The film industry in one place - Articles, Reviews, trailers and hype!

Friday 30 June 2017

Rhys Thomas is Quietly Becoming TV’s Most Interesting Director

By Cooper Peltz

All hail the king of high concept comedy.

No, Channing Tatum and Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s next project is not a Guys and Dolls remake. It’s something even more ambitious. Comrade Detective spoofs the police procedural. The comedy series is presented as a remastered edition of a Cold War-era Romanian buddy cop show with Tatum, Gordon-Levitt, and their famous friends overdubbing the Romanian dialogue in English. While stellar performances are expected from an all-star cast, including Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali and Jenny Slate, the success of the high concept project hinges on its director, Rhys Thomas.

His name may not be as recognizable as his collaborators’, but the projects Thomas has been a part of certainly are. Over the last seven years, the film and television director has carved out a compelling body of work. He co-created IFC’s Documentary Now! He also directed the film unit for Saturday Night Live from 2010-2016, for which he won an Emmy for Outstanding Variety Special. Additionally, Thomas directed John Mulaney’s stand-up special, John Mulaney: The Comeback Kid.

His first feature film Staten Island Summer, scripted by SNL head writer Colin Jost, was released in 2015. On both Documentary Now! and SNL, his work is distinct in the world of television. His masterful execution of stylized material has become his calling card. The director’s self-diagnosed inability to say no to writers pushes him to create shows and sketches with incredible production value.

The article Rhys Thomas is Quietly Becoming TV’s Most Interesting Director appeared first on Film School Rejects.

The Nuts and Bolts of Rising Icon Tyler, The Creator

By Jasmine Ballew

One of the most innovative minds in rap comes back around to television. 

We’ve come a long way since the whole Yonkers bug-eating fiasco with Tyler, The Creator, and since then he’s only elevated his status as an icon, slowly and skillfully. Besides putting out two undeniably brilliant albums, he’s organized six annual Camp Flog Gnaw Carnivals, invented a phone app, and developed an aesthetically pleasing fashion line.

From the beginning, though, Tyler has expressed an interest in doing television and movies, citing Wes Anderson as his favorite film director and an inspiration. Between 2012 to 2014, Tyler and fellow friends from Odd Future made us pee our pants while watching outrageous skits on Loiter Squad and occasionally voiced characters for animated series such as Regular Show and Black Dynamite.

As successful as Tyler’s become, he’s always served as director of his music videos (under the name Wolf Haley), stemming as far back as “VCR” and “French” in 2010 and through the latest, “Who Dat Boy,” which was released yesterday via Tyler’s twitter. Tyler uses his admiration for colors and vivid imagination of fictional locations to develop and direct gorgeous, distinctive videos for many of his self-produced songs.

He also served as director for the video for “Glowing” by D.A., which is simply eye-candy. An acclaimed quality of Tyler is his knack for detail and fearless nature, so while the rapper has received his fair share of backlash in the past, he’s always made innovative steps to distance himself from a label.

In recent months, Tyler’s been the subject of a documentary based on his junior album, Cherry Bomb, and has also written the opening theme to the Netflix series Bill Nye Saves the World. The phone app, Golf Media, features several skits featuring Tyler and his friends while also supplying fans with personal playlists and behind-the-scenes snippets of projects.

Tyler’s interests also expand beyond the arts, as it’s well-known he’s a lover of beautiful, fast cars. It only makes sense he would drive a White Telsa for Jaden Smith in Smith’s video “Batman.”

Perhaps most impressive out of all endeavors, though, is the announcement of two, upcoming television shows involving the remarkable mind of Tyler, The Creator.

Once again teaming up with Adult Swim, Tyler will serve as creator of the music score and original compositions for the new series The Jellies. Besides working in line with the music, Tyler and pal Lionel Boyce will voice characters in the quarter-hour series as it follows a 16-year-old adoptee.

The kickstart of the series’ escapades occurs after the main character, Cornell, finds out he’s adopted by jellyfish, which in turn creates unpredictable situations. A promo clip from the series was released a few months ago with the show in line to premiere in the summer.

The Jellies won’t be Tyler’s only television venture, as he’s also just shared the trailer for his new show on Viceland, Nuts + Bolts, which will air in August. This series, much like Tyler, will be completely and utterly random. The subject will basically be Tyler’s mind, much like Golf Media.

According to the trailer, the show will follow Tyler as he investigates “how everything that I think is awesome is made.” Some of his areas of interest to anticipate are: donuts, go-karts, stop-motion, mustard, and time travel.

It’s no secret Tyler has made progressive steps, including changing his beloved twitter name, just to appeal to a larger crowd of consumers, so any OG Odd Future fan can only respect the distance we’ve come since vulgar Myspace raps.

Regardless of how cool all these new upcoming projects are, I hope Tyler knows we’re still waiting on a fourth album and his previous talks of a feature film. But no rush here. For the time being, Nuts + Bolts might just be enough:

The article The Nuts and Bolts of Rising Icon Tyler, The Creator appeared first on Film School Rejects.

The Academy Prioritizes Diversity for a Second Year Running

By Sheryl Oh

The organization continues to push for an industry inclusion mandate with the induction of its newest members.

Last year, the Academy announced a commitment to double its number of diverse members by 2020. Subsequently, the organization invited 683 artists and executives to join the voting pool that same year.

They seem to be on track with keeping to their word. This is evidenced by this year’s list of Academy voter invitees, which shows an even larger spike in statistical diversity with a total of 774 new members added.

This actually feels like tangible action on the Academy’s part. It was a more nebulous decision last year because, what if it had only been a one-off? But this year’s list not only obviously diversifies the pool of voters in terms of ethnicity and gender. It is also a clearer representation of how the Western media industry works as a whole. There is a mix of arthouse and mainstream talent in the list, a rather definitive statement that these categories do not negate each other. Distinct media footprints are actually a thing, and diversity exists in taste as well. The wide international range of invitees is also noteworthy.

