#i need a greta gerwig and christopher nolan interview

[watcher0033]

Oppenheimer Rambles (Spoilers)

Honestly mixed bag of emotions for this movie which I think is deliberate on Nolan’s part.

I mean, it is shown from perspectives on how people view Oppenheimer and perspective from the titular character himself, which understandably centers around outdated nationalistic view that results in dehumanizing other nationalities that aren’t their own. That even when Oppenheimer himself is part of a community that’s being persecuted, has the awareness of this rampant systematic prejudices and get “intellectually stimulated” by pointing these out he couldn’t help but be a part of said prejudiced system and surrender his own agency in the end.

He became a part of those who reduced their victims to a name of numbers, discussing just the “right amount” of civilians to be killed to assure military surrender, and unable to look at the horrifying consequences in the face because if we do, how can we focus on the man, talk about the humanity of the man except in complete condemnation and pearl-clutching horror in the face of what he is a part of.

So… we don’t.

We heard in booming sounds and suffocating silence. We know in factual numbers and recorded documents. We catch glimpses in blinding lights and horror-struck expressions. But we don’t see.

After all, this is a story about Oppenheimer.

So we watch a boy cloaked in sadness, yearning for the idea of greatness and possessing a barely restrained violence be a great man full of ambition and diverse ideas, who saw through the prejudices and called for progress. We watch him fall in love, be hurt, grieve and make mistakes and love his brother and horses and the vast greatness of space in the middle of nowhere…

While that same great man concluded that he has no choice but to make a massive weapon of destruction for the sake of progress, of victory against evil that is more evil than he is. He has no choice but to compromise, to compartmentalize, because if he looked too deeply— what would he find?

What perfectly mundane or other great and terrible ways that he may not be a part of could stopped the nazis from making their mass destructive weapon?

So there was no other choice. There’s no one else who can spearhead this. Compartmentalize. Destruction in the name of progress. Compartmentalize. He had to do it himself.

It was his moment. He could carry the burden for the greater good.

Oppenheimer didn’t have a choice but to be great.

And his fate is the history that we got.

Strauss was egocentric and someone with a massive complex but jackass got some points in there.

Thus, a march to overwhelming victory ordered by men greater than he is. Because greatness are paved by them and what better way to join them than become them. Sure the man will feel the horror, the guilt, but at least Japan still has Kyoto. They might’ve lost Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but Japan still has beautiful and culturally relevant Kyoto you can take your wife to honeymoon in and other cities spared.

What of the charred bodies of the Japanese? Of the 30,000, 70,000, a 100,000 lives lost. Numbers, numbers climbing higher and higher and be meaningless because what faces do they have?

Still, that’s enough of a message to assure total victory right? Yes.

What of ending the world? It didn’t. It might be changed but continued to remain. It’s fine. It’s on fire but it’s fine.

What of the great man who has decided he had no agency and truly lost it? What of the authentic voice barely there to be heard but be muffled under all the pageantry and great medals of honor on a deadly legacy branded for all of human history because— because

An idealist pursued the idea of greatness and he became it.

What other choice does he have?

[denimbex1986]

'Before I saw the Barbie movie, I was resolutely against ever seeing the Barbie movie. Despite the fact that as a child I loved Barbie, who I interviewed regularly for important radio segments in her coral peach ball gown, I decided that the last thing I needed was 90 neon-coloured-Margot-Robbie-filled minutes of a film which would obviously have nothing new to offer me; a grown-up feminist woman who stopped idealising the problematic Barbie aesthetic decades ago.

But then the reviews from angry men started rolling in. You only had to be vaguely near the internet after Barbie’s release to hear the resounding roars of the mostly middle-aged; outraged that such an abomination against “all men” could even be allowed to exist. The reviews began to read like dreamy promotional soundbites: “An alienating, dangerous and perverse film”, “They won’t be happy until we are all gay”.

These men were really, really wound up about this film. They loathed it. They were spitting fury at Greta Gerwig for creating a piece of such obvious, glaring, “anti-men, feminist propaganda”.

And so, when I was asked by one of my teenage children if I would be up for a day of “Barbenheimer”, I said “yes”: newly salivating at the potential of a project that could cause this much delicious backlash.

I decided I would swallow my aversion towards sustained exposure to powder pink, get Barbie watched, then chase it all away with a good dose of brooding grey, historically accurate cinema. Despite the promise of those furious reviews, I still expected to enter and exit the cinema despising Barbie and in awe of Oppenheimer.

During the five hours of media and popcorn consumption that followed, a chain reaction set in motion that left me changed. It made the vitriolic reviews of Barbie, calling Greta Gerwig’s masterpiece “anti-men”, even more comical. The irony was bright and clear to me: Oppenheimer is anti-women.

And the thing is that Oppenheimer is not different to most films. Because most films are anti-women.

We just don’t take to the internet to rage about it because we’re used to it; desensitised by the decades of cinematic women who exist only to paint their lips red, bare their breasts and give the important male protagonists something to play with.

Is Barbie anti-men? Oh, I hope so (it isn’t, it’s anti-patriarchy), but also, frankly, I don’t care. Because if it is – after decades of movies made by male directors like Oppenheimer’s Christopher Nolan, it has good reason to be.

And it does what it so brilliantly does within the sparkly, imaginary bubble of an entirely fictional world where the male characters it side-lines are literally plastic dolls, all called Ken (except Alan); fake toys who simply can’t even breathe. Anti-women films like Oppenheimer on the other hand, sideline or completely erase very real, flesh-and-blood women who lived whole lives and made significant contributions to our world.

So, if you’re a man who has watched Barbie and felt angry or irritated or just plain strange while watching the depiction and treatment of the Kens – then welcome to cinema. That is what it feels like to be a woman watching Hollywood movies most of the time.

But here’s the thing – that poor Ken doll you’re lamenting over, is not Leona Woods; who at 23 was one of the youngest female scientists the Manhattan project employed. Ken, unlike Leona, was not present at the first nuclear chain reaction and Ken did not have to do what Leona did – which was to conceal her pregnancy until two days before her baby was born. Ken is also not Elizabeth Graves; a scientist entirely essential to the project’s success who was completing an experiment when she went into labour and did not stop the experiment until it was finished, timing her contractions with a stopwatch. Let’s see Christopher Nolan make a three-hour-long film about that.

Neither Woods nor Graves feature in Oppenheimer, which, like so many anti-women films, manages to assume such an air of authority that it can leave us assuming that its astounding lack of female representation must be down to its admirable commitment to historical accuracy. I’ve heard the cries – “It is called Oppenheimer after all. How much do you expect it to worry about its women?” And perhaps it’s true – you can’t very well expect a film about the very intelligent physicists who tackled the science behind creating the atomic bomb to change facts just for representation can you?

No. But you can and should expect such a film to accurately and fairly represent the female scientists who were, in fact, right there – alongside Oppenheimer and his men, ensuring the Manhattan Project’s success. Perhaps it might have been appropriate if viewers left the three-hour epic clear in the knowledge that Kitty Oppenheimer didn’t only drink herself to distraction while taking care of screaming children and dropping a hip flask out of her handbag at every possible moment; she was also a trained botanist who was employed at Los Alamos to take blood and test the levels of radiation exposure of her colleagues.

More than 600 women worked on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos alone, yet the only female scientist given any recognition in Nolan’s world is Lilli Hornig, who speaks only briefly, mostly in opposition to the bomb’s use. And what about Charlotte Serber? Who Nolan depicts as Oppenheimer’s secretary, completely erasing her vital work as scientific librarian for the project’s “secret library” and who, with no formal training, became the only female group leader, overseeing a staff of 12 people while also risking her safety in counter-espionage efforts.

