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
Can it really be two years since I last covered a James Bond movie? Yes, CASINO ROYALE was around this time of year in 2006 when we did the interviews, and we were all looking forward to seeing what the new Bond—a blond Bond, beyond Brosnan, no less—would be like.
Daniel Craig was then being lambasted by James Bond purists on the internet, long before anybody actually saw any of his work—in fact, even before he started developing the character—and the predictions of doom and accusations of betrayal of the legend were growing even as opening day approached. When I interviewed him in New York prior to the opening, he admitted that he was nervous. He had spoken both to Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery before taking the role, and they had encouraged him, but he had no way of knowing if the public would accept a rough-looking, mistake-making, BLOND “007”. When it and he were a hit, you would have thought that there was never a doubt about the choice. Let me be honest about my own thoughts prior to the verdict being handed down by the box office and critics: I thought Clive Owen would be the choice—only four years older than Daniel and closer to the description of Bond in the novels. Still, when they announced Craig’s selection, I was happy. I had been interviewing Daniel Craig since just before the turn of the century, and I was also aware of the respect he had in the British theatre system which is not known for its admiration of those who are “go Hollywood.” He not only had a history of independent films in addition to big Hollywood spectacles (like LARA CROFT: TOMB RAIDER), but he also took on supporting roles that he found interesting. In the first category, check out his work in THE TRENCH, LOVE IS THE DEVIL: STUDY FOR A PORTRAIT OF FRANCIS BACON and SOME VOICES, with a special recommendation for the strange but fascinating film ENDURING LOVE. For supporting roles, I especially admired him as the conniving but cowardly “John Ballard” in ELIZABETH and as the manipulative cold killer “Perry Smith” in INFAMOUS. Of course, most of the viewing public didn’t notice him in anything other than in the work with Angelina until CASINO ROYALE and then they probably were surprised to see him in the relatively small supporting role of “Lord Asriel” in THE GOLDEN COMPASS, but he took that because of his love for the books (and the part jumps in importance in the story beyond what they filmed). Women especially love his “James Bond”. Of course, he’s a good looking guy in a craggy bad boy way, but Hollywood is filled with handsome faces and toned bodies, so that doesn’t explain the level of his sex appeal as the most attractive fictional male character in the history of movies. The source of that appeal is no mystery, however: it’s the self-confidence. Of course, that’s the quintessential male attribute in sex appeal, but when you combine it with the Bond mystique, the looks, and the glamour of superstardom…well, the exceptions to the rule will be hugely outnumbered by those women who react positively. Sean Connery had that same quality. I use the word “had” only in the sense that he’s retired. I don’t know of anyone who kept their sex appeal more deeply into old age than Connery did, and that was after the looks and the glory of the Bond days were long gone. That’s another similarity with Daniel Craig. Only a fool doesn’t realize that you take on an iconic role like Bond, Superman, Batman, or Indiana Jones without that being the most identifiable image you will ever have. Look at Harrison Ford: his career had not exactly been flying high for the past decade until the revival of his heroic creation, and he now—at my age, for crying out loud—is on target to do yet another one. It took Sean Connery a few years to break free of “007”, but his sense of security and his knowledge that he could play a number of interesting parts and be a major star for—literally—decades after creating the James Bond most of us still admire stood him in good stead. Daniel Craig’s four or five Bond films will not break his career either; he’ll be happy to work in quite different roles, whether leads or supporting, interspersed with time on the stage. I think that Pierce will find that career balance as well, with MAMMA MIA being the beginning of his realization that there can be a very good life post Bond if you recognize the versatility you honed prior to the life-changing role. He showed a lot of courage in taking on a singing role opposite Meryl Streep, and the film’s success renewed him, I think. Other actors who played Ian Fleming’s legendary spy hero never found that level of happiness in their work again, I fear. Daniel Craig paid his dues, however, and should be fine. I interview him again shortly for the new Bond film, QUANTUM OF SOLACE, which—if it survives its hard to remember title—should be another hit in the series if it’s anything from OK to good. I’ll probably be asking him about the value or deficit of creating a role with the world watching and waiting for you to fail. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
For the past two weeks, I’ve connected the general economic downturn with the film business, but there has been something else affected by the descent into deep recession. With less than a month to the election, the 800-pound gorilla (which was the same number the Dow Jones was down at one point as I write this) in the polling booth is the mess of the financial system. With that in mind, it’s worth noting the efforts of Hollywood to create timely political movies. Of course, many films have political messages—overt and covert, funny and serious. If we limit the ones to the post-convention period, there are basically two with strong partisan viewpoints; a bit before the current period, there was SWING VOTE which veered from political satire to slapstick comedy and never found its audience; after the election will be FROST/NIXON, which is a retelling of history and will be a counterpoint to the holiday films. The two “in-your-face” political films of the season are AMERICAN CAROL which theoretically opened last weekend (but you’ll look in vain for any sign that much of anyone saw it) and W. which is a combination of public Bushisms and Oliver Stone’s private conjectures about his father fixation and political prejudices. I can’t comment on W.’s qualities as a film officially yet since it must open before ethics permit anything resembling a review, but since AMERICAN CAROL has technically been released, it’s possible to say a few words about it. First, it’s a bit odd that Kelsey Grammer as General Patton (don’t ask) is not only in this film but also in SWING VOTE, as is Dennis Hopper (“The Judge”). There, they were competing presidential candidates, but this conservative sendup is not as balanced as their characters were in Costner’s film; it more accurately reflects their real leanings. Of course, it’s a David Zucker film (of AIRPLANE and THE NAKED GUN fame, hence Leslie Nielsen’s appearance as himself—now 82), and there’s no question that this is a man who understands satire. Still, there’s always the danger that one’s political preferences will emerge as prejudices instead of a Tina Fey-level satire, and that’s what Zucker did here. Not only isn’t it funny, but it can also be cited as one of those films where the trailer has lifted every moment that was a LITTLE funny and used up the tiny reason to go see it. It was released with as few people seeing it as possible for the most revealing reason of all: Zucker and friends said the “mainstream media”—that is, anybody who actually has a legitimate organization that provides them the credibility of being a critic—were too liberal to give it a fair viewing. Right. Well: right-wing. Kevin Farley (the brother of the late Chris Farley) has the misfortune to be associated with it as Michael Malone—the Michael Moore “lookalike” character. This will not be a boost to his career. In fact, any film that gets equally good performances out of Bill O’Reilly, Gary Coleman, and Paris Hilton should be avoided on general principles. Still, we all need to laugh in these difficult times, so the bottom line is: go to a theater, if you can find one, where AN AMERICAN CAROL is playing and laugh at those who are spending money to see it. No, on second thought, that’s cruel; sorry… Oliver Stone is as famous as David Zucker at least and much more controversial. So, I expected W. to go overboard in its lampooning of George W. Bush. Let’s face it: it wouldn’t take a lot of courage to poke a president coming to the end of his term with an approval rating (as of this hour of writing) of 24%. Just to put that number in historical context: that was the approval rating of Richard Nixon right after he resigned his office over the Watergate scandal (and, to remind you of the upcoming political film again, not that long before the famous David Frost interview with the disgraced president that will be the subject of FROST/NIXON). I