Nothing we own today is worth what it was a year ago -- not our houses, our 401Ks, not even our careers. So with the Oscar noise at last dying down, it's worth asking whether even an Oscar is worth what it used to be.
I would argue, hell no.
For filmmakers, winning the top prize, or even a nomination, used to mean a ticket to creative autonomy as well as to plump paydays. Look what a "Pulp Fiction" best screenplay Oscar did for Quentin Tarantino in '94 or the screenplay Oscar for Matt Damon and Ben Affleck for "Good Will Hunting" in '97.
Well, not anymore. Tarantino's been busy, but we haven't seen much work from Bennett Miller ("Capote"), Taylor Hackford ("Ray"), Peter Weir ("Master and Commander") or Spike Jonze ("Being John Malkovich") since their moments in the sun.
Sure, these are talented guys with idiosyncratic tastes, but still, despite all the attention showered on them, they haven't been getting their work out there.
Nor have some of the nominated writers -- Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana"), Noah Baumbach ("The Squid and the Whale"), Alexander Payne ("Sideways"). Where have they all gone?
An Academy Award, or even a nomination, used to guarantee an instant pay boost. But some actresses, like Charlize Theron or Hilary Swank, have opted to accept smaller paydays in exchange for better roles in low-budget pictures.
While an abundance of projects likely have been offered them, Jake Gyllenhaal hasn't found anything measuring up to "Brokeback Mountain," nor has Clive Owen since "Closer," nor has the uniquely eccentric Joaquin Phoenix since "Walk the Line." At least Joaquin now claims he's retiring from acting.
There are exceptions, of course. Amy Adams leaped from the obscure "Junebug" to success in the very mainstream "Enchanted" (and another nom in "Doubt"). Philip Seymour Hoffman seems to be in every film now in release. Charlie Kaufman cashed in on his screenplay for "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" to get a directing gig on the esoteric "Synecdoche, New York." It might be his last.
The bottom line is that the Oscar is really no longer about big paychecks or even big pictures. Robert Downey Jr. has a whole new career thanks to "Iron Man," but the Academy apparently would never lavish an Oscar on a film that entertained that wide an audience. Given the present proclivities of Academy voters, skeptics doubt whether "Titanic" would have managed a nomination.
Much has been made about the absence of an "Oscar bounce" at the box office for the present group of nominees. "Frost/Nixon," despite its merits, did not gain momentum from its Oscar nomination while "Milk" did its best business prior to the campaign. Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times observed last week that "Hollywood needs to take a long look at its obsession with Oscardom since it seems increasingly clear that the awards no longer deliver the guaranteed marketing bounce."
Well, maybe. I still relish the Oscar ritual with all its eccentricities and contradictions. The Academy has done much to enhance the movie industry both in terms of money and mythology.
But maybe not as much as it did a generation ago.(.variety)
2009年2月21日星期六
'Slumdog' takes boffo world tour
Danny Boyle's blockbuster "Slumdog Millionaire" is the ultimate independent film, breaking all the rules in its box office performance and operating outside of a big studio's worldwide distribution net.
"Slumdog" is a bonanza for its foreign distributors, who often get saddled with third-rate Hollywood fare or arthouse titles that work in only a few territories.
The cast of characters benefiting from "Slumdog" begins with Film4, which produced and co-financed the movie with Celador Films, while Pathe Intl. sold foreign rights. The film also is spreading the love in North America. At the 11th hour, Warner Bros. balked at releasing the film after it it closed down Warner Independent, and gave it to Fox Searchlight to open domestically.
Profit margins should be generous, although Boyle and the producers are devoting some of those returns to a trust fund set up for two Indian children starring in the film. Because of safety concerns, they're not specifying the amount of the fund, only that it is substantial.
Produced for $15 million, "Slumdog's" worldwide cume has topped $150 million, meaning generous profit margins for all involved. Domestic ticket sales are more than $88 million, international more than $60 million. If "Slumdog" wins the Oscar on Feb. 22, box office observers see no reason why the film can't break $200 million globally.
Few indie films reach these heights or, if they do, are released internationally by studios, shutting out foreign distribs. With the rise of studio specialty units, the majors are first in line to distribute globally.
Other worldwide specialty hits include "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon."
" 'Slumdog' is one in a million, yet no one wanted to touch it in America because it was considered a tough sell," one studio specialty exec says.
"These films are important because they defy conventional wisdom and show that someone can do something completely original and succeed, when so much of the movie industry has been commoditized. 'Slumdog' is the anti-'Paul Blart,' " says a Fox Searchlight exec.
Just before Cannes, the Warner empire announced it was shuttering Warner Independent Pictures, which had bought domestic rights to "Slumdog" for $5 million in late 2007. It became apparent that big Warners couldn't accommodate releasing the film in 2008, between its own films and recently added New Line titles.
Boyle and producers were left scrambling, but soon came up with an alternative: Fox Searchlight. Searchlight was initially interested in "Slumdog" but wasn't willing to put up as much as Warner Independent.
Hollywood may have been cautious, but foreign distribs didn't miss a step in buying up rights to the indie film.
Foreign distribs were so keen they prebought rights at its script stage at the 2007 Berlin Film Festival, while remaining territories were sold off at Cannes. At the latter fest, Pathe execs screened a promo reel made up of the pic's hyperkinetic first act featuring the main characters as children.
"It wasn't difficult to sell at all, even though we had no major stars," says "Slumdog" producer Christian Colson of Celador. "The combination of (Simon Beaufoy's) great script, (director) Danny Boyle and the price we made the film for meant it was a tantalizing prospect for buyers."
The prescient buy has left many international distribs feeling as if they've hit the jackpot. Boyle's rags-to-riches story is scoring with auds around the world -- including the Middle East -- and is the first film since "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" to win virtually every major award leading up to the Oscar.
Pathe, which retained rights in the U.K. and France, has seen "Slumdog" draw huge numbers in Blighty, where it has grossed $30 million. In France, it's at $7.5 million after five weeks.
Foreign distribs have either used the marketing campaigns devised by Fox Searchlight and Pathe -- or a variation of both -- while others have created their own. Some territories, particularly in Asia and South America, are waiting until after the Oscars to open "Slumdog," hoping to use the cachet of a best pic win to lure auds.
In the U.K., "Slumdog" was released wide on the same weekend as the Golden Globes, resulting in a strong opening. In Italy, pic was released in December by Lucky Red in time for the Christmas season, even if that resulted in a somewhat idiosyncratic poster campaign.
"The film was going up against all these Italian Christmas comedies, so the poster had Dev Patel and Frieda Pinto standing on the railway station which was now covered in snow," says Pathe's international sales topper Mike Runagall. "It looked like Christmas in Mumbai."
The film is one of the hits of the season in Italy, where it has grossed more than $4 million.
