Shelf Life: Fight Club
Shelf Life: Fight Club
By all accounts, 1999 was one of the best years in film history, featuring an amazing glut of debuts and career-defining follow-ups from a rich and varied roster of directors who are steadily working some ten years later. For example American Beauty, which was also released in ‘99, was one of the first films revisited in our “Shelf Life” series, and it seemed most likely to lose its luster, especially given its Oscar win and almost universal critical acclaim, but thankfully the film sustained most of its initial appeal and impact.
Fight Club, meanwhile, faced markedly more polarizing reactions from audiences and critics, although like Alan Ball’s film it captured a moment in the zeitgeist that made it important almost regardless of how good it was. Ten years later, Fox Home Entertainment just released the film on Blu-ray in a gorgeous new set, and after a decade of conspicuous consumption and ironic detachment, it’s time to see whether the weight of its message or meaning still holds relevance.
The Facts: Released on October 15, 1999, David Fincher’s Fight Club is an adaptation of the Chuck Palahniuk novel of the same name, adapted by screenwriter Jim Uhls. Its incendiary deconstruction of contemporary culture and the narcotizing effects of consumerism, particularly on men, was met with mixed reactions: some hailed it as a brilliant social commentary, while others condemned it as empty provocation, or worse, irresponsible.
Regardless, the film eventually earned $100 million domestically against its $63 million budget (reportedly $17.5 million of which went to star Brad Pitt), and enjoys an 80 percent fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It was nominated for only one Academy Award, for Sound Effects Editing, but it was also nominated for several awards by different critics groups including the Online Film Critics Society, and subsequently netted several awards for its DVD release, which featured several commentaries and featurettes exploring the world within the film.
What Still Works: While during its original release the film was deliberately, perhaps even conventionally reactionary (“f*ck Martha Stewart!”), it really serves as a powerful reminder that contemporary consumer culture is still designed to satisfy us in superficial ways and ultimately distract us from the human connections and more visceral accomplishments that prove more meaningful. Particularly with the benefit of hindsight, the film’s analysis of overmodulated consumption, broken down to the details and objects in our life that supposedly define us, is especially potent, and deserves to be revisited as a reminder to remain vigilant against that kind of complacency.
fight2
Meanwhile, I think especially now the film escapes being mere provocation or dangerous advocacy because it ultimately acknowledges that these characters are trading one oppressive structure for another, and that even the intentional absence of order eventually creates its own organized sense of routine, if not full-fledged cultural mores (hence Project Mayhem, the “space monkeys”‘ blind devotion to their anarchic causes, etc).
In terms of the performances, Pitt and Edward Norton are both really terrific as, essentially, the same guy, albeit in different iterations of his self-confidence, much less self-awareness. Fincher, coming off of the menacing polish of The Game, finds a gorgeously gritty aesthetic that really brings the narrator’s oblivious self-examination to life, and creates a truly subversive and valuable portrait of what is essential schizophrenia, filtered through both movie-star sheen and the thematically-reinforced, exacting opposite of stardom’s supposed “importance” – namely, that all of that beauty and truth is as illusory as anything else.
What Doesn’t Work: Surprisingly little, although the unwieldy structure, oddball rhythms of the storytelling and its eventual descent into (self-) destruction seem more shocking in the context of real-life events like 9/11, not to mention our culture’s subsequent escape even further into conventional, comfortable forms of entertainment. There’s lingering resonance to the destruction of the banks at the end of the film, both in terms of domestic and international terrorism and the current state of our economic system, but it’s subjective whether that’s a virtue or a shortcoming for film, since it certainly isn’t the film’s fault.
Otherwise, there is a degree to which the idea of white guys bemoaning their pampered, IKEA-sustained existence feels, well, so 1999, and that their reaction feels like a more than slightly self-indulgent rebellion that people with constructive minds wouldn’t act out. But as a parable and a perhaps necessary reminder of the complacency and boring blandness that can come from a life lived within the lines – and in light of the fact it’s meant not to be taken literally - Fight Club still transcends such criticisms.
What’s The Verdict: Fight Club is a really terrific movie and I am genuinely relieved to say that it holds up beautifully for the most part. Not only was it the first movie that I bought on DVD, but it was an important one in my adult, intellectual maturation, particularly in discovering that as conceptually appealing as such reckless behavior might be, it ultimately serves as mush as a prison as any other philosophy or paradigm. I think I still prefer Fincher’s previous film, The Game, if only because it was just so shocking and cathartic when I first saw it, but Fight Club is a wake-up call and a punch in the gut that needs to still be felt.