interviewed Oliver Stone and his cast about the upcoming movie. You’ll see in the TV commercials that some of the impressions of real people in the administration (Rice, Cheney, Bush himself) are eerie in their capture of the outward appearance, speech, and mannerisms of these people. Note that I’m still not commenting on the acting, script, or other critics’ concerns of the film at this time. I CAN talk about what Stone told me in my interview, however, because I was surprised at the moderate tone of his comments. I mean, I’ve been talking with him about his movies since he I started doing this in 1986—for PLATOON. Put aside the indirect political themes in films like that, as well as SALVADOR, WALL STREET, HEAVEN AND EARTH, BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, and others. I remember the intensity of this man regarding JFK and NIXON—his other films about presidents. He was a firebreather. In some ways, he was himself as big a story as the film he made. That, I suspect, is what moderated him. He made some interesting choices in what he chose NOT to do with W.: Those moments that loom in the mind of Americans as the easiest to lampoon, like the universally seen landing on the deck of the aircraft carrier with the huge sign that said “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” in the background of replayed documentary footage, were played without any liberal commentary and with the sign not even shown until the very end for about two seconds. The most embarrassing Bush moments were virtually all those that were documented and almost always on video. In contrast, the “dramatic recreation” of the personal life of the Bush junior from young man through 2004 projected an image of a person who had to fight off an inherited alcoholism from his grandfather and a lack of appreciation from his much more disciplined and erudite father. Bush 43’s stumbles and bumbles are played for satire, that’s true, but the only area that didn’t seem to be based on other peoples’ descriptions (and I’m not sure that this was added by Stone as just a mannerism to make him look foolish) was W.’s clumsy eating habits. Stone told me that he considered George W. Bush’s “story” of overcoming his early demons and his rise, in spite of the expectation that his older brother Jeb was the natural heir to the presidency, to the top of the United States government to be an admirable journey. I have NO question that Oliver Stone considers his presidency to have been foolish and incompetent, but I’m prepared to believe that he considers the man to be sincere, even as others were inventing his image—albeit sincerely wrong. Will W. do better at the box office than AMERICAN CAROL? That’s an interesting question, and I’m no marketing guru, but the answer will tell us if the public is more interesting in mindless slapstick or a comic character study in this overpowering election season. After all, far more people are interested in AMERICAN IDOL than will show up to vote for a president and Congress, and that’s with a couple of wars, a looming depression, the first African American on the ballot, and what may well be the most important election season of our time. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
I had planned to make this entry about the current and upcoming crop of political movies since I just saw “W.” with Josh Brolin as Oliver Stone’s interpretation of George W. Bush, but the mammoth failure to pass the economic “bailout” bill today forces me to add another entry to the one I did on the subject last week.
As I write this, the stock market declined (on the DJIA) by an historic 777 points. [Update: for those who doubt this has anything to do with films and the people who make them, note that the Senate-passed version of the bill added almost 700 million dollars "for Hollywood producers", and the billionaire Warren Buffett is making a move on buying GE stock--the owners of Universal Pictures--by spending 3 billion dollars to snatch prices while they're low and vulnerable. In addition to all of the talk about "Wall Street" and "Main Street", readers of this blog should add "Rodeo Drive".] The effect this is going to have on films and the box office seems to be a stretch for most people right now. Without getting into the politics of what happened when the House of Representatives failed to pass a recovery bill today, it’s worth noting—first—the immediate impact on people (Main Street, as the economically naïve liked to repeat throughout the week—as opposed to Wall Street). The bottom line is: I hope you don’t owe much money (that would include your house mortgage, of course, and especially) because you will not be able to borrow and you will never get back the money you’ll be paying in interest. I’m VERY sympathetic to that although I’m fortunate in that my house mortgage was paid off a few years ago, and the new roof I’m putting on the home with cash—no loan—is looking better every day. Only the desperate will be selling their homes for the foreseeable future and for those who thought they were going to find buyers will see their purchasers unable to finance the sale. As for savings, IRA’s, and all of the rest of the average person’s future depending on the stock market, there had better be a recovery plan of SOME kind ASAP. The reaction of the lending and investment communities has already reacted with two European major bank failures and the threat of a number of American banking and investment entities over the next few weeks (that’s right, not months or years—weeks). Perhaps I’ll be able to note that a compromise freed up the credit markets in the next blog before everyone connected with the film industry begins to see deals fall apart because lenders disappear, movie ticket buyers start to notice how this has affected their personal budgets, and the parent companies of the studios don’t start scapegoating those responsible for meeting box office expectations. There will be another vote before the week is out. Since economists can’t agree on what exactly will happen with or without congressional action, it would be silly of me to predict anything beyond those obvious general trends just mentioned. Still, there’s one interesting point that relates directly to the subjects of this journal: The movers and shakers of Hollywood are rich. I hope I didn’t shock you with that factoid. Stars, directors, producers, and others all have—how shall I put it?—a larger share of assets than the average American. Having said that, there’s a connection to this situation that will get their attention if things don’t change very fast. What’s that? It’s simply because their money isn’t sitting around in low yield bank accounts in small $100,000 increments. Their money is out there in various investments—investments that not only are worth less today than yesterday and may be worth much less next week than this week but also investments that often depend on necessary credit to keep them running. It’s the credit freeze that is the biggest part of the potential economic catastrophe. Now, am I overly concerned that megastars and power players are not going to protect themselves in sophisticated ways that Main Street doesn’t even know exist? No. Will their overall wealth decline, however? Why wouldn’t it? What does that mean for the movie industry? It means that the very people who spearhead the Hollywood success story will demand more security, more hard cash (and less promises of future profits), more promotion, and less for everyone else—since, without borrowing, the only way to get more money is for others to get less. Finally, for those of us who cover films, nobody knows how all of this will play out, but anybody paying attention to the facts knows it is increasingly obvious that the most successful legitimate business in America HAS to be hit by the tsunami that is rolling over the national (and worldwide) economy. arkSlateBlue">It would be nice to believe that all of this is hyperbole, but for those who didn’t prepare for this must finally be sighting the crest of the wave and noticing that the ground is getting rather moist. [Final Update: On Friday, Congress finally passed the recovery bill and the president signed it immediately so that the sharp drop off of the cliff is averted for the economy and peoples' credit lines, but we are sliding steadily down the hill into an ever deeper recession, haven't hit bottom, and will only crawl our way up the other side after several months--at best.] The following website is now accessed from the internet directly more than any other area of our station's main site (which pleases us, of course). To view a site with interviews (FLICKS), best bets (QUICK PICS), full reviews, free video podcasts (FLICKS/WHYY)and more, go to the following: http://www.whyy.org/flicks arkSlateBlue"> |
|
0 Comments | |
|
There are moments when events happen that are so big that people paying attention know something has changed forever, but it’s not clear what exactly that change will be like.
