Posted by Naomi Pfefferman
Rachael Horovitz sipped decaffeinated cappuccino at the Sunset Tower Hotel recently, overlooking a panorama of Hollywood and beyond. The elegant, poised producer had flown in from New York the night before to attend the luncheon for nominees of the 2012 Academy Awards, representing “Moneyball,” a competitor in the best picture category. Just an hour later, she said, she would be changing into a dress that is “fancy-ish.” But first she swiftly orchestrated relocating to a more private table: “Not to bother my fellow guests — or let them eavesdrop,” she said, adding drolly, “I’m such a producer.”
The new table was secured, and, before the talk turned to “Moneyball,” there were other stories to tell: Horovitz’s father is the playwright Israel Horovitz, and she recalled the family’s elation at the opening of his subversive breakout play, “The Indian Wants the Bronx” — as well as the play’s star, a young Al Pacino. She mentioned her brother, Adam Horovitz, who would grow up to become Ad-Rock of the Beastie Boys, and quipped that she taught him everything he knows about music. She reminisced about her late friend John F. Kennedy Jr., who starred in some of her early productions with Manhattan’s Naked Angels theater company, where, during intermission, Jackie O would invite her into her limousine for a glass of chilled white wine.
But perhaps the most remarkable story of all is how Horovitz came to produce “Moneyball” — a project she originated — and how various setbacks almost prevented the baseball saga from ever reaching the proverbial Hollywood home plate.
Back in 2003, Horovitz was a seasoned studio executive who had worked at New Line, executive produced Alexander Payne’s 2002 comedy-drama, “About Schmidt” and was, at the time, at Revolution. She knew it was time to set out on her own when the studio nixed what she hoped would be her next project: Payne’s “Sideways.” (Fox Searchlight eventually made the Oscar-winning film.) “It was an ‘ah-ha,’ Oprah moment in the sense that I knew I wouldn’t be able to make the kinds of films that are meaningful to me in this job,” she said. “The writing was on the wall; it was time to become a producer.”
She hung out her own shingle, Specialty Productions, while still at Revolution. “I did keep it a secret on purpose, as it wouldn’t have been allowed,” said Horovitz, who secured a first-look deal through producers Sidney Kimmel and Andrew Karsch — “a big leap,” she recalled.
But first, Horovitz took a much-needed vacation to Tahiti — which is where she observed her usually taciturn husband, the television executive Michael Jackson, marveling over a nonfiction best-seller. The book was Michael Lewis’ “Moneyball,” about the failed baseball player-turned-Oakland Athletics manager Billy Beane, who used a revolutionary system of statistics to pick cheap, good players for his financially strapped team. A curious Horovitz started reading the book, too, and, she reported, “I was enchanted by the story and instantly saw it as a movie.” Never mind that half the book is devoted to the practice of sabermetrics, a complex statistical analysis Beane used to evaluate players.
“What seemed cinematic about it was the character of Billy Beane and his predicament,” Horovitz explained. “He was someone stuck inside a system that was frustrating and impossible, but he struggled to convince people of his vision.” The story appealed to Horovitz — and to the other producers who eventually signed on to “Moneyball” — partly because of their own, frustrating experiences of having projects implode. “Everyone I know has a great movie that got away,” she said. “I also loved the tone of the book, which was funny and ironic and emotional all at once.”
Over a second cappuccino, Horovitz turned the conversation to the legendary producer Irwin Winkler, who first introduced her to the idea of what a producer can do. It was Winkler who had hired her father to write his first screenplay, an adaptation of the book “The Strawberry Statement” (1970), which ended up winning a prize at the Cannes Film Festival. “I remember my parents came back with glamour dripping off of them,” she said. “There were photos of my father in a tuxedo, and it was the first time I had ever seen my mother in an evening gown. My voice is starting to crack a bit, because my parents broke up after that, and I look at those pictures and they really are so young and excited. I remember my own excitement for them, and somehow in my brain I knew the producer was responsible for their joy.”
Loss and longing — for creative fulfillment and more — defined both sides of Horovitz’s family. Her beloved Jewish grandmother, Hazel Horovitz, had brothers who were incarcerated in German camps while serving in the United States military during World War II; they never discussed their experiences. And Rachael’s Irish-Catholic mother, the painter Doris Keefe, had been shipped out as a child to live with a succession of relatives, then died at age 45 of cirrhosis of the liver.