Watch This: The Muppets’ ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’
Watch This: The Muppets' 'Bohemian Rhapsody'
There are times in this busy world when I forget just how cool The Muppets are. Randomly mention the beastly little guys and gals, and I’ll smile politely, vaguely remembering the good old days. Put them in front of me, however, and it’s a challenge to not let out a real world, ear-breaking shriek of squee. I don’t care how long they’ve been around — The Muppets are cool, and they are no cooler than when they’re delighting in the epic grandeur of rhapsody … Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody,” that is.
We all know the song. It was pretty epic in its own right, and then soared to new levels in Wayne’s World, where it grabbed the #2 spot on the Billboard charts almost two decades after its release. Now the MuppetsStudio on YouTube have released the ultra-awesome clip you can see after the jump — an arseload of Muppets singing the classic Queen song just like the old-school music video. And it’s convinced me that Beaker is a lost member of the band.
The bad thing about all of this is that it’s making me wish for a whole different sort of Muppet movie. Sure, Jason Segel is planning The Greatest Muppet Movie of All Time, and the project will involve the gang reuniting to save the studio. But considering this video, and the utter awesomeness that is Segel’s rock opera inForgetting Sarah Marshall, couldn’t they halt things, change scope, and make thisThe Greatest Muppet Rock Opera of All Time? The possibilities are wonderfully epic and so utterly perfect. Who’s with me?
Top 10 SUMMER MOVIES of 2009 LIST pt 2
Top 10 SUMMER MOVIES of 2009 LIST pt 1
Interview: Judd Apatow (Part One)
Interview: Judd Apatow (Part One)
Read Part Two of this interview right here
Funny People was the latest in Judd Apatow’s ongoing series of summer comedies, but it was anything but a typical summer comedy: following a successful comedian (played by Apatow’s longtime friend Adam Sandler) who reflects on his life after discovering he’s going to die, the film offered lots of humor but with decidedly heavier themes lurking beneath the yuks. The film debuts on Blu-ray in a 2-Disc Collector’s Edition next week, and the contents are amazing, showing how Apatow combined lighthearted fare with more serious ideas in the service of exploring something substantive.
Cinematical was lucky enough to catch up with Apatow via telephone one recent morning to discuss the process of putting together the film’s home video iteration. In addition to discussing the bonus materials, extras, featurettes, and a documentary that’s the most thorough and thoughtful ever produced about a comedy production, Apatow talked about finding the right ending for his magnum opus, discovering and deconstructing the process of producing laughs, and front-loading the film’s universe with outside content about the supporting characters.
Cinematical: One of the ideas highlighted in the Blu-ray bonus materials was the fact that you knew this was going in a different direction than your previous films. Even knowing that while you were making it, were you surprised by the reactions of audiences and critics when it was released? Or does it matter?
Apatow: Well, while making the movie it was exhilarating to think we were doing something different that would elicit a wide range of reactions. I’m the first person to get thrown when Bill Murray makes The Razor’s Edge, but I did love the movie and then I read the book. But it took some work to understand what he was trying to do with his career, and only now that I’m older am I not angry at Woody Allen for making Sleeper 25 times (laughs). I’ve been through it with a lot of my friends, watching them take risks and attempt to grow; when we made The Cable Guy, it threw a lot of people because Jim [Carrey] was basically saying I want to have a varied career and do a lot of different things that you wouldn’t expect of me, and it paid off well for him with that movie and Eternal Sunshine and The Truman Showand a lot of ambitious movies he went on to make. It throws people at the time, but it’s great; who wants to watch me or anyone else do the same thing every time out? And it’s been fun. People overall have had a really more intimate relationship with the movie than the other movies; it definitely makes you think about things most people are trying to avoid thinking about most of the time (laughs). They write books called like A Year To Live, where people try to figure out their priorities by imagining what it would be like if they had less time, and in a strange way this is a comedic-dramatic version of that. It makes you think about how you would look at your life differently if suddenly you got sick and then got better.
Cinematical: You and Adam both say that he went anywhere you asked him to. Would you say that’s because you knew him well enough to be able to challenge him effectively, or was he just game for anything, with or without you pushing him?