The stock market crash of 1929 was an example. So were the Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations, and 9/11. Unless you were among the walking intellectual dead, you knew that something profound had happened, but you didn’t have any way to determine what that mean specifically. What it meant, of course, in those examples above, was the Great Depression, the beginning of decades of internal and external violence, and the rise of the “national security state”. Those were the macro results; the micro results for movies were the huge escapist box office of the thirties culminating in the biggest year of all time by many measures, 1939-40, the change from heroic to anti-heroic films in the seventies, and the movement of the bi-coastal film promotion tradition to a Los Angeles-based and dominated industry, to name a few. So, I’ve delayed my blog entry update for a few days when I, along with anyone else paying even scant attention, learned of the economic meltdown of this past week and the mammoth reaction to it by the government and every area of the financial sector. Why am I mentioning this in a journal about films? It’s called “show BUSINESS” for a reason. The consolidation of the film studios was already accelerating this year. Smaller companies either disappeared or were absorbed by larger ones, and even as this mammoth series of major company collapses was happening, the official word went out that Paramount and Dreamworks were splitting, and the old company was going solo again but perhaps teaming up with Universal for distribution. Even as I write, peoples’ positions at the studios are being discussed with some staying, some moving, and some leaving now or when their contracts expire. It can’t be a pleasant time since nobody can possibly estimate exactly what the parent companies of the studios are going to instruct their subordinates to do. That’s because this is like an invisible snowball rolling downhill: it will hit some and miss others, but it’s impossible to know now where it’s heading—except DOWN. Then there’s the effect it will have on the media covering the film world. I’ve written about this periodically, and I’ve made sure that I’m in a good situation even as this general situation deteriorates. Sadly, though, it will be a tough time for some of my colleagues in all parts of the entertainment world, especially those in the print press (where cutbacks have already hit them hard), the radio commentators (who are becoming luxuries that can’t justify much investment), and anybody paid “by the piece” (who can’t afford to have many less opportunities for as many films). Unless you’re very selfish, you don’t want to see others have trouble, even if they didn’t see this downsizing and change coming and adjust their needs accordingly. Some of the people that will be hurt (or are already hurting) are good people who have never tried to hurt others. So, we get back to the question I raised at the beginning of the summer when I could see some of the problems that have transpired but certainly not the size of them reverberating throughout the economy: Will filmgoers act like they did in the Great Depression and INCREASE their movie attendance because of their need to escape the realities of life, or will people cut back on their entertainment dollars now that their credit cards have been overused to compensate for months of recession and higher gas prices (still over a dollar a gallon above this time last year)? The answer, I suspect, is that the overall box office will suffer as people get more picky in their choices and wait to hear from their friends whether the films they THINK they’ll like are worth the ticket price and ever increasing concession increases. If that’s the case, then two things will become even more important this year than in earlier ones: star power and award buzz. It will not be a good season for middle range movie box office. Of course, if a film was made for very little and only needs a modest return, then it will make into profit, but the studios need both those and the big budget movies to succeed or you can bet scapegoats will be sought and found. All of this would seem to create a situation where those on both the moviemaking side and the media coverage side will see unfortunate side effects for those who didn’t prepare for this eventuality. By this time next year, the correction should be underway, but it will be a long year for some, it appears. The following website is now accessed from the internet directly more than any other area of our station's main site (which pleases us, of course). To view a site with interviews (FLICKS), best bets (QUICK PICS), full reviews, free video podcasts (FLICKS/WHYY)and more, go to the following: http://www.whyy.org/flicks Edit | Delete | 0 Comments | Add Comment | Pe |
|
0 Comments | |
|
The Toronto Film Festival is over—for me, at least—after six days and too many movies; this is one of those rare periods where there are just too many potential films to cover to make it worthwhile. I’ve been turning down interviews and making no effort to get on other opportunities.
