Patrick Wilson

On Monday night, some of today’s hottest actors came to the new Times Center in New York City to honor the industry’s top casting directors at the 25th Annual Artios Awards. I spoke with actor Patrick Wilson (“All My Sons,” “Watchmen,” “Little Children”) at the pre-ceremony reception, before the lights dimmed and he presented several of the night’s awards — and he actually seemed excited to see us!

Does this mean you used to read the Back Stage casting notices when you began your acting career?

Patrick Wilson: I started pre-internet! Absolutely, my first job was from Back Stage, though.

Do you remember what that first gig was?

I used to get Back Stage when I was in college – well, I had friends who got it and would tell me about it, and my friends and I would drive up from Pittsburgh [to auditions in New York]. I auditioned for so many things then, let me think… My first job was “Miss Saigon,” which I got out of Back Stage West.

But even though I had an agent, I would still go to open calls or EPAs, you know. It’s what I tell young actors now: Just because you get an agent doesn’t mean the work stops, or the pursuit stops. A couple times you’ll get cross-referenced, like “Yeah, so I got you an appointment,” and you’re like “Oh yeah, I already went in for that.” And they’re like, “What?”

Did you lose a lot of agents that way?

No, I’ve always had great agents. (laughs)

So what brings you to the Artios Awards tonight, and what do casting directors mean to you as an actor?

I got a call from [Artios Award-nominated casting director] Ellen Lewis, actually… But casting directors in New York have almost the same view as in London. Actors in London are always put back in forth in TV and film and stage, and it’s great here that casting directors really appreciate that, and have that very same sentiment.

Do you feel that’s different from the approach in L.A.?

I remember being in L.A. to audition one of my first movie jobs out there. I’d already, I think, been nominated for two Tonys here. So I’d certainly made a little bit of a name for myself. I had a resume. I think I’d been doing it for eight years or something.

And I said [to the casting director], “Hey, nice to meet you,” and literally the response I got was, “I thought you were British.” And I was like, “Why?”

They said, “Well, I don’t know. I’m sorry, but you’re 30 and I’ve never heard of you, and I know you did a lot of theater.” (laughs) “So I’m British?”

That’s an absolute true story. But you know, more often than not, the great casting directors know everybody, and that’s the great thing about these awards. The love that they have for actors is really, really strong and so evident. It’s so easy to come to something like this, not just because they have your destiny in their hands – because you know, it’s such a fickle business and you never know who pulls the triggers. It’s not like we come here for a favor. I come here to support all these people that I’ve known that have hired me a lot, or that have not hired me a lot.

You’ve been part of a lot of great ensemble casts, like “Watchmen” and “Angels in America.” Do you think ensembles accentuate the strengths of the casting director?

I mean, that is all about casting. Truthfully, I’ve heard two very well-known and established directors who said directing is 80 percent casting.

Meanwhile, Ellen Lewis told me earlier tonight, “I do my job as the casting director, but it’s really the director’s movie, and film is a director’s medium.”

She’s so humble about it. But I mean, look at “Little Children.” [Director] Todd Field comes into town and says, “I need actors.” And the great thing is, Todd Field didn’t care about who had done how many movies. Ellen gets together the best actors, even if it’s not the hottest up-and-comer or this and that. You look across the board and so many of those smaller parts [are actors] that have been in so many Broadway shows or Off-Broadway shows, and they’re great actors. And that’s when an ensemble like that works, because the casting director’s like, “Yeah, I know you have the jobs for the leads, but how about these actors for the other six roles that are going to really bring it all together?”

Your relationship with Jackie Earle Haley was the strongest part of the “Watchmen” movie cast, in my opinion. Do you think that was because you had worked together on “Little Children” previously?

Oh, thank you. Yeah, because [director] Zack Snyder’s wife was our producer, and she was the one who saw “Little Children” and said, “You should look at these guys.” Even though we actually only had one scene [together in "Little Children"], we overlapped a lot, so I would see him quite a bit on set. But anytime you’ve got a common bond going into something, there is an understood language.

I visited him two weeks ago on a shoot, you know, while he was working in Vancouver. We’re really good friends.

So in the end, the casting director kind of brings people together and creates new friendships?

Absolutely.

This Q&A was posted online Nov. 4, 2009 at Blog Stage.

Qué tiempos aquellos en los que se podía leer a Cormac MacCarthy en paz. Yo comencé hace algunos años con un absoluto desconocido suyo (por estos lares), su libro “Meridiano de sangre” (Blood Meridian or the Evening Redness in the West). Luego corrió el rumor de que Ridley Scott lo haría película y que sería un western duro y sin concesiones. Entrevistado el sir Scott se atrevió a decir “Necesitas violencia para hacerla (la película) adecuadamente“. Y hablando del origen de esa violencia me era difícil pensar en la caracterización de uno de los personajes del libro, el juez Holden, de quien tiene algo que decir Harold Bloom:

“The first time I read Blood Meridian, I was so appalled that while I was held, I gave up after about 60 pages. I don’t think I was feeling very well then anyway; my health was going through a bad time, and it was more than I could take. But it intrigued me, because there was no question about the quality of the writing, which is stunning. So I went back a second time, and I got, I don’t remember… 140, 150 pages, and then, I think it was the Judge who got me. He was beginning to give me nightmares just as he gives the kid nightmares (…)

…Oh, no, no. The violence is the book. The Judge is the book, and the Judge is, short of Moby Dick, the most monstrous apparition in all of American literature. The Judge is violence incarnate. The Judge stands for incessant warfare for its own sake.”

