#this is the easier project hbo has ever done | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mypearchive · 4 years ago

Photo

(Above: Ettinger and Ruffalo after a performance of Awake and Sing! in 2006).

Mark Ruffalo and Philip Ettinger on Playing Four Versions of the Same Two Characters in I Know This Much Is True

By Mark Ruffalo for “Interview” magazine

May 19, 2020

What do we want from entertainment when the outside world feels so bleak? Are we in search of a balm, or more salt to pour on our wounds? For Mark Ruffalo and Philip Ettinger, the answer leans toward the latter, which makes their new HBO miniseries I Know This Much Is True perfectly tuned to the moment. Ruffalo stars in the writer and director Derek Cianfrance’s six-part adaptation of Wally Lamb’s 1998 novel, playing Dominick and Thomas Birdsey, identical twin brothers who couldn’t be more different. In the show’s first episode, Thomas, a paranoid schizophrenic, severs his own hand in a public library as a sacrifice to god, and the story refuses to let up from there, skipping back and forth in time as it digs into the traumas that have left these brothers so broken. Ettinger, a 34-year-old actor who mined similarly grim territory as a radical environmentalist in 2017’s First Reformed, plays college-age versions of the Birdsey twins, which meant he not only had two play two characters, but also sync his performances to match Ruffalo’s, an actor he grew up idolizing. Here, Ruffalo and Ettinger connected a day after the show’s premiere to discuss why challenging art is better suited to challenging times, and the cathartic experience of bringing this dark story to light. —BEN BARNA

———

PHILIP ETTINGER: How are you doing?

MARK RUFFALO: I’m doing okay, man. I’m feeling really fucking raw today and vulnerable, like I went on a bender and peed on my girlfriend’s parents’ coffee table, thinking that I was having a great time. And then I’m waking up the next morning just saying to myself, “Oh, fuck. What have I done?”

ETTINGER: [Laughs] I re-watched the premiere last night, and it’s much easier to see it a second time. I couldn’t even process it the first time I watched it.

RUFFALO: How did you nail me as Dominick? It’s uncanny to see someone doing a version of me—and doing it so well.

ETTINGER: That means a lot coming from you. I told you this before, but I wrote you a letter when I was doing This Is Our Youth in acting school because you’ve always been an actor that I’ve looked up to [Ruffalo starred in the Kenneth Lonergan play when it premiered off-Broadway in 1996]. I connected to you more than any actor, the way that you led with vulnerability and an open heart. When this audition came up, to play a younger you, it felt like the universe was handing me something. I watched every interview you’ve ever done, and before every night of shooting, I watched your scenes from You Can Count On Me, because I tried to use that as a template for my version of Dominick.

RUFFALO: I think that Dominick is kind of the 52-year-old version of Terry [Ruffalo’s character in You Can Count On Me], in a weird way.

ETTINGER: That’s so interesting. You’ve gone on to have such an expansive career, and you’re just coming off of the Avengers movies. Does this feel like you’re coming back home in a way?

RUFFALO: Kind of, yeah, because it’s about family, it’s working class, it’s in a small town. It’s real people dealing with real problems in really human ways, and it’s a guy who’s very tough, but there’s something beautiful and sensitive about him. It’s the kind of material I was doing before I did Avengers. It’s probably what I relate to the most. Will it be as popular? Probably not. But as an actor, it’s very meaningful to me. You were shooting Thomas before I did, and you really showed me so much of that character. I don’t know if you could see it, but I was pulling directly from you. And then we had that amazing walk with each other when we met that night, and talked about these two guys and tried to integrate our performances. That was really special. Not many actors would be willing to do that, and I really appreciate you opening yourself up and being vulnerable and the give-and-take that we shared in that 40-block walk.

ETTINGER: I think it happened right before I was about to start shooting, and I was totally shitting-my-pants nervous. Like you said, I was playing Thomas first, and I wanted to make my own choices and follow my instinct. But I’m in support of you, and I wanted to be in service of your performance. That night you opened your heart to me, and it’s a thing I’ll never forget. We were just walking the city streets finding it together. And I didn’t even know this, but one day before I’d play Dominick, I’d do pushups. And then then I found out that you did pushups before—

RUFFALO: Every take.

ETTINGER: The energy was so special on that set. Derek [Cianfrance] sets up a playground where you feel like you’re one organism trying to tell a story. Things would happen that were way past intellectual choices. I’m not a good impressionist, I can’t try to copy you. I just trusted that the energy would work itself out.

RUFFALO: Did you prefer playing one character more than the other?

ETTINGER: With Dominick I would get so angry and frustrated, and then I’d go to my trailer and change into Thomas, and I got to be as present and open and empathetic as possible. So it felt freeing. There’s something about Thomas, he just tells the truth, and sees with a certain type of clarity that’s not fogged up by other things. How about you?

RUFFALO: You had it much more difficult than me because you were doing both characters on the same day. How beautiful and delineated those two performances are is mindblowing. But I had a similar experience. Dominick, like you said, has this armor, he has to project strength, and he uses violence as the final way to resolve an issue, whether it’s emotional or physical. When I started to play Thomas, Derek was like, “Let your stomach go.” And I was like, “What?” And he’s like, “Let your stomach go, man. Stop holding in your stomach!” And I was like, “I’m not holding in my stomach!” And I realized I’ve been holding my stomach in my whole life as a show of masculinity, that I have this strong core, that if someone just came up and punched me in the stomach, I’d be able to take the punch. I’ve spent my whole life on-the-ready in that way. And Thomas is so soft in the stomach. He shows his belly, that softness, that vulnerability. He has a kind of freedom about who he is. I mean, the guy cuts his fucking hand off. We shot that scene on September 11, and when I came in and sat down in the coffee shop, we all took a moment of silence. In the moment of silence, I started praying, spontaneously, just like Thomas started talking, and he was praying for America. And I started to realize that if we had listened to Thomas, we wouldn’t be where we are today. The world would be a different place. The Iraq war would have never happened. We probably wouldn’t have had a second term of Bush. We wouldn’t have had the division in the country that has led to Trump. It’s just so funny that that character who we all write off as crazy, or who we’re afraid of, was so prescient to know what was right.

ETTINGER: What is normal? We’ve created a whole society of structure and time and these jobs we have to do, and that is what makes us important. Yes, there’s a part of Thomas that can flip into extreme paranoia, but I made the decision that it stems from an impulse of ultimate truth. Like you said, he’s right on his impulse. He might take it too far, but there’s a part of him that is way more truthful and way more knowing than almost everyone else around him.

RUFFALO: Did you read the book?

ETTINGER: I read half of the book while I was reading the scripts, and then I put it aside. I’ve saved the other half of the book until this all passes so I can have my own moment with it.

RUFFALO: I totally understand the impulse of wanting to find it on your own. What was working with Derek like?

ETTINGER: When I met with you in the diner, the one thing you said to me was, “Don’t worry, he doesn’t move on until he has what he’s looking for.” I love how Derek is constantly chasing lightning in a bottle, and the ultimate truth. And you think you have it one way, and then he just pushes you into a whole different thing so far beyond anything that I can intellectually think about. It’s the greatest.

RUFFALO: It’s so satisfying and so scary.

ETTINGER: He has such a fine-tuned impulse for watching actors and then pushing them in the right direction. You’ve just got to be game.

RUFFALO: Do you think the material is too heavy for this moment?

ETTINGER: I was wondering how people would take this story during the time that we’re in, but I’ve mostly been watching stuff that has a lot of heart and has a lot of pain and has people struggling to survive. I think everyone has felt pain on many different levels, and I’ve always felt a sense of comfort and a sense of being less alone when I watch truthful stories that deal with real-life shit. I’m at a point in my life where I’m trying to be honest with my own traumas and pain, and it’s interesting how the projects that I’ve done lately have been more of an internal dive into some difficult stuff.

RUFFALO: Everyone wants to be hysterical right now, to just laugh themselves off the fucking cliff, but what I see is a world that’s full of a lot of pain and suffering and loss. And to tell the truth about that in art is a cathartic act, a reminder of who we are as human beings in a moment when I feel like this world we’re living in now is post-human, where the technology is actually leaving mankind behind. The digital image is so packed full of information that our eyes can’t even see all of the information that it’s recording. We can’t keep up with it, and we’re living in our shallow social media selves that are only projected versions of ourselves, but not real or human in any way. So find something that really tells the truth about the human experience, about loss, about love, about connection, about responsibility to each other, about fighting for something—all those things are a good reminder of what it is to be a human being in a time that’s so dehumanizing.

ETTINGER: I feel like such an important part of the struggle of just living is to feel connected to each other, to understand that we aren’t alone.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Archiving this interview in full, in case the link to the magazine that I posted earlier, expires sometime in the future.

#mark ruffalo #philip ettinger #i know this much is true #iktmit #derek cianfrance #first reformed #the evening hour

1 note · View note

aion-rsa · 4 years ago

Text

Rome: The Long Road of the Original HBO Epic

https://ift.tt/36frbPD

It was the biggest show ever produced when it premiered on HBO. Filming in exotic international locations and on sets that went on for blocks, it was an epic spectacle that many whispered couldn’t be done on television. Not with its hundreds of extras in lavish costumes, and not with its cast of more than a dozen major characters. Yet HBO gambled big with a budget that exceeded $100 million on its first season.

These details might be mistaken by many as the genesis of Game of Thrones. But before HBO’s song of ice and fire, this was also the origin of the first actual modern TV epic. It was the story of Rome.

In its debut, Rome was even more gargantuan in scale and opulent in design than Thrones’ first few years. Filmed at the legendary facilities of Cinecittà Studios in the actual Rome, HBO and showrunner Bruno Heller oversaw a vast recreation of antiquity during the life and times of Julius Caesar. From the austere grandeur of the pre-imperial Roman Forum to the eventual seediness of the gangs on the Aventine Hill, the final days of the Roman republic were reimagined in sweaty, shocking, and spectacularly expensive detail.

“We used the most modern scholarship, which suggests that all the sculptures were painted,” Heller says over Zoom as we reminisce about Rome and its Cinecittà extravagance 15 years after the series’ 2005 premiere. Every morning Heller would be up at 4am, arriving early on set and getting lost in the art direction’s colors. “Walking out there at dawn into the Forum and seeing this world created, it was just magical. It gives me goosebumps now thinking about it, seeing a hundred [Gaul] tribesmen on horseback with great furry helmets charging down a hillside yelling, that sort of thing. No one makes things like that anymore. Even something like Game of Thrones would use CGI for the kind of things that we were doing for real.”

Actor Kevin McKidd, who played one half of Rome’s soul, the honorable to a fault Lucius Vorenus, expresses similar awe when he thinks back at what they accomplished.

“I mean listen, none of these budgets were small, but I think Game of Thrones ended up being smaller than ours,” McKidd correctly points out. Whereas Rome was budgeted at $100 million when it premiered, Game of Thrones debuted with a more reasonable starting price tag of $60 million. Says McKidd, “Ours, it was the first time anybody had tried this, so we just had to spend the money. And I think they figured out, it seems, ways to do it smarter or for less… because our show came out of the gate just huge and bawdy and big, and unapologetic.”

Heller is even more succinct in describing Rome’s making.

“Most films, and even TV, is planning for battle,” Heller says. “Planning for a big TV series like [Rome] is like planning for war, for a campaign. It’s invading Russia.” He pauses, “You have to think about the retreat, as well.”

This was Rome’s war: brief, bloody, and beautiful.

‘Very Unlikely to Be Made’

When HBO first hired Heller to take a crack at a Rome treatment, he didn’t think for a minute it would get made. In the early 2000s, HBO was a different place than it is now. The Sopranos and Sex and the City of course turned the premium cable network into the leader of the prestige cable revolution—or harbinger of peak TV as it would later be called—and the network had its eye on bigger and more dazzling projects. In 2001 HBO even released the most expensive miniseries ever up to that point with Band of Brothers. But that World War II-set series also had the names Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks attached as producers. The network still relied on bankability.

So when Heller took a meeting about Rome, he was acutely aware he’d be unable to lend that same prestige to a sword and sandals epic. He’d written some scripts before at HBO and admired the vision of then-HBO chairman Chris Albrecht and Carolyn Strauss, then-president of HBO’s entertainment division. But he was being called in to discuss a show based on a preexisting miniseries pitch by John Milius and William J. MacDonald—a pitch the network was already wary toward.

“It’s one of those projects that’s really going for broke and very unlikely to be made, [given] the budget that was required,” Heller recalls of HBO’s attitude toward Milius and his vision. “They were paying me to write a script to take it at least to a respectable point at which time they can say, ‘Okay, thank you.’”

Citing himself as “cheap” at the time, Heller recognized it was easier to pay a young writer for a treatment than a whole production crew for a pilot. So he used the opportunity as an excuse to immerse himself in Roman history and lore. This began via conversations with his co-creators Milius and MacDonald. Their central conceit already had in place the three characters of young Octavian, the boy who would be Augustus, first Emperor of Rome, as well as Roman centurions Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus.

In history, as with the series, Pullo and Vorenus were the only Roman soldiers who Julius Caesar mentioned by name in his journals. But other than being Roman centurions in the 13th Legion, not much else is known of the men. And Heller took his first major liberty when he lit on the idea of changing Pullo from a centurion to a coarse, insubordinate soldier beneath Vorenus’ command.

It was a savvy move that mapped the heart of the Rome series. Whereas most other fictions about this oft-dramatized era in history focused on the lives of the legendary patricians—be it Caesar and Octavian, or Marc Antony and Cleopatra—Rome would maintain all those characters and the lower tiers in daily Roman life. Through the introduction of Pullo and Vorenus, and their contentious friendship, the fall of the Roman republic suddenly becomes an upstairs/downstairs dramedy.

Says Heller, “The model that first sparked me on ‘oh, this is how to play it’ was [Tom Stoppard’s] Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, because the larger story is so well known, like Hamlet, that it’s hard to tell that story. The downstairs story has to be more compelling than the upstairs story, because the upstairs story, a little like Batman, is a given. It’s a myth. Everyone knows what happens.”

It also allowed Heller to dive into modern research.

