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
It's the week of the Fourth of July holiday, and neither you nor I should be spending it on blogs.
So, since next week will be all about the HARRY POTTER movies--the new one and the ones past and future--I'll sum up the year in film in a few words and leave it at that: The Great Recession scared moviemakers into releasing very little beyond films aimed at teenagers (and just beyond) and family films (especially animated, when possible). Few, if any, of the movies you've seen in the first half of 2009 will be mentioned in the awards season. Don't assume that people with positions of authority in Hollywood aren't scared; they're almost universally smart (with the usual range of other qualities), and they know that box office figures aren't enough to satisfy the corporate bean counters above them who are reporting to people who prefer cutbacks to compliments. We have months to go before improvement begins. In the meantime, those on all sides of the business need to look past the near future and make sure they are well-positioned as the century hits its teenage years. Meanwhile, appreciate what you have and enjoy the holidays. You can explore the details about movies and their stars by going to http://www.whyy.org/flicks, or checking out the larger PBS site at http://www.whyy.org/video, and clicking on FLICKS, and you can follow Patrick Stoner on Twitter. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
I am going to break a general rule for this blog and follow up on my last journal entry regarding Johnny Depp. I usually try not to cover the precisely same subject matter until some time has passed, but I got so much personal interest, questions, and comments about Johnny that I feel obligated to talk about the interview with him this past weekend.
For those who prefer to move on to other films and personalities, come on back next week, and I'll see if I can cover some new ground. If you're still reading, then here is the report: We seldom do interviews with the stars or directors of movies in Chicago--although you might assume that this rough midpoint between New York and Los Angeles would make sense for logistical purposes, especially since it is simply a great city. When I first started doing these things (somewhere back around the Civil War), I wondered why those of us on the east coast (where more than half of the media live compared to the west coast) were always going to Los Angeles when we weren't doing the quick hop to New York. The answer should have been obvious to me: Because that's where they keep the stars (more L.A. than NYC but not usually Chicago). PUBLIC ENEMIES,however, has Chicago roots, and Johnny Depp is playing John Dillinger, the FBI's most wanted bank robber of the thirties. Michael Mann, the director, recreates the era and the ethos of this reallife story magnificently, and you can understand why Universal decided that we needed to get together with the stars in Chicago. Two things before I continue with this Johnny-centered entry: We also went there to interview Christian Bale who has the supporting role of Melvin Purvis (the famed FBI agent who tracked down Dillinger) and Marion Cotillard as Dillinger's girl (or moll, in 1930's parlance)--the latter, of course, being the winner of the Best Actress OSCAR as Edith Piaf; and, I should make it clear that ethics prevent me (as a professional film critic) from reviewing the film before its opening, so I can only make general comments in that area. Chicago may have been the logical place to go, but someone forgot to tell the weather gods, because one of the longest, heaviest thunderstorms I've seen stalled right over top of the city and almost prevented me and others coming from around the country from making it into the city in time to see the screening. In fact, I arrived with less than half an hour to spare, as did about a dozen others. I gather that the original cut of the film was too long for commercial reasons, so the version we saw was just a little over two hours. That can also be too long in some cases, but you'll remember that this was true of THE DARK KNIGHT (to pick one example) without bothering anyone, and that was the case with us. The length felt right. The interviews were set up in the grand old Union Station in the middle of Chicago--with a carved marble ceiling towering about a hundred feet above us and the well-preserved space that once would have been crawling with travelers in an area the size of a football field echoing with our footsteps. For atmosphere, they hired a group of extras in 1930's garb, mostly mobster types of the vintage film era but also regular citizens of the period who sat, strolled, and generally gave a background look of people who might be passing through the city towards the end of the Great Depression. Naturally, they did what extras always do in the background: pretend to talk and go about their daily business without really interfering in the three locations set up for the interviews. When my turn came to interview Johnny, I joined him on raised platform with him in one director's chair in an outfit that looked like a combination of the era and modern cool and me in another's director's chair looking--well, never mind: when you're on a platform with Johnny Depp, one of you is going to look extraordinary and the other isn't going to count. I don't want to mislead anyone. Johnny doesn't do that many interviews. He doesn't have to do ANY interviews, really. So, in a way, he's going out of his way to be cooperative and help promote something he cares about, but you're not going to get that much time with him. Since he personalizes everything in such an unaffected manner, it feels like longer than it is because of the off-camera pleasantries, but the cool, unemotional fact is that I didn't have the time to cover too much material. I wondered why he had grown up with such affection for a man who was dead long before even I was born, much less Johnny, and he talked about seeing something in the newsreel and documentary footage of Dillinger in his eyes that he just found intriguing--a maverick, humorous quality that spoke of more than just a gangster personality. Since I wanted to get him to talk about craft, I noted that there were moments in PUBLIC ENEMIES when he moved in a certain way or performed what was just a casual function that I thought I recognized as one of those little additions to the script or direction that he felt added to the characterization, and he acknowledged that little things like putting his wrists under a running faucet while talking with his girlfriend was an example