#I do think script directions like this are perfectly reflected in the actors' performances | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dialovers-translations · 3 years

Text

DIABOLIK LOVERS MORE, BLOOD OFFICIAL VISUAL FANBOOK ー Interview Vol. 1 feat. Saki Ito

Source: DIABOLIK LOVERS MORE, BLOOD Official Visual Fanbook

Release date: 2013

Huge thank you to @keithvalentinex for providing the raw scans!

SECTION 1: Q&A

Q1. How did you feel when a sequel game got green light?

A: Not only were we fortunate to receive many passionate messages and feedback from the players, but we also received the news of an anime adaption alongside a game sequel, so amidst the joy, I also remember a distinct feeling of responsiblity and pressure.

Q2. Does the feedback you received from the players reflect in any parts of the game?

A: The series features characters who all have very strong and distinct character traits, so they tend to stand out based solely on these specific elements, which is what made us reflect upon the scenario parts of the previous game. Therefore, in the sequel, we decided to flesh them out so we let Idea Factory know that we would like to create sceranio’s on events of their pasts, so we can give a better understanding of how they think as individuals. We received a positive response but this ultimately required quite a bit of scenarios so later both me and Nakamura suffered because of it. (lol) However, even though there is still room for improvement, I would like to think that we succeeded in creating scenario’s in which the players will get to know them on a deeper level.

Q3. Who did you struggle most with when creating the setting for the new characters?

A: Ruki. Both in terms of design and personality. At first we thought of having him be on an almost equal footing with Karlheinz in terms of power and status, so basically the character who stands at the very top of the Mukami family, with everyone following his lead as they have no other choice but to acknowledge his superiority . But he’s a Do-S...We played with various ideas like that.

Q4. What did the process of creating these characters look like?

A: After settling on their visuals and personalities, we moved on to building a set image of them. I was impressed that at the time of initial recording where we would add the voices to these characters, there was already an agreement amongst the production staff about how they viewed these brothers inside their minds.

Q5. Were there any moments during the recording which left a strong impression on you?

A: I am sure everyone feels the same in this regard, but I was very much impressed by Midorikawa Hikaru (Ayato’s VA) and his ability to voice a single line in so many different ways and apply minor adjustment time after time. I was baffled how the same phrase could be voiced in so many different ways, and while this may be embarrassing to admit as part of the production staff, I felt as if I could learn a lot from him.

Q6. How did you approach the blood-sucking scenes?

A: We start by creating a fixed image inside our heads of how each character would suck someone’s blood. However, we initially opted to leave things up to the casted voice actors. We figured that if their voicing was somewhat off from how we envisioned it, we would guide them into the desired direction afterwards, but so far that has yet to happen! The voice actors seem to understand that the blood-sucking scenes are a huge selling point of the Diabolik Lovers franchise, so they anticipated on this and had already thought about which personal quirks they want to include in these scenes before the recording. Afterwards they would tell us things such as ‘I wanted to make it sound a little dirty’ or ‘I imagined ____ would suck blood like this’, showing us their effort to voice these characters while thinking about their personalities, which is why we - the production staff - were able to feel the unique traits of these boys through their performance as well, I believe. I cannot express with words just how greatful I am for everyone’s excellent voice work.

Q7. When writing the scenario’s and the character dialogue, were there any conscious changes you made from the first game?

A: In the first game, there were very little interactions between the different characters, but with the introduction of the Mukami brothers, we focused on these kind of interactions where one of the Sakamaki brothers would fight with one of the Mukami brothers. Additionally, this would allow for us to express the changes in their feelings towards the main character.

Q8. What did you struggle the most with while writing the script?

A: There were just so many different scenarios to write, I recall feeling as if there was no end to it. Every time you think you’re done adjusting one part, you have to move on to the next and by the time you’re done with that, something just doesn’t feel right about the first scenario again...This game includes many scenarios about the characters’ pasts so there would be times where we suddenly went ‘...Hold on!? I feel like the previous scene doesn’t quite make sense anymore...,’ So we’d have to go back and make sure everything remained consistent.

Q9. Which character caused you the most problems while writing the script?

A: Every single one. In case of the Sakamaki brothers, all because of the same reason. For starters, despite this being a sequel game, the intial setting remains the same as before with the main character having arrived at the Sakamaki manor, , so we were worried whether or not the audience would accept this without it feeling weird or off. The Mukami brothers are then added on top of that, so we struggled a lot expressing the wavering feelings of the main character. Each of the Mukami brothers has their own dark past and setting which we came up with beforehand, so it was very difficult to then later add the element of romance to this.

Q10. Is there a character who underwent drastic changes compared to the last game?

A: No. Although the ‘MORE, BLOOD’ games feature the Sakamaki brothers struggling with an immense ‘thirst for blood’ which is different from our previous approach, so we hope this allows the players to enjoy a different side of them.

Q11. The endings are now named ‘Vampire Ending’, ‘Manservant Ending’ and ‘Brute’ Ending. Could you tell us what kind of thought you put into these names?

A: They do each have their own fixed image attached to them. We divided them into the ‘Vampire Ending’ which is supposed to be the most natural ending. The ‘Manservant Ending’ which emphasizes the element of sadism the strongest and lastly the ‘Brute Ending’ which is the most violent. Depending on the character, there might be minor changes such as the main character developing sadistic tendencies herself or it being another character who grows violent. We hope the audience will enjoy this wide array of endings.

Q12. What are parts which have greatly improved or parts you want us to focus on in comparison to the first game?

A: My apologies for repeating myself, but it would have to be the scenarios. Also please pay attention to the upgraded sprite artwork for everyone, as well as the addition of the sprites for the brothers as children!

Q13. Why do you think the series has received such a great amount of support?

A: During the development of the first set of CDs, we made them with a specific niche audience in mind, so never did we expect the franchise would grow this large. We truly are grateful. We would like to believe that Satoi-sama’s illustration are the biggest contributor in this case. I was already acquaintanced with Satoi-sama at that point but due to certain circumstances, we weren’t able to work on a project together. However, when the development for Diabolik Lovers started, I immediately reached out to her. I believe that the way she draws these Do-S Vampires as handsome guys is what the fans enjoy the most!

Q14. Please leave a message for the fans.

A: First of all, thank you all from the bottom of my heart. If it wasn’t for you guys’ reactions, we wouldn’t have been able to deliver this much content. I won’t go as far as to tell you to continue to loving ‘DIABOLIK LOVERS’ and its characters forever...! Even if it’s somewhere in the very back of your mind, I’d be happy if you could at least hold onto the fond memories of these characters. Honestly, thank you so so much.

SECTION 2: THEIR FAVORITE EPISODES

Sakamaki brothers: Laito’s Vampire Ending. It conveys that feeling of loving someone, yet still keeping you on the edge of your seat as he doesn’t quite fully want to admit to his own feelings, even though you can tell that he does properly love the main character, which made me feel joyful inside.

Mukami brothers: Rather than one specific scene, I loved the interactions between the Mukami brothers. When they are all enjoying a meal together, they would fight over the food, or Kou would make a fuss because he wants to eat Vongole Bianco. I found it cute how they would talk in a way you’d expect from normal high school boys.

SECTION 3: SAKI ITO CHOOSES ー SITUATION-DEPENDENT CHARACTER SELECT

Who would you choose in these situations? What’s the developer’s opinion?

S1. To sleep together with?

Best: Shuu, he probably wouldn’t bother me.

Worst: Reiji, he seems like the type to get upset if you don’t keep perfectly still while sleeping.

S2. To go on a trip together with?

Best: Ruki, I feel like he would come fully prepped.

Worst: Azusa, I wouldn’t be able to enjoy my trip if I get hurt because of him.

S3. To eat together with?

Best: Shuu, I feel like our eating styles would match.

Worst: Reiji, I’d constantly feel nervous.

S4. To study with?

Best: Ruki, I feel like he’d be able to explain things in a comprehensive manner.

Worst: Laito because he might just blow air into my ear all of a sudden.

S5. To go on a date with?

Best: Kou, he probably knows all the good places so it could be fun.

Worst: Kanato, I can’t stand the thought of him suddenly lashing out at me.

S6. To play a video game with?

Best: Yuma, I feel like he wouldn’t be the best at it, but it’d still be enjoyable regardless.

Worst: Subaru, he would destroy the console!

S7. To play sports with?

Best: Kou, I can imagine his sweat sparkling in the light as it bounces off him.

Worst: Reiji, he seems stiff.

S8. To go on a drive with?

Best: Ayato, it just seems fun.

Worst: Yuma, he strikes me as a speed devil.

#diabolik lovers #dialovers #diabolik lovers translation #diabolik lovers more blood official visual fanbook #diabolik lovers interview #saki ito

89 notes · View notes

thepermanentrainpress · 3 years

Text

THE PERMANENT RAIN PRESS INTERVIEW WITH MADELEINE SIMS-FEWER AND DUSTY MANCINELLI

Violation is one of the most stirring films we’ve seen over the past year. Since making its world premiere at Toronto International Film Festival last year, the Canadian flick has been busy on the film festival circuit; now available through digital-cinema on TIFF Bell Lightbox, with Vancouver International Film Festival (VIFF) Connect to follow beginning March 26th.

What inspired the story behind Violation?

We were both dealing with our own personal experiences of trauma at the time, and wanted to make an anti-revenge film that deals with female rage, and emotional and psychological unravelling that trauma gives rise to.

We really wanted to make a revenge film that pushed the boundaries of the genre, challenging the tropes of the scantily clad woman becoming empowered by violent revenge against a menacing stranger, and that revenge is the cathartic climax we are all seeking at the end of the movie. Yes, it is a film about seeking retribution, but also about the cost of that retribution. It is a film about violation, but also about lack of empathy and selfishness, and how both can erode your morality and the relationships around you.

It’s been described as “twisted,” “feminist-minded,” and a “hypnotic horror.” At its core, how would you describe the film’s genre(s)?

Those three descriptors fit perfectly, actually! We weren’t thinking too much about genre when we wrote the script, mostly about the story and about how we portrayed Miriam’s journey. We were inspired by films that don’t sit comfortably in a genre box, like Caché, Fat Girl, Don’t Look Now. Films that are dramas with elements of horror.

When you were writing the script, can you elaborate on the dynamics between the two couples that you wanted to portray – Miriam and Caleb, and Greta and Dylan?

Miriam and Caleb are very much at an impasse in their relationship. The spark has gone out and they don’t know how to reignite it. Instead of doing the work it might take to get through a rough patch Miriam is very much running away. There is a real transience to modern relationships that we wanted to capture in their dynamic - this idea that when the romance is gone the relationship has run its course. Miriam wants to fix it, but doesn’t know how - she clumsily tries to fix it with sex (on her sister’s advice), and this echoes how she tries to fix her trauma too.

Greta and Dylan have a seemingly healthy relationship. But when you look a little deeper their outward affection and codependence masks a deep distrust. Dylan is having his ‘grass is greener’ moment, and he’s totally selfish to the impact this has on those around him. Greta can sense this, but she’s too enamoured by him to risk rocking the boat. It’s all a recipe for tragedy really.

Miriam and Greta have a complex relationship, to say the least. It’s natural to have distance between siblings as they grow older, did you always intend to have a sibling relationship be a centre of your story?

Yes, we always wanted to make a film about a person who suffers sexual assault and is not believed by their sibling. That was one of the first parts of the story that came together. There is so much to unpack in a sibling relationship like theirs. A rich history of mutual failures and resentments as well as so much camaraderie and love. The more painful betrayal in the story comes from Greta, not Dylan.

We wanted to explore the idea of trauma within families, and how abuse and violence affects everyone in the family, not just the person who suffers it. Everything else orbits around these two sisters — Miriam and Greta — as Violation mines the little resentments, commonalities, shared joys and sorrows that weave together a truthful portrait of these women.

A lot of the horror and dread in Violation comes from the way the sisters interact, and in the ways they react to each other from a place of fear. There is no filter in these close sibling relationships (we know this as we both come from big families!) which can be wonderful, but can also lead you to hurt and be hurt in ways that leave permanent emotional scars.

The non-linear editing engages viewers into the story, as do the jarring intercuts with imagery of nature, animals and insects. Tell us about the editing and post-production phase, and what you hoped to accomplish with the progression and symbolism.

The way we have edited Violation is very deliberate. We are forcing you to experience things you might not want to in a very specific way, guiding you through this post traumatic landscape where the past and present are constantly speaking to each other.

We chose to weave two timelines together — the 48 hours leading up to the betrayal and the 48 hours surrounding the act of revenge. This forces the audience to re-contextualize what they have seen, challenging their own opinions of the characters based on what information we choose to reveal and when.