“There was a lot of very recent scholarship at that time that transformed people’s sense of what Roman [history] was,” Heller explains. “There was much more about the everyday life of Roman people, about how people would have lived in apartment blocks in the insular working class life, and looking at it from that modern perspective.”

Reflecting on the dirtiness and filth that would be in the Roman Forum, the showrunner adds, “It’s lucky that practically every previous representation of Rome on any scale kind of went for the grand imperial late Edward Gibbon velvet drapes and marble columns. Even Gladiator went for that. Whereas, in fact, it looked much more like Calcutta or Bombay, and smelled like that.”

This also provided the writer the chance to explore Roman culture and custom with a greater push for authenticity than many Hollywood films of yore. For example, Heller attempted to learn how to read Latin at least as well as the uneducated Pullo—though he says he only got about as far as being able to recognize “oh that’s a pub” if he were walking the streets. More successfully he came to understand his vision of the Pagan working class mentality when he wrote a scene of Pullo praying to Portunus, the Roman god of locks and keys.

It all informed an extravagant treatment for a series he’d end up writing half the episodes of (and he tells us all 22 installments of the show passed through his typewriter before shooting). Yet, at least per the co-creator, what got Rome greenlit was as much his innovations as the developments of an entirely different epic series at HBO.

“[Chris Albrecht] was looking for something that had to be big and that they had to put money behind,” Heller says. “I think it was going to be Mel Gibson doing Alexander.” Indeed, at the same time HBO was developing Rome, the network was also working with the then-beloved Oscar winning director behind Braveheart for a 10-part series on Macedonian conquest.

“Then it turned out that Mel Gibson was going to do Alexander but he wouldn’t be Alexander,” Heller says. “[But] they didn’t want to be in business with Mel Gibson as a director-producer without Mel Gibson as [the star].”

As Gibson��s project imploded, Rome’s prospects would rise, sans any stars. Clearly things in the entertainment industry were about to change.

A Bottle of Tequila in the Roman Forum

When speaking with McKidd over Zoom, the actor’s affection for Rome is profound. Not 20 feet from his screen rests Lucius Vorenus’ sword, which he safely keeps in his own home. Similarly, within the actor’s mind resides nothing but warm memories. He reminisces about seeing his children spend summers growing up around the actual ruins of the Roman Forum and Colosseum during production; and he savors still the long nights at Cinecittà with British theater legends like Kenneth Cranham, a fellow Scotsman who played Pompey Magnus.

“It was an incredibly social time,” says McKidd. “It was almost like summer camp for British actors. We all got to live there; we went out for long dinners every night and we’d speak to Kenneth and all the older actors, who told us such amazing stories about all their time in the theater.”

But one relationship, perhaps the most significant of the entire series, was that shared by McKidd and his co-star Ray Stevenson, aka Titus Pullo. While there were of course other vital parts to the series, from worldly Ciarián Hinds as Caesar to Tobias Menzies’ despairingly well-intentioned Brutus—and one must never overlook Polly Walker’s Machiavellian Atia of the Julii (Heller’s favorite character)—the heart and soul of the series belongs to Pullo and Vorenus, the odd couple of 48 BCE.

Off-screen McKidd and Stevenson had known each other for years through mutual friends, but it wasn’t until they were in the final round of chemistry auditions in a Covent Garden hotel that they began a significant lifelong friendship. But then, it was a late epiphany to cast the red-haired and fiery McKidd as the straight-laced Vorenus.

For the actor, the process began early when he bumped into Heller, as well as executive producer Anne Thomopoulos and director Michael Apted, while in Romania. At the time, McKidd was there filming the TV movie Gunpowder, Treason & Plot (2004), as it was cheaper to shoot a period piece about 16th century Scottish court intrigue in eastern Europe than actual Scotland. The Rome team was entertaining a similar idea.

“I’m strutting around in my thigh-high leather boots and period costume, and we’re riding horses and swinging swords, and all that stuff and having a great old time,” says McKidd. “And I hear these American voices in the corridor, so I come out, and here is this guy called Bruno Heller.” They immediately got to chatting about the Danny Boyle movie McKidd did, Trainspotting (1996), and about this new TV series focused on ancient Rome. McKidd quickly prepared with his current director a film reel of himself riding horses.

Yet when HBO finally sent him a script, the producers didn’t want him for the Vorenus role; they saw him as Pullo.

HBO’s Rome Ending Was Originally Very Different

By David Crow

Movies

Why Gladiator Continues to Echo Through Eternity

By David Crow

On the casting process, McKidd remembers, “I said to them, ‘I’d love to come in and read, but I would really much rather read for the part of Lucius Vorenus.’ And they were like, ‘No, we really see you as maybe Pullo, can you read for Pullo?’ So I said, ‘Okay.’ So I came in and I read for Pullo. And they’re like, ‘Okay.’ Then a week goes by, and they call and they say, ‘We really love you, but maybe can you come in and read for Marc Antony?’”

So it continued until McKidd begged to get a screen test for Vorenus. It even took so long he initially considered turning the series down in favor of indie projects he was already committing to. That was at least a thought he had on the set of Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven (2005) until word got around at the pub to co-star Liam Neeson.

“I came down to the bar and Liam was pointing his finger at me and he was like, ‘You, I need to have a word with you outside,’” McKidd says. “And I was like, ‘Ah shit.’” Out in a snow-covered Spanish countryside, Neeson commanded, “Go to a phone booth, find a phone right now. Call your agent and hope and pray they haven’t offered that part to somebody else.”

They had not, and soon enough McKidd was flying alongside Stevenson to the actual city of Rome.

“I remember me and Ray going to Rome in the spring… with Michael Apted, walking around this back lot at Cinecittà, and it was all just scaffolding at that time, there was no frontage. I remember Michael turned to me and Ray and said, basically, we can’t fuck this up, because it was so huge. It was so beyond anything that any of us had ever seen.”

With red paint chipping across weathered doors, and mules grazing in the squares, a Roman Forum unlike any other came alive in the same space where Martin Scorsese just filmed Gangs of New York. The sense of size and scale was overwhelming, as was the pressure on Stevenson and McKidd to anchor it. Fifteen years later, McKidd is candid about how that tension shaped each man and, in the actor’s mind, the series.

During the last day of production on the first season, after shooting had wrapped and festivities began, McKidd and Stevenson found themselves sharing a quiet set of stairs leading up to their Roman senate. Between them was a bottle of tequila. Off in the distance, the faint sound of wrap party debauchery was rising to a muffled roar, yet the central stars of Rome were keeping their own company and having a long overdue conversation.

“I don’t think Ray would be mad at me for telling this story because we’re still close friends and I love him dearly,” McKidd says with a measured tone. “Initially, he and I clashed. We just had very different styles. Ray’s this big larger than life personality, and as Bruno would say, I’m much more this ‘Presbyterian,’ or you could say a little more controlling… and we ended up at loggerheads a lot, and fighting, and being difficult in the first season.”

Yet as McKidd is quick to point out, this translated to perfect chemistry on the screen, as Pullo and Vorenus were often “at loggerheads” during the first season, which culminated with Vorenus’ life imploding on the same day as Caesar’s assassination. Meanwhile Pullo found some semblance of peace. But here in the twilight of a recreated Roman Forum, the season was getting a much needed post-script.

“The wrap party is going on somewhere, and we can hear the music,” McKidd says, “and he and I just sat out there sharing the bottle of tequila. And we had it out, you know? Because we both had been holding stuff in for the season about things that annoyed each other… We got all of it off our chest and we ended up just having a huge hug, and we threw this bottle, this [now] empty bottle of tequila, into the middle of the Forum. We made a pact with each other that from that point on we were going to be the closest of friends, and we still are.”

In many ways, it mirrored the coming dynamic between Pullo and Vorenus in season 2, which McKidd likewise recognizes.

“Our bond was unbreakable in the second season,” he says. “You see that chemistry shift and move, and morph throughout the two seasons, and it pretty much tracks Ray and my relationship.” And it would prove indispensable that second year, especially as both characters, like their actors, were forced to close ranks and face that the end was nigh.

The Cost of Doing Business Like the Romans Do

Founded in 1937 by Benito Mussolini, the international renown of Rome’s Cinecittà Studios has long superseded its less than auspicious beginnings. Celebrated as the home to a highly skilled community of filmmaking artisans, Cinecittà’s name is inseparable with legendary filmmakers like Federico Fellini, Roberto Rossellini, and Sergio Leone. And it’s been the site of landmark Hollywood productions, such as Roman Holiday (1953), Ben-Hur (1959), and even the notorious Cleopatra (1963). Yet as Heller points out, no American production has been back to Cinecittà since Rome.

Says the creator, “It’s Italy, I love it, and it’s part of the culture, but you were there to be picked over and for them to, in completely formal and legitimately legal ways, take as much money out of the production as possible.” He pauses to smile and choose his next words carefully about the difference between shooting a movie and TV series in that environment.

“With a series, you’re making long-term relationships,” he continues. “It’s like a marriage. A movie is a one-night stand. You can be a bastard to everyone on a movie and you’re never going to see them again. So the result is more important than the relationships. In a TV series, the relationships are more important, in the end. It’s pointless having a successful first season of a show and then you can’t do the second season because no one will work together.”

This is not to say the only reason Rome was prematurely cancelled had to do with frustrations over the cost of doing business in Rome—McKidd also cites, for example, Rome eating up too much of HBO’s production budget from other projects in 2006. Nonetheless, reports of high-finance rigamarole even reached the cast.

Says McKidd, “I heard enough to know [about] the scaffolding. I don’t know how many tons of scaffolding was used to build that set, but I remember one of the earlier conversations was, ‘We need to buy this much scaffolding.’ And the people at Cinecittà were like, ‘You can’t buy that much scaffolding, but you can rent it from my brother.’”

Both Heller and McKidd insist there was no criminality or dishonesty about this, and it was simply the way things are done. But for the creator, word was executives high above his pay grade were disturbed by the Byzantine labyrinth of Italian politics. So much so it became contagious throughout Hollywood.

“At one stage, the Italian government issued arrest warrants or provisional arrest warrants for all the fiduciary producers of the show,” Heller recalls. “And that’s a sort of a standard Italian business practice, but when buttoned-down straight-laced lawyers from New York are flying out to Rome and discovering that this is [how business is done], people were spooked.”

It was also just a contributing factor to Rome’s untimely cancellation, which occurred during the pre-production process of season 2—and before the series’ popularity would explode with the international DVD sales and second season launch.

Heller was so far into writing the second season that they were in prep, gearing up to film the second season premiere, when he got the call it was over. The havoc this wreaked on Rome’s remaining 10 episodes, with one of them ready to shoot, was immediate.

When the first season concluded, Gaius Julius Caesar was dead, Vorenus had lost the love of his life, and Rome was headed toward civil war. The second season was always meant to be the fallout of that war, with a study in the brief and doomed alliance of Marc Antony (James Purefoy) and young Octavian (Max Pirkis), as well as the woman between them, Octavian’s mother and Antony’s lover, Atia. All of that, plus the death of Brutus and the other conspirators, would still occur in season 2… but so would Antony’s flight to Egypt and the eventual civil war between a now adult Octavian (Simon Woods) and Antony and Cleopatra (Lyndsey Marshal).

“I had to reconceive the second season basically from scratch,” Heller says with lingering exasperation. “Because when you take out that much history, the jump between the death of Caesar and Marc Antony taking over, and his death in Egypt, it was a huge amount of quite obscure but great, scandalous, fascinating, eventful history.” Most of it had to be jettisoned, too, between Brutus’ death and Antony declaring in his will that Caesar and Cleopatra’s son is Caesar’s true heir.

Some critics and fans were disappointed with the visibly breakneck pace of the second season. Others found it an exciting retelling of that period. One of Rome’s stars seems to be in the middle.

“I think the second season was successful in some ways, but it also feels, in my mind, a little rushed,” McKidd confesses. “And I think Bruno would say that too. Just because so much story was crushed and sort of concentrated down into season 2. I love [it], but I definitely felt like it was a lot condensed in.”

And yet, McKidd and Heller both seem to lean more toward a satisfaction with it. In fact, the producer even suggests the ending with the ascension of Octavian to imperial status (he takes the title “First Citizen”) was the perfect grace note. While it’s well known among fans the series had a five-season bible with Cleopatra and Antony’s deaths originally marking the end of season 4, and season 5 following Vorenus and Pullo going to Palestine in time for the birth of Christ, that was never Heller’s favorite part.

“That was one of the elements that Milius was fascinated by that I had no interest in whatsoever, frankly, trying to tie it in to the birth of Christ. Because, at the time, it meant nothing. It would have to be a completely different story. Put it another way, no Romans were worried or thinking about the coming of the Messiah.”

It was a Christmas story Heller didn’t want to tell. Even so, he had some interesting ideas already in place, including a vision of the ancient Holy Lands being closer to Monty Python’s Life of Brian than Ben-Hur.

“Palestine was in ferment at the time, and messiahs were popping up all over the place,” Heller says. “Judaism, at that point, was in a moment very much like Islam at the moment, full of passion and ferment and faith, and dreams of martyrdom.”

Like much else with Rome, it feels like a fascinating opportunity left unfulfilled, but one that the creator is glad to leave unexplored.

All Roads Lead to Rome’s Legacy

Rome shined briefly but brightly on premium cable. Premiering in the fall of 2005, it was gone by spring ’07. But even shortly after its cancellation, there were some small whispers of regret because of the show’s DVD sales; whispers that continue to be heard by stars of the series. McKidd says if you asked HBO in 2020, some would likely wince again at cancelling it, as he heard they did by the time season 2 aired. But “they couldn’t go back on that, or felt they couldn’t.”

But if it burned off like a Roman candle—with fire and thunder in its wake—the show still provided a roadmap for how to produce a massive spectacle as a television series.

“I think a lot of the producers that aren’t the ones that you hear about mostly, like Frank Doelger… were all pivotal on Rome and went directly into Game of Thrones,” McKidd says. “Frank Doelger was one of the main producers, and he very much was the guy who whipped our show into shape and we learned a lot of lessons. So yeah, I think very directly, those people went into Game of Thrones and had learned a lot about how to do this kind of level [of production.]”

Heller likewise marvels at how HBO learned from Rome’s problems with its initially more affordable and tighter fantasy epic.