Despite this, some remain unconvinced that this strategy would reap any benefits in the long run. The Hollywood Reporter’s Scott Feinberg is especially critical over the fact that a number of inductees seem to have more discernible roots in television than in film, or have simply not worked “enough” to qualify for an invitation.

However, the question of supposed credentials feels redundant because terms like “Oscar bait” exist for a reason. People are all too aware of what “should” go into an Academy Award-nominated film or performance due to the sheer amount of repetition the industry perpetuates.

The practice of diversification rightly promotes different perspectives and provokes us to interrogate those normalized concepts. So Jordan Peele may have only directed one feature. He still knocked that movie out of the park and created game-changing cinema. Part of that revolution comes from a viewpoint of resistance and activism that is antithetical to Hollywood’s norms.

Furthermore, we have lived in a collaborative media landscape for years. Crossover appeal has only become more commonplace. These days, high-quality media can be found anywhere, regardless of whether Netflix, HBO, or Warner Bros. are distributing that content. Why else would people discuss the “Renaissance/Golden Age of television,” and why else would film actors consider signing on for longer form stories?

The concept of only having “big-screen contribution(s) of any note” doesn’t really exist in media production anymore when creators are fluidly working across multiple channels. Artists gain invaluable experience and insight regardless of the kind of creative endeavor they pursue. People within the industry aren’t less qualified to discern what a good film production or performance is just because they haven’t worked as prolifically in the medium as they have elsewhere.

Halle Berry’s recent conversation with Teen Vogue’s Elaine Welteroth proves rather illuminating in conjunction with the Academy’s diversification efforts. On her Best Actress victory for Monster’s Ball, Berry has this to say:

“I thought it meant something but I think that meant nothing. And I was profoundly hurt by that and saddened by that, and it inspired me to try to get involved in other ways.”

Berry remains the only woman of color to win the Academy Award for Best Actress. Her 2002 speech was completely unplanned, but it was undeniably rousing and galvanizing: “This is for every nameless, faceless woman of color who now has a chance because this door has been opened.”

When I look at how uncommon it is for inclusive stories to find a seat at the table at something like the Oscars, I absolutely understand Berry’s sense of culpability. She doesn’t just represent the black community with her success but inadvertently became a voice for all women of color.

Now, diversity should never be tokenistic, and culture is non-transferrable. Just as it’s absurd to assume the performance of a white actor should speak to a worldwide audience, there shouldn’t just be one woman of color representing all. Yet, in the 15 years since Berry’s triumph, no one else has been able to bear the torch in her category. The responsibility to inspire a later generation, then, seems to all fall on her shoulders. It might come across like pure luck that a non-white woman managed to take the statuette home if it goes by unacknowledged.

The real issue here is that there needs to be a concerted effort by notable establishments to undo assumptions of merit within the film industry. Any quest for meritocracy in cinema can hardly be achieved when voting pools remain grossly imbalanced. Feinberg makes the point that diversity should be imperative from the word go. When films are made inclusively and to a certain calibre, they would “logically” be nominated and voted for.

I’m inclined to disagree. Awards generate buzz and interest in films people may not normally go for. Sometimes, they even promote films the vast majority of audiences aren’t yet aware of. And obviously, audience engagement is of utmost importance due to the huge cost undertaking of filmmaking. In an industry that feeds off of its own cyclical method of predicting which movies sell and which won’t, this is about reconsidering what counts as “Oscar bait.” Representation isn’t a trend, and having concrete changes in large institutions within an entrenched system helps drive that point home.

Luckily, the Academy seems to be taking that challenge in stride. They could trigger a significant trickle-down effect the more inclusivity is constantly supported. This doesn’t mean that the work stops here. Women still comprise only 28% of the Academy’s overall membership. People of color as a whole have it worse, clocking in at a mere 13% total.

The victory may be small, but at least it’s palpable. In an ideal industry, actors from marginalized groups like Berry would not have to unduly bear the brunt of responsibility when it comes to representation. Creators across the board would tell stories reflective of actual multiculturalism. Producers will continue to embrace the fact that, time and time again, inclusion sells tickets at the movies.

The Academy’s decision to rapidly diversify its voting roster is a much stronger emblem of representation than a single win, as important and momentous as that occasion was. I disagree with Berry’s own assessment that her win “meant nothing.” She admits that she never expected to take the trophy home at all. But she ruptured all expectations that night and remains a vital wake-up call to the Academy nonetheless.

Yet, Berry shouldn’t have to be the only one rooting for girls in her corner when the film industry is a collective effort.

It’s easier to hope now. The Academy Awards — “the last stop on a film’s long journey,” according to Feinberg — seems primed to properly jumpstart and consistently keep up with the inclusion of marginalized voices. It could be the start of substantial, necessary re-canonization.

The article The Academy Prioritizes Diversity for a Second Year Running appeared first on Film School Rejects.

First UK Trailer for Biopic 'England Is Mine' About Musician Morrissey

England Is Mine Trailer

"Steven, what are you waiting for? Take a chance." Entertainment One in the UK has revealed an official trailer for a film titled England Is Mine, a biopic telling the story of famed musician and singer Steven Patrick Morrissey. Morrissey is played by Jack Lowden (seen in '71, A United Kingdom, Denial, Tommy's Honour) in the film, and the rest of the cast includes Jessica Brown Findlay, Jodie Comer, Peter McDonald, Laurie Kynaston, Simone Kirby, Finney Cassidy, and Katherine Pearce.. Set in the 1970s in Manchester, the film is about his early life as a young teenager before he became the lead singer of seminal 80's band The Smiths, along with his first fateful encounter with Johnny Marr. This looks very good, reminds me a bit of Sing Street with his musician dreams. Will be seeing this when it opens. Check it.

