Archives

Q&A with Laura Linney and Ian McKellen

Posted on by

The following questions and answers are excerpted from a conversation that followed the NBR screening of Mr. Holmes.

Mr. Holmes exists in two different time frames, 30 years apart. How do you approach these two very different characters who are the same person?

McKellen: With excitement, because it’s a nice challenge. To play an older man, and then a younger man. The actor gets to show off a bit.

Linney: My favorite shot in the whole movie is the tracking shot of Mrs. Kelmont walking through and you following her. It’s so elegant. The physicality of the younger Mr. Holmes haunts the whole rest of the movie.

“You can learn how someone moves by the rhythm of the language”

McKellen: That’s a bit of London that exists. That’s not faked. I do think this movie is a bit of a British tourist board advertisement. I love that moment when the young Mr. Holmes goes after the wonderful actress Hattie Morahan [Ann Kelmont]. I’ve got to show that the younger version of him has more energy. So when he’s going after her and he’s approaching the gates and there are a bunch of steps, I just sort of jump up on them. You can be sprightly at 60. At 76, it gets a bit trickier!

When you are learning a character, how they move, how they talk, what is the process like for you?

Linney: Every movie is different for me. How I start is just reading it and reading it. And this is going to sound a little strange, but then the script will sort of tell me what to do. You start to feel your way through. I do a lot of preparation and then I throw it all away. And I walk into work, and I’m that person, and I’m in their clothes, and I’m on that day’s set. You’ve made all these decisions and they guide you through, but you have to throw it all away and just be there and react. And it’s always about the other person. It’s never about you. It’s always about who you’re looking at, what you’re hearing, and what you’re seeing. So really, my performance is because of Ian, and because of Milo [Parker]. But it’s different for every movie.

McKellen: I realized a while ago that not only does every human being look like themselves, but we’ve all got individual hands and we move them in individual ways. And we are all different and we walk differently. Every human being walks like himself or herself. It’s surprising how few actors care to change the way they walk. I like to walk like the character does, which isn’t quite like me.

Linney: You can also learn how someone moves by the rhythm of the language, if you’re a really great writer. The language can indicate movement. If it’s nervous language, if it flows . . . there are hints everywhere. That’s what I love about the process. When I did Abigail Adams, the single most interesting thing to me was that she was severely pigeon-toed. So underneath all those garments was someone who was tripping over herself most of the time, and what does that do to someone to stay balanced. Something just as little as that will inform.

You mentioned that Bill Condon is director that actors love to work with. What is it that he does so well?

Linney: It’s a long list.

McKellen: It’s not just actors, you see, it’s everybody. Bill has all the determination and strength of the control freak without any freakness. He wants everything to be right and leaves nothing to chance. You really get the impression that your contribution is valued. And he’s very clear about what he wants. We’d do anything for him.

Linney: We would. And that goes for everyone on the crew. That goes for editors, cinematographers, everyone. He’s one of those people that just makes every experience better. When you have a great director, it infects every bit of the environment. He creates a spectacular environment in which people can really do good work. He’s collaborative in a way that is not patronizing, but at the same time doesn’t deflate his own importance to the group. You know he’s the one in charge and you want him in charge. And he’s so technically proficient that he has an enormous amount of time to deal with the actors. You just want to be around him.

The National Board of Review Announces 2015 Student Grant Winners

Posted on by

THE NATIONAL BOARD OF REVIEW ANNOUNCES 2015 STUDENT GRANT WINNERS

New York, NY (July 6, 2015) – The National Board of Review announced today that it will be awarding grant money through the organization’s annual Student Grant Program to 23 filmmakers, including nine graduate students and fourteen undergraduate students. These schools include Brooklyn College, City College, Columbia University, Hunter College, Ringling College of Art + Design, New York University, and Wesleyan University.

In addition to the student grants, one student film will also be awarded with The Marion Carter Green Award. The Marion Carter Green Award is an endowed prize given annually by the NBR to an excellent short student film that exhibits noteworthy use of musical elements. The award is made possible through the generosity of Laurence Mark, honoring the memory of Ms. Green, his mother and long-time NBR Board member.