Oppenheimer doesn’t only fail the Bechdel test, it fails to represent the real women who contributed so significantly to that morally fraught turning point in history. Those women were physicists, engineers, chemists, mathematicians. They existed. And, as is so often the case, many of their achievements have been forgotten and remain unrecognised, by both history and cinema.

As I continue to emerge from my Barbenheimer experience, researching the lost women of the Manhattan project and occasionally still basking in the disgust of all those angry men who need to hate the work of art that is Barbie, it becomes ever clearer: anti-women is the benchmark of mainstream filmmaking and some people are simply unable to deal with the plastic Manolo Blahnik being on the other foot.'

[sylvies-chen]

nothing really happened to bring on this thought but I think that hollywood should be more like elementary school. Instead of swapping snowsuits for the day (which was all too common at my school and resulted in a massive lice outbreak) I think directors should swap styles for a movie just to try something new and have fun. I want to see christopher nolan doing wes anderson, wes doing greta gerwig, greta doing david lynch, david has to do sophia coppola, and so on and so forth. and like. do they need to be good movies? no! but it’s fun to try and see your filmmaker friends and what makes them different from you.

also I think actors should also get the chance to do arts and crafts while they’re being interviewed. and every five years there should be a food fight with a some wild drama and lore we find out about afterwards. and yeah. in general I think we need to start to invest in making the film industry more genuine fun, because ya ya acting is a serious profession and whatever but it’s also just playing pretend. if there’s an industry that should be committed to capturing the essence of childhood it’s this one.

[luminoya]

New Interview from South China Morning Post! Jan. 3, 2023  Timothée Chalamet on love, loss and isolation in Bones and All: the Dune star opens up about his grandmother’s death during the pandemic, and why he wants to play the disenfranchised on screen------   Source Was it easy for you to identify with how Lee and Maren feel cut off from society? Working on this film during the pandemic helped me feel the kind of alienation and isolation that are themes of the film, and the kind of states of mind that a lot of people, and especially my generation, feel about the world today. You’ve spoken about Lee and Maren’s need to find their tribe. What do you mean by that? I’ve found my tribe in New York, in Europe, even in Jerusalem. It’s been important for me to understand that there are many people like me in the world. I also found my tribe when I arrived very young in Italy to work with Luca [Guadagnino]. We became friends and now we’ve gotten to know each other again. For me, finding a tribe means finding someone like me anywhere in the world. During the pandemic, I lost my grandmother, to whom I was very attached, and that left me feeling even more isolated. It was a crisis for me, I was looking for myself – just like Lee – but during the pandemic I felt totally blocked off from the world. Even now I find myself struggling to get over that feeling. Can you elaborate on that sense of being an outsider? In the overwhelming digital age that we’re in, a lot of young people have this fear of judgment and self-judgment – what others will think. And this story is about two people that have a curse that is so awful and – thank God people in the real world don’t have this burden – but these two people are forced to grapple with it. This is how they find each other and their inherent humanity is confirmed by each other in a way that maybe they didn’t believe was possible before they met. What do you think is the nature of their love for each other? I agree with something that Taylor [co-star Russell] said: that love can be a protector of your love. We often think that love is supposed to burn red and be this crazy, fiery experience, but it can also be an act of protection through devotion and it can be boring but still very important. You grew up in a family of artists. When did you decide to commit to acting? I had been acting since 2014 when Jason Reitman cast me for a role in Men, Women & Children, but, after working in several TV series, such as Homeland, I enrolled at Columbia University after graduating from high school.

At that point I was getting so many offers to work in film that it made it difficult for me to pursue my studies in literature. I think I already knew after Christopher Nolan hired me to play in Interstellar that acting was my real ambition in life. But it wasn’t until I did Lady Bird (2017) and my experience working with outstanding actors like Saoirse Ronan and Lucas Hedges. I learned so much from them and also from Greta Gerwig, the director, that I decided that I would totally dedicate myself to acting. How do you see your career evolving in terms of the films you would like to make? I want to make movies that matter and speak to people. It think it’s the role of the artist to shine a light on what’s going on.

[searbao]

(The Sunday Times article for those of you unable to read it)

Last Sunday, just days after being nominated for an Oscar, Timothée Chalamet bounded into a busy London bar like a man who still believes nobody knows who he is. Heads turned. Autograph hunters were in the yard outside. At one point during our interview, he shouted “Boom!” so loudly that tables of drinkers turned, stared, turned back, then turned around again. “It’s, it’s...” one said, slightly uncertain as to who he was or, more likely, how to pronounce his first name.

It’s plain old “Timothy”; and what filmgoers recognise him for is his breakthrough role in Call Me by Your Name, a gay coming-of-age story that has grown from cult hit to mainstream contender. He is smart and sensitive as Elio, who falls for his family’s American hunk of a guest, Oliver (Armie Hammer), during a picturesque Italian summer.

In person, Chalamet’s hair bounces, as does the rest of him. He is thin and wiry; as graceful as a ballerina and as energetic as the Duracell bunny; fond of light physical affection. He talks at the motormouth clip typical of Hell’s Kitchen, New York, where he grew up.

I have never met anyone as delighted to be alive as he is right now. Who can blame him? At 22, he is, for Elio, the youngest best actor nominee since 1944. He would be the youngest ever winner: not bad, considering he was previously best known for a bit part in Homeland and quit Columbia University to audition for, but not be cast in, Manchester by the Sea and the latest Spider-Man. In a fortnight, he will be at the Baftas for both lead actor and the coveted rising-star prize. But everyone knows it’s the Academy Awards that matter most. How does all that feel?

“This is how it matters to me,” he says. “Call Me by Your Name has gone beyond my wildest dreams. People came out because of that film. But I don’t want to be known for something that happened when I was young. So [the nomination] comes with tremendous gratitude and is something I’ll humblebrag about to my friends and family, yet this is hopefully just the start. There’d better be more.”

The good news, I say, is that he is unlikely to win, as voters seem unable to look past Gary Oldman’s prosthetics in Darkest Hour. So the accolade might be a millstone, but not as heavy as it could be. He laughs at my cheek.

“The truth is, you want to prepare a speech, but — I don’t know,” he says, frozen. “These ceremonies are overwhelming enough, independent of having to get up in front of legends and have your mouth move.” A fellow nominee, Daniel Kaluuya, the young British star of Get Out, is equally excited. “When we lock eyes,” he says of Kaluuya, “we give each other a look of ‘What the f*** is happening?’”

The crazy thing is that Call Me by Your Name is only the second best film starring Chalamet nominated for best picture this year. The best is Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s exquisite straight coming-of-age story, in which Saoirse Ronan’s titular teen struggles with men and her studies. It’s an astonishingly astute film, with Chalamet playing Ronan’s second boyfriend. He sits by the pool reading literature, looking brooding — which is exactly what Elio does. Chalamet claps along loudly when I bring up typecasting. He’s too hot now to sweat the small stuff.

Gerwig has been nominated for best director at the Oscars, which makes her the story of the night. Although other awards have found room for Lady Bird in several categories, they have overlooked the one that counts: best director. Some thought her film was simple compared to, say, Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk, with its crew of hundreds moving a boat off a beach, and that such traditionally male-made projects are simply harder to do. Size matters, it seems, to panels of predominantly male voters. Or perhaps they just don’t like women to direct.

