Monday, February 6, 2012

Three Brave Souls on "Towelhead"

Find on Video

Three Brave Souls on "Towelhead"

(from brinkzine.com 9/11/08)

alan ball and summer.jpg Alan Ball and Summer Bishil
Alan Ball didn't try to sidestep controversy when he chose to adapt Alicia Erian's novel "Towelhead" to be his feature directorial debut. Ball, who won an Oscar for writing "American Beauty," and a slew of Emmys (including one for directing the pilot) as the creator and executive producer of "Six Feet Under," retained Erian's incendiary title and the most disturbing elements of her story. A pretty but naive thirteen-year-old of Middle Eastern descent, Jasira (the captivating Summer Bishil), arouses the boyfriend of her American mother (Maria Bello), so she is exiled to Houston to live with her strict Lebanese-American father (Peter Macdissi). As the pretty girl undergoes a confusing physical transformation and sexual awakening, she experiences racism, physical abuse from her well-meaning but inept and distant father, and sexual abuse from her neighbor, Mr. Vuoso (Aaron Eckert.) Set during the first Gulf War, it's strong stuff, tempered by doses of humor. Ball seemed genuinely grateful when I told him I liked the bravery of his film, which opens this Friday. On Wednesday I participated in the following roundtables, one with Ball and the other with Summer Bishil and Peter Macdissi. I note the questions I asked.
Roundtable with Alan BallDanny Peary: Was there a second title for this movie?
Alan Ball: There was. I'll tell you the story of the title. My agent sent me the book "Towelhead" by Alicia Erian in manuscript form and I optioned it with my own money. Because I didn't think it would be a story that would work well in the Hollywood studio development system, I wrote the script on spec. I sent the script out with the title "Towelhead." Every single studio passed on it. Nobody wanted to go near it. At that point my agents and I found an independent company, Indian Paint Brush, which was looking to go into the film production business, and during production the film was called "Untitled Alan Ball Project." Knowing that we were going to have to sell this movie, we tried to come up with a different title. When we took it to Toronto, that title was "Nothing Is Private." It's a horrible title. The one constant remark on the focus group screenings response cards was: "Hate the title." Warner Independent bought the movie but said "You're going to have to change the title." I said, "Yeah, I know." So there were pages and pages and pages of possible titles generated. Titles like "In Her Own Backyard," "Dirty Little Secrets." Nothing that was as good a title for this story as "Towelhead." I eventually said, "I think 'Towelhead' is what you should call it." And to my surprise Warner Independent said, "Okay, we will support you on this decision." At that point, last November, the movie was then screened for the Muslim Public Affairs Council. They got it. They totally understood the context in which that word was used. They understood that it was a story about what it feels like to be called a towelhead and be on the receiving end of hate language. And they gave us their blessing. However, in the last two months there have been protests lodged by the Council on American Islamic Affairs and the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund. What we have done is videotaped roundtable conferences with representatives from both organizations. One with myself and Summer Bishil and Peter Macdissi, the two Middle Eastern actors in the movie, and one with myself and Alicia Erian, who is Arab American, and we allowed everybody to make their statements. It's obvious that ultimately we're all on the same side. In terms of whether or not the title is an appropriate choice or not, there is a respectful disagreement but we are going to put these videotaped conferences on the movie website and also on the DVD.
Q: Why was it important to you to make this transition from television to directing a movie?
AB: I don't think of it that way. I like to challenge myself in different ways. After "Six Feet Under" was over, I wrote a play and it was produced here in New York. Then I wanted to give myself the challenge of directing a feature. I had written a screenplay called "Unfortunately Yours," a screwball comedy set in 1936. It is very different from anything I've done because, like I said, I like to challenge myself. And when my agent sent me the manuscript of "Towelhead," I loved the emotional experience of reading that book, I loved the story, I loved the characters, I loved the complexity. And I felt it was doable. It's not a huge action-adventure piece, there are no crowd scenes, you didn't need to rely a lot on special effects or anything like that. I just wanted to try my hand at directing a movie.
Q: How long did it take you to bring it to the screen? At the time was Aaron Eckhart attached?
AB: I think I read the manuscript about three years ago, give or take a few months. We started shooting the movie two years ago. September of 2006. It's 2008 now, right? So, it took about three years to get it to the screen. Aaron had already attached himself to this movie when he got the role in "The Dark Knight."
Q: How important was it to keep the humor from the novel in your film?
AB: Extremely important. In fact, one of the things I told Alicia when I was trying to convince her to let me option the book, was, "I will keep this movie funny. And I'm not sure other people will." I assumed she was battling off authors from every corner and I found out I was the only one. But to me that's part of what made the story so great. I'm a person for whom humor is a very fundamental part of my psyche and it serves the purpose of keeping me from despair. If I did this story without the humor that was so delicious in the novel would make it unbearable.
alanbsummermaria.jpg Maria Bello and Summer Bishil
Q: Besides the issue of the title, what were the most anguishing moments for you when working on the movie?
AB: The most anguishing moments came when we shot the climactic scene when everyone is emotional and Jasira reveals to everybody what happened to her. And the reason that was so anguishing is that I had a line producer saying to me, "You have two days. If you don't get it, it's not going to be in the movie." So, those were two hard days. It was the end of the shoot. Everybody was tired. Anguishing? It's certainly anguishing for me to feel that some people believe that the movie condones either sexual abuse or racism. It anguishes me that there are people who are that thick that they can look at this movie and not see that it really presents these events in a way that I feel is very realistic and very true. Because the movie doesn't say out loud, "Hey, this is bad!," they think that is somehow condoning it. Well, I feel that would be is disrespectful to the audience-I don't need be told as an audience member that racism is bad or that childhood sexual assault is a bad thing. I would actually rather get an understanding of how something like that could happen and be so prevalent.
Q: How far did you veer from the book? .
AB: I was very, very faithful to the book. Certainly the book is way more sexually explicit and I chose not to go there in filming it because I think reading words on a page and actually seeing the image in front of you are two different things. I felt like what was important was what was happening to the characters emotionally and so I put a disclaimer page on my original script saying there will be no graphic nudity and the only nudity will be in the pictures of those girlie magazines Jasira looks at. It will all be implied. It's all about what is happening to the characters emotionally. The camera will focus on their faces. Another difference between the book and the movie is the book is narrated by Jasira. It's sort of told first-person and while it is a fantastic book and a lot of the way Jasira expresses herself is really delightful and so innocent and funny, I felt that if we were to use narration in the movie, it would remove us from what is happening at the moment to her. It's a period piece, so if we used narration, it would be so easy to think that she's remembering it all today, from an adult perspective. I wanted to be there with her as it was happening. So, that was a challenge. The other challenge in changing it from one medium to the other was just cutting. I had to cut a lot of stuff out. But ultimately I believe that we retained the heart and spirit of the book.
Q: How was it working with such a young actress as Summer Bishil and directing her through those really difficult, touchy scenes?
AB: I have worked with young actresses who were in tears because they had to kiss somebody. So, I was ready for Summer to be a little bit of a basket case and she was fine. She is a very smart, very self-possessed young woman. You know, we took really good care of her. Her mother was on the set every day. We used a body-double whenever necessary. So, it's odd to say, it wasn't that hard to work with Summer. She knew what she was doing. She had read the book and done her homework and she was ready to go there. And she never took it home with her. In fact, she would play these really painful scenes, where she got hit by her father or was molested and she would go to these dark places and afterward I would be so grateful. I'd say, "Summer, that was really, really fantastic. And she would go, "Thanks. What are we doing next?" It was much harder for Aaron than it was for Summer. She knew what she was getting into. I think it was easier for her because as a character Jasira isn't knowingly doing anything wrong when she goes along with the sexual advances of her neighbor Mr. Vuoso, whereas he knows that he is committing a crime. Not just legally but morally, spiritually. And I think that was a much harder place for Aaron to go.
Q: Why was it so hard for him?
AB: It was just very uncomfortable for him to live in this man's skin. He's so not that guy in life. He's such a decent, solid person in life. But he's such a good actor that when he gets into a character's skin and the character is like this, it's tough for him. It's a struggle. And I just think that's a testament to his commitment and conviction to the art of acting as opposed to the business of acting. I have to say, I love that about him. I love that he is an actor and for him a character who does something despicable is a chance for him to find the humanity underneath that. Whereas a lot of actors, especially successful actors, really consider themselves commodities first and foremost and for them all their career choices are about protecting the brand. Aaron is first and foremost an actor and he loves the challenge of getting into a character who is conflicted or who does horrible things.
Q: In Six Feet Under, you had a teenage girl having sex without ruining her life and having an abortion without ruining her life. Here you are dealing with a much younger teenager but it seems that again you're saying teenage girls can have sex without it ruining her life, which not many people are very willing to say. Are you trying to make a point?
AB: I think sex is a natural part of life and I know teenagers especially have sex and to pretend that they don't is irresponsible. And I think to pretend that it's going to ruin their lives, that they are not capable of being responsible about it, is stupid. I'm not going to mention any names, but if you go through your life advocating abstinence-only sex education, and your daughter turns up pregnant, well, hello, you did not do your job and somebody should call you on it. Okay, I'll name names. Sarah Palin. What the hell?
Q: You worked with Peter Macdissi on "Six Feet Under." Was he your first choice to play Jasira's father, Rifat?
AB: When I read the book, I immediately saw Peter as Rifat. I knew Peter was Lebanese and the right age. Rifat has to be young enough so that you can sort of forgive him for being such a bad father. Both he and his ex-wife Gail, played by Maria Bello, have to be young enough so that you can sort of understand that they're still children themselves. Peter reminds me of Peter Sellers a lot in that he can be hilarious without trying to be and he will take what are on the surface the most manipulative or despicable motivations and make them intensely human. I felt that was really going for the truth. Because though he's a bad father, there is never a question in my mind that he loves Jasira and that she loves him.
Q: That father could be a joke character. So how much guidance of that role was your part and how much came from Peter's instincts?
AB: Most of it was Peter. Most of the performances were the actors' instincts. I am a firm believer in that old adage that casting is 90% of directing. I am not a control freak, I have such respect for actors. You are asking these people to share the innermost parts of their psyche when the camera is right there. My job is to cultivate an environment in which they feel safe and to cultivate a relationship in which there is mutual trust and then to let them do what they need to do. If I feel like I can guide them in a direction that will take them to a better place, I step in. But I also want to give them a shot to do it exactly the way they think they should do it. Once we have done it both ways, we can come up with some off-the-wall options, bBecause the purpose of shooting is to amass as much raw material as you can. It's in post-production where the movie gets made.
Q: The father is a conflicted character, so is Mr. Vuoso, who isn't all bad. You have a love of conflicted characters.
AB: Absolutely.
Q: Are you a conflicted character yourself?
AB: Actually I am not that conflicted. Certainly I have been a conflicted character at various points in my life, but now I consider myself to be fairly functional and I actually like to surround myself in life with people who are functional. As characters, such people bore me to death. Conflict is at the heart of drama and it's through conflict from the outside and inner conflict that we really, really get in touch with our humanity and we get in touch with the best and worst parts of ourselves. I think of storytelling as mythology and if you look at mythology there are some very conflicted characters and some whacked out, messed up stuff happening. And as a storyteller and as an audience member, I appreciate complication in all of its glory, without a knee-jerk attempt to make it black and white and to simplify it. I don't think life is simple and its part of our cultural tendency to reduce everything to black and white and sound bites. That's a weaker aspect of ourselves as a culture.
DP: Where could you have gone wrong with this film? What's the worst thing that could have happened?
AB: The worst thing that could have happened in this film would be to not strike that balance between the reality of what is happening and the comedy. Also, in the way we shot the film, I didn't want the movie to be gritty or dark. I think the worst thing that could have happened to this movie would be for it to be dishonest and be a manufactured attempt to further an agenda. What appealed to me about the book was that it was a very real, honest story with very real characters and that's what I tried to stick to in the movie.
DP: Jasira's manipulated all through the movie but is she a complete person at the end?
AB: Are we ever fully who we are capable of being?
DP: No, and we have to remember that she's still thirteen.
AB: Right I certainly think she had made a tremendous breakthrough in self-acceptance and in owning the power that she has over her own body and her own destiny. But she's thirteen. Is she fully formed? No. But I'm not fully formed, I don't think.
Q: Talk about your new HBO series "True Blood."
AB: Did you see it? Again, I stumbled onto some books that I fell in love with. Charlaine Harris just took me to this world that I couldn't get enough of. Somewhere around book four or five I thought, "This holds up. I think this would be a great TV series." It has great characters, it's sexy, it's violent, it's entertaining. And it has some interesting things to say about how our culture deals with "Other," be it ethnic minorities or vampires. We've done twelve episodes so far. Anna Paquin is fantastic. I've never really been drawn to any particular genre, or the supernatural, but I've had more fun doing this show than I've had in a long, long time.
Summer Bishil and Peter Macdissi Roundtable
alansummerpeter.jpg