"Usually a film here has a life of about four weeks, but 'Slumdog' has been on the charts for 11 weeks," says Lucky Red's acquisitions topper, Stefano Massenzi. "Every time it won an award, the media would talk about it and more people would come. It reminds me of films like 'Shine' and 'The Usual Suspects' which we also distributed a few years ago."
If there is anywhere that symbolizes the wide appeal of "Slumdog," it's the Middle East.
Dubai-based distrib Gulf Film released the pic in the wake of its Golden Globes success and has since seen it generate more than 100,000 admissions in only four weeks. "Twilight," on the other hand has taken 11 weeks to get to 140,000 admissions.
Gulf Film execs, who also prebought the film at Berlin, have devised their own marketing campaign targeting various local demos.
"It is appealing to everybody, including the Arabs, the expats and the Indians," says Gulf Film's Salim Ramia.
"Slumdog" has even done decent business in India, where Indian films always top the box office. The pic came under criticism for exploiting the country's poverty, but while the protests likely didn't affect box office in India, piracy may have.
Like "Slumdog's" storyline, the film's production is a rags-to-riches story.
Beaufoy's script, adapted from Indian author and diplomat Vikas Swarup's novel "Q and A," was developed at U.K. shingle Film4.
Swarup's book does not directly cite the TV show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," shown in the film, so Film4 topper Tessa Ross approached Celador about partnering on the project. It was a shrewd move, as Colson's shop is the feature film arm of the company that owns the rights to the TV gameshow. Colson quickly agreed.
Celador's other film credits include horror pics "The Descent" and "Eden Lake." It also produced Julian Fellows' "Separate Lies." But it is "Slumdog" that is putting the production arm on the map.
If there's any party connected with "Slumdog" that's feeling some sorrow, it's the former execs of Warner Independent. The specialty division had suffered a string of box office disappointments, and "Slumdog" might have ensured a future for the unit.
"Slumdog" still could have been released domestically by big Warners, but some within the studio questioned the film's box office prospects. Others contend that Warners honchos never saw the final version of Boyle's film.
Warners remains a financial partner on "Slumdog," but it was Searchlight's Peter Rice who looked like the cat who ate the canary at a bash toasting the successful screening of the film at the Toronto Film Festival.
From that point on, the celebrating hasn't stopped.(variety)
"Slumdog" is a bonanza for its foreign distributors, who often get saddled with third-rate Hollywood fare or arthouse titles that work in only a few territories.
The cast of characters benefiting from "Slumdog" begins with Film4, which produced and co-financed the movie with Celador Films, while Pathe Intl. sold foreign rights. The film also is spreading the love in North America. At the 11th hour, Warner Bros. balked at releasing the film after it it closed down Warner Independent, and gave it to Fox Searchlight to open domestically.
Profit margins should be generous, although Boyle and the producers are devoting some of those returns to a trust fund set up for two Indian children starring in the film. Because of safety concerns, they're not specifying the amount of the fund, only that it is substantial.
Produced for $15 million, "Slumdog's" worldwide cume has topped $150 million, meaning generous profit margins for all involved. Domestic ticket sales are more than $88 million, international more than $60 million. If "Slumdog" wins the Oscar on Feb. 22, box office observers see no reason why the film can't break $200 million globally.
Few indie films reach these heights or, if they do, are released internationally by studios, shutting out foreign distribs. With the rise of studio specialty units, the majors are first in line to distribute globally.
Other worldwide specialty hits include "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon."
" 'Slumdog' is one in a million, yet no one wanted to touch it in America because it was considered a tough sell," one studio specialty exec says.
"These films are important because they defy conventional wisdom and show that someone can do something completely original and succeed, when so much of the movie industry has been commoditized. 'Slumdog' is the anti-'Paul Blart,' " says a Fox Searchlight exec.
Just before Cannes, the Warner empire announced it was shuttering Warner Independent Pictures, which had bought domestic rights to "Slumdog" for $5 million in late 2007. It became apparent that big Warners couldn't accommodate releasing the film in 2008, between its own films and recently added New Line titles.
Boyle and producers were left scrambling, but soon came up with an alternative: Fox Searchlight. Searchlight was initially interested in "Slumdog" but wasn't willing to put up as much as Warner Independent.
Hollywood may have been cautious, but foreign distribs didn't miss a step in buying up rights to the indie film.
Foreign distribs were so keen they prebought rights at its script stage at the 2007 Berlin Film Festival, while remaining territories were sold off at Cannes. At the latter fest, Pathe execs screened a promo reel made up of the pic's hyperkinetic first act featuring the main characters as children.
"It wasn't difficult to sell at all, even though we had no major stars," says "Slumdog" producer Christian Colson of Celador. "The combination of (Simon Beaufoy's) great script, (director) Danny Boyle and the price we made the film for meant it was a tantalizing prospect for buyers."
The prescient buy has left many international distribs feeling as if they've hit the jackpot. Boyle's rags-to-riches story is scoring with auds around the world -- including the Middle East -- and is the first film since "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" to win virtually every major award leading up to the Oscar.
Pathe, which retained rights in the U.K. and France, has seen "Slumdog" draw huge numbers in Blighty, where it has grossed $30 million. In France, it's at $7.5 million after five weeks.
Foreign distribs have either used the marketing campaigns devised by Fox Searchlight and Pathe -- or a variation of both -- while others have created their own. Some territories, particularly in Asia and South America, are waiting until after the Oscars to open "Slumdog," hoping to use the cachet of a best pic win to lure auds.
In the U.K., "Slumdog" was released wide on the same weekend as the Golden Globes, resulting in a strong opening. In Italy, pic was released in December by Lucky Red in time for the Christmas season, even if that resulted in a somewhat idiosyncratic poster campaign.
"The film was going up against all these Italian Christmas comedies, so the poster had Dev Patel and Frieda Pinto standing on the railway station which was now covered in snow," says Pathe's international sales topper Mike Runagall. "It looked like Christmas in Mumbai."
The film is one of the hits of the season in Italy, where it has grossed more than $4 million.
"Usually a film here has a life of about four weeks, but 'Slumdog' has been on the charts for 11 weeks," says Lucky Red's acquisitions topper, Stefano Massenzi. "Every time it won an award, the media would talk about it and more people would come. It reminds me of films like 'Shine' and 'The Usual Suspects' which we also distributed a few years ago."
If there is anywhere that symbolizes the wide appeal of "Slumdog," it's the Middle East.
Dubai-based distrib Gulf Film released the pic in the wake of its Golden Globes success and has since seen it generate more than 100,000 admissions in only four weeks. "Twilight," on the other hand has taken 11 weeks to get to 140,000 admissions.
Gulf Film execs, who also prebought the film at Berlin, have devised their own marketing campaign targeting various local demos.
"It is appealing to everybody, including the Arabs, the expats and the Indians," says Gulf Film's Salim Ramia.
