Film School Rejects » Interviews

Exclusive: ‘New Moon’ Screenwriter Talks Adapting Empty Pages and ‘Eclipse’ Additions

Dr. Cole Abaius — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:38:45 +0000

I realize that not many in our core audience will be shouting Oh Em Gee whenever they see even the slightest bit of Twilight: New Moon news, but I think that most of our core audience (that means you, Darnell) loves the profess of filmmaking. You love the smell of color correction chemicals in the morning and the weight of an apple box in your arms. Or you just love that moment where you look up and a once-empty page is completely filled. With shit that you’re going to edit anyway. But the point stands.

Melissa Rosenberg is a screenwriter who straddles more two worlds in more than one way. The first is obvious: she writes heavily for both television and film. The second is less obvious: she has written three Twilight films (which seem to gain ire from certain sects of fanboys) and she writes for “Dexter” (which seems to get excited squeals from the same sects).

I was lucky enough to get her perspective on writing someone else’s story, the dream of writing, and falling in love with a guy in an L. Ron Hubbard costume.

As usual, I’m in bold.

We were just talking about going home for the holidays.

Where are you from originally?

Corpus Christi, Texas, but now I’m holed up in Austin.

I’m very fond of Austin, and my husband, ["Weeds" writer] Lev Spiro, did his graduate work in Austin for five years. His friends are sort of an Austin circle. In fact we met at an Austin Halloween party. We were out in L.A., and you know, all the Austin people together…

What were you dressed up as?

Well, I’d actually dressed up the week before as Liza Minnelli from Cabaret, but he was L. Ron Hubbard, and he had this volcano on his head that actually erupted when you lit it, and it was quite clever. He was handing out money.

Is that what did it for you?

Yeah, pretty much. [Laughs]

[Laughs] True love. And speaking of that, would you mind getting started by telling me a little bit about your philosophy of adapting someone else’s work?

Well, I’m sure it depends on whose work you’re adapting. With Stephanie [Meyer]’s work, my philosophy was to stay as true to the book as I could. But that doesn’t mean staying true to every scene and every line of dialog. Obviously one can’t do that. I think in some cases of people adapting books, they use it as a jumping off place. An interesting concept. Let’s expand on it and do something else. When approaching this particular adaptation, it was very much about adapting this book and bringing this book to the screen, and staying true to the emotional arc, the emotional journies of the characters.

Was there an urge to stay true to the book for the fans?

For me, honestly, I was fairly unaware of the fanbase. It was really – the book itself lent itself to adaptation. Stephanie has created such a rich mythology and such rich characters that I was compelled by the story and wanted to bring that story to the screen. I didn’t really see a need to go off the path of that. I loved the story. Earlier, you know, the galleys of the book had been optioned by Paramount before it was in print, and they had a different philosophy for this book and used it as a launching pad for a different story. I never read that script, but as Stephanie says, “It was a great script. It just had nothing to do with my book.”

Do you know what it was? You said you didn’t read it, but did you get an inclination of what they included and left out?

I know that the CIA was involved, and the character Bella was a track star or something like that. It’s so contrary to the character Stephanie created. So when Summit approached Stephanie about optioning the rights to the book after Paramount let them go, Stephanie was understandably wary. She was not particularly interested in letting them go for fear of the same thing happening. So she, in optioning the book to them, has very specific things in her contract for things that could and could not happen, and she sort of wrote a brief manifesto of things such as “No canines in the vampires should be longer than normal canines.” You know, fangs. This sort of thing.

When I heard about this manifesto, I thought, “Oh, God. Really? I’m gonna have to work within these restrictions?” I didn’t want any restrictions, ya know?

Sure.

So I read it. It’s only like a page or two, just a couple of details of what she wanted. And I thought, “Well, I wouldn’t do that anyway.” [Laughs] Because I’m interested in adapting the book. I think if I had been more interested in using it as a jumping off place that would have been more frustrating. But I had no interest in doing that, so it was just a good marriage for me.

Beyond the usual difficulties adapting something, this is the book that involves blank pages to show emotion. How do you adapt empty pages for the screen?

What I did was to show the passage of time and the lack of movement for [Bella]. That was to put her – have you seen the movie?

I haven’t gotten a chance yet. They screen it Wednesday.

Ah. Well, so, I put her – there’s a scene in which that passage of time happens, and it’s her sitting stone-still as time and seasons pass around her, and Chris [Weitz] did some really beautiful stuff visually with that. So that was my way of putting that same sense of blankness, and yet, the time is passing.

You’ve worked a lot in TV. Do you still feel young in film?

I am young in the film world. I’ve had four – when Eclipse is done – I’ll have had four movies made in a very short period of time. Sort of on a television schedule really. Typically movies take years and sometimes decades to get made, and I’ve been fortunate enough to work with Summit, and they really make movies. They’ve done all four of my movies.

I am young. I’ve worked for one feature studio; I’ve worked for one group of executives. My managers and agents keep telling me, “You gotta get out there and work with some other studios,” but I’m so happy at Summit. I’m really reluctant to go! They are such a great little studio. You hear all the horror stories about working at the major studios and development hell and your work being re-written by five or ten other people. I have no interest in that kind of career. Sounds like hell to me.

No doubt I will get lured in by some fantastic project, and hopefully it’ll be a good experience.

Is this what you wanted to do when you grew up?

I always loved writing, but I also loved performing. I was always into performing, so I think I saw myself as some sort of performer. A dancer. A musician of sorts. I had some talent, and I could have been perhaps good at any one of those things, but I was never going to be great I don’t think. I gave those up and went back to what I’d always loved to do, and not quite realized I could make a career out of it in the form of screenwriting. The next step was to move to Los Angeles, and start working for a film company. I started to get that I could marry my love of the performing arts with my love of storytelling into this one career. That’s when I went for it.

How are Twilight and “Dexter” similar?

Twilight and “Dexter” are similar in that the lead characters are both characters who are passing as humans. And are both in search of, they are studying humanity and moving toward their own humanity. They are both very much The Other. They are outsiders looking in.

And then, of course, there’s the blood.

Looking ahead to the future, are you even thinking about Eclipse at this point?

Eclipse has finished shooting.

It’s done?

It’s in post right now. I wrote New Moon, and then segued into writing Eclipse because they wanted to shoot them very, very close together. They shot New Moon and I think three months later went into production on Eclipse.

So when you say they make movies…

They make movies. Yeah.

I’m surprised. I’d checked out stories about it in post, and I guess it’s my mindset that I couldn’t believe the speed.

Well, there’s another element in that vampires aren’t supposed to age, so you have to stay on top of that one. But it’s also that you want to keep it in the zeitgeist. There’s probably a marketing angle there somehow. But for me it just worked out. I went from one to the other and without any time.

Was there anything in Eclipse that got you energized?

The triangle of the three characters is quite delicious, and a great deal of fun to write, and I was also really excited to write the finale – the battle. What I also got to do was to expand on what was in the book, things she could not have written. The books are all told intimately from Bella’s point of view – you get to see inside her head, and I think there’s a great deal of the appeal there. But what happens is that she’s only hearing about events that happen off-page. Anything that happens with the Volturi or with the evil vampires or the newborn army – she’s only hearing about it after the fact or through Alice regarding visions.

But we as filmmakers can actually go and see that and can develop little stories for those characters. I was able to develop the characters of Victoria and her lover and we could cut away to that, we could cut away to the newborn army to see what they’re up to. Those were fun scenes to write. I love that stuff.

What’s the deal with Breaking Dawn then? Are you interested in writing that?

Breaking Dawn is kind of a No Comment situation. Obviously I’d be a fool not to want to write it and complete the process. But nothing has been decided at this moment so we will see.

‘Ink’ Producer Responds to Piracy

Dr. Cole Abaius — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:42:23 +0000

A month ago, a little film called Paranormal Activity muscled its way into the marketplace powered partly by the people and mostly by the giant mountain of Paramount. As much as it was touted as a the demands of the masses, it was ultimately a pretend democratic movement.

Almost a year ago, I received an email not unlike the usual random shots in the dark we get – arrows let loose against the blinding sun that a filmmaker or independent producer lets fly and then crosses their fingers hoping they hit the target. The email I received was from a husband and wife team of filmmakers who sent a trailer that made me lose my mind. So they sent me the movie, and I loved it. They then spent the entirety of 2009 bleeding themselves dry to either get noticed by the establishment or to release the movie on their own, city by city.

A week ago, that film was one of the most pirated films in the world and, subsequently, a truly independent film with zero studio ties jumped to #16 on IMDB. It was a real democratic movement.

I spoke with Kiowa Winans, the producer of Ink the day it happened, and what she had to offer was something far more nuanced than the “championing of piracy” meme that seems to be spreading like wildfire. After all, this is a complex situation – one that both helps and hurts – and Winans is more aware of that than anyone.

“We’re struggling filmmakers. You’re not ripping off the major studios,” she says to the initial question of how she feels about the piracy. They own 100% of the film, have done all the distribution themselves, paid for all the DVD and Blu-ray copies, so when people steal the film, they are stealing directly from the filmmakers. In this case, they seem fairly complicit.

Since the film is available through Netflix, Blockbuster and through several independent rental stores, it would seem like the filmmakers aren’t the only ones with something at stake, but when I bring that up, Winans informs me that Netflix doubled the amount of their orders on the day of the piracy and the resulting news blitz. The film was stolen, but it created an audience that wasn’t previously there. An audience that ended up legally attaining the movie and making more money for Netflix.

This seems like a tacit celebration of illegal downloading. But Winans dug deeper and gave their official stance:

It’s been astounding, but as indie filmmakers, as studio filmmakers, as any filmmakers we need to know there’s a financial model that works. If we’re unable to pay back our investors on Ink, we can’t go on. If the exposure equates to dollars, we’re gold. If these users only see it on bit torrent and don’t pay, we’re not.”

She then went on to say that it’s clear that the number of people illegally downloading is not balancing out with the few that have gone on to donate to them or buy the film outright. So it’s helping them in one way (exposure) and not helping them in another (money). Sadly, it’s in the way that really matters where people who want something for free are not doing filmmakers any favors.

Then, I bring up Rhett Reese, the co-writer/co-producer of Zombieland who quickly hinted that piracy was going to hurt the chances of seeing a sequel to the hit. Winans was empathetic to his position, saying, “I feel the worst for guys like Rhett,” and claiming that piracy is destroying the incentive for people trying to make a living in filmmaking from being able to do so. “People who think they are Robin Hood are wrong,” she said.

And she’s right. Believing that piracy is stealing from the already-thickly-lined pockets of Fat Cat executives is naive. It’s people like Reese, who are within the studio system but who have to stay on the grind to maintain their career trajectory, who deliver the content that get hurt most by piracy.

Reese went online today to expand on that idea:

No, I don’t believe that 1 download = 1 lost ticket sale or 1 lost DVD sale. Certainly, there are many people who both contribute to a movie’s legitimate B.O. and also download the movie… including, it turns out, the people I singled out on Twitter. There are also many people who download movies who would never pay to see those same movies in any format regardless. But I do believe that there is a significant, non-trivial population of people who might have (in an ideal world with no piracy) paid to see Zombieland, either in theaters or on DVD, but instead chose to watch it for free, because it was easy and didn’t cost them anything.

No, I don’t subscribe to the Robin Hood argument, which claims that rich, greedy Hollywood studios/actors/writers/etc. have enough $ and don’t need more. Nor do I subscribe to the argument that examines positive correlations between downloads and box office and concludes that popularity in the one (downloads) is somehow causing the popularity in the other (box office). Correlation does not imply causality.

Although he used the awesome online handle Super-Grover, Reese didn’t exactly explain how piracy would hurt their chances for a sequel, but extrapolating the logic isn’t all that difficult. Studios make money on the back end. They want a ton of people there opening weekend, but they really aim for the sales of DVDs and Blu-rays. If the studio believes they can’t make the money they want because of piracy, they might see fit not to make the movie at all.

On the other side of the argument is the proof of profitability that seems to have escaped those in the system, at least when it comes to Ink. Winans saw the piracy as unfortunate on face, but recognized the significance of what it meant and ultimately disagreed with Reese’s position on correlation.

“We’ve spent the past 10 months hearing ‘we can’t advertise your movie, it’s too weird, there’s no audience for it,’ from Hollywood. The activity on the torrent sites, the 400,000 that downloaded it has unequivocally proved there’s a massive audience for it,” Winans said.

It’s hard to say whether that’s true or not. It’s impossible to know whether downloads would translate to an audience – the very reason why piracy is such a hazy topic in the first place. One side argues that they are losing money, another argues that they never had that money to begin with because pirates weren’t going to pay in the first place. Unfortunately, there’s no dependable data on the issue so the arguments on both sides are speculative.

But even Winans doesn’t buy into the correlation completely. “I don’t see it as dollars lost. I see it as fans gained.”