“There’s no difference in being directed by a woman,” Chalamet says sharply. “But in the public representation, there is a huge difference, and that’s why it’s so important Greta was nominated, and so shocking she is just the fifth woman to be so.”

He looks bemused as I float the idea it might be easier to make a film that is character-driven, as is Lady Bird, than something on a grander scale. “And it’s interesting,” he adds, “that the conversation is framed in relation to production of the movie, because it’s clear that it’s way harder to get an audience for smaller films. Budgets are significantly less.” He sounds irked, clearly finding questions about the battle of the sexes dated and odd.

Yet Chalamet should be used to this by now. He has come into the industry in the era of Time’s Up, which strives for better treatment for all, especially women. It’s hard being in the middle of a storm that’s still raging. There was a late caveat to this interview, namely that I couldn’t ask Chalamet about Woody Allen. The actor recently donated his salary for the director’s forthcoming movie, A Rainy Day in New York, which he filmed last summer, to funds including Time’s Up. He had made a statement about it a couple of weeks ago, and that was that.

I pushed back. Journalists have been accused of dodging difficult questions, but if the interviewee refuses to be asked, that leaves us in limbo. I was then allowed one specific question about Allen, by email. I asked three. Chalamet answered this one: “You were the first lead to donate your salary for a Woody Allen film. What has been the reaction to your statement?”

He replied: “I’m just focusing on the work as much as possible. I mean, I literally get to have this conversation with you in relation to Lady Bird, which freshly presents a female coming-of-age story, independent of a male romance being the catalyst; and to Call Me by Your Name, which similarly presents male coming-of-age with a new lens… Thanks to these films, I’m getting new opportunities. But I’ve also learnt that, along with the opportunities, I have new responsibilities, and none of this is lost on me.”

I have sympathy for him. Allegations against Allen have been public for years, and it’s not as if established A-listers such as Cate Blanchett or Javier Bardem are quizzed about their decision to work for the director. Chalamet’s feeling, I imagine, is that his salary statement was enough, and such a move has probably helped end Allen’s career anyway. I’d be stunned if anyone sees A Rainy Day in New York, and gobsmacked if a leading actor signs up for his scripts again.

Still, although we can’t talk about Allen, we can discuss Time’s Up. Chalamet is in a business going through a great upheaval. He calls it a “really important moment in Hollywood”, and there’s a sense that, like every new generation, he looks at those above him with suspicion, at times even disdain. “I’m in a new wave of actors that doesn’t stand for stuff like this and is part of that change,” he says proudly. “It’s actually been a lesson for me to learn what the — well, prejudices isn’t the right way to put it — the old-school way of thinking was. How they used to talk about these things.”

Does he expect the change Time’s Up seeks will be organic? “It would be a little passive to say it’s going to be totally organic,” he says bluntly. “But we’ve seen in the last months that there is real momentum.”

I can’t shift from my head some theatre I saw him do online from five years ago. The monologue was from White People by JT Rogers. After a largely satirical diatribe, he ended with a furious — and heartfelt — “What right does any human being have to be hateful?” before storming off stage.

Call Me by Your Name’s fandom is now at such a pitch that it already has its own nerds. They have noticed that the opening line of Love My Way, the track Armie Hammer does an elaborate dance to, is: “There’s an army on the dancefloor.” Cute. “OK, I did not know that,” Chalamet admits. Just that morning, they were discussing a possible film in which “he plays a president and I play a KGB spy”. They are the Brangelina we need right now.

Yet leave any film in the sun for long enough and it will get burnt. First, there has been press and online comment that it’s a story about grooming, which is weird, given that Elio is 17, Oliver is 24 and the age of consent in most American states is 16; in Italy, it’s 14. Still, that criticism persists. As does one about straight actors — which Chalamet and Hammer are — playing gay men. It can’t have been for box office, given that the former was unknown, but critics have questioned why out actors couldn’t be cast instead.

Chalamet pauses, which is rare, and answers carefully, as if they teach actors how to make a statement in the age of the hashtag along with the Stanislavski method.

“Well, first, it’s important for actors of all identifications to be represented, so any propulsion to bring that movement forward is good,” he begins. “But as relates to Call Me by Your Name, this is a story that presents love, sexuality, identification and orientation in a definitionless way. That’s one of the beautiful things about the movie. Ultimately, Luca [Guadagnino] is the best person to talk to, because this is his film and he does what he wants.”

“I don’t know anything about the sexuality of Armie or Timothée,” the director said huffily when I interviewed him last year, before adding that he didn’t think Elio would necessarily be a gay man later in life. Maybe the amount you care about the sexuality of the cast in Call Me by Your Name is directly related to how binary you consider sexuality. The film’s youngest actor, like most of his millennial peers, simply doesn’t care.

What about a sequel? “F***, yeah,” Chalamet says. “It’d be a dream. And the great thing about being an actor is that the storytelling would have nothing to do with me.”

I wish him luck with “those awards” as he leaves for another ceremony. He laughs. I meant the Oscars. “Oh, those awards?” He laughs louder, as if it hasn’t sunk in, and disappears into the lift. Up, up he goes, and, hours later, is named actor of the year by the London Critics’ Circle, beating that Oldman.

[cmbynreviews]

Timothée Chalamet on paparazzi catching his kiss with Selena Gomez, "Call Me by Your Name", and that peach scene

Let’s get this out of the way: One of the most romantic movie scenes of the year is between a man and a fuzzy, soft, fleshy… piece of fruit. It’s a peach – a Prunus persica – and it was plucked from a low-hanging branch in Italian director Luca Guadagnino’s upcoming Call Me by Your Name. The peach’s scene partner? Timothée Chalamet, the actor most often discussed in awards-season context in 2017, usually preceded by “that kid” and followed by “is absolutely gonna win some shit next year”. The praise is warranted: As Elio, a teenager probing the boundaries of sexuality and romance with the help of Armie Hammer’s very self-assured, very tan Oliver, the 21-year-old actor is nothing short of boundless on-screen. From shimmying up to Hammer’s character on an Italian dance floor as “Love My Way” by the Psychedelic Furs plinks in the background to that peach scene we mentioned – yes, he fucks a peach, but it’s because of art – Chalamet is a scene-stealing, clear-cut, must-watch breakout star.

You haven’t seen Call Me yet – it’s out Friday – so you’ll have to trust the assessment of Chalamet’s colleagues, like Interstellar’s Matthew McConaughey (who told GQ Chalamet is “going to succeed at whatever he sets his mind and heart to”) and Christopher Nolan (who says, “His talent was immediately apparent”). Lady Bird director Greta Gerwig calls him “a young Christian Bale crossed with a young Daniel Day-Lewis with a sprinkle of young Leonardo DiCaprio, and then raised speaking French in Manhattan and given a Mensa-level IQ and a love of hip-hop”.

In an interview in late September in Manhattan’s Chinatown, Chalamet discussed the weight of adapting a revered queer text, working alongside Selena Gomez, and the peach.

GQ: You live in the East Village now. How’s it treating you? Timothée Chalamet: I love the East Village. These are such First World problems, but there’s a certain claustrophobia to New York. You don’t escape in the East Village, but it at least feels full of camaraderie and youth – or full of camaraderie and youth in an East Village that is as full of Chase banks and Starbucks as the Upper West Side, or anywhere else in Manhattan.

Call Me by Your Name has a much different energy than something that might take place in New York. The pace of Call Me by Your Name washes over you with such ease. It was good to get out to Italy a month in advance, because right before that I was doing a play about a New York kid in Midtown. Call Me by Your Name might be half as long if we’d shot it the week after, because I would’ve been rushing through every moment.