Apatow: I think Adam is a brave artist. He said to me, “I’m going to do whatever you ask me to do and I’m not going to question it. I want you to make the movie you’re going to make.” And there’s nobody in show business who will do that! That was during the writing process, shooting and editing – he never came into editing and said, “don’t do that – it makes me look like a jerk.” He wanted me to fully express that character and was willing to do whatever it would take to help me – which included writing an enormous stand-up act, performing all of these songs; he really put himself out there. Some days he used to joke, “you’re really getting the full package of me on this one! I’m giving you everything!” To me that was one of the best parts of making the movie, feeling that trust from Adam; Adam loves the movie so much, and the fact that he was happy with the outcome means a lot to me because as I was making the movie I thought ‘I hope the movie’s as good as what Adam’s doing right now’.
Cinematical: Among other things, the Blu-ray for Funny People documents your long history examining and reflecting stand-up comedy. Do you tend to intellectualize comedy or deconstruct how things work, or to see what works better or worse? For example, in one of the documentaries, Randy says it’s funnier if he spins around seven times instead of six; that’s obviously a joke, but do you think about your work or comedy in general that way?
Apatow: I have the ability to talk about comedy in as full of shit a manner as anybody on the planet, but I try not to break it down because it just dies in front of you if you think about it intellectually. And I’ve seen people have conversations where they explain why people laugh; I watched a whole conversation between Alan Alda and John Cleese at the Paley Center where they were able to break it down. But that makes me want to never work ever again if I think it’s actually possible (laughs). It really is about your gut; sometimes afterwards you can explain it, but it is about just a feeling you get. It’s not that different than probably like when a batter is at the plate and he just somehow knows how to read a certain ball to get a hit; you’ve just got to feel for it and it becomes muscle memory. Some people like to talk about it afterwards, but I try not to (laughs). When you’re making a movie, you kind of have to sit and think, why are we telling this joke? What does this joke say? But I don’t like talking about, like, why is this joke funny.
Cinematical: When the film was released in theaters there was a huge wealth of supplemental material that was used as marketing. Even though not a lot of it ended up directly in the movie, what purpose do you feel was served by creating all of this content around it for characters who may not appear on screen a lot?
Apatow: Well, at heart I’m just a fan of comedy, so there’s a lot of hilarious people around and I just want to make a lot of stuff with them before they leave me. So if I’m making a movie, I have unlimited time with Aziz [Ansari] around, and I don’t know when I’ll get to hang out with Aziz again, but I know in this period, he has to come to work (laughs). I thought to myself I loved what he does in the movie, and the movie really can’t contain everything he could do with his character, so let’s make more stuff with Aziz. We paid for that with our own money; we were just so excited that he had come up with this hilarious comedian character that we felt like we had to max out what you could do with it. You’re aware it will be fun to put on the DVD and put on the web and hopefully it makes people more aware of the movie, but the main reason I do it is I just find it funny; I just want to see what Randy would do. I’m excited to see Aziz and Jason Waller, the guy who directed it, I’m excited to let them go nuts with no restrictions just because that’s exciting for me as someone who loves comedy. And people don’t necessarily get that many opportunities to do that; it’s rare for someone to just write a check to someone and say, “go crazy with Randy!”
So we did that, but it’s almost like a video game where you could just walk into other rooms and learn more about certain aspects of these characters. I mean, for me I see the Blu-ray as the new comedy album, so as soon as somebody says I’m allowed to put things on a Blu-ray, my mind goes crazy. What else can we put on it? Can we clear Adam on Letterman from the early ’90s? Can we clear me on The Dennis Miller Show? Can we put all of the phony phone calls from back then on there? As someone who loves these DVDs, I think, how can I make the best comedy DVD that’s ever been made? Before we started the process of making the movie, we decided to try to make a very strong documentary that wasn’t like your normal, generic making-of that you see all of the time. So we hired this amazing documentarian, Chris Wilcha, who was the director of the television series This American Life, and we tried to give him all of the access he could ever want, and the tools to really capture what this process was. It’s an oddly powerful documentary; you see how the movie was made, and there’s something very emotional about it because the movie is also a summation of all of our relationships.
Cinematical: In the commentary track Seth Rogen called the final scene of the film “a real motherf*cker.” How tough was it to determine where the story would and should end up?
fun11
Apatow: One of the first ideas that I had was that the movie would end with a small gesture of Adam writing a joke for Seth. Everything is always about George’s character and he’s never willing to help, and at the end, that would signal to the audience that at the very least he has some understanding of how damaged he is and he’s not forcing Ira to get out of his life. He wants an honest voice around, and maybe he’ll change slowly. Or not, maybe he won’t, certainly it’s going to be difficult, but the fact that he tries to keep Ira around is what the movie’s about. But I thought the movie was this slow reveal of who George actually is. You have some sense of what he is and what his problems are, and as the movie continues, you realize oh, he’s really much more damaged than I thought, and has limitations when it comes to maturing and finding a way to be happy, and then when it ended, you would think I know everything about this person.