“The way they divided crews up in Game of Thrones, it was clever because there was always a general staff of central command, but they had more than one general, and they didn’t lose control of the generals,” Heller says.

And just as Rome carved a path for the modern era of epic television shows, Game of Thrones has now created a space for more diverse TV epics like Netflix’s The Witcher and Amazon’s upcoming Lord of the Rings series.

“[We were] ahead of the curve in the sense that it was too early,” Heller says. “But it’s not so much the audience [changed], as it is the appetite and the ability of networks and studios to make things of that size and to promote them and to market them, and to have faith and the courage to back them up.”

This series walked so that Peak TV could run. It’s a formidable legacy, and one that proves all roads in blockbuster television really do lead back to Rome.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

The post Rome: The Long Road of the Original HBO Epic appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/38reEeK

#aion-rsa #Den of Geek

3 notes · View notes

birdlord · 5 years ago

Text

Everything I Watched in 2018

I neglected to write this list up this time last year, so I’m catching up! 2019 is soon to come. Every Movie I Watched in 2018

The number in parentheses is year of release, asterisks denote a re-watch, and titles in bold are my favourite first watches of the year.

01 So I Married an Axe Murderer (93)* possibly the most early/mid-90s film ever made. Centre parted hair, slam poetry, pre-tech boom San Francisco, Steven Wright cameo?!

02 The Florida Project (17) first theatre movie of the year came early!

03 The Long Goodbye (75)

04 Call Me by Your Name (17) I and some friends made an effort to see movies we thought might be oscar-nominated this year, so there’s a few of those coming up.

05 LA Story (91)* a forever rewatch

06 Personal Shopper (17) Feels like there’s a thin veil between K Stew and the characters she chooses.

07 I, Tonya (17)

08 Comfort and Joy (84) 80s Glasgow!

09 Faces, Places (17) made me want to pick up a camera again

10 A Futile and Stupid Gesture (18)

11 Creed (15) not for me.

12 Black Panther (18)* I found this lost a lot of its lustre the second time around.

13 Ghost (90)

14 Youngblood (86) Rob Lowe and Patrick Swayze hockey movie filmed in 80s Toronto? Sign me up!

15 The Living Daylights (87)* basically sometimes I want to see a Bond film, and really any of them will do.

16 Brigsby Bear (17)

17 The Ice Storm (97)

18 Disclosure (94) strong competition for Most 90s Movie, this time set in a Seattle CD-ROM company. One of those movies I remember staring at the cover of, in the movie rental place.

19 Saturday Night Fever (77)*

20 Barry Lyndon (75) God, the look, the costumes, the performances! This killed me dead.

21 Fried Green Tomatoes (91)* Another forever rewatch!

22 Howard’s End (92)* rewatch prompted by watching the new series version.

23 Sense & Sensibility (95)* keep those costume dramas coming...

24 The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring (01)*

25 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (02)*

26 Breakfast at Tiffany’s (61)*

27 Paterson (16)

28 Three Kings (99)*

29 The Talented Mr Ripley (99)* 99 was a good film year...I’ll go to this version of Italy anytime.

30 The Equalizer (14)

31 Paddington (14)

32 Paul (11) the initial charm doesn’t carry the movie through til the end.

33 The Virgin Suicides (99)*

34 Friday the 13th (80)

35 Sea of Love (89)

36 Won’t You Be My Neighbor? (18) a great opportunity to shed some tears in a movie theatre.

37 Star Wars: The Last Jedi (17)*

38 Wild (14)

39 Housekeeping (87) love me a Bill Forsyth, as you can see.

40 Predator (87)* if it bleeds, etc

41 Close Encounters of the Third Kind (77)*

42 Fever Pitch (05) the US remake...

43 Fever Pitch (97) ...the UK original

44 Bridget Jones’ Baby (16)

45 Stand by Me (86)*

46 Three Identical Strangers (18)

47 Mission Impossible: Fallout (18)

48 Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (11)*

49 Election (99)*

50 The Killing Ground (17) utter brutality in the Aussie bushland

51 Eyes Wide Shut (99) never saw this at the time, and thought Nicole Kidman’s perspective was more important within the film but GUESS WHAT, IT ISN’T

52 Repulsion (65)

53 Crazy Rich Asians (18)

54 Halloween (78)* the start of Spooker Season

55 A Star is Born (18)

56 The Hunger (83)

57 Annihilation (17)

58 Scream (99)*

59 Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (98) this was...terrible

60 Halloween (18)

61 Deep Red (75) one of the better Argentos, imo, but no Tenebrae

62 Dead Ringers (88)

63 Rocky Horror Picture Show (75)*

64 Silence of the Lambs (91)*

65 Nosferatu (22)

66 The Italian Job (69)

67 Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (01)*

68 Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets (02)*69 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (04)*

70 Gangs of New York (02)* Wow, I hated this! If I never see sweaty Leonardo DiCaprio again, it’ll be too soon.

71 Shirkers (18)

72 Terminator 2 (91)*

73 Little Women (94)*

74 The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (18)

75 Life Itself (18) this movie has left my mind ENTIRELY, wow did it even happen?

76 National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation (89)*

77 Home Alone (90)*

78 Gremlins (84)* turns out I’d forgotten more of this than I remembered??

79 The Shop Around the Corner (40)

80 You’ve Got Mail (98)*

81 Mr Smith Goes to Washington (39)

82 Widows (18)

83 Roma (18) I did see this in theatre, so the surround-sound experience was in full effect.

84 Ghost Stories (17)

85 200 Cigarettes (99)

DOCUMENTARY:FICTION - 3:82

THEATRE:HOME - 11:74

I had no idea I’d watched so many movies from 1999 this year! It was certainly not done on purpose, but that year had some great movies. Spooker Season was a particularly strong one this year, too, with ten horror/spooky movies over the course of October. It’s always interesting to me to see how many comfort viewings vs more challenging fare that I manage to watch in a given year (probably correlated to how many times I was sick and/or had a rough work day).

Every TV Series I Watched in 2019

01 The Crown S2 - the difficulties of royal marriage are a strong theme in this season, but there’s also some great sister-sister material between Elizabeth and Margaret.

02 Lady Dynamite S2 - too weird to live, I guess?

03 High Maintenance S2 - this is the second HBO season, and the first one that really tries to grapple with high-level world events, in this case Trump’s election, spoken about as if it was a natural disaster.

04 Queer Eye S1, S2 - I’d never seen the original series, so this was my first exposure to the concept. It aims for pathos, but you have to accept a pretty rosy world to get into it. Easier to enjoy before any of the boys had book deals/got Milkshake Duck’d.

05 Love S3 - still watching for Bertie, I love her.

06 Collateral - thorny British political police procedural, ultimately pretty forgettable, barring Carey Mulligan’s performance.

07 Alias Grace - the Atwood adaptation that people *weren’t* talking about. It’s great, though!

08 Atlanta S2: Robbin Season - Atlanta got weirder, more idiosyncratic, and even better in its second season. 09 Barry S1 - Barry got a lot of plaudits this year, and while I really liked the cast, and the plot was engrossing, something didn’t stick for me, and ultimately I didn’t watch the second season.

10 Howard’s End - it is a truth universally acknowledged that most books are better adapted as a miniseries than a single movie. Not that I hate the ‘92 movie, but this gets deeper into the class relations than it ever could. Plus: TIBBY!!

11 Killing Eve S1 - the series that hackneyed “smart, stylish and sexy” critic descriptions were made for.

12 Detroiters S2 - pouring one out for my fave pals, who never got a chance to make another season of this little darling (though there were a couple of episodes in this season that didn’t do it for me).

13 Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat - perhaps the only adaptation of a cookbook that I’ve ever seen, and certainly one of the best food shows ever.

14 Big Mouth S2 - More of the same, so if you could hack it in the first season, then keep it up!

15 Bodyguard - another in the sexy/dark/procedural vein, with bonus Scotsman from Game of Thrones.

16 Utopia/Dreamland S1-S3 - an Australian comedy series about a government infrastructure department, which has apparently spawned real such departments in the country, even though it doesn’t come off all that well. The first title is the Aussie one, it’s known as Dreamland everywhere else.

17 Baroness Von Sketch S3 - Canadian series that I actually watch are rare as hen’s teeth, so I was delighted to find a woman-centric sketch show that has kept me laughing. Plus, sometimes I see my neighbourhood? That’s fun!

4 notes · View notes

itsblosseybitch · 5 years ago

Text

The Reel Dunne (Griffin Dunne interview from INTERVIEW magazine, October 1988

Hollywood Wunderkind Griffin Dunne eloped at 18, produced a movie at 23, and has been acting all along. Victoria Hamburg stopped by to catch up.

When Griffin Dunne was 23 and managing a concession stand at Radio City Music Hall, he followed the cultural cues of his native L.A. and, with a couple of close friends, optioned a story for a movie. Nothing terribly out of the ordinary for a Hollywood-wise L.A. youth. What was not ordinary, however, was that the story--Ann Beattie’s novel Chilly Scenes of Winter--was actually made into a film, starring John Heard, and released by United Artists.

Chilly Scenes of Winter marked the emergence of the young Griffin Dunne as an actor and leading producer of American films. Son of writer Dominick Dunne (and brother of the tragically murdered Dominique Dunne), Griffin moved to Manhattan after high school to study acting at the Neighborhood Playhouse. Over the years, his film credits have grown to include An American Werewolf in London, Johnny Dangerously, Almost You, After Hours, and Who’s That Girl, and in his role as a producer, he has been equally canny. Along with his longtime partner, Amy Robinson, he has produced John Sayles’ Baby It’s You and co-produced Martin Scorsese’s After Hours.

This season, Dunne’s dual career is in full swing. He produced Sidney Lumet’s Running on Empty, which was released in September, and is currently producing Lasse Hallstrom’s (My Life As A Dog) first American film, Once Around. He stars in Dorris Dorrie’s controversial second film, Me and Him, playing the part of a middle-aged man with two problems--a midlife crisis and a penis that talks (distributors have decided the film is too controversial for America, and it is being released in Europe this month). Dunne will also appear in the HBO movie Lip Service alongside Paul Dooley.

Dunne is as funny and charming off-screen as he is on. Dark, intense, and boyishly handsome, he is a natural storyteller, whose enthusiasm is contagious. Victoria Hamburg found him at home, in his West Village penthouse overlooking the Hudson. The apartment is airy and sunlit, with oversize windows, a fireplace for the winter, and a terrace with real grass for the summer. It is the perfect refuge from the hustle of the city streets and the madness of the entertainment world on which Griffin Dunne clearly thrives.

VICTORIA HAMBURG: I’ve been having my own private Griffin Dunne Film Festival. I looked at After Hours, An American Werewolf in London, Almost You, and Who’s That Girl. The movies that you’ve produced have more social commentary and a greater basis in reality than the movies you star in. The ones you act in are more like myths or fables about the dilemmas of modern man.

GRIFFIN DUNNE: It’s funny--as a producer, you think about material for material’s sake. You look for really rich characters and movies that have something to say. It’s much easier for me to find movies to produce than to act in. You have more control over material, and there are wider choices.

VH: What’s this film you were doing in Boston?

GD: It’s called Lip Service. It was just a great piece of writing by a guy named Howard Porter. He wrote Boy’s Life. It was on Broadway a while ago. David Mamet executive-produced this film and asked me if I’d be in it with Paul Dooley. William H. Macy, who’s an actor, directed it. [OP NOTE: There’s a misprint in this article, where’s he’s referred to as W.C. Macy. Or maybe Griffin was trying to be funny and make a reference to W.C. Fields]. It’s his first film. He did an incredible job, and it was great to work with a director who was an actor. It’s about these two talk-show hosts on one of those morning shows like Hey, Wake Up, L.A. It’s called Sunny Side Up. It’s been run for ten years by a kind of boring, staid broadcaster who’s like a Walter Cronkite of the morning circuit. They want to spruce up the ratings, so they bring in a sort of Regis Philbin type, and that’s me. It’s Regis and Walter on this morning show, and they’re two very different people. I idolize him, but he hates me. I’m always trying to get him to be my friend. There’s something very touching about it. It’s also very sad, because the public taste being what it is, I blow him out of the water. I’m so filled with energy and kooky ideas. I’m always looking for the lowest common denominator in human behavior, and people love it. They just lap it up. Dooley’s character gets fired.

Anyway, in this movie, for the first time I play a guy who is completely happy. He has a vicious mean streak, and then it’s gone, and he’s the happiest person on earth. I had a great time, because I usually play people with a tremendous number of problems. This guy hasn’t a clue of the problems he has, because he never listens. He never hears a word he’s saying. Somebody will be talking to him and he’ll interrupt them to ask, “How’s my hair? Do you think I’m attractive?” or some terribly vain question.

VH: Do you think that it takes being oblivious like that to be a happy guy?

GD: Yeah, basically, I mean, to not have a clue about anybody else’s suffering or even what color shirt they’re wearing is a different version of happiness. I’ve seen people without any sort of self-doubt. They just amaze me.

VH: When you were talking earlier, I was thinking you sound like somebody who doesn’t suffer from self-doubt.

GD: Who doesn’t have self-doubt at some point?

VH: Well, I know, but it doesn’t seem to paralyze you in any way.

GD: No, it doesn’t paralyze me. It’s a fleeting thought, but it was nice to play somebody so completely confident and ebullient in everything that he’s doing. The guy I played just had no problem offending somebody, because he had no idea he was offending them. Terrible hurt would cross someone’s face and he would just go right on talking. It was endlessly interesting.

VH: It seems as if we’ve reached a point where there’s a new Hollywood. There are people who are our age, in their late twenties, mid-thirties, who are now in a position of making decisions in the studios. Are they doing it differently? Is something going to happen that’s different from the way that people have been making movies in the past?

