Guy Maddin and Whistler Film Festival

Part 1 of my Q&A with Guy Maddin is in this week's WE, just in time for the Whistler Film Fest. Part 2 will be out when his new film Keyhole gets released.

COVER STORY: Guy Maddin invites us to peer through the ‘Keyhole’

Posted By: Andrea Warner

The USA has David Lynch, Spain has Pedro Almodovar and Canada has Guy Maddin. Arguably they are the modern makers of weird, disquieting beauty that’s rooted in a genuine desire to explore the bottomless depths and shallow pools of human experience. They make movies that mess with our sense of self. Maddin, particularly, is a master of this as reflected by his unsettling new film, Keyhole. It’s a tense, disturbing genre mashup of 1930s gangster and haunted house flicks, gorgeously shot in black and white. It’s also a contender in the prestigious Borsos Competition at the 11th annual Whistler Film Festival. (For more on the Borsos award, see next page.)

The words “perverse” and “strange” get thrown around a lot by writers when talking about your films. Do you take pleasure in having a certain shock value?
Nothing is shocking. And real life can be perverse and strange. I just don’t have it in me to produce naturalistically performed movies set in workaday worlds. I’m not Chekovian enough. And besides, my tastes run to folk tales – savage narratives that tell us in no uncertain terms fearsome things about ourselves, no matter how strange or perverse they might seem. Please regard the Brothers Grimm or Hans Christian Andersen. Perverse and strange geniuses and superb role models.

It seems like Canadian cinema has never been stronger, and yet it still suffers from a serious inferiority complex. What’s your take on its evolution?
Canadian cinema just needs a big breakout, a phenomenal film that blows away all our fears, and the world’s preconceptions of our timid ways all at once. It’ll come. You can’t make it happen, it’ll just happen if we keep trying.

What made you decide to ground Keyhole so specifically in a house?
I used to dream of lost loved ones, in delirious nightly dramas during which I worked through, or expressed, feelings that never quite untangled themselves while everyone was alive. Now I dream only of empty architecture. These dreams are more haunting to me than the old unfinished-business dreams involving the family ghosts. I decided I wanted to make a movie that was about a house, about the places in which we live and they feelings they can produce in us. It’s too glib to say I wanted to make a film starring a house, because more often than not I like to watch films with people in them – not always, but mostly. So I knew I wanted to stray from my recurrent dreams and actually populate the corridors of my night-architecture with characters. But I also knew I wanted to stay inside that house the whole film. It’s a good-looking home with lots of detail, lots of surprises, surely more than enough visual richness to support 90 minutes screen time without it wearying anyone’s eyes. After all, we spend infinite hours in our own homes, often loving the environs more and more with each passing day. I wanted viewers to feel comfy, at home, in that house by movie’s end. Who knows if I got it right.

What does it mean to you to have Keyhole be part of the Borsos competition?
I am honoured. Borsos was a great filmmaker. I met him a couple of times and was deeply impressed.

Why is it important to have competitions like this one that honour Canadian films?
The winning of prizes means little, or should mean little, to the filmmakers themselves, but prizes help mythologize and glamorize the craft, help elevate Canadian filmmaking into the competitive and glitzy delirium of showbiz and all its artificial glamour. The prizes help remind us to embrace the artificiality of filmmaking, make us complicit in its fakeness, make us want to participate in the dream on the screen more. Without such prizes we Canadians will watch our films with a grim literal-mindedness we’ve always deployed in shooting down our own work the instant it gets airborne.

What is Canada’s film reputation internationally? Are we held in high esteem?
I can’t tell. I think everyone just feels sorry for me when they say nice things to me, and way more often they say terrible things to me. And I’m too busy bad-mouthing my Canadian colleagues to judge fairly how they’re perceived internationally.

Twenty or 30 years ago, the idea seemed to be that if you wanted to make it as a filmmaker, you had to leave Canada. How much of that perception remains today?
I’ve never even left Winnipeg to make a movie, so you’re asking the wrong person. I even suspect you asked this just to rub that fact in. But I do know that a hometown person is never deemed a complete success until he or she leaves and achieves something significant away from home. That applies to every country, not just Canada. Probably the worst place to be born in is Hollywood itself. These are the kids that have the biggest discriminations to deal with.

Randy and Evi Quaid

My new cover story for WE. 

 

 

Randy and Evi Quaid: The new odd couple

Posted By: Andrea Warner

Last October, actor Randy Quaid (Saturday Night Live, Kingpin) and his wife, Evi, arrived in Vancouver and promptly became the ringmasters of their very own media circus. After months of making headlines for a variety of offences in the USA — a dash ’n dine here, an unpaid hotel bill there — the pair fled California and made it across the border, seeking, at the time, refugee status right here. Yes, refugee status. The Quaids claimed they feared being killed as part of a Hollywood death conspiracy of “star whackers” that had already felled other celebrities, including Heath Ledger (who died of an accidental drug overdose) and Chris Penn (who died of a heart attack).

Since earlier this year, the Quaids have lived amongst us relatively quietly in an undisclosed location. They have dropped the refugee claim and are now seeking permanent resident status for Randy, who would be sponsored by Evi thanks to her Canadian citizenship. And now they’re quite literally bringing Hollywood north. In March, Randy debuted his music onstage at the Commodore and this Friday marks the debut of the Quaids' new, work-in-progress documentary/feature film Star Whackers — part of a double bill with Randy’s 2009 Canadian feature, Real Time. WE spoke with the notorious duo via email about their love affair, the film, and rumours that Randy will open for Charlie Sheen’s Vancouver show next month. (Ed’s note: In a mutual agreement, WE is printing the interview unchanged from the email transcription. It has been edited only for spelling.)

How did you two meet?
We met on a movie fell in love within 24 hours. AND THAT WAS 22 YEARS AGO

What was your first date like?
Chinese food and GREAT sex

Evi, what do you love most about Randy?
I love Randy’s talent and range. As a man he is tough and his talent is humongous. Love is not a strong enough word for my respect loyalty and admiration I have for my husband. I am his wife and he is my life, my man, and my master of ceremonies.

And, Randy, please answer the same questions about Evi.
Evi is Love. When I think of Evi I think of Love, I feel Love and I feel Loved.  Evi’s Love is like a thousand prisms refracting all colors, all colors of Love exploding like a kaleidoscope of Roman candles within my soul. Love is expressed in many ways, but Evi is all Love and all expression of Love.  She has no guile or deceit; her honesty can sometimes be brutal, but always she is truthful, as an artist, as a friend, as a spouse, as a Lover, she is the foundation of my universe.