The book it’s based on has become canon for LGBTQ readers. Did you feel responsibility moving into that space as a straight-identifying actor? That was probably the second-scariest thing about the project, hoping that it would live up to the expectations of all the people that had been really touched in a profound way by the book. And the scariest thing was what [author] André Aciman thought of the movie, being that he birthed the source material that so many people fell in love with. And yet when you start filming, you try to immerse yourself in the experience as much as possible.

I read that as you were filming, no one scene was prioritized over another. [Director Luca Guadagnino] didn’t treat the peach scene or any of the lovemaking scenes with any more ceremony than the swimming scenes or bike-riding scenes.

Was that helpful to you? Certainly as it related to some of the riskier moments in the movie, because you almost forgot why they were risky. He came up to me a couple of weeks before the peach scene and told me he tried it and that it worked. Then it was all systems go!

I do have to ask about that peach scene [where Chalamet’s character masturbates with the fruit] now. I’m ready.

Have you ever been a part of a moment that “big” before, at least in the way it’s been mythologized? No. It’s just thrilling because it’s organic – it feels not like a marketing gimmick but something that people are genuinely curious to see – if they have not already partaken in that wonderfully sensual experience.

That scene feels in service of this idea that the narrative isn’t about sexuality – it’s about love as it relates to identity. What made André’s book so powerful and new – to me – was this ambiguity it had to any sort of strict views on sexuality. The peach scene really is this idea in the film that everything is of the earth. Life is just organic. I don’t know what side of the peach debate that puts me on, but…

Did knowing what the narrative is trying to achieve help take some of the pressure off the nude scenes? Plainly speaking, and just from a visual standpoint, Luca always makes his actors look nice. Secondly, these scenes, they’re not exploitative or salacious. It is not a sex film – though there are very well-received sex films – but the lovemaking and the peach scene is in service to the story.

Why do you think this movie is resonating at this particular moment in history? In a time of such energetic and divisive conflict, here’s a movie that is conflict-less, at least as it relates to situational adversaries [of queerness], whether it’s a disease like AIDS or family members that are disapproving. The villain in Call Me by Your Name is the tragedy of love – what seems to be part of the deal you sign with someone when you experience an amazing time with them. I like that switch it makes, in the book and the film: You’re building towards this love, building towards this romance, and soon enough it’s “How much time do we have left?”

Your other big movie this year was Lady Bird. Director Greta Gerwig says she set it in senior year of high school because it’s one of the most important times in your life, but it only lasts for exactly ten months. Was that true to your own experience of high school? That was really my junior year, when I started working professionally a bit in New York. But my senior year, I started shooting Homeland, and that was really the first year of my life that I was dealing with any sort of press. So I have some regrets about how I did my senior year – I might’ve just sat back and appreciated it more, but I wasn’t there for a lot of it, shooting. It was more stressful than it needed to be.

You’re working on a Woody Allen film with Selena Gomez, and you’re now being shot by paparazzi with her on set in the city. They’re like, “Selena Gomez caught kissing…” “Friend”. Or “little-known actor”. There’s one paparazzo, this guy Steve... I don’t know his last name, but this guy’s kind of a legend. He almost gets free rein on the set. It’s kind of incredible.

Did you go in with a knowledge of Selena’s work? I’d seen Spring Breakers, because Harmony Korrine’s one of my favorite directors. But also, you know, I went to high school from 2009 to 2013.

2017 has been a big year for you. What do you hope 2018 brings? Just that it feels a little more familiar. All this stuff’s very new – I’m trying to keep a journal and really remember this time of my life. It feels special.

BRENNAN CARLEY | GQ | 20 Nov 2017 | (Photo: Billy Kidd)

[angeltriestoblog]

I watched a couple of movies! (April roundup)

I’m glad to announce that I finally found a way to rave about the movies I’ve watched without boring you all to death, driving myself to the brink of insanity, and damaging my eyesight even more. Instead of giving a comprehensive review on each one, I decided to give you my top picks for every month in an attempt to convince you to watch these life-changing pieces of cinema! Maybe someday I could include some of the worst I’ve seen as well because it's easier (and more fun) to point out the flaws I spot.

So without further ado, here are the creme of the crop for the month of April!

Philadelphia (1993, dir. Jonathan Demme) ★★★★★

This superbly crafted film was one of the first in Hollywood to tackle the issue of HIV/AIDS—and with the right amount of sensitivity—during a time when discrimination against victims was at its most rampant. That fact alone makes it deserving of the praise, recognition, and accolades it has collected over the years. Add to that the remarkable performance of Tom Hanks as Andy Beckett, the lawyer fired from the prestigious firm he works for who enlists the help of Joe Miller (Denzel Washington) to take this matter to court. His dedication to the role is evident not only in his dramatic weight loss but the intensity of the emotions he brings to all of his scenes. Though I know a lot of audiences are concerned that the account is told mainly from Miller’s perspective, I found this aspect crucial to his growth as a character and the movie’s effectivity as a call to empathy and compassion.

Certified Copy (2010, dir. Abbas Kiarostami) ★★★★½

It's so difficult to review this without giving away what makes it different from anything that's ever been made, probably. But then again, even if I dive deep into the plot and provide my theories, I doubt it’ll make sense so I’ll say this. Certified Copy is a mind-bender of an arthouse film disguised as a love story of the Before Sunset variety. It’s a deceivingly linear tale of a French woman known only as “She” (Juliette Binoche) who goes to a book signing and offers to explore the city of Tuscany with the author (William Shimell). His work asserts that the reproduction of a certain thing possesses as much value as the original, so much so that it can even take its place. The extent to which this is true is shown in the many ways their relationship changes in the span of a single afternoon. It’s normal to be frustrated once you’ve finished it. I had a “What the hell?” moment myself and had to rewatch some parts a few more times. But once you realize that the plot is an artifice, like fiction and art itself, that’s when you come to terms with how real it actually is.  

The Farewell (2019, dir. Lulu Wang) ★★★★★

This is practically Wang's two-hour thesis on why grandmothers are the best people on the planet and we don’t deserve them. It's not like I needed an external source to prove it was true but I adored it anyway. This Oscar snub is “based on a true lie”: Nai Nai (Zhao Shuzhen), the matriarch of a Chinese clan, is diagnosed with cancer, and her loved ones go to extreme lengths to keep it a secret from her. I appreciated the accurate depiction of the mess that is the Asian extended family: immigrant parents, their first-generation kids, and the relatives they left behind at the homeland under one roof can only mean endless bickering and picking at old wounds. But in all seriousness, its grasp of human emotions—as seen in the brilliant acting performances and authentic dialogue—reels you in instantly and keeps you emotionally invested and painfully waiting for the heartbreaking (?) conclusion.

Interstellar (2014, dir. Christopher Nolan) ★★★★★

In what is arguably Nolan’s most complex and ambitious work yet, we find Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) in what appears to be a shadow of the Earth we live in right now. After a fateful turn of events, he is tapped by NASA to carry out a mission in search of a habitable world for the human population. Rarely do we see a creative project that aspires to be everything at once and succeeds with flying colors. Interstellar is that gem for me. It pushes the limits of our imagination and tests the very boundaries of science and space while serving as a reminder of what it means to be human. It may clock in at 167 minutes but I think that if the run time had been cut down, it would be impossible to do justice to this multi-faceted story. In fact, with the emotionally resonant performances by the cast as well as the phenomenal score (Hans Zimmer, you are a god) and cinematography, I am honestly willing to see another three hours of extra footage.