Violation is told completely from Miriam’s perspective — we watch her emotional and psychological unravelling as she struggles desperately to do the right thing. There is a sequence in the middle of the film where we see this act of revenge. There is no dialogue for a long time, we just follow Miriam as she goes through these meticulous actions. And what we realize is that her plan, though well thought-out, is unbelievably emotionally and physically taxing. She’s not prepared, and we watch the real horror of her actions play out through her visceral emotional responses. It was important for us to really force the audience to experience things as Miriam does. The editing is focused and relentless; never letting you stray from her experiences and emotions.

Madeleine, for you, getting to play Miriam and connect with her pain and turbulent emotions through the course of the film, can you share your thoughts on that experience. How did committing to this character challenge you as an actor?

It was the most challenging role I have ever played, and in many ways was absolutely terrifying. I wanted to push myself as far as I could go as an actor and challenge myself to really find the truth of who this woman is, and reveal that to the audience. There are so many quiet moments where Miriam’s journey is so internal, so the challenge there was in truly living each moment as if I was her — getting lost in the role — so that I was not indicating what she was feeling, but living it.

What was it like having Anna, Jesse and Obi as screen partners?

Very liberating. They are all extremely dedicated, layered, engaging performers. They elevated me and challenged me every step of the way. Jesse and I have worked together before, and we have an ease that makes scenes with him very fun. The comfort level we share allows us to really experiment. It was my first time working with Anna and Obi, but it won’t be the last. They are both so open and sensitive that I felt our work was incredibly nuanced.

An overarching question is whether revenge is ever justified. Tell me about Miriam’s mindset, and the struggle between morals, motives and her actions. For you as individuals, is this something that you have had conflict with in your own lives?

In a way we wanted to make a sort of revenge fairy-tale. Fairy tales provide ways for children to think through moral problems, and to wrestle with life’s complexities. They aren’t depictions of reality, but reflect ideas about morality and humanity. We wanted the audience to think about consent, the rippling effects of trauma, how we judge women vs how we judge men, and perhaps consider those things more deeply.

In the end Miriam’s desire to punish those who have wronged her hopefully leaves the audience with a compelling ambiguity to be unpacked as they scrutinize her actions.

Tell us about the trust built between the cast and crew on-set, especially during the more intimate and grim scenes and tense conversations. How do you build that comfort level?

It’s really just about having open, honest conversations. We spent a lot of time with the actors during prep and rehearsals just talking, and building friendships. We are dedicated to creating a comfort level where actors can be completely transparent and open with us, so that when we ask them to go somewhere they know we are there guiding the process and aren’t afraid to take big risks.

To survivors of trauma, what do you hope this movie provides in its story?

We hope to provide a new take on the revenge genre - one that explores rape from a different angle and context - with the focus of the narrative much more on the psychological ramifications of trauma. We aren’t looking to tell anyone what to take away from the film, and we made Violation as much for people with no experience with trauma as for people who understand these murky waters. Really we hope the film sparks thought, discussion, and empathy.

You met at the 2015 TIFF Talent Lab; what drew you together as a filmmaking team? What advice do you have for artists/filmmakers looking for their own collaborators?

It’s hard to pinpoint exactly what drew us together - it’s sort of an intangible thing. We developed a very candid friendship that we thought might translate well to a working relationship. Luckily it did!

Shortly after the Talent Lab we decided to work together on two short films, Slap Happy and Woman in Stall. Until directing these shorts neither of us had really had ‘fun ’making a film. Filmmaking was a drive, but it wasn’t a joy. These shorts gave us a totally new perspective, where we actually had a good time workshopping the script, creating a visual style, and just challenging each other. By the time we were making our third short, Chubby, we had decided to officially form a creative partnership.

We definitely approach filmmaking from different perspectives and with complementary strengths, but we don’t say ‘this is your thing and this is mine.’ We work collaboratively on every part of the process, and we built this unique way of working through our shorts, so that when we got the funding to make Violation (through Telefilm’s Talent to Watch program) we already had a solid method that works for us.

In terms of advice it really helps to know how you like to work before looking for a collaborator. Then it’s just about experimenting. It is very much trial and error. Don’t try to force a collaboration that isn’t working for you. There is no shame in a creative relationship not working out. But also it is important to be flexible and open to compromise - that’s how ideas flourish and grow. If you are too rigid then maybe collaboration is not right for you.

Going from short films to your debut feature with Violation, what new challenges did you face and how did you overcome them?

The endurance required to make a feature was something we weren’t prepared for. At about day 3 we turned to each other, totally exhausted, and were like: “there’s 30 more days of this.” It was brutally draining. Honestly every day brought its own unique challenges and problems to overcome, but we had such a strong, supportive team that it made each mountain a little easier to climb.

Aside from yourselves, who are some other up and coming Canadian filmmakers viewers should keep their eyes on?

Grace Glowicki and Ben Petrie are both doing really interesting work. Grace’s film Tito is a disturbingly good character study that builds a terrifying sense of dread. Ben’s short Her Friend Adam is one of our favourites, and he’s about to make his first feature.

Is there anything further you’d like to add or share, perhaps what you are currently working on?

Right now we are writing a slow burning mystery thriller and a twisted dark comedy. That’s about all we can reveal at the moment!

Thank you to Madeleine Sims-Fewer and Dusty Mancinelli for providing us with further insight into Violation! Visit their official website for more information on their projects.

1 note · View note

innuendostudios · 5 years

Video

youtube

We hit 200k subscribers! Holy heck! Here’s a small, celebratory video collecting my favorite bits and pieces that got cut from other videos.

If you like this, or the videos these bits were removed from, consider backing me on Patreon.

Transcript below the cut.

The Artist is Absent

If I tell you about what I did yesterday, you do what? You take a bunch of sights, sounds, tastes, smells from your experience and stick them together in your head into a complex picture of my experience? Well, that’s what I’m doing when I use my memory. I don’t have a prefab image of what’s happened to me in my life that I break down into pieces when I describe it to you; the act of remembering is building up from pieces, reconstructing reality from a mass of tiny sensations, and all a memory is is a set of instructions for which ones to assemble and how. This act is performed every time a thing is remembered. And the difference between my memory and your imagination is that, having lived it, I have way more sense memories than I could ever communicate, and the knowledge that mine actually happened to me. Those are really the only differences; you could characterize memory as “imagining things that actually happened,” or imagination as “remembering things that didn’t.”

The Artist is Absent 2

OK, quickie sidebar on what the meaning of “meaning” is in this context. I don’t want anyone to trip over this term and think I’m saying all art is part of some grand design, like I’m going to argue The Avengers is an allegory for the Bay of Pigs or something. I’m not using “meaning” in a lofty sense. If you wanna argue that the only substance to The Avengers is “it’s fun,” that’s cool. That’s still a meaning, but it’s perfectly valid if that’s all there is to it.

...I mean, that’s not all there is to it, it’s also about family, and about how being in a family with people who are different from you can make you a better person. It can teach you the value of selflessness, or the value of compassion over mercenary coldness, or the value of accepting yourself and your flaws, or help you fit your idealism into the modern world, or… deliver exposition, because Thor doesn’t have an arc in this movie.

But you see my point! All I mean by “meaning” is that there is an answer to the question, “Why does this exist?” If someone made it, they had to have a reason, anything from “I wanted to change the world” to “I wanted to make money” to “I was bored.” Those aren’t all great answers, but they’re answers.

Also, all creators exist within their culture, which means their works are products of that culture, and their contents will either reflect or differ from that culture’s values. Like, the fact that all the central characters in The Avengers save one are white, and all save one are men, means something. We can debate the whats and wherefores of that meaning and how much that meaning matters, but since things like race, gender, the military, and New York City, mean things to our society, they can’t not mean things in our movies.

And, let’s be honest: following The Avengers, Tony has PTSD from being a rescue worker during Something Very Bad that Happened in New York, and SHIELD dramatically expands the surveillance state and employs Cap in fighting terrorist threats, so, while not the Bay of Pigs, The Battle of New York is doing work as a 9/11 allegory. Both of these movies have been praised for exactly that.

But, let’s follow through: in our 9/11 allegory, the US government could not have possibly predicted nor prevented the bad Guys’ invasion, America is wholly innocent and has had no political or social impact on the Bad Guys, the Bad Guys are literally inhuman, and any amount of violence against them is justified, up to and including the Good Guys nuking them.

But whatever.

Bringing Back What’s Stolen

OK. A lot of psychoanalytic film writing comes from the 70’s, 80’s, and early 90’s, including gender analysis of horror films, and it can read a little Freudian: gender essentialist, heteronormative, and obsessed with the D. “Does this empowered woman look feminine? Well, she’s holding a gun, and I’ve got news for you: guns are penises. She’s smoking a cigarette, and cigarettes are penises. She’s wearing high heels, and high heels are penises. That slit in her dress that shows off her long legs? [Long Legs Are Penises]”

It’s a bit Second Wave-y. And not completely off-base! Like, I get it, Laura, sometimes a knife is a dick. (Symbolically, I mean.) But sometimes a stiletto is just a stiletto.

Bringing Back What’s Stolen 2

I want to stress that a trope does not define a character, and does not, alone, make her or the movie around her bad. I love a number of the characters I’ve cited. But when a movie, even a great movie, tells me, “Don’t worry, this woman is violent, but we’re not saying women at large are as strong or violent as men,” I feel condescended to. The lengths some movies go to soothe my ego, like I’m a seven-year-old who’s going to throw his toys against the wall, strike me as a big waste of time that could be spent on the more interesting parts of the movie. I’ll take another shootout any day.

WSGT3

Imagine you’re called onstage to do a cold reading of a two-person scene from a play you’ve never read. You don’t know the story, the characters, or even the stage directions. And the director hands out only one script to the other actor. You will have to improvise all your lines. The other actor knows the premise, knows the story, but they still need you to make the scene work. The person who knows what happens is trying to signal everything you need to you without straying from the script, while you attempt to discover your role in the story and perform it at the same time. That is the attention that must be paid. And, together, you try to make a story.

This is an exercise my acting teacher used to do with us, to get us listening to the other actors in a scene instead of just waiting for our cues. And this is how an adventure game feels.

DOOM

It was 1993, and we all knew about DOOM. It had a reputation. Many of us learned it existed with the same breath that forbid from playing it, in the same way we were forbidden from watching Beavis & Butt-head or Terminator 2. We didn’t have those kinds of parents. But most of us knew someone who did.

We came to learn three things about DOOM: that was intended for grown-ups, that our access to it was scarce, and that having not played meant getting teased by those who had. Some of us never asked if playing it interested us, we simply knew playing it was important.

And when we played - and we did play, on whatever computer someone had secreted the shareware version onto - it was like nothing we’d ever seen before. Amazing and terrifying, in the way that a kid alone in the house watching their first skin flick finds it shocking, because half-naked women and simulated sex are so far outside their limited experience. We had never seen anything close to this, and it unsettled us at first. But we played.

The titillation of an art student drawing a nude model lasts for the few moments between the dropping of the robe and the touching of charcoal to paper. Then nakedness becomes just another series of lines to render. We acclimated. When we fired our shotguns into an enemy, soon enough all we saw was an obstacle neutralized. We saw a series of lines elegantly intersecting a series of boxes. That’s not what our parents saw. Our parents saw an imp howling in pain as its ribcage burst from its chest.

And so part of playing DOOM became learning how to defend it. “I play DOOM for the gameplay” became a generation’s “I read Playboy for the articles.” When we got caught, we tried to explain the the lines and the boxes: The bullet wounds were just there to let you know when you’d hit your target. The space marine’s bleeding face was just there to tell at a glance how your health was doing. The enemies were Satanic hellspawn just to make it perfectly clear their function was to be dispatched by your shotgun. What we wouldn’t say was that all these things could be accomplished through other means, without blood, but we didn’t want to play Chex Quest.

What we couldn’t put into words, most especially under threat of punishment, was that, while the blood and gore wasn’t why we wanted to keep playing, it was usually why we sat down in the first place. DOOM was good, but being good wasn’t what made it important; it was important because it was illicit. Yes, we were kids, and we probably would play a game that offered us nothing but brutal violence, but if the lines didn’t pleasingly intersect the boxes we would soon stop playing. DOOM is loved today because there was more to it than that. Blood was captivating, but it wasn’t enough - we sat down, but we did not stay, for blood alone. What our parents could rarely put into words was that us no longer seeing the blood was part of what worried them.

Indivisible Talk

These are some fundamentals I want you to keep in mind as we look at the Right.

Everybody’s people. When I talk about the difference between the Right and the Left, I’m not saying “the Right does this and the Left does that.” I’m talking about things all humans do, and the difference between the Right and the Left is a matter of scale and proportion. If I say “the Left values data over gut feelings” or “the Right values family over extended community,” obviously everyone values all of those things. It’s a question of how they’re prioritized. But small differences in our priorities can lead to dramatically different worldviews. So when I say “the Right does X,” don’t get too hung up on whether the Left also sometimes does X, but try think about how it manifests on the Right versus the Left and what those differences between them mean.

