#and it recently hit 99% on Rotten Tomatoes | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

emma-what-son · 4 years ago

Text

‘The Circle’: 5 Reasons Why Tom Hanks and Emma Watson’s Movie Bombed

I don’t think I ever posted this article.

Indiewire May 2017: Sometimes, big stars aren't the best casting choices. Here's why the latest film from James Ponsoldt was disliked by critics and audiences alike.

Nobody sets out to make a bad movie. So why did cautionary tech thriller “The Circle” — adapted by lauded writer-director James Ponsoldt (“The Spectacular Now,” “The End of the Tour”) and beloved novelist Dave Eggers from his own 2013 bestseller — earn such negative reviews (43 on Metacritic, 17 on Rotten Tomatoes) and bomb at the box office ($9.3 million in 3,163 theaters)?

The movie went wrong in five significant ways.

1. The movie was foreign financed.

“The Circle” was developed by A-list ex-DreamWorks producers Walter Parkes and Laurie MacDonald’s Parkes+MacDonald Image Nation, which raised financing from Imagenation Abu Dhabi FZ and foreign sales company FilmNation on the power of Tom Hanks, who was the first star on board via his Playtone banner.

In order to raise an $18-million budget, globally bankable star Emma Watson was cast in a central leading role that demanded she be in every scene. Veering in tone from satiric comedy to naturalistic drama, “The Circle” follows wide-eyed Mae Holland’s swift rise within a burgeoning Silicon Valley tech company (imagine Facebook and Google combined; the campus resembles Apple’s new headquarters). The film is told from her perspective, and required a far more charismatic actress. We lose sympathy for Mae as the narrative omits vital connective tissue that might explain just how and why she becomes a willing tool of The Circle.

Watson was a key member of the ensembles in the blockbuster Harry Potter series and worldwide musical smash “Beauty and the Beast,” which solidified her global stardom. While she sagged in non-crucial roles in “My Week with Marilyn” and “The Bling Ring,” she was well cast in “The Perks of Being a Wallflower.” Clearly, Watson can shine with the right director, but “The Circle” required too much of her. With Ponsoldt’s prior actresses Mary Elizabeth Winstead or Shailene Woodley in the role, the movie might have turned out much better — even on a smaller budget.

Hanks does not help matters in an overinflated supporting role as the amiably villainous co-founder of The Circle. He’s too big for the room; his familiar stardom is distracting. And charismatic John Boyega is wasted as a mysterious Circle co-founder. We want more of him every time he comes on screen, but he just fades back into the shadows.

2. “The Circle” is a feathered fish.

The movie is neither the sort of smart and edgy indie that A24 could market, nor a glossily entertaining commercial studio vehicle. It doesn’t appeal directly to younger Watson fans or older Hanks fans. “The Circle” therefore satisfies neither critics nor mainstream audiences. It’s what industry insiders like to call a ‘tweener.

3. EuropaCorp and STX Entertainment partnered on a too-familiar movie.

Luc Besson’s French distribution company EuropaCorp picked up “The Circle” for $8 million and partnered with STX for the North American release. They spent serious marketing dollars chasing after the hard-to-reach 17-to-35 demo, but the movie looked too familiar. Back in 1995, even “The Net” starring Sandra Bullock did a better job of painting a paranoid techno-future where everyone is watched. So did Peter Weir’s “The Truman Show” in 1998 — and most effectively of all, the hit Channel 4 series “Black Mirror.”

As our own Eric Kohn pointed out in his review:

Recent years have seen a proliferation of deep-dive narratives on the information age, from the psychological thriller territory of ‘Mr. Robot’ to the parodic extremes of ‘Silicon Valley. Ponsoldt’s project is stuck in between those two extremes. On the one hand, it’s an Orwellian drama about surveillance society; at the same time, it’s a sincere workplace drama about young adulthood that shoehorns in some techno-babble for the sake of deepening its potential.

4. Dave Eggers is box-office poison.

As a novelist, Eggers has delivered such bestsellers as “A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius,” “Zeitoun,” and “A Hologram for the King,” which also was turned into a movie starring Hanks that earned mild reviews and poor box office ($7.7 million domestic). His brand of ironic, self-referential satire works better on the page, where the writer can control the tone.

As a Hollywood screenwriter, Eggers adapted Maurice Sendak’s children’s classic “Where the Wild Things Are” for Spike Jonze, a well-reviewed but expensive ($115 million) 2009 Warner Bros. box office dud ($99 million worldwide). He and his wife Vendela Vida also wrote 2009 family comedy “Away We Go,” directed by Sam Mendes and starring John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph, which also earned mild reviews and piddling box office ($10 million worldwide). Gus Van Sant’s 2012 drama “Promised Land,” starring Krasinski and Matt Damon and based on Eggers’ story, fared no better on Metacritic or at the box office ($9.3 million worldwide).

5. Expectations were high for writer-director James Ponsoldt.

Having delivered well-reviewed indie features his first four times at bat — “Off the Black,” “Smashed,” “The Spectacular Now” and “The End of the Tour” — Ponsoldt was on a roll. Critics expected more from “The Circle,” and meted out harsh disapproval. Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, for one, awarded the film one star out of four: “‘The Circle’ feels dull, dated and ripped from yesterday’s headlines. It flatlines while you’re watching it.”

Next up: Ponsoldt is writing “Wild City,” an original idea for Disney that could give him an even bigger budget. Let’s hope he regains his once-sure footing.

#the circle

1 note · View note

theinformedaviator · 6 years ago

Text

The Tuskegee Airmen, and their Portrayals

Race has been a prominent issue in the Aviation Industry throughout its existence. African Americans weren’t involved in aviation before and up to the time of World War I due to the heavy scrutiny and prejudice in the pre-civil rights movement timeline. It wasn’t until the time of World War II that things drastically changed.

World War II was considered one of the most revolutionary conflicts in modern history. Weaponry, equipment, and most importantly, aircraft, were more technologically advanced than ever. In World War I, military aircraft were being built from canvas, wire and wood, and were very susceptible to anti air fire. In a mere 20 year span, newer aircraft were developed with much more resilient build materials. Airplanes were more powerful, and more durable allowing them to be used much more effectively in combat, but as many people in aviation will say, a pilot is the heart of the airplane.

