From the GATW Archives: Sundance 2010 Video Interview: Bobby Miller (TUB)

Bobby Miller was one of the most eccentric people I got the pleasure of meeting at this year’s Sundance. He’s funny, he’s polite, and he directed a movie about a guy that impregnates his bathtub. Pretty weird, right? I bet you’re interest has now been sparked.

That’s right folks, TUB is the name of the movie and there is masturbation and a baby spawned from an impregnated tub. I assure you, it’s not all gross-out, it’s actually an intelligent and charismatic film.

Check out the interview after the jump! Also, if you’re on twitter, follow Bobby HERE and follow his short HERE! Weeeeee!

From the GATW Archives: Interview: Director Kimberly Reed (PRODIGAL SONS)

This week I spoke to Kimberly Reed about her documentary, PRODIGAL SONS. In the documentary, Kim takes us back with her to the small town in Montana where she grew up for a high school reunion. A little back story on Kim: she was a he back in high school, and he was the star quarterback.

If that doesn’t peak your interest, Kim also tries to reconnect with her adopted older brother Marc, who suffered a severe head injury at 21. While searching for his real parents, we find out early in the film that Marc discovers he’s the grandson of Orson Welles. Both of these facts aren’t spoilers, as you see them in the official synopsis and trailer. Believe me when I say this, PRODIGAL SONS gets really intense. Kimberly Reed is - without a doubt - one of the most courageous and daring filmmakers I’ve ever spoken to. Check out the interview after the jump, where we discuss some of the difficulties and praises that occurred both during and after making this film.

Chase Whale: Your original idea for this documentary, was the majority of it surrounding your brother or did you have a different idea and it just went in a completely different direction?

Kimberly Reed: The latter. I mean, it was a roller coaster with surprises and twists and turns. And in a lot of ways we were just trying to hold on during production, which is a good thing for a documentary. The surprises create this sense of suspense. It’s real life, you don’t know what’s going to happen next. So for the film, it was really good in that sense. As a family member going through it, not the best thing [laughs], you kind of don’t want surprises when you’re a family member. And that was hard to go through, but I think that ultimately being able to share my story and the story of our family and especially the story of my brother, [and] as hard as those times are and as much as you have to put yourself out there, it is really rewarding once it’s all done.

CW: How long did this project take from start to finish?

KR: We started shooting at the reunion in 2005 and we premiered three years later at Telluride 2008.

CW: At the beginning, you were saying how some of your high school friends knew what was going on. And in the last eight years the big boom of social networking hit, so did you purposely stay away from that stuff or how did you avoid all the social networking?

KR: You know, there wasn’t really a big push with people in [my] high school [for social networking]. People in Helena first found out about me when my father died, and that was in 2003. And I know social networking was kind of kicking up then, and I kind of geeked out and I was into that stuff, but I don’t think a lot of my classmates were. To a certain extent, it wasn’t even an option. But [it] certainly [was] when the reunion started happening. I remember when I first got to the reunion I found out that someone had googled me and everyone had seen photos of me. I was an editor of this magazine and I had this head shot in a magazine and they were all sort of passing it around [laughs]. And I remember being at the time “Oh my god, the googled me.” So I didn’t really have to avoid the social networking thing, but the google, you can’t get away from the google [laughs].

CW: How much extra footage didn’t make it into the film?

KR: With any documentary, there’s just so much more. We shot about 200 hours. But I think the bigger opportunity but also the bigger burden, is that we had everything my father shot. And when you think of it as a personal documentary that kind of means that every photo that’s ever been taken and every video that’s ever been shot and every Super 8 film that you made when you were a kid, all of that stuff becomes part of what you shot, as it were. So when you put all of that stuff together it was about 300 to 400 hours. There was a lot of stuff to wade through.

CW: Wow, and you edited the film correct?

KR: I had worked as editor, so the first thing I did was to hire another editor because I knew I would need that sense of objectivity [laughs] But I did, yes. It’s not a co-editor credit but we did co-edit the film with Shannon Kennedy. There were kind of two steps: one where I was trying to get away and get as much objectivity as I could. And then, towards the end I thought it was important to really make the film very personal so I jumped back in and started editing just because that’s what I’m very comfortable with and that’s the point at which it kind of took on this first person-narration and this first-person point of view.

CW: With you being the director and editor of this film, and it’s such a personal film, how difficult was it to pick and choose what needs to be left in the cutting room floor and what needs to go in the film.

KR: That’s always really hard. I think without that first step that I was talking to you about, where I was trying to get really objective and try to get as far away from the footage as I could. Without that, the second step couldn’t have happened at all. Because the crucial thing is, and this happens in any documentary, that you need to very carefully modulate how each of the characters come across. Because you’re trying to take somebody’s life and boil it down to a handful of scenes in which they appear over an hour and a half. Also, when you’re working autobiographically, you need to apply that to yourself, to your own character in the film. So it can be kind of a mind-boggling process on the one hand. But on the other hand there’s something very simple, it’s just like, I’m telling my story and this is my story and we have a family that has a pretty wild story.

CW: In the film, you talk about how you had a difficult time looking at pictures of the movie, but a lot of the movie is dedicated to your past. Now that your film is completed, do you have a hard time watching the movie. There are intense moments in the movie, but as a whole, do you have a hard time watching it?

KR: Not at all, not for those reasons that were depicting the past. The film helped me get to that point where I was comfortable with that. Some of the intense emotional stuff is a different story, and that is hard to watch and I think it always will be, but more because of just remembering the pain I was feeling at that time, the pain my brother Mark was feeling at the time. But I think there is this interesting irony in there that the film is about me having a problem showing images and the film is comprised of images that I’m uncomfortable with [laughs]. But by the end of the film, I clearly had gotten there.

I think it’s interesting to think of the photo that caused some trouble between me and my brother, that I become comfortable with him showing. To me it’s very important that the last image you see before the film credits run is that image. I think of that being sort of a statement that the first time you saw it, it was uncomfortable, but here you go it’s the final image of the film, we’re going to end it on this and in a lot of ways I think that’s a gesture towards Mark and my brother just kind of saying “Look, this is our past. And we share this and we both have this,” and in some ways giving the past back to him.

CW: Do you have any plans for the DVD releasing footage that couldn’t make it in, or a follow up?

KW: The DVD will definitely have a bunch of additional footage that people haven’t seen before, including a lot of updates about the reception of the film back in my hometown. The church that I went to when I was growing up, which my mom is still a very important part of, they invited me back to present the film and to speak at church and there’s this cool little mini-documentary scene about what happened when we took the film back, and it’s all great. I didn’t know you could get a standing ovation in church and we got one there. So there’s stuff like that and a little bit of stuff about what’s happened to people since then and also what happened to the film itself when it went back to my home town.

CW: Well thank you so much for your time, I can’t wait to see what you do next.

KW: Well stayed tuned, because there’s a lot more coming! [laughs]

From the GATW Archives: Interview: Actress Kat Dennings (DEFENDOR)

Kat Dennings is a sweetheart. I knew this when Rusty interviewed her in Dallas last year with Michael Cera for NICK AND NORAH’S INFINITE PLAYLIST, but I had forgotten how easy it is to carry a conversation with her. Yesterday I spoke with Kat about her new film, DEFENDOR, which she co-stars in with the great Woody Harrelson. DEFENDOR follows a regular - but very eccentric - guy (Harrelson) who takes it upon himself to fight crime and stop an evil drug lord, whom he calls Captain Industry. This isn’t your ordinary comic book film, as Defendor never gets his way and always gets his ass kicked. God bless him for trying.

Check out our interview after the jump, where we talk about the hesitations of working with a first time director, how cool Woody Harrelson is, and what it’s like working on two comic book movies that go in completely different directions. If you don’t know the other comic book movie I’m speaking of, may the Gods have mercy on your soul. Or at least Thor, because he’s lurking just around the corner.

Chase Whale: Talk about how you got involved with the film.

Kat Dennings: Well, I got the script and no one was attached at the time I read it, so it was purely for the story. And I read it and I remember sitting on one couch, my mom was napping on the other couch and I was crying. I don’t cry very often, I’m a pretty tough cookie, especially with the amount of scripts that I’ve read I’m pretty jaded by this point. But I was crying and I was trying to keep it together and not wake her up and so I knew “I have got to do this.” The role is really different for me. There was really nothing for me to hold on to personally, because I’ve never been through anything that the character’s been through, obviously. Or not obviously, I don’t know [laughs], she’s a crack-addicted prostitute!
So I just knew that I really wanted to do it, I didn’t know if I could pull it off but I wanted to try. And I met with Peter [Stebbings], the writer-director and we had a lot of really good talks and both of us were just like “I wonder if I can do this.” And I came in and I read, you know, like you do with a normal audition and there were other people there and miraculously it came together. I’m very lucky.

CW: Going back to Peter, this is his directorial debut, whenever you got the script did you have any hesitations, or whenever you signed on did you have any hesitations? What did you do to put trust in Peter for his first film?

KD: The thing about first-time directors, it’s always kind of a risk, you never know. But the saying is, or whatever, everyone did something first. I mean, Scorsese did a first film, everyone does a first film. So it’s a coin toss, you either a get a maniac who’s going to lose his shit and not be able to do anything. Or you’re going to get a poised person who’s learning but really dedicated, and that’s Peter. Peter really took charge. I remember once Woody [Harrelson] got attached and once I got the job, we all had a meeting—me, Woody and Peter. And we talked for a long time and ate vegan food and I came out of there and was like “All right, sold.” I mean obviously, with Woody being in it…

CW: Going into Woody, his character is such a unique character, I’ve never seen him play something like this before. What was it like working with Woody playing this very unique character?

KD: As you know, first of all, Woody is one of the world’s most incredible acting treasures. He’s a sweet, wonderful man, incredible actor. One of the true greats. I mean, he’s been great in everything. He’s a legend, you know? We had a lot of talks about what are we going do. We had a lot of rehearsals, and I had never had this experience and he hadn’t either, where we were like “I don’t know what I’m doing.” Both of us! [laughs] First of all, every rehearsal process is different, sometimes you don’t even have one. But we had time to rehearse and both us were just like “I’m not gonna feel like I’m the person until we’re both on set and we both have our costumes and makeup on. Until you’ve got on a helmet and I’ve got a crack pipe.” [laughs]

And we both met with a lot of people who were really in these situations. Like Woody met with a young man who had Fetal Alochol Syndrome, which is what Arthur [Harrelson’s character] has to deal with. He really made a nice bond with person, he was a great guy. But sadly this man had passed away during the film which was pretty rough for all of us. But I had met some people who had been sex workers or were currently sex workers or had been addicts or were currently addicts and it really gave me a big time reality check in my own life.