of the kind of thing that he liked to add because it was right in that situation and could reinforce something in the script (in that case, it was important that we felt the characters' need to get out of the heat and into a movie theater where the early form of air conditioning would give them some relief but would also be an important plot point). We also talked about our mutual admiration of the STYLE of the stars in that period--in particular, Clark Gable, Cary Grant, and (most powerful for both of us) the classy, luscious Myrna Loy (best known for THE THIN MAN series of movies). Since much of the interest shown in my earlier blog about Johnny was my testimony about how kind he has been to me over the years (if you missed that, it's right below this entry), I suppose it's not inappropriate for me to note that--as I was leaving and he was telling me about some films coming up soon--he made the point that I would be included in those interviews and I should expect that. I realize that this says more about him than it does about me (I didn't ask), but this IS an entry about him. So, I fought my way back out of Chicago to Philadelphia (where the thurderstorms had migrated during the day, causing delays in that direction) and got the tapes to the station where they'll be edited, aired, and put on the internet. Thus endeth the Johnny Depp Report for now. You can check out the interviews, reviews, podcasts and other film-related material by going to the website http://www.whyy.org/flicks where you can also follow patrickstoner on Twitter. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
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 enjoying my interviews. I suppose we're so used to the charisma that goes with the territory of being a movie star that we insulate ourselves against assuming that any nice comment or friendly gesture isn't just part of what makes up their public persona (of course, I know of colleagues who take it the opposite way and buy every pleasantry as being a sign of friendship and those who simply pretend that's the case, but these are human failings not worth the notice). I sometimes get lucky and pay attention to new talent when they can sense that others are just running through their interviews to get to the famous names. That was the case with Russell Crowe, Leonardo DiCaprio, River Phoenix (a major friend of Johnny's, of course) and others, and it might surprise you how they tend to remember the ones who were interested in their talent and work before fame guaranteed them interest from everyone. In my case, the opportunity to do that with Johnny was for the low-budget John Waters film CRY-BABY. Not many people went to Baltimore to do that one, but I was impressed. Then, I was lucky enough to interview him for his breakthrough film, EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, his first collaboration with his best friend Tim Burton. He was the star, so he was interviewed by a lot of people besides me, but their interest in him was his TV fame for a series of great interest at the time, 21 JUMP STREET. Here's where working for a PBS station and being genuinely uninterested in most commercial television shows was a big help: I couldn't have cared less about 21 JUMP STREET and his TV fame; I was so impressed with the CRAFT of his acting as the boy with scissors for hands that all I wanted to talk about was HOW he created the role. That was the beginning of several interviews which always had to do with his increasing sophistication in acting techniques (sometimes, he'll go over just one gesture or inflection dozens of times to get it right and insert where it belongs in the overall creation without the general public even noticing it--although his creative friends will). While the world couldn't seem to get past his handsome face, he kept picking roles that would stretch his abilities: DONNIE BRASCO, ED WOOD, BLOW, SLEEPY HOLLOW, SECRET WINDOW, FINDING NEVERLAND, THE LIBERTINE, CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY, and then there was this rather unusual pirate character in a few movies (about which he graciously lied about using me for his model). There were several others, but look at the range of roles, and that doesn't include the title role in SWEENEY TODD (which was my favorite film of that year). I interviewed him for many of those movies, and we talked craft until they made us stop. Of course I looked forward to seeing him again. That goes without saying, but here's a sad/happy story that illustrates why I say Johnny has been good to me: We're in London to interview Tim Burton and Helena Bonham Carter for SWEENEY TODD. We've been told before we left that Johnny would not be available for interviews. Well, that was disappointing but both Tim and Helena are good interviews, and it was a major film, so we really had no reason to complain. Now, Helena was very pregnant. I'm supposed to interview her after doing Tim right before the lunch break, but the Paramount people come to me and said that Helena really needed to break early because she was a bit uncomfortable, so would I mind taking off for about an hour and she would do the interview after lunch? Well, of course, I didn't mind. I went off and got a bite to eat and came back to the area where the interviews were after about 45 minutes, and someone rushed up to me asking where I had BEEN? One of the Paramount people said that they had been looking for me. Naturally, I reminded her that she said I should go away and come back in an hour, but she politely cut me off: No, you don't understand, they said that Johnny found out that I was there and wanted to do an interview with me. Then came an urgent cellphone call, and I overheard them saying that they found me, but... The very nice Paramount woman then looked at me sadly and said: Sorry, Pat, when nobody could find you for a half hour, Johnny left the area and he's gone now...but wasn't it nice that he wanted to do the interview with you? I said it was. I managed not to weep. Why is Johnny Depp on my mind? I'm off to Chicago to see his film PUBLIC ENEMIES, and I will be interviewing him in the atmospheric Union Station the following afternoon. We'll talk about acting craft, and it will be nice to see him. To view interviews or get other film-oriented material, you can go to http://www.whyy.org/flicks and you can also follow patrickstoner on Twitter |
|
Well I'm psyched. Love to learn more about Johnny Depp's craft practices. I am a great fan and always want to know more about "how" he manages to do what he does. So, can't wait and thanks for the update. 0 Replies |
yes i agree with it 1 Reply |
