Cecilia,  falls in love with a film character, Tom Baxter, and also the actor who plays him, Gil Shepard. But it's not a rehash of ideas, these aren't remakes. Instead, we see an artist digging again and again into his fascinations, preoccupations and interests. That's what art is, finding your corner of the world and pounding away at it, constantly trying to bring meaning to it. 

I think that Woody Allen fans are relieved to see his recent output including this film and 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona', because it shows that the legacy isn't finished yet. Woody is still here. The true artists will always have times of failure -- and that's sure to be the case for Woody. 

'Midnight In Paris' is an artistic success as well as a box office one. Woody matters, his work matters. Cinema is full of the voiceless, the rehashes, the obvious. Mr. Allen represents something different, and there are few like him. Even the perceived auteurs working the studios today; for the most part, they don't take any risks -- here's someone who does, and we cherish him for it. 

Care to share?

Tweet

Extremely Excited - THE BOP DECAMERON

'The Bop Decameron'. I'm excited about this. 

Jesse Eisenberg is the star of two of my favorite films, 'Adventureland' and 'The Social Network' - and I've been dying to see Ellen Page do something as wonderful as 'Juno' ever since she made it ('Whip It' was cool, 'Inception' wasn't really about her.)

Page and Eisenberg together would be exciting enough. But it's also written and directed by a guy called Woody Allen. 

Woody Allen working with these two is music to my ears! I cannot think of better casting. And there's also Penélope Cruz, Alec Baldwin, Judy Davis (finally working with Woody again!), Greta Gerwig - and Woody is acting in it himself (first time since 'Scoop' in 2006)

Unlike most, I have still stuck by Woody over the years. 'Scoop' and 'Cassandra's Dreams' were truly awful, but most of his other recent efforts I've liked. Even the much derided 'Anything Else' and 'Hollywood Ending' -- I enjoy them both and have watched them many times. 

But here Woody may have struck gold. Coming off the back of 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona' and 'Midnight In Paris' (along with 'You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger', which I loved but the critics didn't) I can think of nothing better for Woody than working with two of the finest young actors in Hollywood. Eisenberg was destined to be in a Woody film; it's impossible to deny that the director has had an influence on Eisenberg; the mannerisms and acting styles are too similar. 

This is perfect perfect perfect. Of course, when I get this excited, it never works out. But this time, it just might...

Care to share?

Tweet

Woody Allen & His Creativity: 'Husbands and Wives', 'Manhattan Murder Mystery', and 'Deconstructing Harry'

Woody Allen is always intensely creative, and prolific. The style and content of his films vary greatly, yet he is often accused of repeating himself. If there is any truth to that, it's because he is a true artist. Just like a painter might have an affinity for certain colours, or a liking for certain subject matters, Woody Allen is exactly the same. His much derided English films were seen by many as him finally and forever losing his touch - but as he gets more used to working abroad, he gets better. Recent films such as 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona' and 'You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger' were fabulous films. 

His first European films were always going to be difficult -- Allen is known to struggle outside of New York, and he dislikes sunshine, and he prefers, where possible, to work with the same trusted crew members on his projects. When he came to Europe, everything was different.

You could say he came to London, and then other European countries, because these were the only places still willing to fund his films. And that would possibly be true. But another factor is that - Woody Allen always challenges himself. After 'Bananas' and 'Sleeper', he had a style which guaranteed success and fame. Instead of continuing in that vein, he made more literate films like 'Annie Hall' and deeper, dramatic films, such as 'September'. This is a writer and director who is driven by his vision - by his never ending creativity and determination to make a perfect film.

I find Allen's films from the 1990's to be particularly fascinating. He made a black and white noiresque comedy, inspired by the German expressionists called "Shadows and Fog", he made an all star musical starring Drew Barrymore, Ed Norton, Goldie Hawn and Julia Roberts, called "Everyone Says I Love You", and he even made a film that featured a Greek choir throughout, called "Mighty Aphrodite".

It says a lot about his body of work that those aren't even the films I'm going to talk about.

'Husbands and Wives' was Woody Allen's last film with his then long term girlfriend, Mia Farrow. While many of the films he made with her can undoubtedly be called masterpieces, it's my feeling that the intensely creative period in the years after they broke up were Woody's best (so far). In fact, I would say that period began with 'Husbands and Wives' which is hardly surprising as their relationship began to full apart in the middle of production. 