Cinematical: Is it hard to surround yourself with people who can be that honest with you?
Apatow: I make a point of only working with people who are very excited about this type of process. Leslie [Mann] is a very daring actress who’s willing to go there at all times, and in a lot of ways she sets the bar for how emotionally raw you can get, and how much you can expose. It’s really exciting watching her act and watching her interact with other actors. Seth, I’ve been working with him since he was 16 years old, so he knows the drill better than anybody. And Adam has shown over and over in his career that he’s willing to commit fully to what he’s doing; Punch-Drunk Love is one of my favorite movies ever, and I love what he did in Reign Over Me, and he has this side to his work that is very vulnerable – and that was what I think was most exciting about working with him.
Check out Part Two on Monday, where Apatow talks about the film in the context of his career, and examines the emerging themes that seem to run recurrent in his work.
Interview: Judd Apatow (Part Two)
Interview: Judd Apatow (Part Two)
Read Part One of this interview right here
When Judd Apatow’s latest film, Funny People, was announced, many critics and audiences hailed it – even before they saw it – not only as an evolution of the filmmaker’s style, but a return to the kind of drama-laced comedy that flourished in the 1980s and early ’90s thanks to folks like Cameron Crowe and James L. Brooks. When it was released, the film more than satisfied those expectations, offering an unflinching but frequently hilarious portrait of an A-list comedian rediscovering himself, but there seemed to be a sense that audiences knew themselves less well than they felt like they knew the film’s main character, resulting in a less enthusiastic response than perhaps even they expected.
The film arrives on Blu-ray this week, offering what is indisputably the most complete and comprehensive look behind the scenes at a comedy ever produced, and offers audiences a second chance to check out Apatow’s most meaningful and resonant work to date. Cinematical got a chance to catch up with the writer-director via telephone to discuss the contents of the expansive, 2-Disc Collector’s Edition; in the second part of our chat, Apatow talks about precisely what made the movie so personal for him, and offers a few insights about its place in his growing body of work, and its potential influence on his future films (including a Harry Pottermovie, maybe?).
Cinematical: With or without talking to you at the time of the film’s release, people seemed to assume that this was a very personal film, I think because it was more serious than your previous work. Was it really personal, and if so in what way or why?
Judd Apatow: Well, I find that things can be very personal without pointing out to people what is taken directly from your life. If I do it right, it shouldn’t feel like I’m just talking about personal experiences that happened to me or people in my world. So it’s good that it doesn’t seem – that you can’t track it (laughs). But the ideas are very intimate and they relate to a lot that’s happened to me over the decades, but it’s all thrown into a blender to make it more amusing or dramatic. But yes, it does feel very personal, to the point of being embarrassing, but it’s because it’s how you feel about the world that’s out there. It’s kind of showing one’s pleasant side and one’s crazy voices; I’m just better at hiding them in a character that can act them out. You make a movie and think, ah, this is about other people, but slowly you realize it’s all about you. It’s also about everyone who’s involved in the collaboration, but it surprises you when it’s done how much is based on things that you’re struggling with.
Cinematical: Given the sort of line-o-rama process by which you work when shooting scenes, how do you decide what ends up in a film or works best for it?
Apatow: Every joke is meant to illuminate something, whether it’s how funny someone is or a piece of their back story or how they’re feeling on that particular night. So there’s literally no punchline that wasn’t in there that wasn’t debated for hours and hours, but how I like to shoot it is to shoot Adam or Seth doing half an hour of material, not obsessing about what I will use when we’re shooting, and then decide what fits best after. But when you keep it loose and the comedians are really in character, other things happen on stage that are surprising and they do fit into what you need. People do subconsciously start living the story, so Adam one day said, “hey, tonight I’m going to improvise something on the piano,” and he just sits down and sings this mad song. The audience doesn’t know that he’s sick, but in a way it’s a strange goodbye to his audience, and it’s really sad and filthy. I never could have written that in a million years, and Adam did it off the top of his head; and because it’s improvised, it’s sloppy and emotionally raw in a way that’s very truthful. He just went there, and that’s why I try to create some extra space for those moments to happen.
fun15
Cinematical: How much is there a degree of sort of self-satirization in this film, whether you’re taking direct jabs at your or Adam’s movies? Or, even if it’s not in the movie, how much do you guys sort of rib one another about the movies you make?
