#Ridley Scott i am coming for you | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

kabuki-draws · 1 year ago

Text

I watched Ridley Scott's NAPOLEON yesterday and it was a complete Waterloo.

Yes, I am a big history nerd with a giant heart for movie adaptation of historical topics. But when I watched NAPOLEON I sat there... and tried not to laugh. It was not only so historical inaccurate, that I wanted to cry, at the same time it was filled with cringe dialogues, red flags and terrible color grading. This whole movie made me so sad yet so angry, that I HAVE to write this review:

(Disclaimer: This review is based on my own opinion. If you enjoyed the movie, it's completely fine. Btw. in that case or if you agree with me, feel free to tell me your opinion. I would love to know!)

First of all: Don't get me wrong, the medium film has its own rules and you can't put as much historical accuracy into a big scale movie as you would into a documentary - sometimes the story needs to be altered to be a good movie. And that is fine. Even if Gladiator is a complete fictional story set in the Roman Empire, I can still enjoy this movie for what it is: A good-written story with great characters, a beautiful score and iconic scenes. With Kingdom of Heaven it's kind of the same - and while the movie cut was very inconsistent, I still kind of liked it. But then the Directors Cut made it a a masterpiece for me.

Funny enough, both of these movies are made by the same person: Ridley Scott. So naturally I thought: Well, Napoleon won't be a historical accurate film, but I surely will enjoy it anyways. Well, ...no. It is not only historical incorrect, it's also a bad movie overall.

To start it short: NAPOLEON clearly lost itself in all the various topics it wanted to tell within a runtime of two and a half hours. It made the whole storytelling very weird and inconsistent, causing the problem, that the audience even loses itself in the questions of when and where. Where is that scene located? When did that happen? And then comes the question: Why is this even happening?

Ridley Scott wants to depict Napoleon as a lover, a military genius, a big political figure, a revolutionary and more. But in the end he tells all of this in the most shallow way possible, which waters down Napoleons personality traits and achievements to a series of small scenes. You never get a glimpse of the "true" Napoleon, who was described as a highly intelligent and charismatic man. In fact, you never really feel ANYTHING about him except that he was a cringe red flag in front of his wife. He just stands there, stares and has very limited dialogue scenes to get a picture of that man. What are his overall motivations? Only Josephine? If so, why is this motivation only vaguely explored?

The whole love story between him and Josephine feels so unnatural and got to the brink of being disgusting. This is particularly sad because I deeply respect Vanessa Kirby and Joaquin Phoenix, they're both stunning actors. I don't know if they just couldn't fit the role or if it was rather a problem of the script (the last one is my guess). Yet whenever I saw Josephine and Napoleon on screen, I felt like acted very stiff and forced. Napoleon seemed more obsessed with her than actual love and that can be a character trait, but there wasn't a chance to explore that deeper. Before the movie entered the cinema, the lovestory between these two was marketed as intense, obsessive, deeper than you could imagine. What the audience got was a few scenes without real conversation, much staring and a bunch of cringeworthy s-scenes. And seriously, these "sexy" scene were the worst. I was so disgusted by them because they were SO DAMN WEIRD. There are no scenes that undermine ANY deep love between Josephine and Napoleon. It felt therefore so off, when they still longed for each other after their divorce.

And let's not start to ramble about the fact that they depicted Josephine ONLY in a somehow sexual way. Yeah, there is that scene where she says to Napoleon, that he is nothing without her. BUT SHOW, DON´T TELL! You never see her doing something instead of sitting there, talking with others or when the plot needs her to have sexy time with someone (not only Napoleon). As a woman myself this makes me so freaking furious, you have no idea. I don't need a marvel-coded super-strong woman with unlimited talents - I just need a female character that is written GOOD and plausible! Make me CARE for her plot and for the plot of Napoleon! Both of them don't even feel like normal human beings because they're like blank pieces of paper with their names written on it!

And don´t make me start to talk about the historical inaccuracies. At first I didn't want to draw that card. Actually, I don't need a historical movie to present 100% facts. If the movie is still enjoyable, it's okey. But even if many people say that the war scenes were awesome, I can only partly agree. Yeah, we have that cool ice-lake Austerlitz battle, but it took me a couple of minutes and a better look on the uniforms to know that Napoleon is now at war with Austria! You get nearly ZERO context to Napoleons battles. Yeah, nice, the scenes look cool - but there is nothing more to it? Is that all you need to show for the audience to care? For me at least, I just didn't care at all and I was very happy when I got out of the cinema. Overall this movie is full of messy non-sense choices that don't contribute to the story. Many moments just confused me and it left me with the question why Scott couldn't simply hire some historians to put together a consistent story. Everyone who read about Napoleons life knows that there are so much cinema worthy moments in his career that would've been so much better than what we now got.

I could ramble about that movie for hours if I´m honest, but I hope this little TED talk was enough to make my statement clear.

In the end, it just makes me sad. I wanted to like this movie, I wanted it to be good. For months I hyped myself up to this, read books about Napoleon, watched the trailer all over and over and talked with friends about how great this movie will be. Now I am just disappointed and frustrated. Oppenheimer was such a great biopic of a historical person that became a great success at the box office - even without great battle scenes. I hoped that Napoleon would push a cinema revolution, that shows people want big scaled films about historical personalities and history topics. But now I just want to forget this Napoleon movie to be honest.

#napoleon #napoleon bonaparte #napoleon movie #ridley scott #joaquin phoenix #vanessa kirby

146 notes · View notes

jbaileyfansite · 4 months ago

Text

Interview with Evan Ross Katz (2024)

Whether he’s carrying Kylie Minogue to the Hyde Park Festival stage with his pal Andrew Scott, making the Internet go collectively feral for merely running a half marathon, chasing dinosaurs (in the upcoming Jurassic World reboot), romancing Matt Bomer (in Fellow Travelers) or Simone Ashley (in Bridgerton) or Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo (in Wicked) or, with his most recent venture, launching an LGBTQ+-focused charity, it seems Jonathan Bailey is always up to something. And yet, he still makes time, from his hotel room in Thailand (where he’s shooting Jurassic World 4), to hop on a Zoom with me to catch up.

We discuss everything from chafed nipples to queer shame to who he’d like to see in the “Drink Your Milk” T-shirt to if we’ll see him on Broadway any time soon, which is to say it’s a brief but wide-ranging chat.

I haven't seen you since the Met Gala! When we last spoke, you were prepping for your first half marathon. I obviously saw the viral photos that went around of you at the finish line, but how did it go?

You know, I should have put those nipple stickers on. That's my main takeaway.

[Laughs] Did you bleed?

I did a bit, yeah. Did you? I know you've done a couple of marathons.

I did bleed, and I didn't know about the bleeding beforehand. It's not something you really hear about but it's painful and uncomfortable.

Totally! And not even just beforehand: It took ‘til 4 hours later when my best friend told me there was evidence [of the bleeding]. But anyways… it was euphoric!

At least there was no photo evidence of that element!

Exactly! So thankfully, it's done. But it's just the most amazing thing, isn't it? And the community as well. Hackney Moves is amazing and they raised loads of money. It was the Bridgerton [Season 3 release] week so I feel like you could sort of harness that.

I do have to ask you a pressing question: Days ago, it was announced that Wicked had moved up its release date and will now be released the same day as Ridley Scott's Gladiator 2. Many online were affectionately calling this Barbenheimer 2.0, which led many to try and speculate about a proper portmanteau. Jon Chu wrote on Instagram that the consensus seems to be “Glicked,” which you reposted on Instagram, signaling a cosign. But I have to ask you, Johnny: Are you not considering“Wickediator”?