Here's the first official trailer (+ poster) for Mark Gill's England Is Mine, originally from The Guardian:

England Is Mine Poster

A portrait of Steven Patrick Morrissey (played by Jack Lowden) and his early life in 1970's Manchester before he went on to become lead singer of seminal 80's band The Smiths. England Is Mine is directed by English filmmaker Mark Gill, making his feature directorial debut after two short films previously, one of which (titled The Voorman Problem) earned Oscar and BAFTA nominations a few years ago. The screenplay is co-written by Mark Gill and William Thacker. This first premiered at the Edinburgh Film Festival this summer, but no other festivals. England Is Mine opens in select UK cinemas starting on August 4th, but still doesn't have any official US release date yet. Stay tuned for more updates. Who's into seeing this film?

Short of the Day: ‘The Giant’ Has Come to Freak Your Mind

By H. Perry Horton

An animated fable.

“A young girl grows endlessly, stumbles upon a liquid that releases the darkest sides of herself, and eventually dissolves into the music of the universe.”

That’s the description provided for the short animated 360 video The Giant, written and performed by Robbie Basho for New Media Ltd., and if it doesn’t pique your interest, might I respectfully suggest you check your pulse to make sure you’re still alive.

Even more intriguing is the film itself, a dark and trippy fable that plays like something out of the filmography of the Brothers Quay, or one of David Lynch’s short films, with all the brilliant, wonderful weirdness these comparisons invite. The Giant is as technically awe-inducing as it is narratively thought-provoking, and the combination of the two makes for a wholly unique and captivating three minutes.

The Giant is a Vimeo Staff Pick Premiere, and as such it comes with a great write-up about the making of the film should you wish to dive deeper into the rabbit hole Basho has opened.

The article Short of the Day: ‘The Giant’ Has Come to Freak Your Mind appeared first on Film School Rejects.

Charlize Theron Kicks Ass in Berlin in Final Trailer for 'Atomic Blonde'

Atomic Blonde Trailer

"Someone set me up. Someone from the inside." Bring on the ass kicking mayhem! Universal has released a third and final trailer for the action movie Atomic Blonde, set in Berlin. Starring Charlize Theron as an undercover MI6 agent (and/or assassin) sent to Berlin during the Cold War to investigate the murder of a fellow agent. This is directed by David Leitch, a stuntman who worked on co-directing John Wick (before he was uncredited) and he's already off directing Deadpool 2 now. This premiered at SXSW to rave reviews and I'm excited to see it as soon as it opens. The full cast includes Bill Skarsgård, Sofia Boutella, James McAvoy, John Goodman, Toby Jones, Eddie Marsan, James Faulkner, and Roland Møller. This is a nice, short trailer that doesn't give away much and packs in lots of action to get you in a mood to see it.

Here's the third & final trailer (+ poster) for David Leitch's Atomic Blonde, direct from YouTube:

Atomic Blonde Movie Poster

You can still watch the first red band trailer for Atomic Blonde here, or the second official trailer here.

An undercover MI6 agent (Charlize Theron) is sent to Berlin during the Cold War to investigate the murder of a fellow agent and help recover a missing list of double agents. Atomic Blonde is directed by filmmaker David Leitch, a former stuntman making his feature film debut with this film after working on John Wick initially. Leitch is already in the middle of directing Deadpool 2, too. The screenplay is written by Kurt Johnstad (300, Act of Valor, 300: Rise of an Empire), based on the Oni Press graphic novel series written by Antony Johnston and illustrated by Sam Hart. This first premiered at the SXSW Film Festival last month. Focus Features will release Atomic Blonde in theaters starting on July 28th this summer. Who's in?

The Caped Crusaders Who Could Have Been: Every Abandoned ‘Batman’ Film

By H. Perry Horton

Darren Aronofsky, George Miller, and many more tried and failed to make the bat fly.

I don’t know how it started, but I remember when Superman III was slated for release, there was a rumor going around that we might see a Batman cameo in the film. This would have been the first live-action version of the Caped Crusader since the great Adam West’s stint in the 1960s, and furthermore it would have been a solid indication that the Dark Knight was headed to the big screen in his own movie. It’s true that after the success of Richard Donner’s first Superman film that Warner Brothers started drafting a script for Batman, but for some reason or another that particular iteration never made it to screen, instead going through some drastic revisions over the next half-decade until eventually it became the basis for Tim Burton’s 1989 effort.

Then, around the turn of the century right after I had graduated college, we got the news that indy wunderkind Darren Aronofsky was going to save the Bat-franchise – recently ruined by Joel Schumacher – by adapting Frank Miller’s hard-boiled Batman: Year One graphic novel. This too amounted to nothing, giving way in time to Christopher Nolan’s vision. And who can forget just a few years ago when Armie Hammer (The Social Network) was actually cast as Batman in George Miller’s abandoned Justice League movie?

The point is, it feels like for every Batman movie that’s out there, there’s another one that was planned but never made. I’ve listed three above, but believe it or not, there are even more. Thankfully, the following, super-rad video from Looper had collected all stories of these “lost” Bat-flicks and compiled them into a “what could have been” survey. This is hands-down my favorite video of the week, and not just because I’m a huge Bat-freak. Looper’s done a great job separating the facts from the rumors and the result is an insightful investigation into not just the history of Batman on film, but the development process and the many snags that can derail it. Highest recommendation.

The article The Caped Crusaders Who Could Have Been: Every Abandoned ‘Batman’ Film appeared first on Film School Rejects.

Revenge of the (Film) Nerds

By Karen Gomez

How cult directors are crashing the mainstream scene.

So far, 2017 has been an interesting year for film. John Wick Chapter 2 carried on with the Keanussance, Logan made a proper farewell for one of the most beloved superheroes on the silver screen, and Wonder Woman gave a break to the troubled DC Extended Universe, while original movies like Get Out and Colossal were pleasant surprises in the first six months. The rest of the year looks promising too: the third Spider-Man reboot bodes well, as does the Blade Runner sequel, and Dunkirk and Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets will mark the anticipated returns of Christopher Nolan and Luc Besson.