Apatow: Every time you make a movie, it’s a risk. It’s easy to take for granted the work of comedians, but it’s insanely hard to make people laugh out loud and be really happy for an hour and a half straight. And sometimes you do it with the silliest thing in the world and sometimes you do it in a more thoughtful way or emotional way, but it’s hard as hell (laughs). How I looked at that aspect of the movie was that this character valued being on top more than the quality of his movies, so he tried to make decent movies, but his ego made him try to hit a home run every time out. That being said, while we were making the movie, we kept saying, “we’d make Mer-Man right now!” There’s a funny version of Mer-Man, there’s a funny version of Redo. And it genuinely made us laugh; even though we knew we were goofing on movies like that, we also thought, we could probably do a good one of these!
But one thing I appreciated from Adam was that he never said, “oh don’t do that – people will think you’re goofing on me.” The truth is, I’m not goofing on Adam because Adam has a ridiculously wide range of movies he’s made. He’s just covered so much ground. Some are incredibly silly, some are truly experimental art films, and his level of success is so high he’s just been amazing for a very long time, and I don’t think George Simmons would have tried most of what Adam has tried to do. Again, there’s a subtle difference there, so it’s easy for people to say, “oh, you’re goofing on your own movies,” but I really thought what was more interesting to me was what happens when a shallow person gets sick? He doesn’t want to be thoughtful, so his movies can’t be thoughtful; he’s not making introspective comedies. When he gets sick, he doesn’t tell anybody, he doesn’t know how to talk about it – he’s not that kind of person. He’s more like a Rodney Dangerfield kind of person; he’s telling jokes and being silly.
Cinematical: What I think is one of the things he and the film communicates is that comedy is a way for someone to conceal their true feelings, and ultimately a prison that keeps them from being able to express them.
Apatow: Sometimes it’s easier to hide when you’re that famous. It was strange when Michael Jackson died and there were so many similarities to how we were presenting this fictionalized comedy star in our movie and what was coming out about Michael Jackson. The opening conversation about our movie is Adam having a conversation with his doctor about sleep medication. And all of these images of this rich guy alone in this giant house, never feeling satisfied with the amount of affection he’s getting from the world – which is an enormous amount of affection. A lot of times people want to make you laugh not because they want to make you happy but because they want to know if you like them. Your laugh signals “you’re okay” – and that’s a tough way to live. I think a lot of us as we get older think, is there a healthy way to do what we’re doing? We didn’t start this [for our] mental health, but can we spin it at some point and be creative for normal positive reasons?
Cinematical: Having done this movie which was so much more personal and serious than your other films, do you feel inclined to continue going in that direction?
Apatow: I try to be very passionate about the movies I’m making. I can get passionate about something that’s ridiculous and absurd and silly in the same way I can be passionate about something that’s more intimate and thoughtful, but I just have to care about it. So I don’t know; as of right now, I’m trying not to think too much about what I’ll do next and see what strikes me, but every once and a while I think it would be great to do something really dumb next, really goofy, and just make people happy. Create a joy machine. But most of the time I think let’s do another really dark, melancholy movie about a different subject, and then I think, you know what? Maybe I need a longer rest (laughs). So I don’t know; I’ll just wait until someone needs a director for the 14th Harry Potter movie and hopefully I’ll be at the top of the list somewhere.
Cinematical: Do you have any idea what the next thing is going to be for you?
Apatow: I really don’t. I’ve never had two ideas in my head. I mean, my brain is completely blank. I covered a lot of ground with these last two movies, so I may need something to happen to me in life before I can write again. But I don’t know – then something hits you out of the blue and it could happen in an eighth of a second; oh, it’s that! And then you’re off to the races.
Cinematical: Whether they’re conscious or not, do you see ongoing or repeated themes emerging in or from your growing body of work?
Apatow: I don’t think about it consciously, but there are certain ideas that recur and then you start thinking to yourself, well, should I make sure that never happens in Cinematical: How much is there a degree of sort of self-satirization in this film, whether you’re taking direct jabs at your or Adam’s movies? Or, even if it’s not in the movie, how much do you guys sort of rib one another about the movies you make?
