Johnny Depp has been good to me. I realize that this sounds like an exaggerated form of name-dropping, but I should state that simple fact at some point, and I guess this is that point. I'm not sure when it dawned on me that he wasn't just being his charming self--which everyone will tell you is his standard demeanor to all--but he was serious about...More
From time to time, our regular routine of seeing the screening of a new film that will open in a couple of weeks and then interviewing the stars gets shaken up a bit with some studio event.
Last night, we “dined in the dark” at the Regency Hotel in New York City. It was arranged because we’re covering the Sony Pictures release of the Josh Hartnett film, 30 DAYS OF NIGHT. I’ve pointed out that this isn’t a “review” site, but I’m no sure that I’ve ever explained why there will be no advance criticisms of films here: simply put, it would be unethical. Film reviews by professional critics are connected to the actual opening of movies, with some exceptions for trade journals and national magazines. Amateurs may write what they want whenever they want, but professionals follow a code of conduct in the matter. So, I won’t discuss 30 DAYS OF NIGHT as a movie here except to note that the concept is that the town of Barrow, Alaska doesn’t see the sun for that length of time each year, and the plot has the town attacked by vampires who have discovered this loophole in their “sunlight means death” eternal life contract. As you can imagine, though, this was the perfect opportunity for the Sony folks to take the assembled press (those who don’t have a problem with the dark) and do what I gather is a growing phenomenon: serve a dinner in complete, absolute darkness where you can’t see the people around you or anything else. In fact, you have to be led into the room with your hands on the shoulder of the person in front of you and carefully seated at a chair you cannot see in front of a table you cannot see. As I understand it, the premise is that your other senses, especially taste in this environment, are heightened and that gives you a new, unusual experience. For me, it was clear almost immediately that my sense of smell was more acute, but I found that chicken tastes like chicken no matter under any conditions. Bitter tastes, like certain kinds of greens, and sweet tastes, even mildly sweet things like stuffing, are accentuated. Of course, this was not an experience that would be similar to you and your closest friends going to a restaurant that does this for the obvious reason that we were a disparate group of media types who all love the sound of our own voices more than the average person. If you were sitting next to someone with whom you share an intimate relationship or close friendship, it must create the interesting situation of being in the midst of the crowd but being alone and unobserved with them. I knew the people around me, almost universally, and they were good companions but it would silly to compare the one situation with the other. Suffice it to say, this was probably one of the noisiest “dining in the dark” experiences even in vocal New York. After it was over, I thought back to the exceptional experiences that came along with the interviewing experience—not as a regular event but all the more interesting because they are fairly rare. About fifteen years ago, we were all in London in the private dining area of a posh hotel restaurant where the meal is the full evening’s entertainment and where a dozen or so white-gloved waiters all removed the silver covers of the food in one swift clanging gesture from each plate. Three weeks before Katrina destroyed some of the oldest and most beloved places in New Orleans, we listened to a roving jazz band working their way around closely packed tables in a small, historic restaurant that washed away in the flood just days after that pleasant evening. On the day before Daniel Radcliffe became world famous as the kid who plays Harry Potter, we were at a castle-like house outside of London where we were surrounded by relics of the middle ages as we waited to talk with three scared kids now rich and world famous. Inside of the walls of our own casitas in Acapulco, we spent our time wondering why we were there to cover a film that almost all of us would eventually be forced to bomb in our reviews, PURE LUCK. Racetracks seem like appropriate places for the studios to use for films like CARS and TALLADEGA NIGHTS, and we went to North Carolina for one and to a motorway far outside of Chicago for the other, but with both presenting us with huge editing problems because—surprise—there was so much noise created by the cars. Still, we got to driven around the track by professional (and, although my ignorance of the sport kept me from knowing this at the time) and famous drivers. I’ve climbed the masts of the Black Pearl—the actual ship created for the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN movies; done TV standups in front of the Eiffel Tower to set up interviews with stars doing movies that were set in France; ridden the beautiful Waterwalk gondolas in San Antonio while there to interview the female stars of BAD GIRLS; eaten on the roof of the Edinburgh castle overlooking Sean Connery’s favorite hotel in Scotland for ENTRAPMENT; seen the original props for STAR WARS while on George Lucas’ ranch north of San Francisco; slopped through the mud of the outside locations for WAR OF THE WORLDS; and done interviews on beaches from the Bahamas to Hawaii, to name a few examples of activities that got us out of hotel rooms. Here’s what I’ve learned about all of them: they vary the experience of sitting down with basically the same hundred people who are household names during any given period of time but they mean nothing once you’ve done them. If I never do another, it means nothing to me. By this, I don't mean that it isn't important to me to cover the films and their stars, nor do I mean that I don't enjoy the experience for the most part. I mean, simply, that I've been there, done that as an individual, and doing another hundred interviews won't increase my own sense of self-worth. That's a "boy's" feeling, not a man's. What matters is the “craft” and (in some few cases, “art”) of making films. They last. They matter. To whatever extent I can elucidate that craft while I’m still doing this, it has value. Otherwise, it’s been fun, but it’s just a job. The movies will do just fine without me when that day comes, and I am content with that. To link to a site with reviews, interviews, free podcasts and other film-related matter--this week featuring Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck, go to: [b]www.whyy.org/flicks[/b] or paste this onto your podcast server: [size=3][color=yellow]http://www.whyy.org/rss/flicks.xml[/color][/size] |
|
0 Comments | |
|
Is it possible that we’re returning to a balance of Los Angeles and New York trips to do interviews with the various stars? We have three straight weeks in New York before returning to Los Angeles at the end of the month, and that is like a vacation for those of us on the east coast in terms of travel.