GD: Probably not. Even though movies are making more money than ever, they are still based on the star system. And the star system is getting stronger and stronger. Having name value is becoming more and more important. People are taking fewer and fewer chances. What I’ve noticed is that it’s getting to be taken for granted that this is the way to go. Even the smaller outfits have now figured out ways to hire major stars with name value. I think part of the problem with film is that the good movies--with interesting stories and actors--are not huge weekend movies. They’re competing against star vehicles with rotten scripts and one charismatic star that make the big kill for two or three weekends and then gradually dwindle away. The movies that don’t fall into that category are racing quicker than ever for the video stores. All this means that they’ve yet to figure out long-run releases. And the attitude is getting to be more and more--even among my peers--”I’ll wait for it on cable.” People look at small or interesting or intimate movies as the kind they’d prefer to see at home on their television sets rather than at a theater. Movies are considered failures much sooner than ever before. The failure rate has really sped up, and the success rate is much further down the line because now you have to look at the videocassette sales and rentals.

VH: I think it’s incredibly frustrating for all the people who go out and kill themselves for six years to get a project to finally happen, who risk everything they’ve got and go out on a limb for it, and then, even if it’s reasonably successful, it’ll probably run for only two or three weeks and end up in the video store, and who’s ever going to look at it then?

GD: It’s extremely frustrating. It’s like they spend six years to make the videocassette.

VH: Right. Whereas if you’re writing a book, even if nobody buys it, it will still be there somehow in a more lasting way.

GD: You notice how books and videocassettes are almost the same size...

VH: How did you feel when you were making Who’s That Girl and people kept calling it “the Madonna movie”?

GD: I assumed they would. She is an extraordinarily huge star, and a great deal of commotion happens around her when she’s out in public.

VH: How did the filming go?

GD: It was pretty wild. I guess I didn’t really expect it to be. I remember there was a marathon race on a Sunday. We were shooting in Manhattan. Here are these people who are nearing the end of a twenty-six-mile run. They could have placed respectably, but they pulled over to the side to watch the shooting and let the other runners go on. By the time they got to where we were shooting on Fifth Avenue, they had been running twenty miles. They took a breather to watch the shooting, to watch Madonna getting in and out of a cab. They just threw it all away to watch this. Everybody had a camera when we were working on that picture. Cabs would drive by, and little old ladies would pull out lenses longer than their entire frames and just whack off a few pictures. It was a bit of a carnival atmosphere.

VH: Which do you prefer, acting or producing?

GD: I don’t know. Acting is what I originally wanted to do. That’s really what I’m supposed to be doing. Unfortunately, the business of being an actor is a lot more disheartening than the business of being a producer. As an actor, you’re beholden to the material and the taste of other people who are developing projects that you may or may not get in. As a producer, you come up with the idea. Everything that my partner, Amy Robinson, and I have done, we’ve thought of and developed. The script for After Hours came from a student at Columbia University.

VH: You get offered a lot of roles that you turn down--if you kept getting parts that you wanted to do, would you end up acting instead of producing?

GD: It depends how far along I am in the producing. I’ve lately had a painful decision to make. I’ve turned down work because I’ve been too far into producing a picture. It wasn’t easy to do.

VH: Do you feel you naturally lean toward acting?

GD: I’ve always leaned toward acting. I’m very good at working on stories, casting, and crewing up, but when the movie’s being shot, there’s always the frustration I feel watching other actors working. That goes away once the film’s finished shooting. It’s almost the reverse of what I feel as an actor. There’s a certain relief that, once I’ve finished shooting, I can be in the editing room or in the screening room, watching the rough cuts develop and watching the picture just get better and better.

VH: Have you ever wanted to direct?

GD: Yeah, I think about that more and more.

VH: The relationships between an actor and a director and between a producer and a director are very different.

GD: The relationship between an actor and a producer is, in fact, one of total opposites. As producer--particularly during shooting--your job is to worry and to predict what horrible things will happen. You worry about time, scheduling, and logistics. You have to fall into a certain logic that does not come to me naturally.

VH: I always think it’s a combination of being the baby sitter, the whip-cracker, and the pacifier. In a way, all the things that you do make you feel like you have no control. On the other hand, you realize that ultimately you do have the control.

GD: What you’re doing is watching other people create and have a fantastic time. Amy and I have always worked with directors who have respected our opinion and relied on us heavily for story development, casting, and the creative part. But once the movie is going, it’s just this big monster rolling along that you have to keep in check. It’s much less creative. I mean, you can look at dailies and say, “Gee, it looks a little dark in that scene” and “Why does she have that expression on her face?” but it’s pretty much out of your control, with the exception of the ultimate ability to slow down or speed up the process. And sometimes even that’s questionable. But as an actor, your entire job is not to worry. Your job is to help others, create an atmosphere where you can be totally spontaneous, get lost in the part, and develop intense relationships with people. When I’m acting and things are going well, I have an extremely good time.

VH: It sounds like the acting and producing provide a perfect balance for you.

GD: Yes. Absolutely. I remember when I produced my first movie, Chilly Scenes of Winter. I was a desperately hungry actor who lived and died by my last audition and what people thought of me as I walked out of an office. That’s what most people think when they’re starting out. It’s an unnatural environment when you go in and read and show your personality to someone and they say yes or no. It takes awhile to get the hang of that. I was not good at it. I would clam up and freeze at auditions. I could not be free. So producing a movie was entirely liberating. There I was, in a casting room, auditioning actors whom I not only admired but envied, wishing I was in their position. I was 23 at the time, and I remember being in this office in Los Angeles, in Culver City, pre-screening the actors before the director, Joan Micklin Silver, met them. Bringing in all these actors I’ve admired my whole life and interviewing them, I thought, This is crazy. They thought it was pretty crazy, too. They thought, How old is he? But I did see how the audition process worked, and I thought, This is not so threatening.

VH: I’ve always thought of you as the boy wonder. I mean, there you were, producing a feature film. That’s not easy, but you were at the point where you and Amy could convince somebody to give you the money to do it. How did you manage that?

GD: We also had a third partner, Mark Metcalf. All three of us were actors. Mark was probably the most successful of the three of us, because he had produced Animal House [He also played Niedermeyer in the film]. We had a really good book by Ann Beattie, and people wanted it.

VH: How did you convince Joan that she should let you guys do it?

GD: She came to us. She wanted to make the movie.

VH: But you didn’t know anything about line-producing, right?

GD: No. For a year before we actually got it off the ground, we interviewed everyone. We called people right up out of the DGA [Directors’ Guild of America] book and said, “We’re doing this movie. Would you talk to us? Will you tell us about line-producing? Will you tell us what this means? Will you tell us what gross and net are?” We knew nothing, but we found that complete strangers were willing to share their knowledge and expertise with us. So we learned a certain amount the year before we actually met Joan. All we knew was that we wanted to make this movie, and we had the material. Several times, people said, “We’ll make this movie, but you three have to go.” And we said, “No, we come with it and you’ll have to go.” We pulled it off, and they let us do it. We had a production manager, a man named Paul Helmick, who was close to 70 years old [laughs]; he was Howard Hawks’ first assistant director, and he had incredible stories about the movie business. We learned a lot from him. We were the producers, but he knew the nuts and bolts--who to get on the crew and what the hourly wages were and all that.

VH: What would you say was the most important thing that you learned from doing the movie?

GD: Well, because I was so young, I sort of learned how the world works. I learned how decisions were made and business was run. The business section of the newspaper became interesting to me: why people were fired and hired. Just the decision-making process, and people taking responsibility for their decisions.

VH: You grew up in Los Angeles, didn’t you?

GD: Yes.

VH: So you must have had some sense of how it all worked. Your father was in the business.

GD: Yeah. I knew my movies. I loved movies. But I didn’t know anything about the details of making a movie. Casting was an instinctual process to me. Amy and Mark weren’t from the movie business. They grew up loving movies, and that’s what the three of us had in common. Being from Los Angeles and having parents in the business was not really helpful. I could talk to my father about what I was doing and the problems I was having, and he would understand what I was saying, but he wasn’t in production then. He was extremely supportive of me, just as Amy’s and Mark’s parents were supportive of them.

VH: Did you ever have moments where you were totally terrified because you didn’t know what you were doing?

GD: You know, I really didn’t. I was having such a good time. Nobody ever once said, “You’re a fraud. You’re 23 years old. Who are you to tell me this?” I knew the material. I knew I had a tremendous love and conviction for this book and for the script that Joan wrote and for Joan as a director. I didn’t really have any doubt in my ability.

VH: You and Amy have been producing together for such a long time. How does that work? Is there a role that she plays and a role that you play?

GD: I guess so. We bounce off each other very well. Whoever calls us knows they’re going to get both of us on the phone, and we’ve figured out how to talk without talking at the same time, so that we build on each other’s thoughts. We finish each other’s sentences.

VH: Do you do good cop/bad cop?

GD: Yeah. It depends who the person is. There are certain people she gets along better with and others I get along better with. People get treated well, so there hasn’t been any real tension on our sets coming from the production. Basically we’re both good cops. But we use that good cop/bad cop routine.

VH: How does she feel when you go off to be in a movie? Does she produce things without you?

GD: The day-to-day stuff is a lot of phone work, you know. Producing is all about talking on the phone. When I’m off acting, Amy is doing the day-to-day work in the office. We talk every day. It’s like I’m in foreign land, acting with complete strangers. I’ll call her, and she’ll fill me in on what’s going on. Then, if I have a few hours left in me, I’ll knock off about eight or nine phone calls. So I’m still doing my work. I never fall out of contact.

VH: You sound driven.

GD: Well, it is a driven thing. Amy is a very driven person, and sometimes I have to work hard to catch up with her if I’m doing two jobs. It’s a lot of work. I’m getting tired just talking about it. [laughs]

VH: I’m always interested in people who are able to make movies in New York. Do you and Amy feel pressure to do something in L.A.? Sometimes L.A. seems like a private club to me: you have to do time there or you have to have been a member.

GD: No, I don’t think so. I mean, the reason we’re doing well is because of the material. We choose to live in New York. We have to go to Los Angeles an awful lot for any number of reasons--to meet writers or talk to the studio about financing--but there’s been no pressure on us to move to Los Angeles. In fact, I think it would be a little stifling, because we could fall into that club atmosphere you’re talking about. A good deal of the time there is spent talking about “Have you read this script that was just submitted that all the agencies are reading? Did you get on top of this? Did you get on top of that?” And it’s a cyclical effect. You start buying something based on word of mouth and who’s attached to it--basically for all the wrong reasons. I think this distance gives us a little perspective on what the story is.

VH: How did you find the script for Running on Empty?

GD: Amy and I had been interested in radicals--the real hardened ones, the ones who had been living underground and thought that they were still fighting a revolution, who surfaced only to kill a bunch of people for a political idea that grew out of the ‘60s and had somehow gone terribly wrong. I had absolutely no sympathy for them. I understood where their politics originated, but I felt that they were in a complete dream world. They were the same criminals that sell drugs, or blow away cops to rob a bank, for no political reason. The idea that they thought there would be some kind of public uprising over killing a couple of security guards was delusion at its highest. We talked about making a movie on this subject, and then we came across an article about the custody procedure involving kids whose parents were radicals--two boys, 11 and 9. They were younger than the characters in our movie. Their parents were found with a cache of weapons, fighting to overthrow the government so that we would all be free. They were a lot harder than the characters in our film, but we were struck by the family aspect of the story. We went to Naomi Phoner [author of Running on Empty] with the article and talked about the origins of the parents and their political beliefs. We concentrated on the case of blowing up a napalm plant in the early ‘70s. Their pictures were plastered in every post office in the United States and they were on the Ten Most Wanted list. What effect would that have on their children?

VH: When I read articles about these people, there’s always something about them that makes you feel as if they could have been friends of yours in college. There’s something very ordinary about the people who did those things.

GD: Yes, but living on the run for so long, living underground where there’s a network of people that can help you--that’s got to warp your idea of society, because you have ostensibly left society to lead this kind of life. The society you’re trying to overthrow is very different from the one you have in mind once you’ve been underground for a few years.

VH: Did you actually try to contact people who were underground?

GD: Yeah, we spoke to a few people--they were hardly on anyone’s Ten Most Wanted list, but they had a lot to hide from. Naomi had some friends from college, in fact--former SDS [Students for a Democratic Society] higher-ups who were no longer wanted by the law.

VH: How did Sidney Lumet become the director?

GD: He read the script. We were at Lorimar, and Sidney had a contract at Lorimar. We had thought of Sidney quite a bit before we seriously approached directors. He read it and contacted us and told us how much he loved it.

VH: It seems like a good time to make a movie like Running On Empty. Here we are, with the Presidential elections before us...[laughs]

GD: When we were testing Running on Empty, we would show it to college kids. Researchers would ask them about their knowledge of ‘60s radicals, and they would talk about Jane Fonda. I guess they thought she was an SDS student or something and that she lived in the underground. There was very little awareness about the people who were trying to end the Vietnam War.

VH: How much does giving people something to think about have to do with your decisions about what movies you produce?

GD: We assume that other people will be interested in thinking about what we think about. What initially attracted us to Running On Empty was not so much making a political statement. What really drew us to the story were the family and the conflicts in the family. The movie is a sort of extreme exaggeration of what happens to boys or girls when they hit a certain age, when they look at their parents and they’re not parents anymore. They’re human beings with a lot of problems, and they become aware of what it took to raise them. It’s the first feeling that a kid might have of compassion toward his parents, of a sense of even feeling wiser somehow. That’s what attracted me to Running On Empty. It’s that story of looking at your parents and feeling in a funny way stronger than them. You suddenly have this knowledge that the decisions you make can hurt them. If you don’t want to hurt them, you make the proper adjustments. The alternative is to grow up and hurt them because you’ve got to live your own life. This movie is about all the complexities that go on in a family. Maybe there will be disappointment for a lot of politically minded people who think they might find an answer in this movie. It comes out in a much more family-oriented way.

VH: Your parents are remarkable people. I remember reading the story that your father wrote about your sister’s death and the murder trial that followed it. I particularly remember the description of your mother. I’ve always thought that she was unbelievably courageous.

GD: My mother’s an extraordinary person. She’s the strongest person I know.

[Ellen Griffin Dunne founded Justice for Homicide Victims in 1984 to support victims of homicide with legal and financial assistance, as well as counseling and referrals. In 1989, a year after this interview was conducted, Ellen was recognized for her advocacy work by then-President George H.W. Bush. Ellen also suffered from multiple sclerosis starting in the early ‘80s. She passed away in 1997. Justice for Homicide Victims is still operating today.]