However, the names at the helm of some of this year’s most relevant releases would have seemed odd choices a few years back. Before Guardians of the Galaxy, James Gunn’s latest gig was Movie 43, Taika Waititi first came to public attention with his “falling asleep” gag at the Oscars in 2005, and before the Cornetto Trilogy, Edgar Wright was better known for his work in TV. Directors who started off their careers in very particular — and offbeat — genres and whose works gathered cult followings, now lead Marvel movies and critically acclaimed summer hits. But their conquest of commercial success didn’t happen overnight.

On the one hand, Gunn began his career in the mid-’90s as a writer for Lloyd Kaufman’s Troma Productions, scripting low-budget independent movies which combine farce with social commentary, namely Tromeo and Juliet and The Tromaville Cafe. While he also often worked as an actor, his first big-budget movies as a screenwriter were the live-action Scooby-Doo films, released in the early 2000s, followed by Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake.

DancinggrootHe made his directorial debut in 2006 with Slither, a sci-fi/horror comedy that flopped at the box office but was recognized for its merits as an homage to B-movies. After that, his web series James Gunn’s PG Porn and the 2010 black comedy Super, his lowest grossing film, came along. Four years later, he directed the 10th installment of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe.

On a farther corner of the Earth, Waititi started off in comedy also during the mid-’90s with the five-man troupe So You’re a Man, along with future Flight of the Conchords members Bret McKenzie and Jemaine Clement, as well as Carey Smith and theatre director David Lawrence, and that became fairly popular in New Zealand and Australia. After a few years working mainly as an actor (among other artistic endeavors), his short film Two Cars, One Night was nominated for an Academy Award.

WhatwedointheshadowsIn 2007, he released his first feature film, Eagle vs Shark, an oddball romantic comedy that upheld Waititi’s winning streak in the international film festival circuit. Same as Eagle vs Shark, his following movies, Boy, the vampire mockumentary What We Do in the Shadows, and last year’s Hunt for the Wilderpeople all premiered at Sundance. Yet, his jump from festival favorite and kiwi local success to Hollywood big leagues kicked off when he wrote the initial script for Disney’s Moana and was chosen to direct the third installment of Thor.

While Gunn’s filmography has a distinct inclination for genre films and a bizarre style, and Waititi has extensive experience dabbling in different roles in film production and a broad body of work distinguished by its unconventional but charming humor, Wright is probably the most consummated film buff of the offbeat trio.

His earliest approaches towards filmmaking date back to his teenage years and the short movies he produced with his friends in his hometown of Wells, in the UK. Like Gunn and Waititi, Wright started his professional path during the mid-’90s with his first feature film, a low-budget Western spoof called A Fistful of Fingers. Despite his dissatisfaction with the finished version, it helped him land jobs as a TV director for the BBC and other British channels, which in turn lead up to his collaboration on the acclaimed sitcom Spaced.

The national success of Spaced, along with his long-time partnership with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, paved the way for the Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy,  three genre comedies — a zombie rom-com, a buddy cop action thriller, and an apocalyptic pub crawl — connected not by narrative but by style and shared motifs and running jokes.

PilgrimEven though the films in the trilogy received critical acclaim and gained Wright a solid fanbase and recognition across the pond, he was not a household name yet. His only other movie, the graphic novel adaptation Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, was praised by Kevin Smith and other fellow directors and critics but had a lukewarm reception, making only $48M at the box office after costing nearly $90M. The next setback in his career was his departure from Marvel’s Ant-Man in 2014 over creative differences.

Cut to three years later and his new movie, Baby Driver, has been the toast of the town among critics ahead of its release in the US and the UK. At one point, it had a 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes, and while it is a little early to really determine the audiences reception (so far, the Wednesday opener is doing well at the box office), the seemingly universal praise even has British papers wondering if they have lost their auteur to Hollywood.

Baby Driver is shaping up to become one of the major summer blockbusters of 2017 and it is easy to see why: even though Wright has yet to make a bad movie, this is possibly his most refined work to date, and it is a good example of the re-vindication of the work of this lineage of directors.

In the same vein as Waititi and Gunn, Wright has a soft spot for intertextuality and obscure references. He is known for his “encyclopedic knowledge of film — especially genre film — and he wears his influences on his sleeve” (in Corey Atad’s wise words). This cinematic baggage can be found everywhere, from his earlier works, such as the pre-Hot Fuzz short film Dead Right and the Homage-O-Meter in Spaced and through every film in the Cornetto trilogy.

Likewise, his style — the crash zooms and extreme close up montages, the foreshadowing, the visual comedy, the close relationship between action, music, rhythm, and editing, and his attention to fine detail — is a trademark that reveals an awareness of the tools of filmmaking and a knack to use them deftly.

His grasp on genre and tropes and his stylistic dexterity, reach a high point with Baby Driver. The film’s influences can be traced in Wright’s guest programming for the British Film Institute’s Car Car Land series and his selection for the Brooklyn Academy of Music Heist Society, while all his technical quirks, very much like Ansel Elgort’s getaway driver  in the film, seem to come of age.

As the work of filmmakers like Gunn, Waititi, and Wright continues their creative development, they have also managed to sneak into mainstream cinematic culture and appeal to wider audiences. Nevertheless, their original spirit still reflects in their choices as they make their way into the big leagues, adapting a relatively unknown group of heroes including a talking raccoon or using light-hearted humor for a fresh take on a mythological Norse god of thunder or working on a passion project conceived 22 years ago after having ditched one of the biggest movie franchises. All things considered, 2017 seems to be an interesting year for film.

The article Revenge of the (Film) Nerds appeared first on Film School Rejects.

Jackie Chan Wants Vengeance In First Trailer for ‘The Foreigner’

By Rob Hunter

Jackie Chan as a dour ass-kicker in a new Martin Campbell film? Yes please.

Action stars get older, but while most shift into other genres or retire all together the one and only Jackie Chan just keeps on kicking. Sure he’s a little bit slower and yes he relies on more stunt doubles and safety wires these days, but at 63 years old he’s still churning out more action movies than anyone else around. He has four features hitting screens this year, and that’s not counting the two animated ones. That kind of pace often results in issues of quantity over quality though — just ask Takashi Miike — but his latest looks set to flip that idea on its head.