The film is an intense, high-energy film about relationships-- and it's a film in which Woody threw out all the rules of filmmaking. The opening scene is as fascinating an opening scene as you could hope to see. Everything is told in single master shots -- there's no cutting (to different angles) although he chooses to have sharp, abrupt cuts, moving the action along. Usually when you watch a film there are smooth and natural feeling edits, whereas here Woody is happy to cut mid-sentence to move things along. It's jarring at first--- but within minutes, you forget it's happening. Woody creates a new film language and makes us enjoy it, all in a matter of minutes.

It is also memorable because of the fantastic visual style created with his long term collaborator, Carlo DiPalma. The three films I am focusing on were, in the end, a great way to end his career and, as it turned out, his life. The camerawork is handheld, often shaky; in fact, a complete mess, much like the characters in the film.

"I've always been thinking that so much time is wasted and so much is devoted to the prettiness of films and the delicacy and the precision. And I said to myself, why not just start to make some films where only the content is important. Pick up the camera, forget about the dolly, just hand-hold the whole thing and get what you can."

-Woody Allen

But what could be limiting, for some director's -- was absolutely freeing for Allen and his actors. When you watch the opening scene, notice how you get a strong sense of what each character is going through. Cutting to different angles is, in essence, lying to the audience -- or at least, manipulating their attention. Doing it in this way allowed Woody to do it in a more subtle and compelling way. Watch this:




'Manhattan Murder Mystery' is my favourite Woody Allen film. His maturity as a comedic writer, director, and actor, has allowed him to makes films like this where the laughs are so constant, and so cleverly constructed and presented -- that most of the time you don't even realise you're laughing. Woody is the master of slipping in something funny and not drawing attention to it. The funny line is presented as straight as the straight line. And if you don't find it funny, he doesn't mind, because he's on to the next joke. I saw his most recent film "You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger" and found it quietly hilarious even though, on the surface, it isn't even a comedy. As a director he's a lot more self-assured than when he made films like "Take The Money And Run" and "Bananas". '..Murder Mystery' is a film that warms my soul and fills me up with smiles and laughs in a way no other film can. 

He has the best people at his disposal once again. He teamed up again with Diane Keaton ('Annie Hall', 'Manhattan',) and Alan Alda

Once again, Brian DiPalma shot the film handheld, in lengthy single takes. This gives the actors great freedom. In the scene below, we see the characters in a restaurant scene. And it's all played out in one shot. Much like with 'Husbands and Wives', look at how the characters communicate and relate to each other. There are subtle disagreements, jealousies, and we see Alda flirting with Keaton right in front of Allen's eyes. 



'Deconstructing Harry' is a film that shows Woody Allen at his experimental best. When you say 'experimental' about a film director, it normally implies some good and some bad. But here, Woody is so confident and competent in what he's doing that it feels completely natural. The sharp cutting techniques of 'Husbands and Wives' are used here again, but to even wilder extremes -- we see characters appearing in different parts of a room, we jitter back and forth in time, and we zip through scenes and dialogue in a lightning fast way.

"If I am dealing with a very neurotic character, I like to cut neurotically. I like the cuts to be atonal or asymmetrical and not balanced. So I just cut when I want to cut, and keep it moving very fast, and jump when I want to jump".

-Woody Allen

Here are some actors who appeared in the film: Robin Williams, Billy Crystal, Paul Giamatti, Stanley Tucci, Tobey Maguire, Demi Moore, Mariel Hemingway, Judy Davis, Kirstie Alley. The list shows his amazing ability to attract the best actors, as well as discovering new talents (Maguire and Giamatti were not widely known at the time). It is also a testament to the talents of Woody Allen than a major actor like Robin Williams was willing to take a small part in the film where he would be out of focus the entire time (you don't get to see Robin clearly at any point). 

'Deconstructing Harry' is so alive. At the time of production, Woody was well into his sixties -- yet rather than making comfortable and predictable films (i.e. guaranteed successes) he was making films like this. It is also a marked departure from his usual on screen character. Sure, there are massive similarities -- but there is also a coarseness and bitterness that we hadn't seen previously in Woody's films. The language and sexual scenes, again -- a world apart from films like "Annie Hall" and "The Purple Rose Of Cairo". 

It's hard to do the film justice in a blog post and a YouTube clip-- but having a watch of this scene will give you an idea of the creativity of Woody Allen. It reminds me of the first time I saw Chaplin's "Modern Times", it was full of rich ideas and comic developments. Here, again; we see many sides of Woody -- his finely tuned screen presence, his simple and unobtrusive camera-work, and his risk taking. This is the character Harry Block, high on pills, miraculously out-of-focus, and making great jokes about Hitler. You'll also see a favourite technique of his -- to have characters speaking outside of frame (he first did this when working with cinematographer Gordon Willis, who showed Woody how characters don't necessarily have to be in the shot to have an effect on the audience).


