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/

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

“Forever” Stay on Air

“Forever” is one of the most unique shows on Primetime TV. (The other one, as of today, is “Castle.”) The show has elements that we all already know, and some elements are relatively new.  It is like a stew. A few cooks came together, put a pot on, and added the basic ingredients. Then, they added additional ingredients along with spices to make this stew thick, palatable, and well-seasoned. As a result, some people jumped-in head first into trying it; others circled around first before trying; and the rest just pinched their nose and walked off into the sunset since the first smell tells them everything for the wrong reasons.  Therefore, how does this relate to “Forever”?

The show is like any other procedural on TV: “Law & Order: SVU”, “Blue Bloods”, “Elementary”, etc. We have our hero cop (Detective Jo Martinez), her trusted sidekick (Detective Hanson), and tough as nails boss (Lt. Joanna Reece). These guys have their regular crimes that they try to solve. Of course, what procedural wouldn’t have its Medical Examiner (M.E., Dr. Henry Morgan) with his weird, young and naïve assistant (Lucas Wan). And this is the regular ingredients for a procedural. (This description reminds me of “NCIS” show.) And that is it. One needs nothing else for a show. A writer would just create storylines given this scenario for crimes and delve into lives of our characters. However, the writers were not done.

They decided to keep everything as is but make M.E. even more intelligent. They gave him the brain of Sherlock Holmes. (Yes, move over “Elementary”). And how did he acquire his keen sense of deduction? Well, he is immortal. Or, at least, somehow he was made immortal. He wasn’t born immortal. Therefore, our M.E. is the one really solving the crimes, and detectives are his “sidekicks”. This is very reminiscent of a popular 1990s show “Diagnosis: Murder” along with “Sherlock Holmes” varied series.

So, to recap: We have regular procedural drama with elements of “Diagnosis: Murder” and “Sherlock Holmes”. All shows have been popular in their time.

The immortal factor is of “Highlander” popularity-saga that was created in books and made popular as movies and TV show. The difference, of course, is that our immortal doesn’t go walking around at night brandishing a sword and cutting-off people’s heads. Well, at least, it hasn’t happened yet. As such, we now have “NCIS”, “Sherlock Holmes”, “Diagnosis: Murder”, and “Highlander” in our pot. Therefore, what is left: spices?

Spices here are the human factor of our characters and especially that of Dr. Morgan. He constantly believes that his immortality is an affliction that must be dealt with. Since he was brought up like a God-fearing man, some of that nurturing dominates his point of view. Of course, over the years he became a wise sage that tries to teach us something about life and its circumstances, as is shown in the TV show when we hear Dr. Morgan’s Voice-Over in the beginning and at the end of an episode.

In addition, we have Dr. Morgan’s “enemy”, “friend”, arch-rival, or nemesis in the face of Adam. We still don’t know what his real game is.  Last time we saw him, Adam gave Dr. Morgan a pistol that was used to kill our hero before his “illness” surfaced. Adam believes that if an immortal kills himself with a weapon that was used to kill him, then he will die. Conveniently, Adam was killed 2,000 years ago in Rome. His murder-weapon was lost to time, or has it?

This is one of the spices. Other strong spices are the relationships: Det. Martinez and Isaac Monroe, and Dr. Morgan with his son Abe. As well, we have personal battles that everyone has: Det. Martinez and her lost husband, Isaac Monroe and his questionable past (from the hood to ultimate riches), and Dr. Morgan and his immortality and his past. In fact, the flashbacks to Dr. Morgan’s past is a brilliant touch to already well-boiling pot. This allows the viewers to better understand our immortal’s current life. Overall, the show doesn’t have “Law & Order: SVU” and “Blue Bloods” thick-drama. It is more like “Castle” where atmosphere is dramatic but light. After watching it in the evening, it doesn’t feel like you’ve been through fire and water ordeal.  You are just on this journey with Dr. Morgan to experience a glimpse of his life and people who surround him.

However, this show might have way too many already mentioned ingredients.  Viewers could be fed up with the main storylines for whatever reasons: the story moves to slow; we don’t believe in the whole immortality thing, and other stuff.