Busy is good, but too busy is pointless. In any event, I’ll be talking about the films recently seen when it’s appropriate—once they’ve opened—but I thought it was time to feature one particular star that has changed more than any other since last I interviewed her: Dakota Fanning is now fourteen years old. It was only two years ago when I interviewed her for CHARLOTTE’S WEB. You know the image: wide, open smile with bright, happy eyes—a poster of the perfect kid. She was always precocious and brilliant, as befits someone who started reading at age 2, plays the violin, and already has a resume working with some of the best actors and actresses in Hollywood. She was always nice—like a small Tom Hanks, just someone who was unaffected and friendly to the point you have to remind yourself that you’re not really part of her extended family. She was always someone who loses herself so much in her roles that she is “in the moment”—i.e., the scene feels entirely real to her—from the moment the assistant director yelled “speed” to the moment at the end of that shot when she heard “cut”. None of those things have changed. What HAS changed—dramatically (no pun intended)—is her physical appearance. You’ll see that for yourself when the trailers for THE SECRET LIFE OF BEES fill the TV screens. She has grown up in two years. “SHOT up” is a more accurate description. She must have grown 3 or 4 inches—unless the surprise of seeing how different she looks exaggerated my ability to estimate. Clearly, as she continues through her teenage years, the roles are going to change, and in 2 or 3 years you’re going to have someone remarkably like Keira Knightley in her BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM period and shortly thereafter like her in PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN. My reaction to this as a I was watching a screening of BEES (which costars Queen Latifah, Alicia Keys, Jennifer Hudson, and others) was rather like an uncle who wasn’t ready for his niece to make the transition from cute kid to teenager. It’s this realization of the odd relationship we develop with some of the people we interview over long periods of time that made me reflective. In some cases, like Anthony Hopkins or Meryl Streep, the initial interviews were just over twenty years ago. Obviously, it doesn’t have to be anywhere near that long with a child star. I first remember interviewing Dakota in her breakthrough and Critics Choice-winning award in I AM SAM with Sean Penn. Like almost everyone else, I was taken aback by her articulate and sophisticated conversation that wasn’t tainted by the curse of child actors—the self-important assumption that their success is a result of their being superior to regular mortals. Then, when she was nominated and won the Best Young Actor/Actress award from the Broadcast Film Critics Association, I watched one of the most unusual, impressive and funniest acceptance speeches of all time: She would have been about seven at the time and was diminutive. In fact, she was so small that there was no way for to reach the microphone to speak, so Orlando Bloom who happened to be on stage at the time just picked her up and held her under her arms as she literally dangled in the air and yet gave a long and charming acceptance speech. She could have been chatting calmly with people in her living room as easily as she spoke while Orlando’s arms must have been shaking with the effort to keep her suspended in front of the mike. I have the feeling that Orlando Bloom is someone she has more interest in now than she might have then, although it’s hard to imagine how much more knowledgeable and engaged she could have been. After that, there was SWEET HOME ALABAMA, TRAPPED, THE CAT IN THE HAT, MAN ON FIRE, NINE LIVES, HIDE AND SEEK, WAR OF THE WORLDS, and CHARLOTTE’S WEB for those of us covering movies plus numerous TV and video performances. You can’t see someone every year of their lives between seven and fourteen (except for this last two year gap) without feeling that you are getting a genuine “take” on what they’re really like. Of course, there will be those who point out that Dakota is just being a good performer with a lot of charm. Here again I’ll use the Tom Hanks analogy: When someone made that point to me about him, my response was, “Well, if he’s that way all of the time, with people who matter to him and a host of others who can’t really affect his life in any way, then he IS nice.” Everyone is focused on themselves internally; that’s human nature. The difference between good and bad people is that bad people don’t care how they go about serving their own needs and good people act on a set of principles that only they know—for sure—they follow. Of course, the main credit for Dakota’s “niceness” goes to her parents; Joy Fanning is certainly an example of that; I don’t know Steve. Her sister Elle is also an actress. So, I believe Dakota when she says things like the thing she hates the most is saying goodbye to the other cast members on the last day of shooting. After all, she’s a girl scout. Oh, yes, she also knits and people separated by much less than six degrees like Tom Cruise, Oprah, Steven Spielberg, Robert De Niro and Denzel Washington have been given her scarfs. I don’t have one, but she did come close to giving me a heart attack a few days ago and so should be knitting one at this moment: I was minding my own business in a travel lounge in Toronto on my way home from the festival with all of my concentration on a game in my cellphone; I had noticed vaguely that someone sat down opposite me and was staring at me, but I didn’t look up for a minute or two when I heard a giggle. Rather irritated, I glanced up and there was Dakota throwing a “surprise” expression on her face with her mother off to the side. The cellphone leaped out of my hand to their amused satisfaction, and after my heart seemed to have survived, we looked at the new pictures of her in the Toronto paper. Her mother—understandably—was proud of how beautiful her daughter looked in the new head shot, and she pointed it out to me as it was in the paper alongside of other stars who were at the film festival (as Dakota just grinned), but I thought it was time to get a little revenge for the surprise, so I said, “She’s lovely, quite lovely, in that shot. Viggo’s prettier, but it’s close, very close.” They liked that. The following website is now accessed from the internet directly more than any other area of our station's main site (which pleases us, of course). To view a site with interviews (FLICKS), best bets (QUICK PICS), full reviews, free video podcasts (FLICKS/WHYY)and more, go to the following: http://www.whyy.org/flicks |
|
0 Comments | |
|
The Toronto International Film Festival is easily the best on the North American continent, and although I can’t report on the other festivals around the world personally, it’s generally considered one of the two or three best in the world.
I go up to get interviews in the middle of the week and will be up there through the beginning of the following week, doing far more than is logistically sensible and preventing any relaxation time during the entire period. Still, I’m going to be seeing what have to be at least a few good films and all of them have an interesting aspect to them. Although last minute trips to Toronto to see some of the 312 films from 64 countries are not advised in general simply because people plan for this event for months, fill up the nearby hotels, and grab all of the best tickets, it’s still such a heaven for cinema lovers that even a token viewing or two is worth it. This year, they’re even planning some free outdoor screenings in Yonge-Dundas Square—which is basically ground central for the festival and where most of the stars and directors who attend will pass through at one point or another, albeit quickly and probably as incognito as possible. Yet, shy as the celebrities are about being caught out in the open where they can be mobbed, it’s amazing how many people who fill the pages of fan magazines go to the screenings and even hang out in the local bistros; it’s quite possible for those to whom sighting a Clooney, Pitt, Knightley, Hathaway, etc. is exciting to get their fix in Toronto. Pity the poor media. Well, yeh, OK, that’s not likely, but really: if you can’t work up any sympathy for the likes of me, then have a little for those based in Toronto for whom this is not just a film festival but the biggest EVENT of the year and a competition for interviews that can keep them scrambling from early morning to late night every day, with sleep a fantasy they once had in an earlier life. I remember one Toronto-based TV person telling me that he had done over 150 interviews one year, and he was a serious film person so he did his homework on each one. By the way, his name is Richard Crouse and among his interesting writings is a book called, "The 100 Best Movies You've Never Seen." When you consider the fact that you have to see screenings of the movies before you do the interviews, you begin to understand why those Canadians are exhausted almost to tears each year. Those of us in the U.S. media who make the trek do a small fraction of that, but it still feels like someone is pulling you in different directions at the same time. One of the problems—and this one will finally go away after this year’s festival—is that we’re housed at the Metropolitan Hotel quite a distance from that “ground central” on Yonge where the Four Seasons, Park Hyatt and Intercontinental are located. This year, several interviews are at the York—about halfway in between. Given that we must see about two films a day on the average and do a similar number of interviews also on the same day, and given the fact that the screenings and the interview locations are all separate from each other (sometimes somewhere across town), once we leave the hotel, we won’t get back until it’s too late to eat and just barely time to sleep before it begins again. Next year, they are tearing down the block where the Metropolitan Hotel now is and the festival, many of the screenings, and the hotel(s) we’ll be using will all be down by the beautiful Toronto waterfront. An era will have ended, and once the discomfort of the current logistics is forgotten, the nostalgic memories