Father Geek here... Here's our latest report from The Contintent, lots of coolness...
Hi people. Nice stuff for you this week. A description of the first picture of Monica Bellucci starring in The Brothers Grimm and two compelling reviews of Intermission and Grand Theft Parsons. But the main stuff here it's a very exhaustive interview with Steve Balderson, who just finished shooting his second feature, Firecracker, starring, among others, Mike Patton (yes, the former Faith No More singer) and Karen Black. I'm looking forward to see this movie, because it seems to me a more genuine portrait of United States than we usually see in Hollywood pictures. Enjoy...
First Monica Bellucci pic in Brothers Grimm...
Harry & Father Geek, Here's an Italian fan of yours, who's got a little scoop for you, the first pic of Monica Bellucci as the Evil Queen from the "The Brothers Grimm" by Gilliam!
Unfortunately I have neither a scanner, nor a friend who can do the scannering for me...I found the beautiful picture from the italian magazine "Chi" N.49/3 Dicembre( in case you've got the chance to find it).
However here a description of what I see (Please forgive any mistake ...My English is only so so...)
She's simply gorgeous. At first sight she reminds me the vampire bride she portraied in "Bram's Stoker's Dracula", she wears a red purple long mantle I think is made of satin, or silk with beautiful golden needleworks along the breath-takingly revealing neckline. It also resembles a kind of frock, with long sleeves, since she seems to be a sort of pope-ist rather than a witch. The comparison stands because that bizarre incredible Gothic "double cone hat", yes! That of the fairies of your childhood's bedtime stories! It's golden, rich in ornaments and red precious stones. Last but not the least, Monica has long black tresses to her feet like she was a dark Rapunzel and she sits on a golden charming throne...What do you think of this? Hoping this picture will be on Internet as soon as possible, I wish you wonderful time at your BUTT-NUMB-A-THON this weekend! Wish I could join you!
If you use this, you can call me "The Italian Daydreamer" .
Father Geek here...
here's a link to the above foto...
Steve Balderson interview
What’s your impression of this first month of shooting? What were the main difficulties and surprises?
We actually just finished shooting. The calendar on the website was created to divert possible stalkers and otherwise extracurricular chaos.
The main surprise was the degree to which my vision came out of my subconscious into reality with such ease. Perhaps it was the way I was prepared, the skill and quality of the performers – or perhaps I was on auto-pilot. A few crew members were difficult – but no one of major presence. But I’ve been told that happens on any shoot.
What is the main goal behind your movie? To find an audience (even a small one), to be on the map or simply to make a good movie?
My main goal was to make it. And to make it on my terms, in my way, true to my vision. I knew if I was true to my vision, the movie would be good. But I had to overcome the battles and turn the barriers into fuel – instead of road blocks. I had several easy way outs. One “producer”, for example, wanted to pay me a huge figure for the script and said he had Gus van Sant ready to direct. Now, if I were a writer, it would’ve been a dream come true. But I’m a director first – a visual storyteller. So I walked away. Going from one “producer” to the next and being true to the art was a process that took several years. And Firecracker was made as it was supposed to be made. The audience is already there. Our mailing list has grown and the website has now had over eight million hits. Not bad for an independent film. It’s a classic tragedy. And it’s based upon actual events. It feels like Shakespeare, feels like an opera. It’s a kind of subject matter best shown with a clear and precise perspective. The end result is something I’m very proud of. It’s true to the medium of cinema. We shot on Super 35mm film, with a wide aspect ratio. Every second of every shot was perfectly choreographed. And we did a lot of things with the medium I haven’t seen before. I made the DP do things with the camera, like open the door, lift his eye of the viewfinder, pull the lens off and on. We use equal parts harsh B&W and vivid color. Wonderful things one can only do with film.
What the Pep Squad taught you and what are the mistakes you did with your debut feature and you won’t repeat?