People vote their beliefs, not their self-interest. The Left tends to ask things like, “Why would working-class voters who depend on Obamacare vote for the party that wants to repeal Obamacare? They must have been lied to.” And I won’t deny that a lot of lies were involved, but it’s a mistake to think people only vote for what’s good for them. It seems like this should be obvious; I mean, why do I vote to have my taxes raised to pay for someone else’s education, someone else’s food stamps? We tend to answer that by arguing it is in my self-interest, that a well-fed and well-educated population leads to a stronger economy and a richer culture, and that this will trickle down to make my life better in the long run, and I could make that case, but, really, that’s not why I do it. I believe in education, I believe in fighting poverty, and if you proved to me that neither would ever benefit me personally, I would still fight for them, because it’s the right thing to do. So when someone across the political spectrum does something that confuses us, it may be true that they are misinformed, but we can’t assume that simply correcting them will change their minds. Right or wrong, they are acting in accordance with their beliefs, they trust misinformation because it aligns with those beliefs, and, if you don’t understand what those beliefs are, you’re going to misdiagnose the problem.

Tolerance and sectarianism. A tolerant view of society is the melting pot, the idea that Real America is the combination of many different walks of life, all of which are valid and deserving of the same rights. A sectarian view thinks of one walk of life (usually one’s own) as the Real America, and this walk of life is one society should trend towards: that America is a Christian nation, English should be the national language, or the ideal family as nuclear and heterosexual. I think it’s obvious which ways the Parties lean.

But, again, these are human traits. Everyone is balancing both these impulses every day. And I don’t want us to split these into “tolerant good, in-groups bad.” Democrats who over-commit to the melting pot run into the Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance: that, if you treat every group as equally valid, including Nazis, fascists, and the Klan, you create a less tolerant society. And treating one group as a greater priority than others is logical when that group is persecuted; there is a degree to which all minority activism is defending one’s family. So it’s a matter of knowing when to be tolerant and when to be familial, and coalition-building is all about being both at the same time.

End

Um. So. I’m not sure how to end this. Uh. 200k subs! Wow! I find that number very humbling. Thank you all so much. And back me on Patreon, if you want to and if you haven’t already. There’ll be a proper video soon. Uh. What do people usually do in these things, they do Q&A’s, right? People ask you “what’s your favorite movie, book, game, comic, anime, musical, poem, album, joke”? I’ve been wondering what it says about me that all my answers would be things I experienced in my 20s, or earlier. Is it that I don’t love things the way I used to? Or is it just that, the more art you experience, the harder it is to be blown away? Like, something can be better than anything I’ve seen before, but it can’t shatter the record the way it could when I was younger. But I’m not making a video essay about that, so: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Motion of Light in Water by Samuel R. Delany, LOOM, Sandman, The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya, Hedwig and the Angry Inch, A Woman is Talking to Death by Judy Grahn, a three-way tie between In The Aeroplane Over the Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel, Lincoln by They Might Be Giants, and Onomatopoeia by Jonny 5, and the lemon cookie joke.

#video essay

47 notes · View notes

briangroth27 · 5 years

Text

Ready or Not Review

I really liked Ready or Not! It’s a very entertaining horror adventure with a healthy dose of comedy and a great lead in Samara Weaving. The supporting cast is on point too and everyone involved more than capably delivers a really fun thrill ride!

Full Spoilers...

Weaving's Grace is hoping to find a family once she marries her fiancé, Alex (Mark O’Brien), but everything goes wrong when his family tradition of playing a game each wedding night leaves her running for her life. Weaving imbues Grace with a winning way that makes her easy to root for, which is very important since we don't learn much about her interests or aspirations outside the family here. Her interactions with and reactions to the members of the Le Domas clan (along with her struggle to survive) give us a good grasp of who she is as a person (and that's just as if not more important as her biography), but I would've liked to know what she wanted out of life beyond a family and a solid home. Given no one in the movie really gets those details, however, it doesn't feel like she was slighted or underwritten. Her drive to have a family after living through foster homes was strong enough to give her a relatable goal and to fuel the tragedy that what she wants demands her death. The movie sends her through the ringer and Weaving absolutely sold Grace's growing confidence and grit in the face of so many would-be killers. She wasn't ever helpless or short of the ability to defend herself, but carving out an independent life apart from what she wanted was handled really well as the metaphorical component to her literal struggle to survive. I really liked that her most deliberate murder was the one that also eliminated any chance of a happy marriage to Alex, since she kills his mom Becky (Andie MacDowell), whom he loved her more than his new wife.

The script and direction did a great job of balancing Alex’s wish that he was different from his family with the dawning truths that he really did believe as they did and that he would choose them over Grace. The very act of putting her in a situation that could lead to her death without telling her—even if the Hide & Seek card hadn't been drawn in 30 years—was a huge red flag and I'm glad they followed through to the conclusion of that plot point. The romantic music swelling when he told Grace he'd proposed to her because she'd leave him otherwise didn't convince me that he was a good guy (he would have explained why they couldn’t get married or just let her go rather than risk her life if he really loved her), so I was happy the movie used the romantic music as a trick instead of a true emotional beat. There were other small hints at his turn along the way, so his was a nicely-constructed and acted arc too.

Alex’s brother Daniel (Adam Brody) was initially drawn as sleazy and unlikable, so I wasn’t expecting either of the moments where he helps Grace escape. I definitely didn’t think he’d turn out to be the best of his clan, particularly given his role in the last Hide & Seek game they played. However, I fully bought his turn after Brody and the movie showed the toll his choice back then had taken on him and how exhausted with everything about his family he was. Most of the Le Domas family were pretty affable on the surface (accounting for niceties at a wedding), and the actors and writers crafted a nice blend of reasons for them to stick with the family as well as some very entertaining comic relief within the group. Like Grace, we don’t hear a lot about their goals or dreams, but through the writing and performances it was easy to see who these people were from their actions and interactions alone. I did believe that they were truly hoping the Hide & Seek card wasn’t pulled and not just because they knew they’d all be terrible at hunting a person. That obviously doesn’t excuse any of their actions—they still put Grace in that position and immediately went through with trying to kill her to save themselves and the family business—but I liked that the movie took the step of giving them a bit of humanity before carrying out their ritual. That actually made them scarier, since people who do evil, selfish things are still people and pretending that only inhuman monsters are murderers (or racists, sexists, white supremacists, etc.) is dangerous.

There are some solid foils set up for Grace amongst the women of the Le Domas family. Becky is who Grace might want to be: the outsider welcomed into the family so that she can build a large one of her own and in doing so, find a stable home. They have the closest bond, come from similar lower class backgrounds, and the movie makes note of them both being smokers, providing another small connection between them (even if Grace lies about it to impress Becky). The ironically-named Charity (Elyse Levesque) is the cliché reflection of Grace (and possibly how we’d expect a wealthy family to see someone joining them from the lower classes): she’s literally there for the money and security that being part of this family provides. Emilie (Melanie Scrofano) is Grace without her grit (and what Grace hopes the family doesn’t see her as): a screw-up in over her head who has no idea what she’s doing, but who’s desperate to impress the family. Aunt Helene (Nicky Guadagni), on the other hand, is who Grace could be if she were all grit and devotion to the family. Looking at them this way had me wondering if the men in the Le Domas clan are foils for Alex as well. Daniel is set up as the red herring evil brother and their trajectories are opposites: Alex left but never really “left” the family while Daniel stayed, but that only allowed him to stew in how terrible they all are. Fitch (Kristian Bruun) does bring up cutting and running once, but ultimately he’s fully willing to go along with the ritual and between Alex fleeing the family and Daniel drinking himself into snark, before Alex’s turn Fitch is kind of the best son Tony (Henry Czerny) has (even if he’s a son-in-law, ensuring he’ll never be treated like blood). Tony’s devoted to the ritual and will absolutely kill to protect his family, though he wishes he didn’t have to. He’s what Alex probably would have become had Grace pulled a different card. Emilie and Fitch’s sons Georgie (Liam MacDonald) and Gabe (Ethan Tavares) also mirror Daniel and Alex, with one of them being hidden for most of the movie and the other taking part in the family’s ritual “because everyone else was doing it.”

Since I saw the first trailer, I was hoping Mr. Le Bael would be a real demon, so I absolutely loved that he actually was mystically sustaining this family’s fortune in exchange for this ritual! Just before that reveal, when it seemed nothing would happen to the family for not killing Grace before dawn, the family’s awkward “well shoot…what do we do now?” moment was played perfectly, so that was a bit of the best of both worlds. I thought Grace was going to have to fight off the whole family at once somehow, since they’d still have to kill her to get away with it. However, the parade of exploding devil worshipers that followed instead was a fitting end to these terrible people: they’re all brought down by the thing they thought would make their dreams come true (which is a nice parallel to Grace’s biggest dream turning into a nightmare). I thought Mr. Le Bael might offer Grace a deal of her own for surviving the night, but I’m glad he just gave her a nod of approval instead.

The violence throughout the film expertly walks the same cartoony/serious line that the tone of the whole movie does. That’s very hard to do while still keeping the stakes high, but this movie completely and consistently pulls it off. There’s a lot of gore (though not too gross-out graphic IMO) that’s used well to comedic effect, until Grace starts getting injured and it takes a turn to decidedly not comedic; then they play the seriousness and pain of those injuries just as effectively. While the accidental deaths are comical, I wish they weren’t solely reserved for women (Hanneke Talbot, Celine Tsai, and Daniela Barbosa, who play the Le Dormas maids), though I suppose that’s the comment on these villains: this rich family didn’t care about their value beyond bemoaning how well they’d served them.

Criticisms of the upper class like that are effectively deployed throughout the film, from joining/maintaining a ridiculously wealthy family being the only way several characters think they can have a good/secure life, to the only non-white people associated with the family being among their hired and quickly-forgotten help, to their fortune being built on games rather than socially-helpful endeavors (not that diversions aren’t important) as if they’ve never had to take anything but this ritual seriously (not to mention the literal deal with the devil alleviating any hard work they might’ve had to do to make said fortune), to the flimsy “this is just how I was raised” excuse Alex and Georgie give. Given that the butler Stevens (John Ralston), Tony, and Helene are the most effective/vicious hunters, there’s also a vibe that the old white people are the ones fighting hardest to maintain their traditions (sometimes even if they know they don’t make sense anymore) and way of life by using the younger generation as expendable pawns and targets. Even when outside authority figures are trying to be helpful, they’re ultimately playing into the Le Domas family’s interests instead of the common person’s, like when Grace explains that she’s being hunted and the family car’s security agent Justin (Nat Faxon) turns the car off (since it’s been reported stolen) while offering half-meant hopes (and prayers?) that she makes it out alive.

The score is fun (and the Hide & Seek song is very creepy!), while the production design of the Le Domas mansion and the movie in general feels perfectly fitting for this kind of story (as others online have pointed out). The pacing is excellent, giving us enough time to get to know Grace and her new family in the first act before everything goes crazy, which also gives her a glimpse of the life she wants before ripping it away and lets them play some relatable “dealing with the in-laws” gags. Once the game begins, the comedy and thrills don’t stop until the end!

Ready or Not continues the steady build of solid horror movies heading into the Halloween season this year! I can’t wait to pick it up on Blu-ray. It’s definitely a blast and it’s more than worth a trip to the theater to see it!

Check out more of my reviews, opinions, and original short stories here!

#ready or not

17 notes · View notes

findmyrupertfriend · 4 years

Link

BY CHRISTINA RADISH AUGUST 18, 2018

From creator Mark Heyman and based on the book of the same name, the drama series Strange Angel is inspired by the real life story of Jack Parsons (Jack Reynor), an ambitious blue-collar worker in 1930s Los Angeles who helps to pioneer the unknown discipline of rocket science, as he dreams of building rockets that will take mankind to the moon. After meeting his eccentric neighbor, Ernest Donovan (Rupert Friend), he finds himself pulled into a new occult religion, created by Aleister Crowley, that performs sex magick rituals meant to turn fantastical dreams into reality.

Collider recently got the opportunity to chat 1-on-1 with actor Rupert Friend about the series, for which the full 10-episode season is available to stream at CBS All Access. During the interview, he talked about why he initially hesitated about signing on for the project, what appealed to him about playing Ernest Donovan, having one of the most memorable character introductions ever, being bummed about the things he wasn’t allowed to do himself, getting a custom-made wardrobe, working with such a talented line-up of directors, and the future plan for the series. He also talked about playing Theo Van Gogh and working with director Julian Schnabel for At Eternity’s Gate, along with playing a fun cameo in Paul Feig’s upcoming movie A Simple Favor, opposite Blake Lively.