The Foreigner sees Chan starring as a Chinese immigrant living in London who’s devastated when his daughter is killed in a terrorist attack. Distraught, he wants only the names of the suspected bombers so that he can dispense some justice of his own, but one man is standing in his way — a government official (Pierce Brosnan) who himself was once a member of the IRA.

Check out this first trailer for Martin Campbell‘s The Foreigner.

The article Jackie Chan Wants Vengeance In First Trailer for ‘The Foreigner’ appeared first on Film School Rejects.

A Crisis of Chrysalis: The Runway Scene in The Neon Demon

By H. Perry Horton

A schism moment in a film about change.

The Neon Demon is Nicolas Winding Refn’s version of a fairy tale. It features a young pauper who’s really a princess – Jesse – it takes place in a magical kingdom – Los Angeles – and it comes complete with jealous stepsisters, spells, and dramatic transformations, but alas, no Prince Charming to save the day. This is a fairy tale in the old-school sense, one that seeks not to entertain but caution, one that takes a real evil inherent to our world and augments it into something allegorical.

At the film’s approximate mid-point, we’re treated to a fairy tale inside this fairy tale, a modern-day Cinderella moment where the shy, unwanted girl is instantly transformed into an icon of beauty, and also an object of covetous, ravenous desire. This moment is depicted in a four-and-a-half-minute runway scene that contains no dialogue, only haunting, tinkling tones and a barrage of imagery and color. It’s a scene I believe to be the film’s most pivotal moment in that it acts as an instant character chrysalis: Jesse enters this scene as a naïve caterpillar, barely aware of the scope of her potential, but she exits the scene a fully-formed butterfly, something beautiful and opulent and fragile in an intoxicating way. What happens in-between is how the change occurs.

First though, a little narrative refresher: after signing with a modeling agency, Jesse aces her first professional audition and lands a gig walking in a show for famed fashion designer Robert Sarno. On the day-of, as he’s preparing the models backstage, Sarno makes a gut decision to have Jesse walk to close the show. This is a very prestigious promotion, especially for a young model making her runway debut.

The show begins. Jesse’s all nerves at first as the other models drift out onto the runway. She closes her eyes to steady herself. This is where her chrysalis begins. When she opens her eyes again a moment later, the other models, the crowd, they’re gone, all she sees in front of her is an unfocused darkness occasionally lit by lens flare, presumably the flashing bulbs of the fashion press removed not by distance, but rather by a measure of consciousness. Then Jesse notices something flickering in the darkness. It’s the image of a point-down triangle made of three smaller triangles that she saw earlier as an hallucination after the Sarno casting call and a run-in with Sarah in the ladies room that ended in a tiny bit of blood-sucking on that other girl’s behalf. The triangle is a symbol of change, of transition; it is also representative of a doorway or a nexus point between places or, in this case, conditions of being.

Neon

The scene at this point is colored cool and deep blue, soft, giving off a tranquil vibe. As Jesse hones her focus on the triangle image, this tranquility overtakes her. Secure in herself, she starts to walk, emerging from a doorway that itself is yet another triangle. As she nears the end of the runway, the triangle image occupies even more of her focus, it grows bigger, rises up to meet her, and fills the entire screen as well as Jesse’s perspective, causing her entranced expression to change to one of muted shock bordering on fear.

The next thing we see, Jesse is staring at herself, or rather three of her selves: another standalone version and its two reflections. All of this is occurring in Jesse’s mind, but fro conceptual purposes, I believe based on the angle of the reflections that Jesse is seeing this “new” self in the center triangle of the triangle image, the one that doesn’t actually have any sides but is formed of the negative space left open by the other three smaller triangles that form the larger image. But wherever this “new” Jesse is, it’s a prism-like structure where the configuration of her two reflections in the top half of the frame and her lone figure centered in the bottom half mimics a triangle positioned point-down.

Neon

As for this “new” Jesse herself, she’s no mere reflection, she is autonomous. From her narrow eyes and slim, stoic lips, she is also bold, sultry, and confident, almost frighteningly-so. “New” Jesse goes to kiss one of her reflections – the one on the right – and the “real” or “old” Jesse flutters her eyes closed. This is when the actual transformation within her chrysalis begins. We see “real” Jesse standing in front of the triangle image, hypnotized she seems, then the screen flutters to black.

Neon

A second later we’re with Jesse again, “real” Jesse, but she’s different. Most notably, she’s now cloaked in a murky red light instead of calming blue. It’s a predatory color, an exotic color, a dangerous color. Her expression matches this mood, and the slight, smooth way she’s moving her head is serpentine, like she’s sizing up prey. The “new” Jesse and her reflections in their prism are also cast in red, but a red interrupted regularly with flickers of blue. This is the transformation occurring. “Real” Jesse shown now in red, along with her altered disposition, indicates she’s ready to change, and the flickering light with “new” Jesse in the prism – blue representing old self, red representing new – indicates the personalities are switching.

Like an inverse Snow White or Aurora, “new” Jesse seals this spell with a kiss, first the reflection to her left (sinister) side, then to her right. “Real” Jesse watches like an aroused voyeur until both kisses are planted, and then it is done. Only one Jesse remains, still drenched in red, and she has assumed the boldness and confidence we saw in her other self, she has emerged from her trance as the stronger persona.

N

She backs away from the triangle image, now neon pink, and watches as it recedes into her subconscious. Then she turns and walks up the runway towards the triangular door, pink as well and reflected in the runway to resemble a shimmering diamond. As Jesse enters this diamond a swirling neon pink mist fills the frame, clouding our perception. Thus the spell is cast. The pauper is now a princess, the girl now an icon.

We see Jesse a beat later in the next scene as she’s coming through a gold curtain, parting it into a triangular opening, and everything about her – her eyes, her expression, her body language, her energy – is different, more mature, more suited for the cutthroat subculture of which she’s now a member. The change was real, and it continues.

