post

Sundance Review: Z FOR ZACHARIAH

There are so many pivot points in Z for Zachariah that it becomes hard to nail down exactly what director Craig Zobel intended for it. At one point, it seems decidedly about gender politics, at another about race relations, and eventually it boiled down to themes of suspicion, greed and jealousy. Spliced with a domineering amount of ambiguity. All this from a cast of three. To call it thematically rich may be overly generous – maybe thematically crowded would hit the nail on the head more – but nonetheless, it strives for something thoughtful and great, even when it comes up just short. Read More

post

Sundance Review: THE WITCH

What do 1630, a silver cup, Christian fervor and a goat named Black Phillip have in common? The Witch. Unholy goodness through and through, Robert Egger‘s feature film debut is a horror masquerading as a costume drama that’s as beady, black and misshapen as the center of a goat’s eye. Beneath the dirt-stained, leather-bound waistcoats, the perfumed, toity language of the New World, the white bonnets and constrictive girdles, The Witch has a vicious, illict and suspicious center and though admittedly scaled back on “scares” is deeply atmospheric, deeply disturbing and deeply great. Read More

post

Nick Nolte Talks A WALK IN THE WOODS

2015_Sundance_Film_Festival_-_A_Walk_in_the_Woods_Portraits.jpg
Of all the issues I had with A Walk in the Woods (our review) – the telling of Bill Bryson’s failure to complete the Appalachian Trail – Nick Nolte was not amongst them. In fact, he was the solitary beacon of hope shining through a film that otherwise stank of mediocrity. After the screening, the infamously crazed actor looked older than ever, shambling to a chair with the help of friends and family. You see, following the filming of Woods, Nolte had a full hip replacement. His spirits, medium-high, he sat to ironic applause and answered a few ambling questions with surprising tact and clarity. For such a wild man, Nolte has an astute, somewhat rambling outlook on nature, film and the great American trail. And nothing can beat out that gruffalo growl of his.

Q: Did you do all your own stunts while filming A Walk in The Woods?

Nick Nolte: Yeah, I did everything, except the one fall. Bob did that. We didn’t think we could survive it, but we felt that we had an obligation to finish the film. It was truly amazing area. It was like an hour-and-a-half to the location, by car or van, and there were the camels, or donkeys, and a couple of horses, and four-wheeled vehicles. And Bob would ride up on a horse. I was going to try a camel – he spit a lot – but I went up on a four-wheeler instead. The trouble was that they wouldn’t let Bob hold the reins of the horse. I guess they felt questionable over insurance responsibilities. So Bob got upset, and walked up the hill, which was quite brave of him. I always admired him for that. We’d get up there, and there he’d be… and of course all the guys would be up there and they’d say, “Oh, this is a great part of the trail. We can shoot this and this and this.” He would go up to the edge of the cliff, “Oh, you can come up here.” Well, let’s look at it first. Look out over everywhere. I thought we would run into a lot of hikers; we didn’t. We had to use a lot of actors, you know, to be hikers. Not a lot of people ever finish the Appalachian Trail. There are people who have walked it, straight through. It’s not a one summer deal. There are people who walk it for years. The trail runs about two miles from my farm in New York. There’s just a stake stamped into the ground, you know, a metal stake. And it’s up to the states to take care of the trail. It’s an amazing trail, because it had Thomas Jefferson’s dad’s initials up there, because he always said about the Appalachians that it was the barrier of America. We didn’t know what was west of that. It was quite a discovery, when we came upon that.

Q: Would you say that this filming experience changed you in any way?

NN: Oh, yeah. Every film does. They all change you. With this one, there’s a broader perspective. First of all, I didn’t ever imagine I’d be playing a contemporary guy. I’m not necessarily an easy contemporary person. I have a lot of nervousness and anxiety, fear and such… It was very strange to be getting into that, when you’re at this moment, just now, this is it, this is what we play. And Bob, too, I know it’s a struggle with Bob. Originally it was supposed to be Paul Newman and Bob, and Paul died. Paul had offered me a role in a cowboy film he had, and it took a week for me to read, three or four times, and finally told Paul, “Look, it’s a deputy that has to transport ten hookers from his town to another town. I don’t quite understand the humor.” And Paul said, “That’s exactly what Redford says!” We did agree on that.