Bloom añade en esa entrevista que Meridiano… es el western definitivo pues “culmina todo el potencial que la ficción del Oeste puede tener“.

Dicho eso pienso que el director ideal de este western definitivo tendría que haber sido un especialista en lo inevitable como Peckinpah. Pero ahora IMDB afirma que lo de Scott no va más y será otro (Todd Field) el que dirija el proyecto (y además escriba el screenplay). Así que a esperar (la verdad sin mucho ánimo) hasta el 2011.

Pero mientras tanto tenemos otros referentes fílmicos del trabajo de McCarthy: por ejemplo “All the pretty horses” (2000) que pasó sin pena ni gloria (gracias a Matt Damon y Penélope Cruz) a pesar de ser lo mejorcito de la trilogía de la frontera del autor estadounidense. Y claro, ya todos sabemos lo que pasó con el “No country for old men” de los Coen, que es una excéntrica forma de arte como otras tantas expresiones de ese par de hijos de Minnesota y se basa -si tomamos por buenas las reflexiones de Horace Engdahl a nombre de la Academia Sueca- en una literatura provinciana e ignorante de la cual McCarthy ni siquiera ocupa la primera línea:

“Los escritores estadunidenses son demasiado sensibles a las propias tendencias de su cultura de masas, lo cual arrastra consigo la calidad de su trabajo. Ese país está demasiado aislado, es demasiado insular. No traducen lo suficiente y no participan realmente en el gran diálogo de la literatura. Esa ignorancia les limita. Por supuesto, hay una literatura poderosa en todas las grandes culturas, pero no se puede soslayar el hecho de que Europa es el centro del mundo literario… no Estados Unidos” (AP)

Pues por una vez que bueno que la cultura de masas y la “alta cultura literaria” no caminen juntas, pues de haber sido así no habríamos tenido nunca películas como “El Padrino” ni “El Bueno, el malo y el feo” solo por mencionar algunos ejemplos. Y por otra parte hay mucho Le Clézio para quien quiera disfrutarlo.

Y volviendo al tema de este post, este año estrenan “The Road” (Ignoro el título en español, ¿será “En el camino”?), película basada en el libro homónimo de McCarthy. Tanto el tráiler como los datos de producción revelan que hay algunas sorpresas a priori desagradables. Por ejemplo, se antoja que los guionistas intentaron explicar un poco el porqué del “futuro apocalíptico y distópico” con recursos que mas bien corresponden al cine de catástrofe y sus excesos de CGI. No en vano Borges proponía “narrar los hechos como si (uno) no los entendiese del todo“. Además aparece la figura de la “esposa” (Charlize Theron) del ignoto protagonista (Viggo Mortensen)  lo cual luce arriesgado teniendo en cuenta que un punto fuerte del libro es la relación entre padre e hijo. Pero mejor no adelantarnos y esperar teniendo en cuenta que la crítica ha alabado (¡una vez más!) el trabajo de Mortensen y que el director (John Hillcoat) brilló en producciones como “The proposition” (un western australiano altamente recomendable). Veamos:

I wanted to put some suggestions out there for Book vs Movie, a new book club I hope to get going.  Eventually I hope to have sweet prizes but for today all I can offer is a used book!

I read this book last summer and watched the movie shortly after. Because the movie has stayed with me for an entire year I am going to say that the movie beats the book on this one. Almost ALWAYS it seems I say the book was better, but any movie you can remember scenes from a year later must be very powerful. Actually it sort of makes me want to read the book again to really do some comparison. Oh and don’t get me wrong the book was very good, I just think the movie was exceptionally powerful.

This is a contemporary book/movie. There is very adult subject matter. It is not a book I would recommend to my mother, nor the movie. If you are still interested, the first person to comment on this post will receive this book in the mail. Hopefully you will enjoy it as much as I did.

Little Children by Tom Perrotta

Little Children Directed by Todd Field

Kate Winslet is wonderful in this role. There is a scene where she is sitting in the park with her toddler and she forgets to bring the snack. She looks over at the other moms who are all way more prepared and feels both contempt and humility. I think all of us moms can relate to that!

The new feature that I hyped up (OK, I briefly mentioned in a post that no one read) is here!  The F.I.L.M. of the week will be unveiled every Friday; F.I.L.M. is an acronym for “First-Class Independent, Little-Known Movie.”  But the movies will not be limited to independent films, although I would like to highlight them.  The word just works better in forming a strategic acronym.

The whole point of this weekly feature is to suggest a movie that you might not have seen, considered, or even heard about (barring you are a major film buff like myself).  So if you are browsing Netflix or walking around Blockbuster, rather than picking up “17 Again” or, God forbid, “Paul Blart: Mall Cop,” you will be armed with the knowledge of at least one movie that is a safe bet for excellent entertainment.

It is my distinct pleasure to award the distinction of the first “F.I.L.M. of the Week” to the exquisite “Little Children.”  The movie is just on the outside of my top 10, although given more viewings, it just might move into the elite ranks.   It is one of very few movies that I can say are practically flawless.  Every performance is great.  Every character is well-developed.  Every minute of it is absolutely spellbinding. Unfortunately, audiences didn’t pick up on its brilliance; it grossed about $5 million at the box office, most of which was from Oscar season. The movie was nominated for Academy Awards for Best Actress (Kate Winslet), Best Supporting Actor (Jackie Earle Haley), and Best Adapted Screenplay. The Golden Globes nominated it for Best Picture.