Also, with Woody’s character and my character you have these preconceptions about what kind of people they were. Like, yeah, she’s a prostitute and she smokes crack but she’s all these other things too, and she got to this point because of this. And what I learned is that anyone, from any walk of life or from any childhood situation can slip down that slope. It’s pretty sad, you know? But the film is a lot of things, it’s a superhero movie, it’s a comedy, it’s drama, it’s beautiful. We had the premiere the other night…and it just kind of all came together all of a sudden. I was a little bit sad, I just hope people see this movie. It’s a really good one. I’m really proud of it.

CW: Yeah absolutely! My next question is, this showed at Toronto and it got picked up and now it’s being released, how cool does that feel? Because there’s so many great films that just have a tough time finding a distributor and it’s so depressing.

KD: It’s incredible, especially I think this year was a tough year. Because you know, a lot of financial problems. Every studio had a budget and everyone was having a hard time. So for this to get picked up during the recession, it’s pretty amazing. And this is not a face movie, it’s kind of a fucked up movie. So it’s refreshing. It’s so great. I’m so happy and I just want people to see it. And you know, it’s coming out on DVD relatively soon, so if people see it that way great. There’s a lot of insight on that commentary, let me tell you.

CW: You’ve talked about how DEFENDOR is kind of a fucked up, character study/comic book movie. You’re doing THOR, what was it like working in the same genre but at two completely different ends?

KD: Polar opposites. I actually haven’t started filming my part of THOR yet. So the fun is still to be had for me. But yeah, it’s a complete disconnect. It’s like, one you have a very small budget, a 20 day shoot, kind of very intense, cold, sad beautiful small film. And then you have a huge epic explosion of gorgeous worlds and all this legend and Kenneth Branagh and Anthony Hopkins! [laughs] I don’t know, they couldn’t be more different. I can’t wait to feel how that feels. I really can’t wait to experience that. All the rehersal we had for THOR, the fittings, everything! I’m so excited. It’s like waiting for Christmas.

CW: It must be really cool to be in two comic book movies that both have their own charms.

KD: Yeah! For different reasons. But essentially, every hero has the same appeal. Your hero is supposed to have an honest soul and truth, purity and justice. Obviously THOR is Thor. And Chris Hemsworth, I mean honestly, it’s pretty daunting just talking the way Thor talks and Chris, the second he opened his mouth I almost passed out. He’s just so perfect. Obviously he’s a physically beautiful person but you just buy every word he says. You completely believe him, he’s got this amazing quality about him. And Woody playing Defendor couldn’t be more honest or more truthful and justice is his thing. So essentially heroes are all the same, except for like, Tony Stark, who’s kind of a dick [laughs].

CW: With DEFENDOR being a different type of comic book movie, it’s about a regular guy taking matters into his hands. What do you think people like about that?

KD: Well, I think we all have those revenge fantasies. I know I do [laughs]. You know when someone offends you and you just want to leap from building to building and rip their tonsils out…or maybe that’s just me…[laughs]. But it’s interesting because you know, what is a superhero? What is it? What makes the superhero? It’s the outfit and sometimes you have powers. But you know, Batman doesn’t have any powers! He’s a dude. And who says another dude can’t be a superhero? Like, you don’t have to have a cape and weapons to be a badass.

From the GATW Archives: SXSW 2010 Review: TRASH HUMPERS

Rating: 8/10

Writer/director: Harmony Korine
Cast: Charles Ezell, Kevin Guthrie, Harmony Korine, Rachel Korine, Chris Gantry, Travis Nicholson, Page Spain

Congratulations, Harmony, you’ve just made the weirdest movie ever.

If I could described Harmony Korine’s TRASH HUMPERS in one sentence, I would say “Weird people doing weird shit while humping trash cans and trees.” Since you’re reading this, I’m going to assume you’ve already seen Harmony’s previous films and you already know weird is Harmony’s God given gift. Harmony’s that guy that’s not weird for the sake of being weird, he’s just naturally strange and cares 0% about what people think of him or his films. By definition, he fits the bill. His recent outing is called TRASH HUMPERS. It’s extremely, um, colorful (trying to avoid that noun you know I want to use), and after a few days of what I just saw marinating in my brain, I came to the realization that TRASH HUMPERS is something I want to hang on to.

TRASH HUMPERS is a feature-length collective of three elderlys (or young people posing to look elderly by wearing cheap Freddy Krueger masks - I’ll let you decide) who do random acts of destruction, violence and yes, trash humping. I wrote down a small list of other things that happened throughout the film which raised enough attention to note: They clean a wheelchair at the car wash, lurk in windows and spank overweight strippers while one of them sings “Holy Night.” Through out the film, the Humper holding the camera belts out a haunting laugh. At other random moments, a new character is brought in and does some type of speech, those consist of: a little boy (who teaches us how to murder a doll by hammering it on a basketball court), a 50-something year old man dressed up in a skimpy maid’s costume that you have no doubt seen on Halloween who belts nonsense that I couldn’t even transcribe if I tried, two twins (random men connected by panthose at the head) make pancakes while the camera person yells “Make it make it! Don’t fake it!” repeatedly, and a man who stares at the camera and “woo woos” like a train for five to six minutes. This is TRASH HUMPERS in a nutshell.

TRASH HUMPERS was shot and edited on VHS - which makes the collected footage appear even more raw and disturbing. Harmony wants his audience to view this like it’s actual found footage of three sociopaths who filmed themselves lurking the streets and wrecking everything in their path. Throughout the film, the camera tries to auto correct and the images become distorted due to being shot on VHS (now been fixed due to the digital age). This is where I tip my hat to Harmony. Shooting in such a dirty style put the film on a grand scale of surrealism. If you didn’t know who Harmony Korine was and I told you this video was real, you’d believe me.

The audience is supposed to view this film like it was a tape randomly stumbled upon whether it be wondering down the road or coming across in someone’s trash. This feel gives the film a horrifying presence because it’s a sad realization that there are crazy individuals out there that just want to destroy the world. Since you’re at the end of this review, you know what you’re in for when watching TRASH HUMPERS.

From the GATW Archives: Interview: Co-Writer/Director Noah Baumbach (GREENBERG)

Before SXSW kicked off, I spoke with writer/director Noah Baumbach, who shared writing credits with his wife Jennifer Jason Leigh for his latest film, GREENBERG; a coming of age story about a guy (Ben Stiller) who’s way too old to be coming of age. It was a bittersweet phone interview as I was supposed to speak to him in person in New York, but both Noah and I got snowed out during that time. New York, I love you, but you almost brought me down.

In GREENBERG, Noah recruited LCD Soundsystem founder and frontman James Murphy to score original music for the film. So to start off the interview, my first few questions were geared toward that. After that, we dove into Noah’s process of balancing characters in his films and how Ben Stiller ended up taking the lead as Greenberg. Check out the full interview after the jump.

CW: Hey, Noah, how’s it going?

NB: Good, how are you?

I’m doing well…it’s nice to finally be able to talk to you. I was supposed to go to New York for the interview but the snow kept me from heading there.

Me too, so if you’d made it you wouldn’t have found me there.

Ha ha…let’s talk about GREENBERG, the first thing I want to talk about is the music. How did you and James [Murphy] come together to collaborate?

When I was writing GREENBERG, I was in L.A. and Jennifer and I were driving home from dinner one night [and] we heard [on satellite radio] “New York I Love You.” It felt like a companion voice to Greenberg’s and what I was writing. When I got home, I downloaded the whole record [“Sounds Of Silver”] and I felt like the whole record…[like] James was dealing with all these similar themes of aging and self-consciousness and friendship and anxiety. So I sought him out when I had a finished script. We really hit it off and became friends. It was one of those things that felt like a good idea at the time and turned out to be a good idea…it doesn’t always happen that way.

I agree. Using “All My Friends” was perfect for the trailer because that’s what the song’s about, making mistakes and growing older and like, “what do I do now?” and that’s the position Greenberg’s in. Since this is original music for him, did he score prior to seeing the scenes, or did you have him watch the scenes to get an idea?

He was actually in L.A. recording his [new] record when we were shooting, so he was on set. I showed him dailies and we talked a lot about music and the movie, but at that stage is was more theoretical. His studio happened to be a block away from where I was cutting in New York. It was very collaborative, he would come over and watch stuff and then send over things a day or two later…we would try things out. There’s a piano piece which is the first thing he wrote based on a feeling of what he’d seen so far but it wasn’t for any particular scene. Actually the scenes we ended up putting that piece in we didn’t cut until later. So in that case he was working sort of off a vibe he had for the movie but not a specific scene. Other stuff he wrote specifically for specific scenes…but because we were so near each other I could go over there or he could come over to me…it’s the way you really want to do it, sort of build it together.

Yeah, it came together really nicely…now let’s talk about the story of GREENBERG. Where did the idea come from?

Well, it really developed over time. I had early ideas of the characters Greenberg and Florence in my head. They were two people I wanted to write about and I also knew I wanted to put something in Los Angeles. Those are the major things I was looking at in the beginning. The story itself really developed over time. Jennifer [co-writer] had a lot of influence on that. It’s so much of a character study that calibrating the character development and coming up with the story and plot took a long time to find the right balance of how much story [or] how little story.

The title of the film is GREENBERG and that’s Ben Stiller’s character, but after seeing the film I thought the movie was more about Florence (Greta Gerwig) and her recent trials and tribulations [nod to James Murphy]. I’m not sure if that’s what you were going for or agree, but so I want to know if you wanted to focus more on either character and how did you balance that?

I’ve always looked at my movies as ensembles. Even GREENBERG. It’s not an ensemble so much as maybe a true character movie, but I don’t like it in movies where you have a lead character or characters and everybody else seems to just exist to function for the story to help the main character grow in some significant way. I like for a movie to be about the person that’s on screen no matter who it is and no matter how small the part. Particularly in a movie like GREENBERG, where Greenberg would like nothing more than the world to revolve around him and for the supporting characters to be there to gauge his personal growth, but the world doesn’t exist like that. You know when Florence is on screen it’s her movie, and even so as when she’s not on screen it’s her movie, and when Greenberg’s not on screen it’s his movie. I like to create an environment where they can share it and it doesn’t really matter whose story it is, as long as it’s satisfying, you want it to be a satisfying experience.

That was a fantastic answer. So when you and Jennifer were writing the script, was it originally intended for Ben to star as Greenberg?