Going to work in the familiar milieu of show business proved healing for Horovitz in the aftermath of Keefe’s death; she made her 2009 HBO film, “Grey Gardens” starring Drew Barrymore and Jessica Lange, in honor of her late mother, who had adored the quirky Albert Maysles cinéma-vérité documentary upon which the film is based. The TV movie went on to win an Emmy, a Golden Globe and the 2010 David Wolper Producer of the Year Award from the Producers Guild.
“Moneyball” proved to be a much more arduous project, even by Hollywood standards. Horovitz said she was surprised when she was easily able to snatch up the rights to Lewis’ book, then was promptly rejected by every studio in town. Producers are used to hearing the word “no,” so Horovitz spent months perfecting her pitch and finally got Sony Pictures interested. The project sped along, with Brad Pitt signing on, along with producer Michael De Luca, director Steven Soderbergh, screenwriter Steven Zaillian and others. But Horovitz received a devastating call just days before she was to fly to Phoenix for the shoot in June 2009.
Soderbergh was leaving the film, and Sony Pictures co-chair Amy Pascal was pulling the plug on the project.
“We were blindsided,” Horovitz said of the news. “I personally, at that moment, felt that I would rob the bank of Dubai to get the movie made.”
Much has been written about why the project dissolved; according to Horovitz, there were several issues, including the fact that the studio was unhappy with Soderbergh’s pushing too far the use of real baseball personnel in the film.
Fortunately, Pitt stepped up to the plate and “he kind of represented the producers at that moment and worked with Aaron Sorkin to get the script that would satisfy the studio needs for the budget,” Horovitz added. In a comeback notable even in the movie business, “Moneyball” was eventually made for a reported $50 million, received good reviews and is now up for six Oscars, including a best actor nomination for Pitt and a supporting actor nod for Jonah Hill, who plays Beane’s statistics geek.
It’s a heady time for Horovitz: This is her first Academy Award nod for best picture, which she shares with De Luca and Pitt; it is also her first completed effort for the big screen. “I have a really deep connection to the moment in the movie where Jonah’s character tells Brad’s character, ‘You’ve already won’ — meaning that he had convinced others of his vision, even if he did not win the World Series,” she said.
“That was my feeling when I saw the premiere of the film at the Toronto Film Festival, and I felt the struggle that we’d gone through to make the film, and I was so pleased with the film that we did make. I did feel like we had already won. And that’s how I feel about this whole Oscar moment.”
The Academy Awards will air on Feb. 26.
5.22.13 at 12:36 pm | In June 1965, during the most violent days of the. . .
5.15.13 at 2:00 pm | A British journalist recalls how she once sat. . .
5.1.13 at 11:20 am | “I don’t think I’m in any way a. . .
4.30.13 at 4:57 pm | Bar Paly is the new hot export from Israel.. . .
4.26.13 at 11:25 am | Michael Shannon was shy and soft-spoken during a. . .
4.18.13 at 12:34 pm | In the most searing sequence in Tadeusz. . .
4.30.13 at 4:57 pm | Bar Paly is the new hot export from Israel.. . . (7819)
5.15.13 at 2:00 pm | A British journalist recalls how she once sat. . . (641)
4.18.13 at 11:05 am | David S. Goyer, the scribe behind Christopher. . . (177)
February 16, 2012 | 3:50 pm
Posted by Naomi Pfefferman
On the phone from his home in Brooklyn, Brian Selznick, author of illustrated novel “The Invention of Hugo Cabret,” sounds more like your witty Jewish cousin from New York than the creator of a story involving 1931 Paris, automatons and the magical work of the pioneering filmmaker Georges Méliès.
In a breezy conversation recently, the 45-year-old Selznick was ironic, hilarious and even self-deprecating as he described an artistic slump that almost derailed him as well as the experience of writing “Hugo” and having Martin Scorsese turn the book into a film. “If my father,” who was an accountant, he said, “had lived to see Martin Scorsese make a movie out of one of my books, it would have killed him — he would have been in such shock, he would have dropped dead of a heart attack.”
Nominated for 11 Oscars, more than any other film, “Hugo” is faithful to Selznick’s dialogue, as well as to the more than 280 pictures in the thick tome, which reads like a silent movie.
