Oh-hey “Galavant”

Did you hear of the TV Show “Galavant”? Did you watch it? It was 8-part series. Each episode lasted for 22 minutes.

“Galavant” was a musical about a knight trying to “save” his true “love” from an “evil” king in Medieval England.  Yes, if you haven’t figured it out, it was a farce of medieval England, heroism, love, etc. It was ridiculously funny. Even Ricky Gervais made an appearance as a “wizard.”

Most of the actors were British; well, they had a British accent (which makes me British of course). And most of them sang. I found this show hilarious. I just enjoyed it for what it was. Music and songs were terrific. Great satire! Plus, acting was terrific. It was entertaining. I didn’t have to worry about thinking too much about it or take it too seriously or worry about a plot. Sure, I was rooting for Galavant (man, that guy is handsome), and I couldn’t wait for the next episode. It was something new, different, and refreshing. The show a bit reminded me of Shakespeare and over the top acting. Overall, the show was fun and enjoyable to watch.

But I heard that it might be cancelled because of low ratings? Huh? That would be unfortunate.  It was short; no other show is like this. So, if the show will be cancelled, then it only shows once more than American audience, in general, doesn’t understand art and entertainment. Sometimes, we don’t need to be scared, think about our heroes too much, and not worry that a murderer or politician will steal something from us. I hope there will be second season regardless of Nielsen Ratings.

You should see it to learn what entertainment is all about (if you don’t know), to see wonderful performances, and just enjoy a wonderful evening’s show without increasing your blood pressure, and go to sleep content and with a smile. I’ll say that I’ve slept much better after watching this TV show than all others with their intrigue and killings. I hope you will enjoy it, unless you saw it, as I did.  

If you saw it, what did you think about it? Share your comments below.

Joke of “The Interview”

The other day I watched “The Interview.”  I thank Netflix for providing me with such an opportunity and saving me a few bucks though I do pay for Netflix. 

The movie was funny. In fact, it was just hilarious. And that it only was. It didn’t pick on anyone specific. Instead, it made fun and ridiculed everything and everyone: media, CIA and the US desire to intervene in everything, and North Korea and its system (though at times it looked not as funny just because when hunger is ever funny). In addition, it made fun of relationships between journalists/reporters (60 Minutes vs Cable Entertainment talk show), how CIA will use anyone to take care of its agenda by using a female character with traits for which most men die for (glasses, long hair with bangs, a hint of showed bosoms, and sweet talk), and the leader of North Korea who is not a bad guy but someone who is misunderstood, wants to have some fun, and gets angry quickly because he has daddy issues. Overall, the movie was a simple parody of things that we take sometimes too seriously and don’t see humor and idiocy in our view of the world and how we treat each other. The movie wasn’t politically or socially correct. That was the whole point. As such, if North Korea doesn’t understand this or any other country that attacks non-sense of a movie, then how can we really improve the world, our relationship with each other, where certain leaders’ egos are clouding their judgment, and they don’t get humor for humor’s sake. After all, I don’t really understand American humor. I find it repulsive and idiotic most of the time. However, sometimes movies, a TV show, or stand-up comes along that makes me laugh regardless how inappropriate it is. The point of the comedy is not to take things too seriously. And if someone doesn’t understand that, then they need to learn how to laugh. Have you seen Jeff Dunham routines? They are so wrong on so many levels, but sooooo funny.

Plus, James Franco and Seth Rogen were hilarious. Yes, they were inappropriate in the best of times in their scenes, but they were not Sacha Baron Cohen’s inappropriate like. To me, it seemed their play was on purpose. Every sentence was almost like a joke in of itself. As such, this is the reason why the movie worked. Comedies are hard to write and act in; not everyone would be able to make it classy and not crass.  And they succeeded. I think I laughed in almost every scene.

I also enjoyed set designs, especially those portraying North Korea. Everything was too big, too monstrous, and too dark. It reminded me of Soviet style architecture which was influenced by 1930s style architecture that was prevalent in places like Canada, Europe, and the Soviet Union and moved on to Asia.

It was sad to hear when the movie was cancelled by Sony. Is this what will happen if Alibaba acquires a major, or a few, Hollywood studios? Will we have censorship of what people should watch? If that’s the case, then the dream that was the US will die and the old world (not just Europe – which has more freedoms now than the US) will dominate the globe and no one will be able to escape anywhere anymore. I hope that is not the case, and the movie “The Interview” and what happened afterwards reminds us to keep our head above the water of those who prefer to tell others what to do, what to think, what to buy, and whom to obey.

And, in the end, did I mention it was funny?

Interview with Successful Actor: Sam Rockwell

Re-published from "The Talks" -- http://the-talks.com/interviews/sam-rockwell/

Mr. Rockwell, what was the smartest thing that you did in your career?

It was probably studying acting with William Esper. I did that for two years when I was 24 years old in ’91. I was in desperate need of training and I had done theater, but I needed some training. I studied Meisner for two years and then I met my acting coach there, Terry Knickerbocker. I still coach with Terry. It’s been a huge thing for me.

Was studying acting about learning technique or did it also influence the way you approach your work in general?

It’s everything. It’s the foundation, it’s the discipline. Acting is a discipline like anything else, you know? If it’s done well, like carpentry or anything else, there’s a discipline to it, a science to it.

An art to it?