Sometimes, you get a better feel for how much things have changed when somebody who used to do what you still do comes back and marvels at the things that are the same and the things that are different. In the last two weeks, I’ve had my perspective improved by the reappearance of two friends who were regulars at these things for years: Kathryn Kinley, whom I first met when she was the entertainment reporter for WNBC in New York (and I remembered her for a national program she had done earlier), and Colin MacLean, now retired from the CBC (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) but still writing and covering both plays and films. Both have been out of the country for a while (Kathryn lived in Paris for a few years and Colin, of course, lives in Canada). Naturally, there are people that they still know among my colleagues and with the studios, but they are a bit shell-shocked by the differences. For example, prior to the 9/ll catastrophe, we split our year pretty evenly between travel to L.A. and NYC: oddly, we would go the west coast during the Spring and Summer, and we would go to the east coast during Fall and Winter—something that must have had to do with where the stars tended to be since it made no sense in terms of weather problems in travel (in fact, we almost always got trapped in New York about once a year during blizzards). There is no surprise in the fact that New York was avoided after 9/11. At first, it would have presented too many problems with which to contend (including some stars refusing to go there—since, after all, they themselves are high profile targets for someone with evil intentions). So, the fact that we spent a couple of years doing interview trips (junkets) in L.A. and other cities (including, sadly, New Orleans three weeks before Katrina hit) was understood. Still, it’s been six years now, and New York has the best security in the country. It makes sense to schedule interviews there again as more stars and others agree to appear in plays and are shooting films either in the city or within closer range than L.A. (like Montreal or Toronto, for example). So, it’s back to New York for this early Fall period and you can feel it in the type of films that we’re covering. Before mentioning those, however, let me look back to the last blog entry where I talked about how recent films were beginning to deal with the war in Iraq indirectly and how I expected it to get more direct in the near future. I didn’t expect to see a step forward within a few days, but I saw a screening today for interviews next week: Robert Redford’s LIONS FOR LAMBS is set right on the doorstep with an incursion into Afghanistan and the threat of a regional explosion; it has a powerful political point of view and a cast that includes Redford, Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, Michael Pena and Derek Luke. It will raise the temperature of the debate a bit when it opens in November. In addition to that movie, I caught two other screenings today and I’ll interview the stars tomorrow and the next day in New York. One is the eccentric but fascinating film starring Ryan Gosling called LARS AND THE REAL GIRL where a troubled but charming young man starts treating a blowup doll as a real person and an entire small town decides to go along with it. Then there was RESERVATION ROAD which is about a hit and run accident and how it affects the grieving family of a young boy and the one of the man who killed him; you could almost see the serious actors vying for these roles, and Joaquin Phoenix, Jennifer Connelly, Mark Ruffalo and Mira Sorvino sink their teeth into them. I saw THINGS WE LOST IN THE FIRE earlier in the week—yet another story of loss and survival with two major stars, HalleBerry and Benicio Del Toro, in roles that might add to their awards mantelpiece. I’ll talk about the other films in New York later, but the point is clear: As the leaves change on the trees in the east, we go to New York for a change in the type of movies we’ve been seeing; they are increasingly serious and sometimes spectacular (e.g., ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE). Somewhere in the next few weeks, the Oscar nominees will be come from the films just opened, now opening, and about to open. Just as the season smells like renewal and hope (perhaps because of the association with the fresh term of college that always had that feeling, so do the movies seem more like art than craft. To view a website with reviews, interviews, free podcasts and other film-related material, go to: www.whyy.org/flicks |
|
0 Comments | |
|
There are a few advantages to growing older. I'm told wisdom is one of those, but apparently that's something to which I still must look forward. Almost everyone learns from experience, however, so you notice when history begins to repeat itself (if not in detail).
What prompts this is the rash of movies either out or coming out this fall that deals with the Middle East and our involvement in Iraq. THE KINGDOM, IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH, and RENDITION quickly come to mind, although each takes a different spin. The historical parallel is Viet Nam. Films were a major factor in the increasing unpopularity of the war and the intimations of mistakes and even misdeeds that might have been associated with it. From MASH (which was set in the Korean War but was widely assumed at the time to be a comment on Viet Nam) which dealt with it indirectly to APOCALYPSE NOW and PLATOON which exploded in theatres with unambiguous force, you could feel the growing disconnect between the public and the war. I've made the point before that movies often presage large social movements. The civil rights revolution, the sexual revolution, and even the amorphous return to group selfishness lampooned as yuppiness were all foretold by films indirectly at first and then with full frontal force. So, what might we take away from the growing number of movies that use the turmoil in the Middle East as a prime plot point? At first, the three examples I mentioned seem to be about different things: THE KINGDOM is almost a "Law and Order" episode with Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner trying to track down the people who set off a bomb in an American compound in Saudi Arabia; IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH doesn't even take place over there but instead has Tommy Lee Jones and Susan Sarandon as parents trying to find out what happened to their son, recently back from Iraq; and, RENDITION stars Reese Witherspon and Jake Gyllenhaal in the story of a man who gets caught up in the fight against terrorism and has the misfortune of being spirited off to Egypt through the technique named in the title of our government passing along suspects to places who then torture them for information. Each of these films has something important in common, however: they're about what happens to people when they're exposed to war, especially a war that doesn't yield to easy answers or solutions. The warping of minds, principles, and actions has echoes of similar images and themes in those movies about Viet Nam. I've interviewed various people connected with these movies--stars and directors--and it won't work to dismiss what I suspect will grow from indirect to direct Iraq films as part of the Hollywood liberal bias. No, they aren't flag-waving stories of taking the next hill and sharing danger with your buddies, but they aren't diatribes against the military or even a particular political point of view (unless you're one of those who thinks any dramatic analysis of the effects of war and terror is traitorous--and it's hard to believe that anyone who takes cinema remotely seriously feels that way). Without ruining it if you haven't seen the movie, the last lines in THE KINGDOM strike at the core of the danger we all face in this new age of terror; also without ruining IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH for you, the search for the truth of what happened to the son of a dedicated military man (Jones) when he came back from Iraq runs into the effects of war; and, RENDITION quite simply comes from controversial but true cases in our all too real life of the moment. Still, we're at the indirect stage with these movies. If history is really a guide to the future, there are other films being written and, perhaps, made right now that will take us "in country" and the temperature will rise. Why haven't we already reached that point? Viet Nam had no 9/11 experience. Since there was a draft, people who opposed the policy of the administration conducting the war (first Democratic, then Republican) were sent into danger and this was a catalyst for all that followed. Nobody feared that the Viet Cong were going to come over and bomb innocent civilians in America; that was civil war without an international terrorist element, and so it was just the participants (or potential ones through the draft) and the family/friends of them that had a personal fear. Each of us remembers where we were when the World Trade Center went down and the combination of anger and fear that became a part of us. There are real terrorists who want to kill us. That changes everything. We are conflicted--however sure of our political opinions we are. Films are reflecting that. Watch them for the future. If you would like to see film star interviews, reviews, quick picks, and other movie-oriented material, go to this site where you can also sign up for free podcasts: www.whyy.org/flicks |
|
0 Comments | |
|
There was a confluence of events in Los Angeles that kept me from updating this journal on time. Mea culpa. I’ll get back to a midday update later in a few days.