And maybe that’s the entire point. For the big studio pictures, there is no upside to piracy. It’s cut and dry. How harmful it is should be up for discussion, but there’s no doubt that it is, in fact, harmful. But for filmmakers like the Winanses who have made a movie that seems to resonate with an audience that Hollywood never wanted to give them, piracy might not be all bad. It might not be good – considering that it hasn’t given the filmmakers any measurable money – but it might not be all bad. This is a question that most (including myself) don’t even want to consider. In a perfect world, stealing is wrong and filmmakers should be treated with respect. But now we have a very real example of filmmakers who are comfortable with their flick being stolen, a rental outlet who has made more money because of it, and a greater audience for a movie.

However, it’s my personal argument that it’s not the piracy that’s raised the profile for Ink. It’s easy to point to it as proof, but it’s certainly not the true cause. What is, is the blood sweat and tears that have gone into a two-person release team taking their film from city to city on their own, getting the word out, and filling theaters from word of mouth. I doubt that anyone would have pirated the film in the first place had they not read about it or seen the strong reviews coming from websites or from the recommendation of friends who got lucky enough to see it on the big screen. So if indie filmmakers are looking for an easy new marketing tool, I think they are out of luck.

Perhaps this is why even Winans doesn’t blindly celebrate piracy. She has the greatest reason to, but she sees the forest for the trees. It’s nice to see a certain brand of success, I’m sure, but as we’re ending our conversation, she raises an excellent question that applies not only to Ink, but to the rest of the film community.

“Now that we’re here, how do we keep going?”

Director Pete Docter Q&A and More Hidden Facts About ‘Up’

Neil Miller — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:20:08 +0000

Earlier today in honor of the Blu-ray and DVD release of Pixar’s Up, I published a special edition of This Week in Blu-ray as well as a very cool article entitled 10 Fun Facts About Pixar’s Up. And now I’m back with more fun stuff to celebrate this major release, including additional facts about the film — as well as an international Q&A with director Pete Docter (who also directed Monsters, Inc., another Pixar flick hitting Blu-ray today).

First, more hidden facts about Up:

In the sequence where Carl’s house first lifts up, the Luxo Jr. ball can be seen in the girl’s bedroom as the house goes by her window.
The Pizza Planet Truck, which first made an appearance in Toy Story, has made a cameo in nearly every Pixar film. In Up, the Pizza Planet truck can be seen at an intersection when Carl’s house flies over the town. The truck makes as second appearance in the Fentons Creamery parking lot at the end of the film.
The number A113, which refers to Brad Bird and John Lasseter’s former classroom at CalArts, makes an appearance in every Pixar film. A113 is the courtroom number when Carl makes an appearance to plead his case.
Fentons ice cream parlor in the movie is based on the real Fentons Creamery in Oakland, California.
The flight number on Carl and Ellie’s tickets to Venezuela is 2319 – the same number as the alert in Monsters, Inc. when George Sanderson has a kid’s sock on his back.
When Russell and Carl join Muntz for dinner in his dirigible, Carl is actually served the scallop dish from Ratatouille.

And now, the in-depth, studio-provided Q&A with Up and Monsters Inc. director Pete Docter (pictured above left with producer Jonas Rivera):

Since joining Pixar Animation Studios in 1990—where he began by animating and directing television commercials—quadruple Academy Award®-nominated filmmaker PETE DOCTER has enjoyed a prestigious career as one of the leading creative minds in the field. From supervising animator (and story/character development) on the benchmark computer-generated feature Toy Story, to directing the global hit—and Best Animated Feature Film Oscar® nominee—Monsters, Inc., Docter continues to bring his Midas touch to every project on which he works. Next for Docter is Disney•Pixar’s UP, which he directs and also serves as co-screenwriter.

Q: You’ve been with Pixar since the beginning. What has that been like?

A: I think of the keys to our success is that we grew up together as artists, working on the various commercials we did, and then Toy Story. John Lasseter [chief creative officer of Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios and principal creative adviser at Walt Disney Imagineering], Andrew Stanton [writer/director of WALL•E], and Joe Ranft [writer/co-director of Cars], who has since passed away — we all got to work with each other early on, and now that we’re split up, we still check in with each other. We speak a common language, we know each other’s strengths, and so on. That collaboration has been really key.

Tell me about the genesis of UP.

Looking back I’m not even really sure where the idea came from – it was a very organic process. Bob Peterson (co-writer, co-director) and I came up with this concept of a floating house, and that was something that spoke to me. I’m really not much of an extrovert. As a director, by the end of the day, I’m exhausted from just talking to people. So there’s this great temptation just to escape and get away from everything and everyone… and it seemed really appealing to be able to float your house off into the sky. So we started thinking, “Who would be in there? Why are they doing it? Where are they going?” And it was answering questions like that that led us to this film.

What do you think UP is about?

UP is the story of Carl Fredricksen, who ties thousands of balloons to the roof of his house and flies to South America to have a adventure. On a more foundational level, it’s about discovering what adventure really is. Carl and his wife, Ellie, had always dreamed of exotic travel, seeing wild beasts and plants that no one’s ever seen before… but what Carl comes to discover is that even though he and Ellie never got the adventure they wanted, they had life’s greatest adventure: a wonderful rich relationship. The things that make life really special, our family and friends, the little events that happen every day… that’s what life is really about.

How would you describe the film’s style, and what do you think are the features of that style?

Up is a to caricatured world. We wanted to take advantage of what computer animation can do — rich textures and detail and lighting — but also to stylize the film to a place where you could believe that a house could float off with balloons. Most real people are about seven heads tall, if you use your own head size to measure height, and Carl is three. So he’s quite cartoon-y and caricatured. To me, the joy of animation is in simplicity and reduction, and by taking certain things away and bringing other things forward. A good analogy would be the great caricaturist Al Hirschfeld, who with just a few lines could capture someone and make them look more like themselves than a photograph. He could distill them down to their essence, which is just amazing. Good animation can do that as well, in design as well as movement, and that’s what we were trying to do in this film.

Can you talk about your main characters, and if there were any inspirations or references for those characters?

Carl is largely inspired by our own grandparents, and a few other folks as well. There have been some people that I have met over my life who have been older, and at first blush it would seem kind of like a non sequitur that my wife and I’d be friends with them. We met this man named Mike Oznowicz who lived in Oakland, California. He was a widower in his 70s, and though he clearly had a huge gap in his life without his wife, he was incredibly full of life. He surrounded himself with young people. He’d always seen every new movie before I did, every show, every museum exhibit, was always looking for new ideas and culture. He was just incredible, and he taught me a lot about really engaging with the world. It’s people like Mike that teach you the way to live. He was like Carl at the end of the movie.

At the beginning of the film, Carl is stuck in a box of his own making. His wife Ellie showed him how amazing life is and how much it has to offer, and after she died he just withdrew and went into that box. We tried to use squares in the designs of Carl and in the house, to symbolize Carl and his approach to life. You see a lot of him in framed, small, flat, confined spaces in the beginning of the film. And as he begins to open up, you get more rounded shapes, more open air — kind of like Ellie is speaking through this other character, Russell.

Russell is the reincarnated spirit of Ellie. He’s that spirit of adventure — getting out there in the world and becoming interested in everything. He’s basically the opposite of Carl, and we designed him to pull Carl out of his shell. Carl is saddled with this kid, and in caring about him ends up re-engaging with the world in a more meaningful way. It’s mostly through Russell that that happens. We designed his basic shape to be like a spinning top, or a balloon. He’s always moving, and he’s relentless in his optimism and enthusiasm.

Dug the dog actually came from another project that Bob [Peterson, co-director / co-writer] and I developed. Those of us who have pets, we often end up making up dialog for them. Our dog will come up to my kids and stare at them, and I voice something like, “Could we go for a walk now, could we, could we, please, please?” And we thought of this unique approach to have these collars that translate what the dog is thinking, rather than have lip synced dialog. Bob wrote the dialogue for Dug and ended up voicing him – he channels dogs really well. Oh – also, Bob tells a story of being a camp counselor in High School, and this kid came up to him, gave him a big hug and said, “You are my counselor and I love you!” Dug is just a simple dog, he just wants to please people.

Muntz is a world traveler extraordinaire. He’s a combination of Howard Hughes and Charles Lindbergh, and a little bit of Walt Disney thrown in — these people who had taken these amazing risks and done things no one else had done. We looked at a lot of real life adventurers like Percy Faucett and Roy Chapman Andrews and combined them into one guy. For Carl and Ellie, Muntz represents what they want to do with their lives: “Someday, I want to be like this guy!”

UP is the first release from Disney•Pixar authored in 3D, and you’d just come off of directing the huge 2D hit, Monsters, Inc. How different was the process for you?

A: Well, 3D was not figured in from the beginning. We came up with the story first, and 3D got introduced along the way. I wanted to make sure that the 3D did not get in the way for an audience. A lot of times you go to a 3D movie and there are things flying at you and the whole audience is going, “Whoooooaaa! Look, it’s 3D!” And when that happens, you get taken out of the story — you’re more aware of the medium than the story. Our goal was to draw you into this world, to take you somewhere else, and let you lose yourself for an hour and a half. For us to break that spell for people by calling attention to the 3D is doing them a disservice. We tried to use it more subtly, treating the screen like a window you look into. So you still get the sense of depth and perspective, but it’s not in your face.

Your studio is known for the amount of research that goes into a film. Can you talk about the amazing research trip you took that went into the creation of UP?

Yeah, it was great! On Toy Story, we got to go to the toy store, on Bug’s Life we crawled around in the grass. But on this one, we got to go to South America, where the story takes place! We needed a location, story-wise, where Carl and Russell could go and end up stuck with no outside connection. We initially thought of a tropical island, but that’s been used so much. Then we discovered these tabletop mountains – they are almost like islands in the sky. It was difficult to find photos that had useful views of the unique plants and rocks. We decided that there was no other way to create this place believably than to go down there and experience it ourselves. And we did—there was a group of ten of us, and it took about three days just to get there, plane rides and jeeps and helicopters. We hiked up this mountain called Roraima [of the Venezuelan Tepuis], it inspired the book by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Lost World. When it was first discovered by westerners in the 1800s, they figured that these mountains had been separated from the rest of the world for so long that there might actually still be dinosaurs or undiscovered creatures up there! Unfortunately we didn’t see any, but it was a blast anyway.

Can you talk a little about your working relationship with producer Jonas Rivera?

Jonas and I first worked together on Monsters, Inc. where Jonas was the manager of the Art Department. To say both of us “like” Disneyland is sort of like saying, “we like to breathe.” We bonded over our love for that place, as well as our love for Disney movies. It was a great pleasure working with him on this film – he’s got such a passion for animation, and though he claims he’s not an artist, he’s got a deep understanding and appreciation for what it takes to make these films. Plus he’s such a nice guy, and he put together a great team of talented people who were also just fun to be around. Jonas and his team put our schedule together in such a way that everybody didn’t have to kill themselves to finished on time. At the same time, I think we were still able to push the artistic limits of what we have done in the past. Quite amazing to be able to do both. Jonas and I hope to continue working together on more of these.

If there were such a thing as an average day during film production, what would that look like for you, the director, who probably has to be three places at once all the time?

The thing is — and again, this is Jonas and the production team — they know what needs attention when, and they balance it all out, which is an impossible job. Usually, they would tell me at the beginning of the week, “Well, we added up all the requests for your time and it totals 700 hours, and we somehow have to fit that in this week.” So we decide where I’m needed most and what sort of information the departments need to finish their work on time. I’ll walk in at the beginning of the day around 8am, and my assistant Vic Manley hands me what they call a “dance card” that has my schedule mapped out down to five minute increments, usually until 7 or 8 pm. It’s mostly meetings and reviews. Meanwhile, Jonas and the team are trying to figure out how to deal with the stuff that I’m not getting to and still finish on time. It’s pretty crazy.

Given that, what were your biggest challenges on this film—not necessarily technical?

I think the biggest challenge was our doing something more caricatured than we had done before. I don’t want to make it sound like we haven’t done caricature. I think The Incredibles was a wonderful foray into that. But a lot of the computer scientists we work with start from a logical, reality-based approach. Clouds, for example. They’ll start by learning everything there is to know about how clouds form, where they come from, what is happening on a molecular level to create what we see, and then try to duplicate that in the computer. That’s where we want to start, but sometimes as artists, we want to push things to be more stylized, more interpreted. So for example, instead of getting these noodley, little filigreed edges to the cloud, we’ll want just nice, simple rounded shapes, like cotton puffs. We’ll want that because that’s how the scene feels to the character. And sometimes this simplifying is actually more difficult, because it’s not reality. Sometimes even communicating what we’re after is a challenge.

How do you think the themes of UP will play internationally?