Mommy (2014, dir. Xavier Dolan) ★★★★½

This… was a lot. I remember watching this first thing in the morning a couple of weeks ago, and not being able to do anything of importance for the entire day since I was too busy wondering if I’ll ever be suitable for the lifelong commitment that is motherhood. This award-winning, affecting tale revolves around Die Despres (Anne Dorval), a struggling journalist and single mom to Steve (Antoine Olivier Pilon), her hyperactive, abusive son diagnosed with ADHD. Although a law had been passed in Canada which lets cash-strapped parents place their troubled kids in hospitals, she refuses to give him up and takes him under her wing: after all, they’re best at loving even when it’s hard. What unfolds after makes it hard to tell how the whole thing ends, but it’s a visually arresting and thought-provoking experience anyway. Dolan also possesses a strong command of the language of filmmakers: critics agree that its most notable aspect is the fact that it was shot in a 1:1 aspect ratio, which allowed me to assume the position of a next-door neighbor peering through their living room window.

Frances Ha (2012, dir. Noah Baumbach) ★★★★★

Before Greta Gerwig was the director extraordinaire we know her to be, she was Frances Halladay, an aspiring dancer who moves to New York City with her best friend and comes face to face with several, consecutive life crises. Her reality couldn’t be any further removed from mine (as a 19-year-old student on the complete opposite side of the world), but it remains highly relatable. At their core, her problems are rooted in a fear of loneliness and failure—just like the rest of us! Come to think of it, maybe that’s why it’s in black-and-white: to give the movie a sense of timelessness since it tackles themes and issues that remain universal and prevalent across generations. I loved Frances as a protagonist, though she far from perfect: she’s immature and petty and quite frankly, she had no clue what she was doing until the last 15 minutes—just like me! And yet she powered through in the end, which gives me hope that I’ll be able to do the same.

Fight Club (1999, dir. David Fincher) ★★★★½

Believe it or not, despite its straightforward title and predominantly male fanbase, I was completely taken aback when the unnamed narrator (Edward Norton) and Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) started beating each other up in the middle of a parking lot—the very event that led to the establishment of their underground fight club. What initially appears to be a man’s search for a way out of the boring humdrum of his everyday existence evolves into a structural analysis of consumer capitalism and critique of toxic masculinity. There’s a lot of gore and violence but I pulled through thanks to the stunning visuals, unpredictable plot, and Brad Pitt’s beautiful face. Although the twist towards the end wasn’t exactly revolutionary for me because it kind of resembled Primal Fear (1996), it was still a mind-blowing and fitting conclusion to this cult classic.

Pretty Woman (1990, dir. Garry Marshall) ★★★★★

This modern-day Cinderella story about a hooker who falls in love with a wealthy businessman has become problematic for my generation. There are a ton of essays on Letterboxd attempting to start discourse on its ethics, calling it out for its misogynistic undertones, and criticizing it for being unrealistic. I actually saw a review that said it indirectly promotes prostitution as a means to get ahead in life, which could wrongly influence teenage girls. (How stupid do you think we are?) At the end of the day, this is a romantic comedy—and an outstanding one, at that! This probably has the most equal distribution of swoon-worthy scenes and laugh-out-loud moments out of all the romcoms I’ve watched, and we have the lead actors’ insane chemistry and the consistently witty script to thank. Needless to say, Julia Roberts is an absolute delight as Vivian Ward and it’s only fitting that it was this particular role that catapulted her to superstardom. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna rewatch this then proceed to play It Must Have Been Love for another 70 times.

The Fundamentals of Caring (2016, dir. Rob Burnett) ★★★★★

I genuinely think that everything Paul Rudd touches turns to gold. Here, he plays Ben, caretaker to Trevor (Craig Roberts), a sarcastic teen suffering from Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Together, they make a spur-of-the-moment decision to take a cross-country road trip to see several roadside attractions and of course, come to terms with their own issues. I admit that my love for this comes with the acute awareness that if I had found it on Netflix at a different time, I wouldn’t have appreciated it as much. It’s fairly predictable, it doesn’t strive towards anything complex or require much reflection on our part but it ties together neatly and satisfyingly in the end—truly a perfect comfort film! The equivalent of the warm, 10-second-long, oxytocin-inducing hug that we all need and can't have right now, given the state of our world!

Edit (05/09/20): I’m currently binge-watching Timothee Chalamet interviews and he just told Stephen Colbert that he had auditioned for this but wasn’t accepted for the job. Imagine him and Paul Rudd together... the visual power that duo would hold... I would miss the point of the movie entirely.

So, that’s it for this month! I’ve actually been spending more time writing lately but I hope I can continue to squeeze in something to watch into my schedule so I can actually be consistent with this series. Till next time! Exciting things up ahead! Wishing you love and light always, and don’t forget to wash your hands, check your privilege and pray for our frontliners!

[thatbennyguy]

Benny tries to predict the 2018 Academy Awards nominations (for some reason)

Considering that the nominations for the 90th Academy Awards are being announced at 23rd January 2018 8:22 EST (in just over 12 hours), I thought it fitting to give my two cents on what films I think are going to be nominated, and which films that I think will/should win. We have to understand that the Academy median age is 64. There’s a very important bias that the Academy keeps in mind towards “safe” movies, a trend that I think they’re trying to intentionally buck. Also keep in mind that I haven’t seen many of the films nominated, including but not limited to: “Lady Bird”, “Call Me By Your Name”, “The Post”, “Darkest Hour”, “Phantom Thread”, “I, Tonya”, “All the Money in the World”, “Mudbound”, “Molly’s Game”, “The Beguiled”. Most of these haven’t been released in my country yet, but rest assured I do intend to see some of them when they get here. On we go!

Best Picture

“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” “The Shape of Water” “Dunkirk” “Lady Bird” “Call Me By Your Name” “The Post” “Get Out” “The Florida Project” “Darkest Hour” "Phantom Thread”

Three Billboards seems to be a clear favourite here, despite The Shape of Water seeming to sweep the nominations across the board. But like La La Land last year, the Academy will choose the picture here that represents the best of their sensibilities, and despite The Shape of Water being Del Toro’s most rounded effort yet, Three Billboards is more in line with Academy expectations, being the more grounded and “safe” option. Gritty war montage Dunkirk is a solid option also, along with Guadagnino’s critically lauded intelli-romance Call Me By Your Name. There’s a Spielberg film (The Post), a Joe Wright film with a winning (and stirringly sappy) central performance by Gary Oldman (Darkest Hour). I’m throwing in Phantom Thread just because I like PTA. But don’t count out Get Out, yet, though! In light of the recent political climate and considering that Get Out is one of the most accessible chillers to date, the Academy might decide to take the risk and give the horror/thriller genre its second Best Picture winner, the first (and only) to join 1991′s lonely winner Silence of the Lambs. My personal preference is The Florida Project, a winning microcosm of povertous America, magnifying a couple vibrant, lively slum motels surrounding Disneyland theme park and giving what feels like a purely wild and different vision of cinema (in 2017? who’d have thunk). I will rejoice if that happens.