DP: Summer, the production notes make it a point that you were eighteen when you made the movie. Could you have made this movie when you were thirteen?
Summer Bishil: No. Well, I'm sure I could have done it but I don't think I would have been any good.
DP: What about understanding your character?
SB: I think I would have had some insight. I am very different from Jasira but I would have known what she is going through. I just don't know if I could have handled the work load or if I should have been doing that kind part back then.
Q: How is Alan working with actors? It seems to me that he gives them a lot of freedom. That could be scary to an actor, too.
Peter Macdissi: No, it's not scary. Alan trusts his cast and just lets you be. He has very good instincts about casting and we were allowed to be very creative and follow our own impulses and develop the relationships that the characters need.
Q: Did you feel more secure because you had worked with Alan before and there was a mutual trust?
PM: Absolutely. Alan is a master at creating a safe, secure environment for the actors and I'm very lucky and privileged to have worked under his direction. At times when I've gone on a set and not felt I was not safe or secure, nothing comes out. It's horrible. That's very important for actors. And you know what? It's not just me. I mean like great actors, famous actors, experienced actors would exactly feel the same way. Nobody is as insecure as actors.
Q: Were you taken aback by anything in the script so that you questioned Alan?
PM: The only thing I expressed my concern to Alan about was in regard to my character being abusive physically to Jasira. I wanted that to come from a human place that had to do with his background. He probably got hit by his own dad and now he's communicating that way with his daughter. I didn't want it to be random. I wanted it to be deeper than that. And Alan was very open to that.
SB: When I read it, it was just a relief. I was seventeen when I auditioned for it and I usually would read children-oriented scripts. I will always be proud of the work I did for children's shows, because it's good and for kids. But I wasn't dealing with those issues anymore. That target audience was about twelve. That was a long time ago for me. So it was good to read something that had this really great character.
DP: What was your audition process?
SB: I didn't change anything. Like I said, I was a student and that's the place I was coming from. I was really intimidated by the whole thing. So, it wasn't like I could say, "I think this would be a good idea." For my audition, I tested a scene opposite Peter. And I did the scene where she tells everybody what's happened to her. I also auditioned the scene where she is at the Mexican restaurant with Mr. Vuoso.
Q: What do you do to play a thirteen-year-old?
SB: Well, I changed a lot. I changed the way my face sits, I got my voice up a couple of octaves.
My posture is not really great anyway but I made sure it wasn't good because you are uncomfortable with your breasts when you have them for the first time. And she starts her period and is uncomfortable walking, so there are times when she walks a little funny. Also I gave her a nervous tick where she taps her index finger three times. I always have a tick for each character I play.
Q: What were some of the preparations you did?
SB: I did an essay before I started a scene, with every thought I had for every second I was on camera. I'm kind of like OCD. I'm a little weird. I don't let my guard down for even a split second. I plan everything. Every blink of the eye has to be thought out. That developed during "Towelhead." I don't move a hand unless I thought about why. Maybe that's bad. I don't know.
Q: Was the title already intact when you came on the film?
PM: think it was called "Untitled: An Alan Bal Project." The titles came on and went actually. It was "Towelhead," "Nothing's Private," and then "Towelhead" again. But for us, that was not much of a concern. We were just trying to do good work.
Q: When you were making the film did you have any sense of the controversy that seems to grow around it?
PM: I thought the Lebanese community might come out and say, "In Lebanon we don't behave like that. We don't hit our kids. We're sophisticated. We're more European." But it was Muslim or the Sikh associations that reacted negatively. There are no Muslim characters in the movie, so I didn't anticipate that.
SB: People hadn't seen it.
Q: Have either one of you experienced prejudice?
SB: I have, but it hasn't been this major thing in my life. My mother is English but I grew up in the Middle East. We were all there because our parents were and everybody accepted we were all different. But then when I came here, there was a fixation on it. Specifically now when I'm doing interviews. People want to know who you are. Some people really fixate on it. And to me, that's prejudice. Because prejudice is not seeing somebody as a human being or an individual, but as a stereotype in regard to ethnicity or nationality.
PM: Yeah. Once I was called towelhead. I was in my in my teens, and my ex-roommate called me towelhead and I knew it was something derogatory because he said it in a very hostile way. But I didn't know exactly what it was. But then I started to analyze what the word meant and I thought, "Oh, it's like what Gulf Arabs put on their head, it looks like a towel." I was offended more by him not liking me at that moment because we were buddies. That was what affected me the most.
alanballaaron.jpg Aaron Eckert
Q: Summer, Alan talked about how hard a time Aaron had filming sexual scenes with you. How did you and Aaron work together on that?
SB: We didn't really work together. I didn't know what his process was to prepare for a scene, but he had his own process and I had my own process. We went through that and then we got together and did our scene. That worked for us. Aaron is a nice guy and a really great actor. I was a student. That's the way I looked at it. That's all. I learned a lot and that's how I gauge my achievement. And not by what people think of the role or whatever. I was a student and I was just learning and a lot of times I would just step back and observe the scenes and try to make that standard. I hope that I did that.
Q: What did you feel you learned the most?
SB: To trust myself. I tried not to show something, but I tried to just feel it to remain authentic.
DP: You character smiles every time someone says she's pretty, which I guess was intentional. How important is it that your character is pretty?
SB: I don't know if it's so important. She thinks she's ugly all of the time and she constantly compares herself to her mother. And she is never going to look like her mother. She is very different. Jasira hasn't been around people that look like her. She doesn't think that difference is unique and great and interesting. She takes it as bad and wrong and gross. So any time somebody acknowledges her at all, whether it be pretty or ugly, she smiles. She just wants to be acknowledged. It was like her existence wasn't valid to so many other people around her. When Mr. Vuoso acknowledges her, it's like "Wow."
Q: Do either of you know anyone who has experienced underage sexual abuse?
SB: Of course, I'm twenty. I think everybody knows somebody. It happens.
SM: It happens a lot actually. What's shocking is it's 1 out of 3. I read that and went, "Wow."
DP: Peter, I saw a video interview of you saying that the purpose of acting is to not to read the lines but to show the human condition. Can you expand on that in terms of this role?
PM: A lot of directors say they just hire the actresses to say the lines, and we say the lines but what's more important is what's between the lines, between the words. In regard to the human condition, I try to convey why the father's world is the way it is. And why is his relationship with his daughter this way? You raise questions as an actor. So, for me to get this human condition to surface in this role I had to do a lot of work. I had to fly to Texas and stay there for a couple of days just to understand what it means to be in Houston. I had to understand what kind of music he listens to, what kind of books he reads, and why is so fussy about his appearance. It's not random. He's insecure about where he is, so he needs to feel important. He needs to feel to show the world that "I count." And thus the behavior, you know. Again, the physical abuse toward Jasira is because of his background but not because he is Middle Eastern. He has his own traumas, his own fears being an immigrant living in Texas.
alansummeraaron.jpg
DP: I think the reason we like your character at all is that you have a nice girlfriend and she sees good things in him.
PM: Well, of course she sees good things. Rifat is a good guy. Ultimately, he's a good provider, he's generous, he has a good salary, he has certain values. But he has issues just like everybody else.
Q: And role in Six Feet Under was kind of a similar is that you play someone who is a bad guy, for the lack of a better term, but someone you have love and affection for. Did you talk about that?
PM: the media is sort of interesting because they just think bad guy or good guy. I see no similarities between Olivier and Rifat at all. I mean, I think they re totally from different poles. Olivier is an artist, a flamboyant bisexual, free, doesn't care. And Rifat is the opposite. He's a conservative man. Very straight and very authoritative and he has rules and values. I saw no similarities at all. If Olivier and Rifat met, they would hate each other.
Q: Summer, do you think your character ends up in a good place at the end?
SB: I think so. I think that it is a triumph for her.
Q: How was it when you saw the film up on that screen?
SB: Oh, man. That was crazy. I saw it with my dad and my mom. He loved it.. He really thought it was funny and so complex. He said, "I know you did a movie but this is a good movie."
Q: Did you two always want to be actors?
SB: No. Definitely not. I always wanted to be one but that's definitely not the only thing I want to be. I think if I only was an actor I would be disappointed. I'm going to college in International Relations and Foreign Policy. HIV-AIDS is an issue that always has troubled me and I want to help them. And I want to be a writer.
PM: I've always wanted to be an actor. And it has been a very hard trajectory. What's interesting is that the reasons you want to act changes. You start by wanting to perform in front of your parents or your relatives to like you or to love you. You want America tojust fall in love with you. And you discover that really that's not very important. That's not the reason. What's important is for me to speak about the human condition. And I can do that well if I'm allowed to.
Q: What are you two doing next?
PM: After this I've been just reading scripts and I tell my manager, "You're kidding me." I just don't know what to do because it's hard to match this quality. I'm not looking to match it but I'm not looking to go 600 years backward. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of roles for people like me. It's nice to work but it's nice to work on something that's meaningful to me. It's not easy. The industry has to be a big more flexible and not put us in boxes
SB: This career is pretty absorbing because it prevents you from going to school. But I don't mind. I'm having fun.