Partnering with The National Board of Review to award the 2015 student grants are two New York City post-production facilities, Light Iron Digital and Senior Post. Returning NBR grant partner Light Iron Digital will be awarding $5,000 worth of services to an NBR grant winner. In its first year as an NBR grant partner, Senior Post will offer a special $5,000 prize, as well as $5,000 worth of services, to one NBR grant winner.

“We are excited to recognize this year’s student grant winners, and to support 18 distinctive films from nine film programs,” said NBR Managing Director Orson Robbins-Pianka. “With the help of our partners at Senior Post and Light Iron Digital, the National Board of Review is proud to help usher in the next generation of young filmmakers.”

Through the Student Grant Program, The National Board of Review promotes the cinematic future by helping young filmmakers finish their projects and exhibit them around the world at such film festivals as Sundance, Slamdance, Telluride, and New Directors/New Films, among others. Over the years, several filmmakers have won Student Academy Awards. The NBR also helps young filmmakers by supporting community organizations, such as the The Ghetto Film School, Reel Works Teen Filmmaking, and the Educational Video Center. The Board’s core activities include fostering commentary on all aspects of film production, as well as underwriting educational film programs and seminars for film students.

About the National Board of Review

For 106 years, the National Board of Review has dedicated its efforts to the support of domestic and foreign cinema as both art and entertainment. Each year, over 250 films (studio, independent, foreign-language, animated, and documentary) are viewed by this select group of film enthusiasts, filmmakers, professionals, academics, and students. These screenings are frequently followed by in-depth discussions with directors, actors, producers, and screenwriters. One of the NBR’s core values is their belief in nurturing new and up-and-coming filmmakers. They do this by awarding grants to promising film students and by facilitating community outreach through the support of organizations such as The Ghetto Film School, Reel Works Teen Filmmaking, and the Educational Video Center.

 Join the conversation @NBRfilm

 ###

Contact:

DKC Public Relations
Ella Robinson
Ella_Robinson@dkcnews.com
(212) 981-5135

Q&A with Jonas Rivera and Pete Docter

Posted on by

The following questions and answers are excerpted from a conversation that followed the NBR screening of Inside Out.

How did you develop the visual language of this film?

Docter: It was really challenging. There were things that we felt were important early on that ended up boxing us in. Even having primary colors for all the emotions was difficult. I’m not saying this is easy, but with Nemo or Cars, you at least had a picture you could use – a fish or a car. But with this film, you can’t take a picture of an emotion. We relied on some verbal idioms like I feel blue, I feel sad, I’m about to explode with rage, etc. We would use those to start and the artists drew thousands of drawings.

“We wanted them to look like how our emotions feel.”

Rivera: There are so many variables on what Joy could look like. I think it was Albert Lozano, our character art director, who was able to put forth what Pete suggested, that we wanted them to look like how our emotions feel. They came up with this very simple thing. Joy was a star, or a spark. Golden and illuminated. Sadness was a teardrop. So her shape and color resemble a teardrop. Fear is like a raw nerve, just a squiggly line, that’s why he’s tight. Disgust is the shape and color of a stalk of broccoli. And of course anger is a brick, immovable. So we put those shapes on the wall and that was the foothold and now let’s personify that. It just felt right to us. We didn’t want them to be little people. Pete said they should be made out of energy.

Where did this story come from?

Docter: When my daughter was eleven, she kind of went from being a happy, spunky little spitball of a kid to being . . . kind of quiet. So I was like, oh no! I remember that and this is a hard time. She was already tall and lanky, and then there was this mood change that made me wonder what was going on inside her head. At the same time I was playing with ideas of emotions as characters, which seemed perfect for what animation could do. Strong, opinionated characters that make animation fun.

Rivera: He gave a great, really simple pitch. He said “What if we told a story about a little girl, but instead of her being the main character, she’s the set. And we go inside and personify her emotions and it’s told through that.” It seemed like such a worthy setup.

Did it change much from original pitch? 