World War II aviators were predominantly white, educated officers who were selected to attend flight school based on their academics, and the needs of the military at the time. Jim Crow laws prevented any African American from serving alongside white soldiers. It took two whole decades of advocacy and lobbying to gain the approval required to give African Americans their wings. In 1941, the Army Air Corps designated the first all African American flying unit, the 99thPursuit Squadron. The severity of the Jim Crow laws were still in full swing, however. The segregated Tuskegee University was established to educate the men involved in the program. The pilots and flight crew members were trained to fly and maintain the advanced fighter aircraft they would eventually operate in combat. On June 2nd1943, the Tuskegee airmen flew their first combat mission in the Mediterranean Sea. After many years of successful combat, they were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal for their efforts. Many airmen went on to become Generals.

The Tuskegee airmen received a pretty decent amount of media representation throughout the years, including two feature films, one of which was quite recent. The Tuskegee Airmen(1995) and Red Tails(2012) are the most prominent examples of the legacy of Tuskegee.

Lawrence Fishburne took point in the 1995 interpretation, and the predominantly African American cast performed well to portray the brave Airmen. Many critics took kindly to the stylish combat scenes and harsh, but accurate detailing of the segregation experienced by the airmen during that time period. One of the pretty neat aspects of the film was the heavy use of legitimate combat footage to supplement the recreated battles. It created an immersive experience that gave ample recognition to the people of color who selflessly served our country. Aside from that, there was only one real Tuskegee Airman represented in the film, the rest were fictional characters. The film did “reel” in (excuse my pun) a few Emmy awards, and a Golden Globe for Fishburne. The films historical accuracy was pretty solid. They detailed the different aircraft flown by the squadron, and also recognized their victory against the German ME-262, the first Jet powered fighter aircraft. The common misconception at the time was that the Tuskegee Airmen never lost a bomber during their escort missions, and this was displayed in the film. Further research into Air Force Records proved this theory wrong, however 25 bombers lost is still a very impressive statistic among fighter squadrons of the time.

The more recent portrayal was led by Terrence Howard, but did not fare well in the box office. On “Rotten Tomatoes” Only 58% liked it compared to the 78% earned by the earlier film. Why could this be? It seems that the main consensus is the lack of quality storytelling in the film. Both of these films share the quality of having many African Americans portraying the Airmen, and there is no real sign of white washing in any sense of the term. It just seems that The Tuskegee Airmen’s producers and directors did a bit more research, besides the fact that Red Tailswas created with the help of an actual surviving Tuskegee Airman. “One dimensional Characters, corny dialogue, and heaps of clichés” were only a few of the criticisms received from its reviewers. Aviation Historian Budd Davidson said to just sit back and enjoy the Hollywood side of things because aviation accuracy may not be the #1 priority here. Many African American veterans and former Airmen claimed that there was too much emphasis on the digitally enhanced combat scenes. This left them with little in the way of comprehensive characters who accurately portray the challenges faced by African American Airmen of the time. George Lucas, a key collaborator in the making of this film, blamed the struggles of creating the film on the notion that “Hollywood doesn’t like to touch Black films”. This hit home with many, and after a Facebook campaign opened, the film finally saw some success with two sold out pre-release screenings. Lucas made a heartfelt comment on the film’s success in the African American Community. “It had an effect on a lot of kids and adults. Now it’s the one thing that everyone comes up to me and says ‘thank you’ for-I’m proud of that”. Regardless, it seems the 1995 film had a much more profound sentimental impact, rather than the 2012 film which some even say was a “Blackface, slapped-together remake of Top Gun”-University of Pennsylvania professor Adolph Reed.

The accurate representation of African American’s in film is an integral piece of our society’s growth. These two films each have their own strengths and weaknesses in the way of representation, but the fact that African Americans receive this recognition is still important in its own right. The Tuskegee Airmen were one of the finest squadrons in the Army Air Corps, and their legacy fills museums and inspires the diverse aviators of today. Now, there are thousands of African American pilots operating airline flights all over the country and all over the world. It is important that their representations are dignified and well researched.

Sources include:

Rotten Tomatoes New York Times Lucasfilm HBO The Tuskegee Airmen Legacy page

1 note · View note

antoine-roquentin · 7 years ago

Link

Pity the conservative film critic. Suffering through so many juvenile, raunchy flicks and mindless blockbusters. Why even the great films are marred. No matter how extraordinary the film, something comes along to spoil it. Something…politically correct.

Maybe it’s the villain, an evil giant multinational corporation dumping oceans of toxins into the local river, which also happens to be the town’s water supply.

Maybe it’s Mr. Potter’s bank threatening to foreclose on the old homestead.

Typical liberal pablum, snarls the conservative critic. All corporations are evil. Banks are foreclosing on everybody’s sick grandma’s farm.

It hardly matters that socially conscious films like A Civil Action, North Country, Norma Rae, Silkwood and Erin Brockovich are extraordinarily entertaining films with Oscar-level direction and performances. What matters to the conservative film critic is that they are mere whored-up vehicles for socialist propaganda. And only he (and it’s always a he) is wise enough to see it.

Whatever would American film audiences have done without the conservative film critic to enlighten them as to the “awfulness” of Jordan Peele’s Get Out? The film boasted a perfect 100 score from critics on the movie review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. That is until National Review’s Armond White reviewed the film. Where other critics saw the “satirical horror movie we’ve been waiting for, a mash-up of Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? and The Stepford Wives that’s more fun than either and more illuminating, too,” Armand, who is African American, saw a film—which he dubbed “Get Whitey”—that was “tailored to please the liberal status quo.”

The Chicago Reader’s J.R. Jones must have been watching another horror-comedy called Get Out, because he saw a brilliant film “that sticks closely to genre convention even as its ribbing of white liberals hardens into a social point.”

Selma was another film with a 99 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes whose perfect score was spoiled by a critic from a conservative publication, this time Nigel Andrews of the Financial Times. Andrews, unlike every other reviewer, panned Selma as “a dead-as-a-plank re-enactment of a pietised ‘then’: a 50-year-old battle of ideals between Good Guys (MLK, LBJ in civil rights reform mode) and Bad Guys (Governor Wallace, keeping the Alabama hate fires burning) that seems exactly that: 50 years.”