Who will win: “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” Who I want to win: “The Florida Project” or “Get Out” Who I wanted to win (but won’t get nominated): (none)

Best Director

Guillermo Del Toro, “The Shape of Water” Christopher Nolan, “Dunkirk” Jordan Peele, “Get Out” Greta Gerwig, “Lady Bird” Martin McDonagh, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”

Del Toro should win this (long overdue). His control of all the various elements that make up the fish-man campy romance calls to mind Damien Chazelle’s film last year. An exacting master he is, made company by Dunkirk’s exacting precision-engineer Nolan, jubilant Gerwig (Lady Bird), and of course Three Billboard’s sardonic tone-balancer McDonagh. My personal favourite is Jordan Peele for “Get Out”, a film that knows when to balance chills and humour, and a director that knows exactly what to focus on at what time. The “Sunken Place” scene exists as one of the most harrowing filmic experiences of this year, calling to mind Under the Skin lair scenes. Truly, Peele has made himself known as a directorial force to be reckoned with. Else-wise, the Safdie brothers should have received a nom for their visually arresting and highly stylistic Good Time, even simply for creating a vision that could only be directed by them and no-one else. They deserve to be nominated alongside the auteur visions of Del Toro/Peele/Gerwig. Who will win: Guillermo Del Toro, “The Shape of Water” Who I want to win: Jordan Peele, “Get Out” Who I wanted to win (but won’t get nominated): Benny Safdie and Josh Safdie, “Good Time”

Best Actress

Frances McDormand, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” Saoirse Ronan, “Lady Bird” Sally Hawkins, “The Shape of Water” Meryl Streep, “The Post” Margot Robbie, “I, Tonya”

The blurb should go here, but really, Frances killed it in “Three Billboards”. Sally Hawkins did fantastically in “The Shape of Water”, delivering a wordless performance that let you into her heart, but seriously - McDormand proves herself a badass in her most assured performance yet (and this from someone who’s acted in Fargo, Almost Famous, Moonrise Kingdom, and other films from the Coens and Wes Anderson). Also notable are Ronan, Streep and Robbie, from films I admittedly haven’t seen. But there’s no reason not to doubt that McDormand will snag this, surely?

Who will win: Frances McDormand, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” Who I want to win: Frances McDormand, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” Who I wanted to win (but won’t get nominated): (none)

Best Actor

Gary Oldman, “Darkest Hour” Timothee Chalamet, “Call Me By Your Name” Daniel Day-Lewis, “Phantom Thread” Daniel Kaluuya, “Get Out” James Franco, “The Disaster Artist”

Gary Oldman will win this. It’s a given. For a while, Chalamet was in the running, but it seems too certain to be doubted, now. As well as playing into Academy expectations (overblown performance = best, apparently), I’ve heard that it also knocks it out of the park legitimately. Having seen clips of Chalamet in Call Me By Your Name, I was a fan of his exacting performance in that, as well as what I saw from him in the Lady Bird trailer. Daniel Day-Lewis gains a nomination for his control-freak fashion designer tics in Phantom Thread, Daniel Kaluuya also gaining a nom for Get Out (those eyes, it’s those eyeeeees). I’m rooting for the highly improbable James Franco to win for “The Disaster Artist”, having delivered a (99% Wiseau-approved) performance that’s both emotionally intimate and frustratingly opaque - and all the while being incredibly hilarious. A quick shout-out to James McAvoy, elevating an otherwise stupidly silly and uneven Split with a riveting central performance (the psychiatrist interview scene!). Finally, my heart goes out to Robert Pattinson, who won’t be nominated for his fantastically frenetic and ballsy lead performance in Good Time. It was my favourite performance of the year, but it won’t be nominated. But it should have been. It definitely should have been.

Who will win: Gary Oldman, “The Darkest Hour” Who I want to win: James Franco, “The Disaster Artist” Who I wanted to win (but won’t get nominated): Robert Pattinson, “Good Time”

Best Supporting Actress

Laurie Metcalf, “Lady Bird” Allison Janney, “I, Tonya” Holly Hunter, “The Big Sick” Tiffany Haddish, “Girls Trip” Hong Chau, “Downsizing”

Things seem pretty split between Laurie and Allison here, a mom-off for the century. Also trailing behind on the “mom” genre is Hunter in The Big Sick, the only “mom” that I’ve seen this year and she made a pretty good “mom”, hilarious and straight-up laying the smack down in certain scenes. I’d probably need to view more of these performances to make a good judgement. I heard Haddish was a revelation in Girls Trip (haven’t seen it) and Chau was also good in Downsizing (haven’t seen either).

Who will win: Laurie Metcalf, “Lady Bird” Who I want to win: Holly Hunter, “The Big Sick” Who I wanted to win (but won’t get nominated): (none)  

Best Supporting Actor

Willem Dafoe, “The Florida Project” Sam Rockwell, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” Armie Hammer, “Call Me By Your Name” Michael Stuhlbarg, “Call Me By Your Name” Christopher Plummer, “All the Money in the World”

I was going to leave Armie Hammer out. I firmly believe that the Academy will honour Plummer for his last-ditch performance in Scott’s All the Money in the World. But I had to kick Richard Jenkins (for Shape of Water) out, because it seems like the Academy would overlook him in favour of Call Me By Your Name. It’s hard to say whether Rockwell or Dafoe will win this - both of their performances are well-acclaimed both in awards season and by critics. I went with Dafoe, simply because I think he’s more respected by the Academy and plays a more straight-forwardly “moral” character. Rockwell gave the more nuanced performance, though. The guy that missed out was Benny Safdie for “Good Time”. He played a mentally disabled person, while running the full gamut of empathy, while not giving the impression that he was giving a caricature of such a person, while helping DIRECT the film with his brother. That’s award-worthy.

Who will win: Willem Dafoe, “The Florida Project” Who I want to win: Sam Rockwell, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” Who I wanted to win (but won’t get nominated): Benny Safdie, “Good Time”

Best Adapted Screenplay

“Call Me By Your Name” “Mudbound” “Molly’s Game” “The Disaster Artist” “The Beguiled”

Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network, Moneyball) surely won’t get snubbed for this year’s Molly’s Game, despite deserving winner Steve Jobs being shunned in the 2016 awards. There simply isn’t enough competition for it not to be nominated. However, it won’t win - James Ivory’s reportedly tender and well-observed Call Me By Your Name will take home the statuette. I’m rooting for Scott Neustatder’s and Michael H. Weber’s The Disaster Artist, a charmingly uproarious portrait of the rise-to-fame of the director of this world’s “best worst film”. Alongside gag-a-minute humour, the screenplay manages to infuse an empathetic and humane core to Wiseau’s personality. Viva la Franco brothers.

Who will win: "Call Me By Your Name” Who I want to win: “The Disaster Artist” Who I wanted to win (but won’t get nominated): (none)

Best Original Screenplay

“Get Out” “Lady Bird” “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” “The Shape of Water” “The Big Sick”

This category is STRONGK. The only screenplay that might butt in here would be The Post. I’m rooting here for Nanjiani & Gordon’s The Big Sick, a film with perfectly balanced comedy and drama. The highs are cathartic, the lows are super, super low. Get Out will probably win it, every single aspect of the screenplay is well-thought-out. I won’t be too sad to see it win. Three Billboards was fantastically sarcastic but also serious when it needed to be. The Shape of Water had incredible beats to the story, and great character motivations. The only film that I haven’t watched is Lady Bird, but trusting Gerwig’s previous work (Mistress America, Frances Ha) makes me incredibly confident in what is apparently her best work yet. I am really excited to see that film. This whole category is super STRONGK. I don’t know what to think.

