From the Mouths of Filmmakers: Anna Martemucci

Anna Martemucci

FROM THE MOUTHS OF FILMMAKERS:

ANNA MARTEMUCCI

By Anna Martemucci and Joshua Handler

Recently I've been disturbed by the amount of people who don't seek out independent films, non-English-language films, and classics.  So, I asked some of the most exciting and original voices in modern cinema to submit responses to a few questions about why/if they think indies/non-English-language films/classics are important to view, and how those films have been influential on their careers.

The responses below are from Anna Martemucci, director of HOLLIDAYSBURG, a film created as part of Starz TV series THE CHAIR. Martemucci also co-wrote BREAKUP AT A WEDDING and the upcoming PERIODS.

Do you feel that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view independent and world cinema and why (if you don't feel it is important, please tell me why)?

I think it's incredibly important, especially now that we're living in an age where studios are becoming more and more reliant on franchises, superheroes, and the phenomenon of "pre-awareness" to stay afloat, any type of movie that does not have those elements has a much harder time finding an audience, and that's a lot of movies. So if you're someone who loves film, or just loves being told a good story and feeling connected to the world, I think it's important to be vigilant about finding "the good stuff" (whatever that means to you).  Recognize that "the good stuff," or the stories that end up mattering the most to you, may not be at your multiplex anymore. The age when my teenage sister went to the theater to see PULP FICTION in our small Pennsylvania town and came back looking like a changed person, is not the age we live in now. Now she would have to find Pulp Fiction on Netflix or Hulu probably. She would have had to seek it out. Chris Moore admits that as a producer, he doesn't think he could even get GOOD WILL HUNTING made today, let alone get it into theaters across the country.  I get so excited when I see a film that speaks to me, and largely these days, I find those films through word of mouth, and digitally…not in the theaters. For people who live anywhere but a major city, it's even more like that.  It's so important, I think, to find the stories that you really connect with, because when that happens, it enriches human experience. There are so many beautiful, funny, heartbreaking, scary, thrilling, quiet, action-packed, whatever-you-want, just awesome stories being told in the world of "independent film" (which is basically all non-studio-funded movies), and it's just a matter of finding the ones you love and letting them enrich your life.

Do you believe that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view films of the past and why (if you don't feel that it is important, please tell why)? 

If you want to be a filmmaker, you have to watch films. That would be like deciding to fly a plane without ever having seen a plane before, let alone taking lessons. I don't believe that learning the language of film takes film school or classes of any kind: it takes a love of film and the ability to absorb stories. Film hasn't been around that long; it's a relatively new medium for humans, and that makes it all the more exciting to me. There are so many things that haven't been done before, so many untold stories and so many untried ways of telling them. It boggles the mind! We need all kinds of people telling stories through film, because it's through stories that we get a deeper understanding of the world around us, and film and TV and online content--narrative stories basically--are the predominant delivery systems for stories right now. So while it's very important to watch movies if you want to make them, I am also not a believer that an aspiring filmmaker has to have seen EVERYTHING. That notion is a trap that can keep you from taking yourself seriously as a budding filmmaker. You don't have to be an encyclopedia of film history in order to allow yourself to be a filmmaker. Simply put: it's great to watch a lot of movies because it's great to explore what it is to be human. If you're an aspiring filmmaker, when you find the movies that speak to you the most, watch them over and over again and learn from them. 

How did viewing indies, films from around the world, and classics help/influence you when directing HOLLIDAYSBURG, or writing any of the films you've written like BREAKUP AT A WEDDING or PERIODS.? 

It helps tremendously. If it wasn't for the movies from the past that I love, being a filmmaker would feel like driving with a blindfold on (plane and car metaphors are where it's at for me right now). For each movie I've been involved in, there have been different influences. When making anything, there's always a pool, sometimes large, sometimes very small, of films that we're pulling inspiration from. The feel of the dialogue from RACHEL GETTING MARRIED, the photography from UNCLE BUCK, the feeling of chaos from David O. Russell's FLIRTING WITH DISASTER, etcetera. Literally any element, small or large, from movies that you love can be used as inspiration. Making a movie, to me, is a little celebration of all the things I've loved from a life of watching movies, and from life itself, and finding a way to capture the spirit of those things, and celebrate my love of them in the form of a new movie. It's a fun game to play.