Hopefully it’s an artsy job. (Laughs) I think it’s important that it’s fulfilling, that there’s a Zen quality to it. I don’t think there’s enough of an apprenticeship in acting these days, except maybe in London or Chicago. There’s an apprenticeship in theater that doesn’t really happen as much in the movies. It used to be that a lot of movie stars came from the theater, you know?

Christopher Walken, Meryl Streep…

Exactly. Robert DeNiro, Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voight, Robert Duvall… all those guys. Gene Hackman.

Do you think that has to do with all the superhero blockbusters and their sequels that are being made now?

I think it has a lot to do with it. It’s a different business right now.

Would you ever play the lead in one of those films?

If the part is a good part I would probably do it. Moon is a movie I could have done just as easily with David Fincher, you know what I mean? And in a way you want as many people to see your work as possible because you work your ass off and hopefully it touches people in some way. As a writer you probably want a lot of readers, right?

Of course.

It’s the same thing, really. You want to touch people with your work.

That’s true, but the nature of the work is key. Something with a political message is very different from a mindless Hollywood blockbuster, for example.

I think it depends on your taste. I happen to like those comic book movies. I like The Avengers, I like Iron Man.I get a big kick out of those movies. I also like, you know, The Rover, The Piano Teacher, or My Dinner With Andre. I like small movies and I like big movies.

But would you worry about the effect that the success of a big movie might have on your life?

To avoid fame as an actor is foolish. It’s inevitable that if you’re going to be an actor, you’re going to be famous on some level if you’re going to be a successful actor. It’s naïve to think you can avoid all that. You can pick your route, you know, you don’t have to do your laundry in front of the paparazzi… There are people who are more low-key like Daniel Day-Lewis or Viggo Mortensen. I don’t need to be showing my personal life to the press. You really just want to work with good people and do good work with good writers and good actors. That’s the main thing. If it involves more exposure than other things, it’s okay. It just depends on the scenario.

You’ve said you wanted your career to be like Gary Oldman or John Malkovich. Do you think you’ve managed to accomplish that?

Yeah. I feel pretty good about what I’ve done. I want to continue to challenge myself. I think it’s about continually challenging yourself.

Does that involve being continually frustrated with where you are?

No. I don’t know, that sounds negative. But life is struggle. Life is about struggle. You’re not supposed to be happy all the time. It’s about challenging yourself and pushing yourself, you know? You become content. That’s not happiness.

So when things get too comfortable do you start looking for a new challenge?

Yeah, it’s part of the journey of life that you keep your mind active. You’re looking for adventure. You’re looking to feel that spontaneous moment. I think you’re trying to experience that through your work. There’s a euphoric moment sometimes when you’re acting. It’s just being there for the first time.

It’s like traveling – once you’ve been somewhere, you can never go there for the first time again. So you have to go somewhere new the next time.

Yeah, that’s it, that’s exactly right. You can only go to Hooters for the first time once – and then that’s it!

Sour “Cake”

I was disappointed with “Cake”. The movie failed. However, it wasn’t actors’ fault. They did a wonderful job with what they were given. Jennifer Aniston’s (“Claire”) foray into drama was a success; I hope that she will continue to act in this area. She provided, I believe, a strong portrayal of a person who was in chronic pain. And speaking of performances, there are two instances that really captivated me. First, Adriana Barraza (“Silvana”) played Claire’s homecare attendant brilliantly. She could’ve been nominated for an Oscar in Supporting Role easily. It was the strongest performance by far compared to all the other actors in the movie. The second question concerns William H. Macy (Leonard). Who the heck decided to bring into this project such a strong performer for three lines or close to it? Really?! That was disappointing. Therefore, I will reiterate here that the fault was not with the actors for ruining for what could’ve been a great movie. The problem was either with the script itself or with editing, if not both. Let me explain.

At the end of the movie, I had way too many questions. How did “Claire” come to live with chronic pain? What happened to her son? How did the relationship between “Claire” and her husband deteriorate?  What was “Claire’s” relationship with “Leonard”? Why did they fight?  What kind of relationship did “Claire” and “Nina” (Anna Kendrick; terrific performance) really had?  They behaved like two people who cared about each other deeply, but I didn’t feel that this movie portrayed it well. These are way too many questions to have. As a viewer, I shouldn’t have this many questions, if any at all. I should have left this movie with satisfaction of some kind; some closure should’ve been shown but wasn’t. Therefore, I had to assume what exactly happened through what I suppose were flashbacks like that of police or ambulance.  If it was me, I would do the following.

I would start with the car accident and show who was at fault and who died. For example, camera could’ve shown dead child, hurt parents, and Leonard standing over the crash, next to his, car crying. How awesome would that be? After that, I would jump 5 years into the future. And we find “Claire” where the movie started. This would provide a grounding to decide for us whether to feel for “Claire” or not. Plus, I would show maybe meetings between “Claire’s” and “Leonard’s” lawyers five years later due to our wonderful court system, or something similar. Furthermore, through flashback, I would show the relationship between “Claire” and “Nina” that “Claire” became so bitchy because of “Nina’s” death, and she wasn’t as full of herself before that, even though she lived with chronic pain. Therefore, there are many ways the story could’ve been told better. The script was subpar because the dialogue between people felt real, but there weren’t much meaning behind them. I should take a look at the script. However, the worst thing that could’ve happened was in the editing room. Let us assume that they filmed a whole bunch of scenes including the crash. But then, they cut most of the important scenes just because of time. And I believe that is where the movie failed. I don’t think I’ve ever watched a movie where I had a whole dozen questions at the end of it. I was very disappointed.