Don't Move Next Door to Samuel L. Jackson

Find Lakeview Terrace on Video

Don't Move Next Door to Samuel L. Jackson

(From brinkzine.com 9/17/08)

SAMUELJACKSONINTRUCK.jpg Young newlyweds Chris and Lisa Mattson (Patrick Wilson and Kerry Washington) think they've found the perfect house in the ideal neighborhood when the move onto "Lakeview Terrace," a cul-de-sac in a middle-class section of Los Angeles. And they think it might be comforting to be living next door to a policeman with two children. But the African-American Abel Turner (Samuel L. Jackson), an authoritarian widower with a lot of issues and a shaky job situation, makes their life miserable in an attempt to force them to move. He resents that they are an interracial couple and believes they are a bad influence on his kids. Director Neil LeBute makes films and writes uncomfortable and controversial plays about "escalation," with things going from bad to much worse, and in this instance, verbal sparring between the neighbors escalates into full-fledged warfare, Chris, who'd rather confront his neighbor than talk to Lisa about her desire to start a family, happily gets down in the mud with Abel, bambino a bambino. Still you have to admire him a little for not backing off because bad guys played by Samuel L. Jackson are invariably creepy and intimidating. Fortunately, in person, Jackson is extremely approachable. He was promoting the film on Monday in anticipation of its Friday release. I was part of the following roundtable and note my questions.
Q: What is it about this character Abel that made you say you had to play him?
Samuel L. Jackson: I'm always looking for acting challenges or the chance to explore emotions that I don't have myself or situations that are far removed from what I'm doing. He is very different from who I am. Abel is pretty much as far away from me as I can get.
Danny Peary: What does your character think of himself? Does he like himself?
Samuel L. Jackson: I think Abel is comfortable with who he is and where he is. He's trying to figure out how to navigate raising his teenage daughter because she's raising questions with him like most teenage girls do. He's okay with himself because his opinion is informed by what he does day to day. He'd dealing with bad people mostly and because of that I think he pretty much thinks the worst of the majority of people he encounters. He thinks the worst first. He does have a specific idea of what he wants his community to be and a specific idea of how he wants to raise his kids. This young couple moves in and it's not immediately a black-and-white thing, but he's thinking, "This is an influence I'm not sure I want my kids to have." He's sees this woman working at home who is kind of cute and kind of brassy and he's not sure he wants his daughter influenced by her. So he definitely has an opinion about who they are before he knows anything about them.
DP: That all sounds like you think only in a positive way about him.
SJ: I was hoping to craft a character who at times you say to yourself that you understand how he feels, but then you'll see him a little closer and you'll feel kind of creepy and say, "Well, wow, maybe not." It's hard to draw conclusions because Abel smiles a lot when he says bad things.
DP: Was Abel different before his wife got killed?
SJ: I think he was. I think he was a very different individual. I think his home was more stable and he didn't have to be as strict with the kids. I think he had an outlet for his emotions and someone to talk to who wasn't another cop about what was going on in his life and the people around him. And he wouldn't have had the resentment he had after she died. It's not a sure thing that Abel's wife was doing something wrong the day she was killed. He was just suspicious because she was in a white section of town with her white boss. The unfortunate thing is that she did die on a gurney in a hospital in a predominantly white are hospital when they let her lie there. That's part of his anger also.
Q: Did you use your artistic license to change things in the script?
SJ: In the original script Abel as an out-and-out crazy, racist mad dog. His wife was still alive in that script, he is kind of abusive, and there is all kind of stuff going on. It was too easy to hate him. Neil LaBute came in and we started the rehearsal period and started to craft the movie to what you see. We killed off his wife and had Abel be alone in the house raising two kids. We tried to figure out why he was so angry at his neighbors. The original script had Abel having a white father who abandoned his mother. Yuck.
Q: Abel corrects his daughter's grammar.
SJ: A lot. I have some real issues of people on television speaking bad English. I have a daughter and I understand that dynamic of daughters asserting themselves in a certain kind of way. They say, "It's so unfair" because you're saying no to them. The important thing is tell them is that life is unfair but there are things you can do to navigate through it. When Abel's daughter is next door with Lisa without his permission I got that. The hardest thing for me to do in the film was hit that little girl for talking back. I never hit my daughter. Then again I grew up with corporal punishment in Chattanooga and got hit a lot, so I "get it."
Q: Were you able to draw on your own experiences for this film other than in the father-daughter relationship?
SJ: Life experiences help inform you about certain characters. You might observe people and remember them when you're developing your characters. Teachers, friends of the family, people you really don't like. There are actors who want to be liked even when they're playing bad guys. You can see them not being as bad as they need to be. I try to do things that make the story move forward and affect the people in a specific kind of way, so I use a lot of things and I use a lot of people in terms of what I've seen them doing. When I was doing "Unbreakable," M. Night Shymalan found out I could do long takes without blinking. He'd then tell me not to blink at all!
Q: Kerry told us that a scene was deleted in which Lisa pretends that she wants to seduce him. Is Abel sexually attracted to her?
SJ: I guess you could say that. Sometimes we'll look at couples and say, "Why are they together?" I'll hear my wife's successful, attractive unmarried friends say they'll see a good looking black man with a white woman who isn't as attractive and they'll say, "Why her? Why won't he look at me like that?" A lot of us ask those questions and I can see Abel asking why she is with Chris rather than him.
Q: Do you think "Lakeview Terrace's" violent-confrontational conclusion is inevitable?
SJ: There is a time Chris and Lisa could diffuse the situation as easily as Abel could. They take it personally when his light shines in their bedroom at night. But that motion light was there before they moved in because he wanted to see if anyone who casing the neighborhood. He's thinking, "You're an affluent couple, buy some curtains!" Also, when he goes to their house-warming, he's kind of open but all of a sudden everyone is making it clear "We're better educated and you're just a cop," and they talk down to him. You kind of feel bad for him for a moment, but he defends himself as best he can. So there are ways when they all could do something different, but it doesn't happen. And finally lines are crossed and he kind of loses it and unravels.
Q: Is there anything you had to do to prepare to play a cop?
SJ: I've been around enough cops doing cop movies. I've been trained by several different law enforcement agencies. I've done ride-arounds with cops and spent time with the gang unit, so I understood what they do and their attitude toward people. It's a matter of understanding the amount of power you have and how you use that power.
Q: How did you like working with Neil LeBute?
SL: I was glad to work with Neil who is a playwright and a really good director who understands character and character development. The relationships of the characters in the story were a lot more important to him than laying track for a crane shot. He isn't a director who thinks the camera will do all the acting and all the work. It's really refreshing working with someone who pays attention to what's going on between the people on the screen.
Q: In "Jungle Fever," you were in a film in which there was a couple where the man was black and the female was white. In this film, it's the reverse. And in both people don't approve.
A: I'm aware people might say, "Oh, wow, it's a black man who is a racist in this movie." Well, there are black racists. Unfortunately, yeah. We all have opinions about people and who they are and why they together. It doesn't have to be a black and white thing. People might say, "She's so tall and he's so short." Ugly guys can get good-looking girls.
DP: Was it after "Jungle Fever" that people start recognizing you on the street?
SL: It was actually after "Coming to America," when I was living in New York. That was the biggest movie I'd done. Then I did "Die Hard" and "Pulp Fiction." "Die Hard" was the biggest grossing film world-wide the year it was released. Wherever I went on the planet I was recognized after that. All of a sudden I was a world figure. I've always been the black Jerry Lewis in France!
DP: I've read where you are the biggest box-office actor over a career in the world.
SJ: I've made a couple of movies that have made some money. The guy who is in second place was in the first "Star Wars" movies, I was in the second group. They were charging more money at the movies when I made mine.
Q: Would you like to do a "softer" movie sometime?
SJ: Sure, but what I really want to do is make a western because I grew up watching them.
Q: Do you think "Lakeview Terrace" will cause a lot of discussion?
SL: I hope that people go to movies and are entertained. If you want to talk afterward about whether the movie's social ramifications, that's great. I haven't done many movies that I've thought had great social value, in terms of changing society.
Q: There's a group of people who are protesting this movie...
SJ: Republicans?
Q: It's a black group that's saying there's no such thing as a black racist.
SJ: There are people who say, "You can't be a racist unless you have undue influence on another race." No, you can be a racist just because of what your attitude is.
Q: So they're going to protest it.
SJ: Oh, cool. Any time there's a protest more people will go see the movie. I'm down with that.

Continuing the "Battle in Seattle"

Find on Video

Continuing the "Battle in Seattle"

(from brinkzine.com 9/19/08)

BattleinSeattleNEW.jpg
So you've seen "The Dark Night" thirty-five times and still haven't figured out that Heath Ledger's Joker sounds like an effete character created by Al Franken. It's time to be more adventurous with your moviegoing and instead of making a beeline to another megahit, check out one of the independent films that needs support to stay in theaters. You may hate them, but I'll still recommend two controversial films that I think have been underestimated by most critics: "Towelhead" and "Hounddog," featuring terrific and brave performances by young actresses, Summer Bishil and Dakota Fanning. Another sure-to-be controversial film opens Friday and though it has some flaws, I'd like everyone to go see it because it's well-intentioned, makes powerful political points, and even dares have left-wing extremists as heroes. Stuart Townsend's ambitious "The Battle in Seattle" is about the successful five-day protest by an international assemblage of environmentalists, anarchists, labor, consumer advocates, human-rights groups, and pacifists to shut down the World Trade Organization convention in 1999. It turned into a full-scale riot when the Seattle police became aggressive, and a state of emergency was declared. The protest was barely covered by America's media and the fact that it succeeded was ignored. No American filmmaker would dare turn that event into a movie, but Irish actor Stuart Townsend spent six years trying to bring it to the screen as his first directorial effort. Townsend: "I went on the Internet and read about the event and thought it was incredible. The film is like my personal journey. I wanted people to experience what I experienced the first time I saw footage of that colorful, creative protest. I was just blown away. When I saw the riots I said, "This is America?" I couldn't believe it. Protesters in Seattle were ahead of the curve fighting against an economic system that has brought us today's financial crisis, that has brought us the world's food riots. Unfortunately, I don't think people are going to see the connection. I hope the film helps them connect the dots." Townsend assembled a super cast, headed by his partner Charlize Theron (an actress who always has had remarkable integrity), Martin Henderson, Woody Harrelson, a personal favorite Michelle Rodriguez, Andre Benjamin (of Outkast), and Connie Nielsen. Some of them were politicized by the experience; others simply say they were educated about the event and the issues and hope the film does the same to viewers. But first potential viewers have to see the movie, which is why Townsend and several members of his battle in seattle cast were in New York this week to publicize their film. I was able to ask a few questions to Michelle Rodriguez, Martin Henderson, Charlize Theron, and Stuart Townsend. All nice, passionate people.
319705530_f9ee5e60a5_b.jpg

Danny Peary: Michelle, you say you have a collection of documentaries about the world situation. You don't mention watching narrative films. So did you recognize that this is the first America-set fictional film of any consequence that has radicals who are heroes?
Michelle Rodriguez: Right on! What I was aware of upon reading the script is that for the first time I felt like every perspective that I could think of regarding the fight for human rights or a human belief system is covered. I felt that even if I were an extra I would have loved to be part of this film. I did it because I believe in it. There is something about the protester I play that is so human and she reminded me of what I love about this country. I've traveled to many different countries in my little ten years of being in this business and had this opportunity to educate myself on various perspectives of how the world looks at America. People around the world are having trouble trusting the powers that be, which is why people like movies with vigilantes or rebels who fight back. Being a citizen of this country I've also gotten to see what some of the benefits are to being a woman here. There are a lot of things I take pride in and a lot of things I kind of reject. One of the things I love is the ability to speak and be heard. And sometimes it takes radicals to wake people up. Because if they're not making noise, the media is not going to cover an event. It's really sad. Only when people stand up and dare make fools of themselves in front of the media will people who are more concerned with what I wear going actually listen. I didn't know anything about what took place in Seattle in 1999 from the news. The news didn't inform me about World Trade Organization talks in Seattle, with 30,000 people battling in the streets for their rights as humans. It's just amazing that it was ignored that way.
DP: Your character Lou is really passionate, which is probably why you were attracted to her. But was it you who made her that passionate?
MR: Oh, no. She was written that way for sure. But I just added a little element of heart to her. Stuart and I had some dialogues and we changed a couple of things and I gave her a little heart. Sometimes the anger or emotion is so overwhelming that you don't really understand why the character is doing something. I thought it was incredibly important that we at least get through to the audience that there is a reason for her actions, rather than what may seem to be insanity.