What's one American indie, (doc or narrative), one non-English-language film (doc or narrative), and one classic (define that one any way you wish) that you would recommend that film-lovers or young/aspiring filmmakers see?

I recently saw a documentary that killed me, in a good way--there was just so much humanity on screen. I dare you to watch this film and not cry. It's called BLOOD BROTHER, directed by Steve Hoover, and it's available on Netflix.  

CINEMA PARADISO by Giuseppe Tornatore is a must-see (and one of my favorite reasons to love being an Italian). 

Wes Anderson's RUSHMORE is one of my favorite movies of all time, and I consider it a modern classic. 

From the Mouths of Filmmakers continues on Thursday. 

From the Mouths of Filmmakers: Bruno Delbonnel

Bruno Delbonnel

FROM THE MOUTHS OF FILMMAKERS:

BRUNO DELBONNEL

By Bruno Delbonnel and Joshua Handler

Recently I've been disturbed by the amount of people who don't seek out independent films, non-English-language films, and classics.  So, I asked some of the most exciting and original voices in modern cinema to submit responses to a few questions about why/if they think indies/non-English-language films/classics are important to view, and how those films have been influential on their careers.

The responses below are from four-time Oscar-nominee, Bruno Delbonnel, cinematographer of INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS, AMÉLIE, A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT, HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, and ACROSS THE UNIVERSE, among many other films.  His next film is Tim Burton's BIG EYES.

Do you feel that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view independent and world cinema and why (if you don't feel it is important, please tell me why)?

No doubt about it. It's important to see movies. That's it. From all around the world, independent or not ......it's about seeing different cultures. I don't know what independent really means. There is only cinema.  Movies that move you or not. There are movies that "move" you everywhere in the world whether it's independent or not, American or Russian or Indian.....So many different cultures, so many different ways to tell the same story. You won't tell it the same way if you are American or Palestinian. Not the same history, not the same politics, not the same problems. Not the same money. Not the same goal. Movies can be political. Movies can make you think or can be only entertainment. Movies can be poetry, music.....It's about opening your mind to others. Welcoming them with their own and different culture. Quite the opposite of this terrible globalization.

Do you believe that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view films of the past and why (if you don't feel that it is important, please tell why)? 

No doubt about it. It seems obvious. Cinema has a history. That's how you learn things.You learn from the classics. For years, I've been watching films I love without the sound track. Sometimes one specific scene, trying to understand why this scene moved me so much. Trying to understand how the director and cinematographer did it. And I learned many things. It doesn't mean I really used what I learned, but there is a little seed in my brain that grew up over the years, that tells me that you don't necessarily need dialogue (many silent movies are saying more things that any written lines). You don't have to see everything (the very beginning of 8 1/2, by Fellini, where everything in silhouette tells you a lot about the state of mind of the leading character...), you don't have to move the camera on every single shot (the camera needs a reason to move....)...... And then you realize that some scenes don't work without sound.... (like this amazing scene in RYAN'S DAUGHTER by David Lean, where the main character remembers the war in a terrible way because a man is "stamping" his foot on the floor.....I don't know how to describe it properly in poor english writing).So many things I learned from the past.

How did viewing indies, films from around the world, and classics help/influence you when shooting INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS, BIG EYES, HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE, AMÉLIE, and the other films you've shot? 

I guess the answer is in the previous question as well.All the great movies I've seen over the years are there somewhere in my mind. I think the main lesson/help/influence, is in the blocking of a scene. Should this scene be only on close up like in FACES by John Casavettes? Or in silhouette like in 8 1/2 ?.......Is the question relevant? Are these options relevant? Would it make sense? There is almost no camera movement in INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS. It's quite simple storytelling. The camera is only watching the characters. It could almost be a silent movie.
I don't know the answer to your question. But I know that many of the great movies I've seen are there to answer my questions.