Q: You said that the third main character of the film was the trail. One of the threads that runs through is the exfoliation of the whole forest, the appreciation of the environment, the whole thing, the awe and wonder of the natural world. How do you see that, given the crises the natural world is in, and the responsibility of the society to see that?

NN: Awe is probably the quality that the artist tries to achieve. But nature itself achieves it. Any activity that goes beyond what we think can be done, and it goes beyond that, creates a state of awe. It’s a very important state, and it’s very hard to create that, on film, or athletics, or whatever. Nature is a great provider of that, and that’s why we’ve got to… we can’t let it become mundane to us. We can’t get egotistical about nature, and consider it secondary, and “Oh, I’ve seen that.” No, you haven’t seen that. You haven’t seen what nature can do. We do have to become partners with it.

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

post

Out in Theaters: CAMP X-RAY

NOTE: Reprinted from our 2014 Sundance Review

CampXRay.jpg
Agenda-slinging, headline drama Camp X-Ray transcends expiration date glitz with universal tale of friendship. Burdened with a Guantanamo Bay premise and Twilight sensation Kristen Stewart in a headlining spot, expectations may come half-popped but Camp X-Ray manages to steer clear of inflammatory hot topic territory as Stewart and co-star Peyman Moaadi probe powerhouse territory.

Strange though it may be to imagine the perpetually dulled Bella putting in a considerable performance, her work here is undoubtedly the pinnacle of her career (as it currently stands.) Not exclusively involved in high-profile, low-quality blockbusters, Stewart has peppered her cast credits with the occasion indie film and has even gained mild praise for her work in On the Road and Adventureland, but neither carries the burden of proof that she brings to the table here.

This type of zero to sixty change spotlights a shifting celebrity ethos and proves Stewart wants to be around for a while longer. For a fantastic example of an actor turning a laughable career into a respectably credited empire, look to Matthew McCougnahey. She’s not there yet but baby steps Kristen, baby steps.

CampX-RayMovie4.jpg

In Camp X-Ray, Stewart plays Amy Cole, a tabula rasa of an army woman. Battling gender stereotypes and the unwanted attention of her male counterparts, she exacts bottled frustration out on the detainees, a label she’s commanded to use in place of prisoner (otherwise they would be privy to Genova Convention statutes).

She’s certainly no polaroid-snapping prisoner-piler but her jaded indifference is a telling glimpse into U.S. indoctrination of a polarized world view. She’s trained to think there’s two sides to this war but learns that the political game she’s just a pawn in is infinitely more complex. When she meets Ali, or as he’s better known, 371, her concept of justice, goodness, and Army policy is thrown for a ringer.

Camp X-Ray could have capitalized on the good grace of one political camp or the other but it knowingly avoids falling into that pattern of tabloid drama. Peter Sattler is not fence-sitting either as he certainly gets his personal statements across. The intention is not to disgrace or discolor so much as it is to ponder and think.

kristen-stewart-camp-x-ray-movie-photos-hq-_1-forward-march-kristen-stewart-s-new-camp-x-ray-trailer-hits-hard.jpg

When challenged to confront our biases, we come to know not just the world around us but ourselves, Sattler tells us. Cole, through her conversations with Ali, finds herself undergoing a spiritual transformation, letting go of blind judgement and trying to come to terms with the impossibility that is the current state of US affairs.

As Ali and Amy’s lives become intertwined, their relationship shifts, opening up the opportunity for conversation among equals. With this table set, a pensive and powerful exchange unfolds about what one ought to do with a caged lion that serves as the film’s bated breath highlight and a phenomenally powerful metaphorical footnote. Scenes like this, anchored by Stewart and Moaadi’s unflinching engagement with one another, give Camp X-Ray a chance to viscerally body check its audience into taking a  long hard look at their own ingrained partisanship. There’s no denying, we could use more thought-provoking, if not entirely novel, films like this.

B

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

post

Out in Theaters: THE GUEST

NOTE: Re-printed from our 2014 Sundance review.


Slam Drive and Stocker together, rub them down in a spicy 80’s genre marinate and sprinkle with mesmerizing performances and dollops of camp and you have The Guest. Like a turducken of genre, Adam Wingard‘s latest is a campy horror movie stuffed inside a hoodwinking Canon action flick and deep fried in the latest brand of Bourne-style thriller. It’s clever, tense, uproarious, and hypnotizing nearly every second.