Both book and film begin with a sweeping pan through a Paris train station, which zooms in on the eyes of a boy peering through one of the station’s gigantic clocks. This is Hugo, played in the film by Asa Butterfield, an urchin abandoned by his uncle, the previous caretaker of the station’s clocks. So that no one notices his uncle is gone, Hugo has taken it upon himself to clandestinely care for the clockworks, lest he be carted off to an orphanage. In his dusty hidden quarters, Hugo has a secret: He is also repairing an automaton that once belonged to his father, convinced that the mechanical man will be able to draw a message from his beloved deceased parent.
To fix the automaton, Hugo steals metal parts from an embittered toy seller, who turns out to be Georges Méliès (played in the film by Ben Kingsley), creator of such classic films as 1902’s “A Trip to the Moon,” before going broke and ending up running a toy booth at the Montparnasse train station. As the mystery of Hugo’s automaton unfolds, the boy and the filmmaker embark upon a healing journey with the help of Méliès’ stepdaughter, Isabel (Chloe Grace Moretz).
“A broken machine always makes me a little sad, because it isn’t able to do what it was meant to do,” Hugo tells Isabelle. “Maybe it’s the same with people. If you lose your purpose … it’s like you’re broken.”
Selznick can relate; his own journey to artistic fulfillment was long and sometimes fraught. Growing up in East Brunswick, N.J., his social life revolved around his temple youth group and traveling to Israel on a scholarship when he was 16. But his obsessions lay with movie monsters and with magicians such as Harry Houdini as well as with Méliès. The young Brian was also keen on the exploits of the famous studio mogul David O. Selznick, his great-uncle.
“Actually my grandfather, Benjamin, and David O. grew up hating each other and spent the rest of their lives never speaking,” Brian Selznick said. “After my grandfather died, my grandmother decided that, in fact, David. O. and her husband had been very close — probably because he was famous and it made a better story. But it was always fun to see my last name at the beginning of one of his films, like ‘King Kong.’ ”
Although he was always a talented artist, Selznick stubbornly rejected suggestions that he should become a children’s book illustrator, finding the idea “vaguely insulting,” he said with a laugh. So much so that while attending the Rhode Island School of Design, Selznick refused to attend a lecture by the renowned children’s author Maurice Sendak.
“I was an idiot my entire childhood and pretty stupid all through college,” he said, wryly.
Eventually Selznick relented, writing and illustrating a book called “The Houdini Box,” but then felt he had “hit a wall” when he became typecast as an illustrator of biographies for kids. Disillusioned, he quit working for six months and reached out to Sendak, author of iconic books such as “Where the Wild Things Are,” which Selznick was tickled to learn was inspired by Sendak’s Jewish immigrant relatives. Sendak took the younger artist under his wing: “You can draw, but you haven’t reached your potential,” he told Selznick. “Push beyond what you think you can do.”
Selznick did just that when he read a book on the history of automatons and discovered that Méliès had donated his own collection of robots to a museum, where they were left to decay in an attic and eventually were thrown away. He imagined a boy coming upon and rescuing an automaton from the garbage, and thus the seeds of “Hugo Cabret” were sown.
And, with it, a new genre of books: “I thought, ‘What if I tell part of the story like a movie, where pictures wouldn’t just illustrate, but would move the story forward?’ ” he said. “I used the drawings to mimic what happens in films — to edit, zoom in and zoom out.
“I can’t write; I think visually,” Selznick added. “People say to me, ‘Oh, you make children’s books; that must be really fun.’ And I’m, like, ‘Are you crazy? It’s so not.’ But what’s fun is getting to tell stories I love, and finding out about different things that interest me, like French silent movies, or automatons. But the process is hell.”
Selznick’s 2007 “Hugo Cabret” went on to win a Caldecott Medal for children’s picture books, and it wasn’t long before Scorsese came calling. Selznick was initially shocked that the celebrated filmmaker of gore-fests like “GoodFellas” would want to adapt his book to make his first family film and 3-D effort. But it made sense, he reflected, given that Scorsese is a devoted scholar and activist in the preservation of the history of cinema. During a trip to Paris several years ago, Selznick tracked down Méliès’ gravesite at the famous Père-Lachaise cemetery. There he drew a little card featuring Méliès’ stunning image of a rocket landing in the eye of the Man in the Moon with the words: “From a fan in America: Thank you.”