I love it. Whatever Jon Chu has ever said to me, I’ve taken as gospel, so I actually hadn't explored all the other options. The one that I've now heard since then which is making me reconsider everything is “Gladicked.” [Laughs] It's quite good, isn’t it?

Yes! To me, “Glicked” feels too Wicked-skewed and then “Wickediator” is just clunky AF, so I like where you're at.

We want it to be equal footing for sure. Another thing that I love that went viral is someone going: “Oh, brilliant. A film for the ladies and a film for the ladies.” [Laughs]

I am both ladies!

Oh, yes. Me too!

Let’s talk The Shameless Fund, the charity you founded to raise money for LGBTQ+ nonprofit organizations. Can you tell me about the formation of this project?

It's been a labor of love over the last three or four years. It's been quite an organic experience, mainly inspired by Fellow Travelers, hence why I started with a collaboration which references a very specific scene and a performance by Matt Bomer.

I think through Covid and Bridgerton coming out, I found that there’s a real sense in the queer community about awareness of people who came before you and other experiences. And then obviously in Fellow Travelers, which explicitly explores that, the character I played was sort of on the front all the way through a very complicated experience for gay men at that time.

He experienced real moments of blooming liberation and quite insane amounts of oppression as well, and he was always fighting. He ends up becoming an activist, essentially, and I think it was in playing that part — which was kind of spiritual for me and for everyone who's involved in it — that I was like: Right, okay. I know that I've got this idea in my head and having experienced how much love there is for things like Bridgerton and how much money there is in collaboration, I felt that there's so many things I had said “no” to because it didn't feel quite right for me but if there was a world in which I could marry all of it in a creative sort of cocktail, then why not? And to give back to the community that I so love, and also, I'm a massive beneficiary of the work that the people that came before us did, so that's where it came to fruition from.

You collaborated with our dear friend Jonathan Anderson, the creative director of Loewe, on a T-shirt with a memorable quote from Fellow Travelers to promote the launch of The Shameless Fund. How did this collaboration come to be?

During the strikes during the filming of Wicked, I went on a run one day and this idea of a T-shirt came into my head in full form. Then I sat next to Jonathan [at a Studio Voltaire fundraiser], and he’s lovely and brilliant and naughty and has a foundation, so it was all kind of organic.

Then I went over to DC to present Matt Bomer with an award for the Human Rights Campaign and it was really galvanizing to experience the American fervor. It was a gala, and the energy in the room was absolutely wild and there were amazing stories on stage. I texted Jonathan and I said: “Look, I have an idea and it involves milk and a T-shirt. What do you think?” and he said: “Call me tomorrow,” and then he said yes within the same phone call. I just felt tentative because it’s the sort of thing where you ask and you don't know, but then it went from there.

I do recall first seeing a photo of you in the shirt several months ago during a night out with the Loewe team in China…

I went to the Loewe exhibition in Shanghai, which was incredible, and that night, we had quite a big night out and I wore the T-shirt because I’d been given the first prototype.

I was having a little boogie and [Anderson] uploaded it whilst I had no access to the Western World — my phone was off the whole time. So by the time I came home, you could see that people were gonna go wild for the T-shirt. Now, it's sold out and we're gonna get some more and it'll be a first step for The Shameless Fund to raise some money.

Jonathan Anderson did my and my husband's wedding looks and I had to send him that same initial text to be like: “Can one even ask this?”

That's what's so brilliant in life: People who have the ability to collaborate, and that's just what Jonathan does.

One thing that you said just now that struck me is: “Why not?” I interview a lot of people in your profession and they're not asking that question all the time. A lot of people say:

“Oh, there's lots of money I can make. I can have more money. I can have more things for myself.”

Why are you a “why not?” person rather than a “why”? Is that something that was imbued in you by your family and your upbringing or is it how you've always been?

I don't know. I just feel quite strongly emotionally. I sense injustice in certain places, and I think what comes with success — especially being a gay actor — is that you think: “Hang on a minute. Are there limitations? Are there glass ceilings?”

When you experience success that you never thought you would and you grew up thinking that you're limited because of your identity and who you are, I think about the people that have supported me and the people that were really pioneering, but also, the actual heroes who do the real work; the people who work for these nonprofits and these charities where the majority of their energy is spent trying to raise money. When Bridgerton came out, I was inundated with requests to help draw attention to [these organizations] or raise money or donate things that they could sell, so that's where the kernel of this idea came from. All my life, I’ve been thinking about how I can give back.

It's not for nothing that you call this The Shameless Fund. We grew up at a time when, and I don't know if this is the same for you, but I didn't know that gay people existed. I thought I was the only one because I didn't have access to the kind of media kids do today where you can go on Instagram and see that gay is not only acceptable; it's cool. There's this very significant paradigm shift. I feel like a lot of gay men of our generation felt this shame as young people and often spend a lot of our adult lives working to rid ourselves of it. What is it for you about this idea of shame?

I totally agree in terms of generations. I think the queer experience changes every five years. Even with some of my friends who are 10 years older than me — it's just so specific to cultural moments and representation as well, as you're saying. But I think my understanding of shame, especially having experienced Fellow Travelers, is that it permeates. It's not just a community that experiences the shame; it's the people around them. It's the parents who don't understand it and kick their kids out of their house. It's the sisters, it’s the cousins, it's the nephews, it's the children that are in broken families because of it. It's actually so toxic, that sense of self-hatred. That’s why The Shameless Fund is actually something that I hope is going to benefit everyone, even beyond the community itself.

Also, the older we get and because of the world we live in now, you can read The Velvet Rage and you can read Matthew Todd’s Straight Jacket and you can explore and have conversations with your friends that are really enlightening and you can have therapy, if you're lucky enough that you can afford to do that. As a 36-year-old now, I look back and I just go: “My God, I had such a loving family and yet I was still so isolated and so crippled.”

Shame can stop people from having a proper education and from being able to structure proper emotional relationships, like fundamental relationships with their family, which is the one place you're supposed to feel safe. It's flawed if the family is not aware of what you're going through.

How did you come up with the name?

I did have other names [in mind for The Shameless Fund], but we won't go into them. One was so aggressive! [Laughs] But “The Shameless Fund” felt punk enough and fundamental enough. To me, I think that to be without shame is to be able to be joyful and to be able to thrive and to be able to learn and have a bloody good time whilst doing all those things, so it just felt right that it should be targeting shame because then hopefully it benefits the whole community in every color on the pride flag and, in turn, will also help so many people around them.

So what can people expect next?

There's going to be some really fun things coming with The Shameless Fund and there's different ways in which it can grow, but I have people who really know what they're doing who are helping lead it. By the end of the year, we'll hopefully have worked with three different charities, starting small and helping people understand the work they're doing because that's the most important thing. If you think about Instagram, other than chatting with Evan Ross Katz [laughs], that's the platform through which you can really draw attention to things. Literally anyone in our community who's thriving at the moment — in a community that's obviously under threat going forward — knows what it's like to receive support. We know what we missed growing up.

I, too, grew up with an accepting family, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t still feel ostracized. I appreciate you recognizing that nuance, one I think many of us experience in some form but don’t always discuss.

Now, on The Shameless Fund’s website, it does say that more collaborations are coming. As you said, there’s going to be a restock of the Loewe shirts, but are there other brands in the mix?

There are other brands, and it'll be really exciting because the scope is endless, but I definitely had a couple of other ideas. After Fellow Travelers, the next thing will be a Wicked garment, so you might have to keep your eyes out for that. Maybe jumpers and sexy boots?