In a most basic description, the runway scene is one side of Jesse meeting her other, more-realized self – the self she considers to be her best version – and then becoming her. It is such a total transformation that it almost plays like someone with Dissociative Identity Disorder (what used to be called “Multiple Personality Disorder”) seen from the inside as one persona willingly submits control to another. As this “new” self, Jesse is above all else more confident, which increases her already overwhelming allure. Unfortunately, this increased allure dooms Jesse by making her more of an object of desire to Ruby and more of a threat to Sarah and Gigi. Jesse was never going to survive this world, she was too beautiful for it, but the real tragedy of The Neon Demon – the real caution tucked inside this fairy tale – is that on the way to her inevitable demise, Jesse was seduced into thinking she could not only survive, she could rule, by a bolder version of herself who she was able to inhabit for a while but never permanently support.

Among other things, chrysalis a process of beautification, but in some cases that beautification is a weakening process, it comes with an increased fragility and a decreased lifespan. Nothing beautiful can last; that is, in part, what makes it beautiful, its rarity. What we need to recognize is that chrysalis doesn’t just change the thing cocooned, it changes the perceptions of all who see what emerges. Sometimes these changes are complementary, and sometimes they are not. In the case of The Neon Demon, the chrysalis might have changed Jesse for what she thinks is the better, but even more significantly, it changed those around her for the worse, it augmented their most primal tendencies as it augmented Jesse’s most beautiful. In wilds like these, though, beautiful things are devoured everyday. Humanity is cruel like that.

 

The article A Crisis of Chrysalis: The Runway Scene in The Neon Demon appeared first on Film School Rejects.

Interview: Bong Joon-ho, Tilda Swinton, and Jake Gyllenhaal reveal ‘Okja’

By Matt Hoffman

The director and stars of ‘Okja’ reflect on one of the biggest films (and monsters) of the summer.

Bong Joon-ho’s latest is one of the most anticipated films of the summer. Okja marks the director’s first English-language film where he was given full creative control. With the film out on Netflix this week, viewers can prepare themselves for something massive. No simple monster movie, Okja tackles the meat industry using Bong’s celebrated take on dark comedy. Along for the ride is Tilda Swinton in another shape-shifting performance as Lucy Miranda, the figurehead of the latest venture in meat products: the super pig. Under Lucy’s control is Jake Gyllenhaal‘s Doctor Johnny Wilcox, who must put on a smiling face for the unenlightened public.

Following the film’s premiere at the Cannes Film Festival last month, I talked with the director and the two stars. Here is our conversation:

Tilda, what was it about your experience working on Snowpiercer that made you want to work with Bong Joon-ho again so soon?

Tilda Swinton: I’ll be with Bong ’till the end. He’s now one of my favorite playmates, and anything that he comes up with, I’ll rock and roll with him. I met him in Cannes a few years ago when I was here with We Need To Talk About Kevin and he was on a jury. We had breakfast in a hotel and we became friends. That was it.

How much of your character’s appearance came from you and how much of it came from Bong?

TS: That’s an interesting question because it’s almost impossible to answer. It makes it clear to me how collaboratively we work. We just dream it up together. I realize I didn’t properly answer your last question. I would say it’s this quality of playfulness is something after my own heart. So when we’re putting together any element, even in terms of story arc or anything, it’s just a conversation. It’s a suggestion, it’s a counter-suggestion, and it’s additional suggestion. You just introduce, extend, pull back, and go further together.

With the looks, it’s very easy to find examples. It’s not extreme, as we know. Someone like Lucy is around us and very dominantly in our face quite a lot. So it wasn’t hard to put together the idea of someone so into brand goodness, brand wholeness. We went out to make her part Vestal Virgin, part Barbie doll, part spa manager. That sense of her being super wholesome. She’s even wearing, I don’t know if you noticed, this pink rose quartz for clearing her energy. It’s all nonsense — I mean, it’s not nonsense, of course, but for her to do it is a complete facade. She’s just a clown.

Can you talk about Lucy’s relationship with her sister Nancy (also played by Swinton)? They’re so radically different, yet similar, of course.

TS: The thing is that when we worked together on Mason in Snowpiercer, we looked at a construct, a way in which these politicians are really grotesque. With this film we wanted to unpack it a little further. Lucy is a reaction to something; she’s a reaction to her father. We get the impression that Nancy is really a continuation of her father’s style. So we needed to see two sides. In a way, I think it’s the portrait of one schizophrenic person. Who knows if Nancy really exists? Let’s face it, Lucy kind of disappears at a certain point. This was about setting up oppositions because Lucy creates herself to be as different as she can from Nancy. It was fun.

Did making the film change the way you think about eating meat?

TS: I don’t really eat meat. I’ve never really eaten meat, so it’s not an issue for me. But fortunately, I’m in a place where to find wild meat is quite easy. I think it’s very different in cities to find meat that you are able to find information about where and how it’s killed.

What is it that attracts you about these roles that allow you to change your appearance?

TS: For me, it’s very simple, it’s very childlike, it’s just dressing up and playing, that’s what amuses me. I’ve believed that if you’re going to have to be in a film, the best thing is to be in one film and then never be in another one. Having broken that rule for myself, I would rather try and be new. Partly for myself, because I don’t want to see myself. So it’s quite nice trying to present something fresh and unseen. But it’s really just to do with dressing up and playing, trying to layer identity.

Okja

It’s no secret that you had trouble releasing Snowpiercer because the producers wouldn’t give you final cut. Now, with Netflix, you have complete creative control. How does that feel?

Bong Joon-ho: When I was making films in Korea, I always had final cut. This thing with Harvey Weinstein was something different. Nevertheless, it was a good experience for me. That was how The Weinstein Company did their thing. For me, I always had final cut. In retrospect, I guess it was a good experience. From the beginning, Netflix said I would have final cut.  I was free to do whatever I wanted. Even in the script stage, there was no interference, no force of change. The studios that liked the script were very concerned about how big the budget was. The studios that could handle the budget were very concerned about how dangerous the script sounded. We couldn’t find a good middle ground, but then Netflix came in and saved the day.