When writing about Woody Allen -- whether it's about his writing, his acting, or his private life, people are always looking to pigeonhole him. But the truth is, he's an artist with a diverse and eclectic filmography. He has bad films, average films, and masterpieces. And the good thing about his work is that, even if you hate what he just did, he'll be back with something again next year.

Care to share?

Tweet

Woody Allen - Wild Man Blues - where can I see it?

I have been trying to track down this documentary for a while now. 'Wild Man Blues' is a film that follows Woody Allen and his Jazz band to Europe on tour.

I desperately want to see it and was hoping that by posting it here; through luck, or coincidence or cosmic force, someone would pass by who knows how I could get a copy. If you have any ideas, please be in touch. If this works out, I'll start asking for other things, like three picture deals with DreamWorks.

*Update - I just realized this isn't so difficult afterall, It's available on Region 1. So I just need to import it.

Care to share?

Tweet

Interview With Actor, Writer & Comedian David Schneider.

If you live in the UK, chances are you recognize the face of David Schneider. If something funny is on the TV, it's likely that he's involved in it. The impressive thing about him is that he's also been sneaking onto the big screen and working with some of the best directors in the business such as Woody Allen and Danny Boyle.

As well as acting, David has also written numerous projects such as the feature film 'All The Queen's Men' and the BBC children's series 'Uncle Max.' I caught up with him this week to discuss how he first got started in the industry, how he deals with writers block -- and we took a closer look at some of his best work, as well as some of the stranger moments - for example, how Ikea flat-packing almost ruined a handshake with Woody Allen.

If you are a writer, an actor, or love comedy - this is essential reading.


How did you start out in the industry, you started doing stand up is that right?

Well my actual first job was as an actor at the National Theatre. I had done a bit of comedy at University, not so much stand up as sort of characters and sort of falling over really, visual comedy. But I did acting as well, and it was a very specific circumstance where they were doing a play at the National and needed a Yiddish speaking cabaret performer under eighty, and I was basically the only one in the country who fitted that bill.

So initially I was an actor and then I did stand up and because of the people I knew from University like Armando Iannucci. That's how I got more into comedy.

Was comedy always the thing you were interested in, or was it acting..

Yeah, well - comedy was always a thing I had a particular gift for, but I enjoy acting as well. But I suppose I've got a face for comedy shall we say.

Who are your biggest influences would you say, comedically?

The towering person who has influenced me is Woody Allen. He's the person who I love the most and have admired the most. And I actually got to work with him..

I was going to ask you about that. How was it? Did you get to talk to him much?

Well he's not a talkative chap.

I did get very excited about meeting people and saying "he doesn't even say hello to you," and "he just gets on with the job," but um-- I was really excited, and I shook his hand, which I shouldn't have done because I'd been doing Ikea flat-packing the day before and I had a blister on my hand. So I feel there was a bit of extra suction as our hands separated, which, knowing him, he'd be over-neurotic about.

But professionally it was marvellous. He gave me a bit of direction during the scene that I thought 'yeah, you know so much more than me'. And it's great, y'know, when you've been knocking around the business for a while to work with someone who clearly is in a Premier League to your League One.

I think as well, you may have been in the last film he'll act in. Because since 'Scoop,' I think, there's been no sign of him acting.

Yeah, no that's right. I mean he might have another go but I think 'Scoop' wasn't the greatest of successes, but I don't take that personally. But yeah, I hadn't thought about that.


You've written a lot as well, which I think a lot of people may not know about you. Do you see yourself as much as a writer as an actor?

Yeah I sort of do both and there's times when I'm doing more writing and times when I'm doing more acting. And the trick for me is to combine the two, I also direct as well. And y'know, it's not easy, and sometimes I think I should focus on one but I do enjoy doing both and get different things out of doing both, so um, I think - I don't know how I would advise younger people, but I think it's important to focus sometimes.

How is it when you've written something, like 'All The Queens Men' - how is it when it goes off and someone else directs that?

It's hard to let go of things but you have to learn to let that happen. I think part of, well -- my goal is to be like a Woody Allen who has total control and can direct his own thing. But then, what's great if you get someone who's good is they can add to your work and then there's things that you can't see that they can. And I think some of the flaws in some people who become so successful is that they don't listen to anyone else. They write and perform and sometimes direct their own stuff- is they don't, you know they don't have anyone to say "actually you shouldn't do that."

So that's the advantage of working with other people. It is great to work with other people if they're any good, but the truth of the business is sometimes you have to hand your work over to other people who have a different vision from you, shall we say, and that can be hard.