In a way, Selznick feels he has Méliès to thank for his upcoming trip to the Oscars ceremony on Feb. 26. “I’d like to wear Hugo Boss, so I can say I’m ‘wearing’ Hugo,” he said.
February 16, 2012 | 3:18 pm
Posted by Naomi Pfefferman
Before he became a cinematic legend in the films of Ingmar Bergman and as Father Merrin in “The Exorcist,” Max von Sydow engaged in far more intense performances for survivors of Nazi death camps in his native Lund, Sweden.
After greeting a visitor with a courtly bow in Beverly Hills recently, the regal, 82-year-old actor recalled how the Jews had been invited to Lund to heal in refugee camps. The townspeople, including von Sydow’s parents, showered the survivors with clothing and food, and the 16-year-old Max did his part by performing for the visitors with the local youth folk dance troupe.
“These poor people came and were staying at whatever was available, in the schools, and in the big bathhouse, and we spent our weekends touring and dancing for them — something I will never forget, because it was very emotional,” von Sydow said in a hushed, accented baritone. “Some were carried in on stretchers to watch the shows; for many, it was their first entertainment after the hell of the camps.”
Von Sydow and his colleagues made sure to sing the national anthems of the survivors’ countries of origin: “I’ve never had an audience like that,” he said. “These were people, many of whom were gravely ill, who came and spent perhaps a couple of weeks in our town before they died. We were just trying to do as much as was possible for them at the time. Many of them are still in Lund, in a huge graveyard with foreign names.”
Von Sydow was in high school during the war: “What can I say? I was naïve, and of course I did not understand the profundity of the tragedy,” he said. “But that spring, when these people were sent to us, to hopefully survive, made a very deep impression on me.”
Today, the thespian is up for a supporting actor Oscar for playing a survivor of a different kind, in Stephen Daldry’s “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close,” based on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer. The story tells of a boy named Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn), who has lost his father (Tom Hanks) in the Sept. 11 attacks and embarks upon an unusual quest to connect with his late parent. Von Sydow plays a mysterious, mute tenant who moves in with Schell’s grandmother and eventually accompanies Oskar on his journey across New York City. Known simply as The Renter, he communicates only by writing notes or holding up a hand to signify “yes” or “no.” He has not spoken a word, we learn, since losing his entire family during the Allied bombing of the German city of Dresden during World War II.
“When that happened, he was destroyed,” von Sydow said. “He felt a profound guilt that he did not die with the others. Everyone he knew just disappeared, and so he decides he will never say anything again — not a word — and he hasn’t. I wouldn’t call it an intellectual decision; it was a profound emotional shock that leaves him mute for the rest of his life.
“The film is a great way of treating the Sept. 11 disaster, but I don’t see it as a film about 9/11,” von Sydow continued. “It’s a film about finding a way to heal yourself after a terrible loss. It’s a way of talking about survivor’s guilt across all kinds of tragedies.”
Along with villains and priests, von Sydow’s more than 120 film roles have included their share of German, Jewish or Nazi characters, a typecasting he acknowledges with an ironic laugh. “It’s because I’m a foreigner — and also because I probably look German and my name is German,” he said. “Many casting directors go for the easy thing: It’s ‘Ah, we need somebody to play a Nazi officer — von Sydow has done it, so let’s ask him.’ And it’s boring.”
The actor, nevertheless, has accepted what he has perceived as the best of these roles: He won awards for portraying the Norwegian Nazi sympathizer Knut Hamsun in Jan Troell’s 1996 biopic “Hamsun”; he was a psychiatrist who may or may not have been a Nazi in Martin Scorsese’s “Shutter Island,” and he has played various Jewish survivors in films such as the 2001 Spanish thriller “Intacto” and the TV movie “Emotional Arithmetic,” opposite Susan Sarandon.
Von Sydow’s acting career actually began around the time the Jewish survivors came to Lund, when, despite the disapproval of his traditional Lutheran parents, he formed a theater troupe and attended performances at the municipal theater where Bergman was making a splash. “I suspect I was not very happy with myself,” he said of his being drawn to the profession. “I felt awkward and probably had inferiority complexes right and left, and it was very exciting suddenly to be very important and to say very intelligent or witty things, and resolve critical situations, which all these actors were doing on the stage.”