"Slumdog" has even done decent business in India, where Indian films always top the box office. The pic came under criticism for exploiting the country's poverty, but while the protests likely didn't affect box office in India, piracy may have.
Like "Slumdog's" storyline, the film's production is a rags-to-riches story.
Beaufoy's script, adapted from Indian author and diplomat Vikas Swarup's novel "Q and A," was developed at U.K. shingle Film4.
Swarup's book does not directly cite the TV show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," shown in the film, so Film4 topper Tessa Ross approached Celador about partnering on the project. It was a shrewd move, as Colson's shop is the feature film arm of the company that owns the rights to the TV gameshow. Colson quickly agreed.
Celador's other film credits include horror pics "The Descent" and "Eden Lake." It also produced Julian Fellows' "Separate Lies." But it is "Slumdog" that is putting the production arm on the map.
If there's any party connected with "Slumdog" that's feeling some sorrow, it's the former execs of Warner Independent. The specialty division had suffered a string of box office disappointments, and "Slumdog" might have ensured a future for the unit.
"Slumdog" still could have been released domestically by big Warners, but some within the studio questioned the film's box office prospects. Others contend that Warners honchos never saw the final version of Boyle's film.
Warners remains a financial partner on "Slumdog," but it was Searchlight's Peter Rice who looked like the cat who ate the canary at a bash toasting the successful screening of the film at the Toronto Film Festival.
From that point on, the celebrating hasn't stopped.(variety)
Oscar's statue of limitations
After much soul-searching, producers have apparently discovered the root problem of award shows: an inconvenient surplus of awards.
With the exception of the Oscars, which is trying a new-look approach under producer Laurence Mark and exec producer Bill Condon, the major academy-backed showcases have all removed some honors from their primary telecasts. The Emmys became the latest to join this trend, with the board voting this month to relegate a half-dozen of the 27 featured primetime categories to a half-hour pre-show, seeking to give the three-hour event what one source called "more breathing room."
Among the venerable kudocasts, nobody has been more aggressive than the Grammys, which televised a mere 11 awards during the most recent ceremony in order to emphasize live performances. The Tonys, similarly, present a number of statuettes in advance after experimenting with a pre-show that shifted 10 categories to PBS.
Whether these changes yield appreciable benefits remains to be seen -- and could be difficult to measure concretely. Notably, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences held firm to its central mandate -- handing out those 24 Oscars -- which was said to be the one non-negotiable aspect of whatever upgrades Condon and Mark bring to the show.
The award-show conundrum possesses so many moving parts that it's difficult to provide simple cures; still, there is something inherently counterintuitive about the assumption that people have tuned out mostly because award shows are overly polluted by awards.
Admittedly, several other variables are beyond a producer's control, which might explain why shedding categories sounds like an artful response -- the advantage of doing something, as opposed to nothing at all.
That said, purists have every reason to fret about whether the academy-backed awards will be diminished in what might be a fruitless quest to make them more viewer-friendly, especially to a younger audience that doesn't necessarily hold the Oscars and Emmys in the same regard their parents did.
The drain on Oscar and Emmy viewership can't be divorced from the nature of the movies and series that receive nominations, which in a fragmented marketplace increasingly tend to be more of the arthouse variety. In recent Emmy balloting, relatively low-rated cable programs like "Mad Men," "Damages" and "Dexter" gained recognition from voters despite a low public profile, deflating rooting interest among the mass of viewers.
After 2008's nearly all-indie edition, the Oscar draw has improved somewhat thanks to "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and "Slumdog Millionaire." Nevertheless, with "Milk," "Frost/Nixon" and "The Reader" rounding out the best picture category, the five nominees together will have generated about $280 million in U.S. box office by awards time, roughly equivalent to the average for a "Harry Potter" movie.
Given that dynamic, perhaps Condon and Mark's savviest move would have been to try stuffing the ballot box for "The Dark Knight," a genuine blockbuster.
Yet even questions of the field's commercial appeal (or lack thereof) might be overrated, potentially having less to do with ratings erosion than the gnawing glut of award shows. Between New Year's and the Academy Awards there are now a plethora of awards, televised by an alphabet soup of networks. In this context, Kate Winslet's first Oscar would actually mark the actress' fourth televised acceptance speech during a six-week span.
Condon told the Associated Press that giving out awards is "a big chunk of the show," while hoping to "freshen them up and surprise people again with the way these awards are given." Such innovations have been tried before, but the Oscars have resisted the diagnosis that awards must be excised -- dismissed as being the drag bringing these variety-music spectaculars to a screeching standstill -- at least for now.
That's assuming, of course, that there is a legitimate fix. Gil Cates, a 14-time producer of the Oscars, has stated that, in an endeavor where carefully choreographed magic and spontaneity are the ever-elusive goal, producers can only do so much. Eventually, the moments that people remember -- Jack Palance's push-ups, Sally Field's "You like me!" speech, Adrien Brody snogging Halle Berry -- leave such telecasts, he's said, at "the mercy of the award-show gods."
A decade ago, then-Emmy producer Don Mischer described the balancing act that producing a major awards show entails. In addition to serving the academy's needs, he said, "If the network had it their way -- and I don't care which network it is -- you would not be presenting four writing awards and four directing awards on the Emmys. That's eight awards given out to people that the audience at home doesn't really know much about or care about."
At the time, it felt like Mischer deserved an award for his honesty. Just don't dare waste time by trying to give him one on-air.(variety)
With the exception of the Oscars, which is trying a new-look approach under producer Laurence Mark and exec producer Bill Condon, the major academy-backed showcases have all removed some honors from their primary telecasts. The Emmys became the latest to join this trend, with the board voting this month to relegate a half-dozen of the 27 featured primetime categories to a half-hour pre-show, seeking to give the three-hour event what one source called "more breathing room."
Among the venerable kudocasts, nobody has been more aggressive than the Grammys, which televised a mere 11 awards during the most recent ceremony in order to emphasize live performances. The Tonys, similarly, present a number of statuettes in advance after experimenting with a pre-show that shifted 10 categories to PBS.
Whether these changes yield appreciable benefits remains to be seen -- and could be difficult to measure concretely. Notably, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences held firm to its central mandate -- handing out those 24 Oscars -- which was said to be the one non-negotiable aspect of whatever upgrades Condon and Mark bring to the show.
The award-show conundrum possesses so many moving parts that it's difficult to provide simple cures; still, there is something inherently counterintuitive about the assumption that people have tuned out mostly because award shows are overly polluted by awards.
Admittedly, several other variables are beyond a producer's control, which might explain why shedding categories sounds like an artful response -- the advantage of doing something, as opposed to nothing at all.
That said, purists have every reason to fret about whether the academy-backed awards will be diminished in what might be a fruitless quest to make them more viewer-friendly, especially to a younger audience that doesn't necessarily hold the Oscars and Emmys in the same regard their parents did.