VH: Do you think being raised by people like that allows you to try things that other people wouldn’t ordinarily try?

GD: It sure helps. I grew up in a very supportive environment. My parents were not easily shocked by the decisions I made. I was sort of a handful; I got into a lot of trouble when I was growing up. They never succumbed to total despair when I fucked up. I think that’s an important lesson for parents. I grew up with the confidence of knowing that my parents always thought I was going to come out O.K. They always thought I was going to make it, whatever I did.

VH: Did you have any heroes?

GD: I grew up idolizing people all the time. It’s harder and harder to find idols, but for as long as I can remember, I was always a worshiper of other people.

VH: Who?

GD: I was only 9 years old, but I had this obsession with John F. Kennedy. I was convinced I would someday know this guy and we’d become really good friends. [laughs] I called his wife Mrs. Kennedy, and I’d call him Mr. Kennedy whenever I talked about him. I used to write him letters--nothing very political, just to tell him that it was my birthday last week, and my brother did this, and that things kind of stank around the house but that I’d work it out. I would get letters back from his secretary saying that Mr. Kennedy had received my letter, and that was perfectly fine. I remember we used to go to church every Sunday, one day I just put my foot down and refused to go. I just said “I’m not going.” Big fights. They went to church and left me locked in my room. When they came back, my brother and sister and the whole family were glowing. John F. Kennedy and his wife had gone to church that day, and they sat right behind my parents!

VH: Don’t you think they made it up?

GD: Well, even as I’m telling you, I find it just incredible.

VH: Were you a gullible child?

GD: I was always gullible. But I can’t believe they’d be that cruel. I used to lie for years afterward--with the conviction of a total liar who believed it--about the time I went to church and John and Jackie were sitting behind me. Even telling you this, the lie seems true. I turned around, saying, “Hi, Mr. Kennedy, I’m Griffin Dunne. I wrote you these letters.” “Oh yes, Griffin. Oh yes, I got your letters. Just wait until after the service. We’ll talk.” And then as soon as the service was over, he tapped me on the shoulder, and I climbed over the pew. I’m between him and Jackie, and he says, “Have you met my wife?” “Oh, hi, Mrs. Kennedy. Nice to meet you.” He says, “Go on, about those letters.” And we were talking as we were walking outside, and we became friends in that moment. Anyway, he was my major hero. It’s been downhill ever since.

VH: Were you raised a Catholic?

GD: Yes.

VH: Has that had any lasting effect on you?

GD: Well, I think there’s something very Catholic about that fantasy. I was raised a Catholic, and it helped me in being an actor in plenty of ways. I hated church. I always thought those priests gave rather weak performances. I think that’s sort of how I became an actor--an early fantasy was if I were a priest, I’d do a much better job. When I became an altar boy, I became the church-clown altar boy and would bring the priest the wrong vestments.

VH: On purpose?

GD: No, it just worked out that way, but I got laughs.

VH: I’m half Catholic and half Jewish. I think that what I get from being Catholic is that I’m always guilty about something I did that I shouldn’t have done. And what I get from being Jewish is that I’m always guilty about something I should have done that I didn’t do. I heard the other day that the movie you were in that Doris Dorrie directed was banned in this country. I have a feeling this isn’t true, but this movie has a controversial reputation. What’s going on here?

GD: Well, I think it’s probably a “European” movie in that it’s going to open in Europe.

VH: What’s this movie about?

GD: It’s a sensitive tale. It’s about this guy whose penis starts talking to him and it just totally freaks him out. You never see it, so I don’t know why it’s banned. It’s based on a book called Two by Alberto Moravia. It’s a very typical tale, about this guy who’s an architect. He’s at the brink of having some kind of boredom breakdown--he’s married and he has a kid and feels trapped. His penis starts talking to him, screaming at him to wake up and enjoy life. You never see it. It’s all in his mind. It’s basically me talking to myself the whole movie and talking to women and the people in my office. I’m a very ambitious guy in the movie who starts to get ahead through the power of the seduction. He’s a philanderer, very Italian, both cocky and confused at the same time. He has all these desires of getting ahead and finding the perfect woman. I thought the part had a certain kind of charm to it. It might be banned because the movie turns out to look like one of those Ralph Steadman drawings with the back of people’s heads blown out, you know, like a shotgun went off in their mouth. Everybody’s totally distorted, and weird shit is coming out of their mouths. Everybody is very unattractive in a funny way. It’s not as funny as people thought it would be. It’s a much harder movie.

[This last part is interesting to read, because as someone who has watched Me and Him, there’s no animation in the movie whatsoever. I wonder if that was the original plan for the film but it got scrapped for the final product for whatever reason, probably due to budget constraints. I know there’s a ‘70s film based on Moravia’s book as well. My friends over at The Projection Booth did a podcast on this movie, and Doris Dorrie was interviewed and I don’t remember a word being breathed about any animation sequences, so this is the first I’ve heard about this. Griffin is not a big fan of this movie (neither am I) so he hasn’t talked much about it since, and he said he didn’t want to be interviewed about it for the podcast.]

VH: Her other movie, Men, seemed to be about how people of the opposite sex don’t really like each other.

GD: Yeah. I hadn’t thought that at the time, but I definitely think that now. It’s a battle of the sexes, but it’s a battle over which is the uglier sex. There’s nothing terribly crude about it, sexually. Emotionally, it’s very crude. But being directed by a woman on something as intimate as this is a little like playing the part of a dog and being directed by a cat about how you’d feel about being a fire hydrant. You know, the dog’s going to look at this cat and go, “What the fuck do you know about a fire hydrant?” How would you know how I’d feel about sex? Both of us sort of drew a blank. We had no idea what the other was talking about. It was a totally non-communicative experience. I did my job and she did her job. There really weren’t many ways we could help each other out.

VH: Do you think that people genuinely believe that the sexes basically don’t like each other?

GD: No, I think they do like each other, and I think that was what we disagreed on. As much as we would verbalize it and have many discussions, it always boiled down to the point that cruelty between the sexes was different. We disagreed on that. The movie is about how the two sexes dislike each other intensely, which was not, I felt, in the script.

VH: What are you doing next?

GD: Starting a movie with Lasse Hallstrom, who did My Life As A Dog. Amy and I are going to produce a movie. I’m going to be in it. Small part. Nice part. It’s a story, set in Massachusetts, about an Italian-American from a big, close family, whose sisters have all been married. She’s the eldest and the last one to get married. Everybody’s encouraging her to finally get married to this guy she’s been with for six years, and this guy turns out to be a real wimp. He finally admits to her, “I’m never going to marry you.” She’s devastated, and she goes off.

VH: That’s not you, is it?

GD: Hell, no. That is a wimp. So she goes off, and she meets a man who’s close to her father’s age. He’s a very outgoing, tough businessman, who is rich. He sort of tries to buy his way into the family emotionally and financially. While they’re happy for the daughter, the family doesn’t like the man. It’s a battle of the patriarchs and how the man gets caught in the middle. The family never can quite let the husband into their hearts. It’s very painful and it’s very funny. It’s a brilliant script. It’s written from the heart by a woman named Malia Scotch Marmont [This is a misprint. Her name is Malia Scotch Marmo, and she’s also been credited as a writer for Hook and Madeline], who was at a Columbia student. We found the script through the Sundance Institute.

VH: What do you play?

GD: I play the brother-in-law. He’s a guy who is heavily influenced by this very outgoing businessman and starts to take on his mannerisms, much to the discomfort of his wife, who dislikes him. I’m the only one who thinks he’s a pretty good guy. It’s going to be a great movie. I’ve been in Boston with Lasse. He’s from Sweden. I’m showing him the difference between Italian-Americans from Massachusetts and Italian-Americans from New York.

[The movie that Dunne is talking about would be released as Once Around in 1991, starring Holly Hunter and Richard Dreyfuss as the leads. Interestingly enough, Dunne would end up playing that very wimp boyfriend in the movie. The brother-in-law would be played by Tim Guinee].

VH: What’s the difference?

GD: Well, as far as I can tell, the Italian-Americans from Massachusetts are more Yankee at heart. They really are closer to the family, the Mayflower, and they sort of cling to that. They feel a little more American than the New York Italians, like they got there first. The dialects are obviously very different. But we’re trying to make those differences clear to Lasse.

VH: This is his first movie in English?

GD: Yeah. It’s set in a very particular region of the United States. We can help him with the research and the regional differences, but when it comes to the matter of the heart, that’s his job and that’s where he will shine.

VH: If you could do anything you want, what would you do?

GD: I would have the kind of life where I could bury myself in work for an intense period of a year and then leave work for six months and travel somewhere, maybe live in a completely different area of the world and soak up whatever differences and experiences I might gather there and revitalize myself, then do it all over again. I’d have the kind of control of being able to walk away from something I’ve created that will be there when I get back.

VH: When we were talking about family and relationships, I wondered how come you’ve never been married.

GD: Oh, I have been. I have been. I’ve never mentioned it. Everybody who knows me knows that I’ve been married, but I’ve never talked about it before. It hardly deserves this sort of melancholy face I have on right now.

VH: You’re smiling. [laughs]

GD: Yeah. That kind of melancholy. I was married, when I was 18, to a girl who was maybe 19, whom I had met in high school. She was the daughter of the--at the time--head of a film studio. She was very, very beautiful and probably still is. I have no idea. I haven’t seen her since.

VH: Since you married her?

GD: Yeah, I married her and then I never saw her again. [laughs] Didn’t work out. We got married in Tijuana sort of on a dare. When I was 17 we crossed the border to go to Tijuana, and the highway patrol pulled us over, and they knew for some reason we were going to get married. They brought us into the office and tried to talk us out of it. It was a humiliating experience because she was older and the highway patrol cop was sort of hitting on her. I mean, she was really gorgeous--there was just something about her; she exuded a real intense sexuality. I was madly in love with her, as anyone who ever laid eyes on her was. So the highway patrolman is hitting on my wife-to-be, and the other guy has got me in a room, telling me that I should hold off and not marry that piece in the other room for a couple of years, until I know what I’m doing. I was in such a rage that when I turned 18--on my birthday--we got in a car and went right back to Tijuana and got married.

VH: And how long were you married?

GD: A whopping one year. I came back to--we were going to keep it a secret--the apartment we had gotten. I carried her across the threshold of this apartment that had no furniture in it and the phone was ringing, so I dropped her on the wood floor and got the phone--

VH: What a guy.

GD: Well, you see, she was voluptuous, so she weighed a ton. I got the phone, and it was my father, and he was saying “So, how are you?” I said, “Fine.” “Anything new?” I went, “No, no.” He said, “I just came back from the most beautiful wedding I think I’ve ever been in my whole life. This boy--Oh, God, he must have been your age, maybe a little older. But he and that bride, my God. You know the parents--very dear old friends. Your mother and I, when you get married, that’s how we want to do it. Everything was done just right.” And I thought, Why is he telling me this? Why did he happen to go to this beautiful wedding of a peer of mine, and why is he telling me about it? He must know. This is a sign. So I just murmured, “Well, it’s a little late for that.” He said, “What?” I said, “We just married this afternoon in Tijuana.” He roared with laughter. And I was silent. And he said, “Now wait a minute.” He had this kind of chilly tone. “I can’t tell if you’re joking with me now or what.” I said, “No, no. We really did.” And he said, in the coolest voice I have ever heard, “I think you had better come over here right now.” We went over, and both he and my mother were freaked out. I finally got a divorce--not because of that but because it didn’t work out.

VH: Did she get remarried to an aluminum-siding salesman and have six kids and end up living in Kansas?

GD: No, actually she is married to Fabian. I haven’t been married since then. It will happen. But when it does, the highway patrol won’t be involved. It will be a simple, private family affair.

[All evidence indicates that Griffin’s first wife was Kate Netter Forte. I actually read about this on the website whodatedwho but since that website is a dubious source, I mentally filed that under the ‘Unsubstantiated’ category and didn’t look into it any further. Kate’s father was producer Douglas Netter, and it’s reported that she met the former teen idol Fabian on the set of the film Disco Fever, where she played a character named Jill. She’s in about the halfway point of the film. Forte was married to Fabian from 1980 to 1990. She was the president of Harpo films for 18 years before being let go in 2013. Some of the films she helped produce include Tuesdays with Morrie and The Great Debaters.]

[Victoria Hamburg is a producer who helped produce the Keanu Reeves film Johnny Mnemonic (1995), directed by Robert Longo]

#griffin dunne #long read #long reads #interview magazine #1980s #vintage magazine #victoria hamburg #an american werewolf in london #after hours 1985 #this is us #chilly scenes of winter #baby it's you #running on empty

3 notes · View notes

runekept · 6 years ago

Text

@inkwingart tagged me in a writer tag meme and I take it as a personal offense.

1. Tell me about your fav OC (pick 2 max).

I’m picking 2 bc it’s unfair to ask me to choose between my children.

first up to bat is Saban Pierce, who isn’t from an active project but I love him nonetheless. Saban, who usually goes by Van, is the leader of a network of persecuted mutants living in the neon underground of a very Blade Runner-flavored city. Saban is obsessed with perfection and tears himself apart over the smallest mistakes. he sees himself as the network’s sole protector, but doesn’t let anyone else watch his back, and he ends up shouldering a huge emotional burden all on his own. even though he wants to be loved and cared for, he keeps himself distant from everything because he hasn’t earned it, he’s not worthy of it. it’s like standing in an empty bathroom at a crowded nightclub: the music is muffled through the walls, you feel a little on edge, and your reality feels just a little bit hazy. he has a lot of love to give, though--he likes showing love through actions, rather than words, which means people assume he’s cold and unfeeling. he doesn’t mind; it’s easier for him to pretend he doesn’t care.

next up is Rezhik, one of the protags of Memento Mori. Rezhik is a criminal mastermind whose multiple brushes with death have given him the ability to pass through the Veil, which separates the world of the living from the parallel world of ghosts. Rezhik is very blithely indifferent to his own mortality; he tends to push the limits of his own safety as a way of coping with the self-hatred that comes with being partly a ghost. while he has a very devil-may-care attitude towards himself, he’s fiercely protective of his close friends. he has a bad leg and a bad shoulder after he was badly beaten, and he gets severe migraines, but his friends Quincy and Tabitha are more than willing to help him--he’s willing to die for them, and helping him function feels like the least they can do. he also has an uncanny talent for map-making: he can draw incredibly accurate and detailed maps by hand after walking through the area only once or twice.