We wrote it with no actors in mind, really just thinking of the character. However, when we initially wrote it, the character was [about 10 years] younger and it was very difficult to cast…Ben’s name kept coming up and I kept wishing Ben were younger because I felt like he would be perfect for it. And finally we gave it to Ben because we felt like he could play it. We could split the difference and he could play a 35 year old. After I gave it to Ben he felt the same way, that the character was too young. Inspired by Ben, Jennifer and I changed the age of the character and rewrote the script from really the ground up…a lot of the stuff was the same from draft to draft, but we really made significant changes and I think the script broadened and deepened in the process. And that’s the movie we made and in that way Ben was a real inspiration for the character in the movie, but it came towards the end of the process.

He was perfectly cast because it was such a unique role for him to play. Most people aren’t used to seeing him play such serious characters. Well…that’s all the time I have, it was nice talking to you, take care, man.

Thanks, you too.

From the GATW Archives: Exclusive Interview: Dutch Southern (DutchSouthern.com)

File Dutch Southern under the “awesome” category.  For the past two years, Dutch and his crew have been covering the backs of many fanboys and fangirls alike with their brilliant t-shirts (as I’m typing this, I’m wearing the “Shermer, IL" shirt).  I first heard about DutchSouthern.com when my pal Peter Sciretta (/film) wrote  an article about the “It’s On The Inside That Counts" design.  A few months later my sweet mother purchased that shirt for me and I’ve been a fan ever since.  Thanks mom!

I reached out to Dutch to thank him for what he does (things like that are always nice to hear), and he immediately responded.  Since then, we’ve been emailing back and forth, talking about film festivals and pretty much anything/everything movie related.  Last week it dawned on me that I’ve never read any interviews about Dutch or his company.  By reading the title of this article and being as smart as you are, then you know I asked Dutch for an interview.  He happily agreed and the interview can be read after the break.  After you fill up on Dutch Southern knowledge, go pick up a shirt or two from his site - I promise it will make you the coolest person in the room.  

To start off, talk about how Dutch Southern got started.

Me and my buddy JP wanted to print some tees for family and friends. When we looked into it, we soon discovered that the more you printed, the price (per tee) got cheaper. So we had the bright idea to print way more than we needed, figuring we could sell the rest online, and the venture would pay for itself. At first it didn’t. We had hundreds of tees that no one seemed to want. Months later, we went to Fantastic Fest with some friends. One of them happened to be wearing a “Hope For A Better Tomorrow” tee. Someone saw him, blogged about it, posted a link, and by the time I flew back I was already sold out and starting re-prints. Since then, I’ve been printing enough to pay for the next design, and so on and so on, like that goddam LION KING song, “Circle of Shirts.”

Each shirt is designed by a different artist. With that, does the artist come to you about an idea, or do you pitch the idea to them?

I’ve never had an artist come to me with an idea. But I’ve had them come to me wanting a gig. And I’ve hired all but one. I am still looking for the right design to work on with that last guy, assuming if I do I’ll get to go to heaven when I die. But most of the time, I find the artists and contact them with a concept. If they agree to do it, then I usually put together a description list, things I want to see, where I want to see them, along with video and/or jpgs for references. And then they change it for the better. They may add characters, take some out — they usually always alter the composition so it looks better — things I’m unable to do because I don’t have that talent. They do all the heavy lifting, making the concept wearable and arty-farty. The only design I didn’t come up with is “Fantastic Forefathers” by Dean Fraser. I really like it, but will probably never do another non-original. I like to think of myself as the Woody Allen of the t-shirt world; I write my own shit and occasionally break the fourth wall.

It’s pretty clear that there is a lot of research put into each shirt. How long does it normally take to get a shirt from idea to print? And how difficult is it to make sure all the designs are accurate before going into the pressing process?

The ideas are the easy part. The hard part is trying to be objective enough to figure out what people might want to buy/wear. That’s important since I pretty much have to sell-out one design to make another. This doesn’t leave a lot of room for error. Once I get the idea, then I map it out. Then, I go through a notebook I’ve put together filled with designers I dig. I contact the one whose style seems to fit the idea the best, and ask if they’re interested. If they are, they give me a quote, and I give them half up front. Since most of them don’t charge a lot, I don’t bog them down with deadlines. I’ve had some artists take 2 weeks and I’ve had others take 6 months. They finish, we tweak, and I paypal them the other half. Then, I send the design along with the tags to Mammoth Printshop (the best printers in the world). They make the screens, then the tees, ship ‘em back. JP updates our page. Then, really awesome sites like yours blog about them. Some people buy them and other people trash them in the talkbacks. As far as accuracy goes, I do my best, making for damn sure Snake Plissken’s eyepatch is over his left eye and not his right. In all honesty, most of the artists I work with are fellow film geeks and just as anal as me. I just double-check.

There are a few shirts dedicated to one film. What about that film made you want to dedicate an entire design to it?

TRUE ROMANCE is in my all-time top ten. So I wanted to rep it. Regarding STAR TREK, I saw it at an early screening and was blown away. It accomplished so much in such a short amount of time, re-introducing established characters in a way that somehow managed to update them, making them new without tarnishing any of the films or shows that came before. It reminded me of the first time I watched PHANTOM MENACE and REVENGE OF THE SITH and how differently I felt after seeing those. Anyway, I wanted to cover my naked body with those contrasting feelings: STAR WARS prequels vs. STAR TREK’s. Gimetzco did a great job with that one. As did Kemble with the TRUE ROMANCE tribute.

When you have the design ready to go, how do you decide on what’s the best color of shirt to print the design on?

This is the part I hate. I don’t know which colors sell and which don’t. And since I’m not an artist, I try to leave it up to the designer. However, I do want variety so I sometimes tell them to stay away from certain colors I’ve already used. I have heard there are “rules” to shirt-picking. One is to never print on heather gray. Apparently, people hate heather gray. It’s the ginger kid of the t-shirt world. I, on the other hand, don’t — so I have a HEATHERS tribute coming that will, of course, be on heather gray. We will see if it sells. As far as other colors go, I try to stay away from white because I’m a bleeder. But whatever the color, I always print on American Apparel. They make the best shirts and they’re famously sweatshop free. But they’re also the most expensive and the dude that runs the company is more than kind of creepy. So, it’s kind of a wash: good quality vs. icky feeling.

Two of your shirts are Quentin Tarantino themed - what is your favorite Tarantino film?

TRUE ROMANCE. I know he he didn’t direct it. I know Tony Scott changed the ending as well as the structure. And I know nearly all of the tunes are very unTarantino-like (they suck). But as far as I’m concerned, it’s still a Tarantino film at its core. And it’s my fave. As far as Tarantino’s writer/director filmography — JACKIE BROWN and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS are my two favorites, although I’ve seen KILL BILL VOL. 1 the most.

You also have a shirt dedicated to John Carpenter. Do you have plans on releasing any other director themed shirts?

I would love to do a De Palma design. But I don’t know if anyone else would wear it. Of course an Argento or Bava tee would be cool. Maybe a whole Giallo themed shirt, but I’m afraid only me and two other basement dwellers would buy it. I would also like to do a Truffaut one, tracking the growth of Antoine Doinel in the style of Shel Silverstein. Maybe focus on him and Christine, and call it “The Giving Girl”.

What are some designs you having coming at us in the future?

I have this one called “Cowboys & Indians” which is comprised of hand-drawn portraits of Spaghetti Western and Bollywood stars pre-1980. As I’ve already mentioned, I have a HEATHERS tribute coming. I also have a tribute to ’80s action stars and ’80s cartoons.

Is there anything I haven’t asked that you’d like for our readers to know?

Yes, the ten greatest albums released in ‘67 and ‘96:

1967
1. Songs Of Leonard Cohen - Leonard Cohen
2. Something Else By The Kinks - The Kinks
3. The Velvet Underground & Nico - The Velvet Underground
4. Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band - The Beatles
5. Just For You - Neil Diamond
6. Between The Buttons - The Rolling Stones
7. Bee Gees’ 1st - The Bee Gees
8. Happy Together - The Turtles
9. Winds Of Change - Eric Burdon and the Animals
10. Walk Away Renée/Pretty Ballerina - The Left Banke

1996
1. If You’re Feeling Sinister - Belle & Sebastian
2. Pinkerton - Weezer
3. Being There - Wilco
4. Murder Ballads - Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds
5. This Is A Long Drive For Someone With Nothing To Think About - Modest Mouse
6. What Would The Community Think - Cat Power
7. The Natural Bridge - Silver Jews
8. The Doctor Came At Dawn - Smog
9. The It Girl - Sleeper
10. Trainspotting Soundtrack - various peeps…

Can we be best friends forever?

I thought we already were.

From the GATW Archives: Interview: Writer/Director Tom Six (THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE [THE FIRST SEQUENCE])

It’s safe to say writer/director Tom Six has made the most disgusting movie in recent cinema, and he will not argue with you on that. If you haven’t heard of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE and don’t know what it’s about, get the naughty side of your brain working and think about the title. If it still hasn’t clicked, stare at the poster, which is a dead giveaway. If you’re still baffled, here it is: in the film, a psychotic retired surgeon operates on three humans at the same time, stitching them together ass-to-mouth, thus making them a human centipede

I spoke with Six last week about the film and the sequel that’s currently in the works (he’sreally stitching things up for that). When doing interviews for GATW, I never thought I’d ask someone “how many times have you said ass-to-mouth today?,” but that happened. Check out the full interview after the break. THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE is available On Demand on April 28, and opens in select theaters on April 30.

Writer’s Note: Tom’s answer to the last question contains a possible spoiler, so if you don’t want to know what happens, please skip over. Thank you!

Okay, so this is kind of an odd question, but how many times have you had to say “ass-to-mouth” in your interviews today?

Awww  [laughs], lots and lots of times. Not only today but at festivals all over the world. They definitely want to hear me say those words.

So, how did the unconventional plot of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE crawl into your brain?

Well the idea came from a very sick joke that I always made with friends. [There was] a child molester or something on television and I said they should stitch his mouth to the ass of a very [dirty] truck driver as punishment. Everybody said, “Aww that’s such a horrible idea.” And of course it is a horrible idea but a great idea for a horror film. That’s how it all started – just by a joke.

You know, it showed at Fantastic Fest and a few other festivals, and there’s word out there from bloggers and such that this might be the most disgusting film of all time. How do you take that kind of publicity and did you ever think things like that would be written when making the movie?

Of course you think of the idea as a horrible idea [and a] disgusting idea as well. But it’s amazing that it still gets so much buzz and people are wanting to talk about it all the time – that’s amazing when they say it’s the most disgusting film of all time. It’s very funny…it’s incredible also. It also makes you a little proud, [you think] “OK, have I made the most disgusting film of all time? I hope.”