According to TVBytheNumbers.com, “Forever” is likely to be cancelled due to its low “Renew/Cancel Index” of 0.57. (For show to survive to the next season, the Index has to be above 1.0). The Index is derived from Nielsen daily report. Nielson tracks TV shows’ popularity. However, its gathering of statistics is probably suspect. Unfortunately, the show could be cancelled regardless what die-hard fans, like me, think or even write emails to ABC not to cancel. A TV show could be cancelled because network (especially primetime) is not earning money. The lower ratings a TV show has, the network will have hard time selling advertising space for high price. That is how it makes its millions. Unfortunately, in entertainment business, money is good. And Mr. Gordon Gekko’s quip in “Wall Street” that “Greed is good” is correct. Art and entertainment of the audience is secondary.

It is an unfortunate fact. The show shouldn’t be cancelled. It should be given a second season either on ABC or maybe in the realm of New Media.

Another reason for “Forever” to stay on air is what I mentioned above. Many different unique ingredients that surprisingly work well together unlike “Pan Am” whose many ingredients were not complimentary.  In addition, “Forever” and “Castle” complement each other in terms of their storyline and actors’ play. “Castle” is on Monday, while “Forever” is on Tuesday. However, unlike “Castle”, “Forever” is suffering in its 10pm slot. It should be moved to 9pm at least.

Therefore, I will end this blog by saying that it is highly likely, yet unfortunate, that another intelligent show will go off the air when it shouldn’t. We need more shows that are intelligent, take audience on an adventure where you have to think but not too hard, everything is clear, and storylines are seamless.  And at the end of watching a TV show, you are satisfied.

Therefore, ABC Executives, please, keep “Forever” on air and give it one more chance.

After all, why shouldn’t M.E. be like Sherlock Holmes and be an immortal. The stories are familiar yet still unique due to great main character’s play.

Successful Actor Interview: Marion Cotillard

"I can fit in any process as long as the director respects who I am and doesn’t try to put me in a situation to get something out of me."

Ms. Cotillard, you have worked on all kinds of different projects, from art house French films to Hollywood blockbusters. Do you have a favorite style of working?

No, I love when it’s different every time. I don’t like to compare because I don’t see the point. I don’t have a favorite process. My favorite process is the right process for the person I am working with. I can fit in any process as long as the director respects who I am and doesn’t try to put me in a situation to get something out of me – if I can give it without that situation. It doesn’t work at all.

What kind of situation?

Someone who will try to make me angry or create a situation that is not related to my character in order to put me in the state of the character. It’s 100 percent counter productive. Either I will get mad and I won’t be good or – and most of the time this is what happens – I will laugh. I cannot take it seriously.

Why not?

Because I can see the trick and I need authenticity. I need to be on the same page as the director. It happened once that the guy was doing things and he would ask me to do things that I didn’t expect, but I liked it because it fit with the movie. I was never slapped in the face, but some of my fellow actors have had this experience. That wouldn’t work for me at all. I need to be part of the process – and the trust.

Are you more self-confident now than you used to be?

No. I think it’s part of myself. Insecurity is very common among actors. When I started giving interviews and talking to people that I didn’t know, it was a nightmare. I’ve learned how to deal with interviews and insecurity; I’ve gotten used to it. But it’s always weird when you have to talk to someone you don’t know, someone who asks questions about yourself. It’s kind of a weird process. But I feel good. I love to discover and jump into the unknown and there is no security there.

Is that why you work in Europe and in Hollywood?

That was totally by luck. I had never thought I could work outside of my country, especially in the United States. I am from this generation where the American, the U.S. movies are part of our culture, so the American movies fed my dream to be an actress, but I never thought that I could one day work in an American movie. So I feel very, very lucky.

Well it doesn’t hurt that you won an Oscar for your performance in La Vie en Rose.

I feel lucky that this crazy Olivier Dahan thought I could be Édith Piaf. He changed my life. As an actress I always wanted to do movies and I never dreamt about doing movies in America just because I didn’t think it was possible. It was never a part of my dream. My dream was pretty simple. I just wanted to tell stories, make movies. I already consider myself very lucky to be able to do what I love to do.