Unsurprisingly, National Review’s White similarly hated the film (though he loved that jingoistic homage to endless war American Sniper). White called Selma “a mediocre and disingenuous film” and criticized the movie for “rubbing soft spots” and “sore spots” (i.e., depicting the murders of black children and white allies) instead of “making meaning.” (“Soft spot” is certainly a strange way to describe the murder of four black girls by a white supremacist.)

Until recently there was a paucity of films starring, written by or directed by African Americans. Blacks largely played the role of thugs or servants. As the role of blacks in Hollywood has slowly begun to broaden it has presented a unique problem for conservative magazines. How to criticize socially conscious African American films without sounding blatantly racist?

National Review seems to have hit on a successful solution when it hired Armond White. As an African American, White can freely trash socially conscious, historical “black films” like Selma and Twelve Years a Slave with little fear of a racial backlash. White can say things that white conservative critics are thinking, that they would have easily spouted twenty years ago, but dare not say in public today. And he says a lot of such things. For instance: “Who can forget the throwback image of British director Steve McQueen jumping Jim Crow at this year’s Oscars?”

Then there was White’s depiction of the 1963 Birmingham church bombing that killed four African American girls as “one of The Movement’s Greatest Hits.”

Not to mention his constant dog whistles that Hollywood Jews control the media’s image of black people.

When Twelve Years a Slave (Academy Award: Best Picture) came out National Review cautiously asked scholar Thomas Hibbs to review the film. Hibbs turned in a thoughtful piece which lauded the film. The editors tried again. In the print edition, conservative New York Times’ columnist Ross Douthat reviewed the film. Again, a positive review.

Soon after that, National Review hired White. He had dismissed Twelve Years a Slave in CityArts writing that it “belongs to the torture porn genre with ‘Hostel,’ ‘The Human Centipede’ and the ‘Saw’ franchise.”

Wrote White:

These tortures might satisfy the resentment some Black people feel about slave stories (“It makes me angry”), further aggravating their sense of helplessness, grievance–and martyrdom. It’s the flipside of the aberrant warmth some Blacks claim in response to the superficial uplift of ‘The Help’ and ‘The Butler.’ And the perversion continues among those whites and non-Blacks who need a shock fest like ‘12 Years a Slave’ to rouse them from complacency with American racism and American history. But, as with ‘The Exorcist,’ there is no victory in filmmaking this merciless. The fact that McQueen’s harshness was trending among Festivalgoers (in Toronto, Telluride and New York) suggests that denial still obscures the history of slavery: Northup’s travail merely make it possible for some viewers to feel good about feeling bad (as wags complained about Spielberg’s ‘Schindler’s List’ as an ‘official’ Holocaust movie–which very few people went to see twice). McQueen’s fraudulence further accustoms moviegoers to violence and brutality.

Just the thing National Review was looking for. A black reviewer who could spout highfaluting hokum for its racist white audience.

White was immediately given a chance to write about the film. He went profoundly negative calling the film “decidedly unpleasant (and unpopular).” It was “awarded (Best Picture) purely to make the Academy feel good about itself as a defense against Hollywood’s standard segregated practices.” It “distorted the history of slavery while encouraging and continuing Hollywood’s malign neglect of slavery’s contemporary impact.”

Conservative film criticism is so easy any conservative can do it. Simply choose a film with a social justice theme (say, family farmers versus the bank), then ignore everything else about the film. National Review critic Kevin Williamson carried this off spectacularly when he was tasked with reviewing Hell and High Water. Again, the film garnered overwhelmingly glowing reviews, including a 96 top critics score on Rotten Tomatoes.

Hell and High Water, which pitted two rural everymen versus The Bank, seemed to resonate with everyone: snobby film critics and conservatism’s base in the boonies. One might think that in this day and age when conservatism’s base is rabidly anti-Wall Street, a conservative film critic would go ga-ga over Hell and High Water.

Wrong.

“[M]an, is this movie stupid,” wrote Williamson. Who then spends 700 words nitpicking ways other than bank robbery that the heroes could have raised enough money to save the family homestead. Like asking for a loan.

Conservative critics often seem unable to comprehend the basics of theme or characterization. One tried-and-true theme is that of the underdog battling some powerful entity–for example, the family farmers in Places of the Heart taking on The Bank, or the spunky legal assistant battling the giant chemical corporation poisoning a small town in Erin Brockovich. Conservatives would have us turn these themes on their head, so that we would root for the poor beleaguered chemical company that was only trying to maximize shareholder value like any true blue American company is expected to do.

Williamson offers an alternative movie pitch: Two brothers walk into a financial institution with an oil-lease document and say, “Hello, there, Mr. Banker! I’m about to have a passive income of $600,000 a year and would like a $40,000 loan to pay off the lien on my property until that first monthly check comes in. Would you like to be my banker?”

Perhaps this is why there are few conservative screenwriters in Hollywood. They think a man with a line of equity walking into a bank and getting a loan would make riveting drama.

This is not say conservative film critics hate every film. They love most Clint Eastwood movies. They love the Left Behind series. Not long ago National Review put out its own list of “greatest conservative films.” Among them, the amateurish B-movie Red Dawn, about the Soviet Union invading the US. Many of the films on the list have nothing to do with conservatism. A Simple Plan? It is hard to see what conservatives like about a greedy guy getting away with countless murders–unless they simply have a hard on for greedy guys. Braveheart? Why because of Mel “fucking Jews” Gibson? Team America: World Police. Conservatives don’t seem to realize this film was satire. Ghostbusters? Groundhog Day? Okay, fun films, but they are about as conservative as Bernie Sanders and far from the greatest anything.

It’s not all doom and gloom for the conservative film critic. Clint Eastwood still has a few movies left in him before he shuffles muttering and drooling into the sunset. As does Mel Gibson. And now that Steven Bannon has vacated the West Wing we will likely be treated to more documentaries about Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. But in the end it’s more fun to pan a great film than to praise a mediocre one. Besides, the base doesn’t tune into FOX News and Rush Limbaugh for good news or good reviews. It tunes in to feel angry. That’s why it reads conservative film reviews that begin “Man, is this movie stupid.”

They get off on it.