correct 0 Replies |
What a delightful entry. Thank you for sharing your experiences. I look forward to reading your new interview. From all accounts I've read, Johnny must truly be a lovely person inside and out. I hope all goes well for everyone tonight. I am so excited to see this film! 0 Replies |
Hello! I just wanted to I am happy for you that Johnny remember you and you are so right about him! He is charming! When he looked at me I swear he saw right through to my soul! I have loved him for over twenty years and it was a dream come true to meet him. Johnny Depp has had a powerful effect on my family for years. I fell for him as a small child. Years later my sister Michele (she was downsyndrome) then fell in love with him after seeing "What's eating Gilbert Grape". For years she talked about him. Wanted to meet him and wanted everything with his face on it! She died in 2007 never able to meet him. I tried contacting make a wish to see if they could set up a meeting, but they returned my call too late. When she was dying in the hospital she had a Johnny Depp pillow case under her head and she stared at a poster of him for a week. Shortly after she died he came to Wisconsin where she lived and died! It seemed as though she had something to do with that. It could've just been my emotions but I still believe she had a hand in that. Everytime I see something with him on it I think of her. Just recently I took a trip to chicago. I got kind of lost trying to find parking. I found a spot and started walking towards Navy Pier. I turned down a street and saw a bunch of people standing around. I asked some of them "what is going on?". They told me Johnny was coming. I almost fainted! I waited about three hours and then finally he was there. So close. I waited for him to come towards my side of the fence. He got there talked to me and my daughter (who loves him too)and he blew me a kiss. He went so fast I never got the chance to tell him about my sister. I never got a picture with him. He was just too fast. It felt so surreal! After he was gone I felt as if my sister Michele brought that meeting together. It was just too weird! For all the actors in all the cities it was him and I was there. I am still trying to find out where he will be next so I can get a picture. I want to put it next to her urn. There is more to the story but it is enough for now. If you want to hear more let me know. Thank you! Marie 0 Replies | |
|
The link was down for several days as they updated this site, so this entry is the first under the new site:
Dear Susan: I understand that you're going through a rough emotional time, feeling used and abused both by the talent procurers and the general public. You don't have much experience being in the public eye, and so I thought that I might explain a few facts that should ease your sense of confusion and hurt. First, let me say how much I enjoyed the original video of you wowing that audience in the British show with Simon and the other judges. It really worked for me; not because I bought the surprise at how good you were (few reality shows, whether set in the wilderness or in studios, aren't manipulated), but rather because the audience wasn't in on the joke and you forced their snide little smiles off of their faces. I mean, let's face it: you didn't wake up one morning a few months ago, start to warble a little tune in the shower and then discovered you had a good voice. You knew it; the folks who were pushing you forward backstage knew it; and, the people producing the show knew it. But the audience didn't. You were a middle-aged woman of (and I hope this doesn't hurt your feelings) less than average appearance looking (intentionally, of course) frumpy and very out of place. That audience spewed contempt for you just before you started to sing--not an unusual hypocrisy from people who can't perform very well themselves. Then you hit the notes. I loved the cutaways of those audience members, for a brief moment realizing that they had been jerks, and--to their limited credit, since they came in part just to see someone fail (which is the losers' hobby) they even had the grace to give you your due when you finished (although they probably didn't recognize that what they had earlier felt was bigotry). It was a great little piece of theatre. Now, back to your torment. You must understand that the kind of people in the media and the public who are going to be the nastiest don't like themselves very much. Like most bigots, they then look around for someone to whom they can feel superior--briefly and only as long as one of their friends doesn't tell them the truth. They are prepared to admit that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are above them; sort of like people were willing to let aristocrats in Old Europe show off their better lives and enjoy their lands and wealth. They'll do that because they can convince themselves that stars are in a different class from the common folk, and so they're not jealous enough to make an issue of it. But, Susan, you looked, talked, and acted like one of them. Then, it turned out that you had a special talent that they didn't have and that was going to get you fame and, perhaps, fortune. THAT brought out the qualities that all nasty people have under the surface: envy and insecurity. What the mean ones said about you and the way they treated you were not important, but your probably don't know tha--due to your inexperience in observing this subsection of humanity; what hurt you was not really about YOU at all; it was about THEM, and it always is. So, Susan, wherever you are and however you currently feel, go back out there under the lights and smile at the audience. Most people are OK; the ones that aren't punish themselves far more than a just God could force himself to do (if you care--which you won't once you get what they're like). And here's a final treat: once you get this truism internalized, it becomes amusing. Meanwhile, you should get pleasure out of knowing that, as my boyhood chum Albert once said, all things are relative, so since you aren't like the nasty folks (no, a temper tantrum after being abused doesn't count as nasty, just naive), that means you're OK. Ta ta. To explore the website where the film info, interviews, podcasts, and other movie-related material is, go to http://www.whyy.org/flicks where you can also follow patrick stoner on Twitter |
|
Amazing 0 Replies | |
|
The long Memorial Day weekend probably added to all of the extra work that seems to follow any holiday. So, I’ll limit this entry to a recitation of tasks and trips over these next couple of weeks.