That’s perfect for my fantasy! So we've seen Kylie Minogue wearing the shirt — who I was lucky enough to be introduced to by you on the dance floor at the Met Gala after-party, thanks again — and we've seen Kit Connor, Scarlett Johansson and your Bridgerton co-star Luke Newton sporting it as well. I'm wondering who else is on your wishlist of celebrities that you'd like to see in the Drink Your Milk T-shirt?

Oh, God. What a question! Great shout. I would love to see Jerrod Carmichael in it right now. Very specifically Jerrod Carmichael.

I feel that.

I would also love to see Hanson in it. Their three-part harmonies are a knockout at the moment.

At the moment?

[Laughs] We were just talking about this today. I’ve literally just come away from a field where I was running towards or away from dinosaurs, and we were talking about Hanson for about four hours today and listening to their three-part harmonies.

That is not what I was expecting.

Who else? I can only think of people who are going to be wearing it over the next few weeks, which is quite exciting. Is there anyone you want to see in it?

I have quite a few people. First of all, Jamie Dornan. I would love to see him in it. Paul Mescal, for obvious reasons. And the fans are waiting for Matt Bomer!

Don’t you worry. They’ll be satiated! They’ll be quenched. And Andrew Scott had a good time at Glastonbury is what I’ll say. [Laughs]

I bet he did! Last but not least: Richard II is bringing you back to the stage. Wicked is giving us the musical theater moment we've been craving. Is there a musical theater moment that’ll be live on stage in Jonathan Bailey's future?

Potentially, actually. Maybe in 2026.

On Broadway?

I would! I had the best time recently in New York and I watched as many things as I could. I saw Stereophonic, which, to me, was like a religious experience. That, and Oh, Mary! And Cole Escola.

That is what it's about. I would come back to watch that; I was so inspired by it. Obviously, I'd love to [be on Broadway] at some point and you just have to wait and see what pops up.

Source

#jonathan bailey #jonny bailey #evan ross katz #interviews #interviews:2024 #substack interview #richard II #theatre #wicked #jurassic world rebirth #fellow travelers #the shameless fund #charity #NEW!

41 notes · View notes

sohkrates · 2 months ago

Text

It Drinks Light: The Origins of the Xenomorph and LoadingReadyRun's Heat Death

In previous drafts of this essay I spent paragraphs outlining my love of the Alien films, defending Alien 3 and Resurrection, and using that to lead into why you would enjoy an Alien RPG actual play series called Heat Death. But I just spent a lot of money on a tattoo that I think will speak to my bona fides:

I like the Alien franchise. I like Geiger’s xenomorph, I like the clunky cassette futurism imagined in those 80’s movies. It feels increasingly like a much needed antidote to modern digital interfaces, and the maddeningly undefiled aesthetics of the corporate digital age.

But after I saw Prometheus and then Covenant it became very apparent to me that Ridley Scott isn’t interested in the parts of the universe that I am interested in. Or at least, his answers to those questions aren’t particularly satisfying.

There are some good things in those movies, don’t get me wrong. The moment when the two Michael Fassbenders have flute lessons is some of the gayest shit in the series, right alongside Ripley and Call having come good ol’ fashioned knife play in Resurrection.

The prequels also continue the theme established in the first few movies that the whims of the rich and powerful will doom us all in general, and the people who work for them specifically. Their corporations are shown time and again to be fundamentally opposed to human flourishing. True as it ever was.

But that’s kinda it for me.

The question at the heart of these prequels is “Where did the xenomorph come from?” to which they answer:

Some sort of chemical weapon or tool synthesized by tall aliens called engineers for ambiguous purposes. Millenia later this was discovered and hijacked by a singular android of human design, flawed in all the ways its creator was flawed. Some iterations and experiments later we get the xenomorphs we recognize.

Admittedly there may be more nuance than that. But as far as I can tell any further details are all muddled in cut content and unskilled storytelling.

Ultimately, according to the prequels thus far, the xenomorph is something we did to ourselves.

That is not a particularly engaging answer to me. I don’t really care about how the titular alien came to be. I don’t need to see the engineers, or the origins of the space jockey. I liked it when it felt like that tall alien was merged with the cockpit, when it looked like one organism, a new and novel form of life from another evolutionary path completely unlike our own.

And if you feel the same, I have something to recommend to you.

Heat Death is an actual play series made by the Canadian comedy/streaming troupe LoadingReadyRun in 2020 as part of their Dice Friends series. They did 6 episodes where Cameron, the GM, leads 4 players through their own scenario in the official Alien RPG.

And it’s one of the best Alien stories I’ve ever seen.

Cameron provides much more interesting answers to the questions Ridley Scott keeps asking, and in a method that compliments the familiar set up of Alien films. A typical day in the life of spacers is interrupted by a combination of corporate malfeasance and/or the existence of the xenomorph.

The setup of Heat Death is thus: The crew of the research vessel Ludomia, our PC’s and NPC’s for the series, wake up on a strange and grandiose space station called New Eden. Their vessel is missing, the rest of their crew is missing, and they have no idea where they are. They seek answers, they seek escape, and they try to figure out what was happening here hidden in the shadows of space.

And in typical Alien fashion, it all goes to hell.

Part of the reason the series works so well for me is because the GM has a background in the sciences. This helps when the characters are confronted with the truly alien things they find. I am an amateur appreciator of things like biology and astronomy ,and so there is just enough detail to make me feel like I know what’s happening, but also enough unfamiliar jargon that I feel an appropriate sense of awe and dread. Cameron doesn’t talk down to his audience or his players, he describes the world in ways that would make sense to the character’s point of view, and offers explanations and details when prompted.

The xenomorph’s biology is described as being reminiscent of Teflon, an immediately startling non sequitur.

The primordial black goo from the prequels is described as incredibly hazardous to human beings through exacting technical terminology. It makes it seem real and dangerous. In the prequels it always felt flat and… out of place.

I like Heat Death because Cameron and the players are actively investigating the question of the origins of the xenomorph without limiting the possibility space. It’s not a closed loop that begins and ends at LV-426 with the space jockey and its ship. Instead we see a possible answer to what is waiting for us in the stars, a galactic ecology that we have stumbled into and are ill-equipped to handle. It makes the machinations of Weyland-Yutani seem even more feeble and doomed.

It also works so well because the players are all in on it. They lean into the themes of the franchise, of roughnecks who shoot first, of commanders in over their head, and corporate representatives quietly manipulating things to their own end. There’s no power gaming or looking to get the upper hand or finding an optimal path to survival. They see the awfulness coming and they don’t look away.

There’s more that I could recommend about this series, but I run the risk of giving away too much. There’s the poetic introductions to each episode that give breadth to the fiction. The investigations of different bits of lore and tech, from faster than light travel to how synthetics work. But I guess I’ll end by going over all the players and their characters.

First there’s Commander Roman Moritaka, played by Ian, who I think more than anyone leans into the doomed nature of the storytelling. Ian is always ready to make the obvious mistake and try to do the most reasonable thing in an unreasonable situation. One of my favourite moments in the game comes from Roman making telemetry calculations. How many AP’s do you know that bother with the drama of rocket science?

Then there’s Clinton Barker played by Alex, a colonial marine who thinks in equipment and utility, and has no time for metaphor or theory. Alex is also obviously an Alien fan and someone who knows military tech and lingo, which lets him launch into interesting asides and funny anecdotes that punctuate the story.

There’s Gregory Sinclair Jr., the corporate liaison played by Cori. He is a perfect mix of uselessness and cold corporate comfort. Cori plays him relentlessly, a perfectly willing pawn right into the final moments of the final episode, and a constant needle in everyone’s side.