I remember when I was in a play that I'd written at the Hampstead theatre a few years ago - I was acting opposite someone who I felt wasn't delivering my lines quite right. And having that battle in my head, going 'I've got to concentrate on the acting', rather than suffering each time he delivered that joke slightly wrong.

That's more of a thing in comedy I'd imagine, right? Because comedy can be such a specific thing, in the way you write a line.

Yes, yes. It's more obvious in comedy, if a line is meant to get a laugh and it doesn't, it's more of a binary thing isn't it where you can actually sort of, one, zero, did it get a laugh or didn't it.

But I think in serious work, in drama, you can still think 'ah, that's drawn out.' So, certainly it's clearly in comedy but I think it applies to all genres.

It's really great to see when you get to work with a really great actor. Like, recently I was watching the scene in 'I'm Alan Partridge' at the dinner table, when Alan is trying to get a second series.

Yes.

And that was such a perfect scene, so funny. When you're working with someone like Steve Coogan and with such great material, it must be a lot easier for you I'd imagine.

I was so spoilt in the 90's because I worked with such brilliant people, such inventive people, and people who just knew comedy so well. So it was a joy - a joy to go to work and know that you might nearly lose control of your bladder or in two cases actually lose control of your bladder just through rehearsals.

Steve's a very generous performer. If the laugh is to be yours, he'll allow it. And he'll improvise something that is so true to the character, and that's just very exciting at the time. So I feel, y'know, those were great because I was with such talented people, you can be spoilt.

Looking at 'Uncle Max' that you did with the BBC - how did that come about?

Umm, well I wanted to do, before I was too old and falling to pieces too much, a visual cartoon, a human cartoon - and I wanted to do stuff for kids.

It happened quite quickly in fact, thankfully - because, y'know, I am getting older. So, yeah-- it's been great and I'm proud of what we did there and the kids seemed to like it.


Is this something you had more creative control over having written it and performed in it as well, or was there a director who....

There was a director, and I was very lucky in the directors that I had, in that they were very very competent creatively and technically. But also that they were infinitely patient with my control-freakery.

I mean I do feel that, y'know, visual comedy is a very specific skill in how it should look. I mean the thing that makes me tear my hair out on television is stuff like 'Britain's Got Talent,' which I confess I do like. When they shoot a dance act and they keep cutting to different angles and cutting close, but really they should just stick it on a wide shot and let it happen.

I would nag my director's sometimes to , um-- if I felt..

To keep it simple.

Yeah but you know, I was very lucky that I had two different directors but both of them were very talented and nice as well, so it was good.

Is Chaplin an influence for you? I thought 'Uncle Max' had a Chaplin quality to it.

Yeah. Well I love Chaplin but above all I love Laurel and Hardy. Chaplin had an innocence, and so do Laurel and Hardy but um, it was Laurel and Hardy I really tuned it to as a kid. I like to think 'Uncle Max' is a cross between Laurel and Hardy and a cartoon. Well, that's what I aim for I mean obviously we have such limited finances and I would never ever compare myself to them.

I love the timing. There are bits of Uncle Max where I think, like that timing before the shoe falls on his head at the end is just like a Laurel and Hardy bit. And Buster Keaton, I do like Buster Keaton.

What is the writing process like for you.. does it come easily or do you struggle with it?

Err, yesterday being the first day back at school, it was a nightmare. But if you'd asked me this any other day of the year I would say no no it's alright, I don't really have writers block. But having just suffered the January 4th moment, it doesn't always come easily.

But you've got to be excited about what you're writing. Sometimes you take commissions. I've been quite lucky that I haven't had to take commissions, I can generate my own work and then that's always something where I'm going oh that'd be great, oh I love this character, I love that idea. And as long as you're doing that, things tend to flow. If you're not enjoying your idea, that's where you tend to get stuck.

But no doubt writers block happens and there are times when you have to leave the desk. I know how to trick my writers block now. I just say "yeah, I'm just going to have a shower.." and normally the block relaxes then and then, in the shower I have an idea, and think oh that's funny.

Or during the night, which is tricky.

It's always frustrating isn't it. You get an idea and 3am and you know you have to get up and write it.

Yeah yeah, and you write it down and sixty percent of the ideas are awful, but that's just part of the territory I think.

So can you tell us a bit about what you're working on now?

Well I'm finishing a draft of a film I've wanted to write for ten, fifteen years and I've always been too busy, so I said "I've got to write this film." I don't want to give too much away but it's kind of Woody Allen meets Charlie Kaufman.