Docter: The original pitch was just, “here’s a concept.” Then we had to come up with an actual story and how to represent that dramatically with characters that grow and change. There were some definite side roads we took along the way. For Riley as a character, we wanted to talk about growing up and how best to represent that. You can’t have ticks on a doorway; you want to show it dramatically. So we ended up with moving as a metaphor. We started telling the story of a kid growing up, and then we realized we were actually telling a story of adults watching our kids grow up. Joy, as the main character, was originally paired with fear. For a lot of us, fear was a big motivating factor in junior high. We thought there would be a lot of entertainment possibilities. And there were, but three years in we started to realize that it wasn’t adding up to anything as a thesis statement. What was it about? So we stepped back. It kind of came to me when I realized the people I’ve been the closest with are the ones that I’ve gotten angry with, or shared loss with, and been scared for. It’s really those emotional moments that bring closeness with relationships, which are the most important things in our lives. That’s what made me go, “Okay fear has to go, and it’s about sadness bringing people together”. That was on a Sunday, Father’s Day . . .

Rivera: It was 10:30 at night and he calls, and we had a screening scheduled in three weeks, which is like five minutes in animation time. So we sat down with [co-director] Ronnie Del Carmen and Pete pitched this alternate version and we realized immediately it was the right way to go. It lead to a more beautiful ending and honored the original premise in a better way.

How do you balance making a film that works for both kids and adults?

Rivera: The movies we loved growing up have aged with us. I see Dumbo very differently now than I did when I was eight. Joe Grant was the head of story and hired by Disney in the 30s, and he was a mentor to Pete and by proxy I got to know him. He was this amazing guy, literally died drawing at his desk, we dedicated Up to him. He talked a lot about going beyond entertainment value and fun. He’d say things like “What are you asking the audience to take home with them when they leave the theater?” We feel so lucky we have these jobs where we get to make stuff and we try to make it personal. I think audiences do crave something with a nugget of truth, even in a fantastical film. Halfway through we started to wonder if it was getting too far out, but at a certain point you decide, we don’t care, we like it and we believe in it and it’s about our daughters. So we think that’s worthy and we’re going to make it as fun and as entertaining as possible.

Docter: And then add pie-in-the face and fart jokes.

 

Q&A with Brett Haley, Blythe Danner, and Sam Elliot

Posted on by

The following questions and answers are excerpted from a conversation that followed the NBR screening of I’ll See You in My Dreams.

Why did you choose to tell this particular story?

Haley: This is of course the first question I get at every Q&A. The first thing people say when they see me – since I’m a young guy – is you made this? They ask if it was inspired by someone, and it’s not. It’s not based on any real life events or people. It’s more based on themes and questions I was asking myself as a human being about life and death and loss. I guess now I look back and it is sort of surprising that the character of Carol came to me. I think having the weight of older characters that have experienced loss was frankly more interesting.

“I have a theory that chemistry comes from generosity as an actor.”

You two had such lovely chemistry in your scenes together. Had you ever worked together?

Elliot: No, we’ve never even met. Never crossed paths. Only from afar.

Danner: I had always heard that extraordinary voice and seen him in those incredible films and thought, wouldn’t it be nice . . .

Haley: That’s a testament to these actors. We didn’t have any time. We only had a table read. And that just goes to show you the talent of the people in this film. I think a lot of that has to do with Blythe being such a generous actress. She’s in every scene. People talk a lot about chemistry, and I have a theory that it comes from generosity as an actor. If you’re generous and realize that it’s not about me, but it’s about us and about you as much as it’s about me, then it works. I think it comes from being on stage – I was taught that in drama school. I was taught the more you give to someone else, the more they give to you.

Blythe: It comes from the helm, from the director. He was so flexible and patient and kind.

Ms. Danner, it’s an amazing performance and you’re the center of the film carrying every scene.

Danner: After I read the script, the only thing that kept me from saying yes immediately was would I have the stamina? I was doing a play at the time. We did know it’d be a short shoot. It was eighteen days. The one saving grace is that he was kind enough to give us two days off. We did five-day weeks instead of six, which is rare for independent film. So that was my worry, but I couldn’t get over what this young man came up with and how he understood loss. It was so eloquent, so simple, and everything was on the page. All we actors had to do was access it. I feel sort of guilty saying this, but it was one of the easiest jobs I’ve had. And I’ve never had a leading role in a film. It was such a joy to live this long and be given such a wonderful leading part.