Danny Peary: Martin, you play Lou's radical lover. How similar are you to Jay?
Martin Henderson: I see him as being motivated politically by the issues that he cares about and emotionally by the death of his brother. I'm a pretty mild person but if I care about something enough or certain lines are crossed, I can get riled up and very emotional. I identify with his wanting to fight back against something that is wrong. But I'm not an activist in the way these characters are. The real people Jay was based on are true front-line heroes. I met a few of them. Jay is more of a leader than anyone really was, because they didn't want to have leaders the police would target. I asked them why they did what they did. Stuart Townsend jokes that he cast me because I turned up with a full beard and long hair and I was the only actor there he believed could be up a tree. As an actor, it was a joy to work on something that matters and that has relevance today. We're in a world where we're increasingly affected by the issues that this movie calls attention to.
300538509_b2988e4d5c.jpg
Danny Peary: Charlize, you say it's a bad-ass movie made for $1. 50 that could easily be a blockbuster directed by Jerry Bruckheimer. But despite what you say, I do think it's foremost a political film. Coming from South Africa, what do you think is the effect of street protests?
Charlize Theron: I think it's amazing that we say the government works for us, then forget that. Then you watch over a million people protest this war in Iraq and realize the governments don't go, "Wait a minute, we work for these people." Those protests were world wide and somewhat magical to watch. You can't ignore those images of so many people standing together. A lot of the successful tactics used in Seattle in 1999 and elsewhere since are still proving to be effective. Protesting is different from what people think it is-they see it as a "hippie" movement of Love, Peace, and War, and getting high and walking through the streets naked. But today's protesters really understand their rights and understand government and what their effect can be on government. I'm always impressed when I see protests, no matter what country they're in. Always. You should know that I'm not trying to deny that this is a political film. I think life is politics and I think we forget that. When we do movies like "In the Valley of Elah" that are considered "political," people run away so fast. What they don't realize is that this is life on the screen. It's real. The brain has to get rewired-we can't stop making these movies because people don't want to see them. We just have to start marketing them and talking about them differently. We can tell people that they aren't going to get preached at and they are going to have a wild ride and see some amazing characters and maybe learn something about the world they live in without being hit in the head with a hammer.
DP: I say it's political because most films will just say "war is bad," which everyone agrees with and isn't controversial or brave, but Battle in Seattle has specific, real targets, including the WTO, the police, and our media. That's brave.
CT: I'm so glad you think that. Thank you!
DP: Are you promoting this film and traveling with Stuart?
CT: We have been traveling nonstop. We screened it at both conventions and we've taken it to tons of film festivals. This has been a six-month endeavor. An interesting thing about Stuart is that he chose to distribute the film himself and has single-handedly, obsessively, been working on an amazing grassroots campaign, which is the only way to spread the word when you have no money for publicity. So you have to travel and you have to do tiny screenings.
And the amazing thing is that everywhere we've gone, the audience has had an overwhelming emotional reaction. You know those people are going to leave the theater and spread the word. That's the best marketing you can hope for.
DP: When you screened the film in Seattle, what was the reaction?
CT: It couldn't have been better. One person came up and said there were five important things that I remember about what happened in 1999, and your movie had all five things in it. That was so great to hear.
battleinseattle1_large.jpg
DP: Stuart, I'm sure nobody was racing you to get their movie about the 1999 WTO protest out first. No American director would make this film. They don't make political movies.
Stuart Townsend: Right, nobody was thinking about this idea for a film. I'm surprised no one has made a film about Kent State, either. The market place is difficult for such films. We don't have money for publicity, that's why we're hoping for word-of-mouth.
DP: In the production notes it says you were inspired by one of my favorite films, Haskell Wexler's "Medium Cool," a political film set at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. "Medium Cool" was about how reporters can't stay detached when they see injustice, and that's what happens in your film with the Connie Nielsen's television reporter.
ST: Yes, there's that element in both films. We actually have footage from "Medium Cool" in the movie. And Haskell Wexler is in the movie. He's eighty something and came up for a day. It was minus 2 degrees and he didn't even bring a jacket. We gave him one but he's a robust man and didn't need it. The inspiration was his camerawork. I loved the immediacy in that film and the soft focus of certain things. He was smart enough to know that somehow he was going to be able to put actors into the real riot. That is why it was such a novel film. I love his cinematography. "The Battle of Algiers" is another film with incredible camerawork that inspired me.
DP: You say the Seattle police isn't your villain, but I think what the police do in the riot scenes is the touchiest thing in the movie. Middle-class Americans will be shocked that police do act like that when there is a protest. Did you include Woody Harrelson's sensitive policeman to give balance?
ST: I feel like the riot footage villainizes them enough. It was real, I didn't make it up, that's what they did, and it's up there on the screen for people to judge for themselves. But I wanted to give them a voice, Woody Harrelson's character, because I had read about them. They were human beings, but they were unprepared, untrained.
54-battleinSeattle.jpg
It's hard to believe but some of them were scared with thousands of people approaching them. Some of them weren't taken care of properly-they didn't eat, they didn't sleep much although they worked for several days on end, they didn't get bathroom breaks. It doesn't justify what they did, but at least that helps you relate to them.
DP: You want to promote the film to get everyone to see it, so are you trying to downplay that it is a political film?
ST: It is political, but I'm trying to hide that fact in "entertainment language."
DP: At the recent Republican Convention, they isolated the protesters, just like in China during the Olympics.
ST: I was there. We screened the movie and then I walked out to what was basically my movie in real life. There were five hundred riot police and a thousand protesters pushed aside so they couldn't be effective. It was like they had been put in a cage.
DP: I know you're publicizing "The Battle in Seattle" on the Internet, just like the protest in 1999 was the first protest organized over the Internet. And Charlize says you're taking it all around the country.
ST: I recently showed it at USC in Los Angeles. And the kids really loved it and came up afterwards to talk. One girl with a skateboard, who was really sensitive and in tears, came up and said, "Thank you for making the movie." That really hit me. It was a genuine thank you. I felt that all of my six years of work on the film was worth it.

Talkin' About "Rachel Getting Married"

Find on Video

Talkin' About "Rachel Getting Married"

(from brinkzine.com 10/2/08)

rachelgettingmarriedpic1.jpg
Ann Hathaway

There's already Oscar buzz about Anne Hathaway for her raw, nervy performance as a guilt-ridden young ex-model who leaves rehab to attend her "saintly" sister's nuptials in "Rachel Getting Married." Hathaway, who has chosen roles as judiciously as anyone since "The Princess Diaries," and already deserved a Best Actress nomination along with Meryl Streep for "The Devil Wears Prada," steals scenes, just as her sometimes sympathetic, sometimes selfish Kym dominates settings. But she's not the only one involved with this winning film who should be singled out for praise. Equally award-worthy are Debra Winger (we've missed her!) and secret-treasure Bill Irwin as Kym and Rachel's divorced parents, Abby and Paul; and, in the title role, lovely stage and television actress Rosemarie DeWitt (Midge on AMC's "Mad Men"), who more than holds her own with Hathaway in both volatile and tender scenes. The script was written by Jenny Lumet, whose father, Sidney Lumet, sent it to Jonathan Demme. Apparently Demme loved that for her first screenplay, Lumet didn't know enough to follow the rules. It's good to welcome back Demme to narrative films, after a few years of directing only political and music documentaries. By employing a hand-held camera and refusing to set up shots, eschewing rehearsed scenes, allowing improvisation, casting many nonprofessional actors, and having musicians playing nonstop both in and out of the frame, he has made an anti-Hollywood film that's part documentary, part home movie, part guerilla art. On Monday, Lumet, Hathaway, DeWitt, and Demme were in town promoting their film in anticipation of this Friday's release. I had the chance to ask questions of each.
Danny Peary: Jenny, I think you wrote about a distinctly modern American family. It doesn't have the epic figures of classic tragedy.
Jenny Lumet: I think so, too. They're so familiar not so much with psycho-babble but with the psych vocabulary. That's what's really American to me.
DP: I could see this film as a short story. Did you write this as a script or in another form first?
JL: As a script. I don't know how to write in any other form. I love the short story form. It's interesting that you see the connection because I LOVE that form. I've been working really hard to learn how to write short stories, and I can't write them.
DP: If you have a sister, talk about how that played into writing about sisters Rachel and Kym.
JL: I do have a sister. There's a very romanticized thing that goes on in movies with brothers, even guys who aren't really brothers, but "brothers in blue," "blood brothers," that kind of thing. But I think the sister connection is so interesting and not really explored in movies. If it is explored, it's usually sisters being interested in the same guy. But the real thing is powerful stuff. Sisters, all siblings in fact, have as much impact on each other as their parents do. The relationship between Rachel and Kym is so tight but it's difficult because it's so much about what happened in the past. I was going to write a story and I thought, "What's the worst freaking thing that can happen in a family other than everyone dying of ebola virus?" The baby dies. Who's fault is it? Somebody in the family. How does each person respond to that? I think the sibling stuff is more fraught and weird than parent-child stuff. I'm a parent and I think parents will inevitably forgive and love their children and see them through anything. With siblings, I don't think you necessarily have to; it's a matter of choice. Maybe I'm wrong. Certainly the absence of their mother, Abby, speaks volumes. Look what happens when Abby and Kym are alone for five minutes. They go straight to hell.
ahathwaydirectordemme.jpg
DP; In the production notes, Jonathan says one reason he liked your script is that he didn't feel forced to like Kym, Rachel, or the other characters (which led him to cast likeable actors to balance that out). Did you want that kind of reaction from audiences?
JL: Seeing that this is my first produced screenplay, any reaction is totally amazing. I was on every character's side and thought that they all were speaking their own truths, but I didn't necessarily like them. I don't think people are likeable all the time. They are inconsistent and conflicted. In fact, I pilfered from my own friends and family and they all can be nutcases at times. It was just really important to me that nobody would be full of shit. I tried really hard not to write anyone with dishonesty.
DP: Were you on the set?
JL: No, I wasn't allowed. It would have been cool, but I had great trust in the people making the film. It worked out good.