Apatow: Every time you make a movie, it’s a risk. It’s easy to take for granted the work of comedians, but it’s insanely hard to make people laugh out loud and be really happy for an hour and a half straight. And sometimes you do it with the silliest thing in the world and sometimes you do it in a more thoughtful way or emotional way, but it’s hard as hell (laughs). How I looked at that aspect of the movie was that this character valued being on top more than the quality of his movies, so he tried to make decent movies, but his ego made him try to hit a home run every time out. That being said, while we were making the movie, we kept saying, “we’d make Mer-Man right now!” There’s a funny version of Mer-Man, there’s a funny version of Redo. And it genuinely made us laugh; even though we knew we were goofing on movies like that, we also thought, we could probably do a good one of these!
But one thing I appreciated from Adam was that he never said, “oh don’t do that – people will think you’re goofing on me.” The truth is, I’m not goofing on Adam because Adam has a ridiculously wide range of movies he’s made. He’s just covered so much ground. Some are incredibly silly, some are truly experimental art films, and his level of success is so high he’s just been amazing for a very long time, and I don’t think George Simmons would have tried most of what Adam has tried to do. Again, there’s a subtle difference there, so it’s easy for people to say, “oh, you’re goofing on your own movies,” but I really thought what was more interesting to me was what happens when a shallow person gets sick? He doesn’t want to be thoughtful, so his movies can’t be thoughtful; he’s not making introspective comedies. When he gets sick, he doesn’t tell anybody, he doesn’t know how to talk about it – he’s not that kind of person. He’s more like a Rodney Dangerfield kind of person; he’s telling jokes and being silly.
Cinematical: What I think is one of the things he and the film communicates is that comedy is a way for someone to conceal their true feelings, and ultimately a prison that keeps them from being able to express them.
Apatow: Sometimes it’s easier to hide when you’re that famous. It was strange when Michael Jackson died and there were so many similarities to how we were presenting this fictionalized comedy star in our movie and what was coming out about Michael Jackson. The opening conversation about our movie is Adam having a conversation with his doctor about sleep medication. And all of these images of this rich guy alone in this giant house, never feeling satisfied with the amount of affection he’s getting from the world – which is an enormous amount of affection. A lot of times people want to make you laugh not because they want to make you happy but because they want to know if you like them. Your laugh signals “you’re okay” – and that’s a tough way to live. I think a lot of us as we get older think, is there a healthy way to do what we’re doing? We didn’t start this [for our] mental health, but can we spin it at some point and be creative for normal positive reasons?
Cinematical: Having done this movie which was so much more personal and serious than your other films, do you feel inclined to continue going in that direction?
Apatow: I try to be very passionate about the movies I’m making. I can get passionate about something that’s ridiculous and absurd and silly in the same way I can be passionate about something that’s more intimate and thoughtful, but I just have to care about it. So I don’t know; as of right now, I’m trying not to think too much about what I’ll do next and see what strikes me, but every once and a while I think it would be great to do something really dumb next, really goofy, and just make people happy. Create a joy machine. But most of the time I think let’s do another really dark, melancholy movie about a different subject, and then I think, you know what? Maybe I need a longer rest (laughs). So I don’t know; I’ll just wait until someone needs a director for the 14th Harry Potter movie and hopefully I’ll be at the top of the list somewhere.
Cinematical: Do you have any idea what the next thing is going to be for you?
Apatow: I really don’t. I’ve never had two ideas in my head. I mean, my brain is completely blank. I covered a lot of ground with these last two movies, so I may need something to happen to me in life before I can write again. But I don’t know – then something hits you out of the blue and it could happen in an eighth of a second; oh, it’s that! And then you’re off to the races.
Cinematical: Whether they’re conscious or not, do you see ongoing or repeated themes emerging in or from your growing body of work?
Apatow: I don’t think about it consciously, but there are certain ideas that recur and then you start thinking to yourself, well, should I make sure that never happens in one of my movies again? For instance, I like when sad people find a way to get happy, even if it’s only for a moment; should I avoid that now that I’ve noticed that in a bunch of my
fun14
movies? That’s an interesting question for me as I walk around the house. I can see the stitching on the ball now more than anybody, and then you start thinking about new terrain, but you also don’t want to suddenly make a movie about Icelandic people just because no one expects you to do that. I would like always to write about things that matter to me and I understand, but I was reading this graduation speech that Larry Gelbart delivered at UCLA a few years ago and a big hunk of it was about writing about things you don’t know anything about and how ultimately it will still become a personal story. I usually go against that, but I thought, well, if Mr. Gelbart says that then maybe my philosophy is wrong.