Firecracker is so different from Pep Squad – there’s no measure. Pep Squad was a live action cartoon. With whizzing bullets and screaming children. Most of the learning experiences were about the process of making a film. And those lessons were applied to Firecracker when we were making it. We made some marketing choices for Pep Squad that we know how to make differently now. But in all, I am a totally different person that I was when I made Pep Squad. I don’t see the world in the same way. I made Pep Squad exactly as it should be made. And now Firecracker is here. They’re like my children. There’s nothing I’d change about my first born, or my second – the trick is preparing them for the world. So I must do that now.
Which character, in your opinion, the audience will like the most?
That depends on how they see the whole. It’s a true ensemble. The performers are so incredible, no one overshadows the rest. It’s remarkable how they did it. The talents of acting amaze me sometimes. I suppose it will be fun to watch Mike Patton make his debut. Or to see Karen Black looking better than she’s ever looked. The performances of the entire ensemble are incredible. Throw in a stripper with 3-breasts and a sideshow – wow! There are so many great characters, it will be interesting to hear people’s favorites.
It seems to me this is a movie aiming to tell a different America compared to the one we are accustomed to, thanks to Hollywood pictures. What is the reaction of the american studios you’re in touch with? And what do you think the european reaction will be? Do you you think the european audience will be more curious or more distrustful towards something unexpected?
I’ve not shown a single image to any American studios. In fact, I’ve not shown the images to anyone except a French television crew. They came all the way from France to Kansas especially to interview me and my family. They arrived when I was editing – so I showed them a sequence. I think the European reaction will be my favorite. Your culture appreciates art in a completely different way than we do. That may sound cliché but it’s true. Our country was settled by puritans.
From what appears on the site, it seems a very violent movie. Does the violence will be more graphic or more suggested?
The violence portrayed in the film is true to the feeling of the victim. I wanted to show how it felt, or, how it feels to actually be the person at the receiving end of the violence. I’m not interested in gore or the violence itself. Exploitation isn’t my style. I’m more interested in how violence affects people. And the heart.
What about Edward Furlong, Debbie Harry and Dennis Hopper, who were supposed to star in Firecracker?
I shall be honest. It’s a great lesson for filmmakers. But to be honest, I shall tell you the entire story.
It all comes down to being true to my vision. In the early days of conceiving Firecracker, and how I’d portray these actual events, I had a great concept. It was clearly the one to go with. But for whatever reason – and I think it was primarily fear – I decided to deny my vision. I started to focus more on WHO was going to be in Firecracker than I was on the actual story.
My fear stemmed from what happened with Pep Squad. I’d used total unknowns in the Pep Squad cast, many of whom were inexperienced. When it came time to sell – instead of purchasing Pep Squad, the buyers simply made their own versions of the film. They actually said, “If Pep Squad had a famous person in it, we’d make you an offer today… But we simply don’t know how to market it without a famous person.” Now – that’s probably true. It’s rare that a film’s marketing team comes up with something creative. When Dennis Hopper invited me to his house and said, “I want to play Frank,” I had totally lost track of what I was supposed to do. Then James Russo said he wanted to play “David,” and he was having dinner with Debbie Harry, who instantly came on board as “Ed.” Having all these “names” distracted me.
My original concept was to have two of the actors do dual roles. And to shoot portions of Firecracker in B&W and portions in Color. But Dennis Hopper was too old to play both parts. Whomever played “Frank” also had to play “David.” I worried a lot about what to do and what was expected of me. But I couldn’t have it both ways. Either I was going to make Firecracker because of the cast – or I was going to make it because of the images. It was either Dennis Hopper’s Firecracker or MINE.
In late November last year, I woke up and just decided I had to make Firecracker as I was supposed to. In fifty years, the film will stand alone. I chose the actor who fit the dual roles perfectly – Mike Patton.
Taking back my vision was like freeing the film from being kidnapped. Everything snowballed. Having Mike Patton play “Frank” eliminated Hopper. Also having him play “David” eliminated Russo. I wrote Hopper a letter explaining that I must stay true to my original vision, and that I was sorry but he could not play “Frank.” I suspect he admired my determination in an odd way.