DP: Anne, why do you think Kym became an addict?
Anne Hathaway: I think addiction is a disease and is genetic. So I can't tell you why until the day they figure out why people have this disease. But I can tell you how her problem got exacerbated. Growing up in suburban Connecticut, she was a girl who grew up in a household that was probably permissive. She saw people drinking and smoking, and occasionally smelled weed coming up from downstairs. She probably started drinking and smoking cigarettes at twelve or thirteen, and I'm sure somebody brought some weed over one time and she tried it and liked it; and maybe when she was fourteen someone had gotten some cocaine and she tried that and really liked that and wanted to do more and more and more, and it got worse. And she was modeling at the time, so she had easy access and a lot of time away from her family. She is an extreme person so she always would want to go faster and faster and faster. By the time she was sixteen and babysitting her little brother, it was a full-blown heroin addiction.
DP: Was her family a cause of it?
AH: I don't believe anyone causes addiction; it's a disease.
DP: If not the cause, do you think they impacted on it?
AH (laughing): What do you want me to say?
DP: I think the more we see the mother, the more we can tell that there is something the mother is not providing the daughter.
AH: You see how open and gregarious and loving Kym's father Paul is. I'm sure Abby was always a little held-back, but I think she probably had her wild moments, too. You'd have to ask Debra Winger about Abby, but my take on her is that after her son died, she had to distance herself from being a mother. It was just too painful. She's trying to be a mother the best she can but she's also trying to protect herself. Based on what you see in the movie, we don't know how much impact she had. I don't want to blame Kym's parents. Obviously they were a part of it because she was a kid and they were adults, but it's a complicated issue and blame doesn't do much. So it doesn't really matter to me whether the parents were part of the problem at the beginning. However, I do think it was really difficult for Kym and she blames herself so much for the death of her brother. As she was going through facilities and getting help and going to meetings and talking about it, people started asking her, "Where were your parents back then? Why were they leaving a drug addict alone with their son?" She would say, "No, no, no, you don't understand. I did this and that and this." This time it's different. The reason her coming home from rehab for the wedding is different-and the reason the story takes place at this exact moment in Kym's life-is that for the first time in her life Kym has accepted the view that "I was the one driving the car, but I wasn't the one who put myself in that position. I took the drugs, I shouldn't have taken the drugs, and I wish every day that I had not taken the drugs, but my family does have complicity in this. And I need them at some point to acknowledge that. I need to insist on that." Is that an answer?
DP: That's it.
rachelsrosemarie.jpg

DP: Rosemarie, when you auditioned for "Rachel Getting Married," did you do sister scenes?
Rosemarie DeWitt: I did. My first audition was on tape. I think Jonathan watched it. Then I had a five-minute meeting with him. Then we went to his apartment and he held a camera and shot Annie and me doing four or five scenes from the movie. She had been cast a year earlier but this was her first real contact with it. She was just trying on the part and was working at an exciting level right from day one. She was right on top of me. It's the best way to audition when the other person is like that.
DP: Was there an instant that day when it clicked and you understood the relationship between Rachel and Kym?
RD: Yeah. There was a moment that wasn't even in the script. We were trying to make it work with whatever we had in Jonathan's apartment. Annie was putting on a necklace and it was just the way our bodies were wrapping around each other and we were intertwined and I thought, "This feels right. This is good." This feels like she could be my sister."
DP: Rachel has a lot of anger toward Kym. But she's a happy bride and Kym is a recovering drug addict, so is she jealous of her anyway?
RD: Oh, yeah.
anne&rosemary.jpg
I guess Rachel and Kym are a great example of what I understand sibling rivalry to be, having had four half-sisters I didn't grow up with. The jealousy and rivalry is so primal, especially in the family dynamic. I'm sure jealousy factored into where she chose to excel and develop herself. "If she's the one with the beauty, I'll be the one with the brains." I was so embarrassed by how I had to tap into her jealousy and I remember really wanting to tell Jonathan that I wasn't like that. She could try to rise above it and say, "Well, it's my wedding day," but there's also the feeling that she wants to be seen. "Everyone's looking over there at Kym, but I'm the one with the white dress on!"
DP: She's jealous of the attention Kym gets, but is she also jealous that Kym seems to get away with things Rachel wouldn't dare do?
RD: Yeah. I think Rachel's jealous of all of it. Jonathan was telling a story earlier today, making fun of me, about how at the wrap party I was drinking beer and really wanted to defend myself to him, "Jonathan, I'm not Rachel!" Kym could do things to excess, but not Rachel. You can cover jealousy better when you go out in the world. Maybe in your job your coworker will get all the accolades for something you contributed to, and you'll say, "Well, I'm an adult" and keep silent. But at home you can't do it. When you walk in you may say, "I'm not going to fight with my sister," and at dinner you are screaming at each other and later nobody's speaking. They're so similar that it's painful to coexist.

rachelgettingmarriedpic4.jpg
DP: Jonathan, I was struck by similar elements in this film and "Ordinary People." Can you compare the mothers played by Debra Winger and Mary Tyler Moore?
Jonathan Demme: I have heard that reference once or twice, but until then it had never occurred to me. I can compare my reaction to the two mothers. I know I was very judgmental about Mary Tyler Moore's character. I think I hated her for her coldness and how oblivious she was to the pain she was causing. Therefore I thought it was an extraordinarily bold acting choice for her and for Robert Redford who cast her. That was cold, that was stark. My reaction to Debra's Abby is that I'm very moved. When she says her goodnights and can't bear to be hugged by her daughters, I feel so bad for her. Rachel has dealt with the tragedy of her brother's death by moving on, Paul has dealt with it by trying endlessly to rekindle the love and somehow make up for the pain and suffering that will never go away. For a time, Kym dealt with it by getting wasted even more than she had beforehand. Abby dealt with it by closing up and creating a simpler, streamlined life. She denies it all and it's devastating how Abby can charmingly not deal with anything. [SPOILER ALERT] It's frustrating to all of us watching the film that there is no closure because we feel we earned a rapprochement between Kym and Abby. And at the end of the movie, there's hope for everyone else--even Kym has the strength to go on-but Abby's the one who is tragic to me. Debra told me, "Jonathan, I know what it's supposed to be, but I just feel so much for Kym now that I want to..." I said, "No, now you mustn't." I think it's perceptible what Debra was dealing with when filming those scenes.[SPOILER OVER]
DP: When Kym walks into the rehab meeting, she knocks over a bunch of chairs. That made me think of Daffy Duck, particularly since I'm sure you watched the old Warner Bros. cartoons in which Bugs Bunny was already stationed within the frame but Daffy always walked into it and things went amok. You repeatedly have Kym in doorways and walking forward, so were you thinking differently in those scenes and the ones where she's already established in a room?
JD (laughing): It wasn't a conscious thing, but I love that you saw that and love that we got that. Kym does have impact whenever she walks into a room. She changes a room, because she's a hand grenade and such a pain in the butt. She IS Daffy Duck!

Farewell, Young Tom Tresh

In Memoriam: Tribute Interview

Farewell, Young Tom Tresh

(from brinkzine.com 10/18/08)