And then there’s Harris Schafer, played by Adam. Harris is a laid back academic and scientist, which makes them a great foil for the other characters and the perfect POV character to let us know just how bad things are, much like Adam himself. Adam is a great addition to the table, always willing to ask the basic questions and react in relatable ways.

I’ve already mentioned Cameron, and as GM he plays all the NPC’s with depth, and deftly cuts between scenes, heightening moments of tension and underlining moments of impending dread. His obvious writing ability is on full display. It feels like he loves this stuff. And in a way that Ridley Scott kinda doesn’t. Not in the same way. There’s curiosity and time and thought on display here, and I really appreciate that.

And that’s it. You should watch it, especially if you like the alien series and the art of actual play. It’s good. It’s on Youtube and it’s on podcasts. Check it out. Let me know what you think. Recommend me some other Alien fanfiction.

And if you would have liked to have read this earlier, or would like more essays and stuff like this, kick me a couple of bucks on Patreon. If folks like this sort of thing, I may do more essays. Heck, I'll probably do them if you hate it.

28 notes · View notes

simon-newman · 1 year ago

Text

Another franchise intentionally ran into the fucking ground

So... I've heard before about the supposed "Alien 5" idea that got scrapped/put on indefinite hold.

Today it came up in a discussion with friends and I tried to look into it more.

Apparently the idea is not really new but not quite as old as the original four (sic!) movies.

The whole thing comes from 2015 and is a series of concept arts released to the public and a 50 page sketch of a script.

From what concept arts suggested the movie (sometimes called "Alien: Awakening") would erase Alien 3 and 4 from canon and continue with older Ripley, Hicks and adult Newt forming a resistance against WY who somehow obtained and were experimenting with Xenomorph samples.

Cool. Workable. If done correctly I am sure it'd be welcome addition by the fans.

20th Century Fox actually recognized the fans enthusiasm and greenlit the project before no one else but Ridley Scott got involved.

The idea was then shelved indefinitely with Scott instead gaining the right to produce more movies to his "Alien Prequel Story" started with Prometheus...

Now. We all know how Alien: Covenant turned out. Not great. Now there's third movie from the series coming up titled "Alien: Awakening". Sounds familiar? Worry not. It'll likely get released as just "Awakening" instead. And won't feature our beloved Xenomorphs.

Why?

Apparently Ridley Scott sees Xenomorphs as old idea that can't be of use in film anymore. According to him the Alien Franchise "Needs to move on" and away from Xenomorphs...

Like. Dude... You are making your movies riding on the back of the Alien Franchise - THE Xenomorph franchise.

If you want to make new "space monster" horror movies that's fine. But don't make them under the name of existing franchise of a different, beloved space monster.

Also - if you can't think of a new, interesting way to use the Xenomorphs that's fully on you. There's an entire de-canonized extended universe featuring it. A whole goldmine of ideas to be used, never before brought to the big screen. You really say there's nothing to do with it anymore?

Fuck off!

Hollywood needs to stop hiring directors who hate franchises they're supposed to work with.

#Alien #Xenomorph #Movies #Alien Franchise #Hollywood #It feels great to see all of your childhood's beloved franchises ran into the fucking ground #Brainrot #Random #Just random rambling

54 notes · View notes

eddie-redmayne-italian-blog · 18 days ago

Text

Eddie Redmayne disagrees with Paul Mescal that workouts for acting roles ‘fun’

Mescal said he ‘ate a lot of chicken and lifted heavy things’ while training for his role in Gladiator II.

Eddie Redmayne has said he “profoundly disagrees” with Paul Mescal that fitness training for acting roles is “fun”.

Irish actor Mescal, 28, worked with a trainer for his role playing Lucius in Sir Ridley Scott’s hotly anticipated Gladiator II movie, while Redmayne revealed he got into shape for Sky Atlantic series The Day Of The Jackal

Speaking about his role, Mescal told The Graham Norton Show: “I ate a lot of chicken and lifted heavy things.

“I was working with a trainer who circled me like a shark and said: ‘There is a canvas to work with.’

“He went to town, and I saw him every day. It was fun. I did everything he asked but I like to drink, and I like to smoke so I drew a line in the sand where those were concerned.”

Asked how he got in such good shape for his new role, Redmayne said: “I profoundly disagree with Paul – it was not fun, it was horrendous.

“You read a scene in the script that says: ‘He is topless, sinuous and ripped, and you think, ‘Oh f***, here comes the chicken diet.’”

Discussing the new series, the Oscar-winning actor said: “I grew up with the original Edward Fox film and I loved it.

“When the scripts arrived, I thought: ‘I don’t want to touch this, I don’t want to butcher something I love,’ but it has been updated and has a very contemporary feel while retaining that old school, analogue spy quality.”

Also on the show is Little Women actress Saoirse Ronan who spoke about her experience filming Sir Steve McQueen’s Blitz, set during the Second World War.

She said: “It is huge. So much of the sets were handmade with no real special effect.

“There was a lot of money pumped into it, and rightly so. The whole thing is very impressive, and it felt so real.

“It’s probably the biggest movie I’ve ever been in.”

Asked about working with her young co-star Elliott Heffernan, she said: “I had an affinity with him because I started acting at the same age and I was his ally in a way.

“I don’t think actors who start out as adults know what is expected of a kid.

“They have to do three hours of tutoring a day and they are dragged away from the amazing time they are having on set to do schooling, which is awful.

“I personally found it to be hell on earth, so I wanted him to feel he had another kid on set.”

US actor Denzel Washington, who also stars in Gladiator II alongside Mescal, spoke about his return to Broadway in Othello.

“I played it at 22 and now I am playing it at 70 and I still remember some of it. I am terrified, curious and excited,” he said.

The stars were also joined by rock band Blossoms who performed the title track of their album Gary live in the studio.

The Graham Norton Show is on BBC One at 10.40pm on October 25 and is also available on BBC iPlayer.

Source

#eddie redmayne #paul mescal #denzel washington #saoirse ronan #the standard #article #promoting #new movies #the day of the jackal #sky series #sky tv #now tv #peacock

10 notes · View notes

ciderbird · 8 months ago

Note

Have you heard that there's a TV series about Sasha filming right now for Rossija1? Slated for release before the end of the year, it seems, and called, as it should be, "Alexander I". I just discovered that fact and I'm rather eager to see it; they've got a good track record with period dramas of that kind.

Alexander and Constantin. Alas, the degree of blondness for both is clearly unsatisfactory, but when it comes to spirit, maybe there is hope?

Oh BOY did I hear about this show??? Yes. I did. You have no idea how conflicted I am.

Because on one hand, finally a goddamn historical tv show that ISNT about Catherine II or Peter I (and it covers the assassination of Paul so he will get a lot of screentime as well!)

But on the other hand… it’s a Russian tv show, how good can it be? I’m praying to all Gods that the script is decent but my biggest problem so far is the casting. How come Ridley Scott cared more about finding an appropriate Alexander I than a series where he’s the main character??

Evgeny Romantsov doesn’t exactly have a great track record as a nuanced actor (he gets leading macho man roles mostly) and I can’t believe they decided to give this… this JOCK a role of a 20 year old Alex in his “sweet angel” era

I was honestly much more impressed with the casting for young Paul I in another series scheduled this year “Paul the first and last” (damn what a name), so I’m also looking forward to that!

All in all I’m keeping my expectations low because frankly Russia cranking out that many tv shows lately in such a short amount of time can’t be good (and it is all sponsored by ИРИ the infamous Kremlin propagandists, yay) but obviously I’ll be watching it and in my heart of hearts I’ll even hope that it’ll be good

18 notes · View notes

batterknowsbetter · 2 years ago

Text

I would like to draw your attention to the kind of information surge that Ukrainians have to live in:

1. a photo of a two-year-old child killed by a russian missile.