I think everybody has hopes and dreams, whether it’s owning a restaurant, winning a marathon, or traveling to exotic places. Yet we tend to take for granted the things we have, the people, our families… and it’s often not until those people are gone that you realize how lucky you are to have had them with us in our lives. That’s certainly true for me. And that’s what UP is really trying to shine a spotlight on.

You’ve come up through and helped build a studio that has set the industry standard for this type of film. Is that a source of inspiration or pressure for you?

Inspiration, definitely. Everyone at Pixar looks forward to pushing the envelope on the next film. We really try to make every movie that comes out as cool as possible, and then we think about ways we could make one even more interesting or cool or engaging or visually interesting.

What do you think are your greatest triumphs on UP?

I think the thing I’m most proud of is the emotion in the film. We really tried to balance the comedy and adventure with emotion. As caricatured as this world and characters are, people watch the movie and tell me, “I cried five times!” To have elicited that reaction, with characters as stylized as they are, I’m really proud of that. Of course, everything you see on the screen is created. artificial, fake. Even down to the real actors—they aren’t even recording in the same room with each other, sometimes not even the same city! But you believe that they’re together having dinner, or having an argument. It’s all constructed. To use the word “artificial” maybe sounds negative, but to me the artifice is part of the magic. And when this made up world is believable to the point where you are drawn to tears, or to laugh… to me, there is something magic about that.

If you could fly a house anywhere, other than your family, who would you take and where would you head?

Wow, I don’t know. There are so many people that I just enjoy hanging out with on this film — Jonas and Bob and Ronnie [del Carmen, Head of Story], they’re just so much fun to be around. I would want to bring all the folks who worked on this movie. It’d have to be an awfully big house, I guess! And as far as destination, there are some days when I come in to work in the morning and see this long list of meetings, sometimes I of fantasize about being marooned on a small island in the South Pacific. I like coconuts; I think I’d be fine.

Fantastic Fest Interview: Ride with ‘Broncos’ Author Dr. Ronald Chevalier

Adam Sweeney — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:23:09 +0000

Press junkets can tend to be a drag. Having said that, we were particularly excited to get to interview Dr. Ronald Chevalier, most notable for his extensive corpus of stately science fiction novels. Chevalier was in Austin for the premiere of Gentlemen Broncos at Fantastic Fest, where actor Jemaine Clement portrays him.

Chris Tilly from IGN UK and I teamed up during a chat outside to talk with Chevalier about the film, the state of modern video simulations and the joys of science fiction.

Adam Sweeney: Can you give me three items that I could write a book about?

[In that deep, faux-British accent] Wellll….The conflict, the deep inner conflict between human and robot has always been a fascinating problem and one I’ve explored in forty-three novels. I still don’t think I’ve solved that conflict.

Chris Tilly: What are your favorite sci-fi films, Doctor?

Well, as you probably know, I abhor cinema. I loathe it. I wish I could enjoy it. My favorite cinema would be anything featuring the wonderful Jane Seymour. I originally chose her to play Gorgana, the Cyborg Queen. She turned it down because of her commitments to “Dr. Quinn” at the time. I won’t allow it to be made until she has agreed to do the part.

AS: Have you heard of any rumors of Kevin James being the lead in your next film, Bisontennial?

Who is this Kevin James?

AS: Paul Blart.

I am sorry. I do not step inside the multiplex.

CT: Do you play video games at all?

I don’t think of them as video games. I think of them as simulators. And, yes, I have been in a few simulations. Do you know Geo Defense on iPod? That is one I recommend. You defend a base of lives and you have laser types to protect bases.

AS: Speaking of saving lives, you’re a doctor…

I am an honorary doctor. I got my doctorate from a university I started online.

AS: Have you considered going into the medical field to cure the masses?

[Scoffs] Again, I harken back to the cyborg field. The medical practice would be helped with robotic body parts, particularly noses. Robotic noses.

AS: It’s an important science.

It’s an important sense! I dedicate whole paragraphs to the particular fragrance of a character.

AS: If you came up for science fiction nicknames for us, what would they be?

Chris Tilly would be…Chris Till-odious. And you are?

AS: Adam Sweeney.

I would call you The Proton Kid.

Be sure to check out our interview with Jemaine Clement.

Fantastic Fest Interview: Ride with ‘Broncos’ Star Jemaine Clement

Adam Sweeney — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:41:44 +0000

Press junkets can tend to be a drag. Having said that, we were particularly excited to get to interview Jemaine Clement, most notable for his hit band/television show “Flight of the Conchords.” Clement was in Austin for the premiere of Gentlemen Broncos at Fantastic Fest, where he steals the show as Dr. Ronald Chevalier, a critically acclaimed science fiction author that has run out of fresh ideas.

Chris Tilly from IGN UK and I teamed up during a chat outside to talk with Clement about the film, the pressure that comes with working on “Flight of the Conchords” and the recent news that FOTC will be featured on a Rock Band game in the future. Along the way, we ran into a scheming crow while the humble and always clever Clement let us into the world of Dr. Chevalier.

Chris Tilly: What was it like seeing the film last night?

I didn’t see but about the last twenty minutes. We all went and had a dinner reunion because we all live in different places

[As Jemaine speaks, a crow approaches the table.]

Look at this ominous crow just spying. He’s probably from The Omen. He does have a beautiful color though. He’s sort of blue. I don’t know why he’s so angry.

Adam Sweeney: He’s probably going to steal all of the good parts of this interview. [Laughter]

Yeah, he’ll take it to a witch. [Laughs]

AS: How did you prepare for this role?

I spent a lot of time looking at pictures of authors because the words are already there in the script. You’ve got how they talk, how they walk and what they were. Jared and Jerusha [Hess] are so specific about the characters. All I could decide was my hairstyle and my voice, just a little bit.

CT: As a Brit, I was hearing a little bit of James Mason and Michael York.

Michael York was a big influence. I am pretty sure Jared wanted Michael York to play the part. When you read it, it describes Michael York. He’s a guy in his 60s with silver hair in the script. So I didn’t really envision myself playing it when I read the script.

CT: Is it hard to do the voice?

Yeah, I could hardly do it last night at the screening. I was like, ‘how does it go?’ You have to imagine a plum is in your throat.

CT: Were you looking for something different than your “Conchords” character?

I guess so.

CT: What was it about this script that particularly drew your attention?

Well, do you read scripts?

CT: Yeah.

Then you’ve probably read scripts of movies that are made. There’s another level of scripts that aren’t being made and they’re quite bad. But I don’t think I read them well. Sometimes I think they’re going to be terrible, and they’re excellent. This one was just really different in their detail for the characters. I know this style of filmmaking isn’t for everyone. It’s in a different universe. The characters aren’t quite real. I really liked that. So many films are just boring real life versions. This takes real life and adds to it. But some people say, ‘That’s not real. It wouldn’t happen.” But that’s what makes me like this script.

AS: They tend to highlight the eccentricities of people.

Right but they’re real. Like the guy who makes the films in the movie. Jared has a friend who does that stuff. He makes these films with terrible lasers. He does hundreds of these things. A lot of real life is in there. Some people think it’s too much. I think it’s perfect.

AS: You’ve written before. Do you have any plans on writing a screenplay in the future?

Yeah. I am working on one right now. At the time, I could really relate to Chevalier because we were right in the middle of Conchords and writing for the next season. I was like, ‘I have to come up with twenty more songs and ten ideas!’

CT: Was it nice playing such a bastard?

Yeah, it was fun. I try to make him sympathetic. I wanted him to just be a guy who tries to make people inspired. But it was really fun picking on the kids in the class.

CT: That look you gave the girl was great.

You mean the troll girl? [Laughs]

CT: Yeah. You could feel the tragic side of him. Could you do a spin-off of Chevalier?

I don’t know. [Speaking in the Dr. Chevalier voice] It would be very interesting. [And back to normal] But I’d like to see a Bronco and Brutus one. Those guys would be great to team up.

CT: Well, we know Sam Rockwell can handle two characters.

Right, Moon. I haven’t seen that yet. I am so interested in it that I couldn’t help but read things about it. They were hidden things.

AS: How have you dealt with the success of “Flight of the Conchords” given that the joke is–

That we’re not successful?

AS: Right, but then you have a party at The Highball for this film and you’re doing a reading at Book People.

Isn’t Book People a really small store? [Laughter] I wouldn’t take that as a huge success to be in a small store, right?

AS: Well, I am sure it will be packed, right? [Laughter]

I was actually quite nervous doing the reading last night. I haven’t done anything like that since school plays.

AS: If it goes bad you can start reading from The Crucible.

[Laughs] Only certain people watch the show, but I mean, I can walk around this place and nobody will recognize me. It’s only a small subsection of the TV watching populace.

CT: What’s the status of the “Conchords?”

We don’t know yet. We may do a short season or a sort of special. Like a Christmas special sort of thing. Maybe nothing.

CT: A friend of mine was interviewing Rhys Darby the other day in London and he was talking about the possibility of a movie.

He’s uncontrollable. [Laughter] We created a monster. But we’ve been thinking about a movie. But it goes in stages. I’ve been doing this for five years and there are times where I say, ‘I am never going to do this again. I’m not going to sing another silly song!’ Then time passes and we say, ‘ya wanna do another? Hmm, maybe…’ It goes on, I do it and enjoy it, hate it. Never going to do it again. Do it again. I think of Larry David and how each season of ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm’ you have to take it one at a time because a hundred episodes is daunting. Right now I am in ‘I’m not going to do it again’ mode.

CT: I think of all the directions you could take into a film.

By all means, email them to me. [Laughter]

AS: Would you consider a dramatic role?

I love comedy but it’s more as a fan of comedy. That’s how I got into it, watching it. But I like taking on challenges. I wish I had come up with a more interesting word than challenges. [Laughter] But when you’re scared of something, you have a reason to do it.

AS: It motivates you.

Yeah. You take steps to get over it. But yeah, I would do that. I haven’t been actively looking for a dramatic part though.

CT: I had a question about Rock Band. You guys are going to be on Rock Band in the future, right? Do you know what songs are going to be on there?

We’re open to suggestions. I’d love to see what the results are. I hope they don’t choose obscure ones. But I would love to get the payout for the “Stairway to Heaven” royalties.

AS: We will talk to Jimmy Page about giving you that part.

He has enough money already.

AS: Well, thanks for the interview.

Sure thing.

Be sure to check out our interview with Dr. Ronald Chevalier himself.

Exclusive: ‘Law Abiding’ Gerard Butler Talks Revenge

Dr. Cole Abaius — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:44:07 +0000

I always have you in mind, dear reader, which is why I’ve conducted which might be the dullest interview of Gerard Butler on record. Why’s it so dreadfully dull?

Because I didn’t ask him about his ab workout routine, who he’s dating, or what makes him such a rugged man’s man. I also didn’t tell him that you think he’s hot and want to play a little “The Butler Did It” over at his place.

For some reason, I also didn’t feel a great need to tell him “This is madness!” in an effort to get him to proclaim that the interview was Sparta.

Seriously, you people are animals when I ask for interview question suggestions.

But, with the release of Law Abiding Citizen, I was lucky enough to catch the former lawyer (and sometimes actor/producer) during a huge, exhaustive press blitz that he’s running ragged through right now. While I didn’t get to ask him his professional opinion on Donoghue vs. Stevenson (a watershed case in Scots tort law), I did get to talk to him about revenge flicks, messing with an audience’s mind and how his family helped make him into the man he is today.

You’ve been doing press all morning?

I’ve been doing press my only fucking life, it feels like.

[Laughs] You about ready to hang it up then?

Yeah, actually for America, I believe this is my last couple of interviews, and then I’m done, but it seems to have been going on for a long time.

Well, I’ll try to keep this as painless as possible.

Don’t worry. I’m in the role now, so I’m alright actually.

You’re completely press ready so you’re answers are slick and publicist-ready?

It’s interesting you say that because I say I’m in the role – or I’m in the groove rather than the role – but at the same time I feel that normally when I talk about a movie my answers get better and better.

Oh, good.

But I feel like in this, much as I love the movie, I feel like my answers have gotten worse and worse. [Laughs]

[Laughs] Oh, great. That’s fantastic for me, then.

So be prepared for some crap answers.

I’ll prep my audience for that. They’re not used to quality interviews anyway.

[Laughs] Okay.

[Laughs] First formal question, then: How does it feel to be producing?

I feel great. I think you take an extra bit of pride in the film. A huge amount of pride in the film. You feel a lot more pressure, more responsible for how it performs, but you also get double the pleasure because you’re in there as the actor so you’re hoping for a great performance, to be appreciated for that performance, but you’re also hoping for a great movie. It’s just, I feel like I’ve been involved at every level of this from the casting to even choosing the director to developing the script – from deciding to bring the script on and work with it and turn it into a movie. It’s been a – how would you say it? – it’s been a roller coaster ride, and it’s been bumpy at times. It’s great to see it come out and do really well and be appreciated.