Evi, please tell us a bit about your background. Have you always been a filmmaker?
My father worked for the RCMP and the FBI. I did not know this until I found out I was a Canadian. He is also a painter. I have, according to him, always been a visual artist. He has my drawings in a secret location and I have his paintings in a secret location.

What is Star Whackers about?
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People have made a lot of jokes about the two of you. Do you care?
YES. The Internet is a terror tool for the hunting of celebrities — entrapping and stalking and smearing. It’s beyond cruel. It’s frightening, horrifying and should be illegal. It’s only for corruption and I fear for my life every day when I see what people write and the way criminals use the Internet to terrorize and entrap their victims. I fear for others: not only famous but targeted by people who use the Internet as a terror tool.

Do you understand why some people might not believe you?
YES. UNEDUCATED UNINTELLIGENT PEOPLE ARE CRUEL

What do you have to say to those who are making fun of you and your situation?
It’s very painful that people have no empathy for others who are suffering just because they think it’s a joke when it’s not. I met some of the best people in the world who are refugees and I finally felt understood I ASKED AN INDIAN WOMAN WITH NO HAND IF IN HER COUNTRY’S WEALTHY PEOPLE HAD THEIR HOMES AND FORTUNES STOLEN AND THEN HAD PEOPLE TRY AND KILL THEM. SHE SAID ‘YES,’ THEN SHOWED ME HER MISSING HAND WHICH SHE HAD HIDDEN IN HER SHIRT. IT WAS BLOWN OFF IN A BOMB AND SHE SMILED AT ME AND I KNEW SHE BELIEVED ME WHEN SHE SHOWED ME HER PAIN. SHE HAD LEFT HER FAMILY BECAUSE SHE WAS SO FRIGHTENED OF THE CONDITION SHE LIVED IN. SHE HAD EMPATHY FOR ME AS I HAVE FOR HER.

Why Vancouver?
WE CAME HERE TO GET RANDY’S VANCOUVER CRITICS AWARD FOR REAL TIME AND THEN later LOOK FOR A NEW HOME.

Randy, what do you feel has been your greatest professional achievement?
MY PERFORMANCE IN REAL TIME AND MY new SONG WRITING

Randy, do you feel Hollywood has turned its back on you?
Hollywood has no Back and if it does it’s my back because I have been working in Hollywood longer than 99% of all Hollywoodians. It’s a misconception that Hollywood is other than the people who work IN IT. WE ALL STRUGGLE TO REMAIN RELEVANT WITH OUR WORK. AND ITS IMPORTANT NOT TO TURN YOUR OWN BACK ON YOUR OWN MUSE.

What’s the music like that you’ve been writing?
True rockabilly stories

How did your show at the Commodore go?
GREAT!!  GREAT!! SOUND GREAT LIGHTING GREAT PEOPLE GREAT BAND. JOHN, BRUCE, MARK AND RICH ARE GREAT. THE TOWN PANTS WERE VERY GENEROUS AND FUN. WE LOVE THEIR MANAGER ALSO.

Why should people come out and see this show at the Rio?
YOU WILL NOT WANT TO MISS IT, TRUST ME. REAL TIME IS A GREAT FILM WITH A GREAT CANADIAN DIRECTOR AND RANDY AND I WILL GIVE THE REST OUR ALL, LIKE WE DID AT THE COMMODORE. And the RIO IS A GREAT ART HOUSE!!!

What’s your day-to-day life like right now?
We love Canada. Our life is wonderful, we have a great team of lawyers who have become like family AND CARE ABOUT US.

What’s your plan if your permanent residency claim is granted?
TO LIVE IN THIS GREAT NATION AND GIVE BACK IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE AND HELP OTHER PEOPLE AND LOVE OUR DOJI DOG!!!

Randy, could you tell me a little bit about the news that you’re in talks to open for Charlie Sheen when he comes to Vancouver next month?
Someone from Live Nation had a conversation with Brian Watson about the idea of me doing it. It’s a good idea. I like Charlie and am happy to be supportive of his plight. If asked by him, [I’d say] “I am here for you Charlie, I understand what few others do!!” People should watch Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder to really understand what this nightmare is so they can send help. Movie Star 101, from Randy Quaid: Tom Cruise’s performance in Tropic Thunder, the Star Whackers performance I gave and Charlie’s tour should be required viewing for all actors who aspire to be Movie Stars.

An Evening with the Quaids, which will feature screenings of Star Whackers and Real Time, takes place Friday, Apr. 22 at the Rio (1660 E. Broadway), 7pm. Tickets $20-$25 from BrownPaperTickets.com. More information:RioTheatre.ca.

Neve Campbell and Scream 4

My exclusive interview with Neve Campbell is this week's WE cover story.

Neve Campbell (fourth from left) returns as ongoing victim Sidney Prescott in Scream 4 alongside fellow franchise originals Courtney Cox and David Arquette (fifth and sixth from left, respectively). Also included in the latest cast are (from left) Allison Brie, Marley Shelton, Adam Brody and Anthony Anderson.

Credit: supplied

Neve returns with a ‘Scream’

Posted By: Andrea Warner

04/13/2011 12:00 AM

"The first film was such a great time that it feels like going back to summer camp every time we see each other again.”

Neve Campbell’s version of summer camp is a little bit different than most: Gallons of fake blood, butcher knives, Courtney Cox and David Arquette, and, of course, a hell of a lot of screaming.
It’s been 15 years since she played tortured teen lead Sidney Prescott in Scream, a blockbuster horror-comedy that revitalized the genre and became the benchmark for self-referential pop culture skewering in movies and television. The film was such a success that Scream 2 followed just a year later in 1997, while Scream 3 landed as a bit of a dud in 2000.

But, in keeping with the Hollywood cliché that everything old is new again, 2011 finds 37-year-old Campbell leading a cast of familiar (Cox, Arquette) and fresh (Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere) faces in the highly anticipated Scream 4. It’s a reboot of a franchise that this writer didn’t even realize she missed until she saw the familiar opening scene of a pretty girl answering a ringing phone and ol’ creepy voice himself asking, ‘Do you like scary movies?’