Who will win: "Get Out” Who I want to win: “Get Out” or “The Big Sick” Who I wanted to win (but won’t get nominated): (none) 

Best Cinematography

“Blade Runner 2049″ “Dunkirk” “The Shape of Water” “Call Me By Your Name” “Darkest Hour”

Dunkirk’s technically framed work will win here. That, or the sumptuous yet stilted visuals of Blade Runner 2049. My favourite of the popular nominations is The Shape of Water, its lighting being its incredible strength. I’m not sure why Call Me By Your Name will be nominated, but it has buzz. It seems rather ordinary-looking to me. But Darkest Hour has a nice crash of darks and lights in lighting, too. My favourite cinematography of the year was the colourful wide shots of The Florida Project, calling to mind the beautiful framework of Wes Anderson, particularly in The Grand Budapest Hotel (but nowhere near as composed). The neon-lit Good Time cinematics are so immersive and close-up, but not without the long shots that feel well-composed, like the bird’s-eye-view following of the car that hearkens back to Zodiac. Good Time is my personal favourite here.

Who will win: "Dunkirk” Who I want to win: “The Shape of Water” Who I wanted to win (but won’t get nominated): “The Florida Project” or “Good Time”

<<I’m going to skip a few categories here that are less interesting to me>>

<<cough cough>>

Best Score

“The Shape of Water” “Dunkirk” “Phantom Thread” "Blade Runner 2049″ “Darkest Hour”

The Shape of Water’s score is as colourful as its cinematography and production design. I’m not a huge fan of Zimmer’s Dunkirk, but it seems to work well in the context of the film. Greenwood should have received his Best Score award for There Will Be Blood, but he didn’t. Phantom Thread doesn’t deserve it. Blade Runner 2049 has a fantastic score and I hope that it gets nominated. Darkest Hour seems to be getting buzz here. But my favourite score is the brave OPN synthscape that underscores every beat in Good Time with a good deal of frenetic detail and brilliant intensity. It has no chance, but it deserves the award.

Who will win: "The Shape of Water” Who I want to win: “The Shape of Water” Who I wanted to win (but won’t get nominated): “Good Time”

Other General Comments (about the other categories)

Best Song will go to “Remember Me” by Coco, but I think it should go to “The Mystery of Love” by Call Me By Your Name. His entire collection of songs of that film is great.

Best Sound Editing (and Sound Mixing) will go to “Dunkirk”, and it should. “Blade Runner 2049″ will also be a good pick.

Best Visual Effects will go to “War for the Planet of the Apes”, but it should go to either “Blade Runner 2049″ or “Star Wars: The Last Jedi”.

Best Production Design will and should go to “The Shape of Water”. Maybe it should have also gone to “Dunkirk”.

Best Film Editing will go to “Dunkirk” but it should go to “Get Out”. It definitely shouldn’t go to “Blade Runner 2049″.

Best Makeup and Hairstyling will and should go to “Darkest Hour”.

Best Animated Feature will go to “Coco”. I liked “The Lego Batman Movie” also. “My Entire High School Sinking Into the Sea” looks interesting, too, but it won’t win. “Coco” will win. Pixar always wins.

I have no idea about Best Documentary.

Best Foreign Language Film will go to “A Fantastic Woman”, although “The Square” might top it. “Loveless” will lose out, despite its acclaim.

In Conclusion

The Academy voters make weird, dissonant choices from time to time, but hopefully this time they will give awards to the more esoteric “Get Out”s and the “Lady Bird”s of this season, rather than defaulting to the Steven Spielbergs and the Ridley Scotts of the world. “Get Out”, all the way! Let’s go.

Thanks for reading, all.

[denimbex1986]

'“You’re an Irishman, are ya?” Cillian Murphy says, his features visibly softening, as I begin talking over Zoom. “Thank god.”

Two truisms about Cillian Murphy that are often repeated online: He hates doing interviews, but he loves Ireland. If he must talk to the press – which, being the lead of Christopher Nolan's mammoth blockbuster Oppenheimer, he absolutely must – the least I can do is give him a chance to talk about our shared homeland. So, with this introduction, we're off to a good start.

It's about 10 days before Oppenheimer drops, but Murphy and the big A-bomb movie – along with Greta Gerwig's Barbie – already seem to be taking up the majority of the internet's consciousness. In the film, he plays J Robert Oppenheimer, the man credited with leading the creation of the atomic bomb during World War Two. Though he has starred in a handful of Christopher Nolan blockbusters already, this is his first as a proper leading man. So, the scrutiny is greater than ever. He is wearing it well. “I'm not a huge fan of talking about myself,” he says, “but I fully believe in this movie, and I love promoting it. So I'm very comfortable with all of that.”

GQ: How often do you get people calling you “Sillian”?

Cillian Murphy: Less and less now actually. But it doesn't bother me. Then I very pedantically explain to them that there's no ‘K’ in the Irish language and it gets really boring.

You used to live in London, but moved to Dublin in 2015. I heard you said your kids were getting English accents so you took them home.

Yeah. That was a joke. [Laughs].

Well, people have really run with it. Do you need to personally relate to characters, and could you do so with Oppenheimer?

Well, first of all, it's imperative not to judge the character. Because then you've lost as a performer. You have to try and understand [them]. You have to be like a kind of emotional detective. But your job primarily is to define the truth in the character to try and portray them in a truthful way.

Emily Blunt said recently that during filming you didn't go for cast dinners because your ‘brain was too full’. Robert Downey Jr. said that at times it felt like you were ‘icing’ him. How much did playing Oppenheimer affect you?

It was a big part, and there were big, big questions that were grappling with, these huge ethical, moral questions. And Chris had written the script in the first person. So I knew that a lot of the weight was on my shoulders, even though we have this incredible ensemble. There was a responsibility that I felt about playing the part. That's just the way I work. I get very consumed by the work, and I don't really have time for hanging out. And in this movie, I was [regularly] skipping dinner, you know, so I wasn't great craic to hang out with. But that's just the way it was. It's just the nature of the work.

You’re not method, though, right?

Well, here's the thing, right? Method is like a euphemism. We all have a method to get to the final result. And whatever that method is, it's personal and unique to each actor. It's become sort of confused, I think, with the Stanislavski approach. But every actor has their own individual method.

Yeah. But you’re not what people generally view to be method, staying in character the whole time?

Inevitably, if you play a character for a long time, and I was researching him for six months, then shooting it for however long that was.. And you're playing them 18 hours a day every day. By osmosis, you're exchanging atoms, You become consumed or immersed [by it], that's just the way it is.

You mentioned skipping meals. What was the weirdest food day that you had while you were losing all that weight?

Oh, man. I just want to be very careful on this. This was for work, and we structured it pretty well. Inevitably, you do start getting competitive with yourself and all that, but it was for a purpose. He was a very, very slight guy. And he was very self-conscious about that. And it gave him this very unique, particular kind of iconic silhouette. And when you're that weight, it affects the way clothes hang on you, it affects the way you walk, it obviously changes the shape of your face and all that. So that was very useful for the character. But I really don't want to make a big deal about ‘oh, Cillian lost all this weight’.

Taking this lead role on has brought a lot of attention. I've read recent interviews you've done that it's not necessarily your favourite thing. Do you at times feel like the pressure of being the leading man, especially in a movie on this scale is a lot to deal with?

Yeah, but to clarify the thing about interviews, I love talking about the movie, I love talking about music and books and art. I'm not a huge fan of talking about myself. And I don't, and I don't think anyone really is, but I fully believe in this movie, and I love promoting it. So I'm very comfortable with all of that. And in terms of, you know, how it changes your life or anything like that, or changes how people perceive you that that hasn't changed for me, you know, my life has been exactly the same as it always was.

The Oppenheimer script is very dense. How much does that impact how you go about shooting it?