Still fulfilling despite the roller coaster?

Totally fulfilling. Totally fulfilling. I think there was a part of me that thought, “Well, I’m producing this. It’s obviously not going to be very good,” but I was totally shocked when I saw it. We did a test screening, and it scored through the roof. It actually scored higher than 300, and that was a big shocker to see that happen. So now I’m Mr. Over-Confident Producer.

That’ll make the next one even better.

I hope so. Let’s wait and see.

Were you a revenge or vigilante genre fan before diving into this?

Yeah, I’ve always liked a good ol’ thriller. I remember growing up, the Death Wish franchise. There’s just something to be said for a kick ass villain, but there’s even more to be said for a would-be villain where you actually understand exactly where they’re coming from. So you have a bit of the psychotic in you, but you also have a bit where you’re driven by a very understandable motivation in terms of payback, revenge.

You got to play around with ethics and got the audience to question their ethical stance. That must have been fun.

Exactly. I think that this film works on a lot of levels. It’s exciting, there’s a lot of suspense, it’s surprising, but at the same time it’s thought-provoking and it does draw you into a lot of questions about justice, about the legal system, about responsibility and accountability. How much one is entitled to stand up for themselves and fight back. Because it is, as an audience, even Jamie’s character the prosecutor says, “I’m with you. I get it.” And as an audience, it’s amazing the amount of support that’s given to my character despite the fact that he’s committing some pretty horrific acts. I thought that was really fascinating when I saw it with an audience – how much of the movie they were still cheering me as the killings started involving more and more innocent people.

I was on your side the entire time.

I think that was an interesting thing to play with as well for my character. He so believes in what he’s doing now that this sociopathic element has developed in him over time. Perhaps there was a hint of it there as it lies dormant, and I think it exists in a lot of people that would have psychopathic or sociopathic tenancies. They don’t always come out. Perhaps it has to be triggered by an event. To think that, over time, Clyde Shelton’s whole purpose has been to exact revenge to teach people the effects of their actions, and therefore he’s taking a great deal of enjoyment out of this. Not so much in a macabre way, but just to feel vindicated. To feel that he now has a voice.

It’s sort of like being a producer. Planning something out for a long time and getting the joy of seeing that come to life. Seeing the response.

Maybe a film producer and a director at the same time where he can boss around all the actors and say, “I want you to go there. I want you to be there. I’m not gonna tell you what’s gonna happen. I’m gonna change the script on you,” and feeling in control of spinning his story to create a feeling and an ending which are all of his own doing and creation.

I like that you call it a story. I see the connection there the most. You’ve mentioned before that your family has been an influence growing up which helps you reach the emotional gamut now. Are there any childhood memories that come to mind specifically?

Yeah, I think that I came from a family of larger-than-life characters who were a joy to be around. They were a lot of jokers and storytellers, a lot of warmth. When people think of the warmth of Scottish people and that kind of Celtic fun they can have, there was a lot of that. And then the Irish blood as well. So there was a lot of that, but it was tough as well. There could be a serious amount of confrontation. Issues were not always talked out in a rational way. It could involve a lot of screaming matches.

Then my father turned up out of the blue, and that was definitely an emotional roller coaster that allowed me in a lot of ways to go deep and understand what I’m missing in my life. My father was probably the craziest and most fun and outlandish one of the lot of them. Then I realize where my own personality traits came from. And then there was just a lot of personal experience that I went through. Issues that were created by my culture and then by myself that probably gave me more depth than anything to draw on from experience of craziness and fun, but a lot of pain and anguish as well.

And what is Evil Twins working on now?

There’s a few different projects that we’ve been working on, but there’s one in particular – it’s a movie called Slide about a former baseball player who goes back to try and patch things up with his child and estranged wife and ends up coaching the kid’s baseball team. He becomes the subject of fascination and longer by every bored house wife in the town. And it’s him trying to survive that while trying to patch things up with his kid. I think we’re going to have Gabriele Muccino direct the movie. Hopefully. We’re in talks with him, and he’s very much up for directing it so we’ll what happens there.

Exclusive: Anthony Mackie Talks ‘Hurt Locker,’ the Oscars and Upcoming Projects

Dr. Cole Abaius — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:12:27 +0000

If there’s one thing I hate about reading, writing, and conducting interviews, it’s when the subject gives canned responses that seem like they’ve been sped through a publicist-run car wash to make sure nothing controversial, close-to-controversial, or interesting gets said. I’m even a fan of boring answers just as long as they’re original and boring. It’s the scripted bullshit that really seems like a waste of time. In fact, I’ve even written features when someone was so fake that it become culturally fascinating.

All of that to say: I loved talking with Anthony Mackie.

Not only is the guy a class act and a hard worker in his craft, he tells it like it is. Plain, simple and direct.

I had a chance to talk to the star of The Hurt Locker – a film you’re all probably tired of me gushing over – and if you don’t believe an actor is capable of rocking through questions without holding the hand of their manager, you’ve gotta check this guy out.

Oh, and just in case you were wondering, The Hurt Locker is still playing in select theaters around the country even though it debuted back in June. That’s indie staying power. Hopefully more people will get a chance to see it before it’s name is plastered all over the Oscar nominations.

Are you doing a lot of this kind of thing now?

Yes, here and there. It kind of pops up then goes away. It all depends on the day, I guess.

Does it feel weird to still be talking about this movie?

[Laughs] It feels weird to start talking about it now. You know, we shot the movie so long ago. People are like, “What was it like shooting that scene?” I’m like, “Shit. What were you doing two years ago?”

[Laughs] So what was it like shooting the movie?

[Laughs]

I’ve read a lot of interviews where you talk about it, and I think the most fascinating thing that you say is how The Hurt Locker doesn’t put a political stamp or a racial stamp on anything. I was hoping you could elaborate a bit for me now that the movie is out and you’ve seen the finished product.

When I originally went in to meet with Kathryn [Bigelow], she wanted to cast me as Eldridge, and when I read the script, I was so blown away by Sanborn in the way Mark Boal had written the character because he’d written so much humanity in all three of these guys. One thing I wanted to make clear to Kathryn and to everyone with this movie is that war has no sex or race. Women are our there dying just like men. Black people are out there dying just like Latinos, and so on and so forth. So it was very important to me to put in my bid for the best character, not the best “black character.” I think that’s something I’ve tried to do over the majority of my career.

What in particular about Sanborn really stuck with you?

His fight to stay alive was something that I found very jarring because in day-to-day life we don’t really deal with that. We don’t really have the obstacle that any minute can be your last minute, and his relationship with Eldridge – it wasn’t so much keeping himself alive, but it was very important to him to keep Eldridge going day-to-day. I thought that was a beautiful relationship. I thought it was a man’s relationship. Men can love and hug and spend time together without being, “Oh, that’s a funny move.” You know what I mean?

Of course.

I thought that day-to-day type of coping that goes on in the military, I don’t think we’ve ever dealt with. We rarely see that in recent films. So that was something that I felt was very beautiful and very well-written – how much these guys really became each other’s family.

Did you know anyone that was deployed at the time?

A friend of mine’s brother was deployed, and I had met a few people here and there who had been deployed, but nobody in my family or anything like that, no. Most of the people that I met and talked to, I met online.

Did that help you or did you feel like it hurt you in trying to portray someone who in an active war zone?

No, I wouldn’t say it hurt me. I think that that aspect of fear I’ve definitely felt day-to-day in life. Maybe not to that level, but I’ve definitely felt it. I’ve definitely experienced the inability to know what’s going to happen minute-to-minute. Just growing up in the world, when it was such a tough city. The thing about it was, the movie wasn’t so much about war and about how Kathryn felt about war. It was very much about these men, them trying to survive.

Are there any other direct correlations you saw in that fictional world that applied to your life growing up in New Orleans?

Just survival. Growing up in New Orleans, it’s an amazing city, and growing up in a middle class house with a mom and a dad was an amazing experience that some of my friends didn’t have. So seeing how important family was in the Middle East – it was something that you don’t get to see on the news and something I’m very glad I got to experience. I found a kindred relationship between me and the people who were in Jordan, the people who were working on the film, and the people who I met in Israel, so I was glad that I got the experience to go over there and work on it. I’m glad we didn’t shoot it in New Mexico or something like that.

I’m sure Kathryn Bigelow was happy you didn’t shoot it in New Mexico either.

[Laughs]

You’ve been in both indie and studio films. At this point do you have a preference?

It’s one or the other. Studio films can be very difficult at times just like indies. They both have their ups and downs. I feel like with the roles I get to play, I really enjoy indie films. I don’t get those same type of roles in studio films. Like, if this movie had been a studio movie, I doubt that I would have been Sanborn.

Why do you think that is?

Just because of the marketplace. It takes a lot of money to make a movie, so you need to be sure if you put that much money into a movie, that you get someone who gives you a decent shot at getting your money back.

As in, someone who’s a box office draw?

Exactly. You put me in, and it’s like, “Well, he’s a good actor, but…shit…nobody in Nebraska is gonna run out of their house.” You know what I mean?

[Laughs]

You know, I’m definitely not, like, the talk of the town in Iowa.

[Laughs] Right. Right.

[Laughs] And that’s what filmmaking has turned into. Box office.

It sounds like as far as story or character goes, indie films afford what you’re looking for. Is there anything that frustrates you about the indie world?

The lack of money. [Laughs] And the lack of quality – I shouldn’t say quality – but, yeah, the lack of money. Especially for the Oscars, and at the end of the year we’re starting to see that a lot of the good films are indie films. So, it’s like all the big names now are starting to do independent movies. And I’m like, “A $15 million movie is not an independent movie.” You know what I mean? Twenty-five dollars a day and eating salami on crackers for lunch – that’s an independent movie.

Yeah, did they have you filming during Ramadan so they could cut back on craft services during the day?

[Laughs] I wish! Naw, we were filming on Ramadan just because it’s selling that time period. All of us, there was a little bit of naivete and ignorance on our part. We didn’t even know the customs or how we fit into it. It was fun. Ramadan was really interesting, dude. I was hiding in trucks trying to eat lunch so we didn’t offend anybody.

They actually did that on Bourne Ultimatum in Morocco, too.

To cut down on craft services?

[Laughs] No, no. I’m sure their budget for food was pretty huge.

[Laughs]

But, yeah, they actually observed Ramadan when they were over there. A lot of the crew members did. That blows me away.

We did. When I was there, once I got into it, I started to observe Ramadan. So I started praying with some of the crew guys. It was a great experience. The idea of fasting – I feel like the best lesson I learned in the Middle East was a lesson of faith. I feel like we have faith here, but it’s like, optimistic faith. It’s like, “I believe, but only on Sundays and Thursdays.” You know what I mean? And when I got there, I was so blown away by faith, so I tried to take an active approach to the religious aspect of Ramadan. So I guess around the end of the first three days, I started to pray with some of the guys who were there working on the film. And it was cool. I mean, it really did form a bond. A kindred spirit.

That’s admirable of you.

Naw. Not at all. Not at all. I feel like anybody would have done it.

You mentioned the Oscars, and I know money is an issue there as well. Do you know if there’s going to be a big push for The Hurt Locker?

You know, with the rest of the movies that have come out this year, I don’t really think there needs to be a big push. [Laughs]

[Laughs] Wow. Are you insinuating in the positive for The Hurt Locker there?

In the positive. I think with the other movies that have come out, The Hurt Locker is by far one of the best movies that has come out this year. It’s definitely one of the best reviewed movies that has come out this year. If you look at Kathryn and everything she brought to the film, I definitely think you can’t be an Academy Award judge and forget The Hurt Locker existed this year.

So you’ll be shocked if you guys are shut out of several categories.

Not certain categories, no. I think if we get nominated for one, like if Kathryn gets nominated for Best Director, that’s a reflection on everyone else who worked on the film.

Of course.

If we get nominated for Best Film, it’s a reflection on everyone in the film. I don’t think it’s one or the other.

Definitely agree. I wanted to hit on a few projects you’re working on currently. You’re playing Jesse Owens in a biopic, and you’ve said that the most interesting thing about it is that when people asked Owens what it was like when Hitler didn’t invite him up to the box after the Olympics, he said that the President didn’t invite him to the White House either. You’ve said that’s a basic theme of the flick – is that primarily how you’ll portray Owens?

The plan is to give a really crystal clear view of who he is and who he meant, not only to Jewish America, not only to Black America, but to the rest of the world. After Schmeling came over and knocked out Joe Louis, everybody thought Hitler was right. The world was pretty much in panic. When Jesse Owens went back and did what he did with those four gold medals, it was something that wasn’t really recognized. When he came back to America, he went down a ticker tape parade to the Waldorf-Astoria, and he had to go in through the servant’s entrance. So I think that sort of thing, that theme is what we’re going to carry through the entire film.

A juxtaposition of the grand achievement of what he’s done and his place within a group of people that was looked down upon at that time in American History.