It's sort of early Woody Allen and romantic, but y'know, Charlie Kaufman so it's really quirky and plays with concepts of time and stuff. It's either genius or mid-life wank. And I really don't know which one it is.

Have you shown it to anyone yet?

I'm about to print out a copy and show it to my girlfriend, she'll certainly tell me if it's mid-life wank.

Risky.

I know yeah. She'll show me by packing her bag and going. I'm not sure, it's not going to be just alright. It's either going to be awful or brilliant.

Well, let's hope.. When you finish a screenplay what do you do with it then? I guess you've built up contacts through the years.

Well my agent helps me. And I've just got an LA agent now and she will hopefully take the script to people out there. With TV I know lots of people, y'know, yeah you do built up contacts through the work over the years. Getting an agent, a good agent is the main thing.

Can I ask - would you rather direct the film yourself on a small budget or get the giant paycheck and let someone in Hollywood have a go?

Oh my god [laugh], have you been in my head for the last six months just listening to what's going on? Yeah, that's a very difficult question.

I'm realizing that I'm not someone who can go round and hack people for money and schmooze. So I'd love to make it myself I will probably have to accept that's not going to happen. But yeah, we'll see. If it is genius, then I might be able to get some money behind me.

But you meet people who are directing their own films and they put three or four years of intense meetings and schmoozing to get the finance together. I don't know if I could do that.

Okay, well - finishing up really. With acting, there's so many, thousands of actors. When I'm making a short film even, and I put out an ad, I get hundreds of applications from actors - they really struggle to stand out, to y'know, show people what they can do. Do you have any advice for them?

I mean it is very hard. I mean, you've got to have self-belief. And you do have to take risks. If you find yourself going 'oh that person would never see me' don't- don't eliminate yourself from the casting process. let them eliminate you. Send that email that doesn't get replied to.

I think part of the battle for any creative person is um, not to reject themselves.

Oh, definitely.

'Oh there's no way that Director would ever see me.' So just go for it.

Not let your inner-critic put you down.

Exactly, I would certainly say that.

28 Days Later, I thought that was quite interesting. A different role for you as well.

Yeah, yeah I think; I was really pleased to get that because it was, y'know, about as serious as you can get. And because it was such an intense role I sort of feel it met, it almost came around the other dark side of the comedy moon. It was almost comedic. When you're that extreme, y'know -- one of my strengths is I'll always make a fool of myself very easily comedically. Y'know, for a good cause, not being a twat. And I think that's what you have to do as an actor. You have to be totally open.

I'm waffling now, but I was very chuffed that he gave me that chance and it was very interesting to do it, and see that I could do it. I mean, he's a great director (Danny Boyle), even though he's fighting all these monkeys and trying to film them, it was crazy. I was in good hands there.

What other aspirations do you have for your career now? What do you want to achieve?

Yeah I mean, it's always been my goal to be Woody Allen. Whether I'll achieve that I really don't know. I've always wanted to be in my own sitcom, and make a wonderful film.

So y'know, I'm working away at getting closer to that. But the thing is, that's part of me - doing different things. I do like chopping and changing, I get bored very quickly. So as long as I'm stimulated and keep working then I'm happy really.

One last thing - what's your favourite film?

Uhhhh, I guess the one I quote the most is 'Annie Hall', I guess. There's others. 'Brazil,' 'Crimes and Misdemeanours' I really like. 'Downfall' - that's hilarious, really should have had a laughing track. So yeah, there's some I really like. And 'Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind.'

Care to share?

Tweet

random thoughts at 1am on a saturday.

District 9 is pretty cool. It's actually not what I expected, but was cool nonetheless. The Purple Rose Of Cairo really is a perfect little film. I am uploading a short film privately to YouTube to get some feedback from people I trust. I'm tired of editing. I think I'm really going to indulge in some Woody Allen films in the next few weeks, I watched 'Hannah & Her Sisters' again today. Michael Caine kind of annoys me in it, but it's an amazing film. Woody really is a genius. I think you should all watch the documentary 'Tyson,' even if you don't like boxing. Diablo Cody is a good person to follow on Twitter. Looking at the analytics for my site, somebody found the site by googling 'is the kid from Home Alone dead?' Rest assured, he isn't. I will be announcing the book winners very very soon. I am going to make a gritty New York film soon. I am also going to write a rom/com, but don't worry nothing too cheesy. I love LoveFilm, what a great idea. (The equivelent of Netflix for most of you), I have some old Ernst Lubitsch films to watch soon, I think it's about time Tom Hanks went back to making special movies, not just mehh movies, I have some really exciting interviews coming up here soon, I need to sleep, I'm up early.

Care to share?

Tweet