2. Jim Cummings praising zvyagintsev's films.

My sister tells me that people from the West always divide cinema and war. But I want the only thing that westerners will divided is russia.

I want to talk about zvyagintsev in a little more detail. In 2022, he gave an interview to anton dolin (this is the clown that Ridley Scott said fuck you). This interview perfectly illustrates how the so-called intellectual elite of russia is completely detached from the russian people, illustrates the terrible naivety, criminal blindness and stupidity of these people. For example, zvyagintsev says that the russians who remained in russia are hostages (oh, poor people, we from Ukraine can help with something). The mantra about the hostages is so deeply rooted in the consciousness of the so-called liberal russians. It protects them from the realization that their fellow citizens have turned into animals begging for blood. Then he says that you need to let this war into yourself (remembers Bucha and starts to cry. Ten points for acting) to accept the conflict and the words that a person tells you, because one day she will understand that she was wrong. He says that "it is not necessary to multiply the war, conflicting with people who support the war, it is necessary to listen to them." The great peacemakers, the russians, who do not want to multiply the war around them, have been turning a blind eye to theave been turning a blind eye to the annexation of Crimea and the occupation of Ukrainian territory, to the torture chambers and the sentences imposed on Crimean Tatars for eight years.

Then he asks: "Why didn't we react when we bombed Syria? Well, because it is far. And Ukraine is close and Ukrainians are close to us." That is, when Russia was razing Aleppo to the ground, it was okay, because you didn't have to pay for it, but when Ukraine was attacked and sanctions were imposed, it became inconvenient to keep silent. Remember, Syrian, the russian director does not care that his country bombed your cities, because you are not a neighboring country.

"I cannot agree with people who say that we should forget and ignore russian culture, people sitting in bomb shelters cannot think otherwise, but it will all pass." It will all pass. This cynical phrase just cracked me up.

"I don't understand to whom culture is to blame, to whom Rachmaninoff and our cinema are to blame." In front of all countries where you are your culture is used as a marker of conquest. How are the Pushkin monuments in Syria? How is the Mariupol theater is closed with a banner with Russian writers and Ukrainian artists that you want to own? Your culture is a cancer, it comes first and only death follows.

"We have nothing else to do but make movies." What about raising money for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, supporting the Ukrainian army, so that the war ends soon and Ukraine wins? No? Well, okay.

A russian director who shoots his new movie in Europe has the opportunity to do so, all he has to do is say I am against the war and all doors are open for you. Whereas some Ukrainian artists do not physically have this opportunity. At the moment, there are no Ukrainian films at Cannes, but there is a russian film. Who is to blame for a culture that shouts into a loudspeaker, trying to drown out the victim?

#Ukraine #russia ukraine war #russia is a terrorist state #andrey zvyagintsev #jim cummings #films

110 notes · View notes

not-souleaterpost · 1 year ago

Text

Ever wished that a trailer DOES lie?

Didn't come up with some clever pun or whatever to express what I want so I'll put it bluntly: Does anyone agree that new Napoleon movie looks kinda lame from the trailers?

Like the first one was like the two types of cliche trailers one after the other - with all the "boom" sounds and mach cuts, while then doing the whole "eq-so-it-sounds-distant childlike song" thing. But what I found worse is turning Napoleon into Thanos (havent seen a Marvel movie after Iron Man 3, so I might be wrong) - but all the stoic cool guy one liners and weird self-agrandising cliche uterances - only to end with putting on the Crown on himself as if it was that stupid plastic gem-gauntlet... Should just have snapped and said "France Won" and go all the way while showing the Austo-Hungary disolve.

The second trailer seems to be more of the same, with even having the Black Sabbat song to make it artsy but not to artsy. Idk maybe I'm being to harsh and hypocritical, but aften then having the love interst say "look down at my crotch - I control you with it" - I just cant take it seriously - gives me flashbacks to being a kid and seeing my dad watch game of thrones and realises that half the charachters are screwing their sister and brothers cause thats the only way to make something "Mature"...

But why am I writting a whinning post? Don't I try to make some contrived point in these? Yeah, at first I didint even want to post this, so I dont be one of these cynical movie guys, feel bad for these who now seemingly in nearly their fifties just whine about how bad hollywood is and how superheros suck while only reviewing them while their is a great new Scorsesse movie which they ignore- And instead of continuing this passive agressive attack on RLM, I better segway into my whole point: "The Killers of the Flower Moon" - A movie I recently saw and enjoyed quite a lot - surprisingly because I thought from the trailers "Yeah, Scorsee got old and is phoning it in" - cause from the trailers it just seemed like a generic by the numbers exploitation film, where victims kill their oppressors with the whole "happy ending" being both overly sweet and bitter - because how unrealistic yet saddistic it would be, even as a fantasy only leaving the reality of resentment and bloody revenge.

But thankfully, it was nothing like that - so the trailer lied, and I was happy - or more happy that even when it lied I thought "well going to the cinema with friends is more important, and why not see a scorsse movie on the big screen, if he dies, or I, soon, I'll regret it, even if it was a piece of shit..."

So maybe that's the point I'm making - maybe a very weird and pointless one - but yeah, maybe Napoleon won't be as bad as I think? Even if it is a far-cry from the Napoleon Kubric would have made, Ridley Scott is still a director with a certain esteem, and who the hell didn't like Gladiator? Even still have an old VHS with a cutot of a tv-magazine of it that my father used to tape over to just pirate the movie old schoo way lol. Still, I'm not saying to mindlessly buy and watch everything - but to just think - maybe even a disapointing movie is worth the human connection one will make (cause who goes to the movies alone?) - so if somebody says "hey lets watch it, its like if the Joker was French" - why not, maybe even it will turn out to be:

#napoleon #ridley scott #napoleon 2023 #joaquin phoenix #killers of the flower moon #martin scorsese #trailer #unpopular opinion #marvel #pandering #also why I didnt watch Oppenheimer but I kinda got tired of Nolan movies in general think they are irnoically to childish past 16 #I remember as a kid finding RLM and thinking their movie review show was just some stop gap for some bigger thing to come #only for it to happen or be bad on purpose #idk think its a bad place to get stuck #not financially but you know what I mean #dont have your soul eaten

20 notes · View notes

blackswaneuroparedux · 1 year ago

Text

Anonymous asked: You’re a Napoleonic warfare fan girl and I’ve great enjoyed your various posts on Napoleon, Wellington, and military history. So what’s your take on the new Napoleon film coming out soon directed by Ridley Scott? Are you excited?

I’m not sure I am. I love Ridley Scott films but who is producing it? Which Hollywood studio is in charge and is actually calling the shots?

If it’s Netflix then I’m going to say no....

Sure, his last name is Elba. I get it.

Alas I shall take my cue from Richard Sharpe and his 95th Rifles to run: ‘Over the hills and far away‘....

Thanks for your question.

#ask #question #napoleon #film #movie #ridley scott #arts #culture #netflix #woke hollywood #richard sharpe #blackwashing #modern audiences #go woke go broke #the murder of history in the name of progressive politics

34 notes · View notes

the-celluloid-correspondent · 1 year ago

Text

Napoleon Review

A look at the military commander's origins and his swift, ruthless climb to emperor, viewed through the prism of his addictive and often volatile relationship with his wife and one true love, Josephine.

I have been waiting since January of this year to talk about Ridley Scott, Napoleon, a biopic about the notorious French emperor who almost brought Europe to its knees. Outside of some alternate takes and different editing, it was relatively the same film. This did not surprise me, as I could not see what changes they could have made outside of adding 10+ hours of footage and turning it into a miniseries.