Exactly. It’s like when all the soldiers came back from World War II, and they weren’t allowed to eat in restaurants, and all the chaos that caused. You know? So it’s that general theme, that general arc of the character and the country. I don’t think the country can be let off for the part that it played in what happened at the time.

You’re also working on a biographical film about jazz pioneer Buddy Bolden. Did you end up with a final title for it?

Right now the title is Bolden! We’re in the process of cutting it. We finished it maybe a year and a half ago. We’re just trying to cut it together and see what we’ve got. I know it looks amazingly beautiful. I mean, Vilmos [Zsigmond] shot the shit out of it. I’ve never seen a movie that looked like it. So either it’s gonna be Citizen Kane or it’s gonna be Ishtar.

[Laughs]

[Laughs] Like, there’s no in between.

You gotta swing for the fences.

[Laughs] Exactly. Who you gonna be? Barry Bonds or the guy who didn’t get in to play?

Or the guy whose name we don’t know.

Exactly. Exactly.

Was it difficult playing an iconic figure without being able to hear or know what his music sounded like?

You know what’s interesting about Bolden is that so many people referenced him, and we were working with Wynton Marsalis, and he definitely gave us a true depiction of the music at that time. Because, you know, he’s a music guru.

He’s a huge historian.

Exactly. Especially in New Orleans culture, and in that type of music. So if you listen to a lot of Louis Armstrong, and even Nina Simone, there are so many people that referenced him and the type of music he was playing. So Wynton just took that period and put a spin on it, and gave us an idea of what he thought it sounded like.

I’m jealous. I saw Marsalis at a show a few years ago, and I missed out on the opportunity to go talk to him afterward. I was just too sheepish to go up and talk to him.

And Wynton is not that dude.

I know! He’s completely normal. So casual and down to earth, but after hearing him play for an hour…

It’s like, “Holy shit!”

Exactly!

It’s like, “Take my girlfriend, please!”

You’re not sure he’s real at that point.

Exactly. You know he was the first person I met when I moved to New York. I was sitting outside this little restaurant across the street from Julliard, and it was my very first day in New York. My brother and I were sitting there, and he walks by. So I ran over to him, and I said, “Wynton! I’m Anthony Mackie, and I met you when I was 13, and I saw you at NOCCA, and blah blah blah blah!” He said, “You’re from New Orleans?” I said, “Yeah.”

He took out a piece of paper, wrote down his number, and was like, “If you need anything, give me a call.”

Wow.

And we’ve been friends ever since. But that’s the type of person he is.

I’m sure we’ll biographies made about him forty years from now.

[Laughs] I’ll be the little, dumb kid chasing him down Broadway.

[Laughs] What stage are you guys at on The Adjustment Bureau?

Right now, we’re in the middle of shooting. We’re on day 30 of 60. It’s one of those things where it’s just working, and Matt Damon is truly an amazing actor. You think he’s good when you see him in a movie, but once you work with him, you realize the level of intelligence and focus he brings to a project. I’m learning a lot working with him. It’s been a great experience, and it’s a great movie. It’s a fun movie.

I’m not sure if it’s out of your wheelhouse. I wasn’t sure how much of the Phillip K. Dick science fiction element you guys were keeping with it.

I’m definitely not, like, in Vulcan ears or no shit like that.

[Laughs]

[Laughs] I’m definitely not like a Transformer or nothing. But it’s an intellectual sci-fi movie. I basically play an Angel of Fate. I just help Matt Damon out from time to time.

Matt Damon’s character, right? Not actually helping out Matt Damon.

Right, right. Not like him in real life. “Hey, Matt! Go this way.” Not like that.

[Laughs] Is it safe to say you’re a big August Wilson fan?

That’s very safe to say.

Are you interested in doing any of his work on screen or do you think it’s best left to the stage?

I think I’ve always been surprised that August Wilson’s plays haven’t been adapted to film. I think “Fences” is probably the truest depiction of a son with his father ever written. I think August really gave something to us with the ten plays that he wrote, and I think they would make phenomenal films. If nothing, just to have movies that some studio can say, “I made those,” and they get a pat on the back. I think they would make amazing films.

Would you do all of them as films? Or, which ones would you love to put on screen?

My top three. My three creme de la creme August Wilson plays are “Fences,” of course. “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom,” just simply because the dynamic of the characters. You have this young guy who’s just trying to be heard, who’s just trying to get his music out there and become famous because he thinks it’ll solve all his problems. But then he realizes it’s just another part of life.

Which was such a prescient play for the time. Predicting an obsession with fame now.

Exactly. Exactly. And how different that is.

He nailed it, what, thirty years ago? He wrote it in the 80s?

That was in the 80s. ‘85.

He predicted the future a bit.

Exactly. And the other one is “Gem of the Ocean.” I think as a culture we really don’t acknowledge history that well. We think that everything that’s happening is happening right now and is directly because of us, when, in actuality everything that’s happened has happened before and it’s really just us riffing off the back of that. So, “Gem of the Ocean” is just a beautiful story of a guy trying to carry on the legacy of his family. How that factors in to his day-do-day life. So I think those three plays….as well as “King Hedley.” I mean, “King Hedley,” that’s like a young Sam Jackson. Just a dude walking around with a t-shirt on that says “Bad Mother Fucker.” You know what I mean.

Right.

I love that. Every time I read that play, I just go outside like, “I wish sombody’d fuck with me.” You know what I mean? That’s how that play makes me feel. If you know anybody, and you’re like, “That is a scary black dude.” That dude, is King Hedley.

Or had just read “King Hedley.”

Aw, man.

You’ve had a fairly strong career in a short time. How do you feel you’ve grown since day one? Do you have any advice?

The biggest thing: I think a lot of people get into this business thinking, “Ah, it will afford me a great wealth, and I’ll be able to drive nice cars and go to Paris Hilton parties,” but I think if it’s truly about the craft, never do it for the money. Morgan Freeman once told me, “Work on your craft, and when Hollywood really wants you, they’ll come get you. And when they come get you, they’ll pay for it.” I think doing Half Nelson for $25 a day, doing Hurt Locker for $40 a day, you know it really expanded my career to a totally different level. I think that’s the best advice I got.

And hopefully we’ll see you in Los Angeles around February for that big awards show they put on.

[Laughs] Yeah, hopefully I’ll be up to $60 a day by then.

Exclusive: Team ‘Mandrill’ Teaches Us How to Be a Super Spy

Brian Salisbury — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:09:53 +0000

Mandrill, fresh off its selection as Best Film of Fantastic Fest 2009, is a hell of a movie. Director Ernesto Diaz Espinoza brings his love for classic 70s exploitation and James Bond films, and adds a unique style to a great piece of storytelling. Couple that with having Marko Zaror, one of the most amazing martial artists alive, as your lead man, and you should get a sense for why so many people love this film.

I had the great privilege of sitting down with both Diaz Espinoza and Zaror to talk about their movie. We also talked about how to get the ladies and discussed Mirageman, the film that made these two Fantastic Fest royalty two years ago. Over several cocktails, we talked in a secure karaoke room while Andy Cheng, director of the Mirageman remake Defender 3D provided some color commentary from off-camera.

What do you think?

Exclusive: We Shoot the Sh*t with Kevin Smith

Dr. Cole Abaius — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:48:27 +0000

For a man that should need no introduction, I won’t give one. But for an historic moment that demands one, I’m more than happy to oblige. Sixteen years ago, on October 3rd, 1993 (at or around 11 AM), Kevin Smith was standing in the back of an almost-empty theater on the verge of tears as his first film played for the first time in a public venue. Clerks would go on to become a cult hit and launch the career of a man who is all but worshiped by his fan base. But sixteen years ago, Kevin Smith had no idea what was to come.

Skyrocketing to the top of the list of personal and professional honors, I was fortunate enough to talk with the New York Times Bestselling Author (and sometimes director) on the anniversary of that not-so-auspicious-at-the-time event to get his private feelings on his work, the Disney buyout of Marvel, his second book “Shooting the Shit With Kevin Smith” – which compiles some of the funniest moments from his and Scott Mosier’s SModcast, his relationship with his father, owning every Bruce Willis album, the genius of his shitty marketing plan, and a host of other subjects that spanned a 50-minute-long conversation.

And since it’s so long, and since Mr. Smith’s voice is so sought after, I figured that I would throw down the entire interview in written form (for those who read faster than they hear) and, as a bonus, the audio file (for those who are illiterate). As usual, I’m in bold while Smith’s word are the ones in gigantic paragraphs.

And now, dear reader, an afternoon with Kevin Smith…

So how are you doing? What’s going on?

Doing well, doing well. Today was a kind of lazy day. We were supposed to speak earlier, and then I realized it was a significant anniversary in my life. So I decided to do something about it since this is one of the only times I’ll be able to be in the same place at the same time. That kind of thing. So I did that with the wife, and then we did a little light shopping, and then, as is our lot in New York, it poured all over us. It’s been doing that all summer, too. Then we just came back, started press, and here I am talking to you.

You realized on the day that it’s a special anniversary?

Yeah, yeah, I mean someone had pointed out – John Pierson, a friend of mine who repped [Clerks], our indie film rep at the time – dropped me an email about something else and at the tail end of it said, “Hey man, you know it’s coming up on the anniversary of the IFFM screening,” and I was like, “Oh my God, he’s right,” so I looked, and it was late last night, and it was October 3rd. That’s sixteen years. Sixteen years ago today at 11 o’clock was the first screening of Clerks ever. The screening that we’d been working toward the entire time.

I wasn’t one of those people that thought, “I wanna go to Sundance.” I didn’t think our movie would ever get into Sundance. To me, Sundance was like Steven Soderbergh and Sex, Lies and Videotape. Yeah, they were indie, but they had recognizable faces like, fucking, the dude from Pretty in Pink or the chick from Greystoke whose voice wasn’t really her voice. Or they were in color. Ours was not. Nobody was in it, black and white, it looked shitty. So I wasn’t working toward Sundance, I was working toward the [Independent Feature Film Market]. You know? I had ripped an article out of the Village Voice the previous year where Linklater had returned to the IFFM with Slacker. He’d been the year before, and it had been a work in progress. Then he returned, and it was a special screening and panel about it – a year later, or whatever it was, two years after the fact. He returned the conquering hero. The movie’d been picked up, and blah blah blah. So that was what I was going for. I was like, “Look, man, we make this flick, we put it all together, and then we go to the IFFM.” And you pack that screening with as many people as you can – potential distributors, maybe press if you’re lucky. And then, your dreams come true.

So we signed up, and sent in I think it was like 500 bucks or some shit. You paid 500 bucks, and they gave you a screening slot. And I thought they selected us, you know, “They picked us!” but they just picked everybody.

It’s like the Who’s Who in Business Journal.

Very much so. There’s no great honor to being accepted. At that time – it’s way different now. But anyway, so all week long Scott [Mosier] and I had kinda gone, the first two days of the IFFM, and it was fucking crowded. They hold it at the Angelika Film Center on Houston down in lower Manhattan. So it’s packed, man. Hundreds of people. And everyone walking around with fliers and funny outfits. It’s kinda like a Cannes marketplace thing. People putting up posters – the people had glossy, nice posters. Me and Mosier were just like, “Man, we’re not prepared.” Selling? We never thought about the marketing. We never thought about that shit.

You never even thought about printing off fliers and putting them on telephone posts or anything.

No! Fuck no. So what we did was we went home and starting making up handbills or whatever on a xerox, and really, like, bad one-off ads. You know?

With Clip Art?

Like: “Clerks! A Billion Chinese Can’t be Wrong.” Shit like that. “Clerks: It’s the Second Coming!” A whole bunch of shit like that. Trying to catch people’s attention. So we made those and grabbed rolls of tape and went back to the city the next day, and started hanging up these fliers essentially. They were 8×10 pieces of white paper with the info copied on them. So we start hanging those up, and we had some of the posters that got printed up had our clown logo on them – that vulgar clown – and at the bottom of it, it said “Sunday, October 3rd, 1993, 11:00 AM” And I think it it was theater 3 or something like that. So that was it. I was hyping shit mysteriously, when you know, you should really be telling people what it is. No one’s gonna go, but…

But that was kind of a early, proto-viral marketing then.

It was! To some degree, man. To some degree. Inasmuch as it didn’t come out and say what it really was. ‘Cause how could we?

“Have you seen the movie with the disgusting clown on it?”

Yeah, like that. And people are like, “I saw that movie, and there is no disgusting clown in it!”

“I felt ripped off!”

Yeah. We had a week to get ready and let people know it was coming and shit, and we would go into the city and stay an hour, sometimes longer. Sometimes we’d watch a flick at the Angelika because our badges allowed us to do so. Like, we saw Lodge Kerrigan’s Clean, Shaven, and it was fucking packed, dude. Like all the SUNY Purchase kids were in attendance. He had a lot of friends and people interested. He’d been at other festivals and shit so there was a buzz around it. There was a flick called And God Spoke – at that time it was called The Making of And God Spoke – and it was a mockumentary about the making of a movie. That was fucking packed! And really, really funny and shit.