will replace the sense of rushing from one thing to another. To give you an idea of some of those past moments: Often, just before you get to Toronto or even while you’re there, a very small movie’s representatives will approach you and make a pitch for you to do an interview with somebody with no name recognition for a film with no real budget for promotion. I’ve given you an idea of how busy we are, so it’s always a test of dedication and endurance to try to slip in a screening of a movie that may never open in more than a dozen theaters or be of any value to you as an interview anybody wants to see. Then again, that’s how I saw the unknown actress Hilary Swank in BOYS DON’T CRY in 1995. Later, when the little film opened and found an audience due to critical acclaim and then won her the Oscar, I had my interview (by the way, I also interviewed the director, Kimberly Peirce, who told me that one of the reasons she cast Hilary was because her ears were most like a boy’s—one of those little things that makes the difference between being cast in a role that changes your life and just coming close). Last year, all of the principals from MICHAEL CLAYTON were elsewhere when interview time came around, so instead of George Clooney or any of the others, we were limited to Tilda Swinton who was—at that time—feeling like her serious acting career was going to be overshadowed by her NARNIA evil queen character. She had very little screen time, you may remember; yet, come the Academy Awards, and those of us who did that interview had the winner of the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. There are also memories of moments that didn’t turn out to be the best for the stars. Way, way back in the first year or two of my career doing these things after getting syndication—in 1988, to be exact—I went to Toronto and my last film to do for interviews was a movie called ACTION JACKSON, starring Carl Weathers (better known for the ROCKY movies). He was a very nice fellow who was grateful to be the lead in his own thriller, and he gave me a good interview. There was a co-star—well, more of a supporting role, really—to interview, however. This young actress, who was unknown to the general public, kept the technicians busy setting and resetting her lights, taping her as a means of testing how she looked, and then demanding that they rework them again. My time for the interview with her came and went. That’s unusual for stars, but those who are just starting out usually don’t have any weight to pull and stick close to the schedule. An hour went by; then two hours passed; I began to worry about my flight; somewhere after the third hour past the scheduled time had passed with no end in sight, I told the studio representatives that I was going to have to leave if we didn’t do this soon. They were embarrassed and confused. She was over three hours beyond her start time, and she was still making them adjust the lights, tape, and readjust. Finally, they apologized, thanked me for being so patient, expressed frustration that someone nobody knew was completely blowing off the interviews for their film, and I left. It was Sharon Stone. Later, she would find another way to interest the media. More on the Toronto Film Festival in the next blog. The following website is now accessed from the internet directly more than any other area of our station's main site (which pleases us, of course). To view a site with interviews (FLICKS), best bets (QUICK PICS), full reviews, free video podcasts (FLICKS/WHYY)and more, go to the following: http://www.whyy.org/flicks |
|
0 Comments | |
|
Joe Biden is Obama’s choice for Vice President.
What does this have to do with a blog like this one? Well, it does and it doesn’t. It does because I’ve known Senator Biden for almost thirty years (as have so many in this area of the country) and was one of the many encouraging him to run for the presidency. It doesn’t because it’s not about films or stars directly, although those of us who were around when THE SEDUCTION OF JOE TYNAN came out with Alan Alda as a junior liberal senator who has some adventures with the character played by Meryl Streep remember that the rumor was that the surface characterisitics—not the scandal or plot complications—were based on the look and style of Joe Biden. Since it’s the dog days of summer with nothing of more interest at the moment, I’ll comment on Joe Biden as this heavily-anticipated choice is dominating television news coverage. It was the same year as that long-ago movie came out (1979) that I found myself in Senator Biden’s Washington office where I was there as the president of the Delaware Chapter of the Sierra Club—the environmental organization that was mobilizing across the country to pass what would become the following year the most comprehensive conservation legislation in history, the Alaska Lands Bill. Biden hardly needed lobbying. Not only was he already on board and seemingly more knowledgeable than anybody in the room about the details of the bill, he was also working across the aisle with his senior senator, Republican William Roth and others. In fact, when the final vote came, Delaware was the only state in the country with “yes” votes from everyone in the House and Senate. This was due, in large part, to Biden’s efforts. I doubt if the senator remembers our first meeting, although I was very impressed with him. In fact, his character was revealed when he complained about the increasing influence of Political Action Committees (PACs) on legislation, and I suggested that we could start one to counteract the dominance of the hard right in that area at the time. His reaction, in spite of the fact that the money would obviously be directed at him and like-minded colleagues: “No, I don’t want to encourage even more PACs. They are already too great an influence.” I had just started working at the station where I’ve been for the last thirty years (WHYY TV, Philadelphia). Like WNET, New York, our station is licensed just across the line in Delaware just as the huge NYC station is licensed just across the line in New Jersey—although both of our main studios are in the center of the big cities with our transmitter towers there as well. It was a common practice at the beginning of PBS for licensing purposes. Still, in spite of the fact that everything else that’s done at our TV and radio station is produced in Philadelphia (including my stuff), a weekday half-hour of news from Delaware has always been included in the programming to fulfill our licensing requirements and give coverage to a state without any independent television coverage. Now, these rather boring details are included just to explain why just about everyone in the tri-state region of southeast Pennsylvania, northeast Maryland, and Delaware know Joe Biden well. As I suppose everyone will now learn, he’s a man whose character, successes, and sadness were forged by two facts: as a child, he stuttered and was teased constantly about it in his Catholic schools but fought to eliminate it (as did the best voice in show business, James Earl Jones); and, as you will hear again and again now that people will want every piece of information about him, his attitude toward life, family, and life priorities was forged in the tragedy of the car deaths of his first wife and daughter (with his two sons, one now Delaware’s Attorney General about to serve in Iraq this fall, injured). It’s not just a campaign story that he returns every night to Delaware from D.C. to be with his family. It’s not just a campaign story that he is always gracious to everyone, even when he must be tired beyond description, hurting, or simply fed up with being recognized and judged for being “nice”. It’s not just a campaign story that everyone in the Philadelphia media market, including just about everyone at my station, has met with him, chatted with him, been charmed by him, and—yes, this is important—been impressed by his breadth of knowledge. That gets me to the main thing about him that may or may not be apparent since he has carefully cultivated a blue collar, regular guy image so successfully and consistently: Joe Biden is as much an intellectual as Barack Obama. By that, I don’t mean that Barack didn’t go to more prestigious schools than Joe, and I don’t mean to suggest that each isn’t superior to the other in different areas. They aren’t the same, but they have more in common than most politicians. They both have taught law; they both are secure in their own skins; they both have fought all of their professional lives for civil rights (Biden has some of the best credentials in this area for both minority and women’s issues, with significant legislation to his credit); and both are pragmatists when it comes to getting things done. Yes, Joe Biden is verbose. Yes, he once used phrasing too close to a British politician’s words without attribution (a fault not uncommon to intellectuals who read and absorb more than they can trace: look at the award-winning historian Doris Kearns Goodwin’s misstep in this area when it really didn’t get her anything or was essential to her reputation as a scholar). You might be verbose too if you were teased as being “dumb” in school because your stutter wouldn’t let your words come out fast enough to keep the other kids from laughing at you and disrespecting you. You might find yourself trying too hard on some occasions to prove yourself intellectually if your early life experience still rankles inside you (and, if there’s one thing I’ve learned over the years—and even since starting this blog—most negativity comes from insecurity) as Joe Biden has admitted it does. Still, I think you’ll find that the physical model for “Joe Tynan”—if those old associations are true—has character. Not sure? Fair enough. I’ll close with an excerpt from his book that is the essence of character to me. Here’s what Senator Joseph Biden had to say on the subject of the right way to live your life: “They took as a starting point the biblical exhortation that man has no greater love than to lay down his life for another man; in school we were about ten clicks back from that. You didn't give your life, but it was noble to help a lady across the street. It was noble to offer a hand up to somebody who had less. It was noble to step in when the