The movie is based on the novel by Tom Perrotta, but he decided to take the movie in a distinctly different direction than the book rather than just make a carbon copy.  The screenplay is about as good as it gets.  It complexly weaves together the tales of Sarah (Kate Winslet), the resistant mother stuck among droves of Stepford wives, Brad (Patrick Wilson), the stay-at-home-dad emasculated by his wife (Jennifer Connelly) and her success, Larry (Noah Emmerich), a disgraced police officer out for vengeance, and Ronnie (Jackie Earle Haley), a pedophile who moves in with his loving mother.  They all impact each other in ways they cannot even fathom, and the film’s overlying messages become clear through their encounters.

Everyone is magnificent in the movie, but I do have to single out a few names.  Director Todd Field gives the film narrative poise unlike any movie of the decade, and his presence and guiding hand is clearly felt throughout the movie.  He skillfully handles the very tough material that the movie tackles, treating it with the respect and dignity that they deserve.  Despite its heavy themes, Field also allows it to function as a very dark comedy as well.  This should have been Kate Winslet’s Oscar-winning performance.  It is nuanced, emotional, and absolutely gripping.  She immediately draws you in and never lets go.  Jackie Earle Haley does the unthinkable by turning a feared sexual predator into someone we can ultimately feel compassion for and empathize.  He moves you almost to the verge of tears, especially in scenes with his gentle and loving mother (Phyllis Sommerville).  Here, we see him as emotionally raw and not a pedophile, but as an insecure human being just like the rest of us.

But it’s time for me to stop writing and let the movie speak for itself.  I will say that the movie might be disturbing for some easily squeamish, mainly because of its brutally honest and often graphic portrayal of things that exist in our society.  Nevertheless, for a movie that will keep you thinking for days, drop everything and watch “Little Children.”  If you do see it, write your thoughts in a comment, or if you have seen it, still express yourself in a comment.

Until the next reel,
Marshall

P.S. – Watch the trailer.  It’s one of the rare ones that doesn’t give away anything about the plot. And it also sets you up for the ride that “Little Children” offers.

Steven Zeitchik – Hollywood Reporter

Warner Bros. and in-demand screenwriter Brad Ingelsby will develop a feature based on “Sacred Prey,” Vivian Schilling’s novel about a hit man who becomes the victim of his own takedown.

The high-concept thriller centers on a loan shark who kills a man he believes duped him, only to wake up and find himself in the body of that man three days before the murder. He then embarks on a furious effort to prevent the murder he committed.

Tentatively dubbed “Sacred Prey,” the project might yet get a new title, with “Hit Man” among the names being considered.

During the past 15 months, Ingelsby has climbed from an unknown to the top of the screenwriters’ pile.

An insurance salesman from Pennsylvania, Ingelsby created a sensation with “The Low Dweller,” a spec script he wrote on a lark. The dark thriller, which Leonardo DiCaprio and Ridley Scott quickly signed on to produce, ignited a bidding war that Relativity Media won.

Ingelsby soon had other projects set up at Hollywood studios, including the Todd Field-directed “Nancy & Danny” at Paramount and the Marc Forster-produced “Die Bad” at Universal.

In the Bedroom is Todd Field’s first film as a director, but it doesn’t feel like it. It is a mature, accomplished effort about the tragedy two parents face and of their often futile attempts to overcome it. There are lots of perfectly observed small details that make this a rich character study, and of course the two absolutely knock-out performances from Tom Wilkinson and Sissy Spacek don’t hurt. The scene where they finally break down their barriers and begin yelling at one another is brilliant and electrifying. William Mapother is also superb, and Nick Stahl and Marisa Tomei are pretty good, though to be honest, they were my least favorite things about the film. With this and Little Children, two near-perfect films, Field has begun a terrific directorial career. I can’t wait to see what he does with Blood Meridian.

A

Demorou, mas chegou… Esta semana a seleção de filmes está bem legal. Um filme nota 5, quatro nota 4, e um nota 3. Só para lembrar, a escala é a seguinte: de 0 a 2, não assista – não vale nem R$1,99! 3 é por sua conta, assista e tire sua conclusão. 4 e 5 eu “agarantio”: pode assistir sossegado, vale R$1,99! 

Menina Má.com: Uma adolescente inteligente e charmosa, Hayley, provavelmente não deveria ir a um café local se encontrar com Jeff, fotógrafo fashion de trinta e poucos anos que ela conheceu pela internet. Mas antes que ela perceba, já está preparando drinks na casa dele e prestes a fazer uma sessão de fotografia. É uma noite de sorte para Jeff. Mas Hayley não é tão inocente quanto parece, e a caça vira caçador quando ela começa a impor uma investigação penosa sobre Jeff numa tentativa de revelar um possível passado escandaloso.

Nota 5. Abordagem bem interessante, atual e muito bem estruturada. Tem algumas falhas, mas que fazem parte de um filme de ficção. De qualquer maneira, um filmaço.