Over the phone from Toronto, Campbell laughs. “It’s nostalgic, right?”

It is, and while that might be what the movie moguls are banking on, generational affection does not a movie make. Luckily, Scream 4 is a twisty, clever addition to the horror canon, picking up 10 years after Scream 3. Though there’s little flexibility in releasing the plot details, what we can offer is this: Sidney returns to Woodsboro on the anniversary of the original killings as part of a book tour promoting her memoir about survival. Gale, Cox’s ambitious investigative reporter turned best-selling author is suffering writer’s block and is feeling the small town stifles since marrying Arquette’s Dewey, who’s now the police chief. New bodies start piling up and Sidney is once again the fixation of a creepy copycat killer wearing the ‘Ghostface’ mask.

Campbell recalls reading writer Kevin Williamson’s original Scream script and realizing they were on to something “special.” She credits Williamson with convincing her that there was a new story worth telling.

“What I loved about Kevin’s pitch to me, and it was one of the reasons why I chose to do the film again, is that I did realize we were going to be able to make this up-to-date and keep up with pop culture and what’s going on today,” Campbell says. “This film now takes a look at not only being self-referential in the film industry but at kids today and what they’re dealing with and how their lives now are intertwined with social networking, the Internet, mobile. Also, reality television and quick fame and quick fortune and all of those kinds of influences that are around at the moment. I thought that kept it very fresh.”

Thanks to the re-teaming of Williamson and original director Wes Craven, Scream 4 might be the rare movie franchise that seems to have benefited from a decade-long break. But even Campbell admits she had some misgivings about revisiting the past.

“I was apprehensive at first,” Campbell admits. “I only wanted to be a part of it if it was going to be the whole team. I didn’t think there would be any point in making something if we weren’t going to be able to give the audiences what they loved, which is the characters. Gale and Dewey are great characters. I just saw the film a couple weeks ago and it was so fun to just see them again! Like, when I saw David on set the first day, it was just so fun to see him in his moustache and his costume again. It’s because we ended up having fun with these characters, they’re fun to revisit.”

A particular treat, Campbell says, is the rare opportunity for an actor to grow alongside a character. Campbell herself was just 21 when she made the first Scream film.

“I’m 37 now,” she laughs. “That’s a big gap! I was at the beginning of my career [then]. I’d been working in Canada for about five years as a dancer and an actor, and was on my second year of Party of Five and had done The Craft, but Scream was my first lead. Obviously it catapulted my career to a different level, which was lovely, but you know, I was young, I was in my 20s. They’re challenging as it is but when you add fame to that it can be very challenging. I think I’m at a place in my life now where I’m a lot more comfortable with myself now. I’m a lot more confident with my choices in my life and I enjoy where I live — I live in England — and I enjoy traveling and I enjoy some of the charity work I’m working on... I have more control over what I want my life to be and that feels very good.”

It’s not really a surprise that some of Campbell’s own self-confidence is reflected in Sidney now. Though the character is described as a “celebrity victim,” she does a significant amount of ass-kicking throughout, wielding a butcher knife with the kind of expertise that comes to the perpetually terrorized.

“For Sidney it’s 10 years later, she’s an adult, in no way is she really a victim,” Campbell says. “Obviously in the first film she was young and more of a victim and eventually found her legs, but in this one, you know, she’s grown up, she knows who she is. She’s very strong... She knows how to answer a phone, she knows how to respond, she knows how to run, she knows how to fight. Just a day in the life of Sidney.”

Crispin Glover

My interview with Crispin Glover is at WestEnder.com

Actor-writer-director Crispin Glover will be in attendance for a three-day residency, Jan. 14-16 at Pacific Cinémathèque.

Credit: Supplied

Getting eccentric with Crispin Glover

Posted By: Andrea Warner

01/12/2011 12:00 AM

He played Michael J. Fox’s dad in Back to the Future (despite being three years younger than the Burnaby-born actor), an evil henchman with a fetish for hair ripped from the scalps of women (Charlie’s Angels), and the titular character in cult favourite Willard, about a man who befriends a sinister rat army. One thing’s for sure about Crispin Hellion Glover’s career: it’s never been boring.

The same, it seems, can be said for the man himself. Having established an eccentric persona over the years, Glover solidified this reputation when he premiered his 2005 directorial debut, What Is It?, a surreal piece of cinema featuring a cast of actors with Down’s syndrome. Two years later, he followed it up with It Is Fine. Everything Is Fine!, a psycho-sexual thriller written by and starring Steven C. Stewart, a man born with severe cerebral palsy.

Glover comes to Vancouver this weekend (Jan. 14-16) for a three-day residency at Pacific Cinémathèque, where each of his films will be screened. Each screening also features a one-hour dramatic reading and slide show of his books, followed by a lengthy Q&A.
WE partook of an e-mail interview with Glover because, well, wouldn’t you if you had the chance?

WE: A lot of your characters — Thin Man in Charlie’s Angels; George McFly in Back to the Future — have these amazing details, but I imagine they weren’t necessarily written that way. How much of your own personality do you bring to various roles?
Glover: The sort of training that I had for acting focused on bringing portions of your own psychology to make those characters have an organic quality. It is good to have elements of your psychology come through. That being said, I cannot think of a character that I have played in any film that truly resembles myself.

Your name is often associated with adjectives like “strange” and “weird.” How much have you cultivated that reputation? Is it a benefit or a burden at this point?
I do not view eccentric as a negative term. I view it as a poetic interpretation of a mathematical term meaning something that does not follow a centric course. Many of the characters I have played can be called eccentric. My own films and books can be called eccentric. I find all of this fine. I publish my own books; produce, finance, direct, edit, and distribute my own films. Publishing, producing, financing, directing, editing, and distribution all have extremely centric elements to them that have to be followed in order for results to happen. Because I spend a good amount of time performing those very centric tasks, it means that I have very centric qualities in my day-to-day life even if the art I am interested in can be perceived as eccentric.