Collider: I know that when you were sent the synopsis for Strange Angel, you initially resisted signing on for it. What was it that made you hesitate about the project, initially?

RUPERT FRIEND: The thing was that I didn’t have a huge amount of time to consider it. I was getting on a plane to go to the Antarctic, where there’s, thankfully, no phone signal or wi-fi, or anything. The script landed – or all of the scripts landed – with, “You need to decide now because we don’t have time for you to take a couple of weeks to read it. We start shooting in a couple weeks.” I was like, “Oh, hell, okay.” The synopsis that they sent was very, very interesting, apropos Jack Parsons. I didn’t know about him, and he is just an endlessly fascinating figure. I thought that was a pretty damn good basis to begin a television show with. But the guy they wanted me to play, they had likened to a Kenneth Anger figure. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with that guy, but he’s a filmmaker and has been involved with various cults, at various points in his life. I just had this sinking feeling that I would be sacrificing virgins under a full moon, or something, and I didn’t really fancy that. But then, I read the first script and met Ernest Donovan, as we all have, those of us that have seen it now, and just was completely charmed and bewildered by this man, answering the door with a goat in his arms. Every episode that I read, the more sucked in I was, and the more I found him to be completely compelling and fascinating, if a little perplexing, at times.

I think Ernest really has one of the most amazing introductions of a character, ever, coming to the door holding a goat with no explanation, and it just kind of is. What was it like to have to pull that off? Was that a weird scene to film, having a goat that you have to carry around?

FRIEND: Yeah. It was actually one of the first scenes that we did. No one had been forewarned about anything, particularly. It was great, because as you very rightly said, it just is. It’s incredibly surreal, but a brilliant bit of writing by the guys because all of your antennae are just freaked out. You’ve met this quite suburban, domesticated couple, Jack and Susan Parsons, and then their neighbor couldn’t be more different. That, of course, is the beginning of Jack’s pull to exploring his spiritual and sensual side. But practically speaking, obviously, it’s a real goat and it was adorable. He peed on me, quite a lot. There was one take where he got a bit bored and did a big old wriggle in my arms. They weigh like a big dog. They’re not nothing. He just gave this almighty kick, and he kicked the screen clear off the door. It was really brilliant. I don’t think they used that take, in the end, probably because Bella [Heathcote] laughed because it was all getting so ridiculous.

It seems like it would have been hard not to have a little bit of a laugh when someone is trying to get through a scene while holding a goat.

FRIEND: Oh, yeah. Every take, the main problem was more about Jack [Reynor] and Bella not laughing.

This is a character that really has allowed for the opportunity to do a lot of different things that you wouldn’t typically get to do, especially with one character. What’s been the most fun aspect of that, and was there anything that was particularly challenging or difficult to do?

FRIEND: You’re quite right, every script was just a complete adventure playground of wonderful, zany, out-there things that Ernest decides to do. The only bummer for me, to be perfectly honest, were the things that I wasn’t allowed to do. I ride a motorcycle, in real life, but wasn’t allowed to do the motorcycling, even at one or two miles per hour, because they didn’t wear helmets back then. I get that it’s for safety, but that was a bummer. And then, with flying the plane, which was an original ‘30s biplane and a thing of absolute beauty, the original idea was that this very, very accomplished pilot would fly with each of us, in the different seats, and the cameras moved around, so that we actually would go up with the plane. On the day, it was too windy. I was like a kid at Christmas who had his toys taken away. I was so upset. I was like, “This is proper flying.” It’s not like getting into a modern jet. It’s basically like sitting in a taxi or something. It was a fiberglass, wood and canvas thing, and it felt visceral and alive, in a way that I’d never felt in a conventional, modern aircraft. I definitely got bitten by that bug. One of my resolutions, post doing Strange Angel, is definitely to try to get up in some of those older aircraft again.

The surroundings on set seem like they must have been so beautiful that it was just a giant distracting playground with so many things to look at and play with and do, and then there’s the wardrobe. Was this just a really cool set to be on?

FRIEND: Yeah. Good spot on the wardrobe because J.R. Hawbaker, who designed the costumes, and I were allowed to really go to town and reference everyone from [Willem] de Kooning to Norman Mailer to E.E. Cummings to Jack Kerouac. All of those people were in our sphere, when we were building Ernest. She just let it fly with a lot of beautiful custom-made pieces, just for me. She did such an incredible job. Then, there were the cars and the motorbikes. It really is a postcard to California and the beauty of California that people were discovering in the ‘30s, and that’s still the same. There orange orchards where the plane flies is all the same as it was, and just as beautiful.

This is a show that’s definitely very hard to describe and explain to people because there are so many elements to it. Was that part of the appeal of it for you? Do you like the fact that this is a show that can’t be pinned down, as one thing?

FRIEND: Take a wild guess. I love it! There are plenty of shows about doctors and nurses, and about cops and robbers. This is a show, as you rightly said, that you can’t really describe, which probably makes it very hard to market. But I think the rewards are in the watching because it’s a rich, layered story, 98% of which is completely true. It’s written brilliantly, and I think it’s a world where, once you delve into it, you’re excited to see where it will take you. I’m glad that it’s undefinable.

I think these characters are all so interesting. I wonder about what each of them are up to when we’re not seeing them.

FRIEND: Well, that’s a great compliment to the writing. There’s that iceberg philosophy of writing, where you don’t see the iceberg, but you know it’s there. That was a Hemingway trope. It’s the idea that all of these people are obviously living lives, it’s just that the filmmakers have decided which chunks we’re going to get to see of those lives.

You had some pretty great directors on this, throughout the season. Were there any directors that you particularly liked working with, that you’d like to work with again?

FRIEND: Yeah, David Lowery, who directed the first two. I just adored working with him. Pretty much the moment we finished the season, he and I began talking about doing a film together. And Ben Wheatley is a rare talent, too. Kate Dennis, who did the finale, was a blast. There wasn’t any bad one. Ernest Dickerson is great. There were no bad apples in the barrel.

By the end of the season, it’s clear that this story definitely isn’t finished being told. Have you heard anything about a second season, or where things could go for your character? Is this someone you’d like to keep playing?

FRIEND: I know that, when Mark Heyman conceived of this, he conceived of the story as a five-year arc. Obviously, Jack Parsons was a real person. He was working for the American government in the war effort. He got involved with L. Ron Hubbard, who eventually ran off with his first wife. There are some pretty major American figures that feature in the Jack Parsons story, and there’s definitely more to be told. Ernest is a made-up character. In a way, I find that even more exciting. One of the things we explored a lot is that, yeah, he’s a bit wild and all the rest of it, but there’s something really spiritual going on, in terms of him trying to find a sense of self and trying to find who he is. It’s not a new search, but in that time, reflection and self-reflection like that wasn’t really in the cards. People just got married, got mortgages, got lawn mowers, and then died. They didn’t do spiritual self-analysis. One of the things that I know the team wants to explore with the character is, what happens if you push that to the nth degree? In the way that we’ve seen how Ernest tends to push everything to its limits, what happens if you push that search to its conclusion and come out the other side? I know that there’s plenty of very, very exciting stuff to build on. I haven’t seen the episodes, but I read them, obviously, and at that the end of Episode 10, there’s something of a cliffhanger.

Ernest is such an unpredictable character. He’s this free-wheeling guy, who’s wild and reckless, but he also has a pain to him and a curiosity. There are so many things at work with him that it makes him fascinating to watch, and I would imagine really interesting to explore.

FRIEND: Well, thank you, and yeah, it is. Just when you think he’s the macho guy, there he is, broken and beaten and wounded, in every way. Just when you think he’s turned his back on someone, he’s doing something incredibly selfless. He’s constantly surprising, for sure. There’s something very freeing about playing somebody who is, if not made up, definitely an amalgam of themes and ideas and feelings while Jack is a real character and there’s a bible of his life that we can follow. Playing the two against each other leads for a pretty fascinating study of some early bromance, I guess.

You’ve also played Theo Van Gogh, opposite Willem Dafoe and for director Julian Schnabel, in At Eternity’s Gate, which seems amazing. How did you find the experience of making that film, working with those people, and playing that character?

FRIEND: It was an incredible part, and it’s full of actors that I would have been lucky to be in a film with, and they’re all in the same film, like Mads Mikkelsen, Oscar Isaac, Emmanuelle Seigner, Mathieu Amalric and, obviously, the great Willem Dafoe. We actually just found out that the film will close the New York Film Festival in October, which is a great bit of news. And working with Willem is wonderful because he is 100% in every moment, which sounds like a bit actor hippy-dippy, but he really is one of the best living actors. I was very, very fortunate to play most of my scenes with him. Julian is a wonderfully esoteric filmmaker who trusts his actors absolutely, and he looks at what he’s looking at with the eye of an artist. To make a film about such a brilliant artist as Van Gogh, it really had to be an artist making the film. Van Gogh was anything but traditional. I think that’s why Schnabel is the perfect guy to make that film. I think that film is coming out in the fall, so you won’t have to wait too long to see it.

Is it odd to switch gears and go do a Paul Feig movie and make something like A Simple Favor, which seems again to be very different from what we’ve seen you do?

FRIEND: I basically play a cameo in that one. It’s a noir, but there’s an element of comedy. Anna [Kendrick] is so talented at that, and Paul is obviously a master at comedy. I’m playing Blake Lively’s boss, who is a fashion designer, so it’s something completely different and I hope sort of silly. I thought it was hilarious. It’s a little part, but I just thought it was a very funny part. We’ll see.

Do you find that it’s hard to come across the kind of roles that attract you, as an actor?

FRIEND: It’s difficult because everyone in our business, whether you’re an agent, an actor, producer, or whatever you are, is trying to look for a formula. The truth is, you don’t know until you read it. When you read something that appeals to you, for me, it’s like when you’re at a party and you see someone and you think, “Oh, I’d really like to get to know them. They seem interesting. They seem like they have a different world view than me. Maybe we would make each other laugh.” Sometimes you meet them, and then people get in the way of your view and they’re not where they were and you don’t get to talk to them. That feeling is a bit like when you’re reading a script. It’s not about going, “Oh, look, this is the biggest part,” or “This is the one with the most lines.” As you can probably tell from what I’ve done, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. It’s more like, “Yeah, I only saw him in two scenes, but I think that they’re the most fun two scenes in the movie.”

The characters you play are all so interesting and so different that I like to check out what you’re doing because I know that it will at least be unexpected and that I’ll most likely really enjoy myself.

FRIEND: That’s a great compliment. Thank you very, very much. You’re my perfect audience. It might not work, but you’re like, “Well it’s not going to be dull, and I’m going to be intrigued by why would you do that.” Well, there’s one more in the menagerie of last year’s work that is coming out. I did the second season of a crazy little show on Adult Swim, called Dream Corp LLC. It’s on at midnight, and each episode is quite short. It’s a very insane and wonderfully wacky comedy where people come into this laboratory and let a doctor go inside their dreams to fix a neurosis or a problem, and the dreams are all rotoscopes. When you’re in the dreamworld, it’s all beautifully animated. For the second season, they got a bunch of different guest stars. It’s me, Liam Neeson did one, and Jimmi [Simpson] from Westworld did one. We’re all half in the real world and half in the animated world. I spent my episode with a real tarantula on my face for a lot of it, which was something that was completely different. That may or may not be your thing, but it definitely won’t be boring.

#words with friend #rupert friend #strange angel #collider #august 2018

4 notes · View notes

cooperenjoys · 7 years

Text

Top Ten Movies of 2016

This is my thirteen (going on 30) year of doing a list of my top ten (Eleven) movies of the year. You should make a comment of some kind! And if you don’t see your favorite film, tell me. Enjoy Movies.

10. Love & Friendship: Whit Stillman + Jane Austin = A funny and wonderful film that any Jane Austin fan should see right away. Love & Friendship is pure breezy wit from beginning to end, and with so many verbal punch lines that you won’t be able to catch every joke in one viewing. Kate Beckinsale proves again that she is way more than the Underworld movies. And Tom Bennett is an actor to keep an eye on since he steals every scene he is in. Film Fact: Kate Beckinsale's first theatrical release in almost four years.

9. Don’t Breathe: Fede Alvarez + home invasion = A grind house thriller ride that never lets up. Fede Alvarez has done it again after his well done remake of Evil Dead. Alvarez exploits the sensory impairment of his villain for one suspenseful set piece after another, demonstrating a strong command of his craft while investing the mayhem with some sly subtext, both economic and moral. Mostly, though, Don’t Breathe is an exercise in pure, sustained intensity that never lets up until the final frames. A must see for any one that loves thrillers. Film Fact: Stephen Lang wore contact lenses that greatly restricted his vision, particularly in low light. The other actors, in the scene taking place in the dark, wore lenses that made them look like they had dilated pupils but also greatly restricted their vision.