38 notes · View notes

bewitching-elizabeth-olsen · 7 years ago

Text

Press/Gallery: Aubrey Plaza and Elizabeth Olsen Sound Off on Hollywood, Dark Humor and the Pitfalls of Instagram

W MAGAZINE – id-way through Ingrid Goes West, the so-called “Instagram” movie that premiered to rave reviews at the Sundance Film Festival in January and will finally hit theaters on Friday, Aubrey Plaza, mid-carpool karaoke—and to K-Ci & JoJo, no less—shoots a glance at Elizabeth Olsen that sticks with you long past the credits. It’s a look of equal parts envy, lust, desperation, and infatuation—in a word, it’s unhinged. And it’s what makes Ingrid Goes West one of the summer’s most captivating movies.

In the film, Plaza plays the titular Ingrid, a fragile and arguably deranged twenty-something who finds her calling after the death of her mother. In her copious free time she turns to Instagram to pass the hours, stumbling upon what will soon become an all-encompassing obsession: Olsen’s Taylor Sloane, a seemingly perfect, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, California-living, avocado toast-loving Instagram star. And so Ingrid goes West, to meet Taylor and get a piece of that social media bliss for herself. As you might guess, hijinks ensue—both slapstick for the Millennial set (at one point Plaza attempts to diffuse an awkward situation by screaming “I brought rosé!”, and it works) and unexpectedly dark (blackmail; attempted murder).

The relationship between Ingrid and Taylor is a tenuous one, powered by iPhone battery life and Valencia filters that, like Ingrid’s gaze, will leave you feeling uneasy. Plaza and Olsen IRL, however, is another story. Nine months after the film’s Sundance debut, and countless photo ops (including one particularly ingenious red carpet ‘who wore it better’ moment), late night interviews, and yes, Instagram posts, the pair has an easy rapport, fueled by a similarly quiet wit and general affection for their joint project. Sitting together on a secluded bench just outside a bustling photo studio, the pair frequently broke off a conversation about the film for quick asides and playful bickering among themselves (and, no, Plaza does not hate Girls Trip). It was all-too-easy to just sit back and passively observe, à la Ingrid scrolling through Taylor’s feed—albeit, hopefully in a much less creepy fashion. Here, the pair talks about their new film, embracing social media, and the specificity of Los Angeles vocal fry.

How did you first find this project?

Aubrey Plaza: I was sent the script through my agent. He got his hands on it really fast, and I kind of knew the director and writer [Matt Spicer] socially, so I reached out to him on my own and got together with him. I was just very aggressive about it. I just loved the script. It’s a beautifully written script. It’s very specific, and I thought it was so rare to have a story from one character’s perspective. I liked the subject matter, also, and thought it was really timely and a really beautiful human story, but also a great commentary on what’s happening right now with social media and society.

Elizabeth Olsen: I had a friend who mentioned [the movie] to me and said, “There is this movie called Ingrid Goes West and if you hear about it, I think it’s really funny and I said that you’d be great for it.’ And then three months later, it came in with a pile of other scripts to my agent and manager, and they were like, “We’ll read this.” And I was like, “I’m going to read it too!” Then I read it and was like, “I’m going to do it!” I don’t know if everyone who read it would get the humor until they saw it, but I got it. I was like, “This is brilliant.” My favorite movies growing up were weird films that were a little off, like Heathers or Death Becomes Her or Return to Oz.

AP: It does have an old school, cult classic vibe to it.

EO: It has a dark, cult classic-y feel, and that’s why I loved it.

Had you met before filming?

EO: No. Actually—yes, once.

AP: In a shop. The General Store.

EO: The Mohalk General Store in Silver Lake, and you were on crutches.

AP: I was just shopping with my friends.

EO: And I knew one of your friends, and we all met. Then that was it. But that was a long time ago.

AP: I guess we both have the same taste.

EO: Maybe. I was in there first.

Aubrey, were there any fictional characters that you looked to to help you tap into the mind of Ingrid?

AP. There were definitely movies that we thought of, at least tonally. [Martin Scorsese’s] King of Comedy was a big one; just the idea of having that person who is obsession-worthy. But there weren’t any specifics characters.

Elizabeth, in the film your character is a big Instagram influencer, and I read that director Matt Spicer made a fake Instagram account for you to help get into the mindset of a social media star.

EO: He did. The password was like, ‘I love the beach,’ or something stupid. He had a list of influencers he wanted me to follow, so that was like my homework. He also wanted me to practice taking photos and I was like, ‘But I’m so bad at taking photos.’ But I took a picture of a dog in my backyard, and a sign that said “Beautiful Inside.” I didn’t know what I was doing. Thank God I didn’t have to take any pictures for the movie because I am really bad at taking photos.

And you are both pretty new to Instagram yourselves [Elizabeth started using her account in February, while Aubrey recently made hers public]. Have you embraced it more now after doing this film?

AP: I always felt a little pressure about [going public], especially since I had gotten off Twitter, so I didn’t have any social media presence. But then I was really excited about this movie and another movie that I had come out this summer [ The Little Hours, which is currently in theaters], so I was just excited about having a way to share that with people. So I was like, I’m just going to dive in.

EO: It’s kind of funny now. I kind of enjoy it.

AP: I did a fun little video on my vacation.

EO: You did a Story?

AP: No, I didn’t do a Story. I haven’t ever done a Story.

EO: Oh, the Big Little Lies video. That was funny.

AP: But I’m not as judgmental about it. I’m like, ‘Oh, whatever.’

Is there anyone in particular that you like to follow?

A.P.: I mostly just follow all of my friends. Who is really good at Instagram? I don’t know.

EO: I don’t know either. My friend Jake is really good at Instagram.

A.P.: Official Sean Penn is really funny to me. Those funny, comedy ones are always good.

EO: Danny Pellegrino, do you ever follow him? He’s funny.

AP: And John Early. He’s always doing these, like, dances.

EO: We went to school together. He was in the grade above me.

AP: I did not know that. I’ve never met him, I just think he’s funny.

You shot the movie in Los Angeles, and the film has a very specific Los Angeles vibe to it. What was it like shooting there?

EO: I like filming on location; it’s hard for me to work where I live. You obviously have had so much experience working where you live. I’m assuming with Parks & Rec?

AP: Yeah, but it’s different on a movie. With TV, it’s like, ‘This is my job, I’m going to work.’ For this movie [shooting in LA] made sense, and it was fun to go to Venice, because I don’t ever go to Venice, or Joshua Tree and other places like that which I never want to go to.