Pecados Íntimos: Estamos em uma cidade suburbana onde um grupo de jovens casais passa seus dias absolutamente devotado ao sucesso de seus filhos – criados desde crianças para se transformarem em verdadeiros formandos de Harvard. Um mundo brilhante de filhos e pais perfeitos… pelo menos durante o dia. À noite, entre quatro paredes, tudo se transforma. E os papais e mamães perfeitos tentam escapar de suas rotinas nada excitantes recorrendo à pornografia na internet ou então a casos extraconjugais. E enquanto estes casais tentam recuperar em segredo a intensidade de seus dias de adolescência, suas vidas começam a se cruzar de maneira surpreendente e muito perigosa.

Nota 4. Diferente,  com um final surpreendente e muito interessante. Merece que seja visto.

Confissões de uma noiva: Samantha vê seus sonhos transformados em realidade quando seu namorado Ben a pede em casamento. Mas, as coisas se complicam quando um compromisso profissional a leva a trabalhar com o ex-namorado. Ela vai ter de decidir entre os dois.

Nota 4. Comédia romântica de altíssimo nível. Para o estilo, nota 4 sossegado e com louvor.  

Sem vestígios: Um predador perito em internet tem exibido seus assassinatos cruéis num website e o destino de suas vítimas fica nas mãos do público: quanto mais visitas o site recebe, mais rápido as vítimas morrem. A agente especial Jennifer Marsh e Griffin Dowd fazem parte de uma divisão dedicada a crimes de internet do FBI e se envolvem neste caso que torna-se pessoal e sem vestígios.

Nota 4. Filme bacana, bem pensado, mas um tanto quanto previsível. Como se trata de um filme policial, talvez se fosse tivéssemos mais surpresas seria nota 5. Mas tudo bem, vale a pena ver!

Casamento grego: Toula Portokalos (Nia Vardalos) é uma mulher desengonçada que trabalha com sua família em um restaurante. O sonho de seu pai, um tradicionalista grego, é ver Toula casada com um conterrâneo, mas ela é correspondida pelo inglês Ian Miller (John Corbett). Eles mantêm um namoro às escondidas, mas logo são descobertos e, a partir daí, Toula e Ian lutam para que haja a aceitação de sua família. Indicado ao Oscar de Melhor Roteiro Original.

Nota 3. Nada de tão engraçado como dizem por aí. Oscila entre momentos engraçados, e outros que dá até sono.

I wish I could land an older chick as hot as Marisa Tomei!

Screenplay By: Robert Festinger & Todd Field
Directed By: Todd Field

The title of the movie is In The Bedroom and the title carries through to the very end. It’s a little throwaway line said by Tom Wilkinson in an innocuous conversation with the young son of the girl his son is currently seeing. But, that nondescript line about how you can’t have three people in the bedroom becomes the focal point of the entire movie. Frank and Natalie can’t find happiness and only find tragedy because of the third person still in their bedroom. Richard destroys that relationship then he begins to destroy the relationship between Matt and Ruth just because of the fact he is still alive. In the emotionally damaged state of Matt and Ruth only one solution presents itself, kill Richard and they can move on with their lives. The deed is carried out, but Richard still lingers on, he is still the third person in the bedroom of their relationship. Matt and Ruth may have needed revenge, but now the result of their need lingers on well past the point when the credits begin to roll.

Just viewed as a standard family drama In The Bedroom is a heck of a movie, but when you take the above into account and the way the film deals with the idea of revenge you have a great movie on your hands. Thankfully I know nothing of the situation faced by the Fowler’s and Natalie, but the movie comes across as truthful in its story and in its look at revenge. That is a testament to the writing and direction of the film, that a subject matter I know little about feels emotionally honest to me.

Visually In The Bedroom is an arresting film, yet it sort of sneaks up on you. It wasn’t until around the middle of the film that I began to take notice of the excellent framing Todd Field was using and how expansive his camera was making the story. If you want an amazing looking nature shot then Field gives you that, or if you want a silent shot of a couple now sitting at a distance from each other with no idea of what to say in the wake of their devastation, Field gives you that as well. If I had to peg it, I would say that In The Bedroom has a staid visual style, the camera is restrained in its movement but when it needs to it isn’t afraid to open up and show you the larger picture and to do so in style.

I happen to be a big fan of the way that In The Bedroom went about revealing and layering its stories. Movies that take the type of approach to story that In The Bedroom did have always appealed to me. The best analogy I can think of is a sponge. If you squeeze a wet sponge hardly water comes pouring out in one quick windfall. However, if you squeeze said sponge slowly and softly water doesn’t come rushing out, tiny droplets slowly form and vacate their terrain. The droplets take their time to form and if your squeeze is slow they take their time to hit their target, giving you all the time in the world to study them and take in their appearance and their make. That is how In The Bedroom is told, it doesn’t come rushing at you, rather it slowly develops, giving you ample time to take in every moment and place that moment amidst the bigger picture.

Another tool that In The Bedroom brings to the table is silence. I have spoken in the past of the power of silence, and In the Bedroom understands the type of power that silence can command. To go along with the sponge analogy, the almost silent moments take place when you need time to breathe, to truly comprehend what you have just seen or what you are in the middle of seeing. There is a difference between the silence of two characters sitting still because the movie doesn’t know what to do with them, and the silence of two characters sitting still because the movie wants you to understand their feelings through their silence.