In conclusion, I will say that actors can create strong characters all they want, but if a script is not clear or there are holes in it, then the movie will be a disaster. Actors and viewers will be felt cheated and should be. The “Cake” is a case-study for how not to write scenes and how not to edit and/or film the movie. Jennifer Aniston’s performance was extremely well done. It showed her work ethic. That is bloody marvelous to see. However, a stronger story would’ve have done a better justice to her performance. After all, “Wild” had a well-written script and Reese Witherspoon’s character was supported though there were problems (see my blog about “Wild”). Unfortunately for “Cake”, there weren’t any support for the main character to play-off of to make her character stand out. 

“Grand Budapest Hotel”: A Good Fun!

“Grand Budapest Hotel” (GBH; too lazy to write it out in the blog) was WOW. This movie was such a tremendous fun that it was a pleasure to watch. Cinematography (Robert D. Yeoman) was great; directing (Wes Anderson) hit all the right notes; acting (Ralph Fiennes and Anthony Quinonez (“Zero)) was fabulous. Did you see Tilda Swinton’s performance as Madame D? Spectacular! The whole star-studded ensemble just played off of each other; great chemistry, as good as in “Birdman”. For them, it was like a vacation; relaxed, focused, and just enjoying the ride (sometimes literally). Alexander Desplat created a beautiful and fun score, and Adam Stockhausen and Anna Pinnock’s production design and set decorations were so grand that he and his team were rightfully nominated for the Academy Award. (I think they’ll win). GBH was good fun. Unfortunately, it’s all it was. At times, I felt bored.

The story was inspired by the writings of Stefan Zweig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Zweig). The script was written by Wes Anderson and Hugo Guinness. I’d like to read the script itself. It was solid; great lesson in screenplay writing. Actors had a lot wonderful words to say and to push the story along with their play. However, something was missing. There was a lack of something that was hard to pinpoint. Surely, it reminded me of Eastern European culture among other things. But somehow I was expecting more. However, I have a feeling that was the point. After all, the old adage of entertainment business is “leave them to want more”. And I believe Wes Anderson succeeded in that. Of course, I’d like to read some of Zweig’s stories to see, perhaps, that illusionary missing an action act. I’d say though you should see it, if you haven’t yet.  I haven’t had this much fun in a while!

In the end, GBH was a lyrical satire.  It was not a comedy per se.  Instead, it was more like making fun, intelligently, about our lives. In fact, the story was making fun of mobsters, rich people, servants, police, the state, the army, and about relationships. All of this to make us not to take this film too seriously. But, at the same time, we should give it some thought after watching it. After all, this movie makes fun of the situations that we might get ourselves into, not most of the time like the scene escaping from prison – still brings smile to me. But these types of movies have made people feel free in curtained societies like the Soviet Union. They were shown because, perhaps, leaders didn’t see how the story made fun of the ruled society, and it wasn’t political either. 

These kinds of movies make us feel good, but also make us think about the society we live in, if we are intelligent enough to see it. Of course, GBH was making fun of the times that it portrayed, but I found it funny because of experiences and knowledge I possess today; the story is still relevant today. After all, the movie begins and ends with a person giving flowers in the middle of cemetery to the writer. Why do you think that is? How satirical is that? Why did the movie make such a scene important? It is definitely a nice topic for an analytical essay about this movie. The movie is deep. If you are a filmmaker, writer, or any other creative, you should realize that for you the movie is a gold mine. GBH is imbued with symbolism in almost every scene if you know where to look. I am dead serious. I saw them. But then again maybe my mind was playing tricks on me, but I doubt it. That painting of a boy with an apple was not there just for fun. I am sure if you watch it often enough you will see it.

I believe I was influenced by them a great deal. Perhaps, one day, I will write up something similar. Unfortunately, today, we don’t have similar genres. Comedies of today are just making fun of our questionable behavior. They are just fun for fun’s sake; just look at “The Interview”. I think it’s time to bring more of satirical movies to big screen. Have you watched “Red”, both parts? It was satirical and not just an entertaining movie. Or, how about “Ushpizin” or “Footnote”? These Israeli movies are serious, but they do make fun of situations that our heroes find themselves in and of the society.

I believe if more societies allowed making fun of themselves through movies and not taking things as seriously as we all do, then we’ll have a lot less bloody conflicts and unnecessary arguments. After all, all of our behaviors are just silly.

Honestly, you must see GBH for the fun of it and maybe you’ll think how idiotically funny our behavior sometimes is in almost all situations of our lives. 

 Article about set design for GBH

“See How an Old Department Store Became a ‘Grand Budapest Hotel’”: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/oscars-see-how-an-old-755366

No Excuses: A Conversation with Preston Lee of Uber Content

Great advice for anyone. Just tweak it given your circumstance. (Published previously on Music Bed website: http://community.musicbed.com/articles/preston-lee?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=promoted&utm_content=CommunityPost&utm_campaign=PrestonLeeUberContent)

If you’ve thought there must be some secret to breaking into the high-end commercial film world, then the conversation we had with Über Content Founder Preston Lee is going to be a little bit disappointing. Because, as Preston told us — and as you’ve probably suspected deep down in your heart of hearts — the only real “secret” to breaking in is doing amazing work.

“That’s really it in a nutshell,” Preston told us. “I’m looking for really talented directors.”