With the close of the Spring Semester and all of the grades for my students sent to the university, I was able to schedule some extra time in L.A. where I’ll attend a press day for MY LIFE IN RUINS with Nia Darvalos. This film has the interesting sidelight of being produced by Rita Wilson, so it will come out while her husband’s ANGELS AND DEMONS is still very much in the theaters. It’s easy to see why she liked the movie’s concept since it combines a spectacular location in Greece with a gentle, humorous, and kind look at romance. Hollywood is amazing when it comes to “looks”. Nia is reborn as a very attractive woman who somehow looks even younger than she did in her surprise hit MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING. How do they do that? If I play the interview from that former film next to the interview for this latter one, she would seem to blossom even as I appear to wither. They are good at that game; give them credit. Denzel Washington always looks good and seems to defy again as well. I would resent him if I could, but he’s too damn charming. He’s much like my friend (and his cousin) Ukee Washington. I once got caught between the two of them as they did a cousinly embrace, and I felt like hobbit between the beautiful elves. I’ll interview Denzel for THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3, and it will be good for the simple reason that he’s incapable of giving a bad interview, and I can easily put that talent to the test. Then, I’ll get to rest on Sunday, appropriately enough, but I’ll be on the air in Philadelphia for fundraising every other night until I have to go back to L.A. for more interviews for the new ICE AGE and MY SISTER’S KEEPER. That would be the time to collapse for a couple of days, but I need to edit and do all of the other associated tasks to have everything done, plus a lot more unconnected to interviewing, while my excellent editor goes on a deserved week’s vacation. By then, I will be teaching a short Summer Session at the University of Delaware and have to give a midterm exam before the Independence Day holidays. So, the bottom line is that I look forward to celebrating our nation’s revolution with more than patriotic fervor, and you might assume that I’ve blocked out time for total relaxation. Yes, that would be smart, but I’m afraid that I wasn’t quite that farsighted: before I realized that so many things were going to tumble over top of each other, I got reservations for THE NORMAN CONQUESTS on Broadway—all three plays of the trilogy in one day. Clever, eh? The day will start at home at dawn and end, after some 7 hours of drama in three batches, back there after midnight. I’m tired just thinking about it. So, I’ll let this blog rest for now. You can view the results of these travels by going to: http://www.whyy.org/flicks where you can also follow me on Twitter. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
I’ve only been on Twitter and Facebook for a short time, but it’s already given me some extra insight into what our viewers particularly like. Mentioning that I was going to interview Colin Firth for the movie about to open, EASY VIRTUE, got a flurry of requests for info about when it would air.
It’s not great mystery where the source of the Colin Firth obsession originated: it was the 1995 BBC revival of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE where he first became a phenomenon in Great Britain as the aristocratic Mr. Darcy and then, when it was released in America, Jane Austen’s ultimate romantic hero became the perfect man for many of my countrymen—and far more women. Of course, Colin went on to play another Mr. Darcy in Renee Zellweger’s BRIDGET JONES DIARY and the sequel BRIDGET JONES: THE EDGE OF REASON. In those films, his name was Mark Darcy, and—ironically—that first name is better known to a majority of people than his iconic Austen “Darcy”--whose first name is Fitzwilliam--since, in that period style, he was almost always called “Mr. Darcy”. In his public statements, Colin has always said that he is happy to have become such a cultural phenomenon after the mammoth attention his PRIDE AND PREJUDICE performance got with the constant swooning references to his breeches and swimming scene (it reminded me of our male reaction to those early sixties westerns when I was a young teenager and Colin was a toddler where the female star always seemed to go for a dip in a pond or river while the hero promises to avert his eyes, but doesn’t). However, the fact is that Colin Firth went through a rather angry period as the mounting hysteria consumed all of his earlier work and promised to be what he would be remembered as an actor on his tombstone. I’m told that he actually took a long vacation to escape from the adulation, and I know from personal experience that he went through a long stretch in interviews where he seemed to be disappointed by the inevitable Darcy questions no matter how removed from the current project the theme and style were. Still, he has made peace with that and had enough success over the last decade and a half to accept that it was mixed blessing. Before noting his other work, let me antagonize the Darcy fanatics by saying that I liked his performance in the 1995 BBC production (and enjoyed his costar, with whom he had a “relationship”, Jennifer Ehle), that is NOT my favorite version