What's one French film (doc or narrative), one non-French film (doc or narrative), and one classic (define that one any way you wish) that you would recommend that film-lovers and/or young/aspiring filmmakers see?

French: ARMY OF SHADOWS by Melville.Non-French: MY NAME IS IVAN by Andrei Tarkovsky,  BASIC TRAINING by Fred WisemanClassic:  HARAKIRI by Kobayashi.

From the Mouths of Filmmakers continues on Friday. 

From the Mouths of Filmmakers: Andrew Droz Palermo

Andrew Droz Palermo
Photo by Whitney Hayward - © 2013 Whitney Hayward, Courtesy of Sundance Institute

FROM THE MOUTHS OF FILMMAKERS:

ANDREW DROZ PALERMO

By Andrew Droz Palermo and Joshua Handler

Recently I've been disturbed by the amount of people who don't seek out independent films, non-English-language films, and classics.  So, I asked some of the most exciting and original voices in modern cinema to submit responses to a few questions about why/if they think indies/non-English-language films/classics are important to view, and how those films have been influential on their careers.

The responses below are from Andrew Droz Palermo, co-director/producer/cinematographer of Sundance Grand Jury Prize-winner RICH HILL, which he co-directed with fellow From the Mouths of Filmmakers contributor, Tracy Droz Tragos.  Palermo also shot Adam Wingard's YOU'RE NEXT, among other films, and recently directed his first narrative feature, ONE AND TWO. 

Do you feel that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view independent and world cinema and why (if you don't feel it is important, please tell me why)?

I'm the kind of filmmaker that thinks all films are important - from high to low art. In some way, all of those films, and all of their choices, seep into your fabric. You watch them, talk about them, let them slosh around in your brain soup for a while, maybe even totally forget about them, and then they come back out as your own thing. 

Do you believe that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view films of the past and why (if you don't feel that it is important, please tell why)? 

I think the most important thing about watching classics is context. Once I started reading a bit about a certain film I was about to watch, or just watched, my experience with classics infinitely deepened. I think when I was younger, I was always bored by them - why are they so slow? Why do they talk like that? Where's the dang color? Now that I make them, I learn so much from older films. I'm shocked by how little has actually changed in the way a great film feels and unfolds.

How did viewing indies, films from around the world, and classics help/influence you when directing RICH HILL and ONE & TWO and shooting YOU'RE NEXT, RICH HILL, or any of the other films you've shot?

Before each movie, I think about the script (or subject) - what's it trying to say? What's underneath the words? What do these people want? Who are they? Through this process, I start to think of styles, or visual motifs that start to characterize some of those answers. I screen capture nearly every movie I watch (and often post selects to my blog), and this library has become really helpful for shooting movies. I'll pull together these references, throw in some art, and photography, and start to weave something together that fits. For ONE & TWO, the last movie I directed and the first I did not shoot myself, my director of photography, Autumn Durald, also did this for me. We compared, talked about what we liked and didn't, and then had some shoulders to stand on. Most of this gets thrown out once you start shooting, but it's so very helpful to feel like everyone is on the same page.

What's one American indie, (doc or narrative), one non-English-language film (doc or narrative), and one classic (define that one any way you wish) that you would recommend that film-lovers or young/aspiring filmmakers see?

APOCALYPSE NOW - It's not really an indie, but it has the the spirit of one. I'm sure everyone has seen it, but to me it's really the pinnacle of unbridled ambition and determination. At every stage the filmmakers charged forward. Completely owning and remixing the source material, re-writing intensely in production while staging some of the most expansive set pieces (and also some of the most intimate), and experimenting wildly in the edit.