The drain on Oscar and Emmy viewership can't be divorced from the nature of the movies and series that receive nominations, which in a fragmented marketplace increasingly tend to be more of the arthouse variety. In recent Emmy balloting, relatively low-rated cable programs like "Mad Men," "Damages" and "Dexter" gained recognition from voters despite a low public profile, deflating rooting interest among the mass of viewers.
After 2008's nearly all-indie edition, the Oscar draw has improved somewhat thanks to "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and "Slumdog Millionaire." Nevertheless, with "Milk," "Frost/Nixon" and "The Reader" rounding out the best picture category, the five nominees together will have generated about $280 million in U.S. box office by awards time, roughly equivalent to the average for a "Harry Potter" movie.
Given that dynamic, perhaps Condon and Mark's savviest move would have been to try stuffing the ballot box for "The Dark Knight," a genuine blockbuster.
Yet even questions of the field's commercial appeal (or lack thereof) might be overrated, potentially having less to do with ratings erosion than the gnawing glut of award shows. Between New Year's and the Academy Awards there are now a plethora of awards, televised by an alphabet soup of networks. In this context, Kate Winslet's first Oscar would actually mark the actress' fourth televised acceptance speech during a six-week span.
Condon told the Associated Press that giving out awards is "a big chunk of the show," while hoping to "freshen them up and surprise people again with the way these awards are given." Such innovations have been tried before, but the Oscars have resisted the diagnosis that awards must be excised -- dismissed as being the drag bringing these variety-music spectaculars to a screeching standstill -- at least for now.
That's assuming, of course, that there is a legitimate fix. Gil Cates, a 14-time producer of the Oscars, has stated that, in an endeavor where carefully choreographed magic and spontaneity are the ever-elusive goal, producers can only do so much. Eventually, the moments that people remember -- Jack Palance's push-ups, Sally Field's "You like me!" speech, Adrien Brody snogging Halle Berry -- leave such telecasts, he's said, at "the mercy of the award-show gods."
A decade ago, then-Emmy producer Don Mischer described the balancing act that producing a major awards show entails. In addition to serving the academy's needs, he said, "If the network had it their way -- and I don't care which network it is -- you would not be presenting four writing awards and four directing awards on the Emmys. That's eight awards given out to people that the audience at home doesn't really know much about or care about."
At the time, it felt like Mischer deserved an award for his honesty. Just don't dare waste time by trying to give him one on-air.(variety)
'Dark Knight' breaks $1 billion mark
"The Dark Knight" has become the fourth film to take in more than $1 billion in worldwide box office.
Warner Bros. made the announcement Friday afternoon, saying that the combined domestic and international gross had totaled $1,001,082,160 to date -- about $533 million domestically and $567 million overseas.
"Knight" had been about $4 million short of the 10-figure mark when Warner Bros. re-released it into Imax screens on Jan. 23, the day after its eight Oscar nominations were announced. Grosses from Ecuador also helped nudge the Batpic over the mark, a spokeswoman said.
Only "Titanic," with $1.8 billion, "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" and "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" have topped the billion-dollar worldwide mark previously.
"Knight" also is the second-highest domestic grosser of all time, trailing only "Titanic."
Warner also noted that it's the largest 2-D digitally re-mastered Imax release in the domestic market with $49.6 million and worldwide with $64.9 million.(variety)
Warner Bros. made the announcement Friday afternoon, saying that the combined domestic and international gross had totaled $1,001,082,160 to date -- about $533 million domestically and $567 million overseas.
"Knight" had been about $4 million short of the 10-figure mark when Warner Bros. re-released it into Imax screens on Jan. 23, the day after its eight Oscar nominations were announced. Grosses from Ecuador also helped nudge the Batpic over the mark, a spokeswoman said.
Only "Titanic," with $1.8 billion, "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" and "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" have topped the billion-dollar worldwide mark previously.
"Knight" also is the second-highest domestic grosser of all time, trailing only "Titanic."
Warner also noted that it's the largest 2-D digitally re-mastered Imax release in the domestic market with $49.6 million and worldwide with $64.9 million.(variety)
2008年9月18日星期四
Francis Ford Coppola on Apocalypse Now - and then
From The Times
September 13, 2008
Francis Ford Coppola on Apocalypse Now - and then
If Apocalypse Now looked hellish on screen, that was nothing compared to making it. Francis Ford Coppola tells our correspondent about his jungle odyssey
Thirty years ago, the 39-year-old film-maker Francis Ford Coppola was finalising the edit of a film about the Vietnam war.
Three years earlier, on the back of two Godfather films and the taut thriller The Conversation, he had been the toast of Hollywood. Now, he was in danger of becoming a laughing stock. Tales from the Apocalypse Now set – of drug-taking, shootings and even body-snatching – were doing the rounds.
Still, Coppola persevered in the editing suite. Until in 1979, having spent $30 million on a film budgeted at $12m, he emerged with a masterpiece that went on to take the Palme d’Or at Cannes and earn three Oscar nominations. As a new DVD set of the film is released, the director returns to his Apocalypse for The Knowledge.
Looking back, does it feel like Apocalypse Now was made by another person?
Recently, while I was working with [editor] Walter Murch, he said: “We’ve been doing this for 40 years.” I said, “Really? it seems like four.”
The thing with cinema is that you always feel as if you’re just beginning to understand it, and that makes each day very fresh and exciting. When I was younger, I decided I would make each film as an experiment, trying to do something that was appropriate to its theme, so Apocalypse Now was quite different from The Godfather or The Conversation. So I made it in a style I felt appropriate to the war itself: high amperage, big production, almost out of control. It wasn’t comfortable but I think it was right. So yes, each film is made by a different person, but always the same six-year-old who looked at life with wonder and love.
Given the chance, what would you do differently?
What is, is. There’s no way to tamper with the past. Perhaps I would have made the French plantation sequence without as much worry about cost; or I would have made the film with less anxiety.
Why did you replace Harvey Keitel with Martin Sheen, and how hard was it?
The hardest thing in movie-making is to replace an actor. I’ve done it only once or twice. Harvey is a wonderful actor, totally different in approach and style to Martin. But given what I felt the character had to convey, I was convinced that he was wrong for what I wanted to do. There’d be many roles perhaps in which I would replace Martin with Harvey, as they are both wonderful actors and good people. It was a judgment call. It was difficult, but I do not think I was wrong. Something I am very grateful for is that this difficult moment did not cost me Harvey’s friendship – which shows what a fine and generous person he is, as well as a dedicated actor.
What led you to use Wagner’s The Flight of the Valkyries with the helicopter attack scene?
John Milius, who wrote the original screenplay, created that idea – as with so many creative aspects of the story and script. I only did some rewriting.
Was it a challenge handling Marlon Brando?