In the meantime, I might as well describe a very different kind of film coverage that we do from time to time: attend, observe and participate in planned events to get ready for some high profile DVD releases. This time it was Buena Vista Home Video (about to be renamed Disney Home Video) for PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, AT WORLD’S END (not coming out until the holidays), the 40th Anniversary Edition of JUNGLE BOOK (coming out almost immediately) and MEET THE ROBINSONS, a lower profile release in between those dates. It was a three-day event right that ran right into the weekend when we interview the Rock for THE GAME PLAN—hence the lack of blog update time. The MEET THE ROBINSONS day was kept simple since we transitioned from DVD to first release on Friday, so I’ll just describe the other two. I’ll confess up front that it was the attraction of the first day’s activities that prompted my acceptance of the DVD folk to participate in a series of PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN-oriented…well, what should I call them…games/trials/fantasies. They took us to stretch of beach just south of Malibu where they had created a pseudo-pirate camp, complete with costumed singers and various areas of activities. Some of my colleagues went along with the whole concept and got made up as the rather scurvy Black Pearl crew, complete with outfits and make-up, including a rather impressive scar. I didn’t. Whenever I find myself in these situations, whether it’s being strapped into something that’s going to fly me in front of a green screen or just a staged still shot of me on roller board or wielding a sword in front of the Zorro set, I always keep my aged, white-haired, PBS-type look in order to emphasize the fish out of water humor of it—if any. Trying to look cool and not doesn’t strike me as wise strategy. Better to emphasize the incongruity. Anyhow, there we are on the beach in this pirate camp with costumers, make-up artists, speech specialists teaching some how to match the pirate talk of the move, and some staged sword fights with half a dozen stunt people. I decided to confine my bit to those things that take advantage of the contrast of my look and the setting, so I climbed a rope wall about thirty feet high while being videotaped and then slid down a long wire that was on top of that structure about forty yards to the ground. It probably looked surprising but wasn’t that hard, actually. Then, I set up a bit with the stunt people so that I could close out the piece with me talking to the camera while one of the “pirates” stalked me from behind and was just thwarted at the last minute from beheading me by another pirate diving in and driving him off camera while I looked distractedly back thinking that I heard something. Apparently, one of the crew who taped this part put it (perhaps with other moments) on YOU TUBE under some fake pirate name. He told me what it was but I almost immediately forgot and will, therefore, probably never see it there. I was pleased that he found it funny, but that was the end of my interest. The following day, the Home Video people took us somewhere that I have never been in all of the time I’ve been covering Hollywood films: the Disney Archives. This is an extraordinary place with over 65 million items, some of which are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars all by themselves (for example, one cell—that is, one of the still images—from SNOW WHITE drawn in 1937 was auctioned for half a million dollars). Walt Disney and his successors have created some of the most powerful memories in generations of children. If you value animated films at all, this is ground central for its history. It’s almost impossible to overestimate how many of these one-of-a-kind drawings, cells, paintings, models, etc. are worth. Perhaps this fact makes it clear: they intentionally located it in the middle of an area that is filled with unimposing warehouses and the address is not available to the general public. Naturally, it is protected by all of the modern security that the wealth of Walt Disney Studios can provide, and that’s a lot. It was an honor to be able to see—up close and personal—some of the actual artifacts that contributed so much to twentieth century film culture. Of course, it added to what I long ago learned is the astonishingly complex efforts that go into the best of animated features. We also interview some people who are responsible for maintaining and using the archives as well as the man who was the voice of the lead boy character in JUNGLE BOOK forty years ago. It’s the release of the Platinum Edition of that DVD that got us into the inner sanctum, but this movie has some historical value as well since it was the last one that Walt Disney himself personally oversaw. That, for me, was the tie-in to the incredible collection. Then, when all was said and done for the DVD activities, a friend and I went over to the Disney lot in Burbank and caught a screening of DAN IN REAL LIFE, and that was a good way to end a different kind of week. Since I’ll update again in a few days to get back on my weekly track, I’ll leave it there for now. To view or podcast for free a sampler interview with a film star, read reviews, or anything else, go to: www.whyy.org/flicks |
|
0 Comments | |
|
It’s fundraising time and the 50th Anniversary of my station, WHYY (Philadelphia). So, I have to squeeze everything else in and around the efforts to make the goal on the air, and I have to miss some film opportunities.
I’ve been doing this since 1979, over half of that half century that this PBS station has been on the air. It’s not my first choice of desired things to do, but it IS one of the things I do in life that is important because it’s something bigger than myself. Almost all of the money that has been raised over this period has gone into the programming, employee pay and the overhead of the station. That’s why it’s worth doing. Still, it meant that I have to stay in town and help make the final push around the most successful show (in terms of audience pledges during its breaks) in the whole fifty years: LES MISERABLES, the concert version. It requires a strange travel schedule to do that and not miss some other important things that are the subject of this journal: to interview Cate Blanchett for the obviously PBS-perfect role of the queen that won her an Oscar in ELIZABETH—this time, continuing the history, with THE GOLDEN AGE—I have to fly away very early on Sunday morning, talk to her in L.A. in the afternoon, fly back to Philadelphia on Monday, edit on Tuesday, and fly back to L.A. early Wednesday morning. I think we can call that “strange”. The only thing that really hurts is that, while I’m trying to convince viewers of the value of public television on Saturday, my friends and colleagues will be on a set visit for the new INDIANA JONES. Now, I’m not by nature a very jealous person. In fact, I’ve often been grateful that I don’t have that insecure need to backstab those of whom I’m envious not only because that’s wrong but also because those who do seem to be among the angriest and most unhappy of people. Having said that, I’m so jealous of those on that INDIANA JONES set visit that…well, I think the word I’m looking for is, “arrgghhhhh!”. There, that’s better. No, it’s not. I’m STILL jealous.  Perhaps I can exorcise my petty emotion by concentrating on what I like about films; it fits rather neatly with why I’m proud of public television (which most people refer to as “PBS”, although that’s really from seeing the logo come up on the screen in the same way they’re used to seeing “CBS” or “HBO” or whatever—when it’s not quite the same—but we almost have to use it or people might confuse “public television” with “public access television”). I’ll borrow a list from Aristotle in his treatise of why humankind (actually he said “man” because women in 4th Century B.C. Greece were far from equals) NEEDS drama. Here’s what he said, and it’s amazing how many of the elements can be attached both to movies and public television: 1. Humankind is mimetic (that is, we like imitate things, whether it’s in a primitive rain dance or on Saturday Night Live). 2. We like learning (by which he meant that we like having learned something about how the world works or why people do what they do. 3. Our favorite way of learning is through a story (whether it’s sitting around a campfire scaring ourselves about what’s out there in the dark or watching THE QUEEN). 4. We play (that is, we pretend to be people other than ourselves from time to time, both in games, in our imaginations, and in our “plays”). 5. Humankind is communal in that we need to get together with others of our kind (it was predicted that films would die when video rentals began, but we just made more money this past summer at the box office than in any other summer in history). 6. Ritual is important (in fact, that’s what “ritual” is: doing something in a formalized way to make it clear that it’s above everyday life—like funerals, weddings, Superbowl half-time shows, and premieres). 7. And, we NEED to be entertained—both the most obvious things about both movies and television (and the theatre) and yet the most underestimated. Even under the worst conditions, humans keep their sanity and their drive to survive by entertaining themselves between whatever struggle life brings them. So, there you have it. Films matter; so does public television, and the basic reasons were obvious to a man 2500 years ago who also managed to tutor Alexander the Great. To link to a website with reviews, interviews, free podcasts, and other film-oriented material, go to: www.whyy.org/flicks |
|
0 Comments | |
|
The Toronto Film Festival is here! 350 movies from 55 countries—all being shown on top of each other for ten days.