Napoleon is Ridley Scott at his best and worst. At 85 years old, Scott still knows how to make a stunning historical epic. The sweeping battles of the Napoleonic Wars are enthralling to watch on the big screen and are worth the price of admission alone. However, once the film gets outside of the battles you have a mess of a story that is riddled with all the standard issues of a biopic. Too much story to tell and not enough time to do it justice.

Napoleon’s life simply can not be compressed into 2.5 hours as it is far too vast and complicated. Because of this problem, the film either glosses over or boils many of his greatest victories and defeats into simple, one-sentence summaries. I wanted to see how Napoleon ticked and how his relationships between his military cabinet, politicians, and the public changed throughout the Napoleonic Wars. How did Napoleon brew up his military strategies and what led him to war? These elements and many more are never explored outside of a sentence stated here and there. Thus creating an uneven film.

However, the most disappointing element of the film was the short Frenchman himself. I understand this take on Napoleon was meant to tear down the mythological militant commander and show his true petty and egotistical colors. But I believe Scott takes this deconstruction too far as it makes you wonder how a pathetic manchild almost conquered all of Europe. The film forgets that Napoleon was a brilliant military strategist and a charismatic leader. They show these characteristics from time to time, but when he is a buffoon for the majority of it, it is hard to take him seriously.

I am unable to tell if this was due to the writing, acting, or both. The writing was obviously off, but I can’t help but think Joaquin Phoenix was miscast. He does a fantastic job with the material he is given, especially showing the Napoleon Complex, but he doesn’t feel like Napoleon. He comes across as a pathetic manchild rather than a brilliant military commander who has an ego problem. Sadly, the same can also be stated with Vanessa Kirby as Josephine. Her performance is outstanding, but she does feel miscast as the film greatly misunderstands the divorce between Josephine and Napoleon. If you were unaware, Josephine was 6 years older than Napoleon. So they either needed to age Kirby, like they did with Phoenix, or cast an actress who is a similar age to Phoenix. They divorced not because she couldn’t have children, but because she couldn't have children anymore. She was 54 when their marriage ended, meaning that her childbearing days were long gone. Gone even before Napoleon became emperor. So to cast a 35-year-old Vanessa Kirby as a post-menopausal woman is an insult to many middle-aged actresses in Hollywood who could have shown how tragic their divorce was.

With those complaints stated Napoleon is still a very entertaining film. As previously stated the battle scenes are spectacular to watch and are worth the price of admission alone. The film is surprisingly funny with slapstick humor and some funny quotes, even when it's unintentional. I look forward to the 4.5-hour director cut as it will most likely alleviate some of the complaints that I have with the theatrical cut. However, even 4.5 hours does not feel like enough time to do Napoleon's life justice.

My Rating: B-

16 notes · View notes

thiswaycomessomethingwicked · 1 year ago

Note

we discussed why Ridley Scott's film is unlikely to be the way we would like it to be

so I have a question: what films/series about Napoleon more or less correctly represent real history? or just good in your opinion

oh man, I'm a bit of a picky person when it comes to Napoleonic films/series, but not in a logically consistent manner so people get a little confused sometimes. Which is fair.

I'll give you two rec's:

My favourite Napoleon movie is Monsieur N. I think what makes it work is that it's a historical AU, basically, and fills all my favourite tropes. Premise is that Napoleon, through a weird magic (?) thing, switches fates with his valet/spy Cipriani and manages to escape St. Helena.

As one can guess, it's only loosely, loosely based in history. The ages of some people are altered (Betsy Balcombe is aged up significantly so she can be an appropriate love interest for Napoleon; Barry O'Meara is in his late thirties/early forties for no apparent reason etc.). I feel like Albine got shafted in being cast as a bit of the Conniving Courtesan. Montholon is positioned as a poisoner, even though by the time the film was made that theory/story had been pretty heavily debunked. They omit Napoleon's crap treatment of Fanny Bertrand after she rebuffed his advances. Napoleon's still played too seriously - but that's a fault in literally almost every production ever.

That said, I love Bertrand in this. Gourgaud makes a rogue appearance and is suitably chaotic. I like Sir Hudson Lowe as well - I feel that Richard Grant was cast perfectly. The visuals are beautiful. It's just gorgeously filmed (I love the first confrontation/meet scene between Napoleon and Lowe - the playing with light, the choice of clothes, the switching through languages etc. it's masterful).

The historical inaccuracy aside, I actually liked the relationship between Napoleon and Betsy. I'm just like "clearly it's another Betsy Balcombe. Funny that two people have the same name on this small island!"

(Obviously, in reality, she was a literal child when she knew Napoleon. He was an uncle/older brother figure to her and she was clearly a surrogate daughter/niece to him. They pranked each other and teamed up to prank Lowe on the regular alongside playing silly games and mucking about.)

I love that it's a multi-lingual production so you have English, French and Corsican being spoken, as appropriate for the characters/people. The sound track is fitting. It's appropriately atmospheric.

So yeah, I am very fond of the film. But it's just a fun, stupid romp.

You can't go in expecting a Real Historical And/Or Accurate Account of Napoleon on St. Helena. Thankfully, the film never positions itself as such a thing. It's very clearly a What If + Fanfiction. I recommend going in and treating it like a slightly more serious Knight's Tale in its approach to history (vibes & essence over facts). If you do that, you'll have a blast. If you go in looking for Historical Napoleon or whatever, you'll hate it.

I also may or may not have a Thing for Philippe Torreton (who plays Napoleon). So. That might also inform my affection for this dumb film.

-----

I remember enjoying the 2002 French miniseries Napoleon (with Christian Clavier and Isabella Rossellini). As with all series and films, it has its issues (there are definite inaccuracies), but I liked it overall. I feel they hit the emotional beats between Napoleon and Josephine really well.

(While she's not older than him in it, at least the actors the same age and she's not like 16 years younger than Napoleon /eye roll.)

The scene when she reams him out during their divorce is powerful (she does this great thing about how he always wanted to make it clear that he's separate from the ancien regime and Not Like Those People but what is he doing now? He's marrying one of Marie Antoinette's relatives. And like, she is calling him out for his political inconsistency, and making the point that it's a bad decision in terms of Optics, but it's also so clearly much more than that. It's well done). Napoleon's reaction when he learns that she's died is heart breaking and well rendered/believable.

There is also humour and convivial moments that are often lacking in historical biopics with him, which I appreciate (love the "you need to take the Austrian uniform off the scarecrow or we'll have an International Incident on our hands" scene).

There's a rogue Coulaincourt who makes an appearance! Nice to see him. Same with Lannes - glad he makes an appearance. Though there's no Duroc or Junot, unfortunately. (Granted, I understand the need to keep the cast to a reasonable amount of people.)

So yeah, it's an entertaining series. It's a bit of a "classic" in the sense that I feel like anyone who has gone through a Napoleon Phase watches it.

----

Truly, the best representation of Napoleon is in Bill and Ted's Most Excellent Adventure. You're welcome.

----

I hope this helps!

#thank you for the ask!#napoleon bonaparte #there's the Marlon Brando film that a lot of people like as well #I thought it was fine #Napoleon #that 1970s or 80s Waterloo movie is meh imo #ask #reply #monsieur n #napoleon (2002)#film #I remember being on a date with someone who saw Monsieur N & they kept going on about how they hated it bc they felt it was inaccurate #and I was like: You do realize it's a historical AU that's not meant to be accurate right? It's like complaining about the inaccuracy of #the medieval period as represented in A Knight's Tale #that's what you sound like right now. Like someone complaining about the rendering of Chaucer in the pop culture hit A Knight's Tale #Monsieur N was never meant to be a Serious Film. It's beautifully filmed and a lot of fun but it's not History #napoleon in film

27 notes · View notes

kosher-martian · 11 months ago

Text

Napoleon & Josephine

Spoiler warning for Napoleon.