I spent several days with Marlon discussing the themes of the film and the specifics of the role of Kurtz (whom Brando had asked to rename Leighly). Marlon repeatedly resisted the idea that we could do the sequence in a manner following Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, which I was proposing. He said adapting the novella wouldn’t work and came up with all sorts of thoughts, some relevant, some not, about which way we should go.
So I just sat patiently, worried though I was, listening and discussing many things with him, recording them and studying them later. Finally, after more than a week of this (I only had three weeks of his time), he showed up and I was shocked: he had shaved his head, like Kurtz in Heart of Darkness. I knew that meant he had come around to doing the role more like the novella, which he had always insisted wouldn’t work. I said: “But Marlon, you said it wouldn’t work to do it like Heart of Darkness – you said you had read it and thought it wouldn’t work.” And he said: “I lied.” He had only read it for the first time that night. From that moment, we went into high gear and did what we could.
How did you negotiate the problem of Brando’s size?
He admitted we had a problem in that this “Green Beret colonel” would not be as overweight as he was, which presented issues of what sort of costume should he wear, as there wouldn’t be uniforms in his size. He didn’t want to be depicted as a man who had let his appetites and passions go wild, which was the other solution. Marlon, like all fat people, was shy and embarrased by his weight, which of course I understood, having something of the same problem, as did Orson Welles. I decided to dress him in black and portray his fatness as great size, meaning that you usually see just his shoulders and arms. So his large scale could be interpreted as that of a giant man. I used a very tall, husky double for the scenes where you see all of him.
Why does his dialogue seem rambling, unrehearsed?
I took many discussions that I had recorded, and worked them up to a script. He recorded it and would listen through a small earphone to remember his lines. But they were all written. Plus, when he was rambling, that was usually in scenes where we weren’t intending to use the sound.
Legend has it that Dennis Hopper was high on drugs for much of the shoot...
God only knows what he was high on – but high or not, Dennis is one of the most knowledgeable, intelligent people I know.
The climactic animal sacrifice is similar to Eisenstein’s Strike. Were you aware of this?
No. My wife Eleanor had gone to shoot footage of the Ifagau people sacrificing a water buffalo. Our contract with them focused on the chickens they’d sacrifice daily, the pigs weekly, and, for the two big holidays, the two water buffalo. She came back with the heart that had been given by the chieftain to me, a token of honour. I was really desperately looking for a way to end the film, as the original script had an ending more appropriate for a war film in the style of A Bridge Too Far. So I decided, after much thought and conversation, to have Martin end by assassinating the great king (Kurtz), and utilise the fact that the Ifagao people were going to sacrifice their water buffalo on our last day of shooting. I refused to even consider killing anything ourselves for the purpose of making a film.
Why did the film become so all-consuming?
In those days we were ahead of the great electronic cinema revolution, and what you see was what you had to stage. It was a big movie with many difficult and dangerous big-scale sequences, not to mention the now-famous interruptions of typhoon, guerilla war and [Sheen’s] heart attack – all without the digital compositing. It took the time necessary to make it.
Which would you rather be remembered for: Apocalypse Now or The Godfather?
I’d actually like to be remembered for my present film Tetro, which is the most personal film I’ve made. It follows in the tradition I wanted to pursue, after The Rain People, The Conversation and The Godfather Part II. I don’t want to be remembered for a film, but for the fact that I loved so much and was enchanted by little children.
— The Apocalypse Now Steelbox Edition is out to buy on DVD
September 13, 2008
Francis Ford Coppola on Apocalypse Now - and then
If Apocalypse Now looked hellish on screen, that was nothing compared to making it. Francis Ford Coppola tells our correspondent about his jungle odyssey
Thirty years ago, the 39-year-old film-maker Francis Ford Coppola was finalising the edit of a film about the Vietnam war.
Three years earlier, on the back of two Godfather films and the taut thriller The Conversation, he had been the toast of Hollywood. Now, he was in danger of becoming a laughing stock. Tales from the Apocalypse Now set – of drug-taking, shootings and even body-snatching – were doing the rounds.
Still, Coppola persevered in the editing suite. Until in 1979, having spent $30 million on a film budgeted at $12m, he emerged with a masterpiece that went on to take the Palme d’Or at Cannes and earn three Oscar nominations. As a new DVD set of the film is released, the director returns to his Apocalypse for The Knowledge.
Looking back, does it feel like Apocalypse Now was made by another person?
Recently, while I was working with [editor] Walter Murch, he said: “We’ve been doing this for 40 years.” I said, “Really? it seems like four.”
The thing with cinema is that you always feel as if you’re just beginning to understand it, and that makes each day very fresh and exciting. When I was younger, I decided I would make each film as an experiment, trying to do something that was appropriate to its theme, so Apocalypse Now was quite different from The Godfather or The Conversation. So I made it in a style I felt appropriate to the war itself: high amperage, big production, almost out of control. It wasn’t comfortable but I think it was right. So yes, each film is made by a different person, but always the same six-year-old who looked at life with wonder and love.
Given the chance, what would you do differently?
What is, is. There’s no way to tamper with the past. Perhaps I would have made the French plantation sequence without as much worry about cost; or I would have made the film with less anxiety.
Why did you replace Harvey Keitel with Martin Sheen, and how hard was it?
The hardest thing in movie-making is to replace an actor. I’ve done it only once or twice. Harvey is a wonderful actor, totally different in approach and style to Martin. But given what I felt the character had to convey, I was convinced that he was wrong for what I wanted to do. There’d be many roles perhaps in which I would replace Martin with Harvey, as they are both wonderful actors and good people. It was a judgment call. It was difficult, but I do not think I was wrong. Something I am very grateful for is that this difficult moment did not cost me Harvey’s friendship – which shows what a fine and generous person he is, as well as a dedicated actor.
What led you to use Wagner’s The Flight of the Valkyries with the helicopter attack scene?
John Milius, who wrote the original screenplay, created that idea – as with so many creative aspects of the story and script. I only did some rewriting.
Was it a challenge handling Marlon Brando?
I spent several days with Marlon discussing the themes of the film and the specifics of the role of Kurtz (whom Brando had asked to rename Leighly). Marlon repeatedly resisted the idea that we could do the sequence in a manner following Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, which I was proposing. He said adapting the novella wouldn’t work and came up with all sorts of thoughts, some relevant, some not, about which way we should go.
So I just sat patiently, worried though I was, listening and discussing many things with him, recording them and studying them later. Finally, after more than a week of this (I only had three weeks of his time), he showed up and I was shocked: he had shaved his head, like Kurtz in Heart of Darkness. I knew that meant he had come around to doing the role more like the novella, which he had always insisted wouldn’t work. I said: “But Marlon, you said it wouldn’t work to do it like Heart of Darkness – you said you had read it and thought it wouldn’t work.” And he said: “I lied.” He had only read it for the first time that night. From that moment, we went into high gear and did what we could.