Russo, on the other hand, was an ass when we contacted him. He actually said, “Are you people for real or are you just full of shit?” So naturally, I had no ill feelings about replacing him. That’s when Debbie Harry’s “acting” manager called. He said he really wanted Debbie to do the movie – but her music manager didn’t want her to do the movie. They wanted her to focus on her music. So I called Debbie at home and thanked her for supporting me. She was in the middle of moving and her voice sounded like something horrible had happened. Perhaps it was something bad – or perhaps Russo just called her and told her not to do it. I don’t know. Either way, everything happens for a reason. Susan Traylor was meant to play “Ed.”
Edward Furlong is a story unto himself. He told one of our “producers” (the same one who just wanted to buy the script from me) that wanted to play “Jimmy” because it was a role that could win him an Oscar. That very week he was dropped from T3 because, from what I heard, no insurance company would cover him due to his alleged substance abuse. I tried to contact Furlong via his agent – but the agent just refused to put us into contact. I wasn’t about to direct someone I’d never been allowed to speak to. That’s like buying a car without taking a test drive. Simply ludicrous and stupid. Then everyone said Furlong went into rehab, so I had to find someone else to play “Jimmy.” And I did.
It’s true. Everything happens for a reason. The actors in Firecracker are incredible. Had it been made with the former cast, it just wouldn’t have worked. Even though the process took longer than I liked, I’m pleased. And very fortunate. I am extremely thankful I have the ability to be true to myself. Perhaps other filmmakers can learn that it’s best to be true to themselves, too.
When do you think the movie will be released?
No idea whatsoever. That decision is in the hands of the buyer.
In your opinion, what rating will receive Firecracker?
Firecracker should be rated R. If it gets an NC-17 rating for the rape scene I'll be disappointed. Because I don't want to have to edit anything out. It's all there for a reason.
Do you think we'll see Firecracker at any Film Festivals, maybe at Sundance?
I cannot wait to have a film at Cannes again. And I honestly liked Raindance in London a much better experience than Sundance. I'm most looking forward to the Italian festivals. I've never been to Italy and it will be wonderful!
What are the second movie of a director you like the most? Don’t know, maybe The Last Picture Show, The Big Chill, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills have Eyes?
I adore The Last Picture Show. I’m fond of The Elephant Man (which has similar themes to Firecracker). I’ve never seen Kubrick’s second, Killer’s Kiss. But I shall oneday.
What is your opinion on the contemporary indipendent american cinema? What are the directors and actors you feel more empathy?
I think Jodie Foster has a perspective I appreciate – both in her ability to show a human being and the way she tells a story. I think Karen Black is one of the greatest living actors. I think Nicole Kidman’s clarity and ability is like Karen’s. Honestly, I’m more fond of Hitchcock’s visuals and the words of Tennessee Williams than I am of today’s storytellers.
I appreciate contemporary independent American cinema – but I think that the word cinema isn’t taken advantage of. I dislike digital video unless it’s supposed to look like that. Dancer in the Dark is the only movie I’ve seen shot on digital video that looked like it was supposed to be.
Don't you find ludicrous the indie tag? I mean, we see a lot of "indipendent" movies (Elephant, Thirteen, Lost in Translation, 21 Grams, to name just the most recent ones), which actually are financed (in a way or another) by studios. Wouldn't be more correct to refer to them simply as "small budget movies" and leave the Indie tag to movies as Firecracker?
Yes. Based on the definition as I understand it, Independent film productions mean that the film was conceived, financed and executed INDEPENDENTLY from Hollywood studios, systems, and even independent from the town itself.
It’s clear you’re a big music fan. What are your favorite bands? And what kind of music you grew up with?
I love Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong. They’re my all time favorite. I listen to them every single day. I’m a huge fan of Lucinda Williams. I’ve recently enjoyed the words of Rilo Kiley. Ohh, and I just saw Neko Case on the television program Austin City Limits. Wow! A modern Ella! Roseanne Cash is incredible. I love musicians who inspire pictures in me. It’s such a great relationship. One day I’ll have to send them all a note. Well, except for Ella & Louis – who aren’t receiving mail at their current addresses.
Intermission review by Don Pablo
Hello peeps.