There are so many other things I can talk about, such as the way In The Bedroom tackles blame in a relationship. We search for blame when things are going well, and when they are bad it’s even worse. I could even go into the early moments when Frank is happily together with Natalie, a women with two children. I know what it is like to have a relationship with a women who has kids, it is truly different from any other relationship. I could also touch on the amazing suspense of the car ride with Matt and Richard. I knew exactly where that car ride was going and how it would end, but knowledge wasn’t the point. That car ride was similar to the return boat trip in Sunrise: A Song Of Two Humans, I wanted to turn away, I wanted to yell at Matt to not go down that path, but I couldn’t and so I watched and dreaded what was to come. I could even go into the wonderful acting on display in In The Bedroom. The nuanced performances of Tom Wilkinson and Sissy Spacek, the quiet hurt of Marisa Tomei or the childlike outlook of Nick Stahl.

I don’t think it’s hard to figure out from my writing that In The Bedroom is a movie that left a mark on me. It’s funny how that works, I hadn’t heard word one about In The Bedroom until a few months ago. Somehow this film skipped me by when it was released and was given rave reviews. If not for someone whose opinion on movies I happen to value mentioning In The Bedroom as a great movie I don’t know if I ever would have gotten around to watching it. I am very thankful for that positive word of mouth reaching my ears, because In The Bedroom was a powerful piece of cinema that will stay with me for some time to come. I think what I have written to this point is recommendation enough, all I can hope is that my positive word of mouth will get someone to check out In The Bedroom and discover the same finely made film that once passed me by.

Rating:

****

Cheers,
Bill

El cineasta Todd Field (En la Habitación, Juegos Secretos), ha sido contratado por Universal para adaptar The Creed of Violence, western que se basará en la novela de Boston Teran. Por el momento Field ha firmado simplemente para hacerse cargo del guión, aunque su habitual cercanía y celo por sus textos, seguramente le lleven a intentar dirigir también la película. Ese es el caso por ejemplo de Blood Meridian, futura adaptación de la novela de Cormac McCarthy en la que Field es guionista y director. En The Creed of Violence dos hombres -un bandolero y un agente del gobierno- intentan acabar con un grupo dedicado al tráfico de armas.

How long – if it is a trend – has it been in vogue to portray adults as just bigger, immature children? Is it part of the MOMMY DEAREST and PSYCHO thing, where the over-domineering parent is made that way because they’re just not equipped or mature enough to be in charge of kids? Well, whatever it is, I like it. I agree with it, both as an adult and as an observer of others. We are, just kids grown up and forced to continue whatever misguided thing was instilled in us from a young age by parents who went through the same thing with their parents, and so on.  And that’s kind of where the movies for today come from, adults that just aren’t quite ready to deal with the responsibility and sacrifice it is to have a child. 

SNOW ANGELS, the movie by David Gordon Green (director of PINEAPPLE EXPRESS) is about a small community and the relationships of the few people we follow around. First is Arthur, who we meet in band practice, as they march and attempt to play the Peter Gabriel song “Sledgehammer” and then all get yelled at by the band leader (played by Tom Noonan). He is giving them some cheesy, life affirming message – using lyrics from the song – in hopes that it makes them play the song better at their next game. Then we hear what seems to be a gunshot, then another; and then we are taken back to a “few weeks earlier”. 

Here we find Arthur (Michael Angarano) working as a dishwasher at a local chinese food restaurant, with Annie (Kate Beckinsale) and Barb (Amy Sedaris). After their introductions – we’re taken more into their lives. Annie has a daughter with separated husband Glenn (Sam Rockwell) – who after their initial split had tried to commit suicide and was taken to rehab. He has since taken  to christianity and quit drinking. Glenn’s been living with his parents and just got a job from his friend at a carpet store. 

Arthur is also dealing with a split-up of his own. His dad is moving out, leaving his mom and him. We don’t get much background here, other than the dad (played by Griffin Dunne) is gone a lot as is and has possibly played this game before of wanting to leave and then come back. The upside to all of this is that there’s also Lila (Olivia Thirlby) that seems to have an attraction to Arthur, and they hang out a lot. 

Throughout the movie, we see how the adults continually are weaving in and out of these relationships, acting like big babies or just wanting to have their way despite what it does to anyone else – even their family. Which sounds accusatory, but really isn’t that how we act? Sure, for the most part in “reality” we tend to wind up not making the dramatic choice to leave or to fuck our best-friend’s husband; but how many real life stories do you know that are just like that? 

There are some great moments of seeming real emotion in this movie. One in particular is when Lila and Arthur are in the school hallway and after one of the traumatic events in the movie. Where they’re hugging and the camera just pulls away from them, shaking and making it feel more authentic than some smooth tracking shot would have been. This isn’t a happy love story, even if at the end, our young main characters seem to be. But, the main emotional crux of the movie falls to Annie and Glenn. He wants her back, so he has his family again. But, he’s really only wanting it because that’s what it’s supposed to be like. There’s no real attachment between him and Annie, and not even really between him and his daughter. 

Annie does know what she wants, and wants to be able to take care of herself before having to deal with other people’s problems. Unfortunately, she has the little girl, and added to that she also has her mother that she does the grocery shopping for – while the mom seems to sit and watch TV shows all day. It takes begging to get the mom to leave the house – only to have her come over to Annie’s to watch the same shows. Annie is also having an affair with a friend’s husband, played by Nicky Katt. And soon that secret is revealed leaving another headache for Annie to deal with – especially when he then basically moves in with her. 