You have to be completely prepared. I knew the script more or less before we went into work, which isn't so not something I've ever done before. Only in theatre, because there was so much text, and it was quite dense. I wanted to not be worried about the text when I went on the floor. But then, a lot of the scenes I have with Downey, it was quite loose and quite improvisational. I mean, acting with him was was was was just extraordinary. He's just electrifying, the most available engaged, present, unpredictably brilliant actor I've ever worked with.

The film ends on a close-up shot of you, taking in the weight of what the preceding 3 hours have meant for the future of mankind. What are you thinking in that moment when you’re shooting it, knowing you’ve got the weight of the movie on your shoulders?

You can't let it get into your head. You've just got to think about the truth of the scene. For example, when we were shooting the Trinity test, all of us actors and Chris and all the crew, were aware of the weight of that sequence, and what it meant, but you can't let it control you, you know. And I think I've learned that over the years, you know, when you get on the floor, and you get on, you just forget about that stuff. You have to train your mind to not let it affect your performance.

Were you there for the actual explosion that was created?

I was there for components of it. There are different sort of sections of it. I was there for some of it. With Chris, everything is done for real. I've never done a green screen scene with Chris and I never will, I imagine. So what it does is it puts the performer into the atmosphere, or the environment as close as possible to what the character is feeling. You know, and I've, I've been out in boats with Chris on the sea and up in mountains in the snow. It just elevates your performance.

There has been a lot of chatter about the sex scene in this movie, and a wider chat about whether sex scenes are necessary in film at all. Where do you fall on that?

I think they were vital in this in this movie. I think the relationship that he has with Jean Tatlock is one of the most crucial emotional parts of the film. I think if they're key to the story then they're worthwhile. Listen, no one likes doing them, they're the most awkward possible part of our job. But sometimes you have to get on with it.

With a bit of distance between yourself and Oppenheimer, are you able to judge him just a little bit?

I'm really not going to give you an opinion on that. I really strongly believe that the film should ask the questions of the audience. And I don't want to prejudice anybody's point of view, when they go into the movie theatre, about what how they feel and Oppenheimer. What I will say, is that Oppenheimer – Chris called him the most important man that ever lived, whatever you think about that. That's up to you. But we are living in a world that was changed by Oppenheimer. We're living in a nuclear age because of what Oppenheimer did.

You and Christopher Nolan have discussed how you nearly got the role of Batman. Is there a part of you that thinks that it was maybe for the best that you didn’t?

Yes, I think it was for the best because we got Christian Bale's performance, which is a stunning interpretation of that role. I never considered myself as the right physical specimen for Batman. To me, it was always going to be Christian Bale.

Tom Hardy didn’t make it into this Nolan film. Do you have plans to work together again?

He's one of the best actors in the business. And we've developed this great trust and shorthand and there's a nice kind of chemistry, I think, between the two of us. I'd love to work with him again. Maybe there'll be a Peaky Blinders film. Maybe we'll get to do it there. I'm not sure.

What’s the latest on the Peaky Blinders film?

I have no update for you, man. I'm waiting to hear, but it's a tricky time with all these strikes and everything going on. I’ve always said that if there's more story to tell, I'd be there.'

[denimbex1986]

'This has been the summer of Barbie and Oppenheimer. While other films have done well at the box office, few have climbed to the incredible heights of the Greta Gerwig comedy, and the Christopher Nolan drama. Oppenheimer recently extended its IMAX run, because people are going out of their way to see the movie in the large-screen format that Nolan intended. And while the industry already are discussing cast members that could find their way into the still-developing awards race, Florence Pugh’s name isn’t getting tossed around as much as, say, Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, or Robert Downey Jr., she might understand why … and Nolan already apologized for it.

There are two women in the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy). His original love, Jean Tatlock (Pugh), and the woman he eventually married, “Kitty” Oppenheimer (Blunt). And even though Oppenheimer and Tatlock drifted apart, she would come back into his life at different times, creating real emotional conflict for the theoretical physicist. But the Jean Tatlock part in Oppenheimer wasn’t as large as some of the other roles in Nolan’s feature (and it is characterized by numerous nude scenes that have generated some censorship concerns). In an interview conducted before the SAG strike began, Pugh talked about the size of the role, and the fact that Nolan apologized for it when he offered her the part.

Florence Pugh said:

I didn't really know what was going on or what it was that was being made. Except I knew that Chris really, really, wanted me to know that it wasn’t a very big role and he understands if I don’t want to come near it. And I was like, ‘Doesn’t matter. Even if I’m a coffee maker at a cafe in the back of the room, let’s do it.’

You hear that often. Actors so deeply admire a filmmaker with a proven track record (like Christopher Nolan) that they agree to take any role just for the opportunity to collaborate. Florence Pugh is a massive movie star, capable of holding down massive Marvel movies like Thunderbolts, sci-fi epics like Dune: Part II, and dabbling in indie fare such as Zach Braff’s recent A Good Person. So accepting a role in Oppenheimer makes total sense. She just wanted to be part of this A-list ensemble. But Nolan still led the offer with an apology, according to Pugh, as she told MTV:

I remember he apologized about the size of the role, and I was like, ‘Please don’t apologize.’ And then he said, ‘We’ll send you the script, and honestly, you just read it and you decide if it’s, I completely understand the sizing thing.’ And I remember that evening, when I got the script, being like, ‘I know I’m going to do it.’

Smart choice. Oppenheimer is one of Christopher Nolan’s best movies, and no doubt will rank as of of the best movies of 2023...'

[denimbex1986]

Martin Scorsese has not seen Greta Gerwig’s “Barbie” or Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer,” but that didn’t stop him from celebrating the “Barbenheimer” phenomenon during a recent interview with the Hindustan Times. Scorsese himself has ties to “Barbie,” as it stars and was produced by his “Wolf of Wall Street” breakout Margot Robbie and shot by his longtime cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto...

“I do think that the combination of ‘Oppenheimer’ and ‘Barbie’ was something special,” Scorsese said. “It seemed to be, I hate that word, but the perfect storm. It came about at the right time. And the most important thing is that people went to watch these in a theater. And I think that’s wonderful.”

“Barbie” grossed $1.4 billion to become Warner Bros.’ top box office earner in history. “Oppenheimer” was also a massive hit for Universal with $939 million worldwide, an unheard of sum for a three-hour, R-rated biographical drama. Together, the two blockbusters earned over $2.3 billion.

“The way it fit perfectly — a film with such entertainment value, purely with the bright colors — and a film with such severity and strength, and pretty much about the danger of the end to our civilization — you couldn’t have more opposite films to work together,” Scorsese said. “It does offer some hope for a different cinema to emerge, different from what’s been happening in the last 20 years, aside from the great work being done in independent cinema. I always get upset by that, the independent films being relegated to ‘indies.’ Films that only a certain kind of people would like. Just show them on a tiny screen somewhere.”

Scorsese is far from the only major director to fete “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” in recent weeks. Denis Villeneuve told the Associated Press last month that Nolan’s film approaching the $1 billion mark was a reminder that studio films can be art.

“There’s this notion that movies, in some people’s minds, became content instead of an art form. I hate that word, ‘content,’” he said. “That movies like ‘Oppenheimer’ are released on the big screen and become an event brings back a spotlight on the idea that it’s a tremendous art form that needs to be experienced in theaters.”

Like “Oppenheimer,” Scorsese’s “Flower Moon” is a historical epic with a gargantuan runtime. The Western epic outruns “Oppenheimer” at 206 minutes, which is nearly three and a half hours...'