2. What’s your favorite time of day for writing?

probably evening, but I write whenever I have free time. catch me at the bus stop slamming down a chapter on my phone.

3. Do you have a daily word count, and if you do, how often do you actually meet it?

tbh I don’t really write by daily word count. I get done what I can get done, which can be anything from 600 words to ~7.5k

4. What’s the best idea that’s ever come to you in the shower?

I can’t believe you won’t let me use the Apres story

tbh Rezhik’s entire character concept came to me in the shower, but other than that, it’d probably be [SPOILER]’s sexual network postal system. sexually transmitted diseases? more like sexual partners transmitting coded messages across the ocean so you can get vital information to your friends

5. Which of your wips/characters/locations has the best playlist?

definitely Neo Noir and Saban tbh. both those playlists are absolutely bangin’. spotify links are included, and I’d 100% recommend giving either of those a listen.

6. Do you have snacks on hand when you write?

if coffee or my fingernails are considered snacks, then yes. otherwise, usually no, but I really should bc I die of hypoglycemia very easily.

7. What’s your biggest writing weakness?

self-hatred tbh. I get discouraged if I feel like something isn’t going well, and I rarely feel like I live up to my own expectations.

8. Can you listen to music with lyrics when you write or does it have to be instrumentals only?

I can listen to anything while I write. I actually prefer lyrics for some projects, especially Coat of Scales. it helps me tune everything out, for whatever reason.

9. What’s your genre and why?

my genre is Gay and my reason is I’m Gay

10. If your book was adapted for live-action media, would it be a TV show or a movie?

Coat of Scales would make a better TV show than a movie, I think. it’s a little too long and involved for a movie and also I think only HBO is properly equipped to handle Saturn

I tag @poetatertot @skystones @puddingcatbae @molassesdisaster and @satyr-syd again bc I’m the wordsmiths president and I can do that

y’all’s questions are:

which character is the hardest for you to write, and why?

what’s your favorite line you’ve written?

describe an OC’s appearance, or your own take on a character’s appearance for an AU

pick a character and describe an outfit they’d wear

do you prefer to write in third person or first person? why?

what’s your go-to music genre for writing?

when you write, what do you want your readers to feel?

do you outline, or do you figure it out as you go? why?

what popular trope do you really, really hate?

do you have any special rituals or habits you have before you write?

#writer tag meme #also this looks so fucking ugly on mobile i'm so sorry

4 notes · View notes

matthewwilliamcharles · 4 years ago

Link

Had a very nice interview with Zo Magazine about my latest album,”Love What You Do”! You can follow the link to the article.

I’m also just cutting and pasting the text below. Interviews hang around for a while, but I’ve noticed some of my old interviews and write ups have been erased, websites disappear and that stuff is lost into the ether.

There isn’t a Boomer who hasn’t uttered, “If you love what you do, you’ll never work a day in your life,” or some version of that but aside from Boomers screwing up the world for most, they’re right about that. Having a passion for what you do is key to wanting to wake up every day and making it through those days with a smile on your face. It’s a concept that’s easier said than done for many, but for Matthew William Charles, he’s doing his best to live that life…which is likely why his 2020 release is ‘Love What You Do.’ We talked about just that, the record at hand, and I even introduced him to the world of ‘Sex and the City’ in this back and forth between creatives.

Kendra: Noting the release date of ‘Love What You Do,’ it seems like a lifetime has passed. March 2020. Looking back, were you like many in thinking that the pandemic wasn’t going to last this long and that you’d be out playing by summer?

Matthew William Charles: Yes absolutely, I thought that I was going to be out and playing by summertime when the pandemic first hit. A good portion of my summer had already been planned out. I had a UK tour lined up for July, tickets purchased, and shows booked. I was planning a small music festival for August in Philadelphia, PA. I had planned the release of “Love What You Do” to coincide with a couple of tours that I had scheduled for March and April. It was a day by day realization. Every week there were more and more cancellations. I had held on to hope until the last minute in most cases, not wanting to deal with the airline and car rental cancellations, and ultimately the disappointment of not getting to do what I love most, which is traveling and playing music. It was going to be an awesome summer for live music, needless to say, I was bummed out, but I dealt with the situation the best that I could.

Kendra: One thing I have admired about artists this year is their ability to keep pushing forward and finding ways to make their presence known in new ways. How do you feel these adaptations made this year will affect musicians in the coming years? Do you feel like we could be in for some sort of major shift in the industry as a whole because of 2020?

Matthew William Charles: Yes, it is interesting how musicians are adapting to the current situation. What I’ve seen is that many of us are becoming great at putting together online content. Many musicians that I know personally started live streaming performances for the first time at the start of the pandemic and have now set up mini studios and have been putting together really good quality live content.

In the future, It would be great to see people combine live-streamed concerts with actual live shows with people in attendance. I think it would be great to have an option for people who want to attend a live show but can’t, but still could watch the live stream from their home. Maybe they wouldn’t have to pay as much as the live ticket but could pay a lesser amount or contribute to a virtual tip jar for the musicians. As far as the music industry as a whole it’s hard to say, it has already changed so much in the last several years as far as how people consume music. I still prefer purchasing records, CDs, and tapes from bands after a live performance. I don’t think that you will ever be able to replace that experience, but I think the shift to a more digital music world is inevitable.

Kendra: Speaking of admiration, ‘Love What You Do’ is a great title and life mantra to have. Was music what you’ve always done or were you in another career and finally realized, nah…not for me?

Matthew William Charles: I had wanted to be in a band since I was a little kid, and I finally got my first band together when I was 15-years-old. I started playing shows at the local youth center, and in a couple of years, I was booking my shows at local bars and venues. I’ve always had a passion for music and have found a way to fund and maintain my habit. In other words, I’ve always had a job. I’m a working-class musician; get off of work and go to band practice, or drive straight to the show, get home at 2 am and wake up in a couple of hours to go back to work. I’ve always found jobs that would be flexible and let me tour, and if they said I couldn’t go on tour I would quit and find another job when I got back.

These past several years I’ve started my own screen printing business here in Philadelphia, PA. I make band merch for a living, and I can take time off for music whenever I want. It’s a lot of hard work and dedication but it’s rewarding. I’ve always had a do it yourself mentality and one of my main goals in life was to be in a position where nobody was able to tell me what to do.

Kendra: There are a lot of styles going on on this record, but the base seems to have a punk spirit. Did you grow up with that punk mentality, going to the likes of Warped Tour?

Matthew William Charles: I discovered punk music when I was in my early teens and it changed the trajectory of my life. I grew up with a lot of different influences, but when I heard bands like Black Flag and The Descendents it changed my perception of what a song could be. I didn’t realize that you could write songs that could hit you like a blunt object, intimately describing whatever personal angst and general unhappiness that you might have. That influence has followed me every step of the way through my various musical progressions. Looking back, surprisingly I only made it to one Warped Tour back in 98’, but I was never a really big fan of festivals and preferred the more intimate setting of a local venue.

Kendra: Anyone in a creative career can attest to “Living in Debt.” Despite what Carrie Bradshaw was pimping, freelance doesn’t allot every writer to live in Manhattan. What do you feel aspiring musicians should know about the financial side of making music before they jump in?

Matthew William Charles: Full disclosure I just had to look up to see who Carrie Bradshaw was, and seeing that she was part of the HBO series ‘Sex And The City’ I can understand why I don’t. Also “Living In Debt” is specifically about the problems associated with college debt, but I can see how that can be applied to musicians.

Before I could give any financial advice, I would first ask yourself,” Why do you want to play music?” The answer for me and I can only imagine this is the answer for most people is that you love music, you enjoy the way it makes you feel, or that you enjoy performing for people and being on stage. You can’t forget the reasons why you started. Being a career musician is hard, and most musicians have jobs or some sort of side gig to make ends meet. The percentage of musicians who make a lot of money is really small, but those people are most likely working all the time and many become physically and mentally drained. Financially, you need to have realistic expectations. You need to make a plan, plot out goals and understand what you need to do to make those things happen. You need to live within your means, many times that means living uncomfortably so you have more time and money to invest in your music. When you start, if you make money, save it. Put it in a bank account or some lockbox that you will not touch even in an emergency. Only reinvest that money into your musical project. If you’re going that extra mile to become a career musician you have to think about your music as a business. That doesn’t work for a lot of people because it sanitizes the experience. Again you have to ask yourself those important questions to figure out what is going to work for you.

Kendra: With all that has transpired this year, how do you feel 2020 has shaped your creativity and drive moving forward?

Matthew William Charles: 2020 has been a huge reality check. It’s made me realize, even more so than ever that I can’t take anything for granted. My drive is the same, and I’m going to continue to be positive and write music and try and share my music with as many people as possible. The landscape has changed and I’m trying to adapt the best that I can. Nothing can replace live shows, interacting with people face to face, and making new friends and fans. The silver lining is that I can learn some new ways to share and promote my music, and hopefully, if things return to normal I can use those new techniques in tandem with traditional touring and live performances.

Kendra: Usually, this is where I ask people what they have planned in the coming months but with the world in a strange place right now, plans aren’t as concrete as they typically are. You can go ahead and let us know what you have tentatively planned but can you also share a song that never fails to get you through when the world around you feels like a mess?

Matthew William Charles: It has been a struggle to make plans and be productive. I’m currently working on some home recording projects and I plan to release some of those songs periodically over the next several months. I’m working on making some music videos and I have been making more use of my video streaming accounts like YouTube and LBRY. I’ve done some live streaming events and plan to do some more in the future, it’s honestly not my favorite thing but it helps fill the void.

A song that never fails to inspire me and gets me through tough times is “Superhuman Coliseum” by the band I Farm. It’s an obscure, thrashy punk rock track off their album, ‘Sincerely Robots.’ The main refrain is “Live again, and start all over ” which I think is a good piece of advice, if not a necessary action if our world continues on its current course.

#mu

0 notes

westworld-daily · 7 years ago

Text

Behind the Scenes of the Westworld UI

In late 2016 it happened. HBO released the TV series Westworld and invited us into the wonderful world of a technologically advanced amusement park, filled with android hosts ready to give us everything we’ve ever dreamed of.

As HBO unveiled episode after episode each Sunday, I was glued to my TV as millions of others did the same. Westworld went on to to rank as one of the most-watched first season series on HBO ever. No surprise, if you ask me.

But besides the show's stunning cinematography and title sequence, I became obsessed with its graphical details. Specifically the futuristic graphic user interface elements (GUI) you can find throughout its fictional world. As a designer of current products and interfaces, I draw a fair amount of inspiration from futuristic interfaces like these.

After digging a little deeper I found one of the designers, Chris Kieffer, who not only worked on Westworld, but other movies like Passengers, Interstellar, G.I. Joe and many others you’ve probably heard about.

Luckily Chris agreed to an interview, giving us the full tour on how it is to design user interfaces for TV and film.

Let’s go!

Tell us how you found yourself designing user interfaces for some of the most popular sci-fi films and shows out there. Did you picture yourself working in film when you first got into design?

I’ve always wanted to work on films. I didn't plan on doing UI’s for films, though I have always been fascinated by them. I used to see UI’s when I would go to the movies and always wonder how those "computers" did that. I would try remaking some of the ones that I really liked. I didn't think that would help me later on when I started to actually work for movies, but it did.

The opportunity to work on Westworld, Passengers and Interstellar were all somewhat connected. I had worked with crew from all three on previous projects. Sometimes it’s the producer, director, production designer, art director or props. It makes it easier to get on a specific film when you have those connections.

What’s your background?

My background is a mix of a lot of things. I started out in print design, working at a t-shirt shop while I was in high school. I didn't do any computer design at the time. The shop was old school, which I liked. A lot of other places used Corel Draw and Quark for screen printing designs, which I didn't know. At this place I would actually draw every shirt design, then photograph it and make the transparencies, then with a blade hand-cut the amber for all the color separations. It was very detailed work and made me appreciate fonts, because I had to do them all by hand.

While in college I went from shop to shop doing shirt designs, and I was getting a lot more into Photoshop and Illustrator. I studied graphic design and visual communications, and realized I loved the fact that I could take all my designs and bring them to life with animation.

After college I started working at a company doing a lot of print and packaging work, all the while doing motion graphics work on the side. I had moved up to managing the art department when I got a call to go to another company. I went in for an interview and it went well. On the way home I got a call from Warner Bros. to work on a film. Right after that, the company that just interviewed me said I could have the job if I started immediately. The Warner Bros. job was only a guarantee of one week of employment on a film, that’s it. I had to make a decision: take the new "guaranteed" job which paid a lot more than my previous job, or take the one week at Warner Bros. working on a feature film and hope for more. I took the one week — I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to actually work on a movie! I took a chance and I have been here since, going on 11 years now.

What's the process like working on interfaces for movies or films? How many people do you work with to complete an interface from concept to visual design to animation?

Every project is different, but I’ll give you a somewhat normal setup. Early on in the project, we get a call to come in and meet with production and discuss what they need, break down the script, develop a budget, etc.

Once all those things are done and set up, we start the design process. Preferably we would start early in production and have time to really get into the design and mechanics of everything, but that rarely ever happens. Honestly, it’s usually around 2-3 weeks before we start shooting. So first we would start designing the UI's look, style, color palette, functionality, etc. in those first few days.

Then we usually have a meeting to go over everything with the director, production designer and art director. Based on that meeting we continue to refine and make whatever changes are needed. We also discuss the hero elements that will need to happen. Hero is a term we use to describe something in a script that is specific to the story and called out to happen on a screen, hologram, monitor, etc. This is something specific that will have to be ready and worked out to be shot in camera.

Then we usually start breaking down the graphics in different sections. Usually myself and a few others will continue designing and animating graphics, some on hero and others building background screens or elements. Others will be programming how we will actually make it work and interact on set, while also prepping the gear and necessary equipment.

Then a few more meetings until we start to shoot. By then we have a pretty decent library of graphical UI elements for that film. While we are shooting a particular set we are working on the next set and the graphics for it, along with making changes on the fly if needed. This goes on until we finish shooting and finally wrap.