COME AND SEE - I seem a little war-obsessed, but this film blows me away. It's so cinematic and its command of the surreal is amazing. Lately, I've been obsessed with movie reality. A reality which we, an audience, can believe, but is in no way like the one that exists outside the theater's walls. It conjures up feelings, moods, and experiences in a way that only film and dreams can do. This film does that with such control.

THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER - This has been on heavy rotation at home lately for me. The film I just directed is a tonal sister in some ways - mainly the fairy tale aspects. Criterion just put it out, so I'm [glad] people are getting a chance to revisit this gem. 

From the Mouths of Filmmakers continues on Wednesday. 

From the Mouths of Filmmakers: Paul Webster

Paul Webster

FROM THE MOUTHS OF FILMMAKERS:

PAUL WEBSTER
By Paul Webster and Joshua Handler

Recently I've been disturbed by the amount of people who don't seek out independent films, non-English-language films, and classics.  So, I asked some of the most exciting and original voices in modern cinema to submit responses to a few questions about why/if they think indies/non-English-language films/classics are important to view, and how those films have been influential on their careers.

The responses below are from Oscar-nominated, BAFTA-winning producer Paul Webster, best known for producing ATONEMENT, LOCKE, EASTERN PROMISES, ANNA KARENINA, and the upcoming film, PAN.  Webster was the Head of Production for Miramax Films and then joined Channel 4 to create Film Four.  After Film Four, Webster was Head of Film for Kudos Pictures, and is currently one of the heads of Shoebox Films.

Do you feel that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view independent and world cinema and why (if you don't feel it is important, please tell me why)?

If, as a young person wanting to become a filmmaker, you believe that film is an art form, then yes, its vital that you study film in its many manifestations. An education in film is easy to obtain; just start watching. Studio films are an important part of a very big jigsaw, but anyone starting out should be aiming to be influenced and inspired by the best, and there are many films made outside of the English language which are essential viewing. See experimental films, short films, documentaries too. Be bold and adventurous. Open your mind and prepare to steal from the best!

How did viewing indies, films from around the world, and classics help/influence you when producing ATONEMENT, PAN, LOCKE, and the other films you've produced? 

My real introduction to world and classic cinema came with my first job in film working as a despatch clerk for an arthouse distributor in West London in the 70's. It was the time of the New German Cinema: Wenders, Herzog, and Fassbinder. Amongst others, we also distributed classic Japanese films, Ozu and Mizoguchi, silent films, DW Griffith, Murnau and Pabst, comedies by Chaplin, Keaton, Harold Lloyd, and on and on. Augmented by going to classic double bills at the Electric repertory cinema in Portobello Road, these films were my university. Those years taught me to love film as a great art form, and eventually, when I became a producer, I learned to never make anything unless I really believed in the director's vision and the power of the story they wanted to tell. Producing James Gray's first two films, LITTLE ODESSA and THE YARDS further cemented my view that the producer's role is to recognise the talent and then create the space for it to blossom. When I got together with Joe Wright in 2004, I had experienced filmmaking as a producer and a financier, as well as a distributor, and I had just financed and Executive Produced a great film, THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES. It was a an enormous pleasure seeing Joe's talent explode and to learn from him as I have from all the fine directors and writers I have worked with over the years. It's not just about the movies, it's painting, photography, costume design, theatre, and now the extraordinary possibilities granted to us by the digital age – great directors like Joe draw upon influences and inspirations from across the spectrum of the arts. It's been a privilege to be part of the process. 

What's one British indie (doc or narrative), one non-English-language film (doc or narrative), and one classic (define that one any way you wish) that you would recommend that film-lovers and/or young/aspiring filmmakers see?

That’s impossible to answer, too many films! So I'll just choose the first films that come to mind:

British Indie:  James Marsh's MAN ON WIRE - one of the best films of the last decade. 