And Preston would know. He represents the likes of Eliot Rausch and Fred Savage. After being in the business for 20 years, Preston has seen it all, and he’s incredibly generous with what he’s learned. So while you might be disappointed there are no secrets, we don’t think you’ll be disappointed with what Preston has to say. We found it very encouraging.

Here’s our conversation with Preston Lee.

MB: Can you explain what you do?

PL: So what I do, and what other commercial production companies do, is we look for directors to represent in the world of advertising. We make national and international television commercials and music videos. I end up operating very similarly to an agent. However, my title is executive producer, so I’m a little bit more hands-on. I’m like an agent, a manager, and a producer all in one.

So, for example, I found Eliot [Rausch] maybe five years ago on a friend’s Facebook page. I watched Last Minutes with Oden and I was like, “What? Who’s that?” Then I just started Googling. I found his email or maybe his Facebook page. I sent him a note like, “Hey, bro, this is what I do. Would you be interested in directing commercials?”

MB: A lot of filmmakers — especially early on in their careers — would love to get an email from you asking if they want to be represented by Über Content. Who do you look for? What stands out?

[Do follow the link and check out 6 minutes of "Last Minutes with Oden". You won't be sorry.]

PL: It’s somewhat hard to articulate because it’s really just talent. I get emails from filmmakers every day, and I see so much bad work. If there’s good work, I’m open to it; but I see so much bad work. I spend a lot of time with filmmakers I know I’m not going to sign. I have them come into the office, and I show them current work in their genre. I say, “Is your stuff that good? Is your stuff as good as Last Minutes with Oden? Because Eliot shot that in four hours, edited it in six hours, and maybe spent $100. So if you spent $3,000 or $4,000 on your piece, you’ve got a long way to grow.”

That’s really it in a nutshell: I’m looking for really talented directors. Ones who have an opinion. Ones who are making stuff that’s competitive with what’s out there.

The thing is, if you’re a filmmaker, you really have to be a student of what’s happening right now. You have to be out there and be familiar. I’m shocked by some of the conversations I have with young filmmakers who aren’t aware of what’s happening right now. It’s really competitive out here in L.A., and the ones who rise to the top are the ones who live and breathe this stuff every day. They have to make films. Eliot has to make films in order to stay emotionally healthy. He just has to. Filmmakers should constantly be studying what’s happening, watching work, watching work, watching work.

MB: Do you think some filmmakers “have it” and some don’t?

PL: It’s a brilliant question, and it’s one I’ve thought about a lot over the years, having worked with so many directors. Some have been successful and others haven’t. So I’ve wondered,What is the algorithm? What is the magical whatever-you-want-to-call-it? Is it just talent? Is it hard work? And I think the answer is yes to both. I think talent — just like musical talent — is innate. Some people unfairly have more. Eliot unfairly has really good creative vision and instinct. Others I’ve worked with have to work really, really hard to get there.

There’s this one guy I’ve worked with who works really, really hard; he went to film school; and he would love to get the jobs Eliot gets — but he’s just not there. He’s growing though. Each year he’s growing. I guess it’s like sports. Some people are naturally talented basketball players, and some have to work every single day just to compete. But both can be successful.

My challenge to all young filmmakers, no matter their talent level, is to stop talking aboutmaking films and actually make films. Over the past 20 years, I’ve had a lot of friends talk about making films, and a very small [number] of those friends have actually made films. Don’t talk about it. Stop talking about it. Make it. Most of the people who talk the most about making films have never made one. Just shut up and go make it.

MB: Are there common mistakes you see filmmakers make?

PL: Maybe ego. Try to keep your ego in check as you grow. I’ve found that the most talented directors have this certain character defect: They never think their work is that great. Eliot thinks his work is crap. He doesn’t get it. He doesn’t get why people ever email him. He just can’t see it because he’s constantly perfecting his craft. He’s constantly moving forward. [Films by] directors who are like, “Look at this thing I made — isn’t this great?” usually end up being not that great. So I always recommend to young filmmakers, “Keep your ego in check, man. You’re not that great. There’s always someone better. Keep looking for inspiration.”

MB: Do you care if someone has been to film school or worked with major brands? Does any of that matter?

PL: As long as somebody is talented, I don’t care. As long as the work is good. One of the biggest mistakes I see from directors who are trying to break in is they make something like a Nike spec commercial. As if that’s never been done. I can’t send that work to ad agencies because everyone knows Wieden+Kennedy does Nike.

I would prefer that someone not overthink it. Just make a great little short that’s 60 seconds long, 90 seconds long, just a little piece.

I will say I’ve talked to a number of really talented young guys who I decided not to pursue just because of their attitude. For me, that’s a pretty big part of it. In my world, you have to be able to get on phone calls. The client needs to think, I could spend two weeks with that dude. If a director gets on the phone and they’re like, “Hey, dude. Yo, dude…” then I’m like, “No, man. This is a brand. Somebody is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this.” You have to be an adult about it if you want to work in my world.

It wasn’t always that way though. In the late ’90s when I first got into this, directors basically ruled the world. They would throw Diet Cokes, walk off the set. But it’s not that way anymore. Those directors don’t work anymore. They call me up for work, but there’s just no way, man. There are too many directors now, and there’s no room for attitudes. I can find another director who doesn’t have one.

MB: Attitude is a differentiator now.

PL: For sure.