So we’re like, “Oh my God, I can’t wait ’til our screening.” This many people show up and shit like that? So October 3rd at the Angelika at 11:00 AM – well, around 10:30 I show up – and the crowd’s not out there that had been out there every other day. October 3rd, Sunday, was the last day of the IFFM, and I just thought they were saving the best for last. You know, letting us build up hype over the week. I thought, “They must believe in our movie, ’cause they gave us a week to build the hype,” and shit like that. The cast is there, it’s me, Scott Mosier, Brian O’Halloran, Jeff Anderson, Lisa Spoonhauer, Marilyn Ghigliotti, Brian O’Halloran’s girlfriend Diane, Jason Mewes wasn’t with us, Dave Klein…

But this is the indie family. All of you getting together.

Pretty much. Oh, everyone who worked on Clerks. Ed Hapstak, Scott’s sister Kristin Mosier who I was kind of involved with at the time. That’s it. That’s everyone. Ten people. Oh, and my friend Vinny! That’s eleven. I think Vinny was there. Whatever – it was ten or eleven people. Someone took a picture, and it’s all of us standing on the steps of the Angelika, sixteen years ago this morning. Then, we went in and downstairs, and walked into the theater where Clerks was gonna debut, and there were ten people in the theater.

Because we had all walked into that theater.

Wow.

Nobody was in the fucking theater, and the movie started in two minutes. And then a tall, balder gentlemen pushes past us and sat up front, but we didn’t see anything on his badge that said “Mirimax” or “New Line” or even “Fine Line” so we didn’t think anything of it. Everybody’s kicking back watching it. They all worked on it so it’s kind of like a cast and crew screening at this point. I am sitting in the back of the theater almost on the verge of tears because the film is so filthy. Everyone keeps cursing. “Why do they fucking curse so much?” I’m sitting there saying to myself. What was I thinking? Oh, man. I’m poor. I was poor before, now I’m even more poor. I’m double poor, man. I’m never gonna be able to pay this shit off. It’s all done. Nobody’s here. Nobody’s buying this fucking movie.

About twenty minutes in, you know, I was like cognitively re-framing the whole thing – it’s kind of what a year of film school would have cost. You know, I’ll pay these bills off, you learn your lesson, and then maybe one day a few years down the road you’ll think about making another movie again. Just go about it more carefully next time, I guess, or something like that. But I was done, dude, in my head. I was just like, “This is a failure. I’m finished.”

The movie ended, and I felt that way for a long time. About 18 hours, and then I got a phone call from somebody going like, “Hey, I heard your film was the undiscovered gem of the marketplace, and I have to watch it.” So I ask, “Who is this?” Dude’s like, “I’m Larry Kardish. I program New Directors/New Films at the Museum of Modern Art.” I said, “Who told you that?” He said, “I’m not at liberty to say.”

But you know it’s tall bald guy.

It had to be tall bald guy. But I didn’t know. I didn’t talk to tall bald guy; Mosier did. Another guy, Peter Broderick called me up. He wanted to do an article about the movie for Filmmaker Magazine but he had to see the flick. He hadn’t had a chance to see it, but he heard amazing things about it. I said, “Who told you that?” And he’s like, “I really can’t tell you.”

Amy Taubin was the first phone call I got, though. Village Voice. Ironically that article I ripped out about Richard Linklater – written by Amy Taubin. So when Amy Taubin calls and says, “I’m looking for Kevin Smith, my name is Amy Taubin,” I assume it’s, like, fucking one of my dickhead friends putting somebody on the phone to say “Amy Taubin” so I gave her a hard time for the first three minutes. About like, “Yeah right, Amy Taubin. I’m sure this is her. Who the fuck is this really? Fuck you.” That kind of shit. And finally convinces me and tells me she wants to see it, and she’s gonna be writing about the IFFM for the Village Voice so if I want it included I gotta send a tape because she didn’t get a chance to see it. My head’s exploding. I’m like, “Who told you about the flick?” She says, “Bob Hawk. A dude named Bob Hawk who carries a lot of weight in this community. He saw it and loved it and is talking it up big time.”

So Bob Hawk tells a story about leafing through the catalogue – the IFFM catalogue – and reading the write-up for Clerks which I had written up and the shitty black and white picture that looked less like a movie still and more like some fucking beach candid. In the catalog, it caught his eye. He’s like, “The picture is so terrible, it caught my eye, and I read the description of the movie. And, huh, a convenience store. That sounds interesting, so I made time to go see it that morning. The first few minute were rough going, but then I fell in love with it and sat there and watched the whole thing.”

Incredible.

That happened sixteen years ago. Today. Dude, sixteen years ago from right now. It’s 3:46 PM, and sixteen years ago from this exact moment in time, I was sitting in an apartment in Montclair, New Jersey going, “I am fucked. I am so fucked. I spent almost $28,000 making that movie, and nobody was there today. Nobody’s ever going to see it. I’m fucking dead.” Because I didn’t think about going any place else. The IFFM was the goal. We were supposed to go there, be sold, and we’d live happily ever after. So it’s just astounding, man, that to me – shit, what time is it now? It’s about to be 4 o’clock – another 12 hours before hand, add another 4, 8, 12, 16, I’d say in about 18 hours, my life is about to change sixteen years ago.

I mean technically my life changed the moment the movie started at 11:00 AM, but the phone call comes in 16 hours and starts coming and begins that whole day. The day that I thought was the worst and first day of the rest of my life turned out to be the turning point. Mindbending. Mindbending, dude. And for that fact alone, and that I’m never really in New York anymore – I live on the other side of the country. The fact that I was in New York for the anniversary of that day. And, you know, 16th anniversary is not something that’s commonly celebrated, but I’m never in New York. Certainly never on this date. So if I’m here, and the timing is what it is – I’m not a big believer in ley lines and all that shit – but I just sat there going, “If I was Adam Strange, the Zeta Beam is going to hit the Angelika Film Center today at 11 o’clock. I should be there.”

I had to be there! I had to go! At first I was going alone, and then the wife was like, “I gotta see this,” so we jumped in the cab and went down and bought tickets for the Coco Chanel movie so I could go downstairs. I descended the steps and went down and peeped out the theater, man. And it was weird. You know, I walked down the aisle. Nobody was there. It was totally empty, so I walked down the aisle of a theater I’d been to many times to see other people’s movies before my own, and then sat there watching my own, and was horrified by it, and saw my life flash before my eyes and shit like that. And I’m touching the seats and whatnot in a real kind of The Natural way. You know?

[Laughs] Sure.

Until I realize these seats have long since been replaced. They all have cup holders in them, and they’re wider. So touching these seats means nothing to me at this point.

Click Below to go to the Next Page…

Exclusive: Michelle Monaghan Talks ‘Trucker’

Robert Levin — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:51:48 +0000

To the uninformed, Michelle Monaghan might be little more than a recognizable face. Yet, the actress has had a strong start to her career, having appeared in several of the most successful recent movies. That’s her in The Bourne Supremacy, Mission: Impossible III, Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Eagle Eye.

Nothing she’s done to this point, to resurrect the age old cliché, will prepare you for her work in Trucker. A small, subtle character study set against the vast expanse of the American West and written and directed by James Mottern, it’s the story of a tough trucker named Diane (Monaghan) who finds her independence and isolation compromised when she’s reacquainted with the son (Jimmy Bennett) she abandoned as an infant. Film School Rejects spoke to Monaghan about the deeply personal project, which premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in 2008 and is now in limited release.

What attracted you to Trucker?

To me it was so refreshing. … I read films that are one-dimensional a lot of the time and pretty predictable. And in predictable I mean melodramatic and sometimes they’re very sentimental. You play the victim. … When I read the script she was anything but that, Diane. She was very honest, she was unapologetic, she never makes any promises. … She doesn’t play the victim, and for me I thought that was so appealing. … It was a role of a lifetime for me. As an actor, you want to play characters like that.

What appealed to you about James Mottern’s directorial approach?

James is unique as a filmmaker. He really let the camera linger on me and allowed me to act. So often as an actor you’re bombarded with all this dialogue and you don’t feel like you’re getting to act. … I just feel like in those quiet moments Diane really discovers who she is. It’s not what’s coming out of her mouth. She’s kind of playing tough, but it’s in those quiet moments you find out who she is.

Why are Hollywood studios so scared of making movies in this sort of naturalistic vein? In the 1970s, they did so often: Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, Five Easy Pieces etc.

Gosh, I wish I knew the answer to that. I truly, truly do. I don’t know if [maybe it’s just that] they’ve got their typical movies they want to make. Everything’s become formulaic. Those are real character driven dramas.

Can you talk about the long journey to getting the movie made, seen and released?

It really is a longtime coming, this movie. It landed in my lap in 2006, took a year to get financing attached, made it in Tribeca, and then a year, year-and-a-half to get distribution. The floor kind of fell out from under everybody. I never really lost hope, but for a split second I thought, “Gosh, is this really the end of the road for this movie?” It didn’t seem possible. That was the scary thing. Last year was a really dark time, I think, for a lot of independent films, particularly [at] all the festivals. There were a lot of films that played at the festivals that were really well received, critically acclaimed but walked out of the festivals without buyers.

What was working with Jimmy like? He projects a maturity that’s beyond many child actors.

It’s funny, Jimmy, I really seriously say this and I mean it, he’s got a longer resume than I do. I think if you pull it up on IMDb I think you’ll find that it’s longer. He was really like working with an adult in a 12-year-old’s body. He was always prepared and knew exactly what he wanted. Part of what he brought to the role that enhanced what James and I wanted to do in the relationship was [that] he avoided playing a whiny 12-year-old boy. He wasn’t annoying; he had that tough quality about him that he uses as a defense, which is oddly enough kind of the way Diane operates. I think they’re very similar to each other. I never wanted them to communicate as a mother and son, because they’re strangers to each other.

Why was it important for you to actually get a truck driving license, and learn how to drive a big rig?

They expected a stunt driver. But I sort of made a deal to myself, to James, long before we started shooting that I’d have to get my CDL. And I say that not to be like, “Oh my god, my CDL,” but you can see when you watch the movie it’s so integral to the character. It’s her livelihood, it’s who she is, [and] she loves being her own boss. I knew that if I did that and surrounded myself in that culture, in that environment, it would inform so much of that character. Frankly the role’s written in such an honest way that it deserves to be played as honestly as it should be.

In what ways does the California dessert setting inform Diane’s character?

I think there’s just something about the dessert. It really is a sort of character. It’s barren, hot, and dusty. I don’t know, you know, those are all things I think Diane is. Horses were a big inspiration. … You know when you’re trying to corral a wild horses and you can’t, and dust is coming up, I really saw Diane as a mustang, as one of these horses you’re trying to break and you just can’t break her.

Trucker is currently open in NYC, and will be expanding later in the month.

Art is an Act of Violence: Refn Talks ‘Bronson’ and Transformations

Dr. Cole Abaius — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 05:51:45 +0000

After three weeks, I’m still trying to figure out Bronson. It’s moving, disjointed, non-traditional, and strangely satisfying. Plus, it has a guy fighting in the nude a lot. Copious amounts of nude fighting going on there.

And after speaking with the director, Nicolas Winding Refn, I’m still trying to figure him out. Here is a man lost in the ethereal skies of art who doesn’t do drugs because his wife won’t let him. Here’s a man who celebrates violence and wants to make a romantic comedy. Here is a man who is passionate about filmmaking, but is fine using it as an excuse to fund his toy collecting addiction.

If you figure him out during the course of the interview, please fill me in.

I’m still wrapping my head around your movie. Can you tell me a little bit about your inspiration for it?

I had no interest in making a traditional biopic. That didn’t interest me. And I had no interest in Michael Peterson, but I had an interest in the transformation process which I find very universal – especially the alchemy from where you are to where you end up being an artist or whatever you end up doing. That transformation is what the movie is about.

I feel like asking you what the main draw beyond violence and notoriety is, but Charles Bronson wasn’t the main draw, was he?

No. It was nothing about him. It was basically purely my interest in the transformation. Here was a man who had gone to prison strangely for something so un-harmful, and in there had basically decided that this was going to be the rest of his life. Why would somebody do that? For me, I can only see the right thread was that this was his stage, to become famous. But it goes back to the transformation that I was interested in. How do you transform yourself into a myth? How do you orchestrate your own transformation? Which is what Charlie has been doing.

It’s the tragedy of the story. Because he basically has transformed himself into a man who’s forever going to live in the cage the size of a coffin. He achieves his goal, but the flipside is that his goal would have him confined in a cage for the rest of his life.

His body is trapped with his mythos running wild.