A follow up with that – how accurate do you think are the suggestions about the film possibly being the most disgusting movie. Have you read any reviews or interviews where they’re talking about how hard it is to stomach? Was that your intention and purpose when making the film? If not, then what was?

When I wanted to make my first international film I really wanted to make a horror film. And for me, a horror film must be horrible or horrifying or something must happen [and effect] the audience. I knew of course [it will] startle people, people will hate it, people will love it, but this film certainly gets reactions, and as a filmmaker I want that. I hate when a film ends and you think “What’s for dinner?” and you forget immediately. So for me, [I want] to create something where people talk about it.

Let’s talk about the casting. The biggest question is, how did you convince the three actors to essentially be bound together orifice-to-orifice for the entire film?

It was pretty difficult, especially for the ladies because we had the casting in New York. We made those little storyboard drawings for the human centipede, and because a picture is worth more than a thousand words we showed those pictures to the casting and some of them were horrified and left. They thought I was a crazy guy. Then of course we had to position the actresses in the casting space on their hands and knees. Both mouths had to be as close to the [other’s] ass as possible. Some couldn’t do it. Ashlynn [Yennie] and Ashley [Williams] were very brave actresses because a lot of actresses – especially the young ones – only want to be pretty and these two had to get very ugly [during the film]. Akihiro [Kitamura] is a crazy, crazy great guy so he was up for the challenge immediately and I told him, “A woman is going to be attached to your ass” and he absolutely loved that idea [laughs].

Lets talk about your villain. Most great horror films are known for their iconic villains. Talk about the casting of yours with “Dr. Heiter”.

I saw a couple of DVDS of Dieter Laser, so I immediately thought “I gotta have that guy.” He has a beautiful face and a beautiful voice. So we contacted him to come to Berlin to meet and I explained to him the script in detail. And he absolutely loved the idea of playing Dr. Heiter, so the deal was made in like an hour or something. I’m so happy with him because he’s like an acting dinosaur, he’s worked for over forty years. He gave a terrific [performance] and I’m very happy with that.

Can we talk about the potential sequel? The first film is called THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE (THE FIRST SEQUENCE) – where do you plan on taking HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (THE FULL SEQUENCE)?

The storyline is still secret because everybody of course is still speculating what happened to the middle girl and is the Doctor coming back or something. But I’m trying to create something really original – that was my goal that hopefully people will enjoy the film very much [like] the first one. But it’s going to be like, a centipede of 12 people…bigger version. I always tell a joke at festivals that in five months it’ll be “My Little Pony.”  All the ideas I have, I couldn’t fit in part one. I wanted to let the audience get used to the sick idea and now I can use all my ideas and then fool you.

From the GATW Archives: Interview: Writer/Director Sean Byrne (THE LOVED ONES)

Never in my life has a film put me on the edge of my seat and had my heart racing during its entire running time. That streak ended when I saw Sean Byrne’s THE LOVES ONES. Made and released in Australia last year on June 1, 2009, THE LOVED ONES made its festival premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, then went on to play at AFI in L.A.,  and Austin’s SXSW.  This is where I first heard of the film, where the only thing surrounding it was strong buzz.

It wasn’t until the Dallas International Film Festival where I saw (and fell in love with) THE LOVED ONES.  Since this won’t be playing at another festival near me again, I was very happy I caught it here, but here’s the kicker: writer/director Sean Byrne and star Robin McLeavy (who’s now going down in GATW history as one of the greatest villains in horror history) were in attendance at the SXSW screenings.  I wanted to drill a hole in my head for missing a chance to speak with the two.

So what did I do after constantly thinking and talking about how good THE LOVED ONES is?  I seeked out director Sean Byrne to get an interview.  Byrne responded pretty quickly and was very thankful for our support and more than enthusiastic about doing an interview. When I spoke about missing the screenings at SXSW, he responded with, “[It] Played great at SXSW. Want to put Austin audience in my pocket to bring back out every time we screen!”  The guy has already gained the title of being a great filmmaker and now he’s at the top of my awesome list.

Since Rusty introduced me to this film and was in the same boat as far as thoughts, I thought it was only fair to bring him in on the interview which you can check out after the break.  If you’re reading this and don’t know anything about THE LOVED ONES, take my word: it’s awesome.

The film flows very well and the various plot revelations come about incrediblynaturally. How many rewrites did you do (if any) to achieve this, and how extensive were your revisions to give the film such an organic feel?

Too many rewrites and revisions to count! I was writing for a couple of years. At first it was going to be really low budget, like a hundred thousand dollar credit card film. Then an experienced producer in Australia read it and loved it. He suggested it would be easier to get investors interested in a 3-4 million dollar film so I started expanding in terms of scope. But from the beginning I was determined to make sure each character existed for a reason, having a distinct personality and function that served the overall through-line. I’m a huge fan of P.T. Anderson and the way his films interconnect so I worked hard to make sure all the dots joined. In our case, it’s grief, and how people deal with grief that ties the characters together. The origin of this grief comes from one particular place and without warning our hero finds himself face to face with the source of everyone’s pain. He’s trapped in the spider’s web. And the question becomes can he escape, not just for himself but for the sake of those he loves?

At times, THE LOVED ONES feels like PRETTY PINK if it were turned into a horror film. You have the girl from the wrong side of the tracks with the working class father, who you would not be surprised at all to find out is a janitor or maintenance man. Plus the dress that the father gives his daughter is pink (albeit hot pink, but still pink). How intentional were these similarities, if they were at all?

I’m glad you said janitor or maintenance man because in an early draft he was a janitor at his daughter’s school, then by the final draft he was a cash-in-hand maintenance man, similar to Ed Gein. In an early cut we actually showed Daddy plying his trade, which was interesting because the audience rarely gets to see the “monster” simply existing in society. To me that’s chilling, because it shows sociopaths have a routine too. They pay rent or have mortgages, they buy milk; at some point in our lives one has probably even stood behind us in the supermarket checkout. I love the idea of normalizing “evil” because it brings it closer to home, but at the end of the day we needed to get to the farmhouse faster and get the show on the road, so Daddy’s occupation became relegated to back-story, though if you look at the vehicle he drives and his impressive toolbox it’s clear he’s not afraid to get his hands dirty!

In terms of the PRETTY IN PINK comparison, I’ve got to give Colin Geddes (Programmer at Toronto International Film Festival) credit for that one. He coined the phrase, “A mash up of PRETTY IN PINK and MISERY.” To be honest I hadn’t even thought of PRETTY IN PINK as a reference. Though I did think about John Hughes in terms of the set up and using archetypes in a similar way to THE BREAKFAST CLUB. There’s the rebel, the stoner, the girl next door, the goth, the wallflower etc. I wanted to make sure we covered a lot of personalities so there would be a good chance different personalities in the audience could see themselves on screen.

As for the pink dress, that came from thinking, “Right, how do we get noticed? How do we break through the clutter?” And hot pink satin is unmissably in your face. Unlike most horror movies that look as bleak as the subject matter we’re a shiny, candy-colored-glam-nightmare. We give the world life then strip it away. I kept thinking the prettier and glossier it looks the more we can push the horror. The sweeter the sweet then the sourer the sour, if that makes sense!

What were your horror influences with the film? And how conscious were you ofthese inspirations while developing the story and making THE LOVED ONES?

My filmic influences were a real mash up.  Structurally the film is closest to MISERY but tonally there are shades of CARRIE, DAZED AND CONFUSED, FOOTLOOSE, THE TERMINATOR, THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (original), EVIL DEAD, HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, David Lynch, Gaspar Noe, Michael Haneke, John Hughes and even Walt Disney. The way Tarantino juxtaposes violence and comedy was a big influence. I’m also a big David Fincher and P.T. Anderson fan.

That said, I wasn’t a slave to these influences as I was developing and making the film. They’re films and filmmakers I really admire. I naturally responded to the work, which then no doubt subconsciously influenced my choices, but when I was writing I really let my mind roam free based on the research I’d done so the characters had a voice of their own.

However, conceptually, I must admit to thinking, “What if I took the rituals of the prom – the dress up and the crowning of the King and Queen like in CARRIE – and moved the prom to a single location like in EVIL DEAD, making the rituals of the Prom the very instrument of torture?” That’s a part of what sat me down to write. Then it became about getting the audience to care about the characters in peril, making the “monsters” three-dimensional and running the rollercoaster off the rails in my own way.

Audiences may recognize some of the influences, which is half the fun, but hopefully the film, as a whole, will be a fresh experience.

It is clear you are a horror fan, which has several sub-genres. What are some other horror sub-genres you have a desire to work in?  What are your favorites?

I love the genre so I like all types of horror – myth-based, supernatural etc - but for me horror is always at its most disturbing when the threat is real. And for me that means having a relationship with the dark, extreme side of human nature and being given access to the cruelest of minds then genuinely caring about the people who are trapped in this terrifying web.

My least favorite is the stalking bogeyman style of horror because we’re almost forced to barrack for the killer. We know they won’t die (because there’s always a sequel) and we usually know nothing about the people being hunted and what makes them tick so the main point of interest becomes how much bare flesh am I going to see and how inventively gruesome is the next kill going to be. It’s usually all sound and fury and little suspense because at the end of the day you don’t really care who lives or dies and to me that’s just not good drama.

I had this saying all through development, which was “If you don’t care then you don’t scare,” and I really believe that. I also read somewhere that the only thing worse than death is the fear of a fate worse than death and that’s where I tried to go with THE LOVED ONES, albeit in a gleefully deranged way.

As for subgenres I want to work in, well, I’m attached to a psychological medical horror and I’m writing something that will hopefully take the home invasion thriller into fresh, surprising territory. My motto is, “One foot firmly planted in commercial territory while the other dangles over a cliff!”

It’s safe to say the film is pretty violent.  There are a lot of films out there that are violent for the sake of being violent, but in THE LOVED ONES it is completely necessary to push the story forward.  Was there anything you had to take out because you feared it might be too much?

There was a dead body from the aftermath of an accident that we took out at the beginning of the film because it was so devastating so early it actually sapped the fun out of the set up. And, yes, Brent’s a damaged hero, but we’ve also got other characters to meet, and the brutal shock up front took away the license to enjoy entering the high school world. So it was purely a story choice that was about making a better movie.

The hardcore horror mostly takes place in a farmhouse at a macabre prom created by our villains. And once we get behind those doors not a single punch is pulled. The trick was giving each horror scene its own personality and rhythm so the film could keep one-upping itself.

We’re a balls-to-the-wall pop-horror movie and as a fan growing up loving horror movies, I know what I like and I think I know what other true horror fans like, and we like to be pushed. Audiences go to horror movies to be scared. They’re safe in their theater seats. They’re not in danger. The brief is to freak them out so why hold back?