MB: Here’s an impossible question: When you talk about some work being “good” and some work being “bad,” is there any way to articulate the difference? What makes something “good”?

PL: I’ve distilled it down to this. Here’s the secret to success: Make shit that doesn’t suck. I mean that. Go online and you’ll see shit that sucks. Don’t make that stuff. Make the other stuff that doesn’t suck.

MB: That’s the secret?

PL: That’s it. I’m not the arbiter of everything that’s great. You’ll know what’s great. People have heard of Eliot Rausch because he’s made great stuff. He’s made work that doesn’t suck. If no one knows your name, you’re making work that sucks. Figure that out for yourself. I can’t help you. You have to be a student of people who’ve made quality work. Figure out how they did it. Watch it frame by frame. Learn to use what you have. If you don’t have great talent, don’t make a performance piece. There are no excuses for bad work.

A director I work with named Lucia Aniello did a video for Dollar Shave Club. They did the thing in three days, the budget was like $4,500, and it doesn’t suck. It doesn’t suck at all. It’s great. That obviously wasn’t her first video. She got a degree from Columbia. She was 28 when she made the Dollar Shave Club video, and she’d been training at Upright Comedy Brigade and shooting videos for two or three years. Right now she’s writing and directingBroad City. And she’s just been named one of the top 15 comics to watch for 2015.

MB: Is that the normal career path? People toiling away, making things, not getting a lot of attention, and then suddenly they make something great?

PL: Yes, yes. Eliot would be an anomaly. Oftentimes overnight success is not really overnight success. They’ve been churning away for a while. They’ve starved and shared apartments and shot stuff with friends. And really, even Eliot. I met him when he was 27 or 28. He wasn’t some 21-year-old just out of college. He’d been editing for five years. And actually, Last Minutes with Oden wasn’t even his first piece. The truth is, you see very few 21-year-olds or 22-year-olds who are great.

I was just sharing this with Eliot a few weeks ago because he was complaining about how crappy his work was, that there was all this other good work out there. I was like, “Dude, those dudes are 46, 48, 52 years old. You’re 32, bro! You think all of a sudden you just get to be as good as them? They’ve been doing this for 25 years but — Pow! Magically overnight you [think you] should be doing work like that? It doesn’t work that way, man.”

Everyone has this expectation that they should already be there. But the best directors right now in the ad space are in their mid to late 40s or 50s. I think it was helpful for Eliot to hear that. He was like, “Okay, wait. So it’s not expected that I should be that good yet?” And I’m like, “No. My god, give yourself another 10 years before you start beating yourself up.”

I think people quit too early. They’re not in it for the long haul. They think, I’m supposed to be good by the time I’m 25. And if I’m not, then maybe I’ll be an accountant. But if you’re just in it — if you just keep your mouth shut and keep making stuff…I think it goes back to what we were talking about earlier, about whether some filmmakers have it or whether filmmakers develop over time. I think you’re expected to develop over time. If you’re doing this for 20 years, there’s no way you’re not going to get better.

MB: That makes me feel a lot better. Thanks.

PL: Anytime.

"Boyhood": Inspirational stories

[Blog Administrator's Comment: Very inspirational story. To see the clip and hear the song, follow the link added below the title. Also, don't forget to check out Q&A with Ellar Coltrane, Boy from "Boyhood". Very inspirational. Enjoy.]

How ‘Boyhood’ saved this band from homelessness

by Hardeep Phull, NYPost

http://nypost.com/2015/01/15/how-boyhood-saved-this-band-from-homelessness/

For most of the past three years, Joe Keefe has been essentially homeless. The lead singer of the hard-touring Los Angeles folk-rock band Family of the Year spent so much time on the road that it didn’t seem worthwhile to spend money on an apartment. “When we weren’t touring, I would Airbnb a place for a couple of weeks or head back east to visit mom,” he tells The Post.

But since their melancholic 2012 track “Hero” caught the attention of director Richard Linklater, who then included it in his Oscar-nominated movie “Boyhood,” Keefe and the group have enjoyed a sudden rise in profile.

At the Golden Globes this past Sunday, the song played whenever a “Boyhood” winner took the stage— resulting in an audience of nearly 21 million people hearing it three times throughout the night.

It’s now racked up almost 30 million Spotify plays, hit No. 1 on Billboard’s Adult Alternative Chart and as a result, Keefe and his band mates have enjoyed a much-need infusion of cash. “I just rented a house,” he adds. “It’s the first time I’ve had a base camp I can call my own. And it’s mostly because of ‘Hero.’ ”

“ ‘Hero’ was a song I wrote partly about feeling daunted about the responsibility that comes with growing up,” remembers Keefe. “It felt a little scary to sing because it was so emotionally raw.”The group, consisting of Keefe, his drummer brother Sebastian, keyboardist/vocalist Christina Schroeter and guitarist/vocalist James Buckey, formed in 2009, but their major label debut, “Loma Vista” (which included “Hero”), arrived in 2012.

A member of Linklater’s staff made him aware of “Hero” and the director was impressed enough to ask Family of the Year if he could use it in “Boyhood” during a scene in which lead character Mason heads off to college for the first time.

But, as Keefe explains, it almost didn’t happen. “Richard told me that the song was almost too perfect and that he was worried it hit the nail on the head a little too hard. But he went with it and we’re glad he did!”