In post production we would normally do the graphics we couldn't shoot on set and knew would be replaced in post. That wasn't the case on Passengers, for example. On that project we came up with some concepts for post, but it was all handed off to MPC (Moving Picture Company) I believe. That’s pretty common too. I may work on a project in post that someone else did all the onset playback graphics for, and vice versa.

Tell us a little more about the post process. I'd assume seeing the UI in context, mapped to its proper surface, changes quite a lot for you.

Sometimes we can't pre-build a working graphic for something because it will strictly have to be done later in VFX. For example, the tri-fold tablets in Westworld were always going to be done in post. We tried a few options for some of the background ones that would be live in camera for interactive lighting, using tablets roughly the same size or EL Paper on the tri-folded tablets.

What made it a lot easier is pre-designing what they were going to look like and how they were going to function before we shot them. So on the day of shooting, I would go over how the UI works on the tablet with the actor before the scene and sometimes during. That made it much easier in post to match their movements and make the UI have some consistency.

Too often I get called into VFX to create an FUI (fantasy user interface) for something that has already been shot and cut together. The actor or actress just made random gestures on a tablet or hologram; now I have to reverse engineer how the UI could work based on those movements and gestures.

How is it different working on futuristic interfaces vs. real life products? For example, do you try to approach a UI for Westworld as realistically as you can? How real does it have to be?

I have worked on many different styles of UI's, everything from old CRT vector graphics to futuristic ones. They all have their own level of difficulties. Some films need the technology to look as if it was real in that time. Like making a bunch of older screens from the ‘70s - ‘80s to match what they actually looked like back then. Some need to look like they're from that time, but it’s a pseudo reality so it has to conform to that as well. There are some scenarios where they want it set in a distant, but not too far future. So we would design what we think it could be and what technology could be like for that specific film or show.

When I look at the mobile UI from Westworld, I see a lot of icons that are currently not being used. When you design an interface like this, do you imagine a purpose for every icon as you would for a product used in real life?

I try to make every button or icon have a purpose. There have been times when something is just thrown in as filler when in a rush on set before a take and they want a change, but it could haunt you after that. That might have just established a main part of the UI and has to be figured out from now on. In the particular shot you’re referencing, the icons do have general meaning. From left to right they could be:

Device Settings

Tools/Utilities

Security

Host Database/Logs

Admin controls for Stubbs character

Now those have never been established as that, but they could be.

How important is it for you to think through the whole product instead of just designing key screens?

Depends on the project. Sometimes we may be making background screens to fill a set. They will never be shot up close and don't have to be completely thought through like a hero screen. Though they do have to be designed and created for the specific world of that project. So the UI would be consistent, but the little details or elements within the UI don’t have to tell a specific detail of the story. They set the tone. Like if it was a military base or command center, the graphics would all be created for that specific military base. The maps and other parts would be locations or events from the script, but not at the detailed, scripted hero level.

When I look at some of the interfaces you design, they follow the actual dialog and story of the episode very closely. What’s the process for designing a screen like this? Do you get the script or some wireframes explaining what you need to do?

Yes, I have to go through the script and break down every shot or set that has graphics in it. Sometimes it’s vague and says something like, "She is looking through medical documents about a patient." The director will say it doesn't have to be a specific disease, just about the patient’s medical history. In this case the design is supporting the story versus telling a specific part of it. Then there are times when the script is very specific and says beat by beat what we see on the screen, so the design has to match exactly. In that case I would have to design around this while telling the story. Sometimes you only have a second or two to tell a story, so that people watching can instantly understand what they are seeing.

Where do you see real life UI design going in the future? Do you ever consider that the things you do might inspire other designers working on real, current products?

I’m not sure, to be honest. I can say that people are understanding the importance of a well-designed UI now more than ever. I think the expectations of UI are climbing way past what we saw in a movie and thought we could never have. Now we see it at our fingertips. I talk a lot with people who are making real world products or software who see things in a movie and want to make it in real life. They are inspired by what they see in a movie and want to make it a reality. On the other side, I am very inspired by real world tech. Sometimes I find that when I’m designing something I think would be cool to have in a film, it already exists in reality and it’s even better than I expected. That inspires me to make something completely new.

What would be one of your dream projects in the future? I know that's a hard one to answer right after you did Westworld.

Because I'm a big fan, I have always wanted to work on a Star Wars film. That’s one I would really like to be a part of.

What advice would you give to someone who might be interested in doing what you do? What are the key skills of a futuristic UI designer?

It depends on what part of this work they are interested in. There are programmers who develop the software we use to play back the graphics on set. There are designers or animators, sometimes people who do both. I wish I could do all three — design, animate and program. But I can't program on that level so I will leave it to the professionals. I focus mainly on design and animation, but understanding how it will be programmed really helps the workflow. As a designer or animator you can also work in post with VFX to create FUIs that are burned in or replaced.

I think having a good sense of design and animation is key. Knowing how something will move in space and understanding how to use motion along with your designs is a great skill to have. I would also recommend what I did. If you see something that inspires you, try to remake it. Try to solve how something was made and find a new, or even better way to approach it. Even if you can’t recreate it, you have learned something new. Then start designing and making your own. Even if it’s not for a specific project, come up with one.

Also don’t be afraid to ask other designers questions. Some may not respond and some may help. I try to help anyone who is passionate about this kind of work as much as I can.

#westworld #interviews #behind the scenes #westworld bts #interviews 2017 #vanschneider

17 notes · View notes

calzona-ga · 8 years ago

Link

When Grey’s Anatomy boss Shonda Rhimes told EW that the finale would be “on fire,” she was being quite literal.

After Stephanie set fire to the escaping rapist in the penultimate hour, she accidentally caused a giant explosion in the hospital. Against all odds, Stephanie survived the fire, and even saved the little girl, but the event made her realize that she’s spent most of her life in a hospital and doesn’t want to anymore. Yes, Stephanie survived, but she subsequently quits — and her portrayer Jerrika Hinton is officially leaving the ABC medical drama.

“Actors evolve differently and when an actor like Jerrika comes to me and says she wants to try something new creatively, I like to honor that,” executive producer Shonda Rhimes says of the exit. “Jerrika has shared so much of herself with Stephanie and I am incredibly proud of the journey we’ve taken together. While I’m sad to see Stephanie leave Grey Sloan Memorial Hospital, I am excited to see what’s next for Jerrika.”

EW turned to Hinton to get the scoop on why she decided to leave:

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: What came with the decision to leave Grey’s Anatomy, and what was that conversation with Shonda like? JERRIKA HINTON: That was a conversation that happened almost a year ago. It was very, very open and straightforward. You ever have one of those conversations — with a superior in particular, not just a peer — that feels like a natural, genuine meeting of the minds? That’s what that conversation was like. It was extremely and deeply gratifying.

How do you feel about how Stephanie’s story came to an end, that she went off to live her own life and not die, which is what everyone expected after that penultimate episode? I’m a fan. I deeply appreciate that she gets to leave a lasting mark, not just in that place, but also from what the fans on social media are saying and within the audiences’ minds as well. I feel like this is the natural conclusion of what her journey has been over this season. Her journey has been about self-actualization and repression. Being in the line of work that is about literal life and death and yet no one processing it, and no one encouraging that you process it; Minnick was possibly the only one, in episode 22 or 23, when she sent Steph to therapy. For as upset as people may be with Minnick, that was the right thing. That is the thing that not only Stephanie needs, but everybody in that line of work — everybody in that hospital definitely — needs. You’ve got her sacrificing herself for a place that isn’t doing the same thing for her. We saw it when they lost the little boy, and Robbins ran after Minnick rather than tending to the distraught resident. You’ve got her in the midst of conditions that are figuratively and literally burning her out. It’s meaningful that she not only sees the world for what it is, but that she also makes a healthy decision about how to move forward. Whenever we see people on television making those kinds of hard decisions, it makes it easier for us to do that in our own lives — or at least makes us soften to the possibility of doing that in our own lives.

Was there ever a possibility that they were going to kill off Stephanie? I mean, I’ve pitched a lot of things over the years, and I’m sure the writers in the bungalow have pitched a lot of things this season. So, I can’t necessarily speak to how many versions of Stephanie’s exit there were, but I know there were multiple versions.

Would you have wanted her to die? Only if it had been in a very specific way. There are a very narrow set of circumstances that I felt would be appropriate for her to exit the show with death. It can’t just be death for melodrama’s sake.

Stephanie basically got Minnick fired. How do you think she feels about that? I think in that final interaction that Stephanie has with Minnick, Stephanie would feel a-okay. She would not lose any sleep at night. This is what I will say: Everybody should just go off and live their best life.

Looking back at your time on the show, is there any particular moment that sticks out to you? Honestly, it’s going to be that scene with Jim [Pickens Jr.] in the finale. Everything about shooting the last two episodes was so strenuous and exhausting and, in ways, traumatizing. That one scene, which came very early in the schedule of the finale, was a moment where everything became easy, and everything had such flow. In the midst of such chaos and spectacle, to have something like that, I think the dichotomy alone makes it something that just stands out for me.

What was it like filming this episode? It was a beast, to be quite honest with you. I’m still recovering, physically and emotionally, from it. I’m going to get emotional. When my parents get in town [Thursday] and we go over to my girlfriend’s house and we all sit down together and have a big viewing party, there’s going to be a couple things that I know I can’t watch, just because it’s going to feel like I am going through it again; I can’t watch it as a viewer. So I’m prepared for that. But to speak about production, I had to do an hour of prosthetics every morning, you had pyrotechnics going off all around you, you were breathing propane fumes all day, all week, running up and down stairs, carrying a kid, screaming my heart out on a rooftop in the middle of the night. It was a lot. It was more than I have ever had to endure with an episode or a role. I hope it was all worth it, I hope it all shows on the screen.

Is there anything you would change or anything you regret from your time on Grey’s? No. I’ve been there for five years, and the decision to leave was my own that was supported in a very deep way that I could never communicate, by my boss, and a host of other things that I could mention that have happened in those five years that are just significant memories. So when I look back on my time, I genuinely can’t. Not only do I not have regrets, I don’t have any what ifs, I don’t have any if onlys; everything that has happened has happened in exactly the way that it should for myself. I look forward to the next chapter, because I know I can close this and let go of this one so cleanly.

There’s really nothing you wish you had gotten to do with Stephanie? No romance you wish you could’ve explored? No, because for me to answer that question, I’d have to create a whole new world of circumstances. Within the circumstances of what the show is and all the characters that we have had and all the pairings that we have had over the years, there’s nothing else I would’ve done differently. There are no new romances that I think they should’ve thought out with cast members. It’s not like I think Stephanie should’ve taken over the hospital, none of that. Everything has been what it is.

Are you open to returning to Grey’s Anatomy in the future? Yes, that place has a really wonderful soft spot in my heart. I think that because of the nature of Stephanie’s injuries and the way that she has decided to leave, what she has decided to prioritize, for it to make sense, it would have to be a long time before Stephanie graces those halls again for it to make sense. She can’t have gone through all of this and then six months later says, “Hey guys, just kidding, I’m back. I went and I took two hikes and I was like, ‘I’m good!‘”

You’ve already signed onto something new, this Alan Ball project for HBO. Is there anything you can say? To be honest with you, even though I’m a month outside of being in Shondaland, my reflexes are still Shondaland reflexes, which means I get very nervous about sharing information. Even though I’m certain I can, I’m still working to recalibrate those reflexes. The new show is really wonderful. I’m very, very excited about my character. I’m still scared, because I don’t know what I can or can’t say. Shonda has trained me well. [Laughs] Words can’t explain [how much fun I’m having]. My new family and I, we have this group text. We sit and text all day. If you would’ve told me a few months ago that I would sit on my phone texting all day with a bunch of people, I would’ve said, “That sounds like pure hell, please let me just turn off my phone and not be connected,” but I pick up my phone and go, “What is the group talking about today?” It’s just so exciting. There’s such love and generosity. It’s very collaborative. I feel very fortunate.

#jerrika hinton #grey's anatomy #stephanie edwards #ew #scoop

30 notes · View notes

aion-rsa · 3 years ago

Text

Does The Many Saints of Newark Begin a New Chapter of The Sopranos?

https://ift.tt/39ZMSFm

This article contains light spoilers for The Many Saints of Newark.

The Sopranos prequel film, The Many Saints of Newark is David Chase’s return to the New Jersey city where his families lived, worked, and occasionally breathed their last. The film focuses on Christopher Moltisanti’s (Michael Imperioli) father Dickie Molitisanti (Alessandro Nivola), and his struggle with doing the right thing against things that have to be done right. He is very supportive of the film’s most important supporting role. Michael Gandolfini, the 22-year-old son of James Gandolfini, plays a young Tony Soprano.

While the film doesn’t explore Christopher’s claim that his father, Tony’s hero, was a junkie, it does fill in many of the plot points which lead to events in the series. But not all. Not even close. The young Tony Soprano is only a pinky swear away from living a legitimate life, varsity sweater or not.

Alan Taylor directed the pilot for The Sopranos and it looks like he’s just helmed the maiden voyage of what we hope will be a series of films bridging The Many Saints of Newark to the influential HBO series. David Case has mentioned in interviews that he’s now open to this line of thinking, 14 years after the series cut to black.

Taylor’s project is directing the pilot of the upcoming Interview with the Vampire series, which will delve deeply into the books of Anne Rice. He also directed the pilot of Mad Men, introduced dragons to Game of Thrones, and framed memorable episodes of Deadwood, Rome, Nurse Jackie, Lost, Sex and the City, and The West Wing. The former history professor might appreciate a revisionist retelling of the responses to Thor: The Dark World (2013) and Terminator Genisys (2015), but plumbed deep, dark street life in Kill the Poor (2003), and commonplace criminals grounded in concrete comedy in Palookaville (1995) which starred gangster genre favorite William Forsythe.

The Many Saints of Newark director Alan Taylor broke bread with Den of Geek, speaking about Tony Soprano’s past, Dickie Moltisanti’s future, and Sylvio Dante’s hair piece.

Den of Geek: The Many Saints of Newark ends on a real mystery. Is there any chance for a sequel to the sequel?