Cinematical: What was the thing that you took away from this experience that was maybe different than your other movies?
Apatow: Well, it’s much more challenging to make a movie that’s meant to be more than just fantasy fulfillment. It is hopefully a big, funny, enjoyable experience but it’s also kind of an independent movie, you know; it’s a character study, and it is a different world when you’re trying to have that relationship with the audience. A lot of people got to the movies just to numb themselves out from whatever other difficult things life is presenting to them, and I’m exactly like that; when a girl broke up with me, the first thing I did was run to see What About Bob? But this is the first time for me where I tried to share a more complicated experience with people. And you get a larger array of reactions to it – some people, it completely knocks them out, other people, you can tell that they emotionally shut down from thinking about any of this, and the movie is hard for them to tolerate. And that’s the point of it: it’s supposed to stick with you for a while. That’s all I thought about when we were ending it, and I hope people talk about this for a while. I hope it’s something that stays on people’s minds.
Trailer Park: Of Snakey Hair and Moody Teens
Trailer Park: Of Snakey Hair and Moody Teens
Percy Jackson & the Olylmpians: The Lightning Thief
You go years without seeing Medusa and then all of a sudden we get two in one week. Percy Jackson is a descendant of both mortals and greek gods, and apparently his lineage comes with some way cool powers and some fearsome villains who want to do him in (among which is Uma Thurman as the aforementioned Medusa). Based on a series of books and directed by Chris Columbus, who helmed the first two Harry Potter films, this looks like it could be some good escapist teen fun, though not quite on the same level as Harry Potter. Watch for this on February 12.
Clash of the Titans
As for Medusa number two, she is just one of the monstrosities in this remake of the 1981 film about the adventures of Perseus from Greek mythology. Most of the original film’s charm comes from the stop-motion effects by Ray Harryhausen, so it will be interesting to see how well the ideas translate to modern effects technology. The clash begins on March 26.
Remember Me
Robert Pattinson plays the tortured emo kid card once more in this drama about a young man trying to find his way. He’s really got the angry young man thing down and Lost’s Emile de Ravin makes for an appealing romantic interest. This will be out on March 12.
Letters to Juliet
A young woman played by Amanda Seyried visits the city of Verona and helps an older woman played by Vanessa Redgrave track down the love of her life. Definite chick flick appeal here, and it starts on May 7.
The Last Song
Miley Cyrus plays a teenage girl who along with her younger brother spends a summer reconnecting with her father years after her parents split up. Based on a novel by Nicholas Sparks, this could be Cyrus’s chance to break away from movies that are strictly for kids. This will be out on April 2.
New this week on AOL Moviefone:
- The White Ribbon – German language drama set in a small German town just prior to World War I.
- Why Did I Get Married Too – Tyler Perry strikes again with this drama about four couples who meet for an annual get together and explore their relationships.
- The Yellow Handkerchief – Indie drama about a recently released convict hitching a ride with a pair of teens to get back to the woman he loves.
- Kenny Chesney 3D – 3D concert film featuring country superstar Kenny Chesney.
Making The (Up) Grade: Rocky
Making The (Up) Grade: Rocky
While new Blu-rays of old movies are sometimes dubious replacements for prior editions (hence the need for this column), box sets released in the high-definition format have thus far been fairly helpful, at least in terms of shelf space: many or most of them forego a lot of the frills and flourishes of their standard-definition iterations in favor of more streamlined packaging. Unfortunately, that’s also sometimes extended to their extras, thanks in no small part to the legal entanglements of transferring commentaries and bonus content from one format to another.
Both Warner Brothers and Fox have faced this challenge a couple of times thanks to their ownership/ adoption of the libraries of MGM and United Artists, which until a few years ago issued their own releases. Rocky, which is one of United Artists’ premier franchises, was recently released on Blu-ray in The Undisputed Collection, a set that contains all six of the films in the series, but it remains to be seen whether complete also means comprehensive in this particular case.
What’s Already Available:
Rocky was previously released several times on DVD both as a standalone title and in Rocky-themed box sets. 2006’s Rocky Anthology featured remastered versions of the first five films (it was released prior to Rocky Balboa) and no extra content. Meanwhile, a Special Edition of the first film was released in December of that same year and featured three commentaries, a three-part making of documentary called “In The Ring,” seven featurettes, TV spots and trailers, deleted scenes and a collectible booklet.