The quartet have also had the opportunity to share in the success of “Boyhood.” In 2014, the band was invited to a preview screening in Amsterdam where they played “Hero.” And prior to Sunday’s Golden Globes, they caught up with Linklater and the “Boyhood” cast at a glitzy party at LA’s Chateau Marmont hotel.

With Oscar glory beckoning for “Boyhood,” they might get a further taste of Tinseltown’s award season magic. “If we’re invited to any Oscar parties, we will definitely come,” says Keefe. “Everybody wants to do the Hollywood thing once!”

___________________________
Additional Q&A with the Boy from the "Boyhood": "Ellar Coltrane Talks 'Boyhood' and Oscar Buzz (Q&A)" at http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ellar-coltrane-talks-boyhood-oscar-760528?facebook_20141229

“Boyhood”, my story, or who needs responsibility?

Actually, “Boyhood” is not really my story. After all, I spent my growing up years between Russia and the United States.  However, this story is like a time-stamp of the time through which I lived in this country.  I was happy to reminisce especially when the movie used progression of technology and political events to show the growth of our main character. I will also say that “Boyhood” is unique as well.

The uniqueness is in its reality of life. Richard Linklater didn’t create crazy conflicts like drug abuse, sexual encounters, or car crashes. In fact, those things happen rarely. Instead, he concentrated to give us that moment of growing up where things happened to the boy like his mother was single, his biological father’s absence though he was a father to him and his sister more so than other “fathers”, and encounters with people that challenged and encouraged him. And I believe Richard Linklater succeeded to show us that glimpse of a life that is not so foreign to us regardless of our origin. This is a worthy movie to see and think about your life from a point of view that you want to look from. After all, “Boyhood” is not just about a boy, but about life and culture of those 12 years during which he grew up and changed as well as the country, his family, and all other people that came into his orbit to influence him for better or for worse.

And I remember those 12 years of my life.  This movie helped me to look at them from a new point of view. That view is not of whether I succeeded or failed. Instead, it is of how I lived my life, where I am now, and how I am going to go further just like the hero of this movie. I can say that the years between 2002 and 2014 were the “lost” years for the country, society, and personally. Linklater showed us through the characters that loss of being, indecisiveness of our actions or action that were too decisive of questionable quality, lack of identity, and that fear of taking on responsibility for ourselves and others. But also the creator showed us that no matter what family is imperative, friendships of any kind are valuable, and love (sweet or sour) should be embraced and honored. After all, we only have this one moment in life, and we should enjoy it.

Another great aspect of this movie was the transitions.  These were the transitions of how our characters and main hero grew up and changed. They were done masterfully. He ended a point in a life of a scene with an important look, phrase, or action before taking us onto another phase of characters’ lives. Also, to show the change of time, Linklater did it through current political situation (Barak Obama signs, people opinions of the time), technology, and when certain people disappeared from our characters’ lives. The transitions of our lives are too similar to that of the movie because our transitions are fleeting and if we are not aware of them, we miss them, not take them seriously, and eventually forget them.

Thank you Richard Linklater, his team, and his financiers for spending 12 years to make this movie that we surely needed as a reminder of the time that was and to look back at our lives even just a bit.

But what of the awards? Richard Linklater will probably receive the Oscar for Original Screenplay, as he should because it is very original. No other person has ever written or created a movie of this type.   However, given the voting record by the Academy, I won’t be surprised if this movie will be one of the biggest winners. And regardless, Richard Linklater already won his award. After all, look at the number of people who’ve seen this movie and who will see it, and all of the positive and interesting feedbacks and honors that “Boyhood” and Richard Linklater already received as well as actors of this movie whose commitment to this project and belief in it is just astonishing. Actors really came through at every step of the way. Any other award is just an icing on already beautiful and delicious cake.

Oscars: Year of Inspiration & My Predictions

Below you can find recently announced Oscar nominees. Were you favorite nominated? Take a look and find out. Don't forget: Neil Patrick Harris will host the Oscars, which airs Feb. 22 at 7 p.m. ET. on ABC.

This years Nominations are one of the toughest yet. This is good because writers are superb, actors are brilliant, directors are visionary, and others are hard workers and believers. I hope this trend will continue.

Also, you will find my predictions highlighted. I might change them by February (once I see more of the nominated movies), but not by much, if at all. Enjoy!

Best Picture

"The Grand Budapest Hotel" (surprised; the movie premiered in March; not many movies win the trophy that were shown before the Fall)
"Selma" (Hmm)
"Whiplash" (Perhaps)
"American Sniper" (Really?1)
"The Imitation Game"
"Boyhood"
"Birdman"
"The Theory of Everything"

How come 2 spots weren't filled since The Academy promised to have 10 movies for nominations? They should keep their promises. Would it be hard to give 2 more films nominations? This is one of the reasons Awards Season is so frustrating especially with the Oscars.

Best Actress (Not the best choices for this category except for Marion)

Marion Cotillard, "Two Days, One Night"
Julianne Moore, "Still Alice"
Reese Witherspoon, "Wild" (shouldn't be part of this list; Jennifer Aniston should be though)
Felicity Jones, "The Theory of Everything"
Rosamund Pike, "Gone Girl"

So, how come Jennifer Aniston wasn't nominated? Probably, because voters didn't want to put two women battling a disease (mental and physical) under the same roof? A shame.

Best Actor (again, the toughest category)

Steve Carell, "Foxcatcher"
Michael Keaton, "Birdman"
Eddie Redmayne, "The Theory of Everything" (have you seen his brilliant transformation; probably the hardest one on this list)
Benedict Cumberbatch, "The Imitation Game" (don't be surprised if he wins)
Bradley Cooper, "American Sniper" (if he does, I will demand a re-count!)