By the end of the movie, when we’ve caught up with where we were at the beginning, everyone’s lives are changed – and really no one’s for the better – but only in that it seems like they’re back to doing what they’re supposed to be. Not what they want to be doing.

LITTLE CHILDREN, written and directed by Todd Field (IN THE BEDROOM), is also about a small community of adults who are dealing with being kids, while having them. Only this one has a fascinating, if derivative, narration. The narration guides us through the lives and backgrounds of these characters like we’re being told a bed-time story. We’re introduced to Sarah (Kate Winslet), who is at a park with her daughter and three other moms. The moms all sit on one park bench gossiping and giving each other Oprah-like quips on life. Then like they’re at work, one mom blows a whistle for all the kids to come have snacks. The story only really starts because of two men; one which is called “The Prom King”, or Brad,  played by Patrick Wilson – who is a stay at home father who hadn’t brought his son to the same park in a matter of weeks now and on this fortuitous day does. When Sarah’s daughter runs over to swing beside The Prom King’s son, she is made to go over and talk to him. (One of the moms bets her five bucks that she can’t get his phone number! Sort of in that way that kids will bet a friend to go ring the door bell on some old, scary person’s house.) What she does instead causes the other moms to panic in a way we only see one other time in the movie. And that’s when the other main male character shows up at a public pool.

Ronnie J. McGorvey is a recently released sex-offender who has moved in with his mother, in the same neighborhood as our main characters. He’s played fantastically by Jackie Earle Haley, and is completely infantile and pathetic, but completely captivating (which garnered him an Oscar Nomination). He’s continually harassed by an ex-police officer played by Noah Emmerich, who also talks Brad into joining some fellow police men for a nighttime football league. 

The spouses of most of these characters are mostly unimportant, with the only one of any notice is Brad’s wife, who is played by Jennifer Connelly . And really her main purpose is to outshine Sarah in every way. Taller, perfect body; but as the saying goes, “show me a beautiful woman, and I’ll show you a man whose tired of fucking her”. Which, isn’t necessarily the truth, in the case of Brad. It’s just that after having had their son, the wife continually – and kind of creepily – fawns over the boy. Allowing him to sleep in their bed and constantly praising how perfect the boy is. Maybe if there actually was more of a real relationship, Brad would have no interest in Sarah, but then again; who knows? Of course it also kind of goes the other way with Sarah and her husband, who they both kind of seem tired of each other. She withdraws to her little study and walks with a neighbor; and he with…well, an online porn site. We never see any kind of relationship between these two, and it’s only because Winslet is so sympathetic an actor do we root for her longing for Brad. 

Of course, in the way that these movies are created, we are dealt some dramatic moments that lead to everyone having to choose a position and make a life-altering decision. The biggest plot line is with Ronnie and his tormentor, Walter (Emmerich). There are a couple of hints throughout the movie on where this relationship is going to go and even though it’s kind of cliched, it plays out – in the end – very emotional and satisfying. And on top of that, we don’t get complete closure on everything by the end of the movie. Their lives aren’t as settled as they are in SNOW ANGELS, although, by the end and through the circumstances that everyone goes through there’s plenty ways it could go. 

The one thing that I wasn’t expecting from LITTLE CHILDREN though, was the humor. Most of it coming from the secondary characters – like the moms and Sarah’s husband – but, I really enjoyed some of the absurdness of it. As much as it’s an unsettling scene, the one with Ronnie in the public pool, there’s also a nice, humorous way that he swims sort of like a shark swimming in a reef, with everyone else having made to get out of the pool and standing there looking in.

I don’t know the psychology and there’s not much I can go into about these characters from that standpoint. But, I see shades of relationships that I’ve had in them and I know people who could be perfect stand-ins for these roles. I think that what Winslet says in the movie, in a review of Madame Bovary, “It’s the hunger – the hunger for an alternative and the refusal to accept a life of unhappiness” is true. I think that what leads adults to act like children is – even if that’s not what she’s talking about above – is too many people choose unhappiness, because that’s what we’re led to believe is the “right” way to live our lives. 

I can’t say what is right or wrong, but what I seem to glean from these two movies are that the kids who choose to not want to ride in a car seat, or want to go out and play in the snow but can’t aren’t really that much different than the adults around them. And between the movies there seems to be a consistent representation between infidelity and blue toe-nail polish!

Also Recommended:
AMERICAN BEAUTY
THE ICE STORM
MAGNOLIA
RACHEL GETTING MARRIED

In the Bedroom

Director: Todd Field.

Guión: Todd Field y Robert Festinger, basado en la novela de Andre Dubus.

Intérpretes: Tom Wilkinson, Sissy Spacek, Marisa Tomey, Nick Stahl, William Mapother, William Wise, Celia Weston.

Música: Thomas Newman.

Fotografía: Antonio Calvache.

EEUU. 2001. 121 minutos.