E.O.: Joshua Tree was really fun. Matt, Aubrey, and I shared a home. He never reviewed or rated me, and I’m trying to get an Airbnb right now and I feel like me having points or something would help me get a place. Then I got nervous because I thought we may have left the house dirty, but we didn’t. We were really respectful.

AP: We definitely borrowed some of his hats, but I think we put them back.

EO: We did. And I think he told us there was a hat closet in his opening note.

AP: And ponchos.

E.O.: But I really want my rating.

Speaking of Los Angeles—Elizabeth, the very particular Valley Girl-esque cadence of your voice as Taylor is a real highlight of the film. Did you pull inspiration from anyone in particular?

EO: I just grew up in LA and the only reason I don’t talk like that is because I went to drama school, probably. My mother has a high-pitched voice and I feel like you take on the cadence of people around you. I just think what is really funny about people in LA is that they talk like they are running out of breath.

AP: Even your laugh was different.

EO: I know, but then I was laughing like that with my friends. I was like, ‘Why am I doing that?’

How long was the shoot altogether?

EO: Like, a week.

AP: Yeah, seven days. No, it was twenty-four days total.

EO: So nuts.

Did that kind of quick, intense schedule affect your relationship? It sounds almost like a summer camp, secluded bubble type of experience.

EO: Aubrey never had a moment off, because the whole movie is her. I had a lot of time to go have my normal life and come back.

AP: I feel like when we were on set, we were in really uncomfortable situations at times. Our toilets were in our chairs.

EO: Like, if you moved this bench up, there would be a toilet under there. The toilets smelled so bad.

AP: But it was good. It helped us band together.

EO: Like little, dirty children.

Is there anything in particular that you are obsessed with right now in your own life?

EO: My friends are very obsessed with this movie, which is cool. They all went to the premiere in LA. And I heard Girls Trip was fantastic.

AP: Oh, I want to see that.

E.O.: My friend Clay saw it and was obsessed with it. Then I said, ‘What’s better, Ingrid Goes West or Girls Trip?’ And he said, ‘Honestly, Lizzie, they are on the same level.’

AP: What.

EO: That movie was a huge success; that’s a compliment.

AP: Okay…

EO: Take it as a compliment. I think it got 99 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. People are obsessed with Girls Trip.

Gallery Link:

Studio Photoshoots > 2017 > Session 027

Press/Gallery: Aubrey Plaza and Elizabeth Olsen Sound Off on Hollywood, Dark Humor and the Pitfalls of Instagram was originally published on Elizabeth Olsen Source • Your source for everything Elizabeth Olsen

#Elizabeth Olsen #Lizzy Olsen #Avengers #Scarlet Witch #Wanda Maximoff #Marvel

1 note · View note

njawaidofficial · 7 years ago

Text

'Jane's' Oscar Snub Reveals Turmoil in the Academy's Documentary Branch (Guest Column)

https://styleveryday.com/2018/02/28/janes-oscar-snub-reveals-turmoil-in-the-academys-documentary-branch-guest-column/

'Jane's' Oscar Snub Reveals Turmoil in the Academy's Documentary Branch (Guest Column)

7:00 AM PST 2/27/2018 by Adam Benzine

Heavy political projects knock crowd-pleasers out of the nominations, including Brett Morgen’s acclaimed doc, which also represents a “missed chance to celebrate a symbol of female resistance.”

Oscar’s snubbing of Jane, Brett Morgen’s documentary on Jane Goodall, confounded awards prognosticators, most of whom not only had the National Geographic film down as a lock for a nomination but also as the clear frontrunner to win.

A loving portrait of the pioneering primatologist, the film has picked up a slew of top awards, including the doc prize from the PGA, the National Board of Review and the Critics’ Choice Documentary Awards. It also earned the WGA prize for doc writing and the ACE prize for editing, along with awards from 18 national critics groups.

So why did AMPAS reject it? The most credible answer, parsed from recent conversations with doc branch members, is simply that if it had been nominated, it likely would have won.

To understand this rather tortured logic, one has to go back to 2012, when AMPAS introduced a rule change encouraging the entire Academy to vote on the Oscar winner. While the final vote had previously been open to all, it required members to see all five nominees in theaters or at Academy screenings which effectively reduced the number of those who voted to only the most committed documentary aficianadoes With more AMPAS members having a say, rather than just a few hundred doc lovers, winners began adopting a far lighter tone than the oft-bleak issue docs that previously were honored.The first beneficiary under the new rules was the uplifting Searching for Sugar Man in 2013. A year later, the feel-good music doc 20 Feet from Stardom took top honors, and two years after that, the prize went to celebrity chanteuse portrait Amy.

The change in tone has upset many doc branch members, as heavyweight issue films such as The Invisible War, The Square and The Act of Killing lost out to populist films about musicians and stars. Moreover, globally observed Oscar speeches, which could have been used to address issues such as rape, revolution and genocide, instead were spent paying tribute to singers. The notable exception was 2015, when the Roger Ebert portrait Life Itself surprisingly failed to secure a nomination. It most likely would have gone on to win, but by shutting the door to Life Itself from the broader Academy, the doc branch paved the way for Citzenfour, Laura Poitras’ Edward Snowden doc.

That logic appears to have repeated this year. The blowback against Jane’s rejection now raises hard questions for the doc branch, which has diversified dramatically in recent years, adding younger filmmakers with as few as two feature credits. Jane wasn’t the only feel-good flick it shut out — Oscilloscope’s acclaimed cats of Istanbul doc Kedi failed to make the shortlist of 15, as did romantic comedy Dina (winner of the IDA’s best feature prize) and Fox Searchlight’s high school dance doc Step.

What kind of nonfiction films should the Academy reward? Jane scored $1.7 million at the box office and is rated 99 percent fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. Should it be punished for having populist appeal? Is the fact that it could have gone on to beat docs about Syria and Russian doping reason enough to not nominate it at all?

Its shutout leaves JR and Agnes Varda’s Faces Places best positioned to take the prize. Breezy and charming, the travelogue sees the filmmakers traversing rural France, creating large-scale portraits of the folk they meet along the way.