So, yeah, it’s a tragedy and it’s the opposite.

You’ve said before in interviews that criminals mirror our view of a normal society. How does a criminal as violent as Bronson mirror that image?

Well you just have to take the concept of the need for fame. We live in a fame-obsessed society – especially the Western world. Thinking that fame, that fortune and fame, will bring us one step closer to this goal which is supposed to be a perfect life. Charlie suffered the same way. All his life he wanted to become famous, and he didn’t know what as, which is another thing that we see very much now. People don’t become famous because of skills but because of the concept of being famous.

That’s what Charlie wanted to do. He wanted to become famous not knowing where it would lead to. But just thinking that it would lead to something greater. His fame really comes out of his act of violence which is almost like going on a reality TV show and having someone act out their emotions, because art is an act of violence. It’s just a stream of emotions. That’s what art is, and you tap into it as an audience. So, the thing is that it’s almost like the reality TV concept. Here’s a man who wanted to be famous, he just didn’t know what as. It’s through that journey that he discovers that his art is himself. It’s the self installation.

So there’s a message of the danger of caging yourself in the search for fame, or are you unconcerned with a message?

No, I’m very concerned with a message. The flipside of the movie, the consequence of his action is that he’s locked in a cage for the rest of his life. I really do think that the media sometimes don’t really concentrate on the flipside of any achievement but just on the result. Unfortunately, the result is over in ten seconds, and then there’s the next day. The consequences of this very fame-obsessed society can be very sad. But at the same time, it can be very rewarding, so like Bronson – it’s a flipside. It depends on how you look at it. It’s a more complex issue than right or wrong or good or bad. Do you know what I mean?

Definitely. I see all of that going on within the film. You play around, never get too explicit, and you let him tell the story. As a director, you’ve almost given over the storytelling completely to the character – this fictional version of a real man. Is that how you saw it?

Well, I shoot my films in chronological order, so the movie very quickly began to dictate itself. In that way, the film takes on a life of its own. It’s like a monster. It’s like Frankenstein. That’s the thing about shooting in chronological order – you’re able to travel into the unknown. And I write very specific scripts, but it’s the journey from the first page to the end page, the metaphysical journey where the movie’s really being created. On top of that, when you make a movie like that, you make five movies in one movie.

You make a movie when you conceive it, you make another movie during pre-production, then you make another movie in production, and another movie in editing, another movie in sound. It just constantly changes because it has been an on-journey process from the beginning. And therefore, it’s almost like your own ego is eliminated as a filmmaker because the film has been overpowering you. It’s almost like that scene in Frankenstein: It’s alive! It’s alive!

Did you feel a lot like that during the process?

I do on all my films, because that’s the way I shoot all my movies.

Like screaming out toward the lightening?

[Laughing] It’s alive!

You know, Tom Hardy just crushes it in this movie. His performance is amazing. Did you intend in the beginning to do that many long shots of his face or did that come after seeing him on camera?

No, I mean actually that was done very intentionally. I shot the movie for under a million dollars, so I didn’t have a lot of money to make the movie. Because I didn’t do it like street-style, like I did the Pusher trilogy. I did it more operatic. I decided to do less set up but more of the same takes. So I would shoot very specific, but I would do it longer and do more of the same things to get it right. It’s the struggle you have when you make low budget movies – where do you place your time? Where do you get most out of your buck?

The one thing about Bronson when compared to my other films – and even Valhalla Rising which I did right after – was that it was the first movie I ever shot where I basically re-shot 30% of the movie while I was shooting it. Because I kept on going back and changing it. You know when you write and then re-write you have all those colors for the scripts so that people know the next pages?

Yeah.

I went through the colors twice in five weeks. Just because it kept on evolving in my mind and changing and becoming more of everything than it originally was going to be. And that’s the other good thing about chronologically shooting. That you’re able to mold it much more. I always found it very strange. Filmmaking is a creative medium just like any other art form. You spend years writing it, years getting the money, and when you shoot it you have to do a marathon which is like the opposite of any other artistic movement, because it’s all about channeling emotions – like a painting.

A good way to describe it is when I worked with Brian Eno – Brian Eno did the music for one of my movies – and he would describe it as painting a film with music. I thought that was a great way to describe it. Movies are like paintings, but how can you mathematically equate a painting when you haven’t even done it yet? I also prefer to shoot in chronological order because it allows me to travel with the movie.

What helps you see the empty space and create something?

I would say that if I was in the 70s or if I was more bold, I would do drugs, but I can’t because my wife won’t let me. And therefore I use music. Every movie I do, I use music. The music gives me images, and those images become the movie. I usually have the images before I have the story, but when I have enough images I create the story around it.

What are some musicians that you listen to?

It’s not so much what specifically. What I try to do is to conceive the movie as a piece of music. What would it be then? The Pusher trilogy is very different. Like, Pusher was very much like gritty, very late punk, early glam in the 80s. And Johnny Thunder and the Heartbreakers. Part Two is like Iron Maiden, and Part Three is Neil Diamond. Bronson is very much The Pet Shop Boys. I wrote it with The Pet Shop Boys music constantly playing, and would drive everyone insane. When I put it together, I felt like the music didn’t add anything – it’s just an undercurrent. So I thought, well the one thing that Charlie sees his life is, is an opera. So I came up with the concept of putting classical music in to make it more operatic.

The music that happens in between scenes actually reminded me a lot of The Pet Shop Boys. Electronic. Minimal sound. Are you looking more into doing more with criminals or villains?

Well, I would love to do a romantic comedy.

Really?

Yeah, with one of those Hollywood actresses. Like My Best Friend’s Wedding or Pretty Woman or something like that.

This from the guy who made Bronson?

Those are the kinds of movies I watch with my wife, and we enjoy them a lot. I love My Best Friend’s Wedding. I guess I’m always attracted to the dark side of characters, but that’s because it’s the DNA of drama. The more darkness, the better the drama. That’s what I do. I indulge in larger-than-life drama. You do that in darkness.

Are there any specific projects you’re doing next?

There’s a few options. Some movies in Hollywood. Then there’s my own next movie that I’ll write, direct and produce called Only God Forgives that I want to make in Asia as a Western. Shooting in Bangkok.

I’ve read rumors about you directing Jekyll with Keanu Reeves.

I’m attached to that.

Is it happening?

That is a Hollywood question and a Hollywood answer. It’s all up in the air. The puzzles having to be put together. That’s why I always have my own productions on the side because I don’t want to stop making films. I don’t want to wait. I’m not a machine that waits. So I can go off and make one of my own. Also, because I collect toys.

Toys?

I’m an avid toy collector, and Asia has the best toys, so I thought if I could spend four months in Bangkok shooting a movie – ah! – just think of the toys I could get my hands on.

So you use your day job as a filmmaker to fuel your hobby as a toy collector?

Yes, and I also like to eat well. That’s another thing that Asia has. Plus, it’s always nice to go on vacations with my wife and my children. So it’s a win-win.

Is there anything that scares you about getting into the Hollywood system? A lot of international directors get lost in the mix there and don’t have the same creative freedoms.

I think it’s kind of exciting because it’s like a new frontier. How’s that going to turn out? I’m not really afraid of it, because I can always go back and do my own stuff. You should walk into Hollywood knowing what Hollywood wants. Instead of fighting it you should try to embrace it. And see what you can get out of it. And great films are still made within the system. We should not forget that.

So it’s more like what you come in with and what your expectations are. If you go to Hollywood and expect to make biographies the rest of your life, well, then you’re gonna have an issue. If you go into Hollywood thinking, this is like $100 million commercial knowing that, at the end, the clients are going to say what they want.

My job is to trick ‘em.

Exclusive: ‘Zombieland’ Writers Talk Killing the Undead and Fighting the Moon

Dr. Cole Abaius — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:08:25 +0000

Fans and box office receipts have spoken, and what they are saying is that Zombieland is a hit. The fans are saying this. The box office receipts can’t actually talk.

After receiving critical acclaim for the film and getting a disgustingly positive reception at Fantastic Fest, writers/executive producers Paul Wernick and Rhett Reese were nice enough to sit down with us to discuss the ins and outs of zombies, bad asses, and the future of their careers.

Also, you should know that no matter what the record states, Paul was not giving Rhett a prostate exam during the interview.

You guys have essentially created a snarky love letter to zombie flicks. After seeing it, I have to imagine that you guys love the hell out of zombies.

Rhett Reese: Well, it’s interesting. Paul, you wanna confess?

Paul Wernick: I’m a zombie virgin.

No way.

PW: The only zombie genre movie I’d seen before we sat down to write Zombieland was Shaun of the Dead, and Rhett…

RR: And I’m hardly a zombie slut. If he’s a zombie virgin, I’m hardly a zombie slut. I’d be, what, a zombie serial monogamist or something? I’d probably seen six of 7 zombie movies before this, so I certainly wouldn’t call myself a buff, but I do love the ones I’ve seen and did love the genre and was more recently inspired – we wrote the script four and a half years ago, so it’s been a while – but at the time I found inspiration in 28 Days Later and the new Dawn of the Dead, and their new approach to the speed of zombies. To me, that invigorated a genre that had been around a long time, and it was one of the reasons we wanted to explore the fast zombies. Some people even call them non-zombies because they aren’t actually undead, but we tend to take a pretty broad view when it comes to the zombie canon. We don’t get too worried about a Zombie Bible that’s been handed down from on high, and you have to follow certain rules. We like to play a little fast and loose.

But your zombies don’t move too quickly. They sort of bumble around.

RR: They do.

And they’re easily killed. It’s surprising to hear you say you guys aren’t major buffs because you really have focused on some tropes of the genre and walked a fine line of making fun of its flaws while still celebrating it.

RR: Yeah, we didn’t want to make fun of zombie films. We wanted to have fun with zombie films. If that makes sense.

Well, you’ve clearly done the homework and understand the genre.

RR: We’re honored to hopefully be entering the zombie club, because it certainly has attracted some wonderful filmmakers and writers over the years. I’m hoping at some point we’ll get to sit down with the Edgar Wrights, and the Alex Garlands, and the Danny Boyles, and the Peter Jacksons, and the Sam Raimis of the world and talk zombie.

I think [the genre] gets a bad rap as, “Well, zombie films are inherently stupid,” and I think it’s the opposite of that if anything. They tend to be very smart movies that are dressed up with a lot of blood and gore that distract you from the fact that they’re pretty smart.

PW: You know, the world, this zombie apocalyptic world, is such an interesting playground that we wanted to take full advantage of. There’s huge wish-fulfillment in a world without people. Where you can kill without consequence and drive any car you wanna drive and shop in any store you wanna shop in without worry of not being able to afford it. So there is this wish-fulfillment in a post-Apocalyptic zombie world that we wanted to take full advantage of.

Sure. There’s no real downside except for what’s already happened. There’s no humans, and there’s ravenous beasts constantly…you know, the more I say it out loud, the more it sounds like the price is pretty steep.

RR: [Laughs] We wanted to find the silver lining in the dark cloud of the post-apocalypse and not neglect the fact that it’s sad. Because we do have sad moments in the movie and we do have our characters longing for the innocence of days gone by. But we also have them reveling in this sandbox full of toys, and they now are afforded the opportunity to break stuff and beat zombies over the head and ride roller coasters without a line, and things like that. That was a big part of it for us. We always wanted it to be funny. We didn’t want it to take itself too seriously. We wanted it to be fun, and a ride, and a romp as opposed to a real serious polemic.

PW: Rhett’s been reading too many reviews…

RR: I know. I’m using all the – It’s a ride! It’s a romp! It’s a blast!

PW: [Laughs]

RR: Sad.

I’m pretty sure we didn’t use those terms in our review.

RR: If you did, it’s okay. We like to be called a Blast or a Romp.

I don’t even know what a romp is.

RR: I don’t either. It came out though. I apologize.

It sounds like something you take with a loved one through a field of daisies.

RR: [Laughs]

PW: Much like a prostate exam, it involves rubber gloves snapping against your forearms.

RR: [Laughs]

[Laughs] You know when you talk about sadness and the human connection between the characters. How did you achieve that balance with the carefree comedy?

PW: More than anything, we wanted to write a movie about a dysfunctional family which is what our four characters are essentially. They’re all looking for something, and that something is love. So, at its core, it’s a character piece. We didn’t want to forget that. Rich characters make every moment that much better – where you care about them, whether they’re happy or sad. We spent much of our time developing our characters in this very rich world that we were living in to be such that they had heart, and you do care about them, and when Columbus does brush Wichita’s hair over her ear, it’s a really goosebump-inducing, heartfelt moment where you just want to cheer because you’ve cared so much about them over the course of 83 minutes or so.

You got me sidetracked. I was gonna ask a question about bad asses, and you got me all misty-eyed.

PW: [Laughs]

RR: [Laughs]

PW: That’s what we do.