Non-English Language: Gillo Pontecorvo's THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS

Classic: Let's mix it up and go for pure joy, Stanley Donen's SINGIN' IN THE RAIN

NYFF Review: RED ARMY

Viachaslav Fetisov

Photo by Silvia Zeitlinger © 2012 Polsky Films, Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

RED ARMY

NYFF Review

2014, 85 minutes

Rated PG for thematic material and language

Review by Joshua Handler

Gabe Polsky's Red Army is a sports documentary for non-sports fans.  The film tells the story of the Soviet Red Army hockey team from the 1970s to the 1990s, yet is so much more than just a film about sports.  The Red Army hockey team was a world-class team, but being a world-class team came with a very heavy price.  The players would be in training 11 months out of the year and thus have no life outside of the team.  When the longtime coach was taken off of the team and replaced with a monstrous new one, tensions increased.

Red Army obviously has plenty of material that will please sports fans, but the film will appeal to everyone, as places a heavy focus on the human drama.  With former Red Army member Slava Fetisov as our main guide, we are lead through decades of Red Army history with emotion and humor.  Polsky had remarkable access to archives and the key figures in the Red Army story, and the interviews in the film are incredibly candid.

What stands out above anything else though is how unexpectedly moving Red Army’s core story is.  Red Army is a movie about stories, not straight statistics. It realizes that history is exciting and brings it to life through the interviews, archival footage, and photos.  When some of the players are forced to make hard decisions about their futures, it is hard not to be moved by their struggle.  The subjects aren’t talking heads, they’re real people, warts and all.

Overall, Red Army is a highly entertaining, well-produced, and insightful documentary about a group that has never been given a human face.  The Soviets and their hockey team were the face of evil to America in their heyday, and many forget that the team was made of human beings.  Gabe Polsky has made a film that should have large crossover appeal upon its release later this year and is one I have no problem recommending to just about anyone.

3.5/4

From the Mouths of Filmmakers: Martha Shane

Filmmaker Martha Shane of the documentary AFTER TILLER poses for a portrait during the 2013 Sundance Film Festival at the Fender Music Lodge, on Friday, January, 18, 2013 in Park City, Utah.
Photo by Victoria Will/Invision/AP Images

FROM THE MOUTHS OF FILMMAKERS:

MARTHA SHANE
By Martha Shane and Joshua Handler

Recently I've been disturbed by the amount of people who don't seek out independent films, non-English-language films, and classics.  So, I asked some of the most exciting and original voices in modern cinema to submit responses to a few questions about why/if they think indies/non-English-language films/classics are important to view, and how those films have been influential on their careers.

The responses below are from Martha Shane, best known as co-writer/producer/director of After Tiller.  For their work on After Tiller, Shane and her co-director, Lana Wilson, were nominated for the Sundance Film Festival's Grand Jury Prize and the Independent Spirit Award for Best Documentary.

Do you feel that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view independent and world cinema and why (if you don't feel it is important, please tell me why)? 

Of course! If for no other reason than it’s an immense pleasure to watch new or unusual visions unfold on screen. I also think the best way to learn how to make films is to study them—actually breaking them down shot by shot, and trying to understand the underlying logic of the filmmaking. 

All that said, I would love to watch a documentary made by someone who had only ever watched the TRANSFORMERS movies.  

Do you believe that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view films of the past and why (if you don't feel that it is important, please tell why)? 

I don’t want to tell anyone what to do, but if you haven’t seen every film starring Barbara Stanwyck and Robert Mitchum, GO! RUN! I’m a huge noir fan, and I think there’s something so transporting about watching films from different eras. It’s the closest we can come to time travel!

How did viewing indies and films from around the world help you when making AFTER TILLER?

Some of the films that we drew on for inspiration, particularly in terms of style, would fall into that category—LAST TRAIN HOME is one, the films of Frederick Wiseman are another. My co-director Lana Wilson brilliantly answered this question here.

What's one American indie film and one non-English-language film that you would recommend that film-lovers or young/aspiring filmmakers see?

SAFE, directed by Todd Haynes. I saw this for the first time in college, and to this day, it’s the scariest movie I have ever seen. 