Feras Fayyad’s Syrian conflict doc Last Men in Aleppo also is a strong contender. Fayyad was detained and tortured by the Syrian regime, and with recent reports of a return to chemical warfare in the region, the film is topical. And Netflix has been highlighting the timeliness of Bryan Fogel’s doping doc Icarus as “the documentary that took down an empire,” owing to its contribution to Russia’s banning from the Olympics. Finally, it is not outside the realm of possibility that either Yance Ford’s personal story Strong Island or Steve James’ financial crisis thriller Abacus: Small Enough to Jail could surprise.

But in turning their backs on the Goodall portrait, AMPAS members have ironically missed out on a chance to cover perhaps the most urgent issue of the moment: the battle for female equality and empowerment.

Goodall cuts a confident, headstrong figure in Morgen’s epic. Men tried to discredit her, but she pursued science. As Time’s Up hits the headlines, Jane’s snub seems a missed chance to celebrate a symbol of female resistance. Paired with the total shutout of Wonder Woman, it’s not a good look for the still male-dominated organization.

Filmmaker and journalist Benzine directed and produced the Oscar-nominated documentary Claude Lanzmann: Spectres of the Shoah.

This story first appeared in a February standalone issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. To receive the magazine, click here to subscribe.

PGM.createScriptTag("//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.6&appId=303838389949803");

0 notes

nightmareonfilmstreet · 7 years ago

Text

[Exclusive] Interview With MAYHEM Director Joe Lynch

New Post has been published on https://nofspodcast.com/exclusive-interview-with-mayhem-director-joe-lynch/

[Exclusive] Interview With MAYHEM Director Joe Lynch

Director Joe Lynch wears the epithet “deranged” like a badge of honor. His newest movie Mayhem is evidence of that, showing what it would look like if all your workplace murder fantasies came to life.

Mayhem has been screened at many film festivals like SXSW and Fantasia, and recently, the Brooklyn Horror Film Festival awarded Steven Yeun for Best Actor for his lead role in the film. If that’s not enough to convince you about how good this movie is, it’s also sitting at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes (at the time of this being published).

I was able to meet Joe Lynch in person while working for Fantasia last summer, so it was great to reconnect with him over the phone last week. The thing with Joe is that he always has a lot to say and he will never give you a single-sentence answer, which explains why he holds the record for the second-longest Q&A in Fantasia history (after Kevin Smith). We talked about shitty office jobs, filming Mayhem overseas and the possibility of a third season for Holliston (Joe and Adam Green’s sitcom. It’s like Big Bang Theory, but with horror nerds).

youtube

Chris Aitkens for Nightmare on Film Street: What has your experience been for the festival run of Mayhem?

Joe Lynch: Honestly, it’s been an amazing adventure. Every filmmaker at some point in their life always hopes and dreams to have that movie where all of the hard work, all the passion, all the blood, sweat and tears pays off in this interesting way where you get to share your art with these different people who come to movies, not just as a way to hook up with their significant other or as a time waster, but they love movies, they’re passionate about movies and they deliberately come to these festivals to discover new things or see old things again.

It’s a great community and to have a film that allows you to travel all over the world, over decisions that you made in a country that is not your own, it’s surreal! I think it’s completely bonkers. What other job allows you to do that? There’s not too many positions that allow you to do something you truly love that is something that can be consumed by anybody. It’s not like if you’re traveling because of business and you have all these different investors all over the country. Everybody loves movies! It’s the sort of thing you can share with practically anybody! And the fact that you can go to different parts of the world and meet people and filmmakers you admire and new friends.

Ever since March, I’ve been on this surreal trip, and I’m kind of sad that it’s coming to a close now with the theatrical release hitting, but it’s been a wild ride!

NOFS: Are you confident for the theatrical release in November?

JL: Any filmmaker is smoking crack if they say that they are confident in a release these days. It’s a fallacy that you can predict how a movie will do. Even with tracking on big movies, you never know. Obviously with It, no one saw that one coming and how that one really exploded. Or Get Out. There are movies that just sneak up on the zeitgeist and scream “gotcha!” But for the most part, it’s a crap shoot.

I’m as confident as I can be in knowing that I’ve made a movie that has been able to, in a shrewd sense, test-screen about 13 or 14 times with some of the best audiences in the world, and worst, but in the best sort of way where they’re very scrutinous. I’ve been able to test this movie out all over the world for the past eight or nine months, and not to be boastful, but I’m so proud that it’s actually connected to people, because I usually make movies that are very divisive, intentionally and unintentionally.

For once, this movie that is very personal to me, that was my personal statement about the state of my world and how I see the world, has resonated with audiences all over the world in places I never would have expected. It gives me more confidence than I’ve ever had with another movie and knowing how many people are huge fans of Steven [Yeun] and who are going to be big fans of Samara Weaving—very soon if not already— having that kind of chemistry, that magic in a bottle from them alone would already make me confident. In most cases, there’s been plenty of times where we’ve all met filmmakers, who you can tell when they say “(insincerely) yeah…this movie is great.” They’re on the junket route and they can’t say “I’m sorry, I just took this as a gig” or “there was a lot of compromise and I’m just doing this because the studio told me.” You’re not allowed to say that. You have to say “she was a dream” and “he was awesome to work with.” Sometimes, it’s fucking lies! I get it, it’s studio spin, or common spin that we’re all used to, we’re not allowed to be completely honest, but here I’ve been lucky where I haven’t had to do that all, and it’s been very refreshing. I can sit there and I can talk about the movie, like at that Q&A at Fantasia, people kept asking me questions!

Part of the reason I come to film festivals is I don’t get a chance to get out much. That’s what I crave. That’s part of why I love movies, it’s because it sparks amazing conversations from everybody. And hopefully, it will resonate with people who don’t get a chance to go to film festivals. And if you can’t see it in theatres, thank god that there’s iTunes and VOD, because with a lot of movies these days, that’s where most of the money is coming from. It’s a win-win situation for me in that regard.

I wish it was going to be in more cities and I wish it was a screening release with all the Marvel marketing that you can possibly have—or some of that A24 marketing too, fuck it, they’re great with their marketing—but getting out there and doing the festivals and getting the amazing responses we’ve had online, where real people are talking about it, that’s how I get buzz about a movie. It’s not marketing that’s being shoved down your throat, it’s my friend saying “dude, have you seen Brawl in Cell Block 99? That movie’s fucking amazing!” I’d rather take opinions from friends and people I’ve never met before than a commercial or an online promo. That’s what we’re striving for, to get the word out. We realize that it’s out there and hopefully there’s a lot of Walking Dead fans who want to see Glenn alive again!