But I also understand there are horror movies out there that pummel the audience into submission to the point the experience is no longer fun. And I didn’t want to do that. I want the experience to be an entertaining one. I tried to design THE LOVED ONES like an extreme rollercoaster that plays with the conventions of the genre. Things go pretty much according to plan then we run the carriage off the rails, reaching a level of genuine madness that goes way beyond the bunny boiling in FATAL ATTRACTION. Hopefully there are laughs and screams in equal measure. I just want the audience to have a wild time.

Is there anything about the film we haven’t asked about that you want to elaborate on?

Well I have a request. If you see this film and dig it then please dress up like Princess and Daddy for Halloween. That would seriously make me happy!

Final question: Do you realize how awesome your movie is? Because it is extremely awesome.

Thanks so much! I just tried to make a movie I’d want to watch with an audience. And so far the critical and, most importantly, audience reaction has been overwhelmingly positive. And I think a part of the reason why people are laughing and screaming and jumping out of their seats is because you can’t see the scares coming from a mile away. Sure the film harks back to great cult horrors of the past but it’s also got it’s own devilishly fun personality and, in an age where everything is branded and re-branded to death, surely that’s a good thing.

From the GATW Archives: Exclusive: EASIER WITH PRACTICE director to adapt David Sedaris short story into feature film

If you’re reading this, you’re either a fan of David Sedaris, or you saw last year’s gem, EASIER WITH PRACTICE, and loved it just as Kate, James, and myself did.  After touring the festival circuit, EWP’s writer/ director Kyle Patrick Alvarez went on to win the Someone to Watch Award at the 2010 Independent Spirit Awards.  So it was only a matter of time before Alvarez got started on a new project.

Last night, I received an email from one of our readers about Alvarez’s next project based on Sedaris’s short story “C.O.G.” from the book Naked. My source told me that she attended a live reading with Sedaris in New Orleans last week, and after the reading, Sedaris did a Q&A where someone asked about his book Me Talk Pretty One Day, which almost made it to the big screen back in 2002. Sedaris went on to say that he decided not to go through with it (there were concerns about how his family would be portrayed, which can be read in his story “Repeat After Me” from the collection Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim), but he had just given the rights to one of Naked's short stories to Alvarez.

Apparently Sedaris is a fan of EWP (I like you even more now Sedaris), as he told the audience that Alvarez offered Sedaris for script approval, but he said he didn’t need it. After learning about Sedaris’s family concerns, and knowing the content in all of his books (autobiographical stories in which he at times pokes fun at), this is a big deal.

Here’s where GATW got lucky. After doing two reviews and interviews for EWP, we’ve built a friendship with Alvarez. So after I received this information, I contacted him via facebook and asked him about the email I got, and here’s what he told me:

I can confirm that project is real. The rights I got are to the story “C.O.G.”  I’ve finished script and I’m currently working on getting it financed.

There you have it folks, one of Sedaris’s written works will finally hit the big screen.  Have I mentioned that Alvarez is only 26?  More to follow on this story soon.

And for those of you who may not be familiar with Sedaris’s work, here is the synopsis of “C.O.G”:

A description of Sedaris’ job cutting stone into clocks in the shape of Oregon. He teams up with a co-worker who describes himself as a “C.O.G.” (Child of God), and the two try to sell their stones at local craft fairs.

Big thank you to Pat for sending us this scoop!

From the GATW Archives: Exclusive: Unused poster art for Nash Edgerton’s THE SQUARE

While Nash Edgerton was in Dallas last weekend to promote his directorial debut THE SQUARE, we hung out with the man himself before our Q&A for the film.  During that hang session, Edgerton showed me a lot of really awesome designs that almost made it as official posters.  They ranged from French noir, to the one you see above, and those after the break.  Since THE SQUARE opened yesterday in Dallas, I contacted Nash and asked him to send me any artwork that never was used to show the online world.  The two posters Edgerton sent me are his favorites.  After staring at them over and over, I decided the second spoke to me more  - it’s simple but if you’ve seen the film, it’s saying so much. You can check it out after the break!

Both of these were designed by Jeremy Saunders for the Australian release.  You can check out Saunders’ other work at JeremySaunders.com.  If you’re in Dallas, head to the Magnolia and check out this film - it’s so damn good.  If you’re not from around these parts, beg your local arthouse theater to get this release.  Edgerton and his brother Joel (THE SQUARE’s co-writer) are going places.

While you’re still here, check out Edgerton’s awesome (when dealing with this guy, you use the term “awesome” a lot) short films SPIDER and FUEL (respectively).

From the GATW Archives: SPLICE co-writer/director Vincenzo Natali did Dallas, and GATW took him under their wing

Last night was Dallas’s first screening of Vincenzo Natali’s latest film,  SPLICE.  What made this screening so special was that Warner Bros. asked me to introduce the film and conduct a Q & A afterward.  With all the things we’ve accomplished since we first launched almost three years ago (attending Sundance, interviewing Harrison Ford, Jason Reitman, Simon Pegg, Will Ferrell, Bill Murray, and Harmony Korine— to name a few) this was one of my proudest moments. You mean Warner Bros. wants me - the guy who’s been watching Q & As from the sidelines for the last 10 years - to moderate in front of 200 people with the man who made that awesome film in 1997 about mind-bending traps in a maze? Wow. I’m honored.

You see, Rusty has moderated a Q & A before, and James has moderated several, but it’s me who’s done zero. Over the last few months I’ve realized that our site is going to take big hits if I decline on these opportunities, and so I promised my little heart that I would never pass one up again.  It wasn’t until last night that I realized how much of an honor it is to do one of these.  Hit the jump to get the rest of my thoughts…

One very powerful thing that added to the greatness of this Q & A was how much heart Natali carries with him. Every question an audience member asked him Natali started off with, “That’s an excellent question,” or “That’s a great question” and then he proceeded to answer. I was a bit worried about dead air (a.k.a, nobody asking questions) but Natali reassured me, “If that happens, I know what to do.” I just wanted to reply with, “Will you be my dad?”

When the film ended and we got on stage, I had James come up to assist me because let’s face it, that guy is hilarious and knows his stuff when it comes to public speaking. We fed off of each other well (one of GATW’s strongest features), switching back and forth to ask questions and picking audience members to ask their own. Before we handed over the opportunity for the audience to ask questions, I punned with “Let’s SPLICE things up a bit and turn to the audience for questions.” I’m so proud of that sentence that I brought it into this article.

The questions that came from the audience were so damn good.  At one point a boy, who looked no older than nine, asked something that had James and I immediately looking at each other with the facial expression of “This kid just blew my mind.”  In the end, it was one of the best Q & As I’ve ever witnessed, even from being on the other side.

I’m so proud of you Dallas, you welcomed (or whalecomed?) Natali pleasantly.

Photos courtesy of Micah Prude (top) and Ashley Hess (bottom).

From the GATW Archives: Sundance 2010 Review: HOLY ROLLERS

Rating: 3/5

Writer: Antonio Macia
Director: Kevin Asch
Cast: Jesse Eisenberg, Justin Bartha, Q-Tip

If there’s two things that just don’t mix, it’s drugs and religion. These two entities come crashing together in HOLY ROLLERS, starring Jesse Eisenberg and Justin Bartha. Eisenberg plays Sam Gold, a young adult from Brooklyn living in a very strict Orthodox Jewish community. All Sam wants is to make his father happy and marry the girl of his dreams; but in order to do that, he feels he needs to be rich. As Fresh Prince once said, “Life got flipped turned upside down” after his pal Yosef (Justin Bartha) persuades him to deal Ecstacy - you know, the stuff that makes sandpaper feel like cotton.

I always enjoy watching Eisenberg on the big screen. He brings a certain charm to all of his performances that makes whatever he’s in very enjoyable. You wanna feel sorry for him, but you know there’s a man somewhere inside there. In ROLLERS, he does continue his shtick of being the awkward guy, but towards the end of the film, he gains some courage and starts taking a little control of situations. It’s nice seeing a quiet man take charge after being so easily manipulated; and as the film progresses and he gets deeper into the drug world, his appearance becomes less of an Orthodox Jew and more like a street thug.

But as much as I love Eisenberg, Justin Bartha pulled the mat out from under his feet in every scene. Justin’s previous performance was pretty quiet (the missing guy in THE HANGOVER), but in ROLLERS, he plays the most loud-mouthed racist, coked out, quack Jew I’ve ever seen. And no matter what, he’s never seen without his white Nikes, not even in church. Bartha definitely passes as a confident - and at times ballsy - Ecstasy dealer.

One thing about this film that will not leave my brain is its score (composed by Mj Mynarski). There’s a scene where Sam and Yosef are racing on the Brooklyn Bridge towards the camera in slow motion while instrumental music plays over. It’s a beautiful scene, and made me think, “This is the happiest moment in Sam Gold’s life.”

The one and only problem I had with HOLY ROLLERS was the pacing. I found myself getting slightly bored and at times, looking at my watch. When a movie deals with drugs (especially the kind that brings out one’s awesomeness), I should be alert for the film’s entire running time. I’m sure it’s not easy to mesh Orthodox Judaism and Ecstasy (some people may even get offended), but Asch did a pretty good job.

From the GATW Archives: GATW Exclusive: Director Spencer Susser says HESHER’s name won’t change

Out of all the anticipated films I had marked in my iCal at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, the one that did not disappoint was Spencer Susser’s HESHER, a film that brings out the gritty, badass side of Joseph Gordon-Levitt (I always knew you had it in you, Joe). After its Sundance premiere, HESHER was quickly picked up by Newmarket Films - the same company that released DONNIE DARKO, MEMENTO, WHALE RIDER, REAL WOMEN HAVE CURVES and THE PRESTIGE, just to name a few from their repertoire. If you’re with me, then you know what I’m saying - this company has an eye for great films.

Today it was reported that HESHER’s name was changed to REBEL. Changing the name of this film is a huge deal. HESHER represents an amalgamation of the angst of every character in the film. He is the essence of all that is dark and misunderstood…the grim reaper, if you will. If you change the name, you lose the essence of what the bold, yet simple title represents.

I just received an email from the man himself, Spencer Susser, to clear up the confusion over the title. Susser was also kind enough to send along a new photo of Levitt as Hesher. Check out Susser’s note and the photo after the break.

Hi everybody,

Spencer Susser here.

I was horrified to read a posting about the title change for my film “HESHER” to “Rebel”. Actually I spit my breakfast all over my keyboard!

Now that my laptop is working again.. I assure you this is not happening. The film is being released as HESHER, not any other title it’s being sold with overseas.