bully was picking on somebody. It was noble to intervene.” That will do as the definition of a good person for me. Back to strictly film stuff next week…  English Second Language Acting I don’t speak a second language. Observing those who do has always been impressive to me. Of course, there are levels of fluency, but since what little I know of other languages is entirely academic; that is, I have managed to pass qualifying exams in French and Latin, but what little ability I have is for the written word. So, I am particularly impressed with actors who work in a second language—English. I am especially impressed with those who weren’t completely fluent in English before they started working in English-language films. Some of these actors made it to the ‘star” level, and I interviewed them as they were still learning the language—Antonio Banderas, Jackie Chan, and Arnold Schwarzenegger being examples of the range of English comfort from struggling to measured. You can name dozens of others from various countries who were stars elsewhere and then broke into Hollywood. Woody Allen’s latest film, VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA (which has now opened) provided me with the opportunity to discuss acting in a second language with two of the most successful examples of this phenomenon: Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz. First, a commercial: it’s for these moments that I do interviews with film stars—the chance to look at the craft from a fresh point of view. If you’re not doing them just to watch a star talk about something fun and sexy, then you wait for these moments while doing your job and getting less insightful but hopefully worthwhile interviews. Anyhow, the acting requirements of Javier and Penelope in VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA is a perfect example of working in both their first and second language since they go back and forth in Spanish and English. So, I asked them to describe what the differences were when they were acting in their own language and when they were acting in English. Consider the nature of what they’re doing: they aren’t just communicating; they are using the internal emotional memory and character choices of “acting”; they are being themselves inside of their heads with their own language while trying to elicit another person—the one they are portraying. It’s much trickier than it sounds if you’re a real actor; you’re not just memorizing lines and spewing them out when the cameras are pointed at you; you’re thinking and acting as someone else. Penelope talked about how it was for her when she first started acting in English-speaking movies. She said that she had to develop the character completely in Spanish and then learn the lines phonetically. In fact, she was honest enough to admit that she has only been able to act “directly” in English in very recent years. Javier was more detailed and analytical about the problem. He described his early work in English as acting “as if everything was going through a filter.” He said that he was still thinking in Spanish as the character and then speaking in English. He said that it was the long set shoot for NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN where he was speaking only English all day long every day that he first began to think in English as the character. Both Bardem and Cruz felt that their acting improved physically as they became more comfortable in the language in addition to the verbal freedom. Javier described the sense of feeling his whole body follow his mental release when he didn’t have to screen his thoughts. So, their English has gotten to that point as language skills progressed, but Javier and Penelope found Woody Allen’s method of shooting an aid in leaping forward in their second language comfort level. Allen is known for filming long scenes at medium range. This is helpful to anyone working in a second language in two ways: the length of the scene permits a “build” in the dialogue that works to create a realistic flow, lending more “meaning” to the words; and, since you’re not piecing together scenes with separate close-up shots but rather capturing the conversations as they actually happen, the other actors’ timing and nuance give the actor more to work with than just the words. Javier and Penelope both felt their performances in VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA were more believable because of the length of the scenes and the freedom they were given to follow their instincts. Of course, this made working in their second language of English easier, but their long scene completely in their shared native Spanish felt even better to them for the same reasons. When you see a Javier Bardem or Penelope Cruz film, it’s interesting to know how much has to be going through their minds and how they—and others like them—have learned to process it. The following website is now accessed from the internet directly more than any other area of our station's main site (which pleases us, of course). To view a site with interviews (FLICKS), best bets (QUICK PICS), full reviews, free video podcasts (FLICKS/WHYY)and more, go to the following: http://www.whyy.org/flicks |
|
0 Comments | |
|
I don’t speak a second language. Observing those who do has always been impressive to me. Of course, there are levels of fluency, but since what little I know of other languages is entirely academic; that is, I have managed to pass qualifying exams in French and Latin, but what little ability I have is for the written word.
So, I am particularly impressed with actors who work in a second language—English. I am especially impressed with those who weren’t completely fluent in English before they started working in English-language films. Some of these actors made it to the ‘star” level, and I interviewed them as they were still learning the language—Antonio Banderas, Jackie Chan, and Arnold Schwarzenegger being examples of the range of English comfort from struggling to measured. You can name dozens of others from various countries who were stars elsewhere and then broke into Hollywood. Woody Allen’s latest film, VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA (which has now opened) provided me with the opportunity to discuss acting in a second language with two of the most successful examples of this phenomenon: Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz. First, a commercial: it’s for these moments that I do interviews with film stars—the chance to look at the craft from a fresh point of view. If you’re not doing them just to watch a star talk about something fun and sexy, then you wait for these moments while doing your job and getting less insightful but hopefully worthwhile interviews. Anyhow, the acting requirements of Javier and Penelope in VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA is a perfect example of working in both their first and second language since they go back and forth in Spanish and English. So, I asked them to describe what the differences were when they were acting in their own language and when they were acting in English. Consider the nature of what they’re doing: they aren’t just communicating; they are using the internal emotional memory and character choices of “acting”; they are being themselves inside of their heads with their own language while trying to elicit another person—the one they are portraying. It’s much trickier than it sounds if you’re a real actor; you’re not just memorizing lines and spewing them out when the cameras are pointed at you; you’re thinking and acting as someone else. Penelope talked about how it was for her when she first started acting in English-speaking movies. She said that she had to develop the character completely in Spanish and then learn the lines phonetically. In fact, she was honest enough to admit that she has only been able to act “directly” in English in very recent years. Javier was more detailed and analytical about the problem. He described his early work in English as acting “as if everything was going through a filter.” He said that he was still thinking in Spanish as the character and then speaking in English. He said that it was the long set shoot for NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN where he was speaking only English all day long every day that he first began to think in English as the character. Both Bardem and Cruz felt that their acting improved physically as they became more comfortable in the language in addition to the verbal freedom. Javier described the sense of feeling his whole body follow his mental release when he didn’t have to screen his thoughts. So, their English has gotten to that point as language skills progressed, but Javier and Penelope found Woody Allen’s method of shooting an aid in leaping forward in their second language comfort level. Allen is known for filming long scenes at medium range. This is helpful to anyone working in a second language in two ways: the length of the scene permits a “build” in the dialogue that works to create a realistic flow, lending more “meaning” to the words; and, since you’re not piecing together scenes with separate close-up shots but rather capturing the conversations as they actually happen, the other actors’ timing and nuance give the actor more to work with than just the words. Javier and Penelope both felt their performances in VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA were more believable because of the length of the scenes and the freedom they were given to follow their instincts. Of course, this made working in their second language of English easier, but their long scene completely in their shared native Spanish felt even better to them for the same reasons. When you see a Javier Bardem or Penelope Cruz film, it’s interesting to know how much has to be going through their minds and how they—and others like them—have learned to process it. The following website is now accessed from the internet directly more than any other area of our station's main site (which pleases us, of course). To view a site with interviews (FLICKS), best bets (QUICK PICS), full reviews, free video podcasts (FLICKS/WHYY)and more, go to the following: http://www.whyy.org/flicks |
|
0 Comments | |
|
John Edwards and I shared the same hotel floor.