Von Sydow eventually made some 15 films with Bergman, becoming an international star for his turns in “Wild Strawberries,” “The Virgin Spring” and “The Seventh Seal,” in which his character famously plays chess with Death on the beach. Although Bergman’s films tend to be angst-ridden, von Sydow remembers the late director as “a very charming man with a great sense of humor, a wonderful laugh and a great imagination.”
He credits Bergman with the approach he has used to create characters during his more than six decades on stage and screen. “Even when playing famous parts in classic plays, he told us not to take the characters so seriously,” von Sydow said. “They got hungry and tired and had to go to the bathroom. They may have had special intelligences, but apart from that, they were totally human beings all of the time.”
The actor, however, is surprisingly critical of what many people consider to be his best performances. Every time he sees that sequence of himself playing chess with Death, he said, “I’m shocked by the way I am saying the lines, as if I am in the theater and trying to reach the balcony. Even though Death is right there, our conversations are like this,” he said, raising his voice to a thunderous volume. “It’s not intimate, which is the way it should be. Marlon Brando wouldn’t have done it like that, you see.”
Next comes a critique of his first Hollywood role, playing Jesus in George Stevens’ “The Greatest Story Ever Told.” “I happened to watch that not long ago and I was very, very disappointed,” he said. “I found it very stiff, just kind of cardboard characters, including mine.”
He is happier with his turn as The Renter in “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close,” explaining that he approached the role in the same way as any other. “It’s a matter of finding out, what does this man want in life — and in a particular scene? Why does he treat other characters this way? Why does he ask the questions he asks? It’s a matter of why, why, why, and the emotions should arrive on the way,” he said.
Von Sydow’s work in the film has earned him his second Academy Award nomination — his first was for playing an immigrant farmer in “Pelle the Conqueror” in 1987 — and he responded to the news by sharing a glass of champagne with his wife, Catherine Brelet. “To me, the nomination is very moving because it’s from your colleagues, who obviously know something about your profession,” he said. “It’s wonderful, and I’m very happy about it.”
February 16, 2012 | 12:34 pm
Posted by Naomi Pfefferman
Jonah Hill is up for a supporting actor Oscar for his first dramatic turn in a major studio feature, “Moneyball,” and this whole awards season has been a heady time for the 28-year-old performer. Previously best known for his performances in the pop-culture hits of comedy mogul Judd Apatow (think “Superbad” and “Get Him to the Greek”), Hill first cut his dramatic chops with the Duplass brothers’ independent film, “Cyrus,” before his co-star Catherine Keener introduced him to “Moneyball” director Bennett Miller. The results have made Hill a dramatic actor to watch.
Earlier this year, we ran a cover story on Hill’s journey into dramatic films, an odyssey he said has paralleled his own personal and professional growth. Here’s revisiting our December interview with the actor*, which took place during a break from Hill’s Chanukkah shopping at House Café on Beverly Boulevard.
*Some quotes have been edited or condensed.
February 13, 2012 | 4:55 pm
Posted by Naomi Pfefferman
The underdog in the race for best actor at the 2012 Academy Awards is certainly Demian Bichir, who was nominated for his searing performance as an undocumented worker struggling to raise his troubled teenaged son in Chris Weitz’s “A Better Life.” While more expected contenders such as Michael Fassbender (“Shame”), Ryan Gosling (“Drive”) and Leonardo DiCaprio (“J. Edgar”) fell by the wayside, Bichir received the Oscar nod and is only the third Latino to ever do so, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
Last year, I interviewed Bichir about his turn as the struggling gardener at the heart of the film; his formidable competition for the Oscar will include Brad Pitt (“Moneyball”), Gary Oldman (“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”), George Clooney (“The Descendants”) and Jean Dujardin (“The Artist”).
Among those who were thrilled by Bichir’s Oscar nod was “A Better Life’s” Stacey Lubliner, who with partner Jami Gertz produced the film as the first effort of their Lime Orchard Productions. I caught up with Lubliner recently to discuss Bichir, the surprise contender:
NPM: Demian was sometimes mentioned as a possible nominee but only as a longshot. How did you get the news and what was your response?