Woody Harrelson’s character Tallahassee is a complete bad ass. What film bad asses did you look to for inspiration?

RR: The concept for the character came out of this idea that we’ve all flirted with in life. Maybe we’re great at something, and we haven’t discovered what that thing is yet. You know, if you’ve never picked up a golf club, maybe you are Jack Nicholas waiting to happen. If you’ve never tried pole-vaulting, maybe that’s your secret skill. And we loved the idea of a guy who had been largely a failure in life but that, by virtue of this post-Apocalypse and zombies breaking out, realized that he was actually really good at killing zombies. Not just good. The best.

In terms of specific inspiration, the answer is no. I mean, a character like Ash from Sam Raimi’s movies like Army of Darkness and those movies, is at least somewhat inspirational because he’s a bad ass, he spouts one-liners, and we wanted Tallahassee to do the same. But really, it stemmed more out of this idea that 1) a guy who’s finally discovered his skill and 2) a guy who is the perfect foil to Columbus – who is a very passive character who’s always retreating from violence. We needed a character to balance that by always diving in.

I do appreciate that they are great at killing. There are a few scare moments, but mostly this group doesn’t see much danger anymore and knows how to have fun.

RR: That’s great. I think what you’re picking up on there is partly due to the fact that we decided to start the story in the middle. So many zombie movies, and I’d have to add them all up, but so many of them start at the beginning. They start when the zombie outbreak first begins and so you are seeing that What the Hell Thinking and the fear, and we wanted to jump into the middle of the story and meet people who had highly honed their survival skills by virtue of the characteristics they had before the world of zombies. There’s Columbus who’s a real wuss, and he’s very careful, and that has proved adaptive to this world. Tallahassee is really tough and likes to fight and seek danger. That has proved adaptive. For the girls, they’re really good at thinking ahead, and conning people and being smart. That has proved adaptive. So we wanted to jump in the middle and not begin at the beginning where the General comes on and tells everyone to stay in their house. We thought it would be nice to flash back a bit, to show the first meeting with a zombie and the first zombie attack, but largely we wanted to view people who had already learned to survive.

I want to switch gears just a moment and bother you guys about your upcoming projects. The first being Earth vs. Moon – which is titled really directly.

PW: It’s genius in that the title says everything you need to know about the movie. It’s a high concept movie with an even higher concept title. Earth vs. Moon is the story of the Earth versus the Moon 400 years in the future. A big, sci-fi epic war movie. A civil war movie. And caught in between that war is a fractured family on either side of that battle.

I love that high concept films are usually described in one sentence.

RR: We’ve boiled it down. One word. Zombieland! We’re gonna try to do it with just one letter pretty soon. You know – F! – and then everyone’s gonna get it.

P: It’ll be A instead of F, though.

And this project isn’t based on “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” by Heinlein?

RR: No. You know we’d actually never heard of that story. We’ve now heard of it. Is it a short story or a novel? I can’t remember.

It’s a novel.

RR: Yeah, we’ve heard of it subsequent because we’ve been accused by many internet folks of having ripped it off.

Sure.

RR: We read enough of a synopsis of it to assuage ourselves that ours is really different from it which made us feel relieved. But no, we haven’t read it and we had not heard of it when we wrote [Earth vs Moon].

So there’s no libertarian political theory abounding in Earth vs. Moon?

RR: Well, interestingly I am a libertarian. But no, that’s not what’s at the core of our movie. It’s not even in our movie at all actually.

And the second project is Venom. A pretty hot property.

PW: Venom is one of those we put in a lock box and can’t unfortunately talk about.

RR: Unfortunately Venom is one that’s shrouded in very high secrecy. We’re just unfortunately not allowed to comment on it. I hate to say that, but we gotta do that.

PW: Even the slightest bit of…

RR: People like to run with…even if we say one line about it, it becomes a headline because people are thirsting for it. So we need to stay quiet on it.

Could you even talk about what particular skills you have as writers that lend themselves to the project?

RR: I think we probably shouldn’t. Just because we’ve had situations before where we think something is innocuous and then suddenly it’s the headline of an article. I think everyone involved would rather it stay as secretive as possible.

Wow. I’m impressed. I just gave two writers the chance to brag, and they stayed silent.

RR: It’s not our choice!

So can I safely report that you two aren’t cast in the movie? That Paul Wernick won’t be playing Venom?

RR: I think that’s safe.

PW: I would run with that.

RR: Paul’s got some acting chops.

PW: I may play Venom.

So there you have it. The casting scoop of the century. Paul Wernick might play Venom.

What do you think?

Exclusive: James McTeigue Talks CGI Blood and ‘Ninja Assassin’

Dr. Cole Abaius — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:06:15 +0000

Not only did Fantastic Fest audiences get a glimpse at the upcoming Ninja Assassin two months before its wide release, FSR was lucky enough to sit down with director James McTeigue who had a ton to say about the MPAA ratings process, the concept behind creating a live-action anime and his forthcoming murder mystery The Raven (which he describes as Poe meets Se7en).

Oh, and we also talk about kicking ass. Naturally.

A veteran of the film industry, McTeigue had a lot to say about the difficulties faced by studios, claiming that they didn’t know what the next hot subculture would be (and that they need one for when comic book characters go on the decline).

So for those of you who demand an interview that deals with the inner politics of the film industry and a discussion on Kusarigamas cutting through human flesh, gird your loins and prepare yourself:

Exclusive: Michael Bassett Talks Puritanical Ass Kicking and ‘Solomon Kane’

Dr. Cole Abaius — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 06:29:28 +0000

One of the most satisfying movies I’ve seen at Fantastic Fest so far has been Michel Bassett’s Solomon Kane. After all, it’s a pretty ballsy movie considering that Bassett has decided to take an iconic character (with a small, but dedicated fan base) and attempt to create an origin story for said character that doesn’t appear in any of the original source materials. Without pandering to fans and without alienating them completely, Bassett has managed to take a fun, dark character and introduce him to a larger audience by concentrating on making a great film while focusing on the tone of Solomon Kane – who he is and what his world look like.

And mostly that world looks like shit.

It’s been raining for years, violence is all around and the good people are hammered almost out of existence by cruelty. Out of the darkness comes a man with a buckle on his hat.

I was lucky enough to meet up with Bassett during the festival, so we took a quick walk around the Alamo Drafthouse with a quick detour into the new Alamo-owned Highball bowling alley. Even better, I’ve gotten it all on tape so you can see it. You can thank me later.

What struck me most about talking to Bassett – besides his innovative use of pig carcasses for swords and science – was how much of a movie fan he is. It’s clear that he’s a geek for film and has this intense joy to be doing what he’s doing. That passion definitely translates into his work.

Solomon Kane doesn’t have distribution in the United States all nailed down just yet, but the buzz about the movie has been building, and I’d expect the details to be worked out fairly soon. Bassett himself thought it might hit theaters as early as January 2010 in time for everyone to crouch down in the mud and fight evil with a hell-bound hero.

What do you think?

Exclusive: Charlaine Harris Talks ‘True Blood’

FSR Staff — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:44:56 +0000

Charlaine Harris who? You may not think you know her, but if it wasn’t for Charlaine Harris and her creation of Sookie Stackhouse, we wouldn’t have HBO’s True Blood. Charlaine sat down with us at Dragon*Con in Atlanta, Georgia this past weekend to answer a few questions that we were dying to know.

“Well of course, Sookie is my favorite,” Charlaine told us when we asked her favorite character, but she quickly added, “I like writing all of them because they’re all part of me.”

When asked who her favorite character was other than Sookie, she replied gleefully that it was Amelia Broadway and Vampire Pam played by Kristin Bauer. Amelia Broadway is a novice witch in the Sookie Stackhouse novels that has yet to be introduced on True Blood. So when can viewers see this character on True Blood? Well, that’s not a definite yet.

As Charlaine explained, HBO’s Alan Ball is initially aiming to shoot one Sookie Stackhouse novel per HBO Season. “That was the basic plan,” she said. “But he has said that eventually the show will take on a life of its own.” Alan Ball explained to her that because Sookie wouldn’t be able to carry the entire series on her own, other characters would have to become more developed. Hence Lafayette not being killed in season one, even though he was killed in the first novel Dead Until Dark. This also explains why the character Jessica Hamby played by Deborah Ann Woll was created and why Tara Thorton played by Rutina Wesley has become a main character in the True Blood series.

When asked who her favorite character in True Blood was, Charlaine praised the entire cast. “I know all the actors, with a few exceptions,” she said. “It would be really hard to pick when you know them personally. It’s really hard to separate them from the characters.”

However, she eventually settled on Nelsan Ellis. “He’s just brilliant as Lafayatte,” she said. Charlaine went on to say that she felt Stephen Moyer and Anna Paquin were a perfect fit for their characters William Compton and Sookie Stackhouse. Charlaine had mentioned in a panel earlier in the weekend that she couldn’t believe how tall Alexander Skarsgård was who plays Eric Northman. Alexander Skarsgård, who stood at 6’4”, towered over Charlaine Harris. She said that he was one of the nicest actors she’d met. Charlaine also went on to say that she didn’t think that Stephen and Anna’s relationship outside of True Blood would affect the characters storyline in the series.

Charlaine didn’t name or suggest anyone who should be cast as future characters on True Blood, but did say that she was very excited to see who would be cast as Debbie Pelt, a central character that is introduced in the third book, Club Dead. She also went on to say that she can’t wait to see what Alan Ball does with Club Dead and that the book was one of her favorites. When Charlaine was asked if the third season of True Blood would be closer to Club Dead than the second season had been to her books, she replied that she wasn’t sure.

“In the third season, we’ll see the introduction of the werewolves,” she said. “And I am looking forward to that very much.”

Unlike Stephenie Meyer with the Twilight series, Charlaine Harris and Alan Ball do not regularly consult with each other about the True Blood series. However, when asked if she and Alan Ball had a communication method available to them, she advised that they do communicate occasionally via email. Charlaine also went on to say that she is OK with the liberties that Alan Ball has taken with the True Blood series because she looks at True Blood as its own entity.

“I have been fascinated with what he’s done,” Charlaine said. “It’s like a separate experience, and that can be a lot of fun for everyone.”

The differences between the books and the series may explain any confusion that Charlaine’s fans are having with HBO’s True Blood. For example, when we asked Charlaine about what the “egg” was in True Blood, Charlaine said with a smile “I have no idea.”

One thing that fans of Charlaine Harris will be very excited to know about, is her upcoming appearance in a True Blood episode. Charlaine will appear in Season Two’s final episode on Sunday, September 13th as a patron in the bar Merlotte’s. Look for her talking to Sam Merlotte (Sam Trammell).

Charlaine appeared at several other panels during the Dragon*Con weekend and we asked a question to Charlaine Harris for all of her avid fans of the Sookie Stackhouse series. Charlaine had mentioned on her website that Sookie would not become a vampire, so when we asked her which vampire she would end up with (implying Eric Northman or William Compton), Charlaine replied with a devilish smile “Who says it’s going to be a vampire?”

To learn more about Charlaine Harris, and her other novels and appearances, visit her personal web site at CharlaineHarris.com.

For more information on True Blood, visit HBO’s True Blood web site.

Special thanks to our roving Dragon*Con correspondents, Kelly Carr and April Cloud, who conducted the interview and were so kind as to send it in to us.

Film School Rejects » Interviews

Exclusive: ‘New Moon’ Screenwriter Talks Adapting Empty Pages and ‘Eclipse’ Additions

Related Reading:

‘Ink’ Producer Responds to Piracy

Related Reading:

Director Pete Docter Q&A and More Hidden Facts About ‘Up’

Related Reading:

Fantastic Fest Interview: Ride with ‘Broncos’ Author Dr. Ronald Chevalier

Related Reading:

Fantastic Fest Interview: Ride with ‘Broncos’ Star Jemaine Clement

Related Reading:

Exclusive: ‘Law Abiding’ Gerard Butler Talks Revenge

Related Reading:

Exclusive: Anthony Mackie Talks ‘Hurt Locker,’ the Oscars and Upcoming Projects

Related Reading:

Exclusive: Team ‘Mandrill’ Teaches Us How to Be a Super Spy

Related Reading:

Exclusive: We Shoot the Sh*t with Kevin Smith

Related Reading:

Exclusive: Michelle Monaghan Talks ‘Trucker’

Related Reading:

Art is an Act of Violence: Refn Talks ‘Bronson’ and Transformations

Related Reading:

Exclusive: ‘Zombieland’ Writers Talk Killing the Undead and Fighting the Moon

Related Reading:

Exclusive: James McTeigue Talks CGI Blood and ‘Ninja Assassin’

Related Reading:

Exclusive: Michael Bassett Talks Puritanical Ass Kicking and ‘Solomon Kane’

Related Reading:

Exclusive: Charlaine Harris Talks ‘True Blood’

Related Reading: