Interview with remarkable Wes Anderson

Re-printed from The Talk: http://the-talks.com/interviews/wes-anderson/

Mr. Anderson, do you see your films as self-contained worlds where you are in control of everything?

That’s probably true. I think there is some psychological thing where some artists like to make order and organizing and shaping something gives them some kind of feeling of accomplishment. But I also think there are some artists who are more interested in expressing something chaotic.

Werner Herzog comes to mind…

Or when you think of Robert Altman, for instance. His whole approach, his whole method of filming was designed to capture spontaneous moments that he could then shape and organize later. What he was really interested in, from actors anyway, were the accidents and what he doesn’t shape, where he just steps back and lets something grow. But at the same time I think he was probably also very much a kind of conductor. So it’s not controlling, but nevertheless guiding and shaping to the same effect… So maybe that’s what all art does.

But your movies are more controlled and designed than most.

Definitely a lot more designed than an Altman movie. A lot of the time we have built something to play our scene, and we really haven’t built anything outside of the frame. This is the way we’re going to do it, because that’s all there is and that’s all there is going to be! And we’re probably not going to have another choice when the time comes. But over the years I may have gotten more planned with how these movies are going to be filmed. It works better for me. I hope that the actors don’t feel trapped.

Did you ever have an actor that couldn’t deal with your style of directing?

One of the most challenging and best actors I worked with, many years ago, was Gene Hackman. He was not a relaxed, comfortable person in my company, but he did like a complicated shot where you have to be here and here and where there is a challenge for him. He liked the idea of doing a scene where you do something here and then you have to run around the back of something and appear somewhere else, like theater. What I hope is to create situations where the actors will be able to be alive like real people even in the context of something that is quite manufactured.

Do you want your films to be recognizable because of your style?

I don’t want to have an invisible style, but I don’t care about having a trademark. My writing and my way of staging the scenes and shooting – people can tell it’s me, but that’s not by my choice. It naturally happens. It’s just my personality as a director.

Do you ever feel time pressure when you are on set realizing some of those more complex shots?

Well, I am not usually in a situation where we can fix it later. We are usually doing it one way and we won’t be able to change the whole thing. There are a lot of things that we can fix in the cutting room, but we’ll only be able to improve what we have shot. Over the years I feel more pressure, but I don’t think it’s because someone is putting that pressure on me. It’s really more that I feel more a sense of satisfaction when we keep it organized and we have a plan and do it right.

Do you feel economic pressure for your movies to perform well?

I like to save money, I like to keep the costs down, but that’s mainly because I want to be able to make sure all the money we are spending is in the movie, it’s the part that’s up there, and nothing is wasted. As far as the movie making money, I don’t know how to influence that. I feel like there would not be much of a point in me saying, “Let’s do the movie this way, because it will be more popular.” You can’t guess. But in terms of trying to make a movie on a certain budget, Life Aquatic was very expensive and too big. Even while we were doing it I felt, “This is not appropriate for this film. It’s not going to make enough money to do this.”

That sounds like a bad thing to realize in the middle of production.

After that I’ve tried to not put myself into a situation like that again. That movie was a hard movie to make. It was 100 days of shooting and we were at sea a lot of the time. It cost 60 million dollars about ten years ago, so today it would be probably 80 million. So that’s a big budget for a movie that is quite odd. It’s not a real genre movie of any kind. But I didn’t have a clear enough understanding of it back then.

Do you usually start out with an image or a story idea?

It’s different for different ones. I remember quite well that the first movie I made was very much visual ideas. And it was not really things that were related to the story, it was more of a setting. But Grand Budapest Hotel for instance I had a character that we were very interested in. We just had a little idea for this character and a bit of a story, and I also had later the idea that I would like to do something related to Stefan Zweig.

Do figures from your own biography ever find their way into your storytelling? For example, is the father in The Royal Tenenbaums based on your father?

In The Royal Tenenbaums I was trying to use some things that happened to me, but they are very changed when they become a movie. It’s some things from my memory where I thought, “This is something of my own that I can use here.” But the father-son thing may at least have much to do with people that I have met. For many years I have had a number of different friends who are in the same age range as my father and they have quite influenced me. Some of them are real characters. So that’s maybe as much where that comes from as anywhere else.

What kinds of films do you feel like you draw on the most?

The kind of movies that I want to make draw probably equally on European and American movies and maybe some Japanese or Indian, too. But the biggest are European, American, and British traditions. I am more interested in a classical kind of moviemaking. I like to be dazzled in the movies and I don’t feel I am very reserved in the way I direct. But they come from a tradition of cinema. My favorite filmmakers are people like John Huston, Orson Welles, Jean Renoir, Roman Polanski, Stanley Kubrick, Fellini, and Bergman – and that’s how I was formed as a filmmaker. Those are the biggest influences.

You also have stuck to the tradition of shooting on film and have yet to shoot a film digitally.

True, but I don’t know. In a year, in two years, I don’t know if it will be a reasonable option to shoot on film. Sometimes I see a movie now that is shot digitally and I don’t even know. I am interested in all different kinds of filmmaking. I don’t know if I see something slipping away. There are lots of very strong-minded, personal filmmakers and they will always do what they believe in.

(My blog on "Grand Budapest Hotel" review: http://wanna-be-actor.blogspot.com/2015/01/grand-budapest-hotel-good-fun.html)

Marvel to Behold: "Wolf Hall"

April 17^th and April 18^th were “Wolf Hall” days. If you don’t know yet, “Wolf Hall” is a British play now on Broadway till July 5^th. It consists of two parts. Each part is three hours long with one 15 minute intermission. As you can surmise, it is two plays in one. And the play is about the court of Henry VIII (Nathaniel Parker) told through the eyes of Thomas Cromwell (Ben Miles), a lawyer. It was adapted by Mike Poulton from two best-selling historical-drama novels (“Wolf Hall” and “Bring Up the Bodies”) that were written by Hilary Mantel.