SL: My husband was at the Sundance Film Festival and he called me and told me to turn on the TV. I was so excited to see them say Demian’s name. I called Jami at 5:30 am and woke her up! I was so happy for Demian and so proud of the movie and all that we accomplished. It was the first movie Lime Orchard produced and everyone on the cast and crew worked so hard on the movie, so it felt very rewarding for us on behalf of all of them.
NPM: Demian told me he’s felt typecast into certain roles where he is the suave, good looking, or intimidating kind of character (like Fidel Castro in “Che” or a gangster in “Weeds”). What made you consider him for “A Better Life?”
SL: Chris Weitz found Demian and knew he was the guy from the beginning. We met him and saw him read and felt his passion for the role. He was so dedicated to bringing a genuine portrayal of this character to screen.
NPM: What did he bring to the role that made the story so heartrending?
SL: Demian was so dedicated to getting every physical and emotional attribute that this father and gardener would have. His attention to detail and his passion for authenticity were amazing. It was his subtle persona and his understated, yet powerful performance that was so heartbreaking.
February 9, 2012 | 3:47 pm
Posted by Naomi Pfefferman
In the Los Angeles film noir “Rampart,” Los Angeles Police Department Sgt. Dave Brown patrols the broiling-hot city hunting for bad guys. A Vietnam War veteran, Brown sees himself as a soldier and the streets as an urban jungle. He’s the cop of your worst nightmare: racist, alcoholic and prone to pummel a suspect with his baton first and ask questions later. He’s also reminiscent of the real-life Rampart scandal of the 1990s, in which dozens of LAPD officers in an anti-gang unit were accused of serious corruption, leading to convictions for such crimes as dealing drugs and planting evidence.
The drama, directed and co-written by Israeli-born filmmaker Oren Moverman, uses the Rampart scandal as a backdrop for a character study of Brown (Woody Harrelson), who refuses to mend his ways amid a changing LAPD and the disintegration of his family. Brown’s ex-wives (played by Anne Heche and Cynthia Nixon), sisters who live next door to each other and mothers to his two daughters, are trying to kick him out of their garage.
And so he spirals downward into a kind of personal hell illuminated by scorching cinematography. Along the way, the camera claustrophobically frames his face in extreme close-up to spotlight his escalating turmoil and paranoia. “We wanted to get very, very close, so that the only other option is to literally get inside his brain,” Moverman, 45, said during a recent interview at a West Hollywood hotel. “You can even see the vein that is pop-pop-popping in his head.”
The tall, sturdily built Moverman came to “Rampart” when he was asked to rewrite a sprawling draft by the infamously hard-boiled Los Angeles crime novelist James Ellroy (“L.A. Confidential,” “The Black Dahlia”), whose gruff police characters are more often the good guys on the mean streets.
The two writers met over coffee in Ellroy’s favorite red booth at the Pacific Dining Car — a noirish spot west of downtown. Ellroy had the kind of tough persona typical of a character in his novels, Moverman recalled. He asked plenty of questions about the Israeli’s service as a paratrooper in the first Lebanon War and the First Intifadah: “James is very close to the police; he loves the stories, the capers that come out of that culture,” the filmmaker said.
“My favorite book of James’ is his memoir, ‘My Dark Places,’ in which he talks a lot about the rape and murder of his mother, when he was a 10-year-old boy,” Moverman added. “That [explains] how somebody could grow up fascinated with gruesome crime stories and siding with the police. ... I can totally understand what draws him to powerful male models of law and order and power.”
Moverman came to the script — and to its ideas about masculinity — from a very different perspective. He left his Israeli military service with a profound sense of how power can be abused, as well as how veterans can be scarred for life. His interest in how soldiers reintegrate into society was the subject of his well-received directorial debut, “The Messenger,” which won Moverman an Oscar nomination for best original screenplay and also starred Harrelson.
To continue probing these issues, Moverman turned the character of Dave Brown into a veteran of the Vietnam War: “The Israeli part of it is a fascination I have with exploring masculinity as it breaks apart,” he said. “If you’re raised in a culture that expects you to be brave, strong and powerful in your expression, and you realize it’s not doable because you’re a human being, it can eat you up from the inside. It’s an invitation to a breakdown, and Dave Brown is an accident that’s waiting to happen. He thinks his war experience is no longer part of him, but everything about him really is — in his militaristic belief in law enforcement as an expression of power, domination and occupation. It’s not only in his work life, but also in his private life. It’s the chip that’s in his head.”
