"Manchester by the Sea" and "Moonlight": The difference in art

"Moonlight" is the weirdest movie that has been nominated for SAG Awards this year. Why wasn't "Birth of the Nation" nominated at all?

I will say that it is the movie that should never been nominated. I still don't understand what did Barry Jenkins try to show in this movie? What did he want a viewer to take away from it?

From the beginning till the end, the movie felt dry. I didn't see any plot that moves the movie along. There wasn't even a real conflict or climax that would lead the hero toward some kind of resolution. The story felt numb.

The acting was good. It wasn't stellar but, at least, the character's aspirations and struggles were shown clearly. What I wanted to know more was what happened to Juan and his girl, Teresa as our hero grew up?

Moreover, I couldn't understand what were the actors saying for most of the movie. I do understand that they were portraying the local culture. However, the pronunciation must be clearer. Actors are storytellers and to make a story compelling, an actor mustn't talk just quickly with a local accent and mannerisms, but s/he must talk clearly that a viewer would be able to understand what is being said. Otherwise, everyone watching will be lost in translation.

Though the movie was a negative experience for me, I liked how the local culture was portrayed. Yes, similar culture I've seen portrayed in real life, on TV, and in movies many times. But this was its own especially when Juan tried to befriend Little without trying to sell drugs to him; that relationship was refreshing. And search for love was familiar yet novel and unique given the setting of the movie.

Therefore, if you want to see it, go ahead. However, I wouldn't recommend it.

_____________________________________________________________________________

"Manchester by the Sea"

The beginning of the movie was disappointing. It was very slow. However, we learn about our hero though it wasn't exciting. However, when the conflict occurs and movie unravels, I felt like I hit a wall of bricks. That was a powerful moment when the viewers learn why Lee Chandler behaves so gloomy and depressing. After that, the movie just grows and becomes a powerful force.

Casey Affleck is superb and carries the movie on his shoulders very powerfully. In fact, the cast of the movie is very good from young to more established.

One weakness, I found was the strange way flashbacks are introduced. Sometimes I found them confusing because I couldn't make connection between the past and present. Flashbacks are just dropped on a viewer out of nowhere until one gets used to them; not in my case.

I would encourage anyone to see the movie because it is the story that we all fear of happening to us either in the present or in future. As a result, on some level, we can relate to this movie because it isn't rushed. It is about life. And such a movie is now a rarity with good story line, good acting, and good directing.

Oh, the soundtrack is perfect, I think.

"Fences" analysis

The movie "Fences" is powerful and worthy of being nominated, but it's not the greatest movie among the competition to be awarded a prize. Of course, the movie is better than "Moonlight."

The movie was adapted from a play of the same name and directed and starred by Denzel Washington.

The first Act was the most boring due to lack of actions and a lot of monologues; talk about actor's practice to talk so much. The other two acts were again with a lot of conversation but with more actions and unbelievable performance by all actors especially by Viola Davis. (The ensemble was wonderful too; chemistry was evident from the get-go).

The problem of the movie was that it was adapted from a play. So, the movie did feel like a play one could see on a stage. "Fences" reminded me of the movie and a play "Raisin' in the Sun." Therefore, seeing the same exact set  throughout the film was boring; reminiscing about the past was just that and a viewer had fill in the blanks and imagine that past; there was clear delineation between different acts like I just could pause the movie and go for a drink -- this was a bit of throw off as well. In the end, I was truly glad when the movie ended because I felt like Denzel Washington was dragging a cat by its tail. Some scenes and conversations, especially in the first act, should've been shortened.

Denzel Washington's performance was really good. It reminded of the similar character he portrayed in the "Training Day", which was almost the same action by action. Viola Davis was in the world of her own, and I believe she eclipsed Washington's performance and everyone else's for that matter. The rest of actors provided a good support to our main character, as mentioned before.

Last, but not least, the movie showed a piece of a life of African-American community. However, unlike "Moonlight" which was unique to African-American and even Hispanic communities, "Fences" showed its internationalism. Similar themes mentioned in the movie could be related by other in many parts of the world: adultery, reminiscing about the lost past, being jealous of younger generation and stopping the young from going for their dreams, taking advantage of a disable person (it could be family or not), hating a system that stops a person from being more than he could be, and disrespecting and being bored of one's life that is comfortable but in which nothing really happens.

The movie is powerful and could leave you, after watching it, a bit unnerved, hopeful, and maybe make you re-evaluate your own life. If that happens, then I believe "Fences" was a success as a movie and a story. And that is a bigger award than any statue that it might receive during this politically charged award season.

I recommend to watch this movie either by yourself or with others. (Possibly consider having a bottle of wine next to you to get through the boring parts).

"La La Land" -- Singing and Dancing through life to love

“La La Land” is a movie just like “Artist.” Both movies harken back to when Hollywood was creating stories that took us to lands that were beautiful, magical, and somewhat sad. They are popular because they are nostalgic. Because as viewers we desire to truly escape, at times, from the reality we live-in. Today, movies are not completely escapism. They take our modern lives and blow them up on the big screen. As a result, we don’t escape the reality, we continue live in the world though watching others suffer is more entertaining. However, these types of movies are not inspirational or magical. Therefore, when movies like “La La Land” comes along, without searching for it, we truly see the magic that we try to create in our lives.

Of course, there are differences. “Artist” was a movie that looked at the beauty of Silent Pictures. “La La Land” takes us back to the time when silver screens were flooded by beautiful and entertaining musicals with singing, dancing, romance, and melancholic ending. For actors, these movies were and are a pleasure to perform in. For viewers, regardless whether a movie is good or not, such movies are a pleasure to watch. In fact, “La La Land” is only second true musical this century that was created. The first was “Mamma Mia.” Both movies were popular and have been darlings during the winter award season. So, was “La La Land” a good movie?

The movie is beautiful, magical, inspirational, thought provoking, with wonderful acting, with terrific script, and, what looks like, a spot-on director. Yes, the ending is not traditional American ending. However, the movie is set in our time. The ending is very appropriate because in our lives, we are too obsessed about reaching for the stars than reaching for comfort and happiness when being with another human being.

“La La Land” is also a movie that took musical and dancing cues from different movies. Even the story line could be found in movies that were created over 30 years ago. For me, I saw similarities of certain scenes, that I associated with, from “Singin’ in the Rain”, “The Artist”, and “Umbrellas of Cherbourg”. However, these associations made movie more enjoyable and exciting to keep-on watching and enjoy it.

Damien Chazelle was able to bridge brilliantly the past and present. He connected jazzy tunes of this movie to our modern times where culture of relationships are more complex and confusing than ever before. In the end, the movie is about love and deciding between having love and happiness with another human being or find the same thing in your dreams. To have both is rare and most will fail in one or another. And all we have are the decisions we make throughout our life, and we must learn to live with those decisions the best we can because the alternative is too gruesome and tragic to think. And that what the end of the movie, the very last scene, was all about. I connected to it for very real, and I understand it all too well.

I would definitely recommend to anyone to see this movie. And after you see it, think about it, give yourself time to think, and then watch it again. Yes, it is one of those movies that will touch your heart and soul, and you can watch over and over again. Enjoy the “La La Land”: its dancing, music, cinematography, songs, and the beauty of the story that we call life that is true not just on the screen but also spills into our real life.

“Aladdin”…Or A Genie Friend We Wished We Had

 Aladdin is not one of my favorite stories either in its original version or adopted by Disney. Certainly, it is a pleasant and charming story. After all,
who wouldn’t want to go from rags to riches overnight with the help from Genie? Everyone would. It is human.

However, the original story is darker. But this is Disney: the world of magic, wishes, happiness, joy, and where dreams do come true. Fortunately, both stories do provide a moral, or at least a few, about the cost of dreams and what anyone can accomplish with taking chances (risky preferable), having semi-reliable friends, keeping a head on shoulders, and living life through dance and song. Therefore, Aladdin fits into Disney world perfectly.

The show is at the New Amsterdam Theater. It was built in 1903 and over the years was a place where plays were staged and movies shown. In 1993, Disney bought this theater and renovated it by making it a home for Disney Theatrical Productions. In 1997, the first Disney production, King David, was staged and followed by Hercules, The Lion King, Mary Poppins, and Aladdin. And as per Disney, once I walked into the theater I was swept away into the land of magic and dreams. I felt like the crazy bustle and hustle of New York City was left behind after I crossed over the theater’s threshold. New Amsterdam Theater is as magical as Aladdin. It is truly the proper home for the show.

The theater employees wore traditional usher or bellboys/girls’ uniforms. The elevator
had an attendant (felt weird that someone else is pressing a button) who was very knowledgeable about the theater and the production and its cast. The vestibules were adorned with old-fashioned chandeliers, paintings, and what looked-like the wallpapers. Overall, New Amsterdam Theater is an old-fashioned European-style theater: homey and intimate. While watching the performance, I felt the connection with actors, their performances, wardrobe, set designs, and, certainly, that elusive magic that Disney tries to capture and actors, and the rest of production team, try to convey to make people believe that they are part of the story just like when reading a book. The only annoying part of the theater was a long and bulky box that spread from one side of the theater to the other. I guess it was important for special effects but took away the beauty of the theater.

I sat on a Balcony, Row D. The view was great and comfortable. I saw every actors’ detail and especially their performances up close, unlike other Broadway theaters where I would sit and see the movement on the stage but not the performances. (After all, performances should be more intimate and not feel like you are at a football stadium.)

The performance began with an Introduction of the story by “the hardest working Genie in show business”, James Monroe Iglehart. He introduced us to the locale, people, and the story’s characters. And, then, he vanished for the next 20 minutes until he was awakened by Aladdin. But I won’t bore you with the details of the show. I would recommend though finding the courage and spending money to see Aladdin. I won’t lie. The show is expensive but so worth it. So, what was wonderful about Aladdin?

In short answer: It was marvelous, elegant, colorful, entertaining, and magical. But, here is longer answer.

First, the set decorations were brilliant. There weren’t too many of them, and they were not upstaging the actors. There was the town’s bazaar, the roofs over which Aladdin was escaping from security guards, the palace, or the scary cave. The necessary dimensions were drawn up in the background. Decorations were there to tell the story as characters would see them in real life. As such, decorations were characters of this play too. In the end, the minimal amount of decorations allowed the audience to put the rest of the missing details themselves. After all, a good storyteller never provides too descriptive a detail so as not to bore a viewer

Second, the colorful and beautiful wardrobe the actors had privilege to wear. Dresses and tunics, and other pieces of clothing, were the colors of a rainbow except for muted colors which weren’t present. The actors who portrayed the poor socio-economic strata of the story were indeed poor materialistically (except for clothing)
but colorful in spirit. They were not downtrodden creatures of The Miserable. As a result, the colors of the show allowed audience not to be bored or too sleepy when the actors’ performances (either thru a dialogue or dancing) became monotonous. They truly were the spirit of the show. By the way, the muted colors were present, but those colors were left for Jafar, for obvious reasons. And even then those colors were not dull. Last, but not least, the Sultan’s and his daughter’s clothes were adorned with Swarovski diamonds to show the privileged and wealthy status. I found it an expensive though nice touch to wardrobe.

The dances were numerous and energetic by the lead actors and the ensemble. Unfortunately, at times, I found that dances were a bit dragged out and could’ve been shortened. Moreover, I noticed (not that I was looking for it) that one dance number (dancing with swords, but not the fighting in the palace) performed by ensemble was a bit out of tune. A couple of dancers almost lost the synchronicity of the number; they were slower than the other dancers. It didn’t ruin the performance. However, to show the power of dancing, togetherness is essential.

Last, but not least, are lead actors themselves. Overall, the actors were brilliant. They were entertaining, visual, clear in their choices, and motivations, goals, and energy were balanced out throughout the play.

The best of the bunch was James Monroe Iglehart. He was the Genie and the entertainer of the show. Without him, there wouldn’t be a story worth watching.  He was joyful on stage. He was a kid in a candy store. And, thankfully, he allowed the audience to experience his beauty of being a wordsmith and singer, 

dancer and acrobat, entertainer, and a friend. His entrance was spectacular, and I couldn’t wait for his re-appearance. He would pull a rabbit out of his hat and give a scene even more life. He has become the Broadway’s most surprising, talented, and joyful actor that I’ve seen in a while.

Another entertaining performance was done by Don Darryl Rivera (Iago) as Jafar’s sidekick.  He was a punch-line to Jafar’s jokes. I did wonder who would play Jafar’s right-hand man. However, Mr. Rivera’s performance was on point, exciting, and excruciatingly funny.  And speaking of Jafar and Iago, I’d mention that Jonathan Freeman’s “Jafar” was even better than when he voiced the same character in the cartoon version. 

And what about our famous leads, Aladdin and Jasmine? Adam Jacobs (Aladdin) performed superbly especially with his dancing routines (scene at trying to make money as street dancers was the best). However, he made a little mistake: When Genie (hurt and disenchanted with Aladdin) was leaving the stage, Mr. Jacobs instead of looking at the lamp, looked at the stage’s floor even when Genie was already gone. Luckily, and professionally, Mr. Jacobs realized it and quickly looked at the lamp.
After all, Genie wasn’t going under the stage; he went into the lamp. But, overall, his performance was solid. At times, I felt sorry for him. At other times, I felt sorry for his victims. And he was comedic at places where he should be. In short, he was the Aladdin that we expect.

On the other side of the coin, Courtney Reed (Jasmine) was a terrific Jasmine. Her performance was full of female strength and charm that ‘bullied’ her father, was Princess Turandot to many princes, but also vulnerable and too dreamy and not practical.  In addition, Jacobs and Reed were of great chemistry and their relationship developed organically and truthfully.  In fact, all of the actors were connected to each other and their chemistry worked beautifully. Of course, it helps to be
performing together for a long time, but the chemistry is a fickle aspect for actors to achieve and to continue performance after performance is remarkable.

Therefore, I would recommend seeing this show (http://www.broadwaybox.com/shows/aladdin/). And if this show will still be at the New Amsterdam Theater for the next five years with mostly the same cast, I would go and see it again.

Specter of the "Spectre"

The new James Bond movie “Spectre” was a disappointment.  I watched it over the Thanksgiving Weekend.  After all of the hype that surrounded the movie, and the trailer was superb: mysterious and captivating, I went into the movie theater with a great expectation to be blown away. After all, “Skyfall” blew me away with its superb storytelling, actors’ performances, action scenes, unique baddy played by Javier Bardem, and unpredictable ending; I am still reeling from that movie. In contrast, “Spectre” was none of those qualities.

In fact, “Spectre” was a composite-movie of most of all old James Bond movies. Firstly, the beginning of the movie in Mexico City had only one great action of blasting of the building that refused to collapse and a baddy coming out of it with limited injuries. The parade of the ‘dead’ on the Day of All Saints reminded me of a scene (I believe it was with Sean Connery) in New Orleans and its lively parade. In addition, the chase scene was interesting by so over-used in many other movies. I liked the battle in helicopter. It looked familiar yet it had its own novelty.

Second, the credit scene with Sam Smith’s opening song and sexual dancing affair reminded me of Pierce Brosnan’s James Bonds. Sam Smith’s song was subpar and boring. Thirdly, Christoph Waltz’s baddy was reminiscent of bad guys of Sean Connery’s James Bonds: sophisticated and edgy but not as interesting or juicy as Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem) in “Skyfall”. And the whole Spectre organization with its secluded and secret headquarters and with its egomaniacal boss reminded me more of “Skyfall” again. Mr. Waltz’s character was not as juicy, not unique, and not interesting. In fact, I lost interest in Oberhauser from the moment the character showed up in the movie for the first time in Rome. By the way, the car chase in Rome was badass, especially when James Bond decided to catapult away and sink the stolen car in Tiber. Last, but not least, the chase scene in the Alps (James Bond on a plane and bad guys in cars) was interesting but reminded me of another cooler chase scene down the mountain slope on skis in one of earlier James Bond movies (I believe it was with Roger Moore).

Overall, “Spectre” could’ve been better. However, with so many James Bond movies over the years, repetition is inevitable especially when creators want to connect the newer and re-imagined James Bond movies with its predecessors. I would give credit to Daniel Craig. He sold to us that he is James Bond. Surely, he has been less charming and sophisticated. However, he made it his own James Bond. He made it fresh. I remember when many of the James Bond fans were not convinced by Mr. Craig’s James Bond and maybe many still believe he is the worst James Bond. However, I wholeheartedly disagree. This new James Bond was raw, real, motivated, and focused. Yes, at times, he looked more like Jason Bourne (Bourne series) or Ethan Hunt (Mission Impossible series), but that what made him unique to create these fabulous origin tales.  And as James Bond in “Spectre” drove away from Q’s headquarters in classical Aston Martin DB5, it could be surmised that the origin stories are over, and now, James Bond will be that classical Bond that we have been used to before Daniel Craig. We don’t know if we’ll have another James Bond and whether Daniel Craig will reprise his role, but we know he made four movies that have been a joy to watch and see Bonds’ development as a guy you never want to cross in any generation, except of course if you are a lady.

Star Wars: Too Far Away from Believable Continuity

Star Wars is "The Lord of the Rings" of science-fiction. When it came out the first time, the movie was magical because the visual effects and worlds were something new. The story-line was unique yet familiar; mythological even.  We had never seen it before. And spirituality was something we were discovering and were fascinated by because it was more personal and, in fact, made sense; it was straightforward.  Those were the original three episodes. 

The origin storyline films were still fascinating. We were still spellbound by its magic because it wasn’t far away from the story of the Episodes IV, V, and VI. Plus, the often re-runs of the originals, VHS/DVDs, books, merchandise, and ComicCons helped to continue the magic, the dream of great adventures, and unbelievable feats.  However, Episodes I, II, and III were a disappointment. The stories were hardly explained in depth, plots were rushed through, characters unique but some shouldn’t have been there, and way too much CGI. Nevertheless, the magic and the myth were still there. That is why the animated Star Wars series were so successful though, at times, writers got lazy with creating solid stories with important characters. Instead, they jumped their storylines from world to world to show us how the Empire came to be (very illuminating), why Yoda didn’t defeat Palpatine (would ‘ve liked more stories on this point), and the path that Anakin chose to take in the end (and that wasn’t too clear but prepared for Episode III). Of course, at the end of these series, we saw that one female Sith was still alive.

And, now, we are at a time when a new Star War Episode VII is coming out on December 18^th. Disney bought the rights from George Lucas for way too much money, a few billion. Disney, lacking its own creative machismo that made it magical in of itself, decided to continue to earn money by buying up stories and merchandising rights from other successful companies like George Lucas Co. and Marvel, for example. This is a very smart business decision when its own creativity is all but vanished.

Disney hired J.J. Abrams who was charged with revamping and relaunching the Star Wars saga. He did similar with Star Trek which was successful in terms of story-line and character-driven plots. (I am not talking about money). But will his re-hashing of Star Wars be as successful? I would answer yes, for now. Fans, fanatics, and new generation of people will flock to the cinemas to see and then judge the new Star Wars episode. It will make enough money so that Episode VIII will be filmed. As for me, I will go and see it. However, for the first time, I am not too optimistic and not holding my breath to be blown away by it or be fascinated by its magic and mythology. The reason is simple: The whole barrage of teaser trailers, trailers, and featurettes were badly assembled. They did not create fascination for me as was the case with Episodes I, II, and III. I don’t mind the intrigue, but there wasn’t much about to be intrigued by, though I must concede that legend is being reborn. So, what didn’t I like about all of those clips?

First of all, the whole look is something out of “Hunger Games” and “Divergent” series. This episode apparently is geared toward tweens and teens. This makes sense. The creators want a new generation to get interested by the Star Wars. However, the trouble could be that the serious and strong story-plot tones will be overshadowed by melodrama. As such, it would be interesting to see the end result and whether a melodrama will be present. In the end, this episode doesn’t look to be created for everyone but for certain groups of people. For me, the original films were created for everyone. Now, I am not so sure.

Second, the movie has way too many questions. But why start on Tatooine again? Is this a throwback to the beginning of Episode IV? I call this lazy writing. In contrast, Episode I began on Naboo. 

Another point is that the main character around whom the story will coalesce is a female. I don’t mind having a strong female character. But who is she? How come does she have to go in search of the Force? Who are her parents? Furthermore, we saw a glimpse of an African-American stormtrooper. Alright, I’ll bite. This is possible. According to Star Wars legend, after the Empire fell and the Rebels destroyed clone-manufacturing factories, the last remnants of Empire were not able to create clones anymore. As such, they had to conscript and ‘grow’ regular folk to be soldiers. These new additions are welcome. However, I do hope this is not because of the new cultural hype of bringing diversity into Hollywood. I sincerely hope that these characters are interwoven intelligently into Star Wars story-line and universe and not be there just for show. Well, watching the movie would help in understanding this particular conundrum.

Last, but not least, the new little robot looks less intelligent, more annoying, and unlikely to save our heroes from near-death situations like R2-D2 had done. How come Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker) wasn’t present in the clips aside from his sage-like voiceover sound? (He has been known to act in VoiceOver world than on-screen world). Is his role so small that’s not worth mentioning though he is the person who became the Jedi Master, who created the new Jedi Academy, and who sought out people who could become Jedi? Isn’t Luke around whom the future of Far, Far Away Universe established anew? Furthermore, how come the Force is conveniently forgotten? Is Coruscant no longer in existence? Does the New Republic still fighting Empire? And, lastly, what’s up with the new Sith? Why does he have such a deep voice like we’ve been hearing in movies like “Batman: The Dark Knight” (Christian Bale as Batman), Eddie Redmayne in “Jupiter Rising” and Benedict Cumberbatch in “Star Trek II” as Khan? Why do actors decide to create a character with such deep voice? For me, those types of voices sound cheesy. Therefore, since I have questions such as these, I will have to watch Episode VII, but I won't buy a ticket ahead of time.

In conclusion, the new episode is not an original story-telling as Star Trek was. It is an amalgamation of all other Star Wars movies that is based on a sage mentor, an unlikely hero, and an evil Force consisted of one person (if it’s a group, then that is anti-Sith mantra of One Master = One Apprentice as per 1,000 years of Sith existence). In my opinion, the movie doesn’t have legs for Episodes VIII and IX. I will see the movie and then review the whole movie. But for now, I don’t believe in characters though actors look like they are playing their roles very well. And I don’t believe in the story that doesn’t capture imagination and desire to fly in a X-Wing, in Millennium Falcon, to shoot at storm-troopers, to travel to different planets, or learn the ways of the Jedi. But ‘Let the Force be with you’ to have a desire to see the movie and be captured by its magic and story.

Interview with Anton Yelchin

ANTON YELCHIN: “THERE ARE NO REAL ANSWERS”

Mr. Yelchin, what is the ultimate goal of cinema? 

In the face of the unknown and the horror of existence that we have to deal with, the goal of cinema should be to acknowledge and indulge the dreamlike nature of existence, but never mythologize and offer answers. I think the most dangerous thing is when we construct a mythology to give answers and to dictate meaning and existence, and then we offer these images as being accurate in order to mitigate the terror that we feel. It seems like in our culture the goal is to make us feel less terrified and more confident.

There is no doubt that movies are a form of escapism for many.

But that ultimately just leads to greater confusion as we realize there are no real answers and that we can’t just control things. So cinema should be a tool in which we explore the nature of our existence as human beings on this earth and should never really answer questions. It should provide questions and speculation and allow subjectivity instead of a cinema that is purely manipulative. For me it’s sort of a mixture of the philosophical awareness and the emotional. I think those are the sort of films that I’m most drawn to.

When was the first time you cried in the cinema?

The first time I cried was watching Terminator 2 on TV, when Arnold’s thumb comes out and he’s saying “I’ll be back” and he’s melting. I think that was incredibly effective, manipulative cinema for a little kid. So that was the first moment I really remember weeping. And I cried in Disney movies all the time. I mean Lion King still shreds me. If I were to watch it right now I would break down. The first time I was really profoundly affected emotionally at a more significant age when it wasn’t just about Schwarzenegger and lions was probably seeing Bicycle Thieves and Umberto D. and Midnight Cowboy.

How old were you when you discovered those films?

I saw them all around the same age, around the age of 13. But those films, like the Italian neo-realist films, the new American cinema of the ’60s and ’70s, those films really affected me when I saw them. Midnight Cowboy still breaks my heart. But at the same time Tarkovsky movies really affect me, like beyond just the evening of weeping, because they are not like outright crying movies, but they have a kind of profound heaviness about them that you can’t get away from. It just sort of seeps into your soul and sits there for a year if you like. But the moment where cinema really came together for me, where I realized this sort of incredible and odd and surreal aspect of taking all these elements like light, sound, performance, camera movement, and just manipulating space to create an image – that really came together on this film I worked on called Hearts in Atlantis when I was 11.

What was so special about that experience?

I just remember seeing the way the light was being conditioned by the DP Piotr Sobocinski to create an image, and the way that Anthony Hopkins would literally create, in a similar way, this space with the magnitude of his acting ability and power. And then the director Scott Hicks was there to really kindly and sensitively guide me in this new terrain that I found myself in. I was overwhelmed by this cinematic thing that I was experiencing and the magic of seeing them do their work really opened my mind to just what it meant to be making movies. And from that moment on it has become this very intimate thing for me that is incredibly bizarre at the same time.

After that were you confident that you would make it in the industry? Not many people co-star a film with Anthony Hopkins before they get to middle school…

I’m still not very confident that I’m good enough. I don’t know that I’ll ever be confident in that. When I started working I felt like, “Okay I’m working. I should just do this because it’s what I love.” I more or less worked all through middle school and high school so the thought that I should stop working and do something else just wasn’t on my mind. And I always kept going. Good? Bad? These things I find very confusing when it comes to my own work.

You seem to be sincerely interested in movies, so a logical consequence would be to start directing or writing your own films.

Yes, definitely. I have been trying to write screenplays since I was about 18. I have four or five in circulation that I’ve been working on over the years and new ideas come to me all the time. But I want it to be a thorough investigation of what that thought process is, or what I’m thinking and feeling, and I want all of that to be on the page. I have given scripts out too early and have been embarrassed afterwards because in my gut I knew that they weren’t streamlined, you know? And so now I’m very careful about that. I only want to put things out that are exactly what I want them to be. I don’t want to have any gut feelings about it being wrong.

What kind of films do you want to make?

I have been watching a lot of silent and experimental films from the ’20s and really early cinema from the first decade of the 20th century and the last decade of the 19th. I am really interested in how silent films work. Their own formal logic follows with philosophy embedded in the emotion of the images. I’m drawn to this experimental and avant-garde cinema and the beauty of images. Dziga Vertov is one of my favorite filmmakers. Even Eisenstein was complaining that Vertov’s films don’t make sense, that they have no point, but Vertov’s movies really affected me because they are images talking to one another without exactly telling you what to think. It is this kind of beautiful cinematic collage.Man with a Movie Camera is just about life and the ability of the camera to show you life and reconfigure life and that’s always been a big thing for me. So I feel like if I’m going to make movies, I want them to move in that direction, at least right now.

Your parents emigrated from Russia to the United States as political refugees right after you were born. Do you believe you would still be in the movies if you had stayed in Russia?

I’m very fortunate to live here because my parents made sure that I would live a comfortable life even when it wasn’t easy for them. I’ve been very fortunate to have certain comforts, and one of those comforts was being able to go to the cinema and being able to have VHS tapes and then later DVDs and things like that. In Russia, I don’t know what my parents would be doing, I don’t know how we would live, I don’t know whether the cultural climate of post-Soviet Russia would have been comfortable enough for them to show me what they wanted to show me. But I also may be wrong. There is incredible cinema, like Andrey Zvyagintsev, Sergei Loznitsa, and Konchalovsky. They just have a much harder time, you know? They are welcomed on the festival circuit, but they are not welcomed in their own country. And I don’t know how I would have felt about that, how that would have affected me. It’s hard to speculate.

How much do you identify with your Russian heritage?

What affects me is the Russian cultural history. Tarkovsky’s films, Dostoyevsky’s novels, Rachmaninoff’s music. All of those really affect me. Because I think there is a heaviness to the thought process, a kind of emotional heaviness. I’m not going to call it depth, as to imply that there is greater depth in it than other things, but there is a kind of heaviness about it. Like you are not necessarily meant to enjoy yourself all that much, you’re meant to be burdened by the emotion of it. I think that is a kind of Russian thing I can relate to. You listen to Russian Romantic music and it’s captivating in an incredibly heavy and serious way, as is the literature. The thought processes are quite different from the French or the Italian. The French cinema is so beautiful, Italian cinema is so extraordinary, but there is this special something in the Russian vision I described… Maybe it’s just a darkness of vision that is pervasive, and I feel that in myself sometimes.

http://the-talks.com/interviews/anton-yelchin/