On April 17^th, I attended Q&A session called “Conversations on Broadway: Wolf Hall” organized by SAG Foundation and taken place at the New School. (Attendance was allowed only to SAG members.) Questions were answered by three stars of the show Nathaniel Parker (“Henry VIII”), Lydia Leonard (“Anne Boleyn”), and Ben Miles (“Thomas Cromwell”).  The discussion was very lively and interesting as the stars answered on their beginnings as actors and on their experience working on “Wolf Hall”.

During this Q&A, three comments stood out for me. First, actors mentioned how closely they worked with Hilary Mantel. She was with the production from the beginning. She answered on each actor’s questions in detail. In addition, to every actor in a troupe, she gave written detailed notes for their respective character. Moreover, she also pointed out the nuances of the characters during rehearsals if actors needed additional clarifications. Overall, Nathaniel, Lydia, and Ben agreed that they were lucky to have Hilary with them because not many original writers would take the time and talk with actors about the story. (Especially those who are alive.) After all, she also had to write the concluding book of this story (“The Mirror and the Light”).

The second interesting point was that the director (Jeremy Herrin) worked with actors and not against them. The collaboration between the actors and Jeremy was fluid. They were one company that tried to bring a new feel to the Tudors’ famous story. There wasn’t a one man’s vision. Jeremy incorporated everyone’s point of view into this vision. In fact, while watching the show, I felt actors’ closeness to each other. I felt the closeness that actors and the director had with each other. Every single movement around the stage, ever word spoken, and lightning worked seamlessly because every troupe’s member contributed and whose voice was heard while putting this story on stage. And the leads acknowledged that such close work with this director is rare but very welcomed. After all, because Jeremy is comedian and actor himself, he knew what actors wanted and listened to them. His remarks were on point when they were necessary. The comments were a bit sarcastic and made working on the play easier and more enjoyable since the story is so complex. He was the right director for this production.

Last, but not least point, was how Ben Miles prepared for his character. Of course, all actors used an interesting method like going to locations that were habituated by real historical figures to prepare for the roles. However, Ben made notes on his character on notecards. He placed them all around the room in many layers and connected them: words to scenes and scenes to words. I do believe it helped him since he was on stage the most of the time and had the most words to say either in monologue or dialogue forms. In addition, this strategy helped him to understand the character better and to connect with him.

Given such a great conversation event, on Saturday, April 18, my friend and I went through this six-hour ‘marathon’. We sat in the Mezzanine area of the Winter Garden Theater. The view was terrific. It wasn’t great but could’ve been worse.  We saw the whole stage comfortably and the actors’ performances. We had a hard time seeing their faces clearly, but, at least, I saw them and their inner and outer artistic performances that brought the characters to life as real and not as comical (“Twelfth Night”) or satiric (“Richard III”). I believed what I saw and that what made this play work, interesting, and engaging. By the way, the show didn’t feel like a real marathon. It was one play with continuous two parts. The show was dynamic and fluid, and I didn’t feel strained or bored too often. Of course, some moments in the second part were slow and monotonous, but actors still able to keep me and my fellow audience comrades attentive to the end.

In the whole play, three things again stood out for me. Firstly, I enjoyed the stage decorations and lightning. Similar to “Twelfth Night” and “Richard III” (performed by British Shakespeare Co.), “Wolf Hall” had minimal decorations. Decorators put up two walls in either side of the stage to show the atmosphere and locations of the period.  All other decorations were chairs and tables. These chairs and tables showed houses, churches, prison, court, bedrooms, and even boats. Other decorations were a cross, fireplace in the wall, and fire coming out of the floor to create the right atmosphere and places.

And the other aspect of creating the right atmosphere was lighting. Sure, actors’ period style clothes were on the dot. However, lighting gave the stage and the play life, emotions, and believability.  Lights showed morning and nights, swimming down the Thames, being in prison, and even a dead Archbishop. It was the unspoken character of the play, but the lighting designers do deserve credit and commendation for their hard work and being part of the vision.

Last, but not least, was performances. Like in “Twelfth Night” and “Richard III” actors performed splendidly. They worked seamlessly. They did not just perform, they lived. They embodied the characters that they were assigned to create and live on stage. Casting was correct. And actors’ hard work and dedication was superbly on display for the audience. Sure, Nathaniel Parker played Henry III a bit too big at times. But, hey, he played a king. I think it was allowable. Therefore, actors did not try to upstage each other. They worked together as a team on a ship going to their final destination to receive a standing ovation from the audience. Without their seamless and dynamic work, the play would have bombed. Of course, one of the components of the play that was missing was limited play by women. However, even their limited performances were powerful and enable to move story forward enjoyably.

In conclusion, I would say to you, dear reader, to go and see it for yourself. Experience something remarkable because this won’t come back in similar way ever again. It is money worth spending. Don’t care about your neighbors. Enjoy the play for what it is. Sure, it is about politics. However, if you want to see masters of their craft, then find that wherewithal and that adrenaline for the art. You will not be disappointed, and you will leave it inspired, breathless, and happy. Who knows maybe you will mention this play to your grandkids?

You want to see masters at play, then now is the time.

Here is the link to Goldstar to purchase discount tickets:

 http://www.goldstar.com/events/new-york-ny/wolf-hall-part-one-tickets?mal=1