Coming off the success of You’re Next and the crowd-pleasing anthology V/H/S films, Wingard has assembled another cast of “where did these people come from?” talent. Dan Stevens is absolutely magnetic as the titular guest and from his vacuous eyed stares to his charismatic domination of conversations, he oozes character. You might recognize Stevens from Downtown Abbey but his turn here is a reinvention and could signal the birth of a true star. While youngsters have a floppy tendency to detract from the overall thespian landscape, newbies Brendan Meyer and Maika Monroe each hold their own, elevating cliches into compelling characters.

Wingard and scribe Simon Barrett admit in the writing process, the film was inspired by Terminator and Halloween, an unlikely combination but you can see the influence bleeding from both. By transcending a single genre, The Guest is able to riff on the tropes of nearly all mainstay film culture. But don’t confuse homage with mocking, there is artistry present here that escapes cheap imitation, a fact that garners such a spectrum of emotions. The fact that the film’s mood can change on a dime depending on Steven’s facial composure is a sure sign of its thematic success. The Guest may not be deadly serious but it’s never not deadly funny. We laugh because its familiar and yet new; a crossroads of homage and invention.

Completed in a mere 31-day shoot, the technical aspects of Guest shine as bright as Stevens immaculately pearly chompers. The throbbing soundtrack is a living heartbeat, becoming a secondary character that informs the laughs and tension in equal stake. Gorgeous sets born of Susan Magestro make up for the otherwise bland middle American landscapes with a final Halloween-themed set piece that was exactly what one hopes for.

When all is said and done, The Guest is 30-caliber entertainment, mainlining laughs, thrills, and excitement like a junkie on a bender. A step forward for the already majorly competent Wingard, this kind of genre movie reminds us of just how much fun a time at the theaters can be.

A

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

post

Sundance Review: APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR

“Appropriate Behavior”
Directed by Desiree Akhavan
Starring Desiree Akhavan, Rebecca Henderson, Halley Feiffer, Scott Adsit, Anh Duong, Arian Moayed
82 minutes
U.S.A./United Kingdom

AppropriateBehavior.jpg
Appropriate Behavior
might be another entry in the growing ‘struggling NYC girl’ genre but it’s generously funny,  sexy (in a weird, gangly way) and has a great cultural bent to boot. I’ll admit that the synopsis, which tells us of her New York habitat, her wishy-washy sexual preferences and her strict Persian parents, is as much a turnoff as any Sundance unknown but pure chance and serendipitous scheduling got me in the theater and I’m certainly glad it did.

Writer, director and star Desiree Akhavan has broken out in a big way. She says that she’s been developing Appropriate Behavior since she was a mere 10 years old when she realized just how strangely unique her position as a bisexual, female, Iranian-American was. Caught between an Iranian family based in tradition, jolted by post-911 distrust of immigrants, and an America staggering towards a growing acceptance of the “other,” Akhavan sees herself as a bit of a mutt – a sometimes sinking perspective that rings out through her native. In Akhavan’s eyes, creating this kind of film was a therapy of sorts. A way for her to come to terms with her own  instinctual predilections. Trapped somewhere between the pull of tradition and self-discovery, her own identity is the crossroads of the stratification between the old world and new. Let’s just say that being a gay child of an immigrant ain’t always peaches and cream.

As Shirin, Akhavan is able to play a shade of herself, letting this semi-autobiographical tale spin a yarn at once both nonfictional and ethereally make believe. We’re left wondering exactly how much of the material comes from the playbook of Akhavan’s true life escapades but regardless of what is fact and what is fiction, her ethos is heartfelt, her emotional stake crystal clear and her intent never wavers. In a sort of coming out party, she lets Appropriate Behavior function like a celebration of her once hidden self exploding free. As such, her shaky voice shines through with purpose and unshuttered dignity.

Arkhavan’s freshly forthcoming perspective drives this deadpan narrative, allowing herself the creative liberty to spread wings in oft tread but nonetheless exciting directions. For a freshman effort, she shows a fine balance of caustic “could only be New York” humor, dreary but not-too-dreary dramatic overture and a topping of love story that actually allows the audience to dig our heels in. For all the well-intended love stories that grace the scene each year, it’s always appreciated to get one that feels earnest and real – an unfortunate rarity. Seeing Shirin’s often uncomfortable nesting ways against girlfriend Maxine’s (Rebecca Henderson) ‘girl who know’s what she wants’ brand of strength provides some genuine relationship moments and lays the groundwork for some nice, and not so nice, chemistry between the two.