tom tresh closeup.jpg As a Yankee hater in my youth, I was very pleased with the prospects of the dynastic team having the rare off-year in 1962, when reliable shortstop Tony Kubek went off to fulfill his military obligation at the beginning of the season. My joy was short-lived when it turned out that his replacement, Tom Tresh, was a switch-hitting Kubek with home-run power. It was decidedly unfair that the Yankees could deep pulling great players from a magician's hat. It was evident early on that Tresh was going to be the Rookie of the Year, and that the Yankees were as strong as ever with him holding down the fort until Kubek's return in August. The Yankees, ho hum, defended their World Series title that year and both Tresh, in left, and Kubek, at short, would be mainstays of a strong Mantle-Maris-led lineup that raced the Yankees to two more pennants in 1963 and 1964. Tresh would remain on the team until the 1969 season, outlasting all his storied teammates. Before he was hurt, what a fine player he was. I still picture the "Young Tom" Tresh of those years, and it was quite shocking when he died this week of a heart attack at the still young age of 71. I was grateful that I finally met him this year, in late June at the Roger Maris Charity Golf Tournament in Fargo, North Dakota, which I attended while researching a biography of Maris that I'm coauthoring with historian Tom Clavin. My pal Johnny Blanchard introduced us and Tom was eager to talk to me about Roger and himself. He seemed robust. We did the following Q&A on July 2 by phone after he was back home in Florida. He had just climbed off his tractor. I believe it is the final interview of Tom Tresh's too-short life.
Danny Peary: After a terrific year at Richmond, the Yankees brought you up at an amazing time in 1961. Did you come at the beginning of September, in time for the pivotal Yankees-Tigers series?
Tom Tresh: I came up September 1st. We had a one game lead when the Tigers came into Yankee Stadium for a three-game series. It was kind of a dream basically because I was at Richmond and I went in to get ready for a night game there. It must have been the 31st of August and it's about 5 o'clock and my manager Cal Ermer called me in and said, "Don't bother to get dressed. You've been called up to the Yankees. I had my car in Richmond, so I just packed up everything and took off for New York City, driving through the night.
DP: How come they wanted you then? Were you the only guy brought up?
TT: I was the only one brought up from the minor league system. I have no idea why. They don't tell you such things. They don't have to explain themselves to you. You are just excited to go. A manager says New York wants you up the for tomorrow's game, it's an afternoon game and...
DP: You didn't ask for "motivation."
TT: No! So I drive through the night and get to New York and go directly to the stadium. It's before any other Yankees are there. Pete Sheehy met me in the clubhouse and took me over to my locker and my locker was right next to Mickey Mantle's.
DP: And Mantle was your idol.
TT: Yeah. And in my locker was Number 15 and it was the number my dad, Mike Tresh, wore for twelve seasons in the major leagues.
DP: Did Pete Sheehy think of that when he assigned the locker?
TT: Yeah, Pete did. He knew the number my dad had, so that was a thrill. I wanted to be there first because it's a lot easier when ballplayers straggle into the locker room on at a time. I wanted it so that when they came, I could walk up and say hi to them and do it at a slow pace. I didn't want to get overwhelmed by everybody.
DP: How many of the Yankees did you know at that point?
TT: I had met all of them. You're not isolated from them in spring training. I was with the big club for a period of time and then was sent to Richmond. I'd also been to springing training with the big club in 1960. So I was around. You are not playing much but I guess you kind of get a wet nose.
DP: Did the players know you were coming?
TT: Yeah, they did. They'd heard. Anyway, that's the time of year the rosters expand.
DP: Joe De Maestri, whom I've known for many years, is one of the nicest people in the whole world. If anybody would be upset by your presence, it would be him.
TT: Well, it wasn't him because he already knew he was retiring after the season.
DP: Yeah, but this would be his last time in baseball and they are bringing somebody else up who might play instead of allowing to him finish out his career on the field. But, as I said, he was a good guy and probably wouldn't protest.
TT: I don't know if that would have been the case. If somebody got hurt, Joe would have been the guy to go in and play, as had happened when Kubek was struck in the throat in Game 7 of the 1960 World Series. It wouldn't have been me: I had only eight major league at-bats and they are playing for a pennant. They had a one game lead on Detroit when I got there and I think we won all twelve games of the home stand. Detroit had a losing streak and we pulled safely ahead in the race.
DP: The swept the Tigers to go four up and that pretty much clinched the pennant then, but the Yankees won for another week and the Tigers went into a tailspin.
TT: It was really kind of neat, because every day after the game everybody in the clubhouse was happy because you won again. The first couple of weeks, I didn't know what it was like to lose. I liked the feeling.
DP: So, was there a total confidence for the Yankees right from the beginning?
TT: Yeah, the Yankees in those years had that kind of confidence. They felt they were going to win and be the champions every year.
DP: How was it lockering next to your idol?
TT: It was great. But as you know it was the time when Mickey and Roger were both after Babe Ruth's record. So, there was so much going on around Mickey's locker a lot of the time. I'd get in, get dressed, and get out of my locker because there'd be an overflow of reporters into it. You've been to Yankee Stadium, so you know what the lockers are like. You sit in your locker on a stool and the reporters can block your exit. And the locker next to Mickey's was a natural place for the writers that couldn't find space right in front of him. They still could look through the screen and ask questions while in my locker. So, I pretty much evacuated.
DP: Where was Maris's locker?
TT: Maris was right across the locker room from me, maybe thirty to forty feet away. Of course, he had a mob of writers around him, too. It was a great time for me because I wasn't going to be instrumental in winning or losing and so I could just relax and be just a fan. It's your dream to play with the New York Yankees and all of a sudden, there you are in the locker with the excitement, with the sportswriters, with all those great players.
DP: Did you feel it was part of baseball history that was going on with the Mantle-Maris thing?
TT: You knew that it could be. It hadn't become history when I first got there. History came on the last day when Roger broke the record.
DP: At the beginning of September, before Mantle's injury, when they were both going for the record, did they both seem okay about it?
TT: Yeah. The biggest problem was it was very tiring with all the press, answering all the questions. They didn't have a normal day where they could just come into the locker room and relax. As soon as they got to the stadium, it became answering questions and all that. Even when they went out for fielding practice, they'd have reporters talking to them. Of course, the main part with the writers was after the game. I think that was the hardest part of the whole thing. It helped that we were winning.
DP: Could you see the increasing strain on Maris after Mantle dropped out after the bad injection and his leg got infected?
TT: Sure. I could see where he has a spot in the back of his head where his hair fell out. And yeah, you could see the strain. Roger was still very pleasant and everything to the players, but it was really wearing. When both of them were in the race the reporters were kind of split between them. But when Mickey had the bad shot and couldn't stay in the race, all of a sudden, it was all on Roger. I'm talking about writers around Roger's locker five and six people deep. They just packed in around him with mikes and recorders and he couldn't escape. What made it harder was that a lot of the questions that were asked were stupid. You know: "How come you didn't hit a home run tonight?" That kind of stuff. And you are tired and you've been playing hard and you've been pushing for a record, and the fans and the writers and everybody else already have made it known to you that they don't want you to break the record. Mark McGwire had everybody on his side when he broke Maris's record. The complete opposite was true when Roger challenged Ruth. If McGwire had been the one going after Ruth, he'd have experienced the same thing that Maris did. That makes it awful tough to get through it. And you know what? Roger had a great wife and a great family, and that's all he cared about.
DP: So you think that Mantle dropping out was probably very difficult for Roger?
TT: Yeah. That threw everything on his shoulders. Meanwhile we were still trying to win a pennant and I'll tell you one thing, Roger put the game first. I mean, he would be sliding in hard at second to trying to knock the guy out on double plays; diving for balls in the outfield; and running into the fence. Any one of those activities could have hurt him and caused him to miss a few games. He wasn't looking at the record that way. It was almost like, "Hey, if I get it, I get it. If I don't, I don't. But right now I got to play ball hard every day to help the ball club win."
DP: Did you think the press was hostile toward him?
TT: I don't know if I'd call it hostile.
DP: Inconsiderate?
TT: Not everybody. Certain writers. You know, writers have their favorites. You can't keep writing the same story. They are trying to get a different story. They are trying to get a different slant. They are trying to ask questions that will uncover something that they can make a story out of. And it was hard to get that from Roger and they didn't react well to that.
DP: He, as you suggest, was a real team player, and he felt that the press coming around him every day was isolating him from his teammates. He wanted everybody else to get the attention of the press, not just him, especially when his teammates had a better game than he did. I think it embarrassed him.
TT: You're right. Maybe Whitey threw a two-hit shutout or maybe Kubek or Richardson knocked in a couple of runs and Roger wasn't really instrumental in winning the game. Yet he had all the reporters around him afterward trying to figure out why he didn't hit a home run that day. You can understand the reporters interest because, let's face it, nobody else would ever again go after Babe Ruth's single-season home record. He would be the only one and then it would be gone.
DP: All of us rooting for Roger were both thrilled and relieved when he did it.
TT: Well, you kept waiting for him to break the record. You felt it was going to happen and you're waiting for it to happen for a long time. All of a sudden it's the last day and the last chance, and POW! It was exciting.
DP: You had a great year in Richmond in 1961. What was the Yankee plan for you if Tony Kubek hadn't gone into the service in 1962?
TT: I don't know. You were not privy to that kind of information. All you did was keep playing and you'd wait and see what happens. I was just trying to have a good year and then they called me up. Tony was there but his backup Joe De Maestri was retiring at the end of the season. That would have provided one slot to fight for, even if Tony wouldn't have gone in to the service.
DP: So your goal was just to make the team. There was no talk of trading you?
TT: Not that I heard about. Trades could be made, but at that point, you really don't think like that. I felt that I had a real good year in AAA and I was probably going to be in the major leagues somewhere in '62. I didn't think too much about it. Then the season was over and pretty soon the Cuban Crisis happened and Tony was in the army. I was a member of the New York National Guard at the same time he was a member of the Wisconsin guard, so I could have be activated, too. Or instead of him. But he went and that opened the position. Phil Linz and I kind of battled back and forth for that starting job in spring training in '62. And Linz got the utility position left by De Maestri.
DP: Do you think you won the job because of your bat?
TT: I think they also saw that I had all the tools. I could go back on the ball good, I had a strong arm, I was pretty fast, and I liked being in the center of the field and all the action, like cutoffs. It's a pretty savvy position to play.
DP: On the Yankees I would think playing short was almost as pressure-packed as playing center field. Between you and Derek Jeter, there really were no significant rookie Yankee shortstops. So it would seem it would be a really tough position to just slide right into. But I guess Bobby Richardson was a real support to you.
TT: And Clete Boyer on the other side. I had very good players on either side of me who helped me when there were steal situations and bunt situations, and with positioning. Bobby kept me aware of what was going on.
DP: A lot of people always have said, wrongly in my opinion, that Maris's 1961 season was a fluke, that he hit the 61 home runs and didn't have much of a career otherwise. To them, he was a one-year wonder despite winning two MVP awards and doesn't deserve Hall of Fame consideration. But youre the person who's always said he deserves to be in Cooperstown despite the fact that you didn't really play with Maris until after that the '61 season. So you have a different perspective. You saw what kind of ballplayer he was.
TT: The problem with the Hall of Fame sometimes is that qualifying becomes an endurance run. If you play twenty years, you can put enough numbers together to get in the Hall of Fame. But if you don't, you don't have the numbers, so you don't get in. Roger broke one of the major records.
DP: He broke the major record.