How did you negotiate the problem of Brando’s size?
He admitted we had a problem in that this “Green Beret colonel” would not be as overweight as he was, which presented issues of what sort of costume should he wear, as there wouldn’t be uniforms in his size. He didn’t want to be depicted as a man who had let his appetites and passions go wild, which was the other solution. Marlon, like all fat people, was shy and embarrased by his weight, which of course I understood, having something of the same problem, as did Orson Welles. I decided to dress him in black and portray his fatness as great size, meaning that you usually see just his shoulders and arms. So his large scale could be interpreted as that of a giant man. I used a very tall, husky double for the scenes where you see all of him.
Why does his dialogue seem rambling, unrehearsed?
I took many discussions that I had recorded, and worked them up to a script. He recorded it and would listen through a small earphone to remember his lines. But they were all written. Plus, when he was rambling, that was usually in scenes where we weren’t intending to use the sound.
Legend has it that Dennis Hopper was high on drugs for much of the shoot...
God only knows what he was high on – but high or not, Dennis is one of the most knowledgeable, intelligent people I know.
The climactic animal sacrifice is similar to Eisenstein’s Strike. Were you aware of this?
No. My wife Eleanor had gone to shoot footage of the Ifagau people sacrificing a water buffalo. Our contract with them focused on the chickens they’d sacrifice daily, the pigs weekly, and, for the two big holidays, the two water buffalo. She came back with the heart that had been given by the chieftain to me, a token of honour. I was really desperately looking for a way to end the film, as the original script had an ending more appropriate for a war film in the style of A Bridge Too Far. So I decided, after much thought and conversation, to have Martin end by assassinating the great king (Kurtz), and utilise the fact that the Ifagao people were going to sacrifice their water buffalo on our last day of shooting. I refused to even consider killing anything ourselves for the purpose of making a film.
Why did the film become so all-consuming?
In those days we were ahead of the great electronic cinema revolution, and what you see was what you had to stage. It was a big movie with many difficult and dangerous big-scale sequences, not to mention the now-famous interruptions of typhoon, guerilla war and [Sheen’s] heart attack – all without the digital compositing. It took the time necessary to make it.
Which would you rather be remembered for: Apocalypse Now or The Godfather?
I’d actually like to be remembered for my present film Tetro, which is the most personal film I’ve made. It follows in the tradition I wanted to pursue, after The Rain People, The Conversation and The Godfather Part II. I don’t want to be remembered for a film, but for the fact that I loved so much and was enchanted by little children.
— The Apocalypse Now Steelbox Edition is out to buy on DVD
2008年9月17日星期三
Daniel Day-Lewis
There Will Be Blood
Interviewed by Rob Carnevale
“ Close to the borderline of chaos is the most fertile area that you can work in. ”
Daniel Day-Lewis is often described as one of the most talented and influential actors of his generation. Since becoming noticed alongside Mel Gibson and Anthony Hopkins in The Bounty, he continued to enhance his reputation in films like My Beautiful Laundrette and The Unbearable Lightness of Being before stealing the Oscar from right under Tom Cruise's nose for his portrayal of Christy Brown in My Left Foot. Since then, he's never been far from awards shortlists or end of year best of lists with roles in The Last of The Mohicans, In The Name Of The Father, The Boxer and Gangs of New York. His latest finds him playing a ruthless American turn of the century oil prospector in Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood. He discusses some of the challenges with BBC Movies...
What was your reaction as you flicked through the script and saw so many pages without dialogue during the opening of the film?
That was delightful actually. I have a paradoxical relationship with language anyhow, having come from a household where language was so important. I turned page after page and thought: "How long can he keep this going for?". There was something almost cheeky about it, but delightful and true, first and foremost it seemed true, that the life of this man in this situation could be revealed in such a way that you knew everything that you needed to know about him at that stage in his life without ever saying a word. I just thought there was something quite remarkable about that. In fact, it's actually a much longer sequence in the script and we shot a much longer sequence which then - when the film was put together - would have gone on for probably about 30 minutes had we not had to necessarily try and condense it. It was a whole overture.
Daniel Day-LewisI guess there's plenty of potential research material here for your role as Daniel Plainview. How far did you go into that?
Not very far, except I read the book [Oil! by Upton Sinclair]. The first 150 pages or so introduce you to the world of the oilfields at that time, and there's a lot of great detail about the world of the drillers and the prospectors. The second part of the book is almost like an examination of the conflict between labour and management, which is a different kind of thing altogether but nonetheless fascinating. Upton Sinclair was a very committed, lifelong socialist and it was kind of amazing he survived in America at that time. So yes I've read the book. But there were no clues there other than the introduction to the oilfields.
I studied the life of [turn of the century American oil tycoon] Edward Doheny only insofar as I learnt about the main events of his life. Los Angeles was actually founded on muck, it's an amazing thing, if you see the early photographs dating back to that period. It's actually a forest of oil derricks with tiny little houses sandwiched here and there in between them. If you happened to live in one of those little houses and stepped out of the front door, what you would be confronted by would be a quagmire of crude oil just running down the streets. Your kids would be playing in that stuff. That was the world, and Los Angeles grew out of that and was founded on that wealth. Doheny was one of the principal characters in the building of that city. Indeed, there's a Doheny Drive named after him and probably some other roads. We filmed the last couple of scenes of the movie in the Doheny Mansion which, in every respect, feels like a pyramid, a monument that a pharaoh built for his own quiet, self destruction. It's interesting.
Did you visit any oil rigs?
No. It was rumoured apparently that I'd built a derrick in a field behind my house in County Wicklow, and I must say when I read that I thought: "That's not a bad idea, I might try that!" But we were a bit short on help at the time. Considering the way that I work very often, I do feel I've been soundly misrepresented so many times that there's almost no point in even talking about it, but people tend to focus on the details of the preparation, the practical details in this clinic or that prison and so on and so forth. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. But for me as much as that work is a vital part of it and always fuel to one's fascination, one's curiosity, the principal work is always in the imagination. That's where it's going to happen if it's going to happen anywhere at all. The imagination in very close working partnership with the subconscious, I think, because when the work is happening the way it should be you can't be entirely in control of it. Paul [Thomas Anderson] is a mischief-maker; he's a great man for working close to the borderline of chaos and I think that's really the most fertile area that you can work in.
Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano
Did the father-son relationship in the film have any bearing on your own complex relationship with father, or your relationship with your son?
My relationship with my own father was much less complex than you might have been led to believe. He was just a man I never really got to know, so there's nothing really complex about that. In later years, reassessing what might have been a relationship with my father, that's where the complexity is, I suppose, because we all to some extent measure ourselves - if we're men - we measure ourselves against our fathers. I would hope that none of my experiences as a father would have fed the relationship Plainview has with HW [his son in the film]. I would hope. In fact, it probably worked against me a little bit, because I felt so protective of that wonderful young man, to the point where he'd almost be swatting me off like I was an irritating mosquito or something [smiles].