What’s In The New Set: The Undisputed Collection features all of the films as well as a bonus that has more than three hours of extras and special features. Additionally, all of the films are presented in high definition with 5.1 DTS-HD audio tracks, or in Rocky Balboa’s case, English PCM 5.1 uncompressed audio.
What’s The Difference In The Movie Itself: Like many Blu-ray reissues of films more recently released or updated on DVD, the films basically feature the same transfers as their standard-definition version, albeit now presented in uncompressed high definition. Much like the DVD transfer for the ‘06 edition, Rockyshows its age (and its initial price tag) with picture presentation that has a lot of grain and soft detail, but with the exception of the new film, which was transferred to HD when it was originally put on DVD, it by far looks the best of the series.
According to online information the ‘06 Anthology set boasted remastered presentation of the other films as well, but here they’re all grainy and muted, with soft colors and a focus that quite frankly should be sharper in high definition. Meanwhile, in terms of the content of the films, they’re all the same as in previous sets, with no edits or changes implemented.
What’s The Difference In Everything Else: This set unfortunately is a victim, at least in part, of the same rules that kept the bonus materials for Robocop off of its Blu-ray release. None of the films have commentaries, which means that the first film lost all three of the existing ones, and the new ones, well, they never received (and one might argue, they never deserved) one. Further, almost all of the special features on Disc Seven are the same as the ones on the ‘06 Rocky Special Edition, which begs the question why the commentaries couldn’t also carry over in addition to the featurettes and other stuff.
That said, the material is all genuinely interesting – a featurette about Steadicam inventor Garrett Brown explores a footnote in filmmaking history that is virtually unknown to anyone outside the industry – but again it would have been interesting to see something new among these existing extras, or in lieu of that a sort of one-stop set that collected everything together.
What’s The Final Grade: C. The appeal of the Rocky series is mostly predicated on personal experience – all of the films aren’t great – so if you saw certain ones at important times in your life (at least cinematically speaking), then this set is a must own. But for folks on the fence, the transfers are definitely not terrific, and the slate of extras is incomplete, especially if you’ve already spent some money on making this palooka a winner.
Anne Hathaway Up for ‘Spider-Man 4′ Role?
And the list of women who may or may not appear in Spider-Man 4 continues to grow. Now Nikki Finke over
Anne Hathaway Up for 'Spider-Man 4' Role?
at Deadline Hollywood reports through her sources (who, when it comes to Marvel, seem to be pretty reliable) that producers have “approached” Anne Hathaway regarding a starring role in Spider-Man 4. It doesn’t say she’s been offered the role, or that she’s in negotiations to take on the role, only that she’s been approached.
Finke also wasn’t sure which role it would be, though all signs point to it being that of Black Cat — who, in the past couple weeks — has seen everyone from Julia Stiles to Rachel McAdams vying for a piece of that pus … Spidey pie. Hathaway definitely showed off her acrobatic side in last summer’s Get Smart, and certainly has enough of that hottie-yet-down-to-earth sex appeal to draw Mr. Parker into a web of problematic romantic entanglements. Personally, I still like Stiles for the role, but that’s me. The studio, however, probably figures they’ll get more butts in the seats with Hathaway. So we’ll see. Regardless, we’re getting close to an official announcement. Who do you want?
Robert Pattinson to Star With Uma Thurman in ‘Bel Ami’
Robert Pattinson to Star With Uma Thurman in 'Bel Ami'
The rumor mill was buzzing earlier this month with news that Nicole Kidman was going to, once again, go for the younger guy and star opposite Robert Pattinson in the adaptation of Guy De Maupassant’s Bel Ami. While it turns out that Kidman isnot taking the project on, another famous blonde is. The Hollywood Reporter posts that Uma Thurman will star opposite Pattinson, and Kristin Scott Thomas has also joined the roster.
The film will star Pattinson as George Duroy, an aspiring journalist who finds his success by bedding many of Paris’ rich and powerful women. Thurman will play Mme Forestier, the married woman who sparks his ascension and later marries him, while Thomas comes into the picture as “a socialite who falls for Duroy, becoming clingy in the process.”
Now, much has been said, or argued, about Pattinson’s talents as an actor, and I’d say this will be the ultimate test — whether he can hold his own against Thurman and Thomas. Pattinson won’t be able to hide behind sparkles or quirky, mustachioed mannerisms this time around! Both have considerable talents, although Thurman in particular is long overdue for some meaty and buzz-worthy dramatic fare (it’s also about time she got into some retro wordy romance as well, a la Henry and June). The drama will shoot next year in Paris.