Moverman helped prepare Harrelson for the role through discussions about post-traumatic stress disorder and other war-related trauma: “Oren went through some heavy stuff …[in] Israel, so there was always something going on,” Harrelson said. “But he’ll never talk about his own experiences, and if you do bring it up, he’ll kind of sidestep the issue.”
“Oren is interested in these solitary male characters,” said actor Ben Foster, who starred in “The Messenger” and plays a homeless Gulf War veteran in “Rampart.” “He doesn’t judge them … and that’s his humanity, his pursuit of saying we don’t know where anybody’s been or where they’re going, but they are human beings.”
Moverman’s “Rampart” revisions elaborate upon Brown’s private world: “I wanted to explore questions such as, ‘What do you look like when you’re at home alone and nobody can see you act? What do you do with your emotions, and how do you deal with your personal relationships in a job that’s dirty? When you do bad things to bad people, how does that reflect on your domestic life, on your relationship with daughters, who look at their dad as the one shining example of masculinity?’ ” Moverman said.
Ellroy was tolerant of these changes to his screenplay. “It helped that I served in the Israeli military, I’m as tall as he is, and that it doesn’t appear automatically that he can beat me up — and I’m not kidding,” the director said. “He jokes about it, but he doesn’t respect everyone, and physicality is a big part of respect for him.”
In the movie, the impact of the Rampart scandal within the LAPD proves to be Brown’s undoing. After he is caught on tape beating a suspect, Rodney King style, a police investigation and getting the boot from his ex-wives prompt his decline. “He has an almost anorexic disdain for eating,” Moverman said. “His soul is corrupted to the point where his only sustenance is power and sex.”
Toward the end of the film, the harsh sunlight appears to burn out Brown’s image as he drives around the city. “It’s as if the sun is consuming him,” the director explained. “It’s like he’s driving into purgatory, and he’s condemned himself.”
“Rampart” opens Feb. 10.
February 4, 2012 | 12:41 pm
Posted by Naomi Pfefferman
Here’s the latest entry from Roseanne Barr’s blog on “RoseanneWorld.com:” “I am pleased to inform you that Roseanne Barr is officially recognized by the Green Party of the United States, Presidential Campaign Support Committee, as a Green Party Presidential Candidate—Tom Yager, co-chair of the PCSC.” To which Roseanne opines: “Cool.”
That’s right, folks, Roseanne Barr – the formidable domestic goddess from TV’s “Roseanne” (and a very Jewish domestic goddess in real life), is officially running for president of the United States of America.
According to the Associated Press:
The actress-comedian said in a statement that she’s a longtime supporter of the party and looks forward to working with people who share her values. She said the two major parties aren’t serving the American people.
“The Democrats and Republicans have proven that they are servants—bought and paid for by the 1 percent—who are not doing what’s in the best interest of the American people,” Barr said.
Barr said she has been fighting for working-class families and women for decades.
“I will barnstorm American living rooms,” she said in a candidate questionnaire submitted to the Green Party. “Mainstream media will be unable to ignore me, but more importantly they will be unable to overlook the needs of average Americans in the run-up to the 2012 election.”
When the Journal met up with Roseanne last year at her “Full Moon & High Tide” studio in El Segundo (she lives on a macadamia nut farm in Hawaii), she was jokier about her presidential aspirations. “I am running for president and prime minister of Israel; it’s a two-fer,” she said on camera. “And I promise in my platform to bring peace to not just both of those nations, but to the entire world within one year, and I won’t go back on my word and I will make it happen.” How? “Just with common sense,” she said. “Everything that makes any kind of sense or has any logic has been completely upended, so all we have to do is reverse it, and that’s how. Like I would make peace pay off rather than weapon sales and WMD’s (weapons of mass destruction).” Roseanne said to read Roseanne World for her complete platform.
As for her pitch to run for Israel’s prime minister, she said, “I would actually do the things necessary to bring mashiach now.”
Apparently Roseanne has set those plans aside to focus on the U.S. of A; the Green Party will choose its nominee at its July 12-15 convention in Baltimore.
In the meantime, here’s revisiting our video interview with Barr, in which she discusses her Jewish upbringing, her book “Roseannearchy,” and more. And of course you won’t want to miss Roseanne singing “HaTikvah” for us (she’d been practicing her singing since infamously screeching out the U.S. National Anthem at a baseball game in 1990).