The film is being released in the U.S. by Newmarket Films, an awesome company that totally gets the film and supports my vision 100%. I’m so excited to be working with them. They have released a few of my favorite films, “Donnie Darko,” “Monster,” and “Memento” to name a few.

Anyway, I’m in the final stages of finishing off a few things I didn’t get to do to the film before Sundance and I’m feeling really good about it. I can’t wait for people to see Joe as Hesher, all I can say is he’s fucking awesome!

From the GATW Archives: The Texas Theater and GATW present the Dallas Premiere and one time only screening of Harmony Korine’s TRASH HUMPERS

Back at SXSW, I caught Harmony Korine’s TRASH HUMPERS. If you read my review, then you discovered two facts: this movie brings new meaning to the phrase “What The Fuck?,” and I really liked it, which might say something about me.  Shortly after seeing the film, I interviewed Harmony about it and various things happening in his life.  He also drew me a poem and it was all caught on video.  Only with Harmony Korine can you expect the unexpected during an interview.

Last week Marc Lee from The Texas Theater emailed me and asked if we wanted to co-host/co-sponsor the Dallas premiere of TRASH HUMPERS.  The one thing that ups this already awesome factor is this: this will be the only Dallas showing of the film.  I’ve made a facebook event that has all the details you’ll need to know. Select “attending” if you plan on coming so we can get an idea of who might be showing up (I hope to see all your pretty faces). If you just wanna see what this is all about, hit the hump (tee hee) to read the official press release.

The Texas Theater and GordonAndtheWhale.com present the Dallas Premiere and one-time only screening of Harmony Korine’s controversial TRASH HUMPERS.

Plus: The award-winning June lineup
for the “Movies at The Texas” screening series.

www.oakclifffoundation.org

JUNE 7, 2010—The Texas Theatre in Oak Cliff and co-host GordonAndTheWhale.com will show the Dallas premiere of Harmony Korine’s hotly debated film TRASH HUMPERS. The one-time-only screening takes place on Saturday, July 31 at the historic Oak Cliff theater, 231 W. Jefferson Blvd.

Korine’s films as a director and writer (KIDS, GUMMO, JULIEN DONKEY-BOY) have always stirred debate, and TRASH HUMPERS is no exception. Famed director told the New York Times, “[Korine’s] a very clear voice of a generation of filmmakers that is taking a new position.”

TRASH HUMPERS follows a small group of elderly “Peeping Toms” through the shadows and margins of an unfamiliar world. Crudely documented by the participants themselves, we follow the debased and shocking actions of a group of true sociopaths the likes of have never been seen. Inhabiting a world of broken dreams, and beyond the limits of morality, they crash against a torn and frayed America. Bordering on an ode to vandalism, it is a new type of horror—palpable and raw.

Tickets $7 available day of show.

JUNE SCHEDULE FOR MOVIES AT THE TEXAS

Mondays (Spanish with English subtitles)
June 14: El Laberinto del Fauno (Pan’s Labyrinth)
June 21: Voy A Explotar (I’m Gonna Explode)

Tuesdays
June 15: Easy Rider, in honor of Dennis Hopper
June 22: Dead Man
June 29: Facebook Fan’s Favorite David Lynch movie
(We’ll be putting up a poll soon. Come to our page and VOTE!)

GATW’s review of TRASH HUMPERS

GATW’s interview with Harmony Korine

TRASH HUMPERS trailer

From the GATW Archives: Theatrical Review: RAMONA AND BEEZUS

Rating: 3/5

Director: Elizabeth Allen
Cast: Joey King, Selena Gomez, Bridget Moynahan
Studio: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation

Ramona Quimby (Joey King) has two traits that define her more than anything else: she spends half of her time daydreaming and the rest annoying her elementary teacher with her made-up words. She doesn’t want to learn real words used in everyday speech, she wants use the words that she’s invented. And, besides the daydreaming and wordsmithing, the only other major thing going on in young Ramona’s life is that she was just informed that her family might be moving because her father, Robert (John Corbett -Sex and the City), was just laid off from his job. I remember moving when I was in the second grade and I hated it. And what Ramona does in response is what any child would do to gain more attention from their busy parents - she causes trouble.

I have to confess, I’ve never read any of the Ramona and Beezus books. With my being a twenty-seven year old male, it might have been a bit of a struggle to keep me interested in the hijinks of a precocious kiddo. But, going into RAMONA AND BEEZUS as a journalist, I kept an open mind.

Yes, this is a children’s film, but that doesn’t destroy its potential from being a great kids’ flick, or even just really cute. One of the best things about this movie is Ramona’s dream sequences. Remember when you were a child and you jumped off your roof for fun and the fall seemed endless? Director Elizabeth Allen achieves that feeling in these sequences. The best example of these sequences involves an amusing portion when a large hole is dislodged from the Quimbys’ house. Ramona and her pal spend hours dressing up and jumping off that three foot drop, but then Allen’s visions come into play and Ramona’s blanket transforms into a parachute and sees her floating for a large amount of time, even though us older folks know it took her about a second and a half to touch ground.

The initial message Allen and her team of writers (Laurie Craig and Nick Pustay) bring to this film is the importance of family bonding. It’s a difficult time for the Quimbys, as they are frustrated with both their current situation and one another. But, in the end, love brings them together, no matter what the outcome of their problems. I can vouch that RAMONA AND BEEZUS is a great film to bring the kiddos in your life to see. It’s both funny and imaginative, and it reaffirms why love is so important, even to the peskiest of little ones.

From the GATW Archives: Theatrical Review: ANIMAL KINGDOM

James Wallace saw and wrote a review of ANIMAL KINGDOM at Sundance 2010. You can read that HERE.

Rating: 4.5/5

Writer/Director: David Michôd
Cast: Guy Pearce, Jacki Weaver, Ben Mendelsohn, James Frecheville, Joel Edgerton

I’m a fan of Twitter, so naturally, after seeing a movie, I micro-review my thoughts about what I just saw for my followers to read. It gives them a sort of heads up on what to expect from a film. When I walked out of the screening for ANIMAL KINGDOM, I instantly tweeted, “This is the first film that ripped every emotion out of my body.” Some wondered if that was a negative statement or a positive.  Let me clear that up for you in six words: ANIMAL KINGDOM is just plain badass.

ANIMAL KINGDOM is a film that will stick with you for days, maybe even weeks. There are moments in this film so honest and brutal, you can’t help but realize that things like this really happen in this fucked up world. Writer/director David Michôd really brings out the awe factor in a movie I have classified as “a really kick-ass Aussie version of POINT BREAK.” If you’ve seen NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD, then you know Australian filmmakers have been known to really raise the bar as far as intensity goes. Michôd does just that. He knows how to sneak up on your emotions. Just when you think things are going to calm - a shit storm flares and your heart begins pounding against your chest again and again. You never know what’s going to happen next and you just want to yell at the screen. This man is very clever.

ANIMAL KINGDOM opens with Joshua “J” Cody (an oddly astounding young James Frecheville) sitting next to his mum, whose eyes are closed. Paramedics walk in and ask him what’s wrong. Heroin overdose. She’s dead and he shows no signs of sadness. It’s clear that his mum was an abuser of  the narcotic. J was born into this. He calls his grandma (Jacki Weaver) and asks if he can live with her. He promptly moves into her house, where her sons (his uncles) come and go as they please. Those uncles are Barry Brown (Joel Edgerton), Darren Cody (Luke Ford), Craig Cody (Sullivan Stapleton), and the last uncle, the man who pushes this whole story into total anarchy, Andrew “Pope” Cody (a very creepy and awesome Ben Mendelsohn).

I compare this film to POINT BREAK, but a really badass Aussie version of it, because in the opening credits we’re shown stills of men in masks robbing various stores. On its most basic level, ANIMAL KINGDOM unfolds as a cops versus robbers story, but this firecracker leaves a trail of innocence lost and an unpleasant view of a broken family. When J arrives at his new home, the uncles are at the kitchen table, sorting out money. By now, the true identity of the men in the masks should be very apparent. The only brother missing is Pope, who is hiding because everyone thinks the cops are hot on his trail. When Pope finally appears, all the good vibrations of easy money goes to bad, to worse, to holy shit this can’t possibly get any worse.

Frecheville's J is the lead in the film, yet he only has a few lines. It's his reactions to the situations he's put in and his saddness that really captures us. J makes it obvious he is a 100% purebred pushover. He's very tall and a bit lanky, but he won't defend himself if his life depended on it. As good as Frecheville is, it's Ben Mendelsohn that completely steals the show. This man portrayed the most subtle creep I’ve seen on film in years. All that creepiness lies in Pope’s eyes. When he’s unhappy, he doesn’t have to say a word, yet you know something bad is about to happen. This man does awful things and has zero remorse for all of them. I hope you’re paying attention, Academy voters.

ANIMAL KINGDOM is a must see film. You have been warned, however, it’s not an easy movie to swallow. In the end, there’s a very valuable lesson ANIMAL KINGDOM teaches and it’s this: it’s a crazy fucking world.

From the GATW Archives: Theatrical Review: GOING THE DISTANCE

Rating: 3.5/5

Writer: Geoff LaTulippe
Director: Nanette Burstein
Cast: Drew Barrymore, Justin Long, Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis, Christina Applegate, Ron Livingston, Jim Gaffigan
Studio: Warner Bros.

Love is hard enough as it is.  You have to do the whole getting along thing, make it work, and stay happy. You also have to, often at times, give your significant other breathing room.  There is another type of relationship that a lot of people explore knowing the tough road that lay before them: that’s the “long distance relationship.”  Statewide or cross-country, you’ll be seeing your lover every couple of weeks… if that.  This is the main topic of Nanete Burstein’s GOING THE DISTANCE.  Going in, this easy looks like a snooze rom-com, but she has so much more in store for us adults.

Simple plot: Garrett (Justin Long) just got dumped because he didn’t remember to buy his girlfriend an anniversary gift.  Good luck resides with him as he goes to the local bar with his roommate and buddy  (the very, very funny Charlie Day and Jason Sudeikis) to drown his sadness with a little bit of booze.  While there, he meets Erin (Drew Barrymore), who’s currently ranking the top score in an arcade game on which he’s been desperately trying to maintain his reign as king.  This sparks bar conversation, and eventually the talk is moved to Garrett’s bedroom, which comes with a Tom Cruise TOP GUN poster and soundtrack on repeat, courtesy of his supportive roommate.  The next day the the pair chat and she tells him she’s moving in six weeks, so they can’t get serious.  Well, things don’t always work out as we plan them and they end up getting serious.  She moves and they’re now in a possibly doomed long distance relationship.  This is where “is this even worth it?” is put to the test.