Never too standoffish and not afraid to leave things unresolved, Arkhavan has done a fine job her first time out. With her stony guile and smart directorial hand, it’ll be interesting to see what territory she’ll foray into next. Now that she’s touched on those issues most important to her, we’re left to wonder what else is left beneath the hood.

B-

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

 

post

Jake Paltrow, Michael Shannon, Nicholas Hoult, Kodi Smit-McPhee and Elle Fanning Talk YOUNG ONES

YoungOnesCast.jpg
In this final installment of talks around 2014’s Sundance, we touch base with the creative brains and cinematic brawn behind Young Ones (full review here) – a dystopian future Western that pits mechs and humans against draughts and standoffs. A bit like slamming The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly in the midst of Tatooine, Jake Paltrow‘s sophomoric effort is a fascinating and engaging experiment in genre that worked wonders for me. Joining him, stars Michael Shannon, Nicholas Hoult, Kodi Smit-McPhee and Elle Fanning helped guide us through why they came to the movie, what it was like working under the heat of a South African sun and the use of modern day robotics in Young Ones.

Q: Talk about what inspired the film and what were some of the stylistic influences?

Jake Paltrow: There were two particular news articles. One was about moving the capital of Yemen due to a lack of water, in the next ten years. And another one was about the driest town in the world in Chile. There’s a story about all these people who stayed behind because of these odd personal reasons and needing water to be pumped in. And I’ve always been interested in robotics and I spent time in 2008 with Big Dog at Boston Dynamics. Anyway, I was very interested in trying to do a story with a robotic character that would work and explore its sentience, it had some sort of soul, or it would be a character, a character that would have some sort of sense itself. And those two things came together and it went from there.

Q: Talk about how you sort of fused some of the stylistic elements, the science fiction with the Western bounds?

JP: That sort of just happened. I don’t know if that was such a premeditated thing, it just came together. Giles, who photographed the movie, and I really didn’t look at very few things we talked about. We talked about Silent Night, the only one we ever talked about, the way it was lensed I think. We loved that movie, it looked so great. But we were always trying to do our thing beyond that.

Q: How did you select the instruments, the electronics vs. the harmonica?

Nathan Johnson: A lot of that was working with Jake, we would sit down and we talk out ideas, stylistic references. And we pulled out music boxes and harmoniums, and we were talking a lot about wind actually, and the idea of wind instruments and what it sounds like when wind blows over something, and just that point where it turns into a tone. So we thought that was kind of interesting. The idea of combining traditional orchestral instruments with these wind instruments and also these synthetic elements just piqued our interest and felt maybe part of the world this place was in.

Q: What did it feel like to live through this movie, the people who worked in it.

Michael Shannon: Well, it’s really disturbing to think about what might be heading our way. But at the same time, we are making a movie. Now, in NYC we’re much more afraid of water than not having water. So it’s all relative.

Q: Can you guys talk about what first attracted you to the role?

Elle Fanning: Well, I read the script a really long time ago. I was twelve when I first read it. And I met Jake for the first time and we went out to lunch. And I thought I was something that I’d never read before, and right when I read it, I thought ‘Oh my God, I have to do this’. I knew that for my character specifically, I’m really into details and all the little things and quirks of Mary or any character I do, and I knew with her I could put a lot of those in there. And after talking to Jake, he was so open to those. We spent so long on that hot pink nail polish color. We were picking it out, the right shade, “That’s too salmon, that’s too hot”, that was a big deal. And I love that, I like picking out the details, and I just love Jake and the movie so much. So that’s kind of, the nail polish drew me to it.

Kodi Smit-McPhee: I was also kind of really attracted by the nail polish. No, I was also with the project for a long time, it went through a lot but then it got through again. And I was in LA, just Skyping Jake, reading the script again, did my tape, sent it off, and next thing I was in South Africa melting.

Nicholas Hoult: The script was the most original thing I’d read for ages but also that Flem role was the most interesting, with all the dynamics he had with each other character from the film, and I was fascinated by him, it was really well written. That’s the reason I wanted to do each scene. And I had the same experience that Elle had with nail polish, but I had a fake tan. So I got to wear a lot of that.