No, this is not a confession. The National Enquirer will probably not find it worth their while to send reporters. It IS one of those odd coincidences that make life amusing and a chance to reflect on the small world of celebrity. I was watching television on the day that former presidential candidate John Edwards admitted that he had been lying about his affair in 2006 with THAT woman. The event that forced the confession took place in the Beverly Hilton—perhaps most famous for the site of the Golden Globe awards--where I was seeing the bizarre affair unfolding on my TV. You know the story by now, as it seemed to be repeated on every channel around the clock when it was news: Edwards was caught meeting with the woman in the hotel in a room under neither of their names, and the Enquirer broke the story a couple of weeks ago but it remained a tabloid story and far right radio tale until he decided to come clean in an ABC interview. Anyhow, there I am—relaxing after seeing a screening of HAMLET 2 in preparation for an interview the next day—and I notice that the video of the hotel hallway that was running under the voiceover tale looked oddly familiar. Since they didn’t really have anything to “show”, all of the cable channels that were repeating the revelations nonstop just shot the areas of the hotel where the encounters took place. As I’m watching this on national television, however, I notice that the carpet of the hallway is the same as the one outside of my room and the paintings on the walls were not just similar but precisely the ones that led to my room. Then, the camera tilts up from the hallway and dramatically fastens on the room number: 252. I’m just a few doors away from this room as I’m watching this. Then, the scene changes to the area in the lower area of the hotel where the bars and restaurants are. I’ve just come up from dinner there, and I see the camera zooming into the bathroom door out of which I just exited a few minutes before—where Edwards apparently barricaded the door and called “Security” to get the Enquirer crew tossed out of the hotel. So, I’m watching this on television with the rest of the nation while video is being shot of the places right by me that I’ve just passed but is meant to give an idea of what happened at them a couple of weeks ago. It was almost like I could step out of my room and enter a twilight zone of media coverage shot out of time. Weird… What this made me consider was the small world that people from many of the modes of celebrity inhabit, although we don’t tend of think of them overlapping. Look at how politics, pop celebrity, and entertainment journalism interact within the ten mile circle of Beverly Hills. I mean, it doesn’t even seem that odd that John McCain and Paris Hilton are intertwined in a media obsessed with politics and “fame for no other reason than it’s famous”. It may have been a crude political stunt to try to isolate Barack Obama as an empty star, but the distance between him and the paparazzi is short indeed. Think not? Ask John Edwards. What was he thinking? You’ve had an affair with a woman, supposedly for a short time two years earlier, but you meet with her now, knowing that the condition of your wife and the level of your ambition as a presidential candidate make you a tempting target of the tabloid press, so what do you do? MEET HER IN A HOTEL THAT IS WITHIN THE MOST PUBLIC, EXPLOITED CIRCLE OF GROUND IN THE ENTIRE WORLD??!! This is where you go for two reasons only: you want to be noticed and have your image seen around the world, or you’re one of us who interacts with these people for professional reasons and this is where you find them. John, I greatly admire your political opinions; I still hope you could be a fighting Attorney General of the United States someday; and, I understand that you’ve been through Hell and probably were more vulnerable than most of your critics can fathom for some release, but REALLY…what were you thinking? So, just in case you’re a famous person whose private life would be of interest to the tabloid press, could I explain to you about this little world—whether you’re at the Four Seasons where I am now only because I must interview Luke Wilson and others tomorrow, or whether you’re in the middle of the little area that may be the best known celebrity town in the country, perhaps at the Beverly Wilshire (best known to the public as the PRETTY WOMAN hotel): It’s a friendly place, much like the mythical bar in CHEERS or the small towns in old Frank Capra movies; that is, it’s a place where everyone knows everyone else; it’s a place where you can’t move from room to without someone saying your name; it’s a place where faces known to fans in India and Peru greet faces that would be known to you only if you are part of the informal little club that mills around behind the security lines. You don’t have to be important or famous or rich, although many of the people nodding and smiling are one or more of those things. All that you have to be is “there”—often enough to be in the “book” (I mean this literally) that is kept by the select watering holes to make sure their people are immediately nice to the regulars. In other words, as the saying goes, all that you have to do is “show up.” So, here’s my advice: if you want to meet someone or act in a way that will offend people and end your celebrity but don’t want to be caught, then avoid the area from Malibu to Hollywood, from the Hills to Santa Monica, and from any hotel within that boundary that is oversold on awards weekends. You will be noticed. OR, do it intentionally and join the ranks of the “famous because they’re famous” club. I would recommend option two as a very distant second choice. The following website is now accessed from the internet directly more than any other area of our station's main site (which pleases us, of course). To view a site with interviews (FLICKS), best bets (QUICK PICS), full reviews, free video podcasts (FLICKS/WHYY)and more, go to the following: |
|
0 Comments | |
|
It’s like a Monday morning for those who work regular work weeks: getting back on a plane after you’ve enjoyed not flying for a couple of weeks. Of course, summer flying has always been the worse because of the crowds, but the perfect storm of gas, food inflation, cutbacks, and the customer service meltdown is just getting worse.