To help my readers better understand what type of comedy this is, think this: GOING THE DISTANCE is going to do for adults what AMERICAN PIE did for sex driven teenagers.  This movie is very raw on how adults speak and act when it comes to sex.  Sex isn’t often perfect, sometimes you get caught on your sisters dining room table while her husband eats a sandwhich and watches.  These are facts in life.  Director  Burstein ain’t no stranger to the awkward romance category either, as she directed the 2008 documentary, AMERICAN TEEN.  She knows what her audience needs to see in  romance: love is funny, love is awesome and, at times, love is very painful.

The casting is what sells the movie for most.  Everyone in this is no stranger to comedy: Drew Barrymore (NEVER BEEN KISSED), Justin Long (ACCEPTED), Charlie Day (It’s Always Sunny in Phildelphia), Jason Sudeikis (SNL and 30 Rock), Christina Applegate (THE SWEETEST THING), and Jim Gaffigan (very funny comedian).  Pairing Day and Sudeikis as Long’s Garrett’s best friends was a bright decision.  These two gents keep the banter strong while talking about what every male in their late 20s talk about: sex, sex, money, sex, sex, video games, sex, sex.  Barrymore and Applegate bring on the girl power, and there are a few lines that come out of Barrymore’s mouth that would give the Pope a heart attack.  These girls hold nothing back when talking about sex and things they want under the sheets.

GOING THE DISTANCE isn’t your average rom-com; it’s very, very dirty and unapologetically crude.  If you’ve ever had an awkward sexual moment in your life (admit it, you have), this is the movie for you.  If you’ve ever wanted to give long distance love a shot, this is for you.  If you’ve ever believed there can’t be love without the comedy, this is the movie for you.

From the GATW Archives: TIFF 2010 Video Review: Richard Ayoade’s SUBMARINE

Discovering little indie gems is the finest perk of attending a film festival. Last night I did just that when I saw SUBMARINE, about a boy who is set on scoring the girl of his dreams and saving his parents’ marriage. This has already been stamped as my favorite film of the festival, and I’m still here. Wes Anderson fans are going to devour this film whole.

I saw SUBMARINE last night with Jordan Raup (The Film Stage), Alex Billington (First Showing), and Peter Sciretta (Slash Film), and shortly after, Jordan and I shot a quick video review (with a full review written to follow soon). Check it out after the break!

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE INTERVIEW!

From the GATW Archives: TIFF 2010 Interview: NEVER LET ME GO’s Andrew Garfield

A few days ago, I took part in a roundtable interview with future webslinger, Andrew Garfield, who’s here at the Toronto InternationalFilm Festival to support NEVER LET ME GO, in which he plays one of the leads alongside Carey Mulligan and Keira Knightly. Garfield is a very humble guy that just wants to act. Studio budget or self-financed, if he finds something beautiful in a film, count him in.

Check out the interview after the break. And a big thank you to Katey Rich from Cinema Blend for sending me the transcript.

Was there ever a point where you thought there was a point of no return, taking on this franchise? You are basically not going to be able to come back to small films for a while.

No, I don’t think so. I haven’t thought about it like that. I just like acting. I just want to act for the rest of my life, and get lost in roles and just explore the diversity of what it is to be a human being, and the different experiences we all go through. Maybe that’s naive, I don’t know. I feel really excited. I’m only going to do something if I really am excited to do it, for the right reason. If I were going into something with the wrong intentions I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night. Doing this film is so beautiful, I don’t want to do anything but tell the story in the most simple and transient way, from novel to cinema. I don’t know if we achieved it, but everyone’s intention was the same. We just wanted to honor Kazuo’s story. My attitude is very similar. Size doesn’t really come into it. I want to be an actor, and I just want to explore what that job means. And be a vessel for someone else’s words, be a vessel for someone else’s story and facilitate that with whatever I may or may not have.

Do you want to reach more and more audiences?

That’s a byproduct maybe. But it’s not something that comes into my thought process. I want my life to be my life, and I want my work to be my work. I don’t want to identify one with the other. What’s important is life comes first. My family comes first, and my friends, and my happiness comes first. It just so happens I get happiness out of working hard. I get happiness out of working on something hard. The idea of fame isn’t something that interests me, the idea of celebrity isn’t something that interests me.

Do you at least appreciate the fame?

I don’t know. I don’t feel that I’ve had to deal with that yet. It’s really nice when someone comes up to and says, “I really liked your film, it really moved me.” “I really liked your film, it really made me think.” Or, “I was interested in your film, I don’t know if I liked it, but maybe we can talk about it.” That’s fascinating. That’s all I’ve really had so far. I just cross bridges if and when they come. There’s no point in worrying about the future. I’m just trying to be an actor. I want my kids to have normal lives, as normal as they possibly can be.

This is the first round of press you’ve done since the SPIDER-MAN announcement. Has it occurred to you that you’ll be answering SPIDER-MAN questions for the next ten years?

You just put that in my head! No, I haven’t really given it that much thought. As I was saying, I’m going to approach it like I approach any other role. I’m just going to work as much as I can, because it’s been such an important symbol to me since I was four years old. It’s meant so much to me, and it’s given me so much hope as a skinny little streak of piss, who feels more powerful inside than he looks on the outside. Every skinny boy’s dream. I’m very lucky.

Do what extent does the role give you advantage, to be able to bring awareness to smaller films?

That’s not my job. I think if I got caught up in that I would just stress myself out. If I was so calculated, I think it would just detract from the good stuff. I’m obviously aware of how difficult it is to — actors can’t get work. I’m an actor. I’m happy to be working, that’s all. It’s difficult to get work. There are people much more talented than I am, that I know, who aren’t working. Actors are at the mercy of other people, sometimes foolish people — because their eyebrows are too big — I’m just talking about myself — or whatever. Or they’re too skinny, too in perfect shape, their jawline is too attractive or too flabby. It’s death out there man, it’s tough. No, I’m just happy to work. I just soak up every moment I can of being allowed to be creative in that respect. You can only do so many Shakespeare speeches on your own in your room before starting to feel like you want to give up. That’s, to me, what purpose feels like, when you’re giving of yourself and exposing of yourself, to serve a story and therefore to serve an audience being told a story that is in tune with the universal themes of being alive.

Did you spend much time with the boy who played you as a younger?

We hugged out a bunch and chatted and talked about the role and just got to know each other. We chatted about his school and what it means to be an actor and why we both wanted to be actor. We’d muck around, we’d talk about girls, kissing girls and stuff. We’d play Frisbee, we’d play hide and seek, just the general getting to know you friendship thing. He was so good. He was so open, excited, enthusiastic, talented and raw and right there in the moment. And we all did that with our counterparts. It was set up that way by Mark and the production time. We got weeks of rehearsal together, and all just bonded and became very intimate with each other, discussed the themes of the book and themes of the movie. Every came at it with the same intention. Everyone wanted to tell Kazuo’s story in the most pure form, without any ego or imposition. Just tell the story in a really lovely way, in a really intense and pure way.

Is this the SPIDER-MAN diet?

I mean, it’s food that I’m eating. It’s all starting up, that thing. All I know is I’m probably going to have to move a lot, so I’m trying to be as healthy as I can. But that’s all me. It’s very difficult, because I like cookies a lot.

The more I hear you talk about having no interest in celebrity and whatnot, your attitude seems very similar to Heath Ledger. Was your attitude influenced by him, or did you have that and that’s why you clicked as actors?

I don’t think anyone can be defined by an influence from someone else. I admired Heath, I continue to admire Heath, incredibly. He was truly exciting to be around. He was fiery, and I don’t want to get into personal opinions about that, because it’s not my place. But I can speak highly of him still. He’s just incredible, as an actor, as a human being. Maybe there’s something in that. Maybe I saw his happiness and his life, and he was just a very creative person. I just love creatives. I love being around them— it inspires me. I got to work with such incredible people. And on that film there was terry as well. He lives for it. And with this, being with Mulligan and Knightley and Mark and Alex and Ishiguru, it was just a gift. Being with Jesse Eisenberg for THE SOCIAL NETWORK, that boy is constantly creating something, whether he’s writing a play or musical or a series of incredible jokes, he’s just a genius. Just that being the focus, and not allowing all the periphery stuff to infringe, because it takes up headspace that could be better used, whether it’s painting something terrible or buying a present for my mum. I’d rather be doing something that’s going to serve someone.

What happens to Tommy between the time that he has his original outburst at Hailsham and the outburst he has later on?

Something happens to him, and he becomes very acquiescent. I think he does what’s necessary. He does what we all have to do when we’re in a situation. We deal with the situation. We deal with what it is to be alive. You become a man, and you suppress things, and you get burned. You get burned, and then you have to heal your scar to cover it up, bandage it up, and then you have to avoid that pain again. I remember the first time I broke up with someone. It was the greatest pain ever. It made me never want to love again. We all know that feeling. So you do everything you can to distract yourself. I feel that’s what Tommy is doing. He has to somehow hold on through this free-floating anxiety, this knowledge that there’s something not quite right in this life. What’s around the corner, and it’s death. it’s inevitable. We have no frame of reference to deal with death. So he does what we all do, he deflects, he ignores. It’s like if there was a live tiger in this room right now and all we’re doing is focusing on everything that’s not that tiger. Just trying to survive, and we have to somehow live. It’s so relatable, we all do it. There are these burning, upsetting tingling in all of us. These dissatisfactions that we’re not being looked after, these worries that there’s nobody above, worries that there is no purpose. If you are constantly in that thought process and consciousness, we would all be constantly screaming. Because life is fucking unfair, and life is impossible sometimes. Once you own up to that and see that it’s very difficult not to scream and shout. Because we’re given this consciousness. We’re not just animals, unfortunately. We have a consciousness to supposedly elevate us, but it does more harm than good sometimes. I think in-between he’s trying to come to terms with life, like we alare. He has that hope for deferral with Kathy, and he goes to great lengths to make sure that he has the opportunity to it. he has hope. It’s a religious hope. He’s lived his life as well as he could. He’s looked after this body, he’s done everything he can. One should be rewarded for being moral, for being good, for not betraying anyone, for looking after yourself. There should be some payback for that, and there isn’t he finds out very brutally. There’s silence. He screams, and no one rescues him. He gets held very tightly by someone he loves. That’s what Ishiguro is trying to say. We have very short time here, and love as much as you can, and love as many people as you can. Hold on to the people that mean something. I think that’s a microcosm of what he’s talking about. It’s very simplistic, but obviously it’s much deeper and richer than that.