MS: It’s kind of like what we were talking about earlier. It was relevant and it was a story that needed to be told. I don’t think a movie’s gonna fix a problem but beyond just reading something from a newspaper, if you put it in a movie, it may have more of an emotional resonance, it may inspire someone to do something. It did occur to me when I read it that that might be one result, yes.

Q: Why did you choose to use chapters versus acts?

JP: We talked about that a lot, we talked about approach, acts or chapters. The third thing that really inspired the movie, besides those articles and interests in robotics, were the SE Hinton books that I revisited. I reread those books when I was writing, I hadn’t read them in such a long time and I loved them so much and I loved them again as a kid. And I loved the way a science fiction book version of those books could feel like. So I was really leaning towards that. And those books were always sort of short and I thought how could I make this movie feel like one of those short books. And so the chapters thing, I thought it was a way to keep the entertainment relevant, that you would know that you were moving into the next thing. You close this story, move into Flem’s chapter, you could get more energy back as an audience. I think to try and entertain, certainly the chapters had to do with books, but we do play with parts and acts at other points to. And the important thing at the end, in a way it is to sort of, the movie, even though the performance is sort of naturalistic, has this sort of storybook element to it, and I liked the idea of sort of ending it. I mean, I look at the movie and I feel like it’s a tragedy, and I like revisiting these characters and seeing them all as a little bit removed from the movie.

Q: The science fiction elements felt really organic when they came into the story. I thought it was a really bold choice to create classic western meets futuristic science fiction and I wonder were there things about it that you were worried wouldn’t work?

JP: Everything. The way we did the simulation, we had two puppeteers and that was one of those things, the movie, I’d prepped once before and it didn’t happen, and so we got down to South Africa we started doing it this way, but we never had a complete proof that this would work. We’d done it once before, in Spain, and it seemed like it would work perfect, so we kept moving that way. But we hadn’t really tested it, doing a whole movie, so we just kept going, thinking it would work. But sometimes it felt like every single thing just wouldn’t work. It was 115 degrees the first few days of shooting, it felt impossible to get through the day, literally just taking it one step at a time. We felt like we’d never get through the shots. Sequences like that were very worked out, so we knew we had to get that amount of shots to make the scene work, so we somehow adjust. I really credit Mike. But truly we felt like we couldn’t even finish it. It was a very difficult movie to make and we were so far away. I’d never been in a situation where you couldn’t shoot because the lights would go. And then the lights would go, and you’d be standing there saying ‘Well that’s it’. And they’d go and drive seven hours to Cape Town to get new lights and come through the next day. We didn’t have a schedule where we could get things picked up, certain people get dropped along the way. Thinking, what do we have, what do we have? Trying to fit everything together, and somehow we got lucky, or at least seemed to.

Q: What was the idea behind the plane in the film.

JP: That was just the idea that there was a world going on around the movie, this sort of supersonic passenger jet is back, the new Concord is back and they’re flying from LA to New York in 45 minutes or whatever it is, and there’s this whole world where in fact, you know our world has this sort of regressive nature to it, and the rest of the world is great. You know, a world where Google Glass, or the next, all those sort of things are happening, all those utopian urban things, people migrating from urban areas from rural areas, all that is going on, just not where these people live. So that was the idea, that there’s a big world out there.

Q: From a production standpoint, the robot you used, was that on loan from the military?

JP: No, it’s totally fake. The torso is made of fiberglass tubing.

Q: Did you try and get the actual robot?

JP: Oh yes, I tried. They were great, but there was no way to do it. They’re developing. Now they’re on to Cheetah, and all these things. I mean it was a fascinating experience to spend time with them to do this test, but in the end they’re not a movie tool. They have much bigger fish to fry.

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

post

Sundance Review: BLUE RUIN

“Blue Ruin”
Directed by  Jeremy Saulnier
Starring Macon Blair, Amy Hargreaves, Kevin Kolack, David W. Thompson, Brent Werner, Sidne Anderson
Thriller
92 Mins
R
 blueruin.jpg
Enveloped in a scent of Coen Bros, Blue Ruin is a masterclass in indie reinvention – reinvention of genre, of character, even of plot subversion. But no matter how familiar the elements we know to comprise revenge flicks, we never exactly know where Blue Ruin is going to turn next. It’s a quiet tirade of doomed duty with explosive showdowns and tactful character arcs that adds up to a hell of a good movie.