So this weekend I had an opportunity to see Ridley Scott's Napoleon. It was weird.

The movie has some problems. I'm not going to mention the historical accuracy of the film (it takes the same liberties all other historical dramas do) nor am I going to talk about the dialogue / delivery (though I will gladly let "You think you're so great because you have boats!" live rent-free in my head for the rest of forever). I think the movie had too much material it wanted to cover in one film, but tried to cover it anyway (the exact opposite of the YA movie "Divided for Adaptation" trope that swept Hollywood ages ago). Before some (likely extensive) edits the final film was probably close to 3.5 hours long, so they cut an hour's worth of scenes from the final product resulting in the choppy mess with massive pacing issues that have divided audiences and critics alike.

Scenes play at breakneck pace one after the other, each in a different location, with different characters, and occurring at different points in history, but there was either no attempt at linking the scenes together or the majority of those bridging scenes hit the cutting room floor. As a consequence, the movie just comes across as a feature-length recap of the previous season of some prestige historical drama show. If this were a pre-existing show the scenes make sense. You vaguely remember last season and you are only watching to jog your memory before jumping into the next season. But if you are going into this without familiarity of the subject matter (or only mild interest) and expect the film to tell you a narrative about the life of Napoleon Bonaparte, it's just a cluster of confusion. I had a similar experience with the Saoirse Ronan / Margot Robbie Mary Queen of Scots film. It had almost the exact same "not a film, just a series of scenes" issues. Unlike with Napoleon, I was less familiar with the historical events surrounding Mary I of Scotland and Elizabeth I of England. I ended up disliking the film and only ever watched it the one time.

So now I want to pivot to the reason I'm making this post at all. I want to posit a ludicrous and patently untrue conspiracy theory: They made two movies and then spliced them together!

To be clear, I don't actually believe this happened, this "conspiracy theory" will be more my wishful thinking than anything else.

Contrary to all evidence, I want to believe that Hollywood had planned Barbenheimer from the very beginning. Warner Bros, Universal Pictures, and other major studios saw the collapse of "cinematic universe" films on the horizon and wanted to create a new fad that would be both cheaper to produce and more easily controlled: Pick two films with markedly different audiences, market them as being in competition with each other, and use polarizing social media pushes to drive people into two constituency groups. With this model, studios could take two films that would otherwise have middling performance and turn them into blockbuster hits of then summer with marketing alone. People would go running back into the theaters to ensure their constituency's film "won" the battle. Hollywood solicited ideas for film pairings from a variety of sources. Ridley Scott got wind of this secret operation and decided he would condense the idea into an even easier exercise: Make the same movie twice for two different audiences.

Scott would direct two films with the exact same cast. One film (the "boy" film) would be an epic film covering the military triumphs of Napoleon Bonaparte, his tragic fall from power, his unlikely return, and his final defeat. This film, titled Napoleon, would feature fantastic set-piece battle scenes, tons of meme-able lines ("You think you're so great because you have boats!"), and gorgeous special effects. The "girl" film, Josephine, would depict the contentious and all-too-captivating private life of Napoleon and Josephine. It would be a more cerebral and emotional work, showing the complexities of their relationship. It would place the competing demands of Napoleon's ambition and longing for true love at center stage. Josephine might have made Empress Josephine our focal character or it may have continued to use Napoleon as entry way into the rich interior lives of the Emperor and Empress of France, but in either case the film's overall story would have been those moments when they were alone with one another or totally alone. Napoleon's story is the story that shaped the modern world, so it was more than enough to support both films. Audiences could choose which movie to support or might have found the format of "two films, one story" just too enticing to pass up seeing both.

But then something - and I'm not sure exactly what - happened. Instead of creating both films and releasing them separately, the decision was made to condense the two films down to one. Both films had nearly finished production. Two interpretations of Napoleon, one the legend and one the man, now needed to be brought together. Left with tonally dissonant films, the choice was made to just try to make the editing "choppier" and more "modern" (code for "we know flashy cuts and transitions won't save this colossal mistake, but we've got sunk cost fallacy now"). Scenes were lifted wholesale from both films and spliced together seemingly without regard for the final product. It's possible the final dirty work was handed to a trailer house, as evidenced by the trailers release earlier this year that paired action sequences from the film with modern music that not only didn't fit the film's aesthetics, but also didn't fit the scenes used.

Did this happen? No. As stated previously, Napoleon's story is too big to be contained in one film. The only film to pull it off was the 1927 silent film, which runs anywhere from 4 to 9.5 hours long depending on the cut. That's why other films focus on extensive portrayals of discrete battles (Waterloo), specific parts of his life (Eagle in a Cage) or his romantic life (Desiree, though it does show other aspects of Napoleon's life). Some artists have tried to do a broad retelling of his life, but those are always multi-part miniseries.

But go watch the movie yourself and tell me there's not a Josephine movie lurking on a hard drive somewhere in Hollywood. I know it doesn't exist, but also there's no way it doesn't exist, right? Too many scenes fit perfectly into another movie for it not to exist. Napoleon is not a cohesive film, it's a compilation of scenes from two separate movies featuring the same actors.

youtube

#napoleon #josephine #release the josephine cut #you think you are so great because you have boats!#barbenheimer #napoleon 2023 #napoleon bonaparte #josephine de beauharnais #Youtube

10 notes · View notes

mattnben-bennmatt · 5 months ago

Text

Matt Damon: 'You're a better actor the less people know about you'

The Guardian (27 September 2015)

By Elizabeth Day

He is Hollywood’s ultimate everyman. Matt Damon talks about The Martian, missing Robin Williams – and the theory that he and Ben Affleck were gay

I am sitting opposite Matt Damon and he is saying he’s sorry for being a bad movie star. He can’t help it, he says. He’s simply too dull.

“I think people just leave a room I’m in and they’re like: Well that guy wasn’t a movie star,” he explains. “Jesus! Anybody could do that.”

We are sitting in a gloomy hotel room, at a large round conference table which is too big for the two of us. Damon is dressed like a father on the school run: sensible navy blue polo shirt, trousers with practical pockets down the side. He has a smattering of facial hair. The most film-starry thing about him is his muscle tone: he has arms that look like they’ve been drawn by a Popeye animator.

Other than this, Damon insists he’s entirely normal. He has a wife, Luciana, whom he met while filming in Miami in 2003 when she was working behind a bar, and the couple have four daughters ranging in age from four to 16 – Alexia, from Luciana’s previous relationship, Isabella, Gia and Stella. Damon is a self-confessed family man. He has a rule that they will never be apart for more than two weeks while he’s filming. His daily life is so average even the paparazzi have decamped from outside his home in Los Angeles because he never does anything that merits a photograph.

“You know, a guy who’s married happily with four kids is not quite a story,” Damon says with a sorry-but-what-can-you-do smile. “And so they’ll come back and they’ll take an occasional picture… but it’s kind of just updating the file.”

I’m not entirely buying this. At 44, Damon is smart enough to know that his supposed “normality” is his stock in trade. His approachability on-screen, combined with a sense of nuance and depth, has lent his performances a likeable, everyman-ish quality that has proved to be box-office catnip.