of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. I have a special fondness for this book and its visual versions. In fact, I share with Keira Knightley a preference for it above all other books. In more fact, my younger daughter was named after Eliza Bennett, the heroine (and Jane Austen surrogate), and Keira signed a copy of the book for her when I interviewed Ms. Knightley for HER film of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. No, MY favorite PRIDE AND PREJUDICE performances were in a 1980 BBC version (that I saw years after that in America) starring David Rintoul as Darcy and Elizabeth Garvie as Eliza. I will be happy to argue with anyone who sees any of the three versions that the 1980 TV mini-series captures the characters of the two leads more perfectly in the Jane Austen original image of them better than any other does. But, I digress. I began interviewing Colin in 1989 for the Milos Forman film VALMONT (where he met and began his relationship with Meg Tilly, resulting not only in a son born to them but also was close enough that he’s been reported to consider her two children by her first husband to be his emotionally as well). My first impression was that he was a VERY reserved person who seldom smiled and was a bit bemused by the interviewing process, although—as almost all English actors are—gracious and pleasant. Frankly, I don’t remember whether he was part of the interviews for FEMME FATALE (1991) or CIRCLE OF FRIENDS (1995), although I liked and did some interviews for both of those movies. Then came the PRIDE AND PREJUDICE that launched more ships than Helen of Troy on the sea of romance (easily the most saccharine metaphor I’ve ever written, but it somehow seems to capture the mood of the time). It was in the period after that he fought to expand his image beyond Darcy with movies like THE ENGLISH PATIENT, FEVER PITCH, A THOUSAND ACRES, and SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (with him LOSING the girl to each of the Fiennes brothers in the first and last of those films). It took the turn of the century and the first Bridget Jones film to relax him into playing the object of desire again. He even felt comfortable enough to take on another classic masterpiece in 2002’s THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST, and I remember noting how much more at ease he was by then. By 2003, he was so much in demand that he was in four films: HOPE SPRINGS, GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING (which he particularly liked as he noted in my most recent interview), WHAT A GIRL WANTS, and one of my favorite romantic comedies ever, LOVE ACTUALLY. Emma Thompson asked him to be in her fantasy family film, NANNY MCPHEE, playing the perfect father, and he helped make that movie successful enough that they’re talking about a sequel. Of course, it was last year’s MAMMY MIA that gave him an opportunity to expand his range in a number of ways, including some that he has joked is the real reason people want to become actors. That brings us to EASY VIRTUE which is not intended, nor will it be a major movie. It’s based on the early work of the English wit whose seated, throne-like image has been on the top of my Christmas tree since I graduated from college: Noel Coward. That would be enough for me to enjoy it, but the new film is an intentional mixture of genres by Stephen Elliott whose most famous movie came out almost at the same time as Colin Firth’s BBC series: THE ADVENTURES OF PRISCILLA: QUEEN OF THE DESERT. It costars Kristin Scott Thomas in a performance that would get her an Oscar nomination if this weren’t a small comedy, Jessica Biel in a perfectly pitched counter to the Brits, and Ben Barnes of Prince Caspian fame in a smart supporting role. Colin Firth’s role is secondary and very laid back, but his fans won’t care; he’s up on the big screen and he’s Colin. He also gave me the most spirited interview of my twenty years of talking to him. He’s aged well (and I should know the difference). You can view the results of these travels by going to: http://www.whyy.org/flicks where you can also follow me on Twitter. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
The Rome trip to cover the world premiere of ANGELS AND DEMONS and collect interviews with the film’s stars and makers went very well indeed.
Before jumping back on a plane to fly in the other direction, I’ll describe what we did over there. Last week’s blog detailed the schedule, but the official plans seldom stay quite the same, and there are several things to do in and around the official ones. Perhaps the most amusing change was the place of the reception on Saturday night. It was originally scheduled to held on the terrace of the Residenza Paolo VI on Via Paelo. Now, in case your Italian is as non-existent as mine, you might not notice that this would be, translating literally, the “home of (Pope) Paul the Sixth”. To put it another way, this location is on Vatican property. They let various groups of significance, including movie studios, reserve what is described as a gorgeous terrace for events like this, and Sony (Columbia) Pictures had no problem in arranging a reception there—UNTIL they found out it was for ANGELS AND DEMONS. At the last moment—just before the media from around the world arrived—there seemed to be a problem with the reservation for the event and the location