Relatively unknown actor Macon Blair heads up the show as Dwight, a vagrant, homeless type with a penchant for breaking into people’s houses to get his bathe on. Living out of a bullet-ridden car, overlooking the ocean and grown over with sandy seagrass, we can immediately reconcile the sad existence of this bearded transient with life gone awry. So when a policewoman (Sidne Anderson) shows up and asks him to come down to the station and reveals that his parent’s killer is getting out of prison early on parole, his recluse desperation clicks with us as fresh-born necessity clicks on for him.

What soon unfolds is an accelerated game of cat and mouse that almost seems to wrap itself up too soon but that’s only when it gets interesting. Following Dwight’s act of self-retribution, we’re lost, oblivious to where things will turn next. Rightfully so, the pathway that twists and turns to the final scene is as unpredictable as it is plainly awesome.Part of the fun of the whole adventure is not knowing that will transpire so I would urge you to learn as little about the film as possible. 

Jeremy Saulnier, who wrote and directed the film, has transmuted the greatness of iconically American revenge narratives into something entirely his own. He’s drained his film of the eye-rolling easy outs we’ve seen from so many Hollywood narratives, strained it of incredulity and served it cold and somber, the best, and only way, to do revenge right. His refreshing take on a genre that’s been kicked around in the mud since the birth of storytelling is at once startling and radiant with part of the credit needing to find it’s way to star Macon Blair.

Behind his scraggly beard and muted eyes, Blair is modestly restrained and seeing his transformation, both physically and emotionally, is one of the great joys of this gritty saga. Though he’s had his hands in some other small projects, Blair is a talent who’s never gotten his name out there and I’m willing to bet that after a performance of this magnitude, that’ll be quick changing. His haunted numbness and jumpy brooding bring such well-tempered yet acrimonious life to the character. For a man on a mission, Dwight is about as three dimensional as they get, a godsend born of Saulnier’s able script and Blair’s even-keeled execution.

With foreboding cinematography and an anxious score, both also from Saulnier, that help fill in the blanks of this mysterious back country and the people who inhabit it, everything feels very much real world. But here, things are cloaked in mystery, blanketed in doubt and raging with subtext.

Unexpectedly wonderful, Blue Ruin is the reason why America needs independent cinema. It’s the tap on the shoulder the increasingly derivative Hollywood needs, a gentle, almost soft-spoken, reminder that iconic storytelling traditions are born on foundations of greatness for good reason. Revenge narratives are a dime a dozen but when storytellers are able to really get to the root of why these archetypal tales are so compelling, as Saulnier is able to do here, they strike a collective nerve, making us cheer at their ability to both homage and be wholly original at the same time.

A-

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

 

post

David Wnendt Talks Stunning WETLANDS

Wetlands2.jpg

The biggest surprise out of Sundance came in the form of a German sexplotation film so aptly named Wetlands. It’s a film that surged with raunch, comedy and genuine drama that had me wincing, bursting out laughing and deeply feeling for all at once. Simply put, it’s a stunner. So all the better that director David Wnendt came out and had a chance to briefly speak with us about his divisively awesome film. Talking about how he skirted around censorship, being a man making a feminist film, German cinema and Quentin Tarantino, Wnendt goes into up the skirt on the making of Wetlands.

Q: So how did you come up with the story? What were you thinking?

David Wnendt: There’s a novel which this film is based upon. A German novel, it’s very popular in Germany, this film is an adaptation of that novel.

Q: What decided you to direct such an intensely feminine story as a man?

DW: That’s not the first time I heard that question. But I do believe that a guy or man could direct a female lead role and vice versa. So I think it would be very strange for men to only direct men’s stories about other men basically. So I think it’s pretty possible to do it. You work with the actors who brings their own view into the whole thing. It’s a collaboration with her of course.

Q: What kind of conversation did you have to have along the way, in terms of getting the movie to how explicit it was? Were there any memorable battles you had to fight, in terms of showing things or not showing things?

DW: Well, we were in a very lucky situation. The author who sold the rights…usually a best seller like that is auctioned off to the company with the most money and that’s in Germany…one or two production companies, if they would had done it, they would have done it very old fashioned, it would have turned very differently. But she decided to give it to not to the producer with the most money, but the one whose films she admired. So it was kind of like, for Germany, an independent producer. And that decision alone made it possible to create a completely different kind of film. But of course along the road, there were like many challenges because of course even if people hadn’t read the book, they knew of the book. And we had all kinds of problems, for example, even finding some locations, like finding the location of this one small church scene was nearly impossible because people were really scared with the title of the movie.