Violencia

El actor y director Todd Field escogió como puesta de largo tras la cámara una obra de André Dubus (fallecido poco antes del estreno de la película, y a quien va dedicada). Aunque tengo que lamentar desconocer ese sustrato literario, a juzgar por el título de la obra (denominada Killings) y por la textura dramática ribeteada con (sutiles) aspavientos sociológicos de una película como In the Bedroom, cabe imaginar que se trata de una obra en cierto modo emparentada con el Mystic River de Dennis Lehane y Clint Eastwood: aunque tardemos en saberlo, en In the Bedroom se está hablando principalmente de la presencia de la violencia en el seno de una comunidad pacífica, y, mediante el relato de una venganza, efectuando especial hincapié en una mirada sobre la herencia generacional del odio y la violencia (ello circunscrito, o más bien extensible, a esa radiografía sociológica). Pero no nos llevemos a engaño. Allende esa esencia discursiva, no existe ninguna semejanza entre dos obras tan dispares como Mystic River e In the Bedroom. Donde Eastwood jugaba con los elementos del cine de suspense, Field opta por la senda melodramática, asfixiante en el minucioso relato del agónico sentir de los protagonistas del filme (el matrimonio Fowler, encarnados de forma soberbia por Tom Wilkinson y Sissy Spacek), asfixiante precisamente por el modo en que Field captura unos sentimientos arrojados al límite del abismo.

Voluntad de estilo

Vaya por delante, sin embargo, que la apuesta del realizador en su opera prima, sin duda arriesgada, se salda con resultados a menudo estimulantes, pero también irregulares. Es digna del mayor encomio la voluntad de estilo de Field, el modo en que el realizador elude la senda del fláccido melodrama televisivo, y se esmera por los sugerentes encuadres, por la elipsis, por la articulación de imágenes poderosas, a menudo escuetas secuencias descriptivas, que contienen la sordidez progresivamente  devoradora de su historia; por idéntica razón, Field rehuye en todo momento los subrayados musicales (que utiliza más bien poco, y con otros propósitos que los enfáticos) así como deja al silencio (que en un momento del metraje, Ruth dice que “se puede cortar”) la labor de dotar de complejidad a las funestas emociones que conciernen a los Fowler. Al respecto, decir que esa regla sólo se quiebra, descontando los diálogos con secundarios como Willis o el abogado, en un clímax de encarnizados reproches mutuos entre Matt y Ruth, secuencia climática que literaliza las pulsiones más íntimas (y opuestas) de cada personaje, y que Field ya no domina con la misma habilidad: no es la dureza de los diálogos, sino la actuación de Wilkinson y Spacek, que salvan la escena.

Requiebro argumental

La contención descriptiva, a menudo fascinante, se lleva a otros parámetros en el último tramo del metraje, en la tesis que la película propone. Esa larga secuencia de la venganza no quiebra en sí misma la envolvente atmósfera de la función, pero sí que se resiente en el apartado argumental: la súbita ruptura que propone en su mirada a los personajes quizá sirve al discurso, e incluso funciona a la perfección en términos de intensidad, pero resulta demasiado forzada como culminación narrativa de lo expuesto en lo precedente (mal que pese a los que aburra el tono contemplativo de la película, según mi opinión hubiera sido interesante alargar el metraje previo a esa culminación, no dejar en el terreno de lo elíptico el planeamiento de ese ajuste de cuentas).

Fragilidad

Con sus pros y sus contras, In the Bedroom resultó una propuesta interesante, y reveló la personalidad y talento de un realizador que alcanzó mayores cotas con su segunda y más redonda obra, Little Children; por ambas películas debemos agradecerle a Field su empecinado afán por rehuir todos los clichés y atreverse a escarbar en la sustancia patológica que anida en el ser humano, bajo la fragilidad de eso que damos en llamar rutina, y que amenaza y acaba emergiendo con su fuerza destructiva. La parábola trágica era quizá demasiado radical en In the bedroom, y en los conflictos de más ordinaria apariencia que se plantean en Little Children alcanza un mejor cauce el trazo descriptivo, de tantos y tan finos hilos, que nos propone el realizador, a quien tras sus dos obras debemos considerar un avezado adaptador de obras literarias y un perito del despacho cinematográfico de las pulsiones más recónditas del alma.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0247425/

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/in_the_bedroom/

Todas las imágenes pertenecen a sus autores.

Continuing from my previous post.

Meet Todd.  Jock.  College graduate.  Law school graduate.  Not yet a lawyer.  Husband, father of a young son.  Wife smokin’ hot.  Or, meet Brad (as he’s renamed in the movie version).

Still a jock, a college graduate, a law school graduate, still not yet a lawyer.  Wife still smokin’ hot.

Tom Perrotta’s book summarizes Todd/Brad’s appearance as having “generic…good looks, a pleasantly bland quality” like “one of those cheerful men who modeled jockey shorts” and “smiling confidently” (31).  Patrick Wilson was certainly well-cast.  I included some analysis of Todd Field’s film in my MA thesis, which you can see below:

^~!~^

There are more football scenes in the novel (probably twice as many, mentioned or described at length).  Thematically, the football functions essentially the same in both the film and the novel.  It’s just the ending that differs.  In the film, Brad’s wife is at the scene of Brad’s skateboarding wipe-out.  In the novel, she isn’t.  One of the guys with whom Todd played football is there–in his police uniform.  The film implies that Brad’s connection and opportunity to indulge in football activities is dependent upon his link to Sarah.  The novel suggests that she isn’t necessary in that respect (anymore).

See more Little Children images here.

See more of Patrick Wilson here.

Little Children

Director: Todd Field.