It's encouraging to know that even if you're a frustratingly rich, attractive and carefree Hollywood darling, you can't win them all; I'm glad to see S.W.A.T.'s a pile of wank.
Unfortunately, the other Colin Farrell film currently doing the rounds here in the land of the Rugby World Cup Winners (Mrs. Queen, Mrs. Queen, please knight Clive Woodward) more than makes up S.W.A.T.'s failings. Intermission is a fun little slice of Dublin, Ireland ("as they say in the States"), with Colin putting in his most engaging (and worryingly believable) performance since Phone Booth... hang on, those are both low-budget non-studio pics... hmmm...
The film opens with a scene that looks to be exploiting Farrell's Hollywood heartthrob image and cajoling the audience into a cosy sense of familiarity, before turning completely on its head and elicitning laughs and gasps in equal measure. That sets up the tone nicely for the rest of the film. The plot itself is one of those Altman/PTA intertwining lives jobbies, but the emphasis is never the mawkish representation of destiny to which those two greats have occasionally fallen prey. This film is a gambol, nay, a romp through a short time in the lives of a fairly diverse bunch of Dubliners, just going about their business.
Anyway, a great turn from Mr. Farrell in his role of least screen time since he went global. The key players in this film would be Kelly MacDonald, who offers nothing beyond the bland in this film, Cillian Murphy, who is halfway to a memorable peformance, and Colm Meaney, sending himself up beautifully in a manner not 100 miles away from his performance in Con Air. Shirley Henderson takes a break from Harry Potter duties and gives a warming turn as a girl suffering from a Ronnie ('tache) after her boyfriend coiled out a dog's egg on her chest. Long story, you'll have to watch the film.
Having just read that this is director John Crowley's first film, I must say that he shows remarkable balls and assurance, without ever losing the plot. Certainly his skills need polishing, but there is a refreshing and well-executed amalgamy of humour, light tragedy and drama on show in this film.
It seemed to me that many audience members (myself included) were only there because every other show at the cinema was sold out, and so maybe the reactions were down to genuine surprise and delight, but I cannot remember the last time I heard half an audience in such a small screening room react so vocally to a film. And please keep in mind that this is the country that identifies itself through repression and lack of emotional display.
So Colin has atoned for S.W.A.T.'s sins, but the person who has done himself the most credit with this movie is director John Crowley; Given more money (this film was shot on 16mm for a 16mm budget, and it shows) I cannot see John Crowley going anywhere other than the way of Mr. Farrell. He deserves his IFTA, and I look forward to seeing what he does next. And another thing...
...How the bollocks did Con fucking Air make it into this review...?
Don Pablo
Grand Theft Parsons review by James Bartlett
Director: David Caffrey;
Starring: Johnny Knoxville, Christina Applegate, Michael Shannon, Robert
Forster;
88 mins;
Certificate: 12A...
Released: 16th January 2004
Screened as part of the Foyle Film Festival in Derry/Londonderry in Northern
Ireland, this film is an odd tale about how the body of country/rock star
Gram Parsons was cremated in the desert by his road manager Phil Kaufman
(Johnny Knoxville). Nothing so odd about this maybe, but Kaufman's actions
weren't exactly what you would call legal.
After hiring a yellow hearse driven and owned by Larry (Michael Shannon),
Kaufman steals the coffin from the airport and sets off for the Joshua Tree
Inn with Gram's father (Robert Forster) and bitchy, hideous ex-girlfriend
Barbara (Christina Applegate) in pursuit - to say nothing of the Police.
Part comedy, part road movie, Knoxville and Shannon are an engaging couple
of deadbeats on the road, but the problem with this film is that it's so
slight; we know how it ends, so we know that no matter what, they will get
to burn the bod. So as such, it ends up being quite dull: when Gram's ghost
turns up at the end, you wish that it may have been a good idea for him to
have been there all the way through - it would have made it more
interesting, as this scenario is already a bit mad.
Christina Applegate is a horrendous bitch and gets some acting honours too,
but ultimately it's all like the desert landscape where Parsons ended up -
flat and featureless.
James Bartlett
| 