What Is It? was very controversial when it came out. What are you attempting to communicate as a director?
I am very careful to make it quite clear that What Is It? is not a film about Down’s syndrome but my psychological reaction to the corporate restraints that have happened in the last 20 to 30 years in filmmaking — specifically, anything that can possibly make an audience uncomfortable is necessarily excised or the film will not be corporately funded or distributed. This is damaging to the culture because it is the very moment when an audience member sits back in their chair, looks up at the screen, and thinks to their self, “Is this right, what I am watching? Is this wrong, what I am watching? Should I be here? Should the filmmaker have made this? What is it?” And that is the title of the film. What is it that is taboo in the culture? What does it mean that taboo has been ubiquitously excised in this culture’s media? What does it mean to the culture when it does not properly process taboo in its media? It is a bad thing when questions are not being asked, because these kinds of questions are when people are having a truly educational experience. For the culture to not be able to ask questions leads towards a non-educational experience, and that is what is happening in this culture. This stupefies this culture, and that is, of course, a bad thing. So, What Is It? is a direct reaction to the contents of this culture’s media. I would like people to think for themselves.

What’s next for you as a director?
I am in the process of writing a screenplay for myself and my father to act in together. He is also an actor... This will be the first role I write for myself to act in that will be written as an acting role, as opposed to a role that was written for the character I play to merely serve the structure. But even still, on some level I am writing the screenplay to be something that I can afford to make. There is another project that I may make before that — I am currently working on the screenplay [and] that may be even more affordable and yet still cinematically pleasing.

Your books are literal works of art — part collage, part manuscript, using old books as source material. But some people feel that creating new books using those that have fallen into the public domain is akin to plagiarism. How do you respond to those critics?
Most of the books that I have made do not use a significant amount of words from pre-existing books. Most of my books are completely original stories. The books that do utilize pre-existing texts utilize the words in such a different fashion from what the words were originally intended that it would be hard to call it anything other than an original story.

Go to Cinematheque.bc.ca for tickets and more info.

Bruce Greenwood

My interview with actor Bruce Greenwood, who will be at the Whistler Film Festival. 

Bruce Greenwood may not be a household name, but regular moviegoers know his face well.

Credit: Supplied

It’s that actor you know you’ve seen before

Posted By: Andrea Warner

12/01/2010 12:00 AM

 

His name may not be familiar, but his face sure is. Over his 20-plus years in the movie business, Bruce Greenwood has evolved from a regular in Canadian filmmaker Atom Egoyan’s features to Hollywood go-to-guy when a commanding figure is needed. Be it presidential (Thirteen Days, National Treasure: Book of Secrets), corporate (Dinner for Schmucks), or captain (Star Trek), Greenwood has a knack for playing a man in control.

Greenwood spoke with WE just one day after wrapping work on the Vancouver-shot mystery-drama Donovan’s Echo, in which he stars alongside Danny Glover. He’s resting up for his mini-residency at the Whistler Film Festival (to Dec. 5; WhistlerFilmFestival.com), where he’ll head the Borsos Jury (which awards the festival’s top prize for Canadian film), participate in a Q&A, and screen his new movie, Meek’s Cutoff.

I tallied up the roles in your recent films and you’re often cast as ‘The Man’ in one way or another. Do you think there’s something ultra-commanding about your presence? 

Greenwood: Umm. (Laughs) No, I’m just a schlub. Just a regular schlub... It’s funny — once you’ve done it a couple times and you get away with it, people tend to think that’s all you can do, and they want to know what they’re getting when they hire people. Now more than ever. It used to be you could just audition for something and they would be like, ‘Oh, yeah, he’s figured this part out. Let’s give it to him.’ But it’s not really like that anymore.

Do you get frustrated by the type-casting? 

No. It’s just, I mean, the opportunity is there to allow yourself to be typecast, and if you’re not working and you feel like working or you’re hungry to work, you just do it in spite of yourself. Quite often I resist the urge.

What made you want to accept the position as head of the Borsos Jury? 

[I] went to a couple of festivals this year, Venice and Toronto — as [a contestant], as it were — and I’ve never been on a jury before, so I’m looking forward to that whole process. I’m really looking forward to what the other jurors have to say, and I expect I’ll learn something. That, on top of being able to go back to Whistler and spend a few days there at the beginning of the season — what more do you need?

You’re also starring in a film, Meek’s Cutoff, that’s being shown at the festival. That’s particularly exciting for fans of filmmaker Kelly Reichardt (Old Joy, Wendy and Lucy). What made you sign on?


I thought the script was really interesting, and the chance to work with Michelle [Williams] was really appealing. I love the time period and the environment. And a couple of [Reichardt’s] other films I’d been quite affected by.

What was it like working with Michelle Williams? 

In this movie, she’s a very quiet actor; she does a lot with very little dialogue. She’s one of those people, you look at her face and you read on it a thousand things. She’s just got that ability to communicate without words. In a sense, it’s the definition of a film star.

You and Atom Egoyan, who will also be at the festival, have had a lengthy working relationship. 

Yep. We were both young once. (Laughs)

Do you have a favourite story about working with him? 

I remember when we were doing The Sweet Hereafter, at the time I had a front tooth I could remove, but he didn’t know that. We were messing around, doing screen tests with wardrobe and different amounts of whisker, because I’d come there with a lot of beard-age, so we chopped it off in bits and he’d go, ‘Yeah, maybe the sideburns smaller.’ We finally ended up keeping the big sweeper mustache, and I said, ‘Well, what if I take my tooth out? That might work.’ And he said, ‘What?!’ And I said, ‘I can take my front tooth out.’ So I popped out the little flipper I had, and he just goes, “Oh! Oh my God, oh!... Okay, yeah, let’s go for it!’ You could see him processing it and his initial horror, like, ‘Geez, are we gonna go that far? Okay, yeah.’ He’s just a really open guy, really fun to work with.

The Expendables' Dolph Lundgren

I spoke with Dolph Lundgren for WE. Apparently afterward he said I seemed cool. And then I almost shat myself.

Dolph Lundgren stages a comeback in old friend Sylvester Stallone’s action flick, The Expendables.

Credit: Supplied

Dolph Lundgren still has fight left in him

Posted By: Andrea Warner

08/11/2010 12:00 AM

Dolph Lundgren’s publicist calls to let WE know his client is terribly sorry for running late: For the first time in almost two decades, the actor is a hot commodity, and everyone wants a piece of him.

Best known for his 1985 turn as Russian boxer Ivan Drago, who took on Sylvester Stallone’s American underdog at the height of the Cold War in Rocky IV, the all-but-forgotten brawny blond is back in the limelight with an upcoming guest role on TV’s spy series Chuck and shares top-tier billing in The Expendables (opening Aug. 13).