David Oyelowo was snubbed. Why? I think The Academy needs to expand nominations for Best Actor and Actress at least by 2 spots.

Best Supporting Actress

Meryl Streep, "Into the Woods" (sorry, Meryl)
Laura Dern, “Wild” (the most original performance, for me)
Patricia Arquette, "Boyhood"
Emma Stone, "Birdman"
Keira Knightley, "The Imitation Game" 

Best Supporting Actor (another tough category)

Mark Ruffalo, "Foxcatcher"
Ethan Hawke, "Boyhood"
J.K. Simmons, "Whiplash" (I think all eyes are on him)
Robert Duvall, "The Judge" (Though I think he should win)
Edward Norton, "Birdman"

Best Director (Oh, boy...)

Richard Linklater, "Boyhood"
Alejandro González Iñárritu, "Birdman" (hardcore performance)
Wes Anderson, "The Grand Budapest Hotel"
Morten Tyldum, "The Imitation Game"
Bennett Miller, "Foxcatcher"

Best Adapted Screenplay

Graham Moore, "The Imitation Game" (complicated figure to fuse into a movie)
Anthony McCarten, "The Theory of Everything"
Damien Chazelle, "Whiplash"
Jason Hall, "American Sniper"
Paul Thomas Anderson, "Inherent Vice"

Best Original Screenplay

Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Armando Bo, "Birdman"
Richard Linklater, "Boyhood" (just because it is personal)
Wes Anderson and Hugo Guinness, "The Grand Budapest Hotel"
Dan Gilroy, "Nightcrawler"
Dan Futterman and E. Max Frye, "Foxcatcher"

Best Foreign Film

"Ida" (Poland)
"Leviathan" (Russia) (Oscars are going political this year; the movie shows Russian reality)
"Tangerines" (Estonia)
"Timbuktu" (Mauritania)
"Wild Tales" (Argentina)

Best Documentary Feature

"Citizenfour"
"Last Days in Vietnam"
"Virunga" (popularity factor though it is controversial)
"Finding Vivian Maier"
"The Salt of the Earth"

Best Animated Feature

"Big Hero 6" (original and cool)
"How to Train Your Dragon 2"
"The Boxtrolls"
"Song of the Sea"
"The Tale of Princess Kaguya"

Film Editing

"American Sniper"
"Boyhood" (12 years, do I need to say more?)
"The Grand Budapest Hotel"
"The Imitation Game"
"Whiplash"

Best Song (not the best choices this year for the Oscars)

Gregg Alexander, Danielle Brisebois, Nick Lashley and Nick Southwood, "Lost Stars" — "Begin Again" (Um)
John Legend and Common, "Glory" — "Selma" (too long; too sad; not inspirational; I just wanted to move on but listened to the end; sorry but not Oscar worthy)
Shawn Patterson, Joshua Bartholomew, Lisa Harriton, and The Lonely Island, "Everything Is Awesome" — "The Lego Movie" (Really!? I guess better songs didn't exist)
The-Dream, "Grateful" — "Beyond the Lights" (??? Strong performance though)
Glen Campbell, "I'm Not Gonna Miss You" — "Glen Campbell ... I'll Be Me"

Honestly, I don't know who will win in this category. I think the best was by Glen Campbell, but won't be surprised that "Glory" could win.

Best Original Score

Johann Johannsson, "The Theory of Everything"
Alexandre Desplat, "The Imitation Game"
Alexandre Desplat, "The Grand Budapest Hotel"
Hans Zimmer, "Interstellar" (my Spidey tingling tells me so)
Gary Yershon, "Mr. Turner"

Best Cinematography

Emmanuel Lubezki, "Birdman"
Dick Pope, "Mr. Turner"
Robert D. Yeoman, "The Grand Budapest Hotel"
Ryszard Lenczewski and Łukasz Żal, "Ida"
Roger Deakins, "Unbroken" (was the toughest to film)

Best Costume Design (Man oh man)

Colleen Atwood, "Into the Woods" (we all love fairy-tales)
Anna B. Sheppard, "Maleficent"
Milena Canonero, "The Grand Budapest Hotel"
Jacqueline Durran, "Mr. Turner"
Mark Bridges, "Inherent Vice"

Best Makeup and Hairstyling

"Guardians of the Galaxy" (Duh!)
"Foxcatcher"
"The Grand Budapest Hotel"

Best Production Design

Adam Stockhausen and Anna Pinnock, "The Grand Budapest Hotel" (true transformation)
Suzie Davies and Charlotte Watts, "Mr. Turner"
Dennis Gassner and Anna Pinnock, "Into the Woods"
Nathan Crowley, Gary Fettis and Paul Healy, "Interstellar"
Maria Djurkovic, "The Imitation Game"

Best Sound Editing

"American Sniper"
"Interstellar"
"Unbroken"
"The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies"
"Birdman"

Best Sound Mixing

"American Sniper"
"Birdman"
"Unbroken"
"Interstellar"
"Whiplash"\

Best Visual Effects

"Interstellar" (something new)
"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes"
"Guardians of the Galaxy"
"X-Men: Days of Future Past"
"Captain America: The Winter Soldier"

The last 3 categories I haven't seen and probably won't because to see them, one has to attend a special screening or something. If you know where to see them, let me and the other know in the comments section below. Thanks.