Bill is a really interesting character. We know just enough about him to know that he’s mysterious, yet we understand him because he’s so direct.

Elliot: I think that’s a great quality for one to have. I’d like to think I’m direct, but I’m certainly not as direct as Bill. It’s a wonderful opportunity, a gift to play these characters that come along in our careers that are so much better human beings than us (laughs).

Danner: Carol and Bill have a similar quality, that’s why they connect. They’re past the age of being polite. They speak the way they feel.

Haley: Sam was the first person I offered the part to. On the page, Bill was meant to be mysterious. Sam and I would talk about his backstory. Usually you want to talk about this stuff, but with Bill it didn’t matter. He’s supposed to be a mystery. But then Sam brought a really sensitive quality to Bill. There’s that scene, one of my favorites, when they’re at dinner after being on the boat. He talks about his theory, and he’s acting like a big guy, but then she tells him about losing her dog, and he just clicks in and becomes so much more. It’s like another layer is revealed. He really understands loss and I think it’s a really beautiful conversation about the themes in the film.

Q&A with Alex Garland and Oscar Isaac

Posted on by

The following questions and answers are excerpted from a conversation that followed the NBR screening of Ex Machina.

How did you arrive at Nathan being this weightlifting, heavy drinking, bro-ish guy?

Garland: Nathan is just outmaneuvering this young guy [Caleb] every time. If the people you’re interacting with are physically intimidating and intellectually intimidating and also very rich, it doesn’t leave you much room to maneuver.

It feels like Nathan wins every conversation they have.

Isaac: Which makes it all the more enjoyable when the table starts to turn.

Garland: There’s a scene in the middle of the film where Caleb tries to assert himself. He asks “Why did you give this machine an apparent gender?” And Nathan’s character lets him argue and have his lead for a moment. And then he totally demolishes him.

“To sexualize her, we had her put on clothes.”

There’s an extended scene where Ava both puts on clothes and takes them off, and it seems to change the audience’s relationship to her completely.

Garland: It’s overtly seductive. You’ve been seeing this machine which you are now starting to feel does have a gender or maybe some human-like qualities, in the act of taking off clothes and reverting back to the form she’s been in up to that point. Suddenly the moment is sexualized, but why is it sexualized? What has happened? The weird thing is that to sexualize her in some respect, we had her put ON clothes. She’s on the front foot there. She’s putting Caleb on the back foot by rather innocently but also sort of bluntly saying “Are you attracted to me?”

Can you talk about Nathan’s relationship with the other two characters and how he presents himself to them?

Isaac: We had one read through with the four of us – Alex, Domhnall [Gleeson], and Alicia [Vikander] – where we read the whole thing out loud. On set we’d talk. The nature of the scenes, we don’t have to be in agreement of what’s happening. In some ways it’s better if we’re not. I have a friend, a brilliant astrophysicist. He’s a heavy drinker as well. He has a tendency of interrupting everyone’s sentences, because he’s so smart he knows where you’re going and gets bored and wants to move on to the next thing. I liked that and thought it would be a cool thing to try for Nathan. So I did that in the first week and it was uncomfortable for Domhnall. I know because we’ve talked about it since, but it put Nathan on the front foot and Caleb on the back foot.

What influenced the dance scene? It’s unexpected but also amazing.

Isaac: The disco non-sequitur? That was there in the script and it’s a “what the hell?” moment, but then you go through it and you realize that it says so much about what Nathan has been doing . . . that he’s been there alone and the fact that he’s choreographed the whole thing. It’s very sad as well. We had Mr. Disco – he won the title in 1979 – choreograph it.

Garland: The whole thing about it was aggression. We wanted to have a spike in the film. And just as people are starting to dig it, you cut out, to be aggressive and have a spike in the tone.

Isaac: It’s one of those things where you have no idea if it’s going to work – privately I was feeling this! Is this going to be super goofy? And it kind of is, but that’s the point and why it works so well.

Garland: Everyone on the set loved that day.