If you’ve never gone, you should (I suggested that over a month ago, and now it’s too late to get into much of anything—it’s that popular—even though it will run through the 15th). There are at least three categories of interest: films that will soon open but are interesting enough for someone—usually a studio—to take to Toronto first; films that will open later or in limited release—as when I saw BOYS DON’T CRY up there LONG before the buzz on it began; and, smaller films from around the world that passed muster and hope to be noticed and appreciated. I’ve seen three of the Warner Brothers movies, but I won’t comment on them (reviews are, for ethical reason, held for the film’s opening). They do have excellent leads in all of them, though: Jodie Foster in Neil Jordan’s THE BRAVE ONE with Terrence Howard in support; THE ASSASINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD starring Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck; and, MICHAEL CLAYTON with George Clooney in the title role. There is much buzz about a film that I won’t see until I’m there called EASTERN PROMISES. If the word is accurate, Viggo Mortensen is quite something in the main role with Naomi Watts and others making quite an impression. I’m looking forward to seeing it, and Viggo is one of the most intense interviews around, especially when he goes off into politics (he makes Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins seem reticent). Then, finally, I will go see a little movie that has gotten that art house kind of buzz, THE JANE AUSTEN BOOK CLUB. This isn’t a star-driven movie, but it’s always one of the side pleasures of the Toronto Film Festival to catch some film coming in under the radar, as has happened over the years—most powerfully, perhaps, with CAPOTE. Let’s take a look at some of the other major Toronto offerings: Are you looking for something sexy? Apparently, SILK is expected to do the trick, starring Michael Pitt and Keira Knightley. There may also be a few laughs mixed with love-making both happy and sad when Jack Black, Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Jason Leigh try out the Noah Baumbach take on it in MARGOT AT THE WEDDING. I’m not sure what to expect from LARS AND THE REAL GIRL when Ryan Gosling takes the term “guys and dolls” in a very different direction by falling in love with an artificial version of femininity. Woody Allen is doing Toronto with his newest, CASSANDRA’S DREAM, although I doubt if we’ll see him personally—perhaps his stars, however: Colin Farrel and Ewan McGregor. Looking for political controversy, then there’s RENDITION, with Reese Witherspoon starring in a story about sending terrorist suspects to places where torture doesn’t get the bad press it does here. If you prefer the Iraq war story on the ground, then a British film will give you that in BATTLE FOR HADITHA. If, like me, you’re glad to see the western return, then you won’t just be interested in the classic period form of the Jesse James movie, but you’ll be curious to see how the Coen Brothers put their unique spin on one set in the present day with Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem; it’s called NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. Best-seller readers will want to see how ATONEMENT is brought to the screen with James McAvoy and Keira Knightley—again--as well as how Emile Hirsch plays the rebel with a caustic turn of mind in the movie version of INTO THE WILD. Those of us who fondly recall the glory days of Thomas Jefferson’s administration are old enough to remember Michael Caine’s surprisingly versatile performance in the film version of Anthony Shaffer’s play SLEUTH (back in 1972) and so are particularly delighted that Kenneth Branagh had the bright idea to do a remake and cast Caine in the other major role with Jude Law taking his old part (Olivier was the Caine character then). Neat, but can it work beyond the gimmick? And there’s even a movie that seems aimed right at the PBS audience and my personal preferences in drama. Cate Blanchett once again plays the first Queen Elizabeth, starting off from the end point of the first film bearing the character’s name as the title, this time calling the rest of the story ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE. Since this blog deals primarily with interviews of film stars, I don’t want to give the impression that the festival is about Hollywood, although even the most elitist-minded supporter of it would admit that the stars and their products dominate the media and the public. What makes the Toronto Film Festival so amazing, though, is its eclectic range of movies from American big budget films to Canadian products to documentaries to short subjects to concert pieces to animation of various stripes and even revivals of classics. One of the most impressive parts of the experience is the depth of their collection of “foreign” films (which, strictly speaking, should include movies made in the United States, but doesn’t). They call that grouping “Contemporary World Cinema” and it’s the best of the best from everywhere. Of course, Bollywood has become a force and some of its stars are bigger in other parts of the world than are Hollywood’s. One example, apparently is Amitabh Bachchan, who is starring in a movie called THE LAST LEAR, and is listed in the actual Toronto Film Festival press releases as “the most revered star on the planet.” Who knew? Somewhere in all of this might well be the next Academy Award winner, either film or star. For movie lovers, it’s all a banquet. As always, you can view or podcast a sampler of my film star interviews or check out other movie-related matters at the following website: www.whyy.org/flicks |
|
0 Comments | |
|
I interviewed Jamie Foxx last weekend for a film called KINGDOM—sort of an action mystery. He’s an interesting guy who has been on quite a journey since RAY changed his life.