TT: And he held it longer than Babe Ruth did. Thirty-seven years. For about ten years he was one of the biggest players in the game, he was on seven pennant winners in nine years and was the MVP twice. I wonder how many guys in the Hall of Fame didn't win it. Roger was a total player. When he hit a home run, he'd be right on his way, no big smile on his face or anything. He circled the bases and on into the dugout. That was his job. He was just trying to be the best ballplayer that he could to help his team the best he could and earn a good living for his wife and six kids. Now, if you are going to knock somebody for that, I have a little trouble with it.
DP: Just to show you how the press went after him, the UPI in 1962, which was your rookie year, took a poll on who the most disappointing player was. That's the only time they ever took this poll and they did it specifically so they could select Roger Maris as the most disappointing player, despite his hitting 33 homers and driving in 100 runs. That's how cruel the press was to him.
TT: It's too bad because he was such a good guy and he had a tremendous year. He was a star. I got to know him mostly when we were on the road. During the season, my wife and children were with me, so I'd see the guys on the road when we didn't have our families around. Guys used to go out for dinner after the ballgame and a lot of times, we'd be in a group of four or five guys. But it wouldn't be the same four or five guys all the time. You get off the bus and somebody would say,, "Who wants to go to so and so." So, I got to know Roger through those kind of things.
DP: Was he hard to get close to?
TT: Not for me. He had a good sense of humor. Both he and Mickey were different in public than in private. If they went out to dinner, a public situation, and they tried to be real nice, pretty soon they'd be surrounded. So sometimes they'd use kind of a stern, less friendly look so people would think they're less receptive, That made strangers reluctant to join you. A lot of people would have the waiter bring them a drink, so later they could stop by at the table. What happened is that Roger and Mickey couldn't go out to dinner anymore. I remember that. They'd just go back to the hotel after the game and order room service and just stay in to avoid confrontations.
DP: Kubek returned late in the '62 season but you were on your way to being Rookie of the Year, so Houk shifted you to left field rather than take you out of the lineup. Had you played outfield before?
TT: They moved me to left field in August. It was the first time I'd played in the outfield since junior high school.
Did Maris or Mantle help you make the transition?
TT: No, but they certainly would have helped if I had any questions. They didn't see any need to volunteer it. In spring training, the Yankees had Joe DiMaggio working with me so that I could play it when I moved out there. Left field at Yankee Stadium was tough, but I was a good athlete. And having been a shortstop, it wasn't very hard for me to make the adjustment.
DP: In the 1962 World Series, you did well at bat and in the field.
TT: I led the Yankees in hitting I believe. I hit a home run off Jack Sanford in Game 5. It was the bottom of the 8th and we were tied 2-2 and I hit a three-run home run and it gave us a 5-2 lead. I think was Chuck Hiller hit a home run in the top of the 9th, so it ended up being 5-3.
DP: How big a thrill was that for a rookie?
TT: Huge, huge. It's the hit that will always remain my biggest individual thrill, because of the situation: The game's tied 2-2, the series is tied 2-2, it's a pivotal game. That was the last game in New York and if you go back to San Francisco with a 3-2 lead, you got a better chance of winning then you do if you go back with a 2-3 record.
DP: In the 9th inning of Game 7, fans remember Willie McCovey lining out to Richardson to end the game and one batter earlier, Maris cutting off Mays's double and not allowing the tying run to score with two outs. But you made a key play earlier in that game.
TT: Willie Mays hit it. It was a line drive to the left field corner and I caught the ball just before I ran into the fence. That game I tied or set a Series record for the most putouts by a left fielder. So, it wasn't like they weren't hitting them at me. The 9th inning was exciting. We've got a 1-0 lead and they get men on second and third with two outs, with McCovey coming up and Orlando Cepeda on deck. You're a little nervous. It's your first World Series. But you are also a professional. It's not like I came right out of high school. I played a year of college ball and just shy of four years in the minor leagues and I was twenty-three, not eighteen. I had played a lot of baseball in my life, so I've got my confidence. I'm not out there saying, "Geez, I hope I don't make a mistake."
DP: Were you out in the outfield saying, "Why are they pitching to McCovey rather than walking him with an open base?"
TT: No, no, no, no, no. You don't pay any attention to that. My job is to figure out what I need to do if McCovey hits it to left field.
DP: When Maris made his play on Mays's double, holding Matty Alou at third, were you thinking what a good play it was?
TT: It was a big play but you expected it. By then I played 162 ball games, so I'd been around awhile and I'd been watching these guys play. My teammates were pretty good fielders. Roger was an outstanding fielder. You're not surprised that he makes the play because he you know he'll make it if he can get to the ball. If the run scores, it's not going to be because he didn't hustle his butt off to get there. He always hustled.
DP: McCovey made the final out on a liner off Ralph Terry to Richardson as everyone held their breaths. Was there a celebration after that game? Or were players just relieved?
TT: Sure, we had a celebration. The normal champagne and everything. But we were in San Francisco and not home so that kind of took a little bit out of it. The guys were ready to go home. Sometimes you'd fly in late in the morning after you win the World Series on the road. That year there werent't many people there to greet us. The wives weren't even there. Everybody was so used to the Yanks winning.
DP: In the '62 Series and many times in future years, you batted third in front of Mickey Mantle. People who forget Babe Ruth batted third in front of Lou Gehrig when he sixty homers, belittled Maris's accomplishment in '61 by pointing out he hit in front of Mantle and had a profound advantage. It may be obvious, but: You batted in front of Mantle a lot, so explain what happened when you did.
TT: Well, what happens is they don't want to walk you. So if pitchers get behind you on the count they are more apt to throw a pitch that they can get over for a strike, which is the fastball in most cases. You're ready for the fastball, but that still doesn't make it easy. I was hitting fourth sometimes when Bobby Murcer was hitting fifth, and it was the same type of thing.
DP: Do you remember the game in 1963 against Baltimore when you homered from both sides of the plate and then Mantle hit a game-winning pinch homer against Mike McCormick when he supposedly was hung over? It was kind of a famous game.
TT: I don't remember the hangover. but I remember what the headlines were: "Mantle Homers as Yanks Win." And if you read the article you'd discover, deeply hidden, it said, "Tom Tresh hit two home runs from opposite sides of the plate to tie a record." Mantle and someone else did it the most times, but I did that three times. That might have been the first time I did it.
DP: The Yankees won again in 1963, although you were one of the few guys to have a good season, but were swept by the Dodgers in the World Series. 1964 was the last hurrah for the dominant post-WWII Yankees. Do you remember Maris sort of taking over in September and leading the team to the pennant?
TT: I do. Mickey got hurt and Yogi put Roger in center field and every game in the September he had the key hit. The other reason we got there was that when we were struggling at the All-Star break, we brought up Mel Stottlemyre. He won nine games the second half and Roger took over offensively and carried us. Roger and Mel were the two guys who made the difference. They were both tremendous.
DP: Roger was never considered a team leader, but was he becoming one in '64?
TT: Or earlier. Guys like Mantle and Roger lead by example, playing hard and coming through when you needed them.
DP: You know from '60 to '64, when Mantle was in his prime, Maris equalled him statistically. Mantle was your idol, but did you and the other Yankees consider Mantle above everybody still or for that period were Mantle and Maris on equal ground?
TT: Well, I don't know if we judged it that way. You were all part of a team, even them, so we didn't compare them. They were both Hall of Famers.
DP: What about future Hall of Famer Yogi Berra? How was he as a manager in 1964?
TT: He was good but the whole situation was unfair to him. He had played with all these guys, so it's hard for him to suddenly come in and have to be the one calling the shots. Particularly since Yogi was not a talker. Yogi just expected everybody to go do their jobs and we did. We went a long way until we got beat in the seventh game of the World Series by the Cardinals.
DP: You liked Houk as a manager?
TT: Yeah, and I think that's another thing that made it hard on Yogi. Nobody was happy that Houk left the field prior to '64. When he became the general manager, it wasn't the same thing as having him on the field. And, you know, he came back on the field later on after he fired Johnny Keane.
DP: What were your thoughts about Johnny Keane replacing Berra after the '64 Series?
TT: He was very hard for us to take because we weren't used to be treated like kids. Our job was to win. We didn't have to have curfews. And we didn't want to be ridiculed in public. In Mantle's case, there was no way Ralph Houk would have had somebody run out and replace him for defense in the middle of an inning. Those things were embarrassing. Johnny was not a good fit for us at that time. And we didn't play well for him. We finished sixth, the first time we didn't win the pennant since 1959. And we were worse the next year.
DP: When CBS bought the Yankees, did the atmosphere change at all?
TT: Yeah, the atmosphere changed. It was different in that when Michael Burke came in, he was the president but not the owner. . When Dan Topping and Del Webb had walked in, they were the owners, so you knew that the buck stopped there. It wasn't like that with Burke. CBS was the owner. We had a corporate boss, not human beings.
DP: Was there some point when you realized the Yankees were in a decline? Or did that never happen because you always had a lot of the same great players?
TT: Basically, all the great players that we had were getting a year older and then a year older. The Yankees are in the same situation right now.
DP: I guess you, Downing, Stottlemyre, and Pepitone were the core of the young players.
TT: Roy White was just coming up.
DP: And Bobby Murcer made a brief appearance. But it seemed there weren't enough guys to take over from the aging stars.
TT: You know what happened that really hurt the Yankees? The baseball draft that began in 1965. The Yankees were used to operating back when they signed me and guys before me and probably a couple after me when there was no draft. The Yankees always got the lion's share of the young talent every year. The Dodgers always got a good pick. The Giants. There were a few teams that had the best chance of getting the better players and they didn't have to wait in line. So, consequently, their farm systems could produce more players at one time. The draft changed that.
DP: I always thought that you were trying to step up at the plate because you realized Mantle and Maris were becoming more and more fragile. Every year at least one of them would get injured and there had to be somebody to step up. Did you think in those terms?
TT: Sure. I felt that people passed the responsibility down and as I got a little older you expect yourself to carry more of the load. In '66, I hit 27 homers, which was second on the team to Pepitone. And I hit 19 of them in the second half. So I figured that if I can hit 19 in a half, I can hit 38 in a season. So, I was looking at the point where I just might be coming into my own and be able to hit 35-40 home runs a year. And I blew my knee out in spring training. The only way they could tell exactly what was wrong was exploratory surgery and that would have ended my season. So they decided that I would just wrap my knee and use a brace and see how far I could go. So, I ended up playing a lot of games that year. As a result, I tore it up worse. I finally left the lineup in the middle of September after my knee went out for the fifth time. Then I had my surgery at the end of the year and I just couldn't produce after that. I couldn't do what I used to do, include run fast. It became less fun to play the game when I wasn't the play I once was.
DP: That's similar to what happened to Maris after he hurt his hand in 1965. From your perspective, did Maris lose his enthusiasm for baseball as the years progressed in New York?
TT: I think he got disenchanted with New York and the press and the lack of fan support and the all-around bad situation. I think he needed to make a change like what happened.
DP: Were you actually relieved when he was traded to St. Louis after the 1966 season?
TT: Oh yeah. Because he seemed miserable. He was happy with the Cardinals and helped them win two consecutive pennants. That's another reason he should be in the Hall of Fame. When he stopped playing for them, they stopped winning flags.
DP: So, do you have a lasting memory of Roger or something that you remember when somebody asks you about Roger Maris?
TT: Everything I remember about him was positive. He was a great father. He was a great husband. He was a great player. He should be in the Hall of Fame. He took on the one record that nobody wanted him to break and I give him credit for staying after it.
DP: It was exciting for me to talk to you about Maris and about yourself because I have such great memories of you as a player. Thank you so much for that.
TT: You're welcome.