Q: Why do you think the character was so comfortable with bodily fluids?

DW: There’s no real easy answer to that. Y see her background, you see her trauma of her childhood, but the good thing is you can’t reduce her to that, so it’s not such an easy explanation, like that something happened to her in her childhood and that’s why she’s like that. That’s just one small part of her. But in the end, she finds herself. She also enjoys sex, she enjoys her body and she’s interested in everything that has to do with her body, and she doesn’t understand why this should be so taboo.

Q: I was wondering how much Charlotte Roche, the author of the book, was involved in the movie or the post production?

DW: She decided she didn’t want to be involved at all but she was really just wanted to see the final product in the cinema, and that was fine. But what she did was she took that decision I told you about, she chose that producer. There she set us on a path, which allows us to create the film in the way it is right now so that was really a very important decision she made. But other than that she was not involved in writing the script, so she really only saw the final product at the end.

Q: Where did you find the actress who played the main character, Helen?

DW: Well we had the regular, normal casting process. We had also a casting director, who made suggestions, and we looked all around. And she’s actually from Switzerland, so we didn’t just look in Germany but in other German-speaking countries. And we had them come to Berlin and we did regular casting sessions. And in these sessions I tried to find out if they were able to play all the different aspects of that character. For example, one aspect was the language, because the language of the novel and the dialects was a very special kind of language, and it was not a natural language in a way, so the actor had to be able to bring it across in a natural fashion. That was one thing. She also had to have the courage to play this role. She had to have the courage to be nude in front of the camera of course. And she had to be able to act with the other actors of course. So we set up casting sessions to find out exactly that. And so, in the end, Carla Juri, the main actress, she was the one who convinced me in these sessions.

Q: Is Quentin Tarantino a popular director in Germany?

DW: Yeah, very much so.

Q: Member: I’m not familiar with German cinema, but this film strikes the same nerve that Tarantino does.

DW: That’s a very big compliment so thank you very much. And we have many American films in our cinemas.

Q: I really like the animation sequence towards the beginning, that was really nice. Two questions, can you describe what metaphors you were trying to describe in there, and, also, how was that done?

DW: Well, one part of her quest, for her freedom to express everything about her own body, but of also she’s against too much hygiene basically. So to show this, in a bit of an exaggerated and kind of ironic fashion, we came up with this animation short in the beginning. And it was just a very good animation artist who could bring this to life, so we just delivered the shot of the toilet and with that he did all the rest basically.

Q: How long ago did you read the novel and then actually want to develop it into the film? Then how long was that process?

DW: Um, the novel itself is I think six years old, it was published six years ago and I read it four years ago. And at that time, I would never have thought of doing this film. I was still in film school at that time, and actually, the rights were with the producer, and then he chose a director for this film. He liked my first movie, my graduation film from film school, and that’s how we got together. But I really liked the book long before I was about doing it, turning it into a film.

Q: Is this your first feature?

DW: It’s my second feature, my first feature was my graduation one.

Q: I’m just curious, what were some movies that you drew inspiration from?

DW: Well, the producer has the vision when he talked about the film, but that it should be a mixture of Nine Songs and Trainspotting. That was the goal.

Q: Was the author happy with your interpretation?

DW: Lucky for me, she was. So I was really, extremely nervous when she was finally there, in the cinema. I was really, very, very scared. Because she’s very much known to my generation. She was a TV presenter on MTV basically. As a teenager, I grew up with her on TV. I really admired her. So it would have been really terrible if I were to have disappointed her in a way. But luckily she saw the film and was very, very happy. Even the things we added on, we invented some scenes, some scenes are in the book, they’re really just one line, very, very short, we turned into an actual scene, let it play out, she was really happy with that. She, in the end, wasn’t sure what was actually in the book and what we invent. That was a really great compliment.

Q: Was there any point when you thought we can’t actually go that far or show this in a movie?