8. Arrival: Denis Villeneuve (Sicario) + Aliens = One of best films of the off the year that appeals to the intellect just as strongly as it appeals to the heart. In a film that explores language and characters, it allows the viewer to experience the depth and wonders of what language means, what it’s for, and what it can do. Also, how we communicate alters our perceptions. I have been enjoying this trend of recent years of smart science fiction and I am really excited to see what Denis Villeneuve does with the new Blade Runner. (I wrote almost the same line last year for Sicario.) Film Fact: Director Denis Villeneuve and screenwriter Eric Heisserer created a fully functioning, visual, alien language. Heisserer, Vermette and their teams managed to create a "logogram bible," which included over a hundred different completely operative logo-grams, seventy-one of which are actually featured in the movie.

7. Deadpool/ Captain America: Civil War: Ryan Reynolds + Rated R Superhero film = Gold. And Superheroes fighting each other + Actually a good Spiderman = Nerd dreams. I am happy that Ryan Reynolds finally got to be the correct version of Deadpool and got to do the film correctly. Deadpool was a hilarious, crass, and ironic film that did something certain audiences have been waiting for, something different and that is why its highest grossing R-rated movie of all time. I am hoping Logan follows this trend of something different. Film Fact: 20th Century Fox refused to pay the writers of the film, Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, for onset input, Ryan Reynolds paid out of his own pocket for them to be onset to look over the film. While Captain America: Civil War had phenomenal action sequences and good character development, it also redeemed the not fantastic Avengers: Age of Ultron and cleansed the palette for the next Spider-Man movie. I can actually say that I am excited for the next Spider-Man movie thanks to this movie. I can also say this was the essence of a classic Marvel comic come to life: the melodramatic angst, the team-ups and the in-fighting between characters. Everything my teenage self would have wanted. Film Fact: The day before filming a fight scene with Robert Downey Jr., Sebastian Stan sent him a video of himself doing intense bicep curls in front of the decapitated head of an Iron Man suit. He attached the message, ‘Looking forward to our scene tomorrow Robert.’

6. Moonlight: Alex R. Hibbert + Ashton Sanders + Trevante Rhodes = Three amazing actors playing one character through many stages of his life. Moonlight is a stunning piece of filmmaking that is beautiful shot. Barry Jenkins used a shoestring budget to create a heart warming story of a boy growing, learning and finally accepting just who he is. There is so much I want to say about this film but I rather it is a surprise when you see it. I can say that Mahershala Ali is amazing in it too and that he deserves an Oscar for this role. Film Fact: When Juan teaches Little how to swim, Mahershala Ali is really teaching Alex R. Hibbert how to swim. When production started, Hibbert did not know how to swim.

5. Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping: The Lonely Island + Mockumentarie = Box office failer, but Soon to be Cult classic (I hope). I have to say I enjoyed every second of this movie. While this movie has its silly moments that I enjoyed, I do feel it digs deep into the absurdities of not just the music business, but the nature of the music documentary. Couple that with genuinely great songs like “Equal Rights”, “Finest Girl (Bin Laden Song)”, and “Incredible Thoughts” and I feel like it is absolutely worthy of standing alongside other faux music docs like A Mighty Wind or This Is Spinal Tap. This is a movie I will be watching over and over again and finding new things to laugh about every time. And after writing this, all I want to do is stop writing and go watch it again. Film Fact: A small clip from a Lonely Island video "Kablamo" is seen in the movie.

4. Midnight Special: Jeff Nichols + Michael Shannon = Another Fantastic movie on my top ten list. Jeff Nichols is on a string of fantastic movies. He is the Director of the fantastic film Mud that was on my top ten list last year. He also directed another film getting a lot of hype this year, Loving. In the middle of those two films he decided to make a somewhat-Spielbergian sci-fi/adventure that manages to be both grounded and awe-inspiring. And he did what he always has done and hired the wonderful Michael Shannon to be in the movie, this time giving him a bigger role. Jeff Nichols also surrounded Michael Shannon with other great actors: Kirsten Dunst, Joel Edgerton, Adam Driver, Sam Shepard and young Jaeden Lieberher. This all together makes Midnight Special a lively and riveting movie that trusting its audience in a way few movies of this scope dare to be anymore. Its gets my award for best sci-fi of the year and continues the trend of smart science fiction movies. Film Fact: Jeff Nichols wrote the film as a reflection on becoming a father.

3. Manchester by the Sea: Kenneth Lonergan + Casey Affleck + Michelle Williams = Cryfest. I have to start out that you will cry in this movie...well, at least I did. Don’t let that scare you away from the wonderful film because while this movie is a sad movie, it’s also hilarious and sweet and frustrating movie. The movie is just about Life, how messy and strange and sometimes incomprehensible it can be. Kenneth Lonergan vision of human experience and the unknowability of the human heart is shown through the fantastic actors in the film. A cast that includes Casey Affleck, Michelle Williams, Kyle Chandler (This man can do know wrong), Gretchen Mol, Matthew Broderick and a brilliant discovery Lucas Hedges. One scene with Michelle Williams and Casey Affleck has me crying just thinking about it. Go See it. Film Fact: According to an interview with Kenneth Lonergan on DP/30, the idea for the film didn't originate with him - the main core of a character going back home to take care of a family member after a death was pitched to Lonergan by Matt Damon and John Krasinski as a script that Lonergan would write and for Damon to direct. But due to scheduling conflicts with The Martian, Damon couldn't direct the film or star in it (he suggested Casey Affleck to star in the film.) Lonergan was then given free rein as a writer-director for the project, with Damon and Krasinski as producer.

2. Hunt for the Wilderpeople: Taika Waititi + New Zealand = A fun and beautiful film. In this year of hell and death, we are lucky that Taika Waititi was there to give us this cheerful film that would require a strong effort to actually dislike it. After directing the fantastic What We Do in the Shadows, Waititi turned his attention to a heart-warming pre-teen adventure that would have felt right at home in the 1980s alongside The Goonies and Stand By Me. Julian Dennison and Sam Neill play off each other so well, that every scene with them is a delight. The film also has beautiful shots of New Zealand forests. If you haven’t seen it, you are in for a real treat. Film Fact: The Toyota that main characters use is called Crumpy, in reference to Barry Crump, the author of the book the screenplay was based on. An identical vehicle was driven by Barry Crump in a long running series of Toyota commercials in New Zealand, where Barry played a bushman taking a city slicker named Scotty for a drive through the Bush. Scotty was played by Lloyd Scott, who appears in this film as "Tourist".

1. Hell or High Water: Taylor Sheridan + Western = Best film of the year. First thing that drew me into this film was the dialog. Taylor Sheridan has shown he is a brilliant screenwriter after doing this film and last year’s Sicario. (This movie keeps popping up on this list.) Sheridan has written a witty screenplay here that captures a bank-robbing cowboy movie perfectly while having a scathing commentary on the financial health of the country. The film is a perfect balance of entertaining and having something say about the state of things. The second item that helped this film is the stunning performances from Jeff Bridges, Ben Foster, Chris Pine and Gil Birmingham. I would say the best role Chris Pine has ever played. Jeff Bridges does a perfect job of being likeable and racist. And Ben Foster can do no wrong. Then there is David Mackenzie directing. He does a perfect job of showing a small buddy film but also displaying the wide open space of Texas. I loved every inch of this movie. Film Fact: The phrase "come hell or high water" typically means "do whatever needs to be done, no matter the circumstances". It also refers to the "hell or high water clause" in a contract, usually a lease, which states that the payments must continue regardless of any difficulties the paying party may encounter. Both definitions apply to different parts of the plot in this movie.

Top Ten Honourably Mention (In Alphabetical order):

Doctor Strange

Don’t Think Twice

Green Room

La La Land

Maggie’s Plan

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

Sing Street

Swiss Army Man

The Invitation

The Witch

Best Animated Movie:

Zootopia

Runner Up: Kubo and the Two Strings and Moana

Best Documentary:

O.J.: Made in America

Other Good Films of the Year:

Hail, Caesar!

Jungle Book

Nice Guys

Finding Dory

Mr. Right

Bad Moms

Sully

Eddie The Eagle

Captain Fantastic

Keanu

Everybody Wants Some!!!

The Lobster

Worst:

5. X-Men: Apocalypse

4. Star Trek Beyond (You can’t win them all Chris Pine)

3. Zoolander 2

2. Sausage Party

1. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

#Hell or High Water #Love & Friendship #don’t breathe #Arrival #Deadpool #Captain America: Civil War #Moonlight #popstar: never stop never stopping #midnight special #manchester by the sea #hunt for the wilderpeople #top ten list #top ten movies #top ten movies of 2016

2 notes · View notes

katemcgarry · 4 years

Text

Dialogue Tableau - Critical Reflection.

For our Dialogue Tableau project, I worked on Lucas’ film ‘Wardrobe Change’ with Lilith, Cameron and Robyn. And I worked as the Production Designer for the project.

As stated in a previous post from the get-go, Lucas communicated well with us all and made sure we were all comfortable sharing our ideas etc. After the initial production meeting, the majority of our communication was via our group chat which worked well in making sure we were all kept up to date with the progression of the project. Furthermore, I week or so into production myself and Lucas had a one to one meeting where we broke the script down to find all the props that needed to be sourced and what he had in mind in terms of costuming and how my work so far aligned with those ideas. This was a beneficial meeting because it positively benefited my work going forward as I had a clear picture as to what Lucas wanted from me.

My role as Production Designer was dependent on when actors and location was pinned down because until I got information about the actor's sizes or location, I was slightly restricted in terms of what I could do. Through nobodies fault but just because of the time in which we had to turn the project around in a didn’t receive confirmation of the set or actors until two or three days before the shoot. Therefore, it was a bit of a mad dash to all the charity shop within Edinburgh to try and find costumes. However, despite the mad rush, I was successful in finding costumes for actors who worked well and thankfully fitted the actors. Additionally, due to Liliths fantastic work as the producer, the location she found was perfect and needed barely any set dressing, which made my job a whole lot easier.

We shot the film on the 12th and 13th. On the 12th we went to the location for the first time and did a test at seven o'clock. However, earlier in the day Lucas and Lilith spend several hours with the actor rehearsing and blocking the shot, which was an excellent idea because it gave the actors time to get to know one another an create the chemistry needed to make them a believable couple. Additionally, carving out this time with the actors was beneficial to Lucas as he would get comfortable directing and them, it was also helpful as time on the actual shot day wouldn’t be wasted doing the blocking etc. The test shoot went well, it gave us time to rearrange the set how we wanted and set up the shot and lighting so less time would be spent on this the next day as we had less time than we would have liked considering the Screen Academy shut at 4:30 for Christmas. Therefore, Lucas and Lilith did a good job organising everything most beneficially, for the shoot.

The actual shoot day went perfectly, everyone performed well in their roles, and we worked well as a team. Due to everyone's hard before the shoot meant that everything went smoothly on the day. A special mention to Cameron who allowed us to use his car to transport ourselves and the equipment to and from the set which saved a lot of time. Additionally, when the sound equipment wasn’t working, and Robyn needed to go back to the Screen Academy to fix it having Cameron's car was a lifesaver. All in all, I really enjoyed working on this film. Lucas made the whole project feel very professional, and everyone worked well together. Additionally, I had never worked as a production designer before and found to be something I really enjoyed which was interesting.

If I were to do this again, I would definitely like more time and money to source costumes and set dressing. For example, Leo’s costume was almost there, but with a little more time, I think I could have found a more unusual shirt which Lucas had in mind. Additionally, the dress Christina was wearing was the actors own dress because I never received confirmation of her size we, therefore, had to go with a dress the actor owned. However, the dress I envisioned for Christina was more subduted and consevative.

Overall, the film turned out really well. In the CRIT we received some excellent feedback which we could take on board for future projects, and it also gave us a chance to example certain aspects of the production etc.

0 notes

jillmckenzie1 · 5 years

Text

A Man of Focus

Let’s begin with something that’s indisputable. On April 1, 2009, Alfonso Hernandez and Michael Edmonds thought it would be funny to shoot a dog dead. Why? All cruelty has ever needed to flourish is an opportunity. In this case, Hernandez and Edmonds saw a yellow Labrador puppy outside a home. They shot the dog with a .357 Magnum pistol, then stood over her body, laughing.

In addition to being evil, this was a seriously dumb move. The puppy’s name was Dasy. Her guardian was Marcus Luttrell, a SEAL team member awarded the Navy Cross for heroism in combat while serving in Afghanistan. He was the only survivor of a particularly vicious firefight. Dasy was given to Luttrell to help with the healing process. Her name is an acronym for the names of the men Luttrell served alongside.