Why did you want to make a film on the meat industry?

BJH: There was one time when I actually visited a slaughterhouse in Colorado. I spent the whole day witnessing first hand how a living organism is turned into a product. It was overwhelming. It was like a factory. Usually, a factory assembles things, but that factory is disassembling from the beginning. They use very cold and hard metallic machinery to disassemble the organic being. If you get to witness that in person, it would be very shocking to you, too. I don’t think that people eating animals is necessarily a bad thing, because even animals eat animals. I don’t have a problem with people slaughtering animals to eat them. In the pre-capitalism era that’s what they did, and I’m fine with that kind of structure of people eating animals. The problem is, and the problem with the slaughterhouse system also, is that capitalism was introduced and it consumed the animal consumption business. That’s when the problems began to arise.

The slaughterhouse that you see in the film is based on my visit to that slaughterhouse. However, in the feed yard outside, where the pigs are waiting for their death, it is based on something further. I thought about the look of a Holocaust camp. I really wanted humans to understand what it felt like for those animals. At my visit to the slaughterhouse, I saw how animals are turned into products. After that was over I went outside and witnessed the animals lining up to enter the slaughterhouse. That was the moment where I experienced the most powerful impression. Maybe some of them already knew what was going to happen to them, maybe some did not know. It’s hard to describe that emotion I felt when I was watching them.

Okja Gyllenhaal

Jake, can you talk about the process of working with Bong and crafting the character of Johnny Wilcox together?

Jake Gyllenhaal: I’ve known Bong for a long time. We’ve talked many times over the years abut different things. When he first showed me the image of Okja it was just in passing. I asked if there was role in it for me and he suggested this part. Throughout the process it was always a really fun, interesting, creative conversation and inevitably ended up evolving into this strange exploration into this character who is desperate for attention and is a horrible performer. I love that. The set is like that on his movies. There’s a very structured frame, but within that he gives you total carte blanche. He kept pushing this character further and further into a certain kind of wonderful madness.

You really pushed the boundary here.

JG: More and more that is what I’m interested in, taking risks and things that are uncomfortable for other people and uncomfortable for me. This just happens to be one of them. They were so lovely to give me those socks and shorts which give a full expression of what I’ve always wanted to wear. I asked for them to be shorter but you have to respect the director’s choice, of course [laughs].

BJH: Although Johnny looks like a mad clown in initial viewings of the film, after repeated viewings you’ll see these gems of subtle moments where he’s acting in between those mad-clownish moments. In repeated viewings, that’s what I look for and cherish. Johnny, unlike what we see, is a very fragile character. He’s very prone to being hurt by other people, even by Tilda’s character as you see in the film. She scolds him and he’s hurt by it.

Did you base this character on anyone?

JG: Yeah, there are a number of different people. Particularly some zoologists and animal show hosts that Bong shared with me. It’s an interesting world. In order to speak particularly to children, there’s this strange kind of affectation that people seem to take, we all do it in one way or another. The bad performances we all give to children, which just becomes magnified when they’re on television and they’re a desperate child themselves that has never been loved or coddled. That was interesting to me as an idea. Also this somewhat Shakespearean storyline of this guy who has had to turn himself into something that he’s absolutely not. He’s desperate for this attention. It’s kind of lovely that the audience hates him, but he doesn’t even mean to be hated. I love that about the character. The scariest moment really was when I had to play with the bear. No stunt double there. It was a lovely Korean bear, though.

BJH: Very well-trained. What’s sad about Johnny is that he’s always in front of a camera. He’s always on the stage and doesn’t have much alone time in the film. Somebody is always spectating Johnny.

JG: It’s just really bad performing. Nothing about his performance is deep enough. Everything is an effort, and he’s trying too hard in this way that I really loved. Sometimes you get so deep in a character that you spend so much time trying to shape something. That’s not him. There’s no real depth to this guy, which is why he’s so broken.

Is Okja’s appearance based off of any real animals?

BJH: Yes. I thought of him as part elephant, part hippopotamus, and part manatee. We really refrained from making the character look like a Disney cartoon. We wanted to make it look like a realistic animal. Nevertheless, I do have a big respect for Disney cartoon characters. I’m not denouncing them in any shape or form.

The article Interview: Bong Joon-ho, Tilda Swinton, and Jake Gyllenhaal reveal ‘Okja’ appeared first on Film School Rejects.

The Tao of Nicolas Cage: ‘Fire Birds’ or ‘Top Gun’ With Helicopters

By Chris Coffel

What if Top Gun was about helicopters instead of jets and paired Nicolas Cage with a sleepwalking Sean Young?

“I am the greatest. I am the greatest. I am the greatest. I AM THE GREATEST!”

There are a number of things I love about doing this column every week, and they’re all variations of watching Nic Cage movies. My favorite variation is when I watch one of the handful of Cage movies I’ve missed over the years. There’s always a little extra excitement when I’m writing about something that is an entirely new experience for me. My new experience this week is Fire Birds.

Cage stars as Jake Preston, a young hot shot helicopter pilot for the US Army. Jake is part of a team of helicopter pilots that are teamed with the Drug Enforcement Administration in an effort to lead America’s war on drugs in a head-on fight with the South American cartels.

On his most recent mission, Jake sees some friends killed in action by an enemy chopper, largely due to the fact that their helicopters just can’t compete. The Army decides it’s time to upgrade to the new AH-64 Apache attack helicopters. Jake is quickly elected to be part of the team set to receive this new training from veteran pilot and flight instructor Brad Little (Tommy Lee Jones). Upon his arrival at training, Jake encounters his ex-girlfriend and fellow pilot Billie (Sean Young).

Going into Fire Birds, I was basically expecting a Top Gun ripoff, and that’s pretty much what it is. There are some differences in the details, but the premise is essentially the same, and it’s clearly obvious that Fire Birds is at least attempting to cash in on the success of Top Gun. There are a number of reason why Fire Birds isn’t as popular as Top Gun, but above all else it’s because of the simple fact that helicopters just aren’t as exciting as jets.