DW: Yeah. Obviously that wasn’t the biggest concern. From the start it was clear that I didn’t want to make the most provocative of the movie, it’s not what the movie’s about, for the only point to be shocking. And actually during the shooting, I was busy with all other problems there was, work with the actors, all kind of problems that just come up, I wasn’t constantly thinking about that aspect. So there was a little more in the editing, where we just found a way to do it in the best sense of the shooting. I was occupied with other stuff.

Q: On that same note, the film with all the in your face movement , in the scenes you happened to do it, did you do it several different ways, then edit it and figure out what you wanted to go with?

DW: It’s really different from the scenes. Some scenes which we storyboarded, especially if it had an effect or so, were very much planned. Other scenes where we had an emotion or it was about feeling the chemistry between two actors we tried to find something to give them freedom. So complete freedom to move around on set, we had the camera on the shoulder, most of the lighting was done on the windows, so they could move everywhere and the camera could see everything. And with this kind of shooting you have more material, you develop the rhythm and the scene itself in the editing room. But other things, they were really much planned ahead.

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter

post

Sundance Review: DINOSAUR 13

“Dinosaur 13”
Directed by Todd Douglas Miller
Documentary
U.S.A.
105 Mins

Dinosaur13.jpg
The first documentary I saw at Sundance has weighed heavily on my mind. At once about dinosaurs, humans and the failings of the justice system, Dinosaur 13 has singled out a mind-boggling small town event that slipped under the national radar. While the story itself is every bit worthy of our attention and empathy, in telling this infinitely gasp-inducing story, Todd Douglas Miller digs up a bevy of first time-level fumbles that robs some of its meteoric impact.

Named after the historical relic that the characters find themselves helplessly orbiting around, Dinosaur 13 takes aim at the discovery of the the 13th T-Rex fossil: the largest, most intact T-Rex fossil find at the time. Intriguing though that may be, the highligh is the calamitous aftermath that no one could foresee. Slapped with a cool, callused numerical label, the film’s title foreshadows the detached “bag it and tag it” ethos of the film’s “enemy,” a shadowy hand juxtaposed against the deep-set emotional turmoil of the little guys fighting to preserve this colossal fossil and their reputations. Collection of bones though they may be, this T-Rex skeleton becomes so much more to this group of fledging South Dakota scientists who have lovingly named it “Sue.”

Peter Larson and his younger brother began collecting fossils as children and have since opened the South Dakota’s Black Hills Institute of Geological Research where they prepare fossils for museums, private buyers, and, most of all, for their own love of the craft. Wandering in a sandstorm, one of their volunteers, Susan Hendrickson (for whom Sue is named), discovers the distinctive arc of a dino vertebrate emerging from the graystone of a cliffside. When the Larsons arrive to access the situation, they find that they have come across what is arguably “the greatest paleontological find in history.”

It all seems well and good for the few years to follow as the Larson’s buy the fossil from (almost sketchy) landowner Maurice Williams and proceed to undergo the timely process of preparing the fossil for its eventual reveal. It’ll be the treasure of their musuem to be, a savior for the struggling town and a hot ticket destination-maker for non-tourist friendly South Dakota.  Nearly two years pass in which Larson and company tediously sculpt and scrape millennium of build up from the preserved bones when, out of thin air, the National Guard show up with a small army of thirty-plus men, armed to the teeth, and demand the seizure of the Sue.

In the most WTF twist of the year, it takes the rest of the film to really unfold exactly what went down with the Larsons and their Sue but it all revolves around the tricky wording of land ownership laws and ends up as more or less an inditement of the US government sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong. A circus of a trial plays out, players are sent to the same prisons that held the likes of Timothy McVeigh and John Gotti, and the most persistent note to follow is one of sorrowful disappointment. “I thought this was America” has never rang so true.
 
With it’s solid tenor of us vs. them and a crystalline case of the judicial system failing on the most basic of levels, Dinosaur 13 is a beast. But trying to wring all he can from the emotional recounting of events, Miller takes too many detours and let’s the paltry production budget shine through more than he ought. Matt Morton‘s repetitive guitar-plucked score sounds recorded in a matter of minutes while the unnecessary wealth of recreation play with the limp zeal of a daytime news special. With a topic this strong and subjects welling with emotion, it’s really a head-scratcher why Miller takes these missteps. With a good 20 minutes or so shaved off, this is a great documentary. As is, it’s still worth the trip down the rabbit hole.

C+

Follow Silver Screen Riot on Facebook
Follow Silver Screen Riot on Twitter