The film contains a number of amazing set pieces. Were some of them just one off chances, such as the burning of the oil rig? Or could you have more than just one take?
In that case no. In fact, I don't know how many times the burning of that bloody rig was put on the schedule. We all thought we should do something else first because there was only one derrick and that was the centrepiece of our world that [production designer] Jack Fisk had built for us. In a way, part of it was that we didn't want to lose it as well. We knew that we'd feel the absence of that beautiful thing when it was gone, but more than that it was a big risk. This was a big story to tell, the schedule was 60 days which is not nothing but it's not a long shoot either to tell that story. So, it was relentless and there was so much to do every day. And there was no going back if we'd got the burning of the derrick wrong - we'd have been absolutely shagged. But we had a good guy called Steve Cremin, who was strangely an ex-tennis pro, and he really just did everything right, thank God.
Your co-star Paul Dano was also in The Ballad of Jack and Rose, so was this a chance to pick up your relationship?
Yeah. I certainly knew enough about Paul and I hope he'd say the same, to know that he'd be somebody I'd know I wanted on my side in a scrap. I admired him so much in Rebecca [Miller]'s film. We never really spoke, and we never met socially during that time because the work led us in different directions. He understood implicitly, as I did, that it was important to keep that distance between us. But we got to know each other a little bit after that and I like him so much as a man - which always helps - but as an actor I think he's undoubtedly one of the most promising young actors working at the moment.
Are there any others you admire?
There's a few really good ones... Emile Hirsch and Ryan Gosling. I don't know if Ryan is a little bit older, but they're more or less part of the same generation, wonderful actors. But I was delighted at the thought of working with Paul again. Actually, when we cast the film originally we cast somebody else in the part of Eli and we shot for three or four weeks with a different actor. But it didn't work out for a number of reasons. It's the only occasion in my life that, during the course of a piece of work, we had to re-cast and re-shoot stuff which I wouldn't wish on anybody. Paul as already contracted to play the part of Paul, and we'd all considered him for Eli already, so it seemed like an obvious choice. He flew out to what he thought would be one of his scenes as Paul and we asked him what he thought about also playing Eli and he never went home again. He had two days to prepare for the part. He came out on a Friday evening and we were shooting scenes on Monday with him. And I swear to God on set that day he was a recognisable, fully formed character. I dare say he was slightly unsettled in himself, but you wouldn't have guessed it. He was just right there.
How aware of movies are you when you're not making them and how aware were you of someone like Paul Thomas Anderson? Are directors a lure to you or is it all about the script?
Initially it's all about the script. But in his case, I certainly knew his films and already admired him a great deal. And most particularly for his recent film Punch-Drunk Love. So even the very idea of working with him when the word came was something I was intrigued by. Nonetheless, had I read that script and not felt drawn into the world that he'd created, out of respect for him I'd have said: "Get somebody else, because I can't help you here." But I was very drawn to the idea of working with him.
There Will Be Blood opens in UK cinemas on Friday 8th February, 2008.
Interviewed by Rob Carnevale
“ Close to the borderline of chaos is the most fertile area that you can work in. ”
Daniel Day-Lewis is often described as one of the most talented and influential actors of his generation. Since becoming noticed alongside Mel Gibson and Anthony Hopkins in The Bounty, he continued to enhance his reputation in films like My Beautiful Laundrette and The Unbearable Lightness of Being before stealing the Oscar from right under Tom Cruise's nose for his portrayal of Christy Brown in My Left Foot. Since then, he's never been far from awards shortlists or end of year best of lists with roles in The Last of The Mohicans, In The Name Of The Father, The Boxer and Gangs of New York. His latest finds him playing a ruthless American turn of the century oil prospector in Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood. He discusses some of the challenges with BBC Movies...
What was your reaction as you flicked through the script and saw so many pages without dialogue during the opening of the film?
That was delightful actually. I have a paradoxical relationship with language anyhow, having come from a household where language was so important. I turned page after page and thought: "How long can he keep this going for?". There was something almost cheeky about it, but delightful and true, first and foremost it seemed true, that the life of this man in this situation could be revealed in such a way that you knew everything that you needed to know about him at that stage in his life without ever saying a word. I just thought there was something quite remarkable about that. In fact, it's actually a much longer sequence in the script and we shot a much longer sequence which then - when the film was put together - would have gone on for probably about 30 minutes had we not had to necessarily try and condense it. It was a whole overture.
Daniel Day-LewisI guess there's plenty of potential research material here for your role as Daniel Plainview. How far did you go into that?
Not very far, except I read the book [Oil! by Upton Sinclair]. The first 150 pages or so introduce you to the world of the oilfields at that time, and there's a lot of great detail about the world of the drillers and the prospectors. The second part of the book is almost like an examination of the conflict between labour and management, which is a different kind of thing altogether but nonetheless fascinating. Upton Sinclair was a very committed, lifelong socialist and it was kind of amazing he survived in America at that time. So yes I've read the book. But there were no clues there other than the introduction to the oilfields.
I studied the life of [turn of the century American oil tycoon] Edward Doheny only insofar as I learnt about the main events of his life. Los Angeles was actually founded on muck, it's an amazing thing, if you see the early photographs dating back to that period. It's actually a forest of oil derricks with tiny little houses sandwiched here and there in between them. If you happened to live in one of those little houses and stepped out of the front door, what you would be confronted by would be a quagmire of crude oil just running down the streets. Your kids would be playing in that stuff. That was the world, and Los Angeles grew out of that and was founded on that wealth. Doheny was one of the principal characters in the building of that city. Indeed, there's a Doheny Drive named after him and probably some other roads. We filmed the last couple of scenes of the movie in the Doheny Mansion which, in every respect, feels like a pyramid, a monument that a pharaoh built for his own quiet, self destruction. It's interesting.
Did you visit any oil rigs?
No. It was rumoured apparently that I'd built a derrick in a field behind my house in County Wicklow, and I must say when I read that I thought: "That's not a bad idea, I might try that!" But we were a bit short on help at the time. Considering the way that I work very often, I do feel I've been soundly misrepresented so many times that there's almost no point in even talking about it, but people tend to focus on the details of the preparation, the practical details in this clinic or that prison and so on and so forth. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. But for me as much as that work is a vital part of it and always fuel to one's fascination, one's curiosity, the principal work is always in the imagination. That's where it's going to happen if it's going to happen anywhere at all. The imagination in very close working partnership with the subconscious, I think, because when the work is happening the way it should be you can't be entirely in control of it. Paul [Thomas Anderson] is a mischief-maker; he's a great man for working close to the borderline of chaos and I think that's really the most fertile area that you can work in.
Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano
Did the father-son relationship in the film have any bearing on your own complex relationship with father, or your relationship with your son?
My relationship with my own father was much less complex than you might have been led to believe. He was just a man I never really got to know, so there's nothing really complex about that. In later years, reassessing what might have been a relationship with my father, that's where the complexity is, I suppose, because we all to some extent measure ourselves - if we're men - we measure ourselves against our fathers. I would hope that none of my experiences as a father would have fed the relationship Plainview has with HW [his son in the film]. I would hope. In fact, it probably worked against me a little bit, because I felt so protective of that wonderful young man, to the point where he'd almost be swatting me off like I was an irritating mosquito or something [smiles].
The film contains a number of amazing set pieces. Were some of them just one off chances, such as the burning of the oil rig? Or could you have more than just one take?
In that case no. In fact, I don't know how many times the burning of that bloody rig was put on the schedule. We all thought we should do something else first because there was only one derrick and that was the centrepiece of our world that [production designer] Jack Fisk had built for us. In a way, part of it was that we didn't want to lose it as well. We knew that we'd feel the absence of that beautiful thing when it was gone, but more than that it was a big risk. This was a big story to tell, the schedule was 60 days which is not nothing but it's not a long shoot either to tell that story. So, it was relentless and there was so much to do every day. And there was no going back if we'd got the burning of the derrick wrong - we'd have been absolutely shagged. But we had a good guy called Steve Cremin, who was strangely an ex-tennis pro, and he really just did everything right, thank God.
Your co-star Paul Dano was also in The Ballad of Jack and Rose, so was this a chance to pick up your relationship?
Yeah. I certainly knew enough about Paul and I hope he'd say the same, to know that he'd be somebody I'd know I wanted on my side in a scrap. I admired him so much in Rebecca [Miller]'s film. We never really spoke, and we never met socially during that time because the work led us in different directions. He understood implicitly, as I did, that it was important to keep that distance between us. But we got to know each other a little bit after that and I like him so much as a man - which always helps - but as an actor I think he's undoubtedly one of the most promising young actors working at the moment.
Are there any others you admire?
There's a few really good ones... Emile Hirsch and Ryan Gosling. I don't know if Ryan is a little bit older, but they're more or less part of the same generation, wonderful actors. But I was delighted at the thought of working with Paul again. Actually, when we cast the film originally we cast somebody else in the part of Eli and we shot for three or four weeks with a different actor. But it didn't work out for a number of reasons. It's the only occasion in my life that, during the course of a piece of work, we had to re-cast and re-shoot stuff which I wouldn't wish on anybody. Paul as already contracted to play the part of Paul, and we'd all considered him for Eli already, so it seemed like an obvious choice. He flew out to what he thought would be one of his scenes as Paul and we asked him what he thought about also playing Eli and he never went home again. He had two days to prepare for the part. He came out on a Friday evening and we were shooting scenes on Monday with him. And I swear to God on set that day he was a recognisable, fully formed character. I dare say he was slightly unsettled in himself, but you wouldn't have guessed it. He was just right there.
How aware of movies are you when you're not making them and how aware were you of someone like Paul Thomas Anderson? Are directors a lure to you or is it all about the script?
Initially it's all about the script. But in his case, I certainly knew his films and already admired him a great deal. And most particularly for his recent film Punch-Drunk Love. So even the very idea of working with him when the word came was something I was intrigued by. Nonetheless, had I read that script and not felt drawn into the world that he'd created, out of respect for him I'd have said: "Get somebody else, because I can't help you here." But I was very drawn to the idea of working with him.
There Will Be Blood opens in UK cinemas on Friday 8th February, 2008.
Daniel Day-Lewis
Gangs of New York
Interviewed by Alec Cawthorne
Londoner Daniel Day-Lewis' film debut was "Sunday Bloody Sunday" back in 1971. He then turned his attentions to the stage for a decade before returning to the big screen with "Gandhi" in 1982. Since then he appeared in "My Left Foot", "The Last of the Mohicans", "The Age of Innocence", and "In the Name of the Father". His latest film "Gangs of New York" is his second for director Martin Scorsese.
Why did you take so much time off between films?
There came a time five years ago when I just felt I wanted to do other things. Periodically over the years I've always taken periods of time away from acting.
Did you need persuading to take this role?
Martin [Scorsese] doesn't have to convince me about anything. I can only say that I would wish for any one of my colleagues to have the experience of working with Marty once in their lifetime. If you get it twice, it's a privilege that you don't necessarily look for but you certainly don't try to avoid.
What is it about working with Scorsese?
As an actor, I think it is very hard to define why he works so well with actors. He has a very clear vision of what it is that he is trying to do. Nevertheless, he creates a great sense of freedom within the framework that he's laid down.
Is it true you stayed in character on set even when cameras weren't rolling?
I just found a way that suits me some years ago, as every actor does. It seems a little bizarre to some people.
And working with Leonardo DiCaprio - how was that?
I spent a little bit of time with Leo before shooting began. Leo and I didn't get to know each other very well during the film because I think we both understood that you need a certain distance to allow things to happen when the work is important.
One thing that's truly fascinating about your character is the hair.. it's terrible!
It was work to make it so gross! On the last day I said to Marty "Can I get a haircut?" You could fry an egg on that hair!
Interviewed by Alec Cawthorne
Londoner Daniel Day-Lewis' film debut was "Sunday Bloody Sunday" back in 1971. He then turned his attentions to the stage for a decade before returning to the big screen with "Gandhi" in 1982. Since then he appeared in "My Left Foot", "The Last of the Mohicans", "The Age of Innocence", and "In the Name of the Father". His latest film "Gangs of New York" is his second for director Martin Scorsese.
Why did you take so much time off between films?
There came a time five years ago when I just felt I wanted to do other things. Periodically over the years I've always taken periods of time away from acting.
Did you need persuading to take this role?
Martin [Scorsese] doesn't have to convince me about anything. I can only say that I would wish for any one of my colleagues to have the experience of working with Marty once in their lifetime. If you get it twice, it's a privilege that you don't necessarily look for but you certainly don't try to avoid.
What is it about working with Scorsese?
As an actor, I think it is very hard to define why he works so well with actors. He has a very clear vision of what it is that he is trying to do. Nevertheless, he creates a great sense of freedom within the framework that he's laid down.
Is it true you stayed in character on set even when cameras weren't rolling?
I just found a way that suits me some years ago, as every actor does. It seems a little bizarre to some people.
And working with Leonardo DiCaprio - how was that?
I spent a little bit of time with Leo before shooting began. Leo and I didn't get to know each other very well during the film because I think we both understood that you need a certain distance to allow things to happen when the work is important.
One thing that's truly fascinating about your character is the hair.. it's terrible!
It was work to make it so gross! On the last day I said to Marty "Can I get a haircut?" You could fry an egg on that hair!
订阅：
博文 (Atom)