DAYS OF BEING WILD, the first film Wong Kar-wai made with cinematographer Christopher Doyle. I adore this movie, and I listen to the soundtrack all the time.

From the Mouths of Filmmakers continues on Wednesday. 

NYFF Review: FOXCATCHER

Left to right: Steve Carell as John du Pont and Channing Tatum as Mark Schultz

Photo by Scott Garfield, Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

FOXCATCHER

NYFF Review

2014, 134 minutes

Rated R for some drug use and a scene of violence

Review by Joshua Handler

Bennett Miller is on a roll.  With Foxcatcher, he's back in Capote-like territory, exploring another very dark piece of American history.  The film tells the story of Olympic gold medalist Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum), a wrestler who is taken in by multi-millionaire John du Pont (Steve Carrell).  Du Pont wants to coach a wrestling team for the Olympics and eventually enlists the help of Schultz's brother, David.  As DuPont becomes more unstable and more pressure it put on Mark, everything begins to spiral out of control.

While the story's events spiral out of control, Miller keeps a tight grip over the film.  As one fellow critic noted, the film's sensationalistic material is played in a non-sensational manner by Miller and screenwriters E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman, which is to all of their credit.  Like Miller's previous two films, Capote and Moneyball, Foxcatcher is a drama completely driven by character.

The lead three characters are well-written, especially du Pont.  While du Pont is certainly a monster, he's the character I felt the most for, as he's so pathetic that he becomes tragic.  The most powerful scenes in the film are the ones in which all three actors appear together.  Each one plays off of the other and makes the chilly dialogue come to disturbing life.

Carrell, Tatum, and Ruffalo are all riveting.  Tatum is the standout.  Everything he's appeared in over the past few years seems to have built to this performance.  Over the past few years, Tatum has proven himself to be a truly gifted actor showing that he is as talented a comedian (21 and 22 Jump Street) as he is a dramatic actor (Magic Mike).  Even with his increasingly impressive filmography, many still do not completely take him seriously.  Foxcatcher will change that and likely earn him an Oscar nomination.  As Mark, Tatum is quiet, yet brooding.  This is a performance of brute force and sensitivity blended beautifully.

Steve Carrell is disturbing as John du Pont.  With a lot of make-up, Carrell has an eerie presence that lingers over the film.  It took a while for me to get used to Carrell in this role, as he has a face that automatically makes me laugh (he's obviously well-known for being one of the most talented comedians working today), but once I settled in, I became more and more unnerved by Carrell's performance.  His du Pont is one of the most believable villains to grace the screen in a while.  Carrell doesn't seem to see du Pont as a psychopath, but rather as a man frustrated by his own shortcomings.  He will likely be Oscar-nominated as well.

While Ruffalo isn't given quite as much screen time as his co-stars, he is the film's secret weapon and emotional core.  David is the only mentally stable one of the lead three and sees through du Pont.  Ruffalo's scenes with Carrell are especially tense.

There's been a theme of American discontent and disillusionment in films recently.  With The Overnighters, Gone Girl, and now Foxcatcher, among many others, it's interesting to see how the thematics of this year's films have evolved from last year's.  2013 was the year that films celebrated American excess (The Wolf of Wall Street, American Hustle).  2014's films are taking a step back and looking at the darker side of America; how people's personal failures can lead to tragedy.  I could write on about this all day, but will spare you.  This is just a fascinating trend I noticed after viewing Foxcatcher today.

Overall, Foxcatcher is a rich, nuanced, unsettling film.  Credit must also go to Greig Fraser's calm, misty cinematography, Rob Simonsen's score, and Jay Cassidy, Stuart Levy, and Conor O'Neill's sharp editing, as they contribute greatly to the mounting sense of unease that builds throughout.  Some will be turned off by Foxcatcher's deliberate pace, but most will be glued to their seats, as I was.  Foxcatcher is a film that people will remember for years.

4/4