October 27, 2003

It was an odd weekend…

The world seems to be falling apart around us here in Los Angeles. There has not been an earthquake and the weather has been in the 90s, but the state is burning, soot is falling from the skies and Scary Movie 3 opened to over $50 million. How far can we be from the end of the world?

Yet, I got to have three extraordinary conversations with three extraordinary talents, each of whose work I have had great respect for over the varied lengths of their careers. I sat down with Peter Weir, Samantha Morton and Mathieu Kassovitz to talk about three very different movies… and me being me, talked about all kinds of other things in addition.

Peter Weir has made classic films like Picnic At Hanging Rock, The Last Wave and Gallipoli, pushed the boundary between Hollywood and the arthouse with The Year of Living Dangerously, and made more of stories like Witness, Dead Poets Society and The Truman Show than they had coming. For me, he has made two films that stand as masterpieces about the nature of man in conflict with nature, The Mosquito Coast and Fearless.

I sat down to chat with Weir about Master & Commander: Far Side of The World. I started by asking him about the strong undercurrent of meaning that I have found in most of his pictures. With a quick smile, he offered that there was none here. His goal was to do something the expanded him as an artist. He is aware of the aging process and how some directors slowly close in on themselves as time passes. Not for Weir.

Master & Commander is by far Weir’s biggest canvas ever. Like every project that he hasn’t initiated himself, he rejected the idea of working with this material when first offered it. The series of books by Patrick O’Brien was purchased at great cost by producer Sam Goldwyn, Jr. Weir was first approached by Goldwyn and a rising Fox executive named Tom Rothman, back when Bill Mechanic was in charge at Fox. The film never quite happened. But Weir credits the tenacity of Goldwyn and the ascendance of Rothman, who remained a staunch supporter of doing a film from these beloved books, for finally bringing the project together. As for Weir, he describes how he rejects a lot of projects, but finds that his mind wanders back to the ones he really wants to do. By the time he is fully conscious of being interested, he has usually directed the entire film in his head and then has to scramble to make sure that he can still be attached the material and get it financed.

Weir’s stated goal in this case was to be true to the books, to overcome some of the more obvious choices that could be attached to a story like this in the name of commerciality, and to let the audience experience the reality of the life on the sea that Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World is all about. He achieved just that. The big screen has never offered a more complete experience of the high seas.

It’s not time to review the film now, but for a closer look at one key element of Master & Commander’s palate, check out this New Yorker piece on Sound Designer Richard King.

Weir is a genial, easy conversationalist. He has a keen interest in the Hollywood universe, while he reserves… perhaps relies on… his ability to say, “No.” He doesn’t close the door on directing M&C sequels all the way, admitting, “It’s up to Fox to decide they want to do another one… then it comes to me.” But it is hard to imagine Weir, who turns 60 next year, spending another 3 or 4 years of his life on the high seas of this literary saga, as opposed to finding another vista.

MATHIEU KASSOVITZ is probably best known to you as the writer/director of La Haine or as the lead of Jacques Audiard’s A Self-Made Hero or as “the guy” in Amelie or perhaps you caught him with Nicole Kidman and Vincent Cassell, with whom he has often partnered, in Birthday Girl or maybe you caught The Crimson Rivers last year, which was a massive hit in France, while failing to catch fire here in the U.S. Or maybe he is completely unfamiliar to you.

Kassovitz started his movie career at the age of 8, appearing in his father’s film, Make Room For Tomorrow. His resume of the 24 years since is a little breathtaking. Just 35, he’s already directed 8 films and acted in 24 films. He’s worked with some of the best filmmakers and actors that France has to offer, from Audiard to Jeunet to Besson, all the time building his resume and prestige as a director.

So making his American debut behind the camera with a Dark Castle thriller like Gothika is somewhat of a surprise. But it shouldn’t be. Kassovitz is a big time genre fan. He talks easily about the European tradition, listing Argento, Polanski, Fulci, the Hammer films, the Arkoffs, the Cormans and even Kubrick as influences. His eyes light up when he talks about the dread and fascination he has when it comes to Friedkin’s The Exorcist, one minute doing a perfect “Dimi… Dimi… why you do this to me?” before explaining that he can’t even watch the movie on a bright day surrounded with friends anymore without freaking out.

When I compared Gothika to Argento’s work, a smart young friend of mine who is far more into the genre than I blanched a little. Gothika was not nearly perverse enough for him to accept the comparison. As it turns out, Kassovitz took a specific shot from Argento’s Suspiria (which small world after all, stars Tom Rothman’s wife, Jessica Harper, who appeared in a bit of homage to her work with Argento in Spielberg’s Minority Report… which we’ll get to in a few paragraphs.) But Kassovitz is not shy about admitting that the darker side of Argento’s work is not the part that turns him on. He is into the tone and not terribly interested in grossing you out.

Gothika may be Kassovitz’ first American film, but his hand is strong on the wheel. He and cinematographer Matthew Libatique create a visual palette that has clearly allowed a lot of room in post-production. Complicating the film visually is the always shifting point of view and the issue of reality versus memory versus the supernatural.

Kassovitz is ready to move on to the next film. His acting career, it seems, is in the mothballs. “I don’t have the time to waste,” says Kassovitz. Finishing Gothika, which is still not quite finished, has turned out to be quite a challenge. But Kassovitz says he is – and seems – thankful for the opportunity and the support of producer Joel Silver is getting through it all. “Joel loves movies. He really loves movies,” Kassovitz says, engaging in camaraderie with his producer even without a question about Silver anywhere near the table. No doubt, the same can be said about Mathieu Kassovitz. He’s next returning to Europe to do an internationally co-financed $50 million thriller featuring a French and American cast and aspiring to the ever elusive combination of great commerciality and artistic intent. Keep an eye peeled.