Armed with a pistol, Luttrell snuck up on Hernandez and Edmonds. He took aim. They saw him, hopped in their car, and fled. Undeterred, Luttrell pursued them in his pickup. Across three counties. For 40 miles at speeds approaching 100 miles per hour. During the chase, Luttrell was on the phone with a 911 operator, and he was quoted as saying, “You need to get someone out here because if I catch them, I’m going to kill them.”*

Does that sound a little familiar? This is how myths are born. A real event happens. A storyteller takes the core event and runs with it. Yet a great deal of our modern mythology is found in movies, and it doesn’t all have to do with the Avengers. One of the latest additions to American film mythology, 2014’s John Wick, told the story of a grieving widower who received a preposterously cute puppy as the last gift from his wife. Assorted scumbags kill the puppy and take the widower’s car. Did I mention that the widower is a legendarily lethal assassin? The film wasn’t just a hit—it cemented itself as a benchmark, a necessary addition to action cinema. Now, the maybe-or-maybe-not conclusion of the trilogy, John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum, has arrived. Holy hell, has it ever.

All three films are tightly plotted together, and in order to understand what the heck has happened, you need to either have seen the preceding two films or read this handy recap.

In the first film, Wick (Keanu Reeves) was able to get revenge for the death of his puppy Daisy by killing a lot of bad people. When John Wick: Chapter Two gets going, Wick is immediately dealing with the theft of his car. He’s also reluctantly drawn into a plot by Santino (Riccardo Scamarcio), a crook with dreams of ascending to the High Table, the ruling council of a global criminal syndicate. Things went sideways. Wick ended up killing the hell out of Santino. Unfortunately, he did this at The Continental, a hotel for assassins and safe ground. “Conducting business” is a no-no at The Continental, and Wick conducted business extremely enthusiastically.

So, does Wick get a slap on the wrist and a stern lecture from Winston (Ian McShane), the manager of The Continental? He does not. Instead, Wick has been declared excommunicado. There’s a $14 million price on his head, and every killer is crawling out of the woodwork just to take their shot.** This is where Chapter Three begins. Wick is a pretty sharp cookie, and he has both a short-term and long-term plan.

The short-term plan is to brutally kill anyone who comes after him, and he does so hilariously at the New York Public Library. The long-term plan is to head for Casablanca, track down The Elder—the head of the High Table, and make amends. To do that, he’ll need to first ask The Director (Anjelica Huston) for help getting him out of the United States. Next, he’ll need to find Sofia (Halle Berry), a disgruntled former associate, and ask for her help. Sounds like a cakewalk, right?

While all of Wick’s globetrotting and head smashing is going on, the High Table is making its own moves. They have sent out The Adjudicator (Asia Kate Dillon) to punish everyone involved with helping Wick in the past. Both Winston and The Bowery King (Laurence Fishburne) are informed they have seven days to relinquish control of their empires. The Adjudicator has the muscle to enforce this, as she’s brought along Zero (Mark Dacascos), a sushi chef/ninja who’s also a massive fan and rival of John Wick.

These days, action/adventure movies can be broadly separated into two categories. The first is FX heavy, consisting of your MCU and Star Wars films. By utilizing CGI, filmmakers can bring us everything from Daisy Ridley jumping over a TIE fighter to Josh Brolin throwing a moon at Robert Downey Jr. There’s an artistry to CGI that, when utilized by the right people, the results can be spectacular. Equally spectacular is the second category, films that lean hard into stunt choreography. These films are like a dance, requiring intense precision and training.

John Wick: Chapter 3 is directed by Chad Stahelski, one of the most talented and innovative stunt professionals working today. Watch how he shoots action sequences. Instead of dizzying edits, we can see long takes and appreciate the extensive training his cast and crew went through. His decades of experience brought us well-shot and innovative action scenes involving gunplay, knife fights, horse-fu, motorcycle chases, death by book, and a dog running up a wall to maul a luckless henchman.*** There is an exhausting amount of action here. Stahelski has also made a genuinely gorgeous-looking film. He’s got a knack for arresting imagery, everything from neon reflected in rainy streets to golden sand dunes. It all comes together to feel operatic, bigger than a regular action movie. I loved it, and my only criticism with his direction is that the pacing occasionally feels a little sluggish.

Returning writer Derek Kolstad, along with co-writers Shay Hatten, Chris Collins, and Marc Abrams, have delivered unto us a good news/bad news scenario. The good news is that Parabellum very nearly hits the sweet spot between the intensity of the first film and the fascinating world-building of the second. We learn more about the Continental, the High Table, and even a little of the origins of Wick himself. The script also feels like a meditation on fame and how it feels. Everywhere Wick goes, people recognize him and want a piece of him, and in the end, he just wants people to leave him the hell alone so he can grieve for his wife and play with his dog.

The bad news is that as much as we learn more about the world of John Wick, we don’t learn as much about how Wick and the other characters feel about it. During the first film, Keanu Reeves digs into a meaty performance—one of the best of his career. Ever had a loved one pass away, and while you’re trying to deal with their loss, the world keeps intruding? That’s what the first film is really about—a genuinely evil man who’s given a possibly unearned chance to redeem himself, and how that redemption falls apart. At this point in the series, so much has been taken away from John Wick. If an action scene had been trimmed and a bit more time had been devoted to emotional combat, we might have had a film that delivered an even bigger impact.

There’s never a moment with the cast where I was disappointed. Laurence Fishburne’s booming hamminess. Ian McShane’s worn-out elegance. Mark Dacascos’ nerdy enthusiasm. It’s all delightful. Anjelica Huston shows up for a minute as the sly head of a school for killers, and improv legend Jason Mantzoukas even appears briefly. I thoroughly enjoyed Halle Berry as Sofia, and she’s able to bring something real to a role that was a little smaller than I would have liked. Despite having won an Academy Award, I think Berry has never quite gotten the respect she deserves as a performer. Here, she’s put in serious tactical training, dog training, and on top of all that, she delivers an emotionally touching moment.

If the John Wick franchise is an ever-expanding wheel of bizarre rituals and crazy characters, Keanu Reeves is the still center. I’d love to get a look at the script, as I suspect he has no more than 200 lines of dialogue. It’s unfortunate that the kind of acting that Reeves is doing here will go largely unappreciated. Other actors would be tempted to go big. Reeves keeps things locked down, and his legendary blankness is actually a mask of professionalism hiding a grieving man in search of a little order. Consider an early scene located at the library. Wick has gone there to retrieve some necessary supplies hidden in a book, along with a photo of his wife. An assassin takes a shot at him. They fight, and Wick uses the book as a viciously effective weapon. Once the combat has finished, Wick takes the time to put the book back exactly where it goes. That moment tells you everything you need to know, and Reeves sells it perfectly.

Is the character of John Wick really based on Marcus Luttrell and the horrific night of April 1, 2009? I don’t know. While I’ve read in some places that he was an inspiration, I suspect it doesn’t really matter. What matters in a myth isn’t necessarily its origins. Strip away the guns, blades, and mayhem, and John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum feels like an opera, myth, or folk tale. Heightened themes, a story told through violence, and a man forced to confront what he truly is.

*As a fast side note, Hernandez and Edmonds both pled guilty to animal cruelty. Hernandez got two years in state prison with a $1000 fine. They went a little easier on Edmonds, as he testified against his buddy and was sentenced to five years of felony probation.

**One of my favorite things about this franchise is the idea that New York alone is home to something like 600,000 professional killers. Think about that next time you stiff your server on the tip.

***This may look like a CGI pooch, but trust me when I tell you it ain’t. Click here to learn more about the stunt and the Very Good Boy who handled it.

from Blog https://ondenver.com/a-man-of-focus/

0 notes

kevinbsharp · 6 years

Text

The 10 Totally Best Chicago Movies

THE 10 TOTALLY BEST CHICAGO MOVIES. Yup, most of them are from the 1980’s.

Robert Redford on location in Lake Forest, Illinois, directing Timothy Hutton in Ordinary People, 1980

Like Rob Gordon, from the comedy High Fidelity (2000,) we love making lists – mostly about Chicago. Rob and his cohorts’ used their “top five lists” to bring some order to a chaotic world, and we get it. We’ve defined a “Chicago” movie, as one that was actually shot in part here, and one that captured the essence of Chicago in some magical way in the process.

But, first – just a little bit of Chicago movie history.

Chicago was the original hub for movie making at the turn of the 20th century, not New York or Los Angeles. Yes, before Hollywood went on to become, well Hollywood, it was Chicago that paved the way – of course. The city was brimming with production companies and filmmakers at the time. It was the start of the silent movie era, and Essanay Studios in particular was one of the earliest and most powerful, producing fifteen short films with Charlie Chaplin, and giving Gloria Swanson her start. But soon – with the birth of the “western,”the industry headed west. Essanay Studios was eventually absorbed by Warner Brothers, and it would be nearly seventy years before a new creative swell in filmmaking would return.

The gigantic success of two movies are largely credited with jump starting that shift; Cooley High (1975,) written by Eric Monte about his experiences coming-of-age in Chicago, (Monte wrote the hit TV shows; Good Times, The Jeffersons and What’s Happening,) and The Blues Brothers (1980.) The latter in particular was considered to have been the catalyst for ushering in a golden age of filmmaking in Chicago during the 1980s. This eventually lead to the rebirth of the “teen movie” and a trove of iconic John Hughes films; from Sixteen Candles (1985,) The Breakfast Club (1986,) Uncle Buck (1988) and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1984.)

So here goes part one of our list – It’s all completely speculative – and in no particular order.

The list (part one)

10 – HIGH FIDELITY

Released 2000; Directed by Stephen Frears ; Screenplay by John Cusack, D.V. DeVincentis and Steve Pink Starring John Cusack, Jack Black, Iben Hjejle, Todd Louis, Lisa Bonet, Tim Robbins

There are probably not many lists about favorite Chicago movies that do not include High Fidelity, and with good reason. Not only does it perfectly capture a Chicagoan man-child having a thirty-something’s identity crisis at the turn of the century, but the movie’s lead, co-screenwriter and producer is hometown golden boy, John Cusack. You see his passion for the city at every turn. The script is based on the Nick Hornby novel about a record store owner with relationship issues. Originally set in London, Cusack moved the story to Chicago and set-up protagonist Rob Gordon’s shop up in a storefront on Milwaukee Avenue. With such insider touches as references to local record labels like Wax Trax! and Touch and Go Records, it’s easy to believe that Rob and his friends were an authentic part of Chicago’s outta sight music scene in the 1990s.

John Cusack in High Fidelity, 2000

9- ABOUT LAST NIGHT

Released 1986; Directed by Edward Zwick; Screenplay by Tim Kazurinsky and Denise DeClue Starring Demi Moore, Rob Lowe, Elizabeth Perkins, Jim Belushi

The film, About Last Night, is remembered for aptly reflecting an authentic Chicago-y singles scene; with its’ main characters playing softball on the weekends in Grant Park and hanging out with their pals at Lincoln Park and Division street bars, where you might find their modern-day counterparts today. Demi Moore even put on twenty pounds so she looked more like a “realistic” Chicago gal. Yeah, I know. Anyway, the script was loosely adapted from the 1974 play Sexual Perversity in Chicago, by Chicago scribe, David Mamet, and was first performed at the Organic Theatre Company. Mamet turned down the chance to adapt his drama about a twenty something couple, who fall in and out of love, with the help of their romantically cynical friends, for the screen. Still, the movie version is a moving love story, that went on to show a generation of gen-xers that love could be found in the Chicago bar scene, and even after a one night stand. Trust us, it’s Demi Moore at her very best – plus anything with Elizabeth Perkins is a go!

Demi Moore and Elizabeth Perkins in About Last Night, 1986

8 -THE BLUES BROTHERS

Released 1980; Directed by John Landis; Screenplay by Dan Aykroyd (story) and John Landis Starring John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd

Chicago is first and foremost, the star of the iconic film, The Blues Brothers, based on John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd’s band by the same name. From the films spot on depiction of the bustling late 1970s Maxwell flea market, to the climatic chase sequence that winds through Lower Wacker Drive, there is no doubt that the musical comedy was an homage to the city. It took director, and hometown boy, John Landis, just two weeks to write the script, and the movie soundtrack sounds like Chicago, with music by Aykroyd and Belushi, and tracks by Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin and James Brown, who also appear in cameos. Jake and Elwood’s journey takes them many places, but most iconic is probably the duo’s epic performance of Jailhouse Rock for the prisoners at Joliet prison.

Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi, Blues Brothers

7 – ORDINARY PEOPLE

Released 1980; Directed by Robert Redford; Screenplay by Alvin Sargent Starring, Mary Tyler Moore, Timothy Hutton, Donald Sutherland

This was Robert Redford’s directorial debut, one so good, that no one ever thought of him as “just an actor” again. Based on the 1976 novel, Ordinary People, by then first time author, Judith Guest, try and watch this film to completion without dissolving into a pool of tears – this film invented the term “tear jerker.” Filmed largely on Chicago’s North Shore during the fall of 1979, the scenery of suburban Lake Forest is instantly recognizable for anyone who grew up in the area. The story follows a Chicago family, shattered the accidental death of its older son. The direction by Redford, and acting across-the-board, is simply sublime. Timothy Hutton plays tormented teen, Conrad, who blames himself for his brother’s death and breaks our collective hearts in the process; Mary Tyler Moore got a nomination as his ice-cold mother, who blames him too, and Donald Sutherland, the peacemaker and arguably the true protagonist of the story, is finally forced to see things as they are. Judd Hirsch played the therapist who helps him, and a very young Elizabeth McGovern plays his love interest. The film went on to sweep the 1981 Academy Awards, winning best picture, best director, best screenplay and best actor for Timothy Hutton.

Mary Tyler Moore, Timothy Hutton, Donald Sutherland, Ordinary People, 1980

6- HOOP DREAMS

Released 1994; Directed by Steve James Starring William Gates and Arthur Agee

Filmmakers Steve James, Frederick Marx and Peter Gilbert set out to film a documentary in 1986 for PBS about playground basketball, hoping to shed light on Chicago’s street culture. They ended up shooting for four years, resulting in the 1994 emotional powerhouse, Hoop Dreams. One may not think that a documentary about basketball would have that kind of impact, but we promise you it does. Director Steve James narrowed in on the lives of two young black teenagers, basketball prodigies, Arthur Agee and William Gates, who grew up in Chicago’s housing projects. After they both win scholarships to a suburban high school, their fortunes diverge. One follows the footsteps of St Joe’s favourite son, all-star Isiah Thomas and the other doesn’t make the cut. Considered one of the best films of the 1990s, it was notoriously snubbed by the Oscars, winning best editing and losing out best picture to of all things – Forrest Gump.

Arthur Agee, Hoop Dreams, 1994

from Related Chicago – Feed https://ift.tt/2EIdRZk

The 10 Totally Best Chicago Movies published first on https://relatedrealtychicago.wordpress.com

0 notes

relatedrealtychicagoblog · 6 years

Link

via Related Chicago - Feed

THE 10 TOTALLY BEST CHICAGO MOVIES. Yup, most of them are from the 1980’s.

Robert Redford on location in Lake Forest, Illinois, directing Timothy Hutton in Ordinary People, 1980

But, first – just a little bit of Chicago movie history.

So here goes part one of our list – It’s all completely speculative – and in no particular order.

The list (part one)

10 – HIGH FIDELITY

Released 2000; Directed by Stephen Frears ; Screenplay by John Cusack, D.V. DeVincentis and Steve Pink Starring John Cusack, Jack Black, Iben Hjejle, Todd Louis, Lisa Bonet, Tim Robbins

John Cusack in High Fidelity, 2000

9- ABOUT LAST NIGHT

Released 1986; Directed by Edward Zwick; Screenplay by Tim Kazurinsky and Denise DeClue Starring Demi Moore, Rob Lowe, Elizabeth Perkins, Jim Belushi

Demi Moore and Elizabeth Perkins in About Last Night, 1986

8 -THE BLUES BROTHERS

Released 1980; Directed by John Landis; Screenplay by Dan Aykroyd (story) and John Landis Starring John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd

Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi, Blues Brothers

7 – ORDINARY PEOPLE

Released 1980; Directed by Robert Redford; Screenplay by Alvin Sargent Starring, Mary Tyler Moore, Timothy Hutton, Donald Sutherland

Mary Tyler Moore, Timothy Hutton, Donald Sutherland, Ordinary People, 1980

6- HOOP DREAMS

Released 1994; Directed by Steve James Starring William Gates and Arthur Agee

Arthur Agee, Hoop Dreams, 1994

#Related Chicago - Feed #Chicago Real Estate

0 notes

identity-matters · 7 years

Text

Edinburgh Fringe: My Reviews

I've just come back from The Fringe and these are my thoughts. You can scroll down to see play-by-play reviews but I have a short pre-amble first. Theatre has been a passion of mine for quite a long time so I'm surprised it's taken this long to get up to Edinburgh. On the basis that I didn't know when I'd next be up I took full advantage of my trip and saw as much stuff as I could; and as varied stuff as I could. I like taking risks with theatre because in my experience, for every 3 shit things you see, you see 1 thing that stays with you for a very long time. I've rated what I saw below but it comes with two very strong provisos: 1. These are personal opinions shaped by, among other things: my life; my hopes and expectations of theatre; how I felt during the show and the particular performance I saw. A high grade means I enjoyed it and is no guarantee you will do the same. 2. Everybody who came up to Edinburgh to put a show on is amazing for contributing to the cultural hotpot. A poorer review does not reflect on my views on the people behind it. They are all genuinely great artists for throwing so much into the melting pot. I've given 'A' to three shows, all very different. This is as close as I'll get to giving you my 'pick of the fringe'. * Michelle McManus: The Musical. A great crowd pleaser for lovers of cheese and musicals. * The Last Resort. A dark semi-immersive examination of Guantanamo Bay. * John Robertson (Dominant). Do not go if you are at all prudish or shy, but if you are not this is a anarchic comedy tour de force. With that, on to the reviews: (Monday August 7th) The Dark Room: B+ Comedy based on getting audience members to play an impossible 80s retro text-based game. It had built a cult following - which did not improve the show for first time viewers. The formulaic game portion was surely innovative and hilarious at one point, but now felt like an inside joke with the repeat audience chanting along from the start. That said, the new material and the improvised audience interaction was great and kept it fast-paced and snappy. 5 Guys Chillin': B- A drama exploring the gay 'chill'/sex party scene using verbatim quotes from interviews. This felt like it wanted to be eye-opening and expose a subculture. The problem is that it was exposing a subculture I'm well aware of. I knew the people they speak about and their words. It was certainly interesting and well-acted, but (for me), it slightly outstayed its welcome. This is not culturally significant: D A naked one-man character-driven show that seemed to build itself on the brief 'emotional whiplash: the sketch show.' It seemed to be well-received by many in the audience so it's possible I missed something. The problem for me was that the humour never hit hard enough and the vulnerability felt quite contrived. The actor and especially the technical team were excellent, but the content felt like it was at 60% of what it needed to be to make an impact. (Tuesday August 8th) Briony Redman: B A traditional 'Harold' comedy sketch show exploring screenwriting and modern genres. It was an gentle show, never offensive, often giggly. However, it lacked the bite to be hysterical. None the less, it was sweet and fast-paced and always had something interesting to say. The Canon: B A comedy sketch show based around the literary canon. There is nothing groundbreaking or truly original about this show, but it does present a lot of interesting scenarios and garners a steady stream of laughs. Bonus points for Taylor Swift/Shakespeare mash-up. Shame: B+ A drama about female sexuality told half through vlog and half through live action theatre. This was a really interesting medium that added to the story, made up of likeable but distinctly human characters. The ending packed an emotional punch but the moments leading up to it were slightly too expositionary and fell a bit tepid. Michelle McManus: The Musical: A Actual Michelle McManus from actual Pop Idol puts on a Glaswegian Hyacinth Bucket character for her fictional comedy musical revue. This is a riot from start to end. The songs (ballads from broadway) add to the show and are delivered powerfully and comically. The numbers are linked by an extremely funny and well-delivered performance that surprised a lot of the audience. Evocation: E A retelling of Giraud poems through the medium of gothic puppetry and drone music. This mark may be very harsh, and reflects more my inability to interpret what the hell went on than any mistakes the production team made. It looked gorgeous and chilled me out. It turns out watching theatre has a hard mode and this is it. Reformed Whores: B Musical comedy duo, satirising country and western through sex-positive messages. I like country music and the songs here were definitely catchy. There was a danger they relied a little too strongly on shock humour at times. The biggest problem here was the venue. These are performers that need interaction and raucousness. You're never going to get that in a sterile, small conference room. (Wednesday August 9th) Heroes: B+ A drama from an Icelandic company about how demonising enemies of war impacts young communities. This was well-acted, and the young cast clearly had a great time putting it on. There were definitely scenes in this that had strong impacts on the audience, and this made it well worth watching. However, the characters and fictional backdrop of the play were so one-dimensional and far-removed from reality. I feel like this eroded the social commentary they wanted the play to take on. The Last Resort: A A dark and invasive play, in which you play residents of the recently converted Guantanamo Bay holiday resort. This is excellent and a key example of why it's worth taking risks with theatre. The semi-immersive approach is a great way to make you laugh and relax before the show takes a dark and eye-opening turn. You will feel uncomfortable and you will love it. Oxford Imps: C A standard improv troupe from Oxford Uni. I saw them a lot whilst I was there and enjoyed them, so I went in with high hopes. Despite a few great moments, this was generally a disappointment. Enough of the troupe felt like they were trying to get their own ideas heard at all costs. This made the scenes feel messy and loose because they didn't agree on a reality. Monster: B+ A one man show about toxic masculinity as it relates to domestic abuse. An excellent character actor explains how tapping into unsavoury characters to method act leaks into his every day life. The blurring of all the characters builds into a heavy momentum. There's no payoff here - though I wonder if possibly that's the point. It's an interesting piece of theatre with a great actor but one that feels a little unsatisfying at the end Paul Sinha (Shout out to my ex): B Chaser/Comedian/Former GP performs a stand-up set about the annus horribilis since his partner left him. Stand-up comedy has a different job from a lot of the other work I've seen. First and foremost it's about making you laugh: and the show did that. The audience was in a good mood and the personal anecdotal style kept the laughs rolling. It may not have made me cry, or think, or challenge my beliefs but that's likely beyond its brief. John Robertson (Dominant): A This was billed as stand-up, by a crude and acerbic Australian (host of The Dark Room). In reality, none of it was scripted and instead we got a loose collection of thoughts inspired by the audience and his S&M past. It was a small audience (15ish people) and so all bets were off. Anarchy reigned and all audience members were involved. It was shocking, anarchic and unsubtle but constantly hysterical. He is a master of his work. We're All Going to Die: C+ An ensemble comedy about a group of scientists dying one-by-one on a remote research station. This had a young cast, and I assume this was scripted by them as well. The script was trite and lacked direction or purpose. The constant quipping removed anything but facile humour from what we watched. The characters were all one-directional. That said, it was enjoyable enough. There were some fun one-liners and set ups. It was a perfectly pleasant way to pass an hour. Thief: B+ A dramatic monologue by a queer sailor who puts a brave and defiant face on being forced into sex work. The acting deserves considerable credit here for bringing this complex character to life. In lesser hands this would surely fail, but it was a captivating if invasive performance. The show never knows what it wants to do with the character, though, making his backstory almost comically dark. There is an attempt at moralising at the end that feels a little too neat and tidy. At the end, I left feeling impressed at what I watched, but wondering why I watched it. (Thursday August 10th) Salome: D A one-man production of the Oscar Wilde epic. In typical Wilde fashion the dialogue is clever and knowing and that pulls you through this otherwise ropey production. Production values are low; characters are barely distinguished (Salome speaks falsetto and wears a scarf) and audiences are left questioning whether Salome really needed a one-man production. Kafka & Son: B A dramatic monologue adapted from a letter Kafka wrote to his father explaining his fear. The aesthetics of the play were beautiful and the team clearly had a great deal of respect for Kafka. It was an interesting and relevant biography: I feel like I'll see Kafka's works very differently now. The issue was the content of the show was dry, and at multiple times I found myself looking at my watch. The Odyssey: B+ A highly energetic physical performer reads the story of the Odyssey with pep, gusto and silly noises. The energy and tightness over the whole 70 minute show was impressive and brought a lot of life to the performance. The problem was, I felt like nothing was added to above the story. It brought back feelings of sitting cross legged on the floor in primary school being read classics. It was certainly charismatic and enjoyable but unmemorable. Noose Women: C- A comedy-drama about a TV production company who are convinced by a charismatic cult leader to host a reality show where the prize is death. It was perfectly watchable but a deeply flawed production. The story was paper thin and all drama was resolved within seconds. The central conceit took a back foot to meandering subplots that went nowhere. None of the characters were likeable or consistent; and unfortunately the humour did not make up for it. You could do much better than this at The Fringe.

0 notes

ekniemisba1b-1 · 7 years

Text

‘Only in Animation’

To what extent does this Paul Wells quote apply to your chosen film? Explain how the medium and materials enter, shape, and define the narrative. If your chosen film subverts or ignores conventional expectations of a ‘plotted’ narrative, identify the strategies employed in its place.

Anomalisa (2015) is a stop motion animated film based on play written by Charlie Kaufman. The film is directed by Kaufman and stop motion animator Duke Johnson, from animation production company Starburns Industries. I will explain how the medium of stop motion and the materials used enter, shape and define the unconventional, but very human narrative of Anomalisa. I will investigate why it can be considered unconventional due to its deviation from expectations of a ‘plotted’ narrative, and what alternative strategies are put in its place, as well as detailing why the plot events can only be achieved through the medium of animation.