Alan Taylor: Well, it’s funny, I don’t think David will ever make anything where it doesn’t end with, “Okay, what happens or what just happened?” David Chase will always leave things open-ended. So, I think the door will never close. It was funny making this. I thought it was going to be a one-shot thing, but David seems to be thinking about possible sequels. And I do think there’s a “Tony Soprano, the young gangster” movie to be made, that we haven’t made yet because, in ours, we didn’t get there.

Will Michael Gandolfini be able to do that?

It would be really tough to be an actor playing Tony Soprano and not be Michael Gandolfini.

I agreed with David Chase about The Sopranos being a comedy. But did you have that mindset on set?

We’ve all drunk deep at the well of Scorsese, and humor is never absent. When things get to be their most extreme is when humor sort of breaks out, in that tone of that world. That’s partly a Scorsese thing. It’s partly maybe an American thing, inappropriate humor at violent moments. Certainly, humor was all the way through the series and hopefully there’s some of that in the movie as well.

Because we tried to capture the tones of the series and bring them in and the humor of it, but also the off-kilter weirdness. This dreaminess, that slightly surreal quality that sometimes came into the show. I love the fact that we have scenes that may or may not have actually taken place. Who knows whether Dickie Moltisanti actually coached a baseball team or whether that’s just a delusion?

In the series you use malapropisms and you explore comedy more openly. Is it easier to explore on TV than it is in film?

No, humor can be anywhere you want it or not want it to be. I think humor was a sustained, crucial element of the show from the beginning. From the pilot on, you had characters that were almost comic relief, like Ray Abruzzo’s Carmine Jr., the malaprop guy. To me, their humor is a big part of this movie. John Magaro handling his toupee is Sopranos’ humor to me and Paulie being worried about his mustard-colored leisure suit when they’re doing something really shitty to somebody is also the tone of the show. So, to me, it’s there.

I read there was a shot filmed that was not used with Edie Falco. Can you tell me anything else about it?

Movies

How The Many Saints of Newark Almost Brought Carmela Soprano Back

By Alec Bojalad and 1 other

I’m already starting to think it was not a great idea to, to say that much. It’s one of those things that I mentioned, because I tend to be candid and brutally honest. Movies are made and you’re not quite sure of the shape while you’re making it, sometimes. The beginning we have right now was a stroke of genius that David came up with very late in the game. We had an earlier beginning that we actually had shot, but we replaced it with this opening, and it seemed to shape the movie more and contain the movie more and felt more necessary.

So, sadly Edie doesn’t appear, but it was a great excuse to bring her in. We got to put her through hair and makeup and wardrobe and she became Carmela again for a second. But yeah, it’s just part of the brutal process of finding the movie along the way.

You play a lot with foreshadowing, does Christopher come into the world knowing Tony is going to kill him one day with two fingers?

Well, it depends on if you’re an atheist like me, or that woman sitting at the table with them who tells us something that I’m almost willing to believe: “Sometimes babies, when they come into this world, they know all kinds of stuff on the other side.” I love the fact that she’s talking about the other side, meaning the other side of death. But she’s also talking about the other side of, like: on HBO. You know we’re in the movies now but he knows things from TV that most people don’t know. My favorite foreshadow is less supernatural than that. There’s a scene where young Tony, played by William Ludwig, not by Michael, turns to his uncle and says “I saw a guy get shot in the back. I don’t want that to happen to me.” I don’t know how you read the final scene of The Sopranos series, but I know how I read the final scene. So, to me that’s foreshadowing

I understand you and David Chase disagree on this.

Who does he think he is? Yeah, it’s funny. We disagree on that and I think it’s okay to disagree. I’ve spoken to him. He will not commit to what happened in that room. When he tells it, it’s like every possibility is there in Tony’s life, and he just turns the TV off. But to me, I’m committed to the idea that Tony was shot in the back of the head by a guy wearing a Members Only jacket. I’ve got my reasons for thinking that. So, I’m just going to agree to disagree.

The Sopranos’ Best End Credit Songs

By Shawn Laib

The Sopranos: Explaining the Final Scene

By Jamie Andrew

But there was one line of dialogue in the whole history of Sopranos that was set as dialogue and then repeated as voice over. It’s only happened once, I think. And that was when (Bobby) Bacala says “when the bullet’s got your name on it. You probably don’t hear it coming.” I’m going to go with that and say that’s what happened at Holsten’s.

You’ve directed some of my favorite death scenes. You killed Caesar (in Rome), Ned Stark (in Game of Thrones), Christopher and Dickie, and they’re all stylistically unique.

Don’t forget Wild Bill Hickok (in Deadwood). As an episodic director, you never quite know what you’re going to get when you go in. When you see you’re killing a major character that is like you won the lottery. When I got to do Ned Stark, that was great.

Is there anything different about going into shooting an epic scene like that than the mundane scenes that lead up to it?

Maybe I’m just perverse in my head, but one of the guiding things for doing something like the Ned Stark death was to deliberately shoot it in a kind of mundane way. I wanted the angle that, where his head gets chopped off, to be a coverage angle that we’ve already been using, no special, heightened dramatic angles for the big event. I think a lot of people watched that scene, not ready to believe that he was going to die because knew he was the main character.

Of course, anybody who read the novels knew what was coming at some point, but a lot of people thought, “OK, got it, a big TV show, here is the main character.” So, I was trying not to telegraph the inevitable or to over-dramatize it. In that one, I was actually shooting his coverage almost like it was a conversation.

When I killed Caesar, I just tried to do it with historical accuracy. We did all this research about who stabbed him when and where, and tried to match the reality of that gruesome killing. There are a few ways worse to go than being stabbed to death by a bunch of people you know. Trying to capture that feeling and just be true to it. I probably got stylized with that a bit more. I remember there were top shots and slow motion and things, but every death is different, I guess.

How do you think long-time Anne Rice fans are going to respond to the upcoming Interview with the Vampire?

Boy, that’s a pressing question on my calendar today. I signed up for it because I loved her book so much. I remember I just moved to New York, I read Interview with the Vampire, and it kind of blew my mind. The feeling I got from the book was: “Okay, you’ve seen a bunch of vampire stories, but that’s all bullshit. Here’s the truth. This is the real thing.” She did it amazingly well in that first novel and then built an empire out of it.

I’m hoping people will find things to love in the version we’re going to do. That’s true to that. But also, the writer, Roland Jones, has made some changes that I think deepen and do some very intriguing things with the basic story. We’re working with the Rice estate and they’re on board with it. I think we’re carrying the original appeals of the novel, but I think we’re also making some changes that make it worth exploring again.

The mixture of vampires and gangsters is too rarely explored. I love the movie Innocent Blood.

I’m the guy. Yeah, that should be my next genre would be the vampire gangster movie. I’m sure there’s been a few.

Did you know wise guys growing up?

No, I grew up in small-town Canada, even though it was the capital. I lived in Italy as a child, so I feel like I have a real affection for Italian culture and Italian-American culture that I think comes out of that early period. I was dropped into a school where only Italian was spoken as a kid. I think that’s one of my connections to it, and I live in New York. I live in Brooklyn. I used to live in Soho right next to Little Italy. So, those places were still big social clubs at the time and that’s where I was hanging out. So, at least I brushed up against it.

You directed the pilot where Tony says he’s coming in at the end, and you’re here at the end of this movie. Do you think Tony should have finished college?

Wow, that’s just one of the small questions that raises the big question of: Did Tony have to turn out the way he did? I think the meaning of our movie is that no one is locked in a destiny, but it’s amazing how often we feel that way and how often it turns out that way. Tony should have finished college. Tony should have gotten away from his mother. Tony should have done a lot of things that might have kept his horizons broader than they were. Luckily, he didn’t and we have a great TV show as a result, but I think he could have been a happier person with less blood on his hands.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

The Many Saints of Newark will be released in theaters on October 1, and will be available on HBO Max for 31 days from the theatrical release.

The post Does The Many Saints of Newark Begin a New Chapter of The Sopranos? appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/2Y5jECs

#aion-rsa #Den of Geek

0 notes

recentnews18-blog · 6 years ago

Photo

New Post has been published on https://shovelnews.com/producer-paul-giamatti-discusses-amcs-weird-funny-new-show-lodge-49/

Producer Paul Giamatti Discusses AMC's Weird, Funny New Show 'Lodge 49'

There’s so much TV coming out of Hollywood right now that the beats often match in interesting, unintended ways.

Sometimes, characters from two different shows about obscenely wealthy assholes — Showtime’s Billions and HBO’s Succession — eat illegal, thumb-sized birds within weeks of each other. Other times, a show vibes with reality in stark, parallel ways like Hulu’s The Handmaid’s Tale and Trump’s America.

AMC’s Lodge 49 falls under the latter. America’s reality in 2018 is a surreal carnival where barely plausible news shows up in your iPhone alerts once or twice a day, and sometimes reality makes you so angry that you tune it out. Lodge 49 is set in a beach town whose biggest employer is slowly shutting down, and everyone is tuning out the the misery with donuts and fantasy novels.

Don’t let that description put you off, though. Lodge 49 is funny and odd. Marine mammals hold up traffic, and unseen characters with names like “Captain” and a secretive social club figure into the shaggy-dog plot. Executive producer Paul Giamatti, who stars in Billions (but didn’t get to eat the tiny birds), sat down with Decider talk about creating Lodge 49.

youtube

DECIDER: Tell me about the Ancient and Benevolent Order of the Lynx.

PAUL GIAMATTI: [Laughs.] It’s a fraternal order that has a deep history. It’s meant to echo groups like the Masons. Our lodge is Lodge 49, which has its roots in Long Beach, Calif., which is on the ropes because membership is down.

I’ve seen the first four episodes, and there’s an economic malaise running through them.

That runs through the whole season.

I’ve never seen that kind of economic anxiety in such proximity to whimsy. Was that one of the starting places for what you wanted to do with the series?

Very much so. The writer, Jim Gavin, is not a screenwriter. He’s a short story writer and novelist from Long Beach, and the story is somewhat autobiographical. The plumbing salesman part, certainly, is autobiographical. It’s very much a product of his worldview, and that tone is deliberate.

He has lived through tough economic times, and the show was a godsend for him. He was having a hard time as a writer and was close to going back to selling plumbing supplies. He has that experience and an extraordinary imagination, and those two things melded in interesting ways.

How did the show come to you? Was it in the script pile on your desk?

I have a small production company. My production partner, Dan Carey, goes out and finds projects. We don’t want a pile of scripts; we want to go out and find things that are interesting to us. Dan read the Lodge 49 script and loved it, and I read the script and thought it was one of the best things I had ever read. The characters are so well delineated, and most scripts I read — even the good scripts — make everyone sound the same on the page. The characters are so distinct on this show.

I thought it was an amazing script and was jazzed by the idea of these semi-defunct fraternal organization that you drive by in every town — some Elk’s Lodge or Odd Fellows Lodge or Shriners. They’re weird little buildings, and he opens a door to them in really interesting ways.

youtube

The vibe — particularly from Wyatt Russell — reminded me of The Big Lebowski.

That wasn’t as big an influence for Jim Gavin as Charles Portis, who wrote True Grit and a lot of other great books.

The series is unpredictable and often changes course from episode to episode, so it’s interesting to hear that Jim Gavin is a short story writer. Did he come in with those shifts in mind?

Definitely. The show unfolds more like a work of literature. It takes its time, and unexpected things happen. It grows slowly and organically and goes to a lot of interesting places, but it doesn’t do that in an amped-up way. It’s much more patient than that.

You’re a working actor who’s also a producer. You just finished Jungle Cruise for Disney in Atlanta, and you’re about to start back up on Billions for Showtime. Do you give yourself time between projects? Do you work in phone calls on your shooting days?

I spend a lot of time on the phone, and it’s wonderful that I can watch dailies on my computer. I had a chunk of time off that coincided with developing Lodge 49, so I was able to be around a lot for casting and other meetings. And I was able to go during breaks from Billions to Atlanta, where we shot parts of Lodge 49.

Billions shoots in New York?

Right, and we were able to cast a lot of Lodge 49 out of New York. Plus, I can see auditions, dailies, production design — all of that — on my computer. The technology has really made it a lot easier to do those things from remote.

The New York connection explains having stage actors like Linda Emond in Lodge 49.

I’ve done plays in New York with Linda Emond and have known her for a long time. She’s one of my favorite actors. I helped produce another TV show that never got past the pilot, and she was in that. I was keen to have her in this series.

youtube

Wyatt Russell is the lead in Lodge 49, and his parents are Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn. Do you see more of one of them than the other in his acting?

He’s a great comedic talent, which he gets from both of them. We sent him the script, and he immediately said he wanted to do it. He’s a wonderful, naturalistic actor with great comedic timing. He certainly looks a lot like his father. He’s the central guy in an ensemble piece, and he was a wonderful team player.

AMC is calling Lodge 49 a fable, which is not something I see a lot in show descriptions. Is that a term you used when you were developing and producing the series?

Yeah, for sure. It’s not entirely realistic. It’s a difficult show to describe, which I think is great. The show has a lot of elements, and fable is a good word for it. It’s got an old-school feel to it and is a story of a group of people on a quest.

Most fables have animals, and animals pop up throughout the series. Wyatt Russell’s character has a snakebite, and animals figure into a several scenes through the episodes I’ve watched so far.

The show is filled with symbols and metaphors, which fables have.

The show is set in a town where the local factory has recently shut down, and that has having an effect on everyone in one way or another. It has been interesting going from a news cycle that’s full of surreal moments and anger to watching a series full of surreal moments and economic anxiety. The characters seem to be managing a difficult situation better than the real world is right now.

I suppose that’s true, but there are a lot of people in the country dealing with situations like a factory closing. The show was developed before the current politics, and it’s not commenting on cynicism and politics. A lot of people do deal with economic struggles in heroic ways. One of the points of the show is that those people then congregate in a community that allows them to lean on and support each other.

They find a place that gives them a higher sense of life — a way to turn shit into gold. The whole alchemical metaphor in the show is that you turn crap to gold, and people have to do that with their lives. That, in many ways, is what the show is about.

Scott Porch writes about the TV business for Decider and is a contributing writer for Playboy. You can follow him on Twitter @ScottPorch.