was no longer available. It was a short communication from the Vatican spokesman, I’m told. Why? Well, for the same reason that the Vatican library (I’m not talking about the secretive, very private archives now) is no longer available to the general public. It seems that the Vatican believes one person took advantage of that access in ways that were unforgivable; his name, of course, was Dan Brown, and the result of his research eventually became THE DA VINCI CODE. ANGELS AND DEMONS itself is probably not in the same category as that one for the obvious difference that the church is the target in this book and movie, and there is nothing about lineage of Jesus here. Still, the Vatican is basically ignoring the existence of ANGELS AND DEMONS, perhaps on the assumption that drawing attention to THE DA VINCI CODE and demanding people avoid it didn’t exactly work. So, we had our reception elsewhere, but that wasn’t the only time while we were in Rome that the strained relationship with the Vatican and the picture didn’t crop up. There was another situation where we were asked not to embarrass someone who was showing us around by mentioning their names, and I understand that and respect it. So, we saw the film (which was screened literally one door away from our hotel in the Piazza Repubblica, the Excedra), and since ethics forbids any kind of review, I’ll just say what I tweeted from there: Ron Howard shot Rome like it was a beautiful woman. Our interviews with Howard and the supporting players were on the top of the hotel right after a bizarre thunderstorm shook the very roof so strongly that everyone, including the cameramen and their equipment, had to relocate a floor below until the torrent and gale force winds passed through and left the bluest skies in creation in its wake. I’ll let those with more of an intimate relationship with the heavens make of that what they will. The following day, we walked to the top of the Castel Sant’ Angelo (almost 600 steps) to do the interview with Ewan McGregor and some standups. That was, perhaps, the most spectacular location. From its height (which was built above a pope’s tomb to protect the papacy from armies that invaded Rome), there is a magnificent 360 degree view of the Seven Hills of the city—none of it blocked by high rises, as you know—including the perfect backdrop of St. Peter’s. That was as close as we were going to be allowed to shoot without getting permission from the Vatican—which was not going to happen. The following day, I and some of the others toured the Sistine Chapel and St. Peter’s, and that—in addition to its own splendor—just impressed me even more with the accuracy of Ron Howard’s sets that included all of that and much more. You may wonder why I haven’t mentioned Tom Hanks. He is, after all, the star. Tom stopped doing television interviews, with occasional exceptions for national shows, all the way back at the time of CASTAWAY. I happened to hear his explanation for doing that on a tape that Chicago reporter and columnist Bill Zwecker made during a print roundtable around that time. On the tape, he explains that he liked the TV interviewers but the format and time allotted meant that he tended to be asked personal questions rather than ones about his work, and it was his work that interested him—not what a nice person he had remained through his Oscars and stardom and his good marriage. So, we knew that we would only get a brief moment of interaction from him on Monday at the red carpet of the world premiere of ANGELS AND DEMONS at the Auditorium Parco Della Musica. In fact, although we were welcome to tape our introductions and standups of various kinds on the carpet before the event, there were limited cameras available, and several of us would have to share a camera and get what little we could out of him, depending on the situation of the moment. I had decided that I probably wouldn’t get any real personal interaction with him, and I was prepared for that, given that a world premiere red carpet is always a bit of a madhouse. So, you can imagine my pleasure that when Tom got to our camera position and made some pleasantries to my partners Sandie Newton of Dallas (who was part of Tom’s wedding) and the aforementioned Bill Zwecker that he saw me smiling blandly but expecting nothing and screamed, “PATRICK STONER, as I live and breathe, Patrick Stoner is here, ladies and gentlemen.” His publicist, who was doing her job moving him along the line, was gracious enough at that moment to step back while I asked my question of him and got a nice, long reply (about Rome being another character in the movie). Needless to say, I’m in agreement with the general conclusion that Tom Hanks is a nice guy, but when I finally sit down with him again, it will be about the craft! So, we flew home and will now edit and air all of this material for what has to be the first major film of the year not aimed at teenagers or younger as the prime audience. There is much there to fulfill my mandate to explore the making of films as a craft, and occasionally as an art. Now, back to work. You can view the results of these travels by going to: http://www.whyy.org/flicks where you can also follow me on Twitter. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
Since I’ll be out of the country for a week, I postponed updating this blog until just before leaving for Rome.