He may be in the middle of that journey with some of the effects being negative and others positive but evolving. The negative part mostly revolves around his distancing mechanisms. All celebrities find forced contact with the outside world a bit disturbing. It’s not that most people aren’t friendly to them; they are. It’s that there’s always someone who’s just a bit too friendly, and sometimes there’s someone who is threatening. As a result, they tend to avoid situations where they have to interact with the public and can’t just pass through as if on their way to some important point in the middle distance that has their concentration at the moment. The worst place for this is an elevator. The most common elevator encounter with a celebrity in Los Angeles is at the Four Seasons Hotel. It’s the most-used spot for interviews and other media events where stars must attend. The usual method of avoiding the forced pseudo-intimacy is to travel with a group of protectors, both in terms of personal assistants and the people connected with whatever has brought them to the hotel. Ideally, such a group can fill the elevator so there’s no more room or surround/converse with the star so no other conversation is necessary. Now, that’s not true of all celebrities. Some are so good at the quick quip and the easy escape line that they give the appearance of being delighted to have been there, but let’s give them a break: nobody wants to interact with everybody all of the time, no matter what your mood or whatever else needs your thought or attention. Non-stars (that’s the rest of us) forget that even the casual greeting gets old when a hundred people have expected you to smile and give them a moment of your time so far that day and a hundred more will expect the same before the day is out—and tomorrow is another day. That’s why I always do nothing more than give a quick courteous nod of greeting to a star—however many years I may have known them and however many times we may have spoken. I NEVER go up to their table at a restaurant or intrude on their privacy in any way. If they choose to engage me, then great. Otherwise, I want them to feel comfortable without having to worry about being nice to me. I’ve even flown from Los Angeles to Philadelphia with Samuel L. Jackson and a couple of times the opposite way with the great character actor David Morse without attempting any chatter beyond the natural initial pleasantries. Sam told me—after about five hours of flying with each of us minding our own business, having chatted for about fifteen minutes before I told him that I was going to give him some quiet time for the rest of the flight—that he thought I was the perfect flying companion. David was nice enough to suggest we get seats together after the first flight together. So, I understand the need for stars to have a little space of their own without all of us wanting a piece of them. You may have forgotten that this all started with my saying that there was a negative reaction from Jamie since his fame skyrocketed with the Oscar and all the rest of the deserved acclaim for RAY. The reason that I just went through all of the above stuff is that he now has an assistant hold out his hand in a stop motion on the elevator when anybody else attempts to board with Jamie on it. That’s being a bit blatant. Elevators, after all, are public conveyances, not private rooms. It was apparently done to a few people last weekend at the Four Seasons, and it wasn’t well received. I fear that I’m just enough of a maverick that I would get on board in spite of “the hand” and ignore whatever came next. I believe in privacy, not intimidation. Having said that, I find Jamie Foxx to be an excellent interview and a fascinating analyst of what works for him as a performer and actor. He needs to be able to improvise in his roles because, as he points out, he has been a standup comic for so long that those skills are an important part of his tools of craft. I think it was in my interview with for ALI that I first appreciated how thoroughly he thinks through his character’s motivations, quirks, and habits. It’s deceptive. I can’t pretend to have predicted that he would become one of our finest serious actors based on his earlier comedic work. I would not have been surprised that he could create an “impression” of a character like any excellent sketch artist can do, but I didn’t realize that he would be as complex as he is. And that might be the answer to the current state of his celebrity journey. A more shallow person would just ride the wave of all doors opening to you and any action or desire being facilitated, but it must be harder for a deeper person to perceive the discrepancy between all of the fawning and the exploitation. Major stars are used as much as they use, and that is something that may take some time to accept and assimilate. Jamie Foxx is still getting used to all of it. I wish him well. As Owen Wilson learned, things aren’t always as easy as they appear to be on the surface. To view or podcast a film star sampler interview, go to: www.whyy.org/flicks and download either the current entry or an archived one. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
My period of glorious non-travel is over, however, as I fly off to L.A. for a Jamie Foxx movie and a Tommy Lee Jones film.
The flying world changes after the Labor Day holiday weekend: people go back to work, to school, to their regular lives, and they let those of us who travel professionally to do so without quite so many bodies crowded up against each other, enduring the glorious global warming summer of 2007. But, wait a moment… Didn’t I just say that we were going to interview Tommy Lee Jones? And (this must be wrong) can it be that I’ve never told you what it’s like to interview Tommy Lee Jones—not once in the two and a half years I’ve been writing this blog? No, I haven’t (I checked the archives)! My, my…well, children, turn your lights down low and try to imagine. First, though, I have to make something clear: Jones is an excellent actor. He’s also well-read and esoteric in his interests. He graduated cum laude from Harvard (where Al Gore was his roommate) with a major in English literature. He not only loves the life of an eighth-generation Texan ranch owner, but also he loves polo and invites the Harvard polo team to practice at his beloved spread outside of San Antonio. It took him a long time to become a star, but he got his first professional job (with no acting classes) so quickly after graduating from college that it was written up in Ripley’s Believe It or Not, and he worked on stage and on TV for years. His professionalism is his pride, as you’ll soon hear, and his deadpan delivery is not for performances only. In fact, he is quoted as saying, “I do not have a sense of humor of any recognizable sort.” True…very true. Of course, he won an Oscar as Best Supporting Actor in THE FUGITIVE, and he wrote the line that many of us found crisply summing up the single-minded mentality of his U.S. Marshall character when the pursued Harrison Ford character yells at him, “I didn’t kill my wife” and Jones has his character reply, “I don’t care.” He also speaks Spanish fluently, and he won deserved plaudits for his 2005 film, THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA, as well as the Best Actor award for that movie at the Cannes Film Festival. The movie that we are covering is IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH where he plays a father trying to discover why his soldier son has disappeared, with Susan Sarandon and Charlize Theron. Frankly, I expect an excellent performance from all three. Now, having made it clear that I respect Tommy Lee Jones, I feel free to note that he is not exactly what you call an easy interview. It all started pleasantly enough. I had just seen an excellent movie called COAL MINER’S DAUGHTER with Sissy Spacek at the top of her career playing the country singer Loretta Lynn and Tommy Lee played her good ol’ boy husband “Mooney”. He took that supporting part and embodied it, virtues and vices intertwined and fascinating. Tommy Lee Jones was a name that I would remember. Looking back on it, that might have been the beginning of what was to come because many people assumed this prep school Texan who went on to be the joint model with Al Gore (according to the author, Erich Segal) of the Harvard hero of LOVE STORY (in which Jones had a small part) was playing himself more than acting. No professional likes his craft taken for granted. I don’t really know, since I hadn’t started interviewing stars then (1980). It was nine years later when I first sat down opposite him for a film called THE PACKAGE with Gene Hackman. We were in Seattle, and I went from Hackman’s room to Jones’—thinking that they would be somewhat similar, being two actors with