Still, a Woody Allen film is always of interest—even if the anticipation is often better than the digestion these days. Although almost nobody believes now that SAG can manage a strike vote after the August 14 deadline with the producers, we’ll work right up to it getting interviews—and then have three glorious weeks for home time/vacation before the more interesting fall films begin. Meanwhile, the almost annual interview with Woody Allen is a good topic for a journal entry, if I concentrate on his work and don’t get into his life controversies. That work has continued through amazing distractions since 1969 on a fairly regular schedule. With VICKY CRISINA BARCELONA, he maintains that although he’s older than John McCain—which makes him considerably older than me or God. Allen’s films have never made him that much money; his work has been more valued on the two coasts than in the rest of the country. In fact, he claims that he made more money on some real estate deals than on any of his movies. Sadly, the current generation never saw him doing standup. Comedy Central named him the #4 in their 100 Greatest Stand-up Comedians of All Time. Of course, you could fill pages with the various honors and listings (Entertainment Weekly made him #14 on their alltime greatest directors list, and he’s been nominated for more original writing Oscars than anybody else, to pick just two), but his professional record is readily available. I think I first interviewed Woody for BULLETS OVER BROADWAY in 1994, but there may have been an earlier one. The reason it’s hard to remember is that he doesn’t always do interviews, and he hates seeing himself interviewed on the air (he also won’t do any dvd commentary, which is a great loss for film history). The first impression that I had of Allen was his gentleness—almost a sad vulnerability. It wasn’t that I expected his frenetic public character; I’ve interviewed far too many comic actors not to know that they are almost universally very serious people whose comedy comes from needs of various kinds (Steve Martin being the best example of the type and Robin Williams being that proverbial exception to the rule). What DID surprise me in my first interviews with Woody was his honesty and frankness. He didn’t seem to have any shield up to thwart questions he might not want. Since tabloid journalism is not my beat and wasting time on that when the opportunity to discuss his combined artistic talents was in front of me, this was a treat. Keeping in mind that my first shot at him was about fifteen years ago, I asked about some theories about his work that were prevalent at the time, in particular his use of medium and long range shots without adding the usual close-ups: at that time, some people suggested “distancing techniques” or “viewing interaction rather than cutting back and forth”, and more esoteric assumptions. So, I asked him if he accepted any of the academic interpretations, and his answer impressed me. He said, “You know, I should probably just let them invent complicated artistic explanations and be mysterious about it, but the truth is that I’m just too lazy to shoot the close-ups.” When I gave him a look like he might be doing some self-deprecating humor, he picked up on it and said, “No, really, I’m serious. I just find shooting close-ups tedious. Once I’ve got what I want on film, I’m ready to go home or go play music. If I had the energy or the interest, I would do the close-ups. The truth is that I don’t.” In an interview a bit later for another film, I decided to ask Allen about his reputation for giving out only partial scripts to actors—with only their scenes. Again, he was frank: “I don’t know why people think this is what I do all of the time. They make it sound like I’ve got a grand plan that I don’t want to share or somehow that’ll spoil it. It’s not true. I just don’t always have everything written yet. Then, sometimes I do. If it’s a lead that carries straight through the film, they’ll get all that I have—or even a supporting player, if I’ve got it. It’s not a rule.” What struck me about these answers and others was not that the content was “news”—I’m sure it wasn’t, although his hesitation to do interviews would naturally limit his explanations. What seemed of value to me was Woody’s rejection of the “mysterious artist mystique”. He simply loved making films and did them in the way that worked for him. If others liked them, fine; if they rejected them, then too bad but also fine. He would just go on writing, directing and making music, with optional acting as he chose. In 2002, I was covering the Oscars from backstage and surprised to have learned earlier that Woody Allen would be attending—in Los Angeles, a city often lampooned in his films and 3000 miles from his beloved New York. Of course, it was FOR New York that brought him there: after 9/11, many have forgotten how Hollywood avoided the city, and Allen made the trek to the Academy’s billion-viewer night to make a personal appeal to keep making and promoting films there. It’s not that hard to catch a glimpse of Allen “in the wild”, as the phrase is among media people about celebrities outside of the organized encounters, in New York where he plays with his jazz group every week and is often on the streets of the city filming. Seeing him being taken around like an endangered species within the security lines of the Academy Awards in the most glitzy of all Hollywood affairs was a special treat, however. There is always a bizarre “sighting” frenzy at the awards and, especially, the after-parties that has always baffled me (why do those who interact with stars regularly through their work on the creative side or our work on the media coverage side get some kind of joy out of seeing those same people in a social setting?), but the idea of the quintessential New Yorker with a public aversion to awards and Hollywood being at the center of the world’s most lavish movie spectacle was a treat. Of course, his message was worth the effort, although New York has never quite recovered the place it had in the film world in these seven years since 9/11. Yes, television shows are shot there in abundance, and we can all name dozens of films set there (if mostly filmed somewhere else—often Canada—after they’ve captured a few shots in NYC), but we used to spend half of our year going to the city for coverage and we now can go a month or two without seeing Manhattan. It’s improving, but slower than Woody would have liked. It’s hard to say how long Woody can keep making movies, but I want to be there as long as he does. His range is greater than usually recognized. Look at MATCH POINT, quoted as his personal favorite, compared to ANNIE HALL, THE PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO, BROADWAY DANNY ROSE, STARDUST MEMORIES, and my favorite, MANHATTAN, to pick a few. He’s a film festival in himself. Once he’s gone, we can still see him outside of his pictures, by the way, in case you’re planning a vacation: they erected a five foot, five inch tall (his exact height) statue of him in Oviedo, Spain. P.S. The webmaster of our station wants to put this blog directly on the WHYY website. I have it here on Rotten Tomatoes because my PBS station didn’t use to have that much memory on its web operation, but—like most others—[url=http://www.whyy.org]www.whyy.org has grown. I hesitate to do that, though, because my original intent was to keep a diary of my exact thoughts and activities in real time, using the weekly internet deadline to force me to stay current. That’s why the entries are longer than usual for the internet, and I’ve made no effort to add video or other things. It’s for my own record of memory and for people who like to read—period. That history is stored here, except for the hard copies. Still, I may decide to do that at some future point since the webmaster and station would like that. The following website is now accessed from the internet directly more than any other area of our station's main site (which pleases us, of course). To view a site with interviews (FLICKS), best bets (QUICK PICS), full reviews, free video podcasts (FLICKS/WHYY)and more, go to the following: |
|
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