Travel and entertainment may well begin to feel the effects of this swine flu scare by the time I get back, but that’s a subject for another time. Meanwhile, it never hurts to wash your hands—especially of people without ethics (but that’s a big subject for a much later time). So, it is probably of more interest to hear about the various events, work activities, and other things involved in an overseas coverage of a major film. So, here is the schedule for the next several days as I go to cover ANGELS AND DEMONS. I fly tomorrow from Philadelphia to Dulles (Washington, D.C.) and then on to Rome overnight (fortunately, my upgrade came through so I won’t have to wonder if the people crunched against me are coughing from the dehydrated air or that other thing). I’ll face the window and sleep most of the way. Not entirely, however: I was sent a book entitled THE PERFECTIBILISTS, ostensibly about the various shadowy groups upon which the plots of THE DAVINCI CODE and ANGELS AND DEMONS are based. It is perfect for airplane browsing and not necessary to complete, but it will be a good mood-setter for the screening of the film. I get ahead of the schedule, however. Once we land in Rome, we head to the Boscolo Hotel Exedra in the Piazza Della Repubblica. If all goes well, I’ll be there by noon. The standard procedure for any media gathering, here or abroad, is to check in at the Columbia Pictures Hospitality Suite in the hotel, get exact, updated itineraries, and interview schedules. Then comes the self-evaluation of jet lag. In theory, it’s best to stay up and adjust your internal clock to Italian time, but sometimes it feels like a sack of wet concrete is on your head, and a nap makes the most sense before going to the screening. Apparently, the theater is within walking distance of the hotel (for which I’m grateful: I remember going to Hawaii for one of these things several years ago on the Big Island and then riding in a shuttle from the hotel to the screening site for what seemed like several days as my body crashed—but was probably about 45 minutes). Ironically, the screening location doesn’t sound either very Rome or Columbia: the WarnerVillage Moderno. All of this is on Friday, May 1 and will end with the sound of bodies hitting beds long before midnight is my bet. Saturday is the interview day, and it will start about 10am and go on through the afternoon at the hotel. The roof terrace, where all the interviews are, will be set up in some kind of ANGELS AND DEMONS motif, and we’ll each get our time with the principals and Ron Howard, the director. Needless to say, this is the crucial day, and the tapes we get from these interviews will be carried home very carefully—by hand, not in checked baggage. Everyone has a horror story of a crucial piece of checked luggage with videotapes in it not being there at the end of the line, and the breath-holding that occurs until the bag is finally delivered. I won’t take that chance. That Saturday night, there’s be a reception on what I’m told is a beautiful terrace at the Residenza Paolo VI on Via Paelo. It may sound like we’re done now, but this is where a foreign location is almost always more complicated and interesting than a domestic one for the rather obvious reason that an exotic locale is of more interest to our viewers. So, the following day will also be full. On Sunday morning—not too early, it’s nice to note—we’ll do standups at the Inn at the Roman Forum and at the Castel Sant’ Angelo. As you probably know, that’s when you stand in front of some magnificent site and tape introductions and/or commentary that will be used on air. On Sunday afternoon, we’ll do an ANGELS AND DEMONS Illumination Tour—whatever that is. And, on Sunday night, there will be an official dinner in Rome at Antica Pesa. Finished? No. In fact, the big event is about to happen: On Monday, they’ll take us to the Auditorium Parco Della Musica where we’ll do red carpet interviews for the premiere of the movie. There will be no Pope joke now. Everyone else in Europe will be there, in all likelihood, however. Then, having finally completely adjusted our bodies to Italian time, we’ll get on planes on Tuesday and return to the United States and Philadelphia where I’ll make sure everything is still getting on the air as planned. And, then, in what promises to be an aching flight just two days later, I’ll jump on a plane and go the other way across the country to L.A. So, before exiting to do all of this, a thought: given the economy, the swine flu, and the cutbacks at the corporations that own most of the studios, these exotic junkets—that happened about four or five times a year in the recent past—are probably not going to be approved very often by the accountants who don’t see them as necessary for the bottom line. At least, for a while… I'll try to "tweet" from Rome, but I don't know if it will work. You can view the results of these travels by going to: http://www.whyy.org/flicks where you can also follow me on Twitter. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
Films are wonderful; stars are fascinating; TV is fun.
But there are more important things, so it’s good when it all fits together. That’s the subject of this blog entry: Depending on how you think of it, we’re in EARTH WEEK or April 22 is EARTH DAY. Let me walk you back in time, children: 40 years ago, we baby boomers were finally beginning to win a fight that had started in the mid-sixties and often got nasty. We were called environmentalists (a relatively new word at the time) or tree huggers or miserable commie anti-corporate wide-eyed, lily-livered, un-American, hippie-looking, free-lovers (well, OK, that last one was accurate). It was a time when a generation—admittedly one overly fond of ourselves, far too self-righteous, and intolerant of other viewpoints that were different but not evil—decided it was time to change the way certain things were treated and done. So, we were strong supporters of the civil rights revolution, the sexual revolution, the women’s movement, the anti-war movement, and the way we were treating the natural world around us, including the animals besides us who lived in it. Most of what we fought for—and sometimes it literally was a fight with some very tough folks—is now part of our mainstream culture, although we probably messed up the sexual part when all of those obviously self-serving activities began to harm people in ways we never expected. EARTH DAY (born out of ARBOR DAY when you were asked to plant and support the protection of trees) was a formal acceptance of our view that the damage we were doing to the environment deserved to be noted and corrected. Four decades later, countless TV programs (especially, I say proudly, on PBS) and even whole channels are documenting the destruction of habitats, animals, and—in my opinion—our very planet itself. Self-confession time: Before going on TV in 1978, I was active in the Sierra Club as an officer (including being president of my state chapter) and I even spent three years doing the often frustrating work of a registered lobbyist in the state capital where we were often trumped by money and power, but I still value those years of effort. Now, Walt Disney Studios has created a new division of films, DisneyNature, and the astoundingly beautiful, Oscar-level-edited, and emotionally compelling EARTH opens with the promise to plant a tree for everyone going to see in its first week. I’ve seen it. In a word: go. If you can’t do that in the opening week, then go later and plant a tree on your own (I’ve planted three on my land so far). Some of the scenes in this movie are beyond my comprehension or experience in filmmaking. Although most people will find the shots from space or the animal scenes more impressive, it’s the slow pan across a landscape with no visible sign of editing that sees it change through all of the seasons that dazzled me the most. Of course, the real point is that the earth is far more fragile, far more diverse, and far more precious than we—in our stress and celebrity-filled lives—can appreciate. We in public broadcasting have been making this case for years, but there is no question that the power of this film on the big screen will bring it home (for that’s what it IS for all of us). Happy EARTH WEEK! You can view the results of these travels by going to: http://www.whyy.org/flicks where you can also follow me on Twitter. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
I’m writing this on the long Easter holiday weekend, so I’ll go down a side road while I’m relaxing and just note the start of my Twitter participation.