Written, directed by, and starring Stallone, the balls-out, testosterone-fueled flick features action heavyweights from the past three decades (plus cameos from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis), countless explosions, and some of the bloodiest, most bad-ass brawls and stunts ever choreographed on celluloid. For Lundgren, it’s a once-in-a-lifetime career resuscitation. “I’ve not been in a big movie for 15 years, so... the audience is like, ‘Oh, there’s the Swedish guy — thought he was dead,’” Lundgren jokes.

Over the course of the conversation, the hulking 52-year-old proves witty, humble, and soft-spoken. It’s a marked contrast from his character, Gunner Jensen, the loose-cannon member of a gang of honourable mercenaries who call themselves the Expendables, a damaged collection of men scarred emotionally and physically by the carnage of their work. Lundgren culled from his own personal experience in the Swedish military to help bring authenticity to his role. “There’s a certain discipline, inner-strength, and perseverance that comes both from martial arts and from being a soldier,” he says. “It’s all about being a warrior, about putting your life on the line for something you believe in. Or, at least something you’re told you’re supposed to believe in, and to do it without fear, or to overcome your fear. Stallone knows a lot about that; overcoming fear is his whole life.”

Lundgren has plenty of admiration for his mentor and boss, calling The Expendables a welcome return to “square one.” But a 25-year friendship with Stallone didn’t spare him from the writer-director’s artistic temperament on the set. “Being directed by a friend is both good and bad,” he says. “If it doesn’t turn out after a few takes, he might blow his cool and start yelling at you. Like, ‘C’mon! You gotta get this right. I wrote this for you. We gotta move on.’ That’s what happened in one scene we did.”

A few bruises to the ego are nothing compared to the long tally of physical injuries incurred while filming. Lundgren admits the battle scars can be partly attributed to the macho posturing between the aging athletes, though he escaped relatively unscathed, having undergone only one surgery (on his elbow) during training. “I got clipped by Jet [Li] in the face a few times, but that didn’t hurt too much, and my face is one of my least vulnerable parts,” Lundgren says, laughing. “Stallone got his neck broken, and hurt his hand really bad, and I think he had surgery on his shoulder, and another surgery as well. The guy’s over 10 years older than me and did twice as much action as I did in the movie, and he was directing on top of it, so no wonder he got hurt. It’s amazing he pulled it off.”

Joan Cusack interview

My interview with Joan Cusack appears online at WestEnder.com

Jessie (Joan Cusack), Buzz (Tim Allen), and Woody (Tom Hanks) return for a new adventure in Toy Story 3.

Joan Cusack’s reanimation in Toy Story 3

Posted By: Andrea Warner

06/25/2010 12:00 AM

Last weekend, Toy Story 3 finally made it to the big screen, in 3D no less, and like almost every Pixar film ever made, became an instant classic. It’s a nice pay-off after the contentious years-long squabble between Disney and Pixar, which ended up delaying the third installment of the franchise for over a decade.
It’s been 10 years well spent. It’s not just that the film is visually stunning (though it is), but that it’s an emotionally resonant story of growing up, moving on, and celebrating the simple pleasures of play. Joan Cusack spoke with WE about her cowgirl character, Jessie, meeting James Bond, and the business of being animated. [Editor’s note: Warning, some story spoilers ahead.]
WE: Was the script as emotional to read as the film was to watch? Because good lord, did I cry.
Joan Cusack: Really? Actually, I expected it more this time, because when I did Toy Story 2 I’d never even done an animated movie at all. There really isn’t a script that you read beforehand, you just kind of meet with the producer and the director — well, it was over four years for this one. You see them once every six months and then once every three, then two months, and you’ll do little pieces of the story, but you don’t even know the whole story all together. When my son was sitting next to me at the screening we went to, he’s like ‘What’s going to happen next?!’ and I’m like ‘I don’t really know!’ [Laughs]
Were you prepared then for the way it came together as a movie? From the bittersweetness of growing up to the terrifying garbage inferno.
I was kind of impressed that they went for it, you know? They really followed the authentic story to its conclusion. They took the story of these toys, that was kind of hinted at in the second one, and said, ‘Well, what happens 10 years later?’ That was so clever. That the little boy’s grown up and it’s such a creative solution to the realities of their situation. You know, just that Disney and Pixar weren’t going to do another one and then, I don’t know, someone bought the other one, and they finally were able to look at the story again. There were so many things that were clever about it. Even just that Buzz was Spanish and that they included our Latin American neighbours in such a nice way. It’s just smart.
Is it strange for you as an actor to be providing one aspect of a character, a voice, that’s obviously incredibly vital, but then trusting a whole other team to put together a face and body and physical motion to it?
It’s definitely different. You couldn’t be in better hands with Pixar, so it’s pretty easy on that level, but it is a different acting chop. Especially in the beginning. I would think I put some emotion in my voice and then they’d play it back and I’d hear it and I would think, ‘No, I must have been using my hands a lot and that didn’t get picked up.’ [Laughs] It’s funny, but you just have to be more animated.
You record in relative isolation then. You and the rest of the cast are never really in the same room together.
No, uh uh. Like, the press junket we did, I did the whole press day with Timothy Dalton, James Bond, which is hilarious to me. I was so taken aback, ‘Oh my God, James Bond all day talking about Toy Story and he was Mr. Pricklepants?’ It’s very imaginative in a way, it’s kind of what kids do. You just imagine everybody has come to life, so you work kind of similarly, so it’s just different.
Do you remember what first attracted you to playing Jessie?
When I first did it, I’d never done anything like that and it was just kind of fun. But then I remember even when we were making it and they were saying something about Jessie and Woody were doing something, I was asking, ‘Ooh, can Jessie save the guy instead of the guy saving Jessie?’ And they were like, ‘Sure, we can play around with that.’ And then I went to Disneyland with my kids when we were out for the opening in LA, and they are lots of princesses and Cinderellas and mermaids and Jessie’s kind of a new kind of Americana, home-grown, doesn’t-need-a-guy girl.
Fully dressed.
It’s kind of cool. It’s like a subtle evolution in a neat way.
That’s really important to show little girls different ways you can grow up, to be self sufficient and equal to anybody else.
Right! And you feel that in society, that it’s happening anyways, and slowly but surely there’s that presence in different professions. It’s interesting that it’s in the movie, too.
It feels very modern in the values that it reflects, particularly how it emphasizes the value of creativity and imagination and getting back to those things we’ve maybe lost a bit.
And playing! I love the little girl, Bonnie. She’s shy but she has this great imagination and passion and love for life. It’s simple. It doesn’t require a lot.
And it doesn’t require money, you know, it transcends one’s station in life to just be able to play with toys you find somewhere and make them your own.
Right, and you personally have taken the time to invest in the way you’re thinking and the way you’re playing. That doesn’t cost anything. It just costs time.
It felt like the movie had some nice closure, but also that it’s poised to move on into something new. Do you anticipate playing Jessie again?
I’ll cross my fingers for that. I think it’s so fun that there’s a little girl at the end with that world. It’s a different world, a girl world, and it hasn’t been shown yet in a modern way. There’s certainly room for a lot of creative storytelling there.
Thanks so much for talking to me.
It’s nice to speak with you, too! And you hang in there, girl reporter! You go too!