NOFS: I feel a lot of people can relate to the movie because they maybe have worked a job similar to that of Steven Yeun’s character in the movie. I know you can somewhat relate to the story. Would you mind telling me a story of Joe Lynch in corporate hell?

JL: I was doing this project for this one corporate entity that’s an entertainment company but they’re owned by a company that’s owned by a company that’s owned by a company. We really weren’t working for this network, we were really working for the corporate conglomerate that owns the network. And this wasn’t how the network was at first, it was independently owned, but then it got eaten up by one conglomerate that got eaten up by another conglomerate. And in those turnarounds, there was a re-identifying: at first it was video game network. Then it was a modern-male socially-aware network. Now, we don’t quite know what it is.

But I was brought in to do this anthology project, and I got to bring in all these other filmmakers to help with this project. I thought it was so cool and such a great idea. I was there to help the filmmakers make very particular videos that were going to be used for the website to promote it. And one of the things I love about short films is that they’re usually low-stakes. I don’t have to talk to too many people and I get final cut because there’s not a lot involved and there’s not a lot of money that you have to worry about. And the thing is, we didn’t have a lot of money for this either, but I know how to make a short with 59 cents and a roll of duct tape, so I can make it three times. I like that challenge.

What I quickly realized though—and this is not the fault of my superiors, but it was their superiors—was that every single creative decision that the filmmakers made had to be approved. When it came to the creative side, from the initial script to how they budgeted everything to how it was edited and how it was delivered, it literally took 20 emails with every creative decision. Essentially, I had to deal with 120 emails everyday to find out if someone liked this color on this car instead of this other color. It was ridiculous. I know it’s not something that crazy, but I just remember feeling so emotionally dead about the experience, then having these three amazing filmmakers deal with that also. I tried to protect them from most of the bullshit, which made it even more difficult, because they only knew the half of it.

It was so creatively stifling that when I saw that my title was “creative executive producer,” I just wanted to cross it out because I didn’t feel I was able to be creative whatsoever. I expected it to be something I would be really proud of, but it just ended up being a bust. I really don’t work well in corporate space, I can do it if I have to, just to make ends meet. They hire you to be creative, yet they second-guess you and all they do is use passive aggression, when you really want them to be honest.

That’s what Mayhem is all about, it’s a battle against passive aggression. Everybody wants to discuss when they should just say no and just say that they don’t like this! Why do we have to side-bar everything? Why do we have to have another meeting? Because people’s voices might get raised? Someone’s feelings might get hurt? No one wants to get anyone’s feelings hurt anymore because someone will sue. That’s the problem with the corporate world. It’s this serpent eating its tail, because no one can be honest and everyone will sue. It’s such a deadening situation where no one can be their true selves. And part of directing is being able to be yourself, it’s your vision, it’s your voice!

NOFS: How much creative freedom were you allowed with Mayhem?

JL: I had amazing producers who trusted me, like the fools that they are! (I like to say that sarcastically). From the beginning, I was very clear with the particular tone I was going for. I knew that I needed sugar to make the medicine go down, so there had to be a lot of humor. I had to convey that to the actors, the producers, everybody, but once we were on the same page, there wasn’t a lot of conflict with that.

That fueled it because I knew exactly what I wanted. We didn’t have time to compromise. And because I worked that job, I was able to say “I know this world. This is exactly how it would be. There’s a reason why these particular people are in this particular part of the office at this particular time of day.” Little dumb details like that I feel that anybody who has worked an office job before would agree and relate.

And it’s funny, I got asked at a festival recently if there will be a director’s cut. But the movie IS my director’s cut. Whatever notes I received, I agreed with. And whatever notes I pushed back on, I had a very clear reason why. The biggest crossroad in the editing was that Samara would give me her unabashed id version in a take and then for safety, would do a take where she was more subdued. So when Josh Ethier and I were editing, Josh suggested we do a version where she doesn’t seem so crazy. And I remember one producer saying “does she have to be so crazy here?” It was a balancing act. We had to make sure that her crazy moments were tempered with the pacing of the movie. That’s totally a testament to Samara and she fucking owned it!

For the version that’s out there, I see all the flaws and I see all the mistakes, but I’m still proud of it and it could not have turned out better, especially for the conditions that we had to shoot it under.

NOFS: Why is it that you had to go to Serbia to film?

JL: As any filmmaker knows, money is time and time is money. There’s a reason why there’s a common adage: “make your day.” It’s a quote that every director knows all too well and it gives chills down their spine because most of the time, you can’t go overtime because it costs a lot of money. The amount of days you have to make a movie can dictate your ultimate quality.

I knew this movie needed as much time as possible, especially with the action and the gags, and I wanted to give the actors enough time to get into their characters. When you make a movie in 15 days—and I’ve been there before—it is rough! So when we got the greenlight and we had a particular amount of money—not enough that I wanted, but enough to work with—we were given options to where we can shoot.

I had a great line producer called Buddy Enright who’s been around forever and he’s the man when it comes to making sure a movie is maximised economically, yet it remains as creative as possible. So we had to find a place that would give us the most amount of days to shoot. We went first to Pittsburgh and they said 15 days. Then we went to New Orleans and they said 17 days. Then we tried Vancouver and they said 18 days. But it was not enough time.

But I had shot my last film, Everly in Serbia, mainly because of the tax break and the time as well. And I had a good time there, it was a very challenging movie, but it wasn’t because of the location. The crews were great and it worked out very well, even though it was half-way around the world, which sucked because I was away from family. So Buddy called the production company in Serbia and talked to the head of production who was on Everly as well. And they said we needed to come back because they had all this fake blood leftover, so we can use it to make Mayhem. And they offered us 25 days. That made all the difference.