Bill Morrison's "The Miners' Hymns" at Film Forum

Now in Theaters

Bill Morrison's "The Miners' Hymns" at Film Forum

(from brinkzine.com 2/6/12)

MinersHymnsMorrison.jpg
I want to alert everyone that a program of Bill Morrison's films will be showing at the Film Forum beginning February 8. It will begin with three of the experimental filmmaker's shorts, The Film of Her (1996), Outerborough (2005), and Release (2010), and end with the new 52-minuteThe Miners' Hymns, an elegiac tribute to the once thriving coal industry and community in Northeast England. As with The Artist, there is no talking, just music provided by avant-garde Icelandic composter Johann Johannsson, and marvelous and haunting black-and-white footage and images preserved by the British National Film Archives and unearthed by Morrison. I saw The Miners' Hymns at the 2011 Tribecca Film Festival and did the following interview with the acclaimed filmmaker.
Danny Peary: In the Festival's program, it is written: "Morrison's compelling narrative pays tribute in an emotionally moving and formally elegant fashion." Is that what you were going for?
Bill Morrison: I think those are both great qualities to have in a film. [Laughing} It wasn't an accident!
DP: I see the film as being formally elegant also. But when you were conceiving this film, and talking over the music, is that what you were going for?
BM: Yes. The film was conceived originally as an archival collage. There was quite a bit of back and forth between Johann Johannsson and me about what each section would contain, and the emotional feeling, and what the music would be for that section. So we talked about the arc of the film, and then I had the idea of bringing in the contemporary footage of the aerial flyover of landscape where the mines used to be as a way to frame it. We also had the idea that there are some similarities between looking through old pieces of film, which is carbon-based material, and going underground and looking for pieces of coal. So we thought of this as our own mining excavation, in a way. We were mining a piece of lost British national history, a legacy of cinema that has also been replaced.
DP: How did this unusual film come about?
BM: The origin of this project was that the Brass Festival contacted Forma, the producer of the project, to do a live performance with commissioned music and a film that would accompany the music, for lack of a better of way of saying it. So we started thinking about this project also as a film with music accompanying the film, so it would be marketed as a DVD later as well. I guess David Metcalf [the founder of Forma, who has a screenwriting credit with Morrison and Johannsson) probably started asking around about people who worked with archival footage and he came up with my name, and I know he'd been a fan of Johann Johannssons music for a while, so he asked us if we would be happy working together. We were brought in at the same time.
DP: Did you find it strange that for a British story that they brought in someone from America and someone from Iceland?
BM: Yeah, at first it seemed like a very odd choice not to have anyone British on the creative team. Well, of course this was David's idea and he's British. But I quickly understood that any British person is going to be influenced by their class and their location, and their upbringing and their political leanings, in how they would treat this project, and he wanted somebody sort of outside the game. Really, I came to it with no prior knowledge of coal-mining history in the UK. Everything I learned was on the fly. I was aware of the '84 strike, which became an international cause celebre for the miners, specifically because Billy Bragg and Sting came on board and supported the them. So it was something that permeated pop culture when I was a college student.
minershymnsimage.jpg
DP: But were all these collieries closed by that time?
BM: No, that was the thing that really crippled them. Thatcher wanted to close a few collieries; pits as they call them for not being productive. Then there was a very disjointed national strike called. Even through they were united under a national union of miners, the right to strike is specific to each colliery, so there was -
DP: So its a wildcat strike?
BM: That's what it got called, because there wasnt a national vote on whether to strike or not. The strike sort of came from some of the larger pits, and pretty soon everybody realized that they were on strike. But as it dragged on for a year, it sort of became factious, because people were of course hungry.
DP: Are there any remnants of these mines?
BM: Sure, there are remnants. There are even a few that are active. I didn't go down into any but theyre still mining coal, just like a hundred years ago.
DP: We must wonder what replaces mining.
BM: It's consumerism.
DP: Usually you spend a lot of time searching through archival footage, some even decayed. In this case, was the film provided to you?
BM: No.
DP: Nobody had it indexed?
BM: The British Film Institute has an excellent database, but the problem is that if you type in C-O-A-L, you get thousands and thousands of entries. So because we were presenting this in Durham, we tried to make it more Durham-specific, and deal with the Miners Gala, which is the genesis of the festival. It always happened during the Miners Gala. In a way that was our through-line into it, but we spent many weeks in London in a hotel room across the street from the BFI, and going there and looking at films, either on a flatbed editing table or on a computer screen. and trying to get a mass of stuff for which we could ask for masters.
DP: I imagine it's physically impossible to see everything they have in that amount of time, so did you already have an outline of what you wanted?
BM: A lot of the arc was really developed through looking at the footage: what they had, what would repeat, what we would see over the course of decades. The miners rally was such a set-up for filmmakers, going back from the teens, early twentieth century. So you have the same types of shots repeated throughout the decades. And that became an interesting way of approaching it, putting these different shots right up next to each other.
DP: So the collieries closed down, but the brass, the band, continues?
BM: Yeah, it became part of the culture. I mean, who knows how long it will continue. It's less pit-based than more community-based.
DP: The cathedral we see is Durham Cathedral?
BM: Yeah, the Durham Cathedral is the oldest cathedral in the UK, and one of the older ones in Europe.
DP: So is there a procession that goes into the Cathedral every year?
BM: Yeah, it's very dramatic--there's sort of a blessing of the new banners. One of the organizers that we spoke to, a guy named Dave Douglass, when I wrote him that the film was at TriBeCa, he said he'd like to have a copy. He said, "We're also taking up a collection for the new banner.
DP: Im always interested in a theme that applies to your film in my view--the passage of time. I'm fascinated particularly by things that existed during our lifetime and don't anymore. To find archival footage I guess is exciting and emotional for you too?
BM: Yeah. Certainly with this footage that people don't see too often, you feel somehow that you're waking up the ghosts again, with these crowds of strangers staring at you for many seconds at a time. And of course BFI gave us such great access, they also transferred their original negatives to HD. In some ways at the screenings at TriBeCa, I've seen things in the film that I've never noticed before. In one of the parade shots, for instance, a girl loses her shoe, and goes off to the side to have her shoe fixed, and then returns, and I hadn't seen that before. I don't know how many times I've seen the film, and I'm still catching little things--you know, there are certain characters in the middle of the frame who you really lock eyes on and you stop looking at the other ones. During the screenings I really had a chance to scour the periphery, and look at people who I hadn't seen as much.
DP: I love your aerial footage, just great stuff. Then you show the gathering, which is everybody shoulder-to-shoulder.
BM: A sea of humanity.
DP: The shots of the people waving in slow motion--that was phenomenal to me. It was like postcards coming to life. Is that what you were going for?
BM: Yeah, I do think of these as sort of ghosts, and they're signing to us from beyond.
DP: I've never seen anything like that. That was really moving to me.
BM: I've made some other films where there are similar images.
DP: Yeah, you've done that. But that got me because it's a whole long-ago community.
BM: And such interesting-looking people. It's funny, because in one of the British reviews they said, "Morrison might find these faces interesting, but to us it just looks like your weird Uncle Earl." Such incredible faces!
DP: They're also all dressed up, all those people.
BM: It's true, I think a big public gathering meant something different in how you carried yourself.
minershymnsparade.jpg
DP: Because you gotta realize,
these are miners who have coal dust on them all day and now they're all spiffy.
BM: And this is their one day off. So there is a lot of tradition involved in that day, and I think there's gotta be some boredom involved in those political rallies. They look pretty intense.
DP: The waving thing, what you said just a couple of seconds ago. It looked like they were waving to us and saying, "Dont forget us!". When you were working on that were you as a filmmaker detached? You have to be somewhat detached just to put this stuff together, but were you thinking of the impact?
BM: Sure, always. Those shots of people waving was the end part of a whole series of frontal shots that climaxed when they start waving at you.
DP: I just found that so touching, you were able to resurrect those people for a couple of moments. For somebody in Britain, these are relatives.
BM: What's funny about the waving in early cinema, is that people were still in the mode of being photographed by a still photographer, and the only way the thought to validate the fact that they were being shot by a motion picture camera was to wave. So in a lot of early cinema, you have waving whether it's their waving on their own or the filmmakers telling them, "Now wave, because we can actually capture you waving, which we havent been able to do before!" That is a theme. I could do a whole film about just waving.
DP: Was there a year that you found for such footage?
BM: Those images were from the '20s. And really you see that waving a lot in early cinema, pre-sound.
DP: I wonder how much exposure they had to motion-picture cameras there. Newsreels, I guess.
BM: Yeah. Mitchell & Kenyon was prominent at the turn of the century. A lot of times in a town like that people would come in and shoot workers leaving the factory, workers leaving the mine, and then show it in a cinema later. Cinema was enormously popular.
DP: I was thinking of Pare Lorentz's 1936 short,The Plow that Broke the Planes, in the way that the music is incorporated. The music helps the flow of the movie, and there's a process going on--the music is used lyrically and hauntingly, and that seemed to be in your film also.
BM: It's almost presumptuous for me to say that I'm using music here, because Johann is an equal collaborator, if anything. I'm editing to his score. We very much mapping out--like I was saying earlier--what the arc would be, what would go where, what the sections would involve and what it would feel like. But at the end of the day, he is delivering to me a finished soundtrack, and I'm cutting to it.
DP: So you wouldn't give him the footage?
BM: No, it was the other way around. I work that way with a lot of composers, but it's a very unusual way for a filmmaker to work.
DP: He's composing while when you were editing the movie--it's not like you were taking some score that somebody did in the '20s or '30s and putting it in, like was done on Fantasia.
BM: Well, the final namesake for the title of the project comes from a hymn that was related to the memory of a mine disaster, but Johann extrapolated from that and made his own piece. He's composing contemporary music, original music.
DP: Was Eisenstein an influence?
BM: I dont know to what degree Potemkin influences all filmmakers. Every one of us sees it in film school, in the first year.
DP: Even the footage of guys waking up was like Eisenstein.
BM: Yeah, I guess you're right.
DP: Because there's a daily routine, as in Potemkin. The sailors are smiling, they like working, they like work.
BM: I'm not making as overtly a socialist film, but certainly, to a degree Eisenstein has affected me as a filmmaker I hadn't thought of it as content-based inspiration.
minershymnsemblem.jpg

 DP: Aren't you amazed, seeing some of that footage, that those mines aren't completely mined in about two days. They get rid of so much material in a hurry with that machine you show us.
BM: Right. You see the transfer from the guys down there with shovels and picks to the machine that's shearing off the entire side of the wall. Someone who had seen the film yesterday mentioned Frederick Wiseman's Meat.
DP: I've seen a lot of Frederick Wiseman, but I havent seen Meat.
BM: I havent either.
DP: Did you ever have a jaw-dropping moment when you found something in the archives?
BM: To the degree that I only included the most beautiful shots that I could find, each one them held a special power for me, and I knew it would work with the music and long shots and would build over time.
DP: So to you, the shots of just equipment and the shots of coal flowing on the conveyer belt, are beautiful to you?
BM: Absolutely. I mean that almost was the first thing that Johann and I discussed, industrial shots of what it actually looks like to be in a mine, the ritual-ness, and how graphic this material was.
DP: Was there a reason you didn't incorporate anything about a mining disaster?
BM: Whenever people think about mining, they think about a mining disaster. I guess we could have had a section on that; I just think that it hovers over the topic anyway, so we were trying to talk about how hard it is to be a miner even without showing the inherent dangers of mining.
DP: What was your original outline? You say you didn't have the aerial shots.
BM: I guess we came to the idea of getting the aerial shots after I started thinking, How can I make this work as just an archival piece? How do we get in and out? Otherwise I felt like we needed a way to contextualize it. There was a question of how we were going to be able to afford an aerial shot--that's an extra ten or twelve thousand dollars, something like that. So there was a question of getting that money together. But once it was clear that we had it, everybody thought it was a really good idea, so we went forward.
DP: The opening shot is a long one shot, and then how many cuts are there?
BM: In that area, there's always a lot of rain, so we were getting drops on the lens. So we had a beautiful approach coming from the North Sea in a helicopter, and it's just as the grass is blooming, so it's a yellow field. So as we approach the coastline we cut to the coastline, and from there we go past, the two fly-overs over the former collieries. Then we tilt back up and there's another cut--that would be the second cut--which is actually a reverse shot, going backwards in time, starting from the coastline and going back into the grass. You're not supposed to land a helicopter out there on the cliff, but we had to wipe the lens off from the rain, so I had this beautiful shot of the takeoff from the grass into the sea, and we ran it in reverse. That became our entry point where we hit the grass, going into the grass, and then we had the first picture of the mine, which was very effective.
DP: It's pretty stunning. We're already told that these mines don't exist anymore, we know they're closed down. So are you setting it up? [In] your previous film, you had a state of decay. You dont want a state of decay as your theme for this one, but there is a nostalgia going on. Are we supposed to lament the passage of time?
BM: I guess there is no way to avoid a somewhat wistful, mournful mood. If there's any editorializing on the images, it's through the music. So yes, there is that. But at the same time, I feel that the last film had this as well, a very matter-of-fact statement: This is what we've lost and what it has become now. In both cases: film decays, so does industry. These are certain ways of making a living. So things do change.
MinersHymnsMinerkissinglantern.jpg Miner kissing his lantern.
DP: I never know if it's a good thing that those guys don't work in mines anymore.
BM: Certainly everyone I talked to in London was like, Why would you want to glorify this? The pilot of the helicopter said, "Why would you want to glorify mining? It's a terrible way of life, and everyones better off now that were not doing it." But at the same time, in the UK still ten percent of the energy source is still coal. They are importing coal from other sources. We haven't divorced ourselves from carbon-based fuel systems yet. I think it would be great if we could, but in the meantime, it's a political decision about where you're getting your sources from that touches on a lot of different global issues. Same here with that what we're seeing when we're exporting our labor to different countries.
DP: There's still coal-mining in America.
BM: Right, and in the UK that was a political decision that Thatcher made--we're going to break with this way of life, we're going to a new free-market economy. Of course there's been incredible economic gains made, and there's been some disasters, as we've seen. It's an incredibly complicated subject. You can't say, Bring back mining. You can't say, Get rid of miners or mining communities. In a certain way, the images tell a story and it makes people think and ask questions, but I'm not taking a stance of: This is the way it should have been; or This is what we should have done.
DP: But you're always in sympathy with the miner, the worker.
BM: Absolutely.