Winter's Bone

My piece on Winter's Bone features interviews with director Debra Granik and star Jennifer Lawrence.

Jennifer Lawrence, who plays lead character Ree in the award-winning "Winter’s Bone," credits director Debra Granik for the film’s artistic success. “She asks a lot of questions, which is rare for a director, unfortunately.”

Credit: supplied

Bleak realism key to power of ‘Winter’s Bone’

Posted By: Andrea Warner

06/23/2010 12:00 AM

Writer-director Debra Granik may not be a well-known name, but the buzz bolstering her third and latest film, the critically acclaimed and Sundance award-winning Winter’s Bone, should start to change that. A bleak but beautiful art-house flick, it’s been almost universally lauded as the best film of 2010 thus far — an impressive feat considering it features a cast mostly made up of unknowns and locals from the Ozarks in Missouri, and tackles the subject of backwoods methamphetamine manufacturing and addiction.

Adapted from Daniel Woodrell’s novel of the same name, Winter’s Bone (opening Friday, June 25) exposes the ravaging effects drugs can have in rural areas, particularly as it becomes virtually impossible to eke out a living from the land alone.

“Surface economies are living in what would be categorically poverty, because it’s not a sustainable way of earning money,” Granik says, over the phone from New York City. “It’s too little, too slow, and variable; it evaporates and closes up and under-employs people... But it always shocks me... trying to be involved or make money from drugs. It’s so unglamorous. It’s weird that so many films have glamorous depictions.”

There’s nothing glamorous about Winter’s Bone. Filmed on location, Granik fully captures the Ozarks’ isolation and rustic beauty, rendered by careful camera work and a lingering, interested eye. It also showcases, without judgment, the barbed-wire loyalty and tension that exists in communities built on survival-by-any-means.

The character of 17-year-old Ree, who is Bone’s beating heart, epitomizes that survival instinct. Already tasked with raising her young brother and sister, and caring for her mentally ill mother, Ree discovers her father has skipped out on his bail — and put their house and land up as his bond. With his court date fast approaching, Ree has to go knocking on some very dark doors to try to get to the bottom of his disappearance and save the family home.

Jennifer Lawrence, the relatively unknown 19-year-old Kentuckian who skillfully portrays Ree, is as frank and direct as the character she plays. She refuses to consider the assertion that her performance anchors the film (because she’s “not a butthead”), but admits that the accolades — and subsequent work offers — pouring in are gratifying, particularly since she considers having played Ree an opportunity to connect with traits she admires in real life. “I like that she doesn’t take no for an answer, and I like that she doesn’t consider failure,” Lawrence says. “I really respect people like that.”

Ree’s strength was also part of what drew Granik to the project. “It’s a good feeling to see a female on screen and be able to root for them and feel like they’re competent, that they’ve got resources and they’re going to use them in different ways,” she says.

Granik was also interested in turning the “so-called coming-of-age story” on its head. “It’s very class driven, how you come of age — like Charles Dickens depicting scrappy kids in London, and it didn’t matter what their education was because they were always learning, either from the streets or elders. You don’t always get a chance to choose who you learn from either. You may learn from criminals, but you don’t have to be one.”

It might be this kind of thoughtfulness Lawrence refers to when she talks about Granik’s attention to detail during filming, from focusing the cinematographer on an icicle melting to depicting the actual skinning and eating of a squirrel. “She’s tremendous,” Lawrence says. “She’s very emotionally accessible. She asks a lot of questions, which is rare for a director, unfortunately.”

Which isn’t to say shooting went off without any hitches. Lawrence admits Granik’s process was occasionally unfathomable. “She has an artistic eye that I have to admit was hard to understand when we were filming, but when I saw the movie I was blown away,” she says. “I remember some of the things she thought were really important at the time [that] I just thought were annoying. Like, ‘Let’s just wrap! Who cares?’ But when I see it, I just think, can you imagine if she didn’t make me do that again? I don’t know if I’ve ever met anybody else who’s got a brain like her.”

Sook Yin Lee and Year of the Carnivore

From WestEnder.com

Sook-Yin Lee on the set of her film, Year of the Carnivore, based on Lee’s own awkward coming-of-age.

Credit: Supplied

In sex and on film, practice makes perfect

Posted By: Andrea Warner

06/16/2010 12:00 AM

Shy is not a word in Sook-Yin Lee’s vocabulary. The Vancouver-born, Toronto-based renaissance woman (writer, director, actor, musician, and TV and radio host) came out as bisexual in 1995, when, as a VJ for MuchMusic, she spontaneously kissed a woman on-air after the Supreme Court of Canada added sexual orientation to Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She later infamously mooned viewers during her last shift for the same broadcaster in 2001. And four years ago, she almost lost her job as host of CBC Radio One’s Definitely Not the Opera after higher-ups balked at her sexually graphic starring role in John Cameron Mitchell’s movie, Shortbus.

Now, Lee is once again courting controversy as the writer-director of the sexually frank but stunningly soulful Year of the Carnivore (opening Friday, June 18), her highest-profile and most personal feature film to date.

“I really drew upon my first love,” Lee says of her inspiration for writing Carnivore. “I was a gal who was pretty out of touch with myself, my body, my sexuality. I had no boyfriends throughout my childhood and adolescence. When most of the kids were playing spin the bottle, I was not invited.”

She laughs, and continues. “I wasn’t particularly desirable, and I didn’t feel desirable. I was very clueless.”