So I would miss my family for four to six months, but I would end up with a better product, with better quality across the board, with better actors. What was great is that I worked with the same people I worked with on Everly, so it was kind of like coming home to family and friends. A lot of those people ended up being even bigger collaborators this time around; my art director for Everly ended up being the production designer on this one. I also got to bring back Steve Gainer (for cinematography) who everybody loves, he was just the life of the party. It was like going to Cheers, where he was Norm! We had a lot of goodwill already and we all got along great, I could not have done the movie without them.

NOFS: I want to switch gears a bit, because I’ve recently been watching Holliston. I saw the Kane Hodder documentary and he mentioned his cameo in Holliston and I recognized you in the clips.

JL: By the way, how great is that documentary? I loved it, it made me tear up about four or five times. He’s had a rough life. Anyway, you were saying?

NOFS: I just wanted to ask if Holliston was truly representative of the struggle as a horror director?

JL: Honestly, I think it’s pretty light considering that since Holliston, the business has changed exponentially since 2013. We’ve been talking about doing a third season forever, and we’re actually closer than ever. And man, the shit we’re going to be able to skewer this time around: between streaming and piracy, and doing TV instead of movies because no one is going to the movies anymore, and the fact that movies are all about foreign sales. And for us—I can’t really speak for Adam [Green] personally but I can speak for myself—it’s been incredibly challenging.

Why do you think I had to do the corporate gig? The day of free development deals have ended. And no one wants feature directors to do TV because everyone thinks they take too long, and that’s not true. I’ve done enough indie films with a gun to my head to know that I got to make my day. But it’s getting tougher than ever to get TV gigs because everybody wants them. There’s less money out there and less worthwhile projects.

I think that Holliston is definitely going to come back, and we’re going to have a lot to cover, especially Adam who has gone through a lot of emotional stuff over the years, between Dave Brockie dying, being in a divorce and finding love again, and the struggles on his end from doing movies. He shot the show before the Movie Crypt [Adam and Joe’s podcast] was even a thing! It’s such a big part of our lives now, I love doing it, but it takes a lot of work and it takes a lot of time away from my family. There’s been a lot that’s happened since season two, and it’s funny, my wife put on an episode a couple weeks ago and she said “I don’t think I’ve seen all of season two.” And I remember thinking that both of us have matured in a lot of ways since the last time we were together on that set. I’m really excited where it’s going to go because it’s going to really reflect the times now, especially where we are. Just to be on that set again with that cast is going to be amazing. It’s going to be very special.

NOFS: I was surprised with the rockstars that were involved with Holliston; you had Dee Snider and Oderus Urungus. Is there a rockstar you would like to work with in the future?

JL: I know he might be too busy, but I would love to get Dave Grohl, because I know he’s funny, from what I saw in Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny. The guy’s got comedy chops. I’ve been a fan of him since the early Nirvana days and later on with the Foo Fighters. Who else? Anybody from KISS would be fucking rad. Lemmy [Kilmister] was going to do Holliston at one point in the second season, but we couldn’t get him at the time. There’s tons of possibilities, hopefully everyone stays alive long enough.

NOFS: Any last comments?

JL: Please, if you love movies, if you love supporting indie cinema, the best thing you can do is go out on November 10th—at least in the States—and see Mayhem in the theatre. I know it’s not playing in a lot of theaters, but if you do live near one of those cities, please go see it. If you don’t, get it on VOD and iTunes, and tell your friends.

This is a movie that you’re allowed to have a blast with on a Friday night and it will totally make your Monday more manageable. Trust me. Don’t be a dick, don’t steal it. If this movie does okay financially, it’s going to help the artists who made it be able to tell more stories and do more movies. The more that you pirate, the more that you’re destroying people’s lives. I hate to say it, but it’s true; my family and I have been affected by piracy. I’ve had employees in movie theaters say “we pirate shit off the internet all the time, and we’ve seen statistically that it doesn’t effect anybody.” Bullshit. In a hive situation where everyone is thinking that and pirating, no one’s going out to see these movies and it’s hurting the industry. Please do your part. Do it for Steven, do it for me, do it for my goddamn kids! I

ndie cinema doesn’t have the benefit of having all the marketing money in the world. All the good movies—and bad movies—that we saw when we were kids, it was a bit of a gamble, you didn’t know if the movie would be good or not, but that was part of the adventure! Now everyone is so scared to waste their time and waste their money, they think they can pirate first then buy later, but no one ever does that. Take a chance. I’m really proud of the movie, everyone who worked their ass off on this movie is proud of it. The best thing you can do is push a button that says buy or rent. That is a vote of confidence that you want to see more movies like this. I think you’ll dig it.

Mayhem will be available in select theaters, VOD and Digital HD on November 10th.

#Adam Green #dave brockie #dave grohl #dee snider #everly #holliston #joe lynch #kane hodder #kiss #mayhem #movie crypt #oderus urungus #samara weaving #steven yeun

0 notes

nightmareonfilmstreet · 7 years ago

Text

[Exclusive] Interview With MAYHEM Director Joe Lynch

New Post has been published on https://nofspodcast.com/exclusive-interview-with-mayhem-director-joe-lynch/

[Exclusive] Interview With MAYHEM Director Joe Lynch

youtube

Chris Aitkens for Nightmare on Film Street: What has your experience been for the festival run of Mayhem?

Ever since March, I’ve been on this surreal trip, and I’m kind of sad that it’s coming to a close now with the theatrical release hitting, but it’s been a wild ride!

NOFS: Are you confident for the theatrical release in November?

NOFS: How much creative freedom were you allowed with Mayhem?

NOFS: Why is it that you had to go to Serbia to film?

NOFS: I want to switch gears a bit, because I’ve recently been watching Holliston. I saw the Kane Hodder documentary and he mentioned his cameo in Holliston and I recognized you in the clips.

JL: By the way, how great is that documentary? I loved it, it made me tear up about four or five times. He’s had a rough life. Anyway, you were saying?

NOFS: I just wanted to ask if Holliston was truly representative of the struggle as a horror director?

NOFS: I was surprised with the rockstars that were involved with Holliston; you had Dee Snider and Oderus Urungus. Is there a rockstar you would like to work with in the future?

NOFS: Any last comments?

Mayhem will be available in select theaters, VOD and Digital HD on November 10th.

#Adam Green #dave brockie #dave grohl #dee snider #everly #holliston #joe lynch #kane hodder #kiss #mayhem #movie crypt #oderus urungus #samara weaving #steven yeun

0 notes