Talking about Facebook, Twitter, social media. It’s a way for non-celebrities to feel famous and report on their minutiae. What’s your perspective on that given your role in THE SOCIAL NETWORK?

Luckily my role in THE SOCIAL NETWORK doesn’t know much about that. He’s an economics major. So my research wasn’t Internet-based, it wasn’t social media-based. He’s actually naive to it. He’s being exposed to it gradually as the film goes on, so I didn’t have to do much work in terms of that. I had to do work elsewhere. Yeah, I think I admire it greatly. They are the wizards of our generation, they are the alchemists. I just got given an iPad as a gift for my birthday, and it’s unbelievable. It’s truly magic. Zuckerberg revolutionized the way we communicate globally.

Do you have a Facebook account?

No, I don’t have one. But I’ve of course been on. It is so simple and genius, because everyone wants to be on their own [magazine] cover, and that’s what it’s giving people. It’s kind of an extension of what our playground society is. I admire it greatly. Unfortunately we could all be very rich if we had been on that bandwagon. They are the great people who are defining our time. Surrender to it, it’s fucking great.

Can you talk about your discussions with Marc about your interpretation of Spider-Man?

We’re starting to talk about it. It’s all very early stages. I haven’t really got much to say, because I don’t have anything to say about it. It’s all very early and the exploration stage.

Most times it’s a decade until a series is rebooted, and this is like three or four years. Does that give you any pause to do something different?

No. What’s wonderful about Spider-Man is it’s no one’s and it everyone’s. It means so much to so many people. It’s mythology and a legacy. There is no definitive version. You look back at the Dick Cook Stan Lee comics to the Ultimates and the Incredibles and the Amazings, then you go to the original cartoon series in the 70s and how that translated to the one in the 90s that Avi Arad was involved in, it’s constantly shifting and reflecting the time and being as relevant and topical as it can be. I think it’s going to shift again. I don’t know in what way, but it’s going to be defined by where we are as a society, and hopefully people are going to enjoy it, because I think we’re going to enjoy making it.

Have you met Stan Lee yet?

No, I haven’t. That’s going to be very cool though.

You have a BACK TO THE FUTURE watch?

I do, yeah. My girlfriend just got it for me. It’s a limited edition. Zemeckis made 20 of them for his electrical crew because they worked so hard on the first one. It was a starting gift for the second one. My girlfriend got it off of eBay. That’s like the best film ever made.

From the GATW Archives: TIFF 2010 Interview: NEVER LET ME GO’s Carey Mulligan

Carey Mulligan, what a beautiful and talented young lady. Her first burst on the scene got her an Academy Award nomination, and now she’s starring alongside Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley in a much-buzzed-about TIFF film, NEVER LET ME GO. The film is directed by Mark Romanek and is based off the novel of the same name by Kazuo Ishiguro.

As with Andrew Garfield, I sat with various journalists in a roundtable and interviewed Mulligan about NEVER LET ME GO, WALL STREET 2, and what it’s like work on independent films versus studio-budgeted. Check out the interview after the break. Big thank you to Katey Rich from Cinema Blend for sending me the interview transcription.

Are we in control of our own fates?

Oh, God. I just woke up! Well, no, not ultimately. We could all be hit by a bus tomorrow. But you can make choices to live the life that you want to.

And do we live for ourselves or for other people?

I don’t know. I suppose that’s individual to the person.

What about you?

I don’t know. I suppose I’m sort of in the position where I can be pretty selfish. Because I don’t have a family or kids or anything. I have my parents and my friends, that’s as big as my world gets.

Had you read the book before all this?

Yes, I had. My mum is a big Ishiguro fan, and I read it pretty much as soon as it came out, because she said I should read it and I loved it. I thought if they made a film, it’s in the book she’s 31 at the end, so I thought that was a couple of years away. Then they brought the ages down and made it so we could play them from ages 18 to 28. But I love the book, I was always in love with the book. I read it six times between getting the job and now.

What did you love about the book?

I hadn’t read anything else. I hadn’t even read Remains of the Day, which is the book pretty much everyone has read. I loved his writing. I loved how unsentimental it was, and how much he said in these little tiny phrases. And I love how his writing isn’t overly intellectual and doesn’t exclude the audience. It invites the audience in. Ishiguro is an incredibly intelligent person, and his writing could be really cerebral, and it’s not.

What is the trick to adaptations when you’re developing this character? You’re balancing between the character in the book and the character in the script.

When I was reading the script I was really nervous, because I always hate it when adaptations do a bad job. I wanted them to do it right, and I felt like they really did. The script really captured the book perfectly. There’s always a scene that you miss, and the whole way through the shoot I was asking if we could put in scenes from the book that we just didn’t have time for. So I think Alex [Garland, screenwriter] really got the book perfectly, and the way he divided it into three chapters was really smart. I think you have enough time with the characters and it’s not a long, laborious film. I got a lot from the script. I was with the book every day, always going back to look at the book. We had two weeks to talk about it, two weeks to sit around. I think the voiceover was the biggest indicator of who she was. It was so faithful to how unreliable she is as a narrator in the book. She’s always skirting around the subject, always diminishing her feelings. She’s saying, “I felt a tiny stab of pain,” these tiny statements that mean a huge amount. That’s what I loved about Kathy’s role in the film, how little she had to say. Most of the characters I’ve played have been really emotionally articulate and expressive and said everything on their mind. With Kathy, she really never does. Even in the voiceover she holds back so much. She says, “I reminded myself I was lucky to have any time with him at all,” and that sounds very virtuous and sweet, but it’s bollocks really. She’s talking herself into this state of acceptance all the time. And I thought that was cool, that she has the least dialogue.

What’s the accent? It sounds Northern.

I don’t know. Isobel, who played the younger Kathy, we just tried to have the vague accent.

Is it funny to be promoting this, realizing how much has changed since you shot it, before WALL STREET and the Oscar nomination?

I don’t know. Yeah, this was after Sundance, and before the film came out, and before I got WALL STREET. Well, I got offered WALL STREEET as we were wrapping NEVER LET ME GO. I suppose it is. It’s the polar opposite of WALL STREET. And in WALL STREET, she’s always emoting and expressing and saying everything.

Has the Oscar nomination changed you at all?

No, not really. I haven’t worked since WALL STREET. It was all a big surprise. It was quite nice though, because I was really ignorant to the whole process of this festival wards, buzz, all that stuff. I was just dancing around Telluride with Lone [Scherfig, director of AN EDUCATION], having a really nice time. I wasn’t aware of all the people on their Blackberries checking reviews and going all crazy. It’s different this year. I feel like I know what’s going on. It makes me a bit uncomfortable. I don’t like that its heading towards that the only merit a film can have, the only value it can have is if it gets nominated for an award. That seems like such a shame, because all we wanted in this film was to make the best film possible, and most faithful film, and try not to mess up what Ishiguro wrote. That’s the only thing that’s changed; I’m slightly more aware of the industry going around these things rather than just the films. Last year was a lot more relaxing.

Then does something like a comedy intimidate you?

I was the straight man in AN EDUCATION, but I don’t think any of us thought — it’s only when you’re in front of an audience that you realize when things work and when things don’t. I don’t think I’m interested in like a straight-out comedy, with no real heart or anything. I definitely lean toward drama. But I wouldn’t want to do something, just a vacuous comedy about nothing. I like FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL, things that have a heart and then there’s funny surrounding it.

With NEVER LET ME GO, you’re working with younger actors. Can you talk about the difference between that and moving on to something like WALL STREET, where you’re playing Michael Douglas’s daughter and being directed by Oliver Stone. It’s quite a leap.

NEVER LET ME GO felt quite comfortable, because I knew a lot of the crew, I had worked on TV things with them, and I kind of knew the producers really well byte he time we were shooting. Keira and I have been friends for years. It was nerve-wracking because Kathy is supposed to be holding the story together — not holding the story together, but I felt kind of pressured, because she’s the narrator, to not upset fans of the book. That was always running through my mind to make sure we were faithful to the book, and would my mom think that’s a good choice, because she’s a massive fan of the book. So when you’ve got her in your mind every day… and WALL STREET, yeah, I kind of wanted to be in a big boy’s film and be intimidated. There were other roles going on in England that I was kind of involved in, but there was nothing going on that I would wake up in the morning and go, “oh, shit, how am I going to do this?” The challenge was to try and make the girlfriend role in a Hollywood film effective and not just redundant. I think a lot of the time, through no fault of the actress, the girlfriend can be marginalized and just an accessory to the plot. I thought there was something to play there, and more than just the girlfriend. That was sort of exciting. I did want to be one of the few women in a big, masculine film. And it was fun. Oliver didn’t treat me like a girl. I don’t think he saw me as a girl, because I had short hair or something. I do think I got equal treatment. I loved working with all of them, including Michael. We sort of kept a distance from each other. We didn’t get all cuddly off set, we were quite removed, so when we played those scenes, I didn’t really know him, and that was appropriate because I didn’t know him in the film.

Did you go back and watch the original WALL STREET, not just to get a sense for the story but see how Daryl Hannah’s character existed in that masculine world?

Yeah, I did. Oliver wanted me to watch it to try and glean Gekko-isms. There wasn’t much I could do, because the character was so different. Not really Daryl Hannah’s character so much. She was in that world and attracted by those things in a way that Winnie’s not. There wasn’t any need to study her so much. The reason I looked at it really was to glean what Gekko’s doing, to look at my mum in the film to gain some sense memory of her. But she’s not in the second film, she’s disappeared by that point.

Is it true your parents didn’t want you to become an actress?

Well, no, it’s a silly job. Not a silly job, but it’s difficult to be able to get a break to work at all, and then work consistently. They wanted me to have something else that I could do if the whole acting thing didn’t work you. They would have let me have a go eventually, but they wanted me to go to university, get a degree, be able to teach at least or do something sensible. I was very angry at the time, but then I get it. I know so many brilliant, talented, way more talented than me— and they don’t work. They haven’t had that one meeting that sparks off another meeting, and they haven’t gotten that one job that gets them seen. It’s like a chain of events that gets you somewhere safe.

How did they finally change their mind?

When I got my first job, when I got PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, they were behind it. I didn’t even expect to get another job after that. But they were supportive from then.

Do you feel like an exception in Hollywood right now, in terms of casting a young woman your age?

No, not really. I don’t know. I think there are brilliant young actresses my age. I did a Vanity Fair cover with twelve of them — I was like, “fuck, you guys…this is scary.” I haven’t worked this year because I haven’t found the one — everyone’s looking for something different. There are parts out there, but there weren’t parts out there that were dramatically different from what I had already done. I’m starting one later this month.