But many French actors and filmmakers choose not to work in America, even though they could. French director François Ozon told us, “Americans respect you when you stay in your country, but when you arrive in America it’s finished.”

I was in Cannes one year with a French actress and she is very talented, very beautiful, and my American agent grabbed my dress and said, “Introduce me to her. I want to meet her!” So I went to see her and said, “My American agent wants to meet with you.” And she was like, “I don’t care! I don’t speak English and I don’t want to do any movies there.” I was surprised, but she absolutely refused to meet with my agent. She’s my generation, she could have everything, and she totally refused. And I was begging her! I said, “It’s an experience, you never know…” So you know, it’s very personal. Some people are just not interested. But it was not my goal and I don’t consider it as a big achievement to act in America. I just always wanted to be an actress.

Always?

My parents are actors and so I was surrounded by actors. I was surrounded by great energy and storytellers all my childhood. And that was fascinating. When I was very young I saw plays that are not for kids and I have a very, very vivid memory of those moments. Usually it was when the nanny didn’t come and my mom had to take my brothers and I to a three-hour play about ancient Greece or something. We would go crazy – she would go crazy, too. (Laughs) I remember the actors who were friends with my parents being normal people that I knew and then on stage they were cats or dogs. That was crazy. As far as I remember I always wanted to be an actress.

What was it like the first time you were on stage?

I was very young, I think I was like four or five. My mother was doing this play and the director asked me to do something. I remember exactly the location, the theater. There was a big piano, there was this woman on the floor and she was supposed to be my mother. But my mother was on stage, too. And I remember the confusion. I didn’t understand why they were saying such crazy things, pretending that my mother was there lying down while my mother was over there! That was my first time on stage.

Do you bring your son on set with you like your mother took you to the theater?

Yes, but you need a very good make up artist. (Laughs) You don’t sleep anymore, but at the same time you have this strength that comes from this life that has just arrived. It’s a big cliché how your priorities change, but every parent knows that sometimes there’s a thunderstorm and you look at his eyes and everything is all right. It is a revolution of everything you feel. It increases strength. It increases everything – except nighttime.

Original source: http://the-talks.com/interviews/marion-cotillard/

Next Year’s Oscar Race Is Already On: Will Redmayne & Inarritu Return For Round 2?

Re-posted from Deadline.com. Great article to read about upcoming movies of this year. Enjoy, my dear followers!

By Pete Hammond
With the 2014 Oscar race fading further into memory, I say it’s never too early to look ahead to what’s in store for the nascent 2015 contest. It s
hould start coming into the beginnings of focus when Cannes starts in May, or maybe even at CinemaCon in late April (though that National Association of Theatre Owners confab usually highlights more obviously commercial stuff, not necessarily Oscar bait). It’s interesting to note that by this time last year, three of the eight eventual Best Picture Oscar nominees already had premiered, and that was a bit unusual. The 2014 Sundance Film Fest in January gave us Boyhood and Whiplash, which went on to earn a total of 11 nominations and four Oscars between them. And then after its smash Berlin debut, Fox Searchlight opened Wes Anderson’s The Grand Budapest Hotel exactly one year ago this weekend. With nine nominations and eventually four Oscar wins, it also became the first film to be released beforeMay to get a Best Picture Oscar nomination since Erin Brockovich in 2000. So anything on the horizon now that could match that impressive record at this point so near the ides of March? Hmmmm.

Out of Sundance this year Fox Searchlight — the reigning Best Picture distributor two years running with 12 Years A Slave and Birdman (along with 12 Best Pic noms overall) — grabbed two promising awards prospects in Brooklyn starring, Domhnall Gleeson and Saoirse Ronan, as well as Me And Earl And The Dying Girl, with Thomas Mann and RJ Cyler. The latter film won two prizes at Sundance, emulating what Whiplash did the year before. A24 Films also has awards hope for James Ponsoldt’s Sundancer The End Of The Tour, which opens in July, the same time period in which Boyhood successfully launched.

Looking at the landscape so far this year, I would venture to say we won’t have a repeat where nearly half the Best Picture nominees already had been seen by this date. From the Sundance buzz, though, Brooklyn would seem like the perfect recipe to go all the way, and Searchlight this week dated it for the Oscar-friendliest of weekends, November 6. Also this week Focus Features came out with a Thanksgiving weekend date of November 27 for The Danish Girl, a movie currently in production that has a pure Oscar pedigree as it comes from The King’s Speech Oscar winner Tom Hooper and stars newly minted Best Actor winner Eddie Redmayne. I even heard early in the 2014 season that Hooper joked to a friend that it would be fine for Redmayne to be nominated forThe Theory Of Everything but he was going to win  for his movie. Redmayne’s triumph at the Dolby after an exhausting campaign season has changed the stakes on that plan, and now Focus will be trying to position him for the rare feat of back-to-back Best Actor wins, something not accomplished since Tom Hanks in 1993 and 1994 for Philadelphia and Forrest Gump. Even though cameras are still rolling the Danish Girl campaign seems to be on, with Focus releasing an early photo of Redmayne as transgender pioneer Einar Wegener. It’s a role right out of the current zeitgeist for Redmayne and obvious catnip for Academy voters. The part originally was meant to be played by Nicole Kidman.

Another big 2014 Oscar winner, Alejandro G. Inarritu, also went straight from the Dolby — after winning three Oscars for Birdman — back to the set of another highly ambitious film. It’s The Revenant  from big Fox and New Regency, which are looking for three in a row and might find themselves with a major contender with this Leonardo DiCaprio-starring film. Big Fox also could be giving its overachieving specialty division, Searchlight (which also has Far From The Madding Crowd, True Story and A Bigger Splash on its crowded schedule), a run for the Oscar money also with David O. Russell’s Joy, starring Jennifer Lawrence as the creator of the Miracle Mop, and Ridley Scott’s November release The Martian. Fox also is involved internationally with Steven Spielberg’s promising DreamWorks entry St. James Place starring Hanks, which Touchstone Pictures will release domestically. DreamWorks (and Participant Films) also could have director Derek Cianfrance’s The Light Between Oceans, starring Michael Fassbender, in the mix.

Although they aren’t likely Best Picture fodder like Grand Budapest Hotel, two March releases — Disney’s Cinderella and the Al Pacino starrer Danny Collins — have some level of awards potential. Singing for the first time, Pacino plays an aging rock star, which could find him in the Comedy or Musical category at the Golden Globes (his support cast including a superb Christopher Plummer, Annette Bening, Jennifer Garner and Bobby Cannavale is exceptional as well). Costumes and production design are distinct possibilities for Cinderella, though I have to say I was enchanted by Cate Blanchett’s evil stepmother. She’s probably a better bet for later in the year with the Weinstein Company’sCarol, though.

Going down the list –always a fool’s errand at this point in the game, with release dates uncertain and movies sight unseen– Warner Bros could be back in action big time next awards season with several films including David Gordon Green’s Our Brand Is Crisis, starring Sandra Bullock; Scott Cooper’s Black Mass, with a startling transformation of Johnny Depp into Whitey Bulger; and Ron Howard’s big Christmas picture In The Heart Of The Sea, which was moved from spring into prime Oscar-season territory. There’s also Mud director Jeff Nichols’ Midnight Special, reuniting him with Michael Shannon, who also is great in Broad Green Pictures’ pickup 99 Homes, a film co-starring Andrew Garfield and Laura Dern that played the fall festival circuit already but has yet to open in theaters.

Universal, which held out high Best Picture hopes last season for Angelina Jolie’s Unbroken, only to come up short when Oscar nominations were announced, has Jolie’s next directorial effort opposite husband Brad Pitt, in the marriage tale By The Sea. U also has Steve Jobs, the biopic from Oscar winners Danny Boyle and writer Aaron Sorkin, which hopscotched from Sony to Universal and stars Fassbender (again) in what should be a definite contender if things work out. And though it’s listed for February 2016, I wouldn’t be shocked to see The Coen Brothers back with their Hollywood tale, Hail Caesar. With Working Title, there’s also Tom Hardy as the Kray twins in Brian Helgeland’s Legend, and Everest, one of many titles starring Jake Gyllenhaal, so egregiously overlooked by Oscar for his great performance in Nightcrawler. Perhaps the Academy can make it up to him with this mountain-climbing tale, another Searchlight entry called Demolition or the summertime Weinstein Co. Antoine Fuqua boxing tale Southpaw, in which he truly transforms himself again, putting on all the weight he lost for Nightcrawler.

Speaking of the quintessential Oscar player, Harvey Weinstein, he has several films including the aforementioned Todd Haynes film, Carol (headed for Cannes?) with Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara; the Margot Robbie starrer Suite Francaise; the Helen Mirren-Ryan Reynolds true drama Woman In Gold; Regression with Ethan Hawke and Emma Watson; Macbeth with Fassbender (again) and Marion Cotillard; and of course, Quentin Tarantino’s currently shooting Western The Hateful Eight. For Tarantino’s last film, Django Unchained, Weinstein Co teamed with Sony, but thatever-so-troubled studio, which drew a blank at the 2014 Oscars — outside of specialty division Sony Pictures Classics, of course, which had multiple nominees — could have a big comeback at the 2016 Academy Awards, at least in theory, with such possible entries as Will Smith starring in the football picture Concussion; George Clooney’s very promising Money Monster, directed by Jodie Foster; newly rebooted TriStar’s The Walk, which was shepherded by new Sony Pictures boss Tom Rothman; and even summer entry Ricki And The Flash, which stars Meryl Streep as an aging rock star (shades of Pacino?). Never count out Streep. SPC always manages a strong slate of Oscar contenders one way or another, and it inevitably will have a lot of titles this coming year. But right now it can count especially on its Sundance pickup Grandma, starring an exceptional Lily Tomlin, as well as its annual Woody Allen film, this time being Irrational Man with Joaquin Phoenix.

Paramount always seems to manage to elbow its way into the race, and this year it should have Martin Scorsese back on board with his passion project Silence – if Scorsese chooses to have it ready in time. With Oscar-friendly Annapurna, Paramount also has Rick Linklater’s post-Boyhood project That’s What I’m Talking About. Disney, of course, has the Star Wars reboot, but the Academy hasn’t nominated a Star Wars film for Best Picture since the first in 1977, when it awarded that landmark blockbuster seven Oscars but gave Best Pic to Allen’s Annie Hall. Disney, with Pixar, also has Pete Docter’s highly anticipated Inside Out, and word I have heard is that it, like Docter’s Up, is headed for Cannes in advance of its June 19 release. I’ve also heard it is strong Best Picture fodder. We’ll wait and see if this animated flick can be the one that proves a game changer for the Academy’s history of treating toons.

Among the indies I am looking forward to seeing possibly in the race, there is new player Bleecker Street’s Trumbo, starring Bryan Cranston as the famed blacklisted screenwriter. The same new company also has Danny Collins and a Blythe Danner vehicle, I’ll See You In My Dreams, bought at Sundance, that could give her a shot at a Best Actress nomination. And Oliver Stone’s Snowden, going out in December via Open Road, could continue the Academy’s newfound love affair with the infamous whistle blower. It gave CitizenFour the Best Documentary Oscar this year, so why not consider what Stone is cooking up? And there is 2013’s Best Actor winner Matthew McConaughey’s cerebral turn in Gus Van Sant’s Sea Of Trees, which also is worth watching out for. 45 Years, with juicy roles for vets Tom Courtenay and Charlotte Rampling, is one to look out for from Sundance Selects. And I’m eagerly looking forward to Robert Redford playing Dan Rather in James Vanderbilt’s intriguing-sounding Truth.No list of hopefuls would be complete without my personal most anticipated film of 2015 — or whenever — Warren Beatty’s untitled Howard Hughes drama, which still is without a U.S. distributor. But going by the best of Beatty, the only filmmaker nominated twice in two different years in four different Oscar categories, we can’t wait.

And of course there probably are many other possibilities not listed here. Some of these movies won’t even make it out this year, if the past is any indication, and others we aren’t anticipating quite yet will. But overall, on paper at least, 2015 looks like a winner with new films from so many Oscar-winning major directors. Good thing, because as Peter Sellers says in Being There, “I like to watch.”

http://deadline.com/2015/03/oscars-race-redmayne-inarritu-back-1201386935/