SAMANATHA MORTON is the best. I couldn’t quite get myself to say that to her face. She probably would have dipped her head, closed her eyes for a moment, said a quiet “thank you” and moved on as though she barely heard the words. But for me, there is no actress working today who brings the camera into her emotion with the gentility and grace of Morton.

She’s smaller than I expected, a tiny thing in fact. It’s not so much the height of 5’ 3” as the small frame, which seemed so wide as she lived in the tank in Minority Report. She doesn’t have the oversized head of a movie star. But her eyes are a clear, strong blue of unavoidability. She smiles easily, but rarely laughs. She speaks freely, but never much. For all the sense of being ethereal, she seems as down to earth and straightforward as you can imagine.

As the mother in In America, Morton seems destined for her second Academy Award nomination… even more so after this weekend’s junket for the film left the widest imaginable range of journalists thrilled by the power of the film. But of this she does not speak. Samantha Morton’s journey is closer to home than that.

Morton did her first television work in England at the age of 14. She worked quite a lot before she came of age. But she was not sure that acting was what she wanted. She says, somehow sounding completely modest, that she knew she was good at acting. But it wasn’t making her happy. At some point, she found the key to finding that joy in the work.

Actors talk about reaching beyond photographed performance all the time, but when Morton speaks about her carefully plotted plan to pursue her painting… to make a short film that expresses a non-narrative voice… to make a feature of her own in 2005… she doesn’t feel like a woman chasing anything, but rather a human with an artistic soul allowing the winds of her spirit to take her where it will.

She understands the business. She even seems a little contemptuous of those who dip deeply into the industry well without accepting the responsibilities that come of $1 million acting deals. Acting is her job. But it’s a job she gives herself to completely. She understands that the wins of a career come in ways that are nearly impossible to count. It comes from the inside out.

I wished we had the time to talk about the weather… politics… Picasso… the price of rice… something other than her and her work. It’s not that the stories weren’t interesting. You’ll read some of them here in future (and certainly about The Bolger Sisters, with whom you all will soon be familiar). But seemingly without excessive compartmentalizing, Morton seems to be best express her work in her work, even in process. Jim Sheridan knows. Lynne Ramsey knows. Michael Winterbottom knows. And Samantha Morton certainly knows.

Not since Picnic at Hanging Rock has Peter Weir made a movie that centers on a woman. But I can well imagine Weir making a movie about a woman as determined and unrelenting as Samantha Morton’s Morvern Callar. Add Mathieu Kassovitz and you find three non-Americans in Hollywood, happy to be a part of this giant machine, but choosing not to be consumed by it. Rare. On a rare weekend. If the world is coming to an end of fire and brimstone, I couldn’t have spent the weekend in better company.

READER OF THE DAY: D TO THE R writes: “I recently bought a $250 all-in-one system (DVD & 5.1 sound system combined) and find that motion pictures often sound better on it than many of our local theaters.

I think if you want to charge $13.95 for a showing, perhaps you should keep up with your THX certification...I'm starting to drive the extra 20 minutes or so to go downtown to pay $8.50 to see Kill Bill in THX or $6.00 to see The Rundown in the downtown stadium-style theater rather than go to the 18-plex with $11.00 matinees! I will drive the extra 20 miles in November to see Revolutions in IMAX, playing in a 20-plex in the same chain as our local 18-plex. I guess the price of regular movies has gone up so much, IMAX prices seem reasonable now.”

ALL TEA, NO SYMPATHY writes: “One good thing about Elephant is Gus Van Sant's choice not to use a handheld camera. (City of God is the only recent film to use the herky jerky movements in a manner that benefited the telling of the story.) By using long, uninterrupted Steadicam shots, he's effectively given his film an ethereal, otherworldly quality that works well. Repeating scenes from different points of view was also a wise creative choice. Too bad these choices weren't in service of a better film.

I've never been a fan of Van Sant, but I respect the way he sometimes pushes and dares to try something new. Failure is bound to come when you take an unfamiliar road, and he has his share of car wrecks. Add Elephant to that list. I understand his motivation to tell the story without providing "answers," but he doesn't adhere to his own intentions. Late scenes of teenagers playing violent video games, ordering guns on the Internet and watching Hitler documentaries feel like nothing more than tacked-on After School Special attempts to provide a neat and tidy bow to something he's spent the previous hour suggesting wouldn't (couldn't) be so readily explained. And why does not providing an answer have to mean not providing characters? Every person on the screen in this film is nothing more than a cipher, faces that hint at the students that might inhabit the halls and classrooms of a real school. I didn't care about a single person in this film because Van Sant wasn't interested in making me care.

Elephant also fails by using non-actors. It certainly can be done well (again City of God comes to mind) but just because someone is an amateur doesn't automatically lend credibility or authenticity to something. One need only hear an amateur high school garage band to know that the music isn't somehow better because they have no experience. Real actors who know how to improvise, or non-actors working from a real script with better direction would have been wiser. There are numerous distracting and unpleasant scenes in Elephant in which you can see these poor kinds struggling to find a place to cast their gazes. If you've ever seen someone trying to "act" like there isn't a camera a few feet away, you know exactly what I'm talking about. It screams Uncle Billy's home movies, and I expect more from Gus Van Sant than I do from Uncle Billy.

E ME: Has anyone seen Elephant and if so, what do you have to say about it? Is there a “right” sized canvas for the best art?