It wasn’t my idea. One of the station’s webmasters thought I should start using it, so he did all of the work and made it easy for me to update on my Blackberry (which requires a special app for best use). I’m told that I won’t be “searchable” for at least a couple of weeks (meaning that I won’t have to worry about being “followed” by most people who don’t happen to stumble across the link on my area of the webpage and already have a Twitter homepage: http://www.whyy.org/flicks) , so I have time to try to get some feeling for how often I tweet (which seems like a word invented only to avoid the more logical “twit” as a verb, but I suppose is justified by the connection to bird sounds). I also have to decide what justifies an update. The basic concept of a community sharing their everyday actions of the moment at first seemed like a waste of good internet space to me, but—as I started to read a combination of friends’ and others’ entries—I began to see it more like two people running into each other in the hallway or on the street with a quick, courteous, “So, what are you doing?” and a quick, courteous, “Oh, just on my way to see if CHE is in the video store” or even, “Just had lunch at that new steak house near the Prince Theater—quite a place.” Of course, this is a little different for those of us who have some level of a public profile because of our TV work. You have to assume that you’re going to have followers who want to read about something rather more interesting, or at least different from the average workaday world. So, I decided to see how a couple of people who do what I do in different cities determine what to tweet. Not surprisingly, the entries are mostly about their TV work, especially if they involve famous names or some other kind of unusual activity, with some humor tossed in from time to time. The rate of updates seems to vary greatly. But what do the celebrities that I would be willing to follow do when they use Twitter? I don’t mean anyone named Britney or Paris or even Brad/Angelina. I mean those who are famous but not superstars. I also mean the minority of those whom I’ve found interesting, bright, funny, and likeable. That would be with all four attributes, not just one or two. That’s a short list. My current favorite is Russell Brand who specializes in outrageous humor and has just recently become well known in America after being one of the most famous (some would say infamous) celebrities in Great Britain. It was only last year at this time that I interviewd Russell in Hawaii for FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL, and he told me that I was the only person who was already familiar with his work (I had seen him on the air on a visit to England and couldn’t understand why he wasn’t known in America). He was very well read, quick as Robin Williams (which means you can’t be any quicker), and charming even as he was playing with you (“So, Pat, is everyone at PBS a communist?”). Now, he’s known for a couple of movies and his standup act, and he’s been promoting his book (MY BOOKY WOOK, also known in Great Britain long before it became known here). After I told my friend at my station, Terry Gross (yes, THAT Terry Gross, of FRESH AIR—who is also the person who will never be released from answering my voice mail which we did for a lark), what a good interview he is, she had her amazing staff look into him and just aired the interview. She did her usual superb job (I would be jealous of her, but I’m also a fan and I like her, so…). So, I’m “following” Russell, but you can’t rely on him staying on ANY path for too long without running into the bushes (and probably taking some female along for the venture), so I needed to pick another celebrity that fits the above qualifications. My choice will baffle those who don’t watch a lot of British TV (at least on us at PBS or on BBC America): Stephen Fry. He’s very well known in England, but I suppose I should try to find an American connection for those who find the name obscure. OK. You know Hugh Laurie—the star of HOUSE on TV. He and Stephen Fry did a huge amount of comedy together, from the BLACKADDER series to the mini-series of P.G. Wodehouse stories about Jeeves and Bertie (familiar to PBS viewers) to a completely English TV comedy, FRY AND LAURIE, as well as much else. I’ve interviewed Stephen Fry a couple of times and can understand why he’s considered one of the wittiest and nicest people working in Great Britain. Hell, even Russell Brand is “following” him. So, I have been reading his Twitter updates, and they come in bunches—from whatever talk show he’s about to do, is doing, and how it went, to arch comments on something that’s caught his attention. Then, there is silence for a couple of days. Interesting. I’m not at all sure how I want to structure my tweets, but there’s no rush. I’ll have some kind of pattern established by the time I go to Rome for ANGELS AND DEMONS, and that should provide exotic enough moments to justify some amount of regular tweets, if my Blackberry communicates them from Italy. Of course, that means that I have to get back to long, irritating travel, but since this will be the first significant film of the year, it’s worth it. I’ll just have to fight the temptation of tweeting every moment of irritation. Meanwhile, it’s a long holiday weekend (or was, as I write this). You can view the results of these travels by going to: http://www.whyy.org/flicks |
|
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