Live action film is usually a default for film makers as it is easy, well understood and culturally ingrained. When animation is used, especially stop motion which is rare for a feature film, it is usually an artistic choice to best suit the narrative. In Anomalisa, realism is part of the style of the piece by using realistic puppets with 3D printed faces and life like sets that pay very close attention to detail. According to Carol Koch, the character sculptor on Anomalisa, Kaufman and Johnson could “with a few simple words, draw very concrete pictures in your head” (Variety, 2015). The figures’ realism is a result of a combination of design choices for the materials. Each hair follicle was individually punched into the silicone skin on the arms, eyes and head. The main characters Lisa and Michael had mohair and alpaca hair respectively (Schildhause, 2015). The eyes were a big focus for the directors who obsessed over making them “very reflective and look moist” in order to avoid uncanny valley and make them “feel alive” (q on cbc, 2016). Another step to avoid uncanny valley was to have bigger heads, hands and stubbier legs that aren’t proportionally human. In another example of hyper realism, the directors chose to show the physical seams of their puppet’s face because it “related to the themes that were in the story” (Smith, 2016). The silicone skin and 3D printed faces have a Caucasian flesh tone and an opaque quality that realistically reflects the light off the skin. The shape of the sculpt also implies a distribution of body fat that resembles a normal human body type. Finally, the doll sized clothing and props for the cast of puppets had a design that specifically complemented the personality of the character, like the long sleeves of both Bella and Lisa which they persistently tug at to show their nervousness.

In Anomalisa there is a heavy focus on the human condition: the film makers use the hyper realistic puppets as a tool to express this, knowing that the audience are innately drawn to faces. All characters apart from Michael and Lisa share the same face and are voiced by Tom Noonan. Using a 3D Program, the puppet makers generated an average face from composites of employees (Schildhause, 2015). With this cast of figures that share the same voice and removable 3D printed face, the directors are able to break the fourth wall in a way that can only be done through this medium. For example, when Michael is losing his mind, he starts peeling back the printed face to reveal the clip mechanism inside his head, then replaces it upon hearing Lisa’s unique voice. This direct acknowledgement of its own medium of puppetry and stop motion has a direct influence on Anomalisa’s narrative, although Kaufman declared that animation was “just another medium to explore”. His main focus was on presenting the narrative so that there is an “interaction between the person who’s viewing it and the piece”, hoping that it was layered enough so that “people can come away with separate and individual reactions to it” (q on cbc, 2016). I believe animation was key in shaping Kaufman’s plot because, in the words of Jennifer Jason Leigh, the voice actor for Lisa, stop motion is “evocative” since we can “project ourselves in a way that you can’t do maybe when it’s a real person” (ScreenSlam, 2015).

Anomalisa was originally a play written by Kaufman resembling a radio play with the actors sitting still on the stage with scripts, and with Carter Burwell’s original score the audience would create the imagery themselves. The same three actors Jennifer Jason Leigh, David Thewlis and Tom Noonan, voiced their characters before any creative design, and recorded them all interacting together. This voice over technique and production order is very unusual for animation, which usually has voice actors alone in booths recording after the animation has been made. Anomalisa’s narrative also ignores conventional expectations in terms of plot structure and its characters. A conventional story is about change, however this isn’t the case for Anomalisa’s main character Michael. Michael is a motivational speaker with a trait akin to the Fregoli delusion, where he sees everyone as the same person and can’t tell them apart. He is stuck in a cycle of loneliness, with an “inability to connect despite being more connected than ever” (Johnson, q on cbc, 2016). This state of mind is questioned when Lisa is introduced into his life: thinking he has finally found someone unique, he showers affection onto this insecure woman, nicknaming her Anomalisa, insisting on her singing for him and proceeding to have sex. However, in the morning she starts to become like everyone else to him; bland and uninteresting, she takes on the face and voice of the crowd, leaving a disappointed Michael to return home. In terms of narrative structure the turning point, Lisa, causes no change or resolution for the protagonist Michael, since he returns home the same as he was at the beginning.

A conventional plot gives us a complete, emotionally satisfying experience with no loose ends, but Anomalisa’s lack of resolution denies the audience this. Michael is also a very unlikable character, fetishizing this low self-esteem woman and dumping her as soon as he’s had his way. Some reviewers believe him to be a narcissist, “using the concept of mental illness as an excuse to treat others interchangeably” (Film Formula, 2016), theorising that Michael may not visually see everyone as the same but it’s how he thinks of them. Alternatively, there is a noticeable change in Lisa, the supporting character, who is shown in the final scene to be pleased with her nickname of Anomalisa, which translates as Goddess of Heaven in Japanese, being visibly more confident and happy. The strategies employed in the absence of these conventional expectations is in the attention to detail in the film’s medium, materials, true to life themes and natural comedy that comes from three talented actors performing together in real time. However, the narrative can also be perceived as conventional in the commonality of loneliness and isolation, making us pity Michael but also fear becoming him. This theme can make the narrative quite a common one, but viewers who look for the finer details find a possible second narrative.

It’s widely hypothesized there are two perceivable narratives within Anomalisa. Taken at face value, Michael meets a unique woman Lisa, spends a night with her, then in the morning they go their separate ways. Prior to the meeting, he drunkenly purchases an unusual antique while looking for a souvenir for his son: a Japanese sex doll. The next time we see the doll is when he presents it to his disapproving son. As it sings a traditional Japanese folk song his wife comments on the semen like substance coming out of it. The last time we see Michael, he is sitting opposite the doll staring at it as it sings with its unique voice. The second narrative hypothesis is that Lisa was this unusual Japanese sex doll. There are plenty of similarities between the two and clues to suggest that they are one and the same, and we must remember that we are seeing the story through Michael’s unreliable eyes, where things are not what they seem. “Characters are interesting when there’s friction between ‘what’s seen’ and ‘what is’” (White, 2016) and Michael is a perfect example of this. The initial piece of evidence is when Michael hears Lisa’s voice for the first time, during the sequence where he is losing his mind and peeling back his own face. This is the trigger point where he starts to fantasise that Lisa is a real person. Lisa and the sex doll share a scar on the same side of their face, have a unique voice and both sing for Michael. They also have the same attitude towards Michael, “as a product the doll’s imperative is to please the consumer, just as Lisa supplicates Michael by trying to change herself and her behaviours according to his liking” (Film Formula, 2016). However, the most important piece of evidence is the sex scene and its aftermath. This scene is a long and continuous, focusing entirely on realism between these two characters, but they take no precautions and Michael ejaculates inside her. Kaufman pays very close attention to small details and Johnson “wanted it to be a natural progression” (q on cbc, 2016), so when Lisa has just met this man after not being sexually active for 8 years, you would expect precautions would be on her mind. By choosing not to include this, supports the second narrative since in Michael’s last scene, semen comes out of the doll as it sings. Anomalisa’s two different narratives within one, ignores conventional storytelling but this was exactly the intention of Kaufman so that viewers would have an individual reaction to the piece.

In conclusion, Anomalisa’s attention to detail in its medium and materials perfectly enters, shapes and defines Kaufman’s unconventional narrative, making it so painfully human in its realism, its animation, characters and story. However, despite its realism, Anomalisa still provides a unique experience thanks to the elements that are only available in animation.

Bibliography

· Akaforty (2016). Anomalisa - The Japanese Doll explanation [Internet] 17 January 2016. Available at: https://www.reddit.com/r/YMS/comments/41czg8/anomalisa_the_japanese_doll_explanation/ [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

· Anomalisa, (2015) Directed by Charlie Kaufman, John Dukeman. United States of America: Snoot Entertainment, Starburns Industries [DVD]

· Being John Malkovich, (1999) Directed by Spike Jonze. California, United States of America: Astralwerks, Gramercy Pictures (I), Propaganda Films, Single Cell Pictures [DVD]

· Blind Field (2016). Monotony and Efficiency in Kaufman’s ‘Anomalisa’ [Internet] 8 March 2016. Available at: https://blindfieldjournal.com/2016/03/08/monotony-and-efficiency-in-kaufmans-anomalisa/ [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

· Dogtown33 (2016). Anomalisa theory about Michael and the geisha doll (spoilers) [Internet] 16 January 2016. Available at: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/41auzq/anomalisa_theory_about_michael_and_the_geisha/ [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

· Film Formula, (2016) Anomalisa Analysis: Michael’s Quiet Perversions. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vbb_HvxOdE&index=73&list=PL-RhqqYuEIowa7joVkUc_8dyTIDEL2vnR [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

· Film Herald, (2016) ‘Anomalisa’ (2015) Explained. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQAftcZJQLc&list=PL-RhqqYuEIowa7joVkUc_8dyTIDEL2vnR&index=68 [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

· Movieclips Coming Soon, (2015) Anomalisa Featurette - Crafting Anomalisa (2015) - Charlie Kaufman Stop Motion Animated Movie HD. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkOH_6uzASs&index=67&list=PL-RhqqYuEIowa7joVkUc_8dyTIDEL2vnR [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

· Play It Again, Dan (2016). Defying the Animation Narrative: The Brilliance of Anomalisa [Internet] 24 March 2016. Available at: https://playitagaindan.wordpress.com/2016/03/24/defying-the-animation-narrative-the-brilliance-of-anomalisa/ [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

· q on cbc, (2016) Charlie Kaufman & Duke Johnson on Anomalisa. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNQHYyLaNFY&list=PL-RhqqYuEIowa7joVkUc_8dyTIDEL2vnR&index=74 [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

· Schildhause, C. (2015) Behind The Seams: The Creative Team Behind ‘Anomalisa’ Discuss The Making Of A Stop-Motion Masterpiece. Uproxx. Available at: http://uproxx.com/movies/anomalisa-behind-the-scenes-interview/ [Accessed: 22nd February 2017]

· ScreenSlam, (2015) Anomalisa: Behind-the-scenes B-roll Part 1 - Charlie Kaufman, Duke Johnson. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODssMUlQO44&index=71&list=PL-RhqqYuEIowa7joVkUc_8dyTIDEL2vnR [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

· ScreenSlam, (2015) Anomalisa: Behind-the-scenes B-roll Part 2 - Charlie Kaufman, Duke Johnson. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTWqZ80ff2U&index=72&list=PL-RhqqYuEIowa7joVkUc_8dyTIDEL2vnR [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

· ScreenSlam, (2015) Anomalisa: David Thewlis ‘Michael’ On-Set Interview. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KCKDYjj6Pc&index=69&list=PL-RhqqYuEIowa7joVkUc_8dyTIDEL2vnR&t=2s [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

· ScreenSlam, (2015) Anomalisa: Jennifer Jason Leigh ‘Lisa’ On-Set Interview. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DATO9uoWklM [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

· Shoard, C. and Barnes, H. (2016) Charlie Kaufman on Anomalisa: ‘The internet is a terrible danger’ – video interview. The Gaurdian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/film/video/2016/mar/08/charlie-kaufman-on-anomalisa-the-internet-is-a-terrible-danger-video-interview [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

· Smith, N.M., Busch, M., Carey, N. (2015) Anomalisa: the tiny details of filming puppet sex in Charlie Kaufman's new film – video. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/film/video/2015/dec/22/anomalisa-charlie-kaufman-interview-stop-motion-animation-video [Accessed: 22nd February 2017]

· Smith, Z. (2016) Windows on the will. The New York Review of Books. Available at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/03/10/windows-on-the-will/ [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

· Stevens, D. (2015) Anomalisa. A beautiful, tricky, heartbreaking puppet show from Charlie Kaufman. Slate. Available at: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2015/12/charlie_kaufman_s_anomalisa_reviewed.html [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

· Team America: World Police, (2004) Directed by Trey Parker. United States of America: Paramount Pictures, Scott Rudin Productions, MMDP Munich Movie Development & Production GmbH & Co. Project KG [DVD]

· Variety, (2015) 'Anomalisa' - Sculpting Animated Characters with Carol Koch - Variety Artisans. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AILnP1Y-0o&index=66&list=PL-RhqqYuEIowa7joVkUc_8dyTIDEL2vnR [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

· Wells, P. (1996) Understanding animation. London: Routledge. Pp. 19

· Wells, P. (2006) Fundamentals of animation. [E-book + book] Lausanne: AVA Publishing.

· What it all Meant, (2016) Animation in Anomalisa. [YouTube video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ezp_KSvNnc&index=70&list=PL-RhqqYuEIowa7joVkUc_8dyTIDEL2vnR&t=3s [Accessed: 21st February 2017]

· White, L. (2016) BA1a Research: Character (Week 2) NUA Lecture 4 October 2016

#BA1b Research: Narrative #Final #Narrative Essay #Bibliography #Week 10

0 notes