In 2007, Forbes magazine named Damon as Hollywood’s most bankable actor, averaging $29 in takings for every dollar he earned in a movie. From Good Will Hunting (which Damon co-wrote with Ben Affleck, winning the 1997 Oscar for best screenplay) and Saving Private Ryan to the big-budget Bourne movie franchise or the dystopian sci-fi fantasy Elysium, he has a capacity to hint at a character’s inner complexity without ever veering into pretension. According to Manohla Dargis of the New York Times, Damon’s power lies in his ability “to recede into a film while also being fully present”.

His latest project is no exception. In The Martian, directed by Ridley Scott and co-starring Jeff Daniels, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Kristen Wiig, Damon plays Mark Watney, a Nasa astronaut who finds himself stranded on Mars after he is injured in a fierce storm and presumed dead by his crew.

Admittedly, an astronaut is hardly your average kind of Joe, but Damon manages to imbue the role with his classic down-to-earth sensibility. When Watney is confronted with a problem, he solves it through the power of science and logical thinking. Despite forever teetering on the verge of an existential crisis, Watney remains quick-witted and optimistic. When he runs out of food, he simply starts growing potatoes in his own vacuum-packed faecal matter. That kind of thing.

I wonder if filming The Martian made Damon contemplate his own resourcefulness. Would he be good in a similar situation?

“Probably not, no. I have too many connections that matter to me. It might be fun for a day, you know, but no. I’d probably go a little bonkers.”

Even as a small boy, he never wanted to be an astronaut, preferring instead the world of superheroes. When he was growing up in Cambridge, Massachusetts, with his older brother Kyle, his mother would put out a dressing-up box and he would choose either a red or blue floral towel, safety-pinning it round his neck like a cape. The red towel was for Superman. Blue was for Shazam, the teenage hero of a 70s TV series who could transform into Captain Marvel.

“That was how I broke my ankle,” Damon recalls. “When I was three, I climbed to the top of the jungle gym in my Shazam cape and I shouted ‘Shazam!’ And I tried to fly and I fell.”

He remembers his stockbroker father, Kent, running across from the other side of the playground to come to his aid and what stuck in Damon’s mind was not the pain in his ankle but the way his father was running – like an athlete, with pumping arms and a long, fluid pace.

“I remember afterwards, when I healed, months later, trying to jog [like him]. So I would jog pumping my fists to the ground. I was trying to ape the movement, but I wasn’t quite pulling it off.” He shakes his head, laughs.

He was three, he’d just broken his ankle, but Damon’s focus was already on how another person was behaving and how he could best mimic it.

His parents later divorced and the boys lived with their mother, Nancy Carlsson-Paige, a university professor specialising in early education. Apparently, she always knew he was going to be an actor because of his love of costume and role-playing, and his ability to entertain himself for long stretches of time.

But Damon found fame as one-half of a long-term collaboration. Ben Affleck was his childhood best friend – the two of them met when they were eight and attended the same high school. Damon went to Harvard, Affleck to the University of Vermont, but both dropped out before getting their degrees and worked together on the script for Good Will Hunting, which drew on their own experiences growing up in Cambridge. The script was bought by Castle Rock in 1994. Three years later it became a huge critical and commercial success starring Damon as undiscovered genius Will Hunting, with Affleck as his childhood friend, and Robin Williams as the psychologist who helps Hunting come to terms with his talent.

“I laughed the entire time we wrote,” Damon says now. “It was a really joyful experience.” He was less enamoured of his sudden celebrity. “You wake up one morning and the world is entirely the same and you know, actually, all the things that mattered yesterday are the same today, except the world is forever going to be a totally different place for you,” he says.

“That’s the mind-fuck and it takes a few years to even get your head around what’s happening… I remember my brother said: ‘How are you doing?’ And I was, like, ‘I’m the fucking same, but everyone else is different.’”

He credits his “really solid childhood” with getting him through. But for people who lack a support network, or whose fame reaches absurdly overblown levels, it is a different story. We are meeting almost exactly a year after his Good Will Hunting co-star, Robin Williams, took his own life. Williams suffered from severe depression. I ask Damon if he worries about the pressures fame can put on an individual’s mental health.

“Of course,” he says quietly. “Peter Farrelly, who is a friend of mine, the director, he was talking about suicide and he said something really lovely, which was: ‘Whenever that happens to a friend of mine [suicide], I feel like they’re just in a house on fire and they have to get out.’ I hoped that it [Williams’s death] could lead to a wider discussion about mental health because if somebody that incredible and wonderful – just such a light – could be living with that, hopefully it could give other people permission to talk about this to people around them. So that at least something positive came out of something so horrible.”

It’s nice, talking to Damon. Unlike many actors, he answers questions with a reflective openness. There is a feeling that nothing is out of bounds. He is politically engaged – a Democrat, but also a critic of Barack Obama (he has spoken out about Obama’s education policies and questioned the legality of drone strikes) and says he’s deeply worried about the chasm between rich and poor in America in the aftermath of the economic crisis.

“That anger did not go away because none of these guys [the bankers] got prosecuted and they all have our money, and these houses in the Hamptons they live in – that they claim to have earned – are paid for with our money. I mean, that’s what happened! And so, I don’t know what the consequences for that kind of thing are.”

He maintains a steady eye contact and has a dry sense of humour. When I ask, in the middle of a discussion about directors, whether he would ever consider being directed by Affleck, he replies deadpan: “Sure, if the right thing came along.” Pause. “I mean, he usually gives himself the main role in the thing he’s directing, so it would need to probably be a two-hander.”

He says that when picking projects, he is entirely guided by the quality of the director: “That’s all that matters in film. The rest of it is utter bullshit. A mediocre director will ruin a great piece of material.” Has he worked with mediocre directors in the past? “Yes.”

He won’t name names. But for every big-budget blockbuster he has been attached to, Damon has put in a quieter, more complex performance in films like Anthony Minghella’s The Talented Mr. Ripley or The Good Shepherd, directed by Robert de Niro, or Martin Scorsese’s The Departed. In 2013, he starred as Liberace’s lover, Scott Thorson, in the Steven Soderbergh television drama film Behind the Candelabra.

Damon was a straight man playing gay. Is it harder for actors to be openly gay in Hollywood? “I’m sure. When Ben and I first came on the scene there were rumours that we were gay because it was two guys who wrote a script together.”

Really?

“I know. It’s just like any piece of gossip… and it put us in a weird position of having to answer, you know what I mean? Which was then really deeply offensive. I don’t want to, like [imply] it’s some sort of disease – then it’s like I’m throwing my friends under the bus. But at the time, I remember thinking and saying, Rupert Everett was openly gay and this guy – more handsome than anybody, a classically trained actor – it’s tough to make the argument that he didn’t take a hit for being out.”

He thinks attitudes are changing, and welcomes the introduction of same-sex marriage in California in 2008. “I think it must be really hard for actors to be out publicly,” he continues. “But in terms of actors, I think you’re a better actor the less people know about you period. And sexuality is a huge part of that. Whether you’re straight or gay, people shouldn’t know anything about your sexuality because that’s one of the mysteries that you should be able to play.”

So is Matt Damon just a normal guy, adept at pretending to be mysterious? I don’t think so. He’s cleverer than that: he’s worked out that the appearance of averageness affords the greatest opportunity for privacy and creative space.

How would he describe himself as an actor? There is a long pause. “I don’t know,” he says. “Subtle, hopefully.”

The arms though. The arms give him away.

#matt damon #the martian #ben affleck #robin williams #kent damon #peter farrelly #rupert everett #on privacy #on homosexuality #on rumors #on acting #on politics #early childhood #on writing together #on fame #on mental health #interview #2015 #originals

5 notes · View notes