Best Short Film, Live Action

Oded Binnun and Mihal Brezis, "Aya"
Michael Lennox and Ronan Blaney, "Boogaloo and Graham"
Hu Wei and Julien Féret, "Butter Lamp" ("La Lampe au Beurre de Yak")
Talkhon Hamzavi and Stefan Eichenberger, "Parvaneh"
Mat Kirkby and James Lucas, "The Phone Call" 

Best Short Film, Animated

Daisy Jacobs and Christopher Hees, "The Bigger Picture"
Robert Kondo and Dice Tsutsumi, "The Dam Keeper"
Patrick Osborne and Kristina Reed, "Feast"
Torill Kove, "Me and My Moulton"
Joris Oprins, "A Single Life" 

Best Documentary Short Subject

Perry Films, "Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1"
Wajda Studio, "Joanna"
Warsaw Film School, "Our Curse"
Centro de Capacitación Cinematográfica, "The Reaper" ("La Parka")
Weary Traveler, "White Earth"

Original source: http://www.today.com/popculture/2015-oscar-nominees-announced-see-complete-list-1D80427811

Personal comment: The winners will be depending on the Academy's message that it wants these Oscars to be. It is sad that the Academy abandoned its true mission of honoring the best of the best in cinema. Instead, they are playing politics and preferential treatment. Oh well, that's life. Gotta accept it and move on. It is its own dictator state. After all, who really is voting? I wish all people in the industry would vote for nominations and for the winners. Wouldn't that be swell?

Interview with Successful Actors: Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones

Originally appeared in "The Hollywood Reporter" on 1/6/2015 and written by Suzy Evans. Enjoy!

Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones cultivated their onscreen chemistry as Stephen Hawkingand Jane Wilde in The Theory of Everything through good-natured verbal criticism.

"Eddie and I developed this method where we would give each other direction from behind the camera," Jones explained.

"Felicity is being really polite," Redmayne said, cutting in. "Actually what we'd do — you know that croquet scene? ... As Stephen was trying to keep it together, I said to Felicity, 'Will you scream some abuse at me from off-camera?' Because we were old friends, she went for the jugular, and I was trying to keep it together. And what was absolutely hilarious is the poor producers and all the crew, here were these two actors on day two of a two-month schedule, they were like, 'Oh my God, they hate each other!' "

Quite the contrary, in fact, as the co-stars demonstrated in a lively conversation moderated byThe Hollywood Reporter's David Rooney on Monday night after a screening of the film presented by the Film Society of Lincoln Center and The Hollywood Reporter.

"We would always look for the light," Redmayne said of how he and Jones approached the difficult subject matter of Hawking and his now ex-wife's relationship through his slow physical decline as a result of ALS. The film, which is directed by James Marsh and written byAnthony McCarten, is based on Jane's book Travelling to Infinity: My Life With Stephen.

"The illness couldn't be less important," Redmayne said. "I wanted to make sure it was a film about love."

In order to focus on the emotional core of the film, Redmayne had to be sure the physicality of Hawking's movements as he progresses through the disease were natural to him. He worked with a dancer, Alex Reynolds, on contorting his body, and also spent four months with patients at an ALS clinic in London, along with Jones, being invited into homes and spending time with individuals at all stages of the disease's course. He found in his observations that humor and levity were of the utmost importance.

"There's a mischief to [Hawking] … and he plays with that," Redmayne said.

Although no footage exists of Hawking before he began life in a wheelchair, Redmayne aimed to capture his essence. "I wanted to retain that glint in his eye that he had when he was young," he said.

The filming was a sort of homecoming as well for the pair. Jones attended Oxford and Redmayne attended Cambridge, where much of the film is set and some of it was filmed.

"I remember I was so nervous," Redmayne said of shooting at his alma mater, which he said brought on "flooding nostalgia."

"It took like a day into filming or something, and my mom and dad sent me a text message about how amazingly lucky to think 10 years on, you're back at Cambridge getting to play Stephen Hawking."

Jones, meanwhile, said that her college experience was a bit different from the romantic, showy ball that Hawking and Wilde attend in the film.

"The balls were so much more debauched than that! By the end of them, everyone's sort of rolling around on the grass," Jones said.

Jones and Redmayne also recalled what it was like to meet Hawking and Wilde, which occurred just a few days before filming began.

"I was quite intimidated, but she was just incredibly open," Jones said of meeting Wilde for the first time. "When you're playing a real person, you're just trying to build up trust, and in some ways, you're trying to get their blessing. … A lot of it is you're trying to pick up clues from someone. It didn't feel right to go in and ask very personal questions initially. I was fascinated by the way she moved, and there were little idiosyncrasies in the way she held herself and all those little details."

Jones also had some physical challenges in her role, revealing that she had to build strength to push Redmayne's Hawking around the set.

"I had to go to the gym!" Jones exclaimed. "He may look very light, but in fact, he's very heavy."

Redmayne spent several hours with Hawking before filming began, and the two had another meeting after shooting was complete.

"I saw him just before he saw the film," Redmayne said. " 'I'm really nervous, but I hope you enjoy the film. Let me know what you think.' He took a wee while to type out his response. I literally was crying inside! And then he said in his iconic voice, 'I will let you know what I think, good or otherwise.' "

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/theory-everything-stars-talk-capturing-761355?facebook_20150106