Within the film there are a number of great helicopter stunts, and they do look cool. The film is banking on these to be the big selling point. So yeah, they look cool but still lack excitement. Despite all the maneuvering these choppers do in the air, they just look kind of slow and clunky. There’s a reason that there are professional sports teams and gangs named after jets and none named after helicopters. Jets are rad, helicopters are meh.

Once we move beyond the helicopters and into the details we encounter more problems. When Little arrives on base to begin the training, it becomes pretty clear what trope we’re about to see between he and Jake. During Little’s introductory meeting, Jake just glares at him the whole time. Little is the grizzled veteran and Jake is the young pilot that reminds Little of a younger version of himself. The two are going to bump heads as Little rides Jake harder than the other trainees because he wants to push him to be the best, right? Well, not exactly.

Msdfire Ec

Little and Jake seem to hit it off right away. Jake basically proclaims that he’s the best, and Little agrees. Jake even shows up at Little’s surprise 40th birthday party within the film’s first 20 minutes. So maybe the film is taking a slightly different approach by having these two become friends right away? Not quite, because about 40 minutes in, Jake gets mad and says Little is harder on him than the other recruits. But that’s not the case at all. Fire Birds drops the ball on a very basic trope.

Despite their relationship not playing out the way it obviously should, there is still a lot of enjoyment to be had with Jake and Little thanks to Cage and Jones. It’s fun to see these two icons bounce off one another, as they make a really good pair.

Then you have Jake and Billie and their relationship, and oh boy is it rough. When we first meet Billie, Jake talks about having heard of her, and she gives no indication that she knows anything about Jake. It plays out like the two are meeting for the first time and Jake is smitten with this famous pilot. Turns out they dated previously and Jake is now trying to win her back.

Everything between Jake and Billie is so weird. In one of their first scenes together, Jake shows up at the laundromat where Billie is washing her clothes. He grabs a pair of her panties that fell on the floor and sticks them in the belt loop on his jeans. When she goes to leave, he playful pulls them out and says, “You forgot something.” I guess this is a weird form of flirting? To me it felt more like creeper 101.

Moving beyond that creepy moment, there is zero chemistry between Cage and Young. I mean none whatsoever. It’s crazy bad. And I know bias towards Cage, but I think most would agree that a lot of the blame falls on Young. She’s sleepwalking through this thing with some of the laziest line readings you’ll ever witness. Cage is trying, but he’s got nothing to work with.

Check out this date/love scene set to Phil Collins and see for yourself how weird their relationship is. These two people should not be going on a date.

So Cage’s Jake has two major relationships in the film and they’re both poorly written. How does Cage handle it all? Pretty well! He seems to be having a lot of fun here despite the bad material. He was about 26 when he made this, so pretty young. But he already had a lot of success under his belt, so you can sense that he’s confident and willing to try anything. I bet the panties in the belt loop thing was a Cage original. Seems like a funky choice he would make.

Fire Birds doesn’t have any next level Cage freak outs but there are some quality moments. There are some little things, like his choice to chew strawberry bubble gum while flying. With most actors this would be nothing, but he does it in a very particular way that it’s so Cage-ian.

The highlight of the film is Cage in a flight simulator. Before he can actually get out and fly a real Apache helicopter, he has to pass the simulator. In this scene we see the gum thing I mentioned, but then we get to witness his ego taking over as he just starts shouting over and over, “I am the greatest! I am the greatest!” It’s incredible and you should watch it.

At this point, you’re probably thinking I hate Fire Birds and if you are, you’re wrong. I love this movie for reasons I do not understand. There’s something wonderfully mundane and bizarre about this movie that I can’t help but love it. It’s wildly problematic and a less exciting Top Gun, but there’s also something fascinating about its mere existence.

Fire Birds is one of those movies that you truly wonder how it got made. From the surface level it seems obvious, but once you dig into its weirdness it’s hard to understand how anyone signed off on this. At any rate, I’m glad whoever OK’d it did, because now I can watch it over and over again and maybe someday it’ll all finally come together and make sense. I doubt that very much, but that won’t stop me from enjoying this mess.

The article The Tao of Nicolas Cage: ‘Fire Birds’ or ‘Top Gun’ With Helicopters appeared first on Film School Rejects.

Wesley Snipes Stars in First Trailer for Sci-Fi Action 'Armed Response'

Armed Response Trailer

"Whoever did this is still inside." Saban Films has debuted the trailer for a weird new sci-fi action thriller titled Armed Response, starring Wesley Snipes - who seems to be back in action between this and The Recall. The film is about a crew of special forces soldiers who go to a special high-tech military compound to investigate the disappearance of another team guarding the facility. The facility, known as a "Temple", is run by artificial intelligence designed to interrogate high level prisoners. But things get very strange as soon as they arrive. This also stars Anne Heche, Dave Annable, Gene Simmons, Anthony Azizi, and WWE Superstar Seth Rollins. I really don't know what to think of this - could be bad, could be okay. Take a look.

Here's the first official trailer (+ poster) for John Stockwell's Armed Response, direct from YouTube:

Armed Response Poster

A team of special forces soldiers approach the designer of a high-tech military compound to investigate the disappearance of another team guarding the facility. The compound, known professionally as a Temple, is an artificial intelligence powered facility designed for interrogating high level prisoners. Upon entering the Temple, the soldiers quickly find the earlier team horrifically slaughtered but no evidence as to who is responsible. Almost immediately upon arriving, the crew begins to experience strange and horrific supernatural phenomena as they attempt to uncover who killed the previous team. Armed Response is directed by filmmaker John Stockwell, of Cat Run, Blue Crush, Into the Blue, Dark Tide, and Kickboxer: Vengeance previously. The screenplay is written by Matt Savelloni. Saban Films/Lionsgate will open Stockwell's Armed Response in select theaters + on VOD starting August 4th this summer. Anyone?

Copyright © Cinenus | Powered by Blogger

Design by Anders Noren | Blogger Theme by NewBloggerThemes.com