an economical, underplayed style. Hackman was contemplative, pleasant, and a good story-teller. He had put a lot of thought into what produced good acting (his mantra was “relaxation”), and he enjoys talking about the craft. So, I followed up on those themes with Tommy Lee when I went into his room and got nowhere. His answers were short, almost curt, and he didn’t seem to like to think about his acting, much less talk about it. I left thinking that I must have phrased the questions badly or that I was overconfident because the Hackman interview went so smoothly. Others had the same reaction, though, so I knew it wasn’t just me. Still, everyone has a bad day, right, and it rains a lot in Seattle. Right… Two years later in 1991, we’re in New Orleans for JFK with Kevin Costner. Jones played Clay Shaw—very much against type and to much critical acclaim. To be honest, I don’t have a clear memory of any awkwardness, but I wasn’t expecting anecdotes this time, so it passed without much pain. It was the following year that it all went south. The film was UNDER SIEGE, and I happened to be viewing the film in a full audience the night before the interview when Tommy Lee came to the screening and sat a few rows in front of me after it started. The audience really got into it, whooping it up and talking back to the screen. So, I decided to pull out all of the stops in my interview. I read about his love for Faulkner and remembered seeing him in a TV show based on the author’s story called BARN BURNING. He had been both charismatic and scary in it, and I decided to use that to open him up. It got off to a good start as I asked him if he still thought highly of William Faulkner’s works, and he said that he often read them over again when he was resting in his trailer. I mentioned BARN BURNING and then tried to get him to relate his intellectual side to his acting. That’s when I found out that Tommy Lee Jones has two answers to all questions about his film work: if you try to get him to talk about his character, he simply says that people can buy a ticket and see it; if you ask him about how he develops his character, he says that he’s just a professional who comes in, does his job, and goes home. Very revealing… J I found this approach rather frustrating, so I decided to be just a tad sarcastic. Tommy Lee is about six months older than I am, so I knew he would be familiar with a popular TV western character from the sixties called “Paladin”—Richard Boone, all dressed in black who took on dangerous jobs with the motto, “Have gun, will travel.” Jones was dressed in all black, so I said, “Well, Tommy Lee, I guess you’re a bit like Paladin then.” He replied, “I’m not Paladin.” “No,” I admitted, “you’re not Paladin, but you dress all in black and, like Paladin, you just go and get the job done.” “Yeh,” Tommy Lee sort of rasped, “but I’m not Paladin.” I thought that it was time to bring this to a close, so I said, “Let me get this straight, now. You dress like Paladin. You act like Paladin. But you’re concerned that the viewers might not understand that you’re not ACTUALLY Paladin?” I think I got a smile. I know I left the room. Over the next few years, there were more moments of merriment like this for HEAVEN AND EARTH, THE FUGITIVE, NATURAL BORN KILLERS, BATMAN FOREVER, MEN IN BLACK, VOLCANO, SPACE COWBOYS and more. I can’t say that I ever found anything that he seemed to really enjoy discussing outside of his ranch, horses, and Native Americans (one of whom was his grandfather). The only time he clearly was making a major effort to be charming was for MEN IN BLACK 2—a film in which he was paid $20 million and a percentage of the gross. Still, it felt like he was working at it. The continuing feeling in these interviews is that anything could happen at any time, and it might not be pleasant. He has stopped interviews, I’m told, with the comment that the questions were too stupid to continue or simply made some sarcastic comment about them and basically shut down. I haven’t seen that myself, but there were two moments that live in my memory of a slightly different nature. One was when the person representing the movie studio was sitting outside of camera range with some schedule or other business on a couple of sheets of paper. As she turned one page over to look at the second page, Tommy Lee suddenly took his eyes off of me and yelled at her, “If you move that paper once more, you’re out of here.” She froze, halfway through the page turn, until the interview was over. The second occasion was during an interview when we were making a little progress on a subject that seemed to interest him slightly and I saw his eyes flick away from mine over my shoulder. I remember just having time to think, “Oh, oh…”, when he barked at the camera person, “Quit turning that dial right now, or you’re finished here.” I think the technician was focusing. So, while the rest of the world is saying goodbye to August on the last big weekend before Labor Day, I’ll be interviewing Tommy Lee Jones. He’s a Hell of an actor. I just wish he would talk about it. To view or podcast a sampler film star interview, just go to: www.whyy.org/flicks and select the current one or any from the archives. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
This is the second week of my August timeout from travel, and it has been heaven. I've even had time to drive up into the countryside less than an hour from my house where the rolling green hills and woods go on for miles, looking more like Ireland than anywhere else.
I must return to the crowded skies next week, but there are still some moments of blessed relaxation until then, so I've selected my second entry from the first weeks of this blog two and a half years ago. This is the story of my acting career in films (not counting the extra work in FANTASTIC FOUR). I thought I should get some personal knowledge of what it's like on a movie set when you're part of it, and so I got permission from my station to take a bit part in AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS with Billy Crystal, John Cusack, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Julia Roberts. Here's the tale--easily the favorite one I've ever told. It's long but rather amusing, especially to me:  Flashback MOOD: Pensive It was just another September afternoon as the millennium changed when the phone rang in my office at WHYY-TV, Philadelphia: “Hello…Patrick Stoner.” “Mr. Stoner, my name is Libby Goldstein. I’m a casting director in L.A. and I have in front of me a script with your name in it.” My protective instincts immediately snapped into place as I tried to imagine what this meant—a genuine call from a real casting agency, a joke from a friend, a setup from some scammer, or a mistake. I rolled through all of those possibilities in a couple of seconds and said, cautiously, “Really. How unusual.” She didn’t pause. “Yes, I have to be honest, Mr. Stoner. I didn’t know who you were, but as I was going over the script, someone in my office here said, ‘you know, that’s a real person.’” “Uh huh,” I volunteered, briefly noting that it was rather silly of me to be flattered that “someone” had noticed that “Patrick Stoner” was a “real person.” “Yes,” Ms. Goldstein says, “again, I apologize for not knowing who you were, but I do now, and I thought that I would just call and see if you were interested…well, that is, if you WOULD be interested if the director, Joe Roth, decided to go that way…in playing yourself. You understand I can’t speak for him. I just thought I ought to find that out ahead of time.” Still wondering what this was all about, I dithered: “Well, I don’t know…I would have to read the part…see what it was…and I would need to get permission from the station…” She jumped in and said, “Sure, sure, I understand. Roger Ebert has already turned us down about his role but Larry King has accepted his.” This threw me a bit. If true, this wasn’t just some little film and--wait a minute--hadn’t she said “Joe Roth” was the director—the former head of Disney Studios?! So, I artfully equivocated, “Ah, so Ebert had some qualms, eh?” “Yes, he did, but Larry King accepted. Billy wrote it. Do you know Billy Crystal personally?” Clearly she DIDN’T know me, my omnipresent ego thought, but I sniffed, “I’ve interviewed him for over a decade, so, yes, I think it’s safe to say that.” I winced at my own insecure pomposity. After all, having a filler that appears on a few dozen public television stations is respectable, but hardly likely to make you famous. So, she read me the part. It was short—just a couple of short paragraphs, but I would play myself interacting with Billy Crystal, John Cusack and Catherine Zeta-Jones. Still, I was hesitant, so I said that I would have to check it out with the powers that be at WHYY to be sure it was ethically acceptable. Libby