February 2, 2012 | 11:28 pm
Posted by Naomi Pfefferman
Agnieszka Holland was sitting by a window in a Los Angeles hotel recently, bathed by sunlight streaming in through slatted Venetian blinds.
Light and dark are the prominent metaphors in her film, “In Darkness,” based on the true story of a group of Jews who escaped the liquidation of the Lvov ghetto, fled into the sewers and survived in darkness for 14 months. They’re aided by two Polish-Catholic sewer workers who are also casual anti-Semites and petty thieves.
The well-received drama opened in theaters on Feb. 10, and on Feb. 26 it will compete for the foreign-language film Oscar, alongside nominees such as Israel’s “Footnote,” and Iran’s “A Separation.”
About 80 percent of Holland’s film is shot in darkness, often with the actors’ flashlights providing the only illumination. “Darkness is the metaphor for the Jewish destiny during the Holocaust,” the soft-spoken director said, taking a break from preparing to direct an episode of AMC’s “The Killing.” The sewer worker Leopold Socha, who provides the Jews with food and other necessities, was lit brighter: “You have the impression that the light is coming out of him, that he is the flashlight in the darkness for these people, which the real Socha was. Without him they would not have survived longer than a week or two.”
But the storytelling isn’t melodramatic. It’s blunt and gritty — Holland’s antidote for what she has perceived as the “Hollywoodization” of movies about the Shoah. Images of the Holocaust have become “in some ways more sentimental and moralistic,” she said. “What was very difficult for me to accept is to try to put some meaning into the Holocaust; that in some ways it made sense; that you can make some lesson out of it. … The most terrible thing about this human experience is that it was senseless; that it wasn’t a meaningful death, or something that served us to become wiser or better people. … We have to be very non-compromising in the preservation of this reality.”
The sewers in the film appear freezing and filthy, and Socha, the head sewer worker, is crude rather than angelic. He’s a small-time crook who initially agrees to help the Jews in exchange for money. The Jews, as well, are flawed — some are adulterers, snooty intellectuals or thugs, and sex abounds against the fetid underground walls. “I believe that the audience identifies with real people and not saintly, kitschy images,” Holland said of her protagonists. “My characters have a lot of sex,” she added — just as Jews did in Nazi ghettos in real life. Holland learned this from one of the commanders of the Warsaw uprising: “He said he never had so much sex in his life as during this period,” the director said. “In some ways, it was a reaction to the horrors, and the need to feel alive.”
Holland said she tries to see every film released about the Shoah: Her interest stems in part from the experience of her own Jewish father, whose parents died in the Warsaw ghetto after they refused to flee with him. “For my father, the fact that he left his family behind and they died, was extremely painful, and he never talked about it,” she said. “He committed suicide when I was 13 and he was 41. … It was my mother who is Polish [and non-Jewish] who told me that I am Jewish and that my father was a Jew.”
As a filmmaker, the 63-year-old Holland has delved into the time period with dramas such as “Angry Harvest,” about the ordeal of a Jewish woman during World War II, and her Oscar-nominated “Europa Europa” (1990), the story of a Jewish boy who survives by posing as an Aryan, even joining the Hitler Youth.
When interviewed about these movies years ago, Holland said she had had enough of making movies on the subject, which was so emotionally harrowing. “I really didn’t want to go back,” she said. But then she read the screenplay for “In Darkness,” which tempted her despite her hesitations. At first Holland tried to discourage the producers by imposing tough conditions: She said she would not make the film in English, but in the “real languages of the story”: Polish, Ukrainian, Yiddish and German. “Finally, they agreed to everything, so I was trapped into doing it, in a way,” Holland said.
Her film depicts the liquidation of the Lvov ghetto with a nonchalant brutality; when a woman runs to hide in her apartment, we see a body fall almost casually from a window in the background.
“It was a really difficult shoot,” Holland said of the claustrophobic sewer set. “Sometimes you can shoot in sewers and they look beautiful; for example, in ‘The Third Man,’ they look like cathedrals … but we knew that it was not beautiful; it was really scary and dark and cold.”
Holland shot the subterranean scenes both on a set and in real sewers: “It was psychologically difficult because all the actors very deeply went into the characters, into the reality, and they really tried to live in that way.”