Lee’s matter-of-fact vulnerability has helped her craft a film that, under the auspices of another director, could have come off as a one-note kink-fest. In Carnivore, Sammy, played by the little-known New York actress Cristin Milioti, is a sexually awkward young woman with a bum leg (a daily reminder of her bout with childhood leukemia) who works undercover security at a grocery store. Eugene (Mark Rendall), a guitarist who busks outside, is the object of her affection. But after the two hit the sheets, he puts the kibosh on a relationship, telling Sammy she needs more experience in the bedroom before they can take things further. She takes his instruction to heart, with results that alternate between hilarious, heartfelt, and positively criminal.

Lee gleefully recounts just how much she mined her own past to flesh out Sammy and Eugene’s journey. As in the film, Lee was also a young woman who needed liquid courage to spill her guts. Literally.

“I felt I needed to confess my feelings, so I got incredibly drunk, because I had no confidence, no courage,” says Lee of the man who jilted her and inspired Carnivore’s central storyline. “I actually fell down the stairs of the Savoy Nightclub in Gastown before picking myself up, going over to his warehouse, and confessing my love. Then I proceeded to vomit all over him. He was really endeared to me, but also really upfront that he didn’t want to be in a relationship and that I was really terrible in the sack.”

Lee describes her ensuing years acquiring sexual experience as the work of a “zealous overachiever.” Eventually, she and her would-be paramour found their way back to each other, but not before making plenty of mistakes along the way.

“The fact of the matter is no one’s really great [at sex] from the get-go, and it rarely plays out like in romance novels or romantic movies,” Lee says. “People aren’t as... well, they’re more fumbly in real life. I really do love the inverted romance and people finding each other, but they have to earn it, they have to go through some hard knocks.”

Some of Sammy’s hard knocks include a variety of interactions that are sure to rile more conservative moviegoers, but even the most overtly shocking scenes (a threesome to help get over the hurdle of postpartum depression) touch on the truth that a good relationship needs good sex and communication to survive. Lee knows, however, that she can’t control the audience’s response to Carnivore’s casual depiction of sexual exploration.

“If people are outraged, that’s their own reaction,” Lee says, laughing. “What I try to do, on Not the Opera and in my writing, is bring myself to the story and the ideas we’re exploring. Not in a way that’s simply navel-gazing, but there’s usually something at its core that I wish to share with people that’s hopefully really useful to them as well. All of my work is drawing from a place of wanting to communicate and connect and share experiences that I’ve been privy to.”

Atom Egoyan

My interview with Atom Egoyan appears in this week's WE.

Acclaimed Canadian director Atom Egoyan on the set of his latest film, Chloe, with stars Amanda Seyfried (left) and Julianne Moore.

Credit: supplied

Atom Egoyan lets ‘Chloe’ put words in his mouth

Posted By: Andrea Warner

03/24/2010 12:00 AM

When Atom Egoyan watched the sexy French thriller Nathalie in 2005, he had no idea that three years later he’d be at the helm of Chloe, its North American adaptation, and knee-deep in A-list actors, rising stars, and unthinkable tragedy.

Now, on the other side of directing his most star-studded, Hollywood-friendly fare to date, the director spoke with WE by phone while relaxing at his parents’ home in Victoria, shortly before embarking on several weeks of non-stop publicity for the film. (It opens in select cities, including Vancouver, on March 26.)

For Egoyan fans, the film’s premise — a middle-aged woman (Julianne Moore) hires a young, unstable escort (Amanda Seyfried) to test her husband’s (Liam Neeson) fidelity, only to find herself seduced as well — echoes elements of his previous work. Drama, deceit, and the darkest aspects of sexuality can be found in previous Egoyan works such as The Sweet Hereafter and Where the Truth Lies. The difference with Chloe, he says, was freedom from his own words.

“It was an opportunity to work outside my normal comfort zone,” Egoyan laughs, alluding to his first time directing a feature script that he didn’t pen himself. “In terms of my own scripts, I was getting more and more complicated, so this was a really good opportunity. It’s subject matter that was close enough to my own sensibility, [but] it offered me the option to sort of simplify my own work.”

The script highlights sex, obsession, and insecurity, and offers a particularly steamy scene in which Moore and Seyfried crank up the heat. (Egoyan’s own rule to ensure a natural performance between his co-stars: “Make sure they understand how they’re being photographed, that they’re going to look great!”) But it was the script’s underlying theme — a long-married couple trying to find a way back to each other — that proved particularly close to the director’s heart.

“I think there’s this point at which you take certain things for granted, and you forget that a relationship involves a lot of work,” Egoyan says. “Even though things become more comfortable, that very comfort creates a strange paralysis sometimes, and people can kind of drift into a strange place where they lose an erotic excitement. It takes a lot of work; you have to find space and ways to reignite things.”

Somewhat surprisingly, writer-director-producer Ivan Reitman, best known for big-budget comedies like Ghostbusters, was the initial mastermind behind Chloe. He handpicked Egoyan after deciding to adapt writer-director Anne Fontaine’s Nathalie for North American audiences. Egoyan was flattered by Reitman’s selection, but acknowledges there was some give and take throughout filming.

“I had heard that he’s a tough producer, but it’s all about communication,” Egoyan says. “We spent a lot of time together beforehand. He was very clear with me: He’d loved my movies, but there were certain things he didn’t want this to be and certain things he wanted me to focus on. And I listened to him, because this was a film that he wanted to direct at one point, but he realized he wouldn’t be able to get the performers he wanted because he’s used to doing comedy... and so he was very honest with me and I was very honest with him.”

Convincing Reitman to let him set Chloe in Toronto (instead of its scripted location, San Francisco) required some effort on Egoyan’s part. He attributes this, in part, to a generational shift between the two of them.

“Ivan, James Cameron, Norman Jewison — these are directors that had to leave the country [to achieve success],” Egoyan says. “I came from a different formation. I was really happy making my films here, because these are films that couldn’t be made in the States. I never had that fantasy of moving to the States for my career.”

And yet, for all of Chloe’s remarkable firsts, one tragic accident almost stalled the entire film. Neeson’s wife, Natasha Richardson, died during filming after falling and hitting her head at a Quebec ski resort. Over a year has passed, but Egoyan still sounds awed when he remembers Neeson returning to the set and his role as a philandering husband (depicted in graphic sex scenes) after taking just a week off to bury his wife and console his two children.

“He was a hero,” Egoyan says. “When he came back, he wanted to finish the film as quickly as possible, and we just had to contain our emotions. It was amazing. It was a miracle. But, given what this film was about, and what he had to play, it was really monumental what he was able to pull off.”

With the emotional and mental toll of Chloe nearly behind him, Egoyan is pragmatic about whether his future plans include directing more scripts written by other people.

“You have to be really honest with yourself,” he says. “This script was close enough to me that I felt I could do something unique with it. You can read a script and enjoy it, but are you the best person to direct it? If there are people you think would do a better job, you shouldn’t be directing it.”

The Ugly Truth with Katherine Heigl

My interview with Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler at the Ugly Truth Junket

Opposites attract: Katherine Heigl contemplates Gerard Butler’s rough charm in The Ugly Truth.

By Andrea Warner

LOS ANGELES — A dark-haired woman, tall and thin, lingers near the French doors of the ballroom in the Four Seasons Beverly Hills hotel. She is pretty, and disarmingly proper in a navy dress sprinkled with white polka dots. But nothing about her screams “Movie star!” the way Gerard Butler’s presence does when he strides into the room moments later. In fact, Katherine Heigl does incognito with such practiced ease (likely as a result of her paparazzi-plagued existence) that almost none of the reporters awaiting her arrival recognize the woman of the hour until she takes a seat behind a bank of microphones and flashes the famous smile that has graced Grey’s Anatomy for five seasons, and proved a box-office boon for the hit comedies Knocked Up and 27 Dresses.

Heigl’s recognizable long blonde tresses have been replaced by shorter, brown locks, but there’s no disguising the quick wit and sharp tongue that have become her hallmarks — for better or worse — over the last several years. Within seconds of sitting down, she offhandedly jokes that she “doesn’t have hair on that show” — referring to her Grey’s character Dr. Izzie Stevens, who is suffering from cancer — so she can do what she wants with her look.

Reported efforts to reign in Heigl and put a cap on her candid nature have obviously been unsuccessful. And that’s perfectly in keeping with the very reason for this press gathering: to talk about Heigl and Butler’s new R-rated comedy, The Ugly Truth.

A raunchy battle-of-the-sexes tale, Truth is a modern twist on the Katherine Hepburn / Spencer Tracy comedies of yore — with liberal doses of swearing, simulated orgasms, and twin bikini babes wrestling in Jell-O. Heigl plays Abby Richter , the socially awkward, romantically challenged producer of a fledgling morning news program who has a checklist of criteria for the perfect man. Mike Chadway (Butler) is the host of a chauvinistic late-night cable show in which he dispenses wisdom about “the ugly truth” of men and women. And wouldn’t you know it? When Mike is brought on board Abby’s show, his bare-knuckle take on sex and attraction gives it the ratings boost it desperately needs. Abby even ends up seeking his advice to try to land the hot doctor who lives next door. Inevitably, crazy antics ensue.

Heigl sees Truth as deeply funny, but doesn’t think it’s a straightforward take on contemporary male-female dynamic. “I would hope that it’s an exaggeration of what men and women are like,” she says. “I know a lot of men who joke like Mike, but I don’t think I know any guys who are really like him.”

Butler laughs and leans into his microphone. “I gotta say, I think Katie’s deeply flawed in knowing what goes on in a lot of men’s minds,” he says. “Or she hangs out with a breed of way more sophisticated male than I am — which wouldn’t be difficult.”

As anyone who follows the gossip columns knows, Heigl’s breed of male tends to be in direct relationship to whatever controversy she’s inadvertently courting at the time. In 2006, she publicly called out her Grey’s colleague, Isaiah Washington, after he allegedly referred to their co-star (and Heigl’s close friend), T.R. Knight, as a “faggot.” The following year, after starring in Judd Apatow’s Knocked Up, she was quoted as saying the film was “a little sexist,” and that it “painted the women as shrews” — statements that resulted in members of the media labelling her a “traitor,” “hypocritical,” and “ungrateful.” And last year, there was speculation that Heigl had asked to be released from her Grey’s contract so she could concentrate on movies, but it was Knight who ended up getting turfed, whereas Heigl’s cancer-afflicted Izzy seems to have survived the death knell.

Heigl’s penchant for outspokenness may have earned her a reputation for being difficult, but the reality, at least according to Butler and Ugly Truth director Robert Luketic, is anything but.

“What amazes me about Katherine is she can pick up a script with last-minute rewrites and look at it and say, ‘Right, ready,’ whereas this one here,” says Luketic, gesturing at Butler, “is, like, shitting Tiffany cuff links over everything, and he’s gotta read it and absorb it.

“There’s this shorthand I have working with Katherine; there’s this magic and light that she brings to her work. Apart from how professional she is, I also like her as a person.” So much so that the two just wrapped another film, tentatively titled Five Killers, due out in 2010.

“I’m no action hero,” Heigl says about the making of Five Killers, which is about assassins. The Ugly Truth’s physical comedy is more her speed, wherein her character’s dorky side manifests itself in a variety of physical — and embarrassing — challenges. At various points, Heigl hangs by her knees from a tree wearing only underwear; launches herself into spazzy happy dances; and wears vibrating underwear to a dinner party, resulting in a series of public climaxes. Heigl giggles when Butler and Luketic joke about the 35 set-ups it took to nail the latter scene, and the “authenticity” of the orgasms. “Can you imagine [if they were real]? Yes, I’m very method,” she says, laughing. “It was physically exhausting, though. I mean, at the end of the day, I felt like I’d done a marathon. No one wants to orgasm 35 times.”

But the film’s stars and director are banking on audiences wanting to watch it, and other more “adult” affairs, on the big screen. “It’s not all cocks and vag,” Luketic says, before catching himself. “Wait, did I just say that?”

Heigl encourages him, explaining, with her trademark honesty, why movies like The Ugly Truth and their R-rated language feel so, well, natural to her. “I love raunchy humour,” she admits. “What makes me laugh the hardest, it’s not terribly sophisticated. I’m a 30-year-old woman, and as much as I love younger audiences, I wanna tell a real story about people my age, and we throw ‘fuck’ around a lot. When you have to censor it, it feels a little too cute... The ability to be crass, to say ‘cock,’ that felt real to me. That’s the real world I live in with my family and friends.”

Ah, the beauty of the ugly truth.