said, “Fine. You check it out on your end. I’ll check at my end to see if Joe Roth wants to go in that direction and get back to you.” So, that’s how we left it. I ran the idea by the news director and a couple of others, but I didn’t get too serious about it because I figured that I would never hear from her again. And I didn’t! Well, I wouldn’t have, at any rate. Then a friend of mine calls in late December and says, “Hey, guess what, I got offered a small part in that film they called you about a couple of months ago, but when I said that to the casting agent, she said, ‘Oh, yes, but Patrick Stoner turned us down.’" I squeaked, “What? Jim, I didn’t turn them down. They said that they would call me back. When you talk to her again, tell her that I’m interested.” An hour later, I get a call from Libby Goldstein. “You said that you would call if you could do it.” “No, I didn’t,” I said with more than a little enthusiasm, “I said that I would check with my bosses in case you got back to me.” She then sounded apologetic, “Oh, we seemed to have talked past each other. I’m sorry. That part with your name was reassigned to another media person, Byron Allen, using his name, of course…but there’s another, smaller part I could give you, if you’re interested. It’s just a little spoof character, but if you want…” I thought about it for about five seconds and said, “Sure. Why not? It should be an interesting experience, in any case. Sorry for the confusion.” That’s how I ended up as “Bob” as in Bob and Ken at the Multiplex, or—as the description in the script says—“two Siskel and Ebert wannabes.” Sam Rubin, the L.A. TV entertainment reporter, someone actually “known”, would be “Ken.” Things then happened fast. One week later, I heard the announcement over the station intercom, “Mr. Stoner, your limo is waiting to take you to the airport.” Limo? For three lines—the last of which is spoken together with my partner? SAG must really know how to negotiate. I already knew my ticket was fully paid first class. As a frequent flyer upgrader, I had never actually seen a fully paid first class ticket to L.A. before; I noticed that it was roughly the same amount that put me through my first year of college. It all seemed more than a little bit ridiculous, given the insignificance of my part. Still, I flew across the country, where another limo took me to the Four Seasons Hotel where they had booked me for a WEEK. A week??? I gather that they wanted the flexibility to cancel my shooting day at any time and reschedule, and this was their way of guaranteeing that I would be available. Still, when the limo took me to Sony Pictures Studio (which was the same lot as the grand old MGM Studios in the Golden Era of Hollywood), and I saw my name on my compartment in the actors’ trailer, I REALLY wanted someone to share the experience. I called a few friends on my cell phone, just to be sure that this was as silly as it was fun. Then I got together with my friend, Jim, who was shooting his little moment at the same time, and we spent a fair amount of time in makeup having conversations on the order of “Do you believe all of this for what little we’re doing?” “No, do you?” “No, it’s ridiculous, isn’t it, Jim?” “It IS, isn’t it, Pat?” We were amazingly witty about the whole thing. Then, we took our madeup, costumed selves over to SoundStage 6—where the likes of Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, Clark Gable, and Cary Grant once had slightly larger parts. John Cusack and Catherine Zeta-Jones graciously greeted us. We watched them do their sides of several scenes. Then, we broke for lunch. Lunch on a movie lot is enjoyable because each major film has a bit of a contest trying to outdo the others in the quality and quantity of their catered meals. In this case, the AMERICAN SWEETHEARTS food fought the PLANET OF THE APES spread. I would have been happy with either. We sat around with our “colleagues” and tried not to ruin our makeup or our costumes. So far, this was a fairly easy job. After lunch, it was our turn. The five or six “media” types either playing themselves (like Byron—grrrrr, in the part written for ME) or our spoof characters did our bits (and I do mean “bits”) fairly smoothly. John and Catherine stayed behind the cameras all afternoon, reading us lines—a thoughtful gesture, since any assistant director could have done that in the case of our tiny parts. By the end of the day, we completed everything, had our pictures taken with Catherine and John, thanked Joe, and “wrapped.” So, although we were paid for a week, we were now through. Since three of us were going back to the Four Seasons for the night, they got us a van to take us back rather than use individual limos. That led to one of those behind-the-scene incidents that say much about Hollywood. It was raining—hard. We returned our costumes and jumped in the van. Then some Sony Pictures person came up and asked the van driver to take one of the extras—what they call “atmosphere”—over to the parking facility since the rain was so hard and he had numerous costumes with him (extras often use their own clothes). The driver replied, in a tone not heard out of period shows with various pompous aristocrats, “This is an ACTORS’ van.” The studio rep said, “Yes, of course, I know, but it’s just to the parking facility about 100 yards away. It’s raining so hard.” While this discussion was going on, the poor creature referred to only as “atmosphere” was standing in the pouring rain with his hands full of clothes. The driver continued refusing to let him on board, but the studio person eventually cajoled him into lowering himself enough to permit this non-person into his van. The extra got on without saying a word and fumbled his way to the back of the van, dripping wet. We drove down the studio street to the parking garage, and the driver stopped and said, “There’s someone in this van that wants to get out here, I understand.” He made a point of paying no attention as this poor guy crawled over the seats and flopped out into the rain before finding shelter in the garage. For the next several minutes, the driver complained about an extra being allowed inside of an actors’ van. It was VERY strange. Bigotry comes in all forms and in the least expected places. Everything just reversed itself the next morning and I flew home and got out at the station to get used to life without a limo driver. I’m still adjusting. There was nothing left to do, except wait to see if my miniscule section ended up in the final film. I mean, if they could cut Kevin Costner from a host of flashback scenes in THE BIG CHILL so that he disappeared from the film except for a brief coffin shot, they probably could release a movie starring Julia Roberts, Billy, John and Catherine without the support of my crackerjack performance. Ironically, since the Hollywood chick flick plot takes place in large part at a publicity junket, it was AT the AMERICAN SWEETHEARTS junket that I saw that my breathtaking fifteen seconds were in the film. (Warhol was wrong about everyone’s fame lasting fifteen “minutes.”) Byron was good. I forgive him. It was also my opportunity to interview my “costars.” I began with Catherine, a lady with a good sense of humor who likes older guys—sort of the perfect woman. I tried to throw her by asking her why our “intimate” scene had been cut. “Tell me the truth, Catherine,” I said with an investigative reporter’s intensity, “Was it Michael who got it removed from the final cut? I realize it was very hot, but still…jealousy, perhaps?” She replied, “Well, Pat, perhaps Joe would have left it in if you had used a body double.” I don’t like Catherine anymore. It was Billy Crystal who made the whole thing happen, and it was Billy who made me feel the best during my interview. You may see what I mean if you view the FLICKS interview in the archives at [url=http://www.whyy.org/flicks]www.whyy.org/flicks. Am I glad that I did it? Sure. On one level, it was just a silly, if interesting experience. On another, for a film lover, it was an honor doing even a bit part where such great artists have performed and such great art has been created. People will be nice to me about it, and I will enjoy their teasing. I will have far more fun than the part deserves. Now, if I could just stop waiting on street corners for my limo to arrive. This was one of my first journal entries back in April, 2005 and--naturally--not read by many at that point. The followup to it was when ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY did a cover story on AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS (July 20, 2001 issue) and mentioned that I had turned down a larger part on principle; it was a surprising, rather gratifying coda to the experience. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
|
It's the dog days of summer.
I've written that line in the middle of August ever since I began this blog about 120 entries ago--so back in 2005, to be exact. It's true in more than one way this year. Two things are "dog-like" this time: the weather and travel. It's miserable on the east coast where I live and about the same on the west coast where I go; and, vacation travel is now a misery because not only are more people flying with less flights but also the security situation creates a living Hell in most airports around the country. So, I'm more than a little grateful than I can use the next two weeks to get to the cool and not fly. I'll have to do some work in Philadelphia and New York, but I don't have to join the teeming, suffering masses at the airport until the final weekend of August. This is as close I come to a vacation. With that in mind, I thought I would use this week and next week to look up an early entry in this blog--from over two years ago when I started it. Few people read it then, so they will be fresh stories to most and they are mildly amusing as well. So, here's the story of my very first film star interview that got me into the mix of being invited to do these things, now over two decades ago: The Beginning MOOD: Anxious It was about twenty years ago, and I was rather scared. I was invited on my first junket, and I was about to interview a star who was being interviewed by a star. "Invited" is the key word there. I had actually done a junket interview earlier when a very nice assistant for Warner Brothers (Stu Gottesman by name and now a well-respected honcho at Paramount Pictures) took pity on the idiot fledgling media person who showed up at the junket and asked to interview Chevy Chase; not only did he take pity, but he actually arranged for me to do an interview, and it was the tape from that moment that scored me my first invitation--to Orion Pictures' JUST BETWEEN FRIENDS. You know what I mean by a "junket," I assume. That's the gathering together of some forty or so TV people from all over the country and Canada to interview the stars and usually the director about a movie that will open in a couple of weeks after that. That list is vetted thoroughly: they know your audience size, your demographics, your standing with other studios and their invitation lists, etc.. In other words, only an idiot--that would be me in the case above--would show up and think he/she could just stroll in and interview a star without an invitation. Anyhow, thanks to a generous act from that young assistant working the Chevy Chase film, I managed to get invited to the Orion movie starring Mary Tyler Moore--my childhood ideal of American femininity. So, there I was--waiting in the hallway outside of her interview room and who is the interviewer who went in just before my turn: Roger Ebert! Yes, even then, he was about the most famous critic in America, along with his late partner Gene Siskel. They had started on PBS (which is my area) and then decided to go for more money and fame by syndicating. Now, I was about to go in and interview Mary Tyler Moore right after Ebert. For a film critic and, more importantly, film lover, this was about as good as it gets. The door opened and it was my turn. I stepped into a room filled with TV equipment and little room. Roger Ebert didn't exit right away. Instead, he was standing up and talking to Mary Tyler Moore as she sat. I wanted to wait and give them time to wrap up the conversation, but the floor manager waved me, rather impatiently, to come in and sit in my chair. I went over and squeezed as delicately as I could behind Roger and sat down as they miked me. I still remember what I was thinking: "Well, here I am. I'm in L.A. about to interview one of my favorite actresses, about to do exactly what Roger Ebert has just done. This is really a milestone. This is really cool." I was thinking that, but I was looking at the back of Roger Ebert. Things weren't moving along quite as fast as I expected. Some of the excitement was beginning to dim; indeed, it was getting harder and harder to feel important from that particular position. Then, finally, around the time that I was thinking, "Maybe there are aspects to this that aren't as glamorous as I assumed," Roger moved aside and, just like the scene in 2001 when the heavenly body came slowly into view, there was the smile of Mary Tyler Moore lighting up my previous shade. And, then, as her eyes met mine, it was just about as good as it gets. What I could never have predicted those two decades ago was how many strange, wonderful, appalling, and fascinating moments were to come. Followup: That was written a couple of years ago and what I didn't mention at that time was the irony of how Roger Ebert talked about junkets after Gene Siskel died (his first partner, who often teased him about doing junket interviews, although Siskel also did an occasional one since I remember sitting next to him in Las Vegas watching Shirley MacLaine perform the night before we interviewed her for POSTCARDS FROM THE EDGE in 1990). Ebert began to assert that he and a small number of others were the only people who should be doing interviews with movie stars and started condemning the very interview system that he once defended. He even tossed around accusations of people being paid for newspaper quotes and other bizarre things, although his own experience must have made him aware of how ludicrous and easily revealed such things would be. Fame has an erratic effect on people. I could never hear about his accusations without remembering my first junket slipping into that chair behind his behind. Having said that, and hoping that the current state of Roger's health improves, all of us in this business should never forget that it was Ebert and Siskel who opened TV up for longer, more complex, and more valuable reviews of films. Their success changed things forever. We owe them and always will. To link to an interview/podcast of a film star interview sampler, go to [url=http://www.whyy.org/flicks]www.whyy.org/flicks and follow the directions. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
IGN.com |
GameSpy |
Comrade |
Arena |
FilePlanet |
GameSpy Technology
TeamXbox |
Planets |
Vaults |
VE3D |
CheatsCodesGuides |
GameStats |
GamerMetrics
AskMen.com |
Rotten Tomatoes |
Direct2Drive |
Green Pixels
IGN RSS Feeds
Post a Comment