Guión: Todd Field y Tom Perrotta, basado en la obra del último.

Intérpretes: Kate Winslet, Patrick Wilson, Jennifer Connelly, Gregg Edelman, Noah Emmerich, Jackie Earle Haley.

Música: Thomas Newman.

Fotografía: Antonio Calvache.

EEUU. 2006. 110 minutos

Segunda obra

Cuando en fecha de su estreno visioné In the bedroom, la opera prima de Todd Field, recogí impresiones más bien encontradas: me pareció de lo más interesante su minimalismo y su lacónica pero contundente fórmula expresiva, así como la voluntad de estilo de su realizador; por el contrario, detecté cierto quiebro de ritmo y contenido en los últimos compases, que daban al traste con la contención previa hacia cierta sordidez discursiva acaso un pelín pretenciosa. Vaya por delante al respecto que Little Children -¿qué costaba titularla por su nombre en castellano? Os lo diré: probablemente se arguye que los padres la confundirían con una película para ver con sus hijos; en fin…- es una película más redonda que su predecesora, y con la que, a pesar de las diferencias temáticas, mantiene un correlato formal en su esmero escénico y en la capacidad para la sugestión de no pocas situaciones que plantea (y el modo en que Field las aborda).

Crisis

Adaptando una novela de Tom Perrotta (autor literario y director comparten el mérito de la adaptación), Little Children es un filme con (más bien falsa) apariencia de coral, en la que, mediante las narraciones más o menos cruzadas de los sinos emocionales de diversos personajes que residen en un mismo barrio adinerado de las afuera de Nueva York, efectúa un a menudo acerado sumario de los vicios y miserias de la moderna burguesía y, aún más, un ávido retrato del sentido trágico dimanante de esas crisis de valores. En ese sentido de tesis, y sin que las suponga referentes, el filme me recuerda poderosamente algunas de las obras de Paul Thomas Anderson o de Sean Penn, de éste último principalmente The Crossing Guard y The Pledge, películas que afrontaban de modos opuestos el sentido de la redención y al respecto de los que Little Children podríamos situar en una audaz equidistancia. El filme se abre a sus personajes mediante una sucesión de set-piéces bien concatenadas y finalmente compiladas con sabia coherencia. La premisa de la relación incestuosa entre los dos padres que se mantienen más bien ociosos al cuidado de sus niños mientras sus parejas “llevan el pan” va revistiéndose, constante el metraje, de un inteligente cinismo expositivo –en el que resulta interesante la equiparación de sexos que el filme, en su afán de verismo, logra hacer plausible-, mientras que, en un extremo opuesto de la narración (poniendo las etiquetas que el filme denuncia, la de los culpables que se contraponen a los inocentes) un paidófilo incapaz de controlar sus malsanos impulsos y un ex-policía acuciado por una rabia mal reprimida que proviene de su sentido de culpa deben lidiar con nada más y menos que su propia condición. El filme arroja a todos los personajes a su encrucijada, pero sólo aquéllos que están aturdidos por el más hondo dolor (o culpa) abrazan una catarsis, mientras que los otros (quizá precisamente por esa falta de urgencia emocional) son incapaces de afrontar sus decisiones con entereza o incluso la más elemental madurez (el ejemplo del padre está resuelto con especial saña).

Desasimiento

En las sugerentes coordenadas narrativas que Perrotta promovía con su novela (y coautoría del guión) Field sabe alcanzar algo difícil, un voluntarioso desasimiento de tono, presto a mixturar lo dramático con lo risible o satírico, sin que el ritmo se resienta de ello. Asimismo, el gusto por la planificación y detalle en el apartado escénico nos depara diversos momentos cinematográficos que no pueden catalogarse por menos que brillantes. Destaco una larga secuencia que casi contiene el epítome del filme, aquélla en la piscina en la que la cámara se acerca con suavidad al juego de seducción para pasar a la descripción del auténtico peligro que, tan inopinadamente como las imágenes en nuestra retina, se ha colado en las tranquilas y asépticas aguas de una piscina en la que los niños se ríen y chapotean.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0404203/

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/movies/moviesspecial/10hold.html

Todas las imágenes pertenecen a sus autores.

One of the great gifts of the cinema is that of a fearless assessment of human motivations. Great films can cause us to wonder about civilization, about the constructs of our genus and about why we build the lives we build. In 2006, Little Children was tasked with this notion. Based on the novel of the same name by Tom Perrotta, Todd Field’s movie pitilessly examines the shadowy slivers of suburbia.

In many ways, Little Children is a piece of satire. Its target is yuppie routine: that of affairs and gossip. To further his point, Field has included a narrator (Will Lyman). Little Children shares a considerable amount of thematic content with American Beauty and similar films. There is the view of perversity, for instance, lurking beneath the white picket fence exterior. There is the “wrong” relationship. And there is the “right” relationship.

Sarah Pierce (Kate Winslet) is a disinclined homemaker floating coldly through life in an upper-middle class neighbourhood in Boston. She is a former feminist and academic, but she has settled for a rather dull existence and ostensibly succumbed to the romanticism that normalcy brings. Sarah feels as though she has no purpose and views her daughter, Lucy (Sadie Goldstein), as an “unknowable little person.” Lucy is a suburban ornament, crated around to parks and pools in an effort to join the amorphous pack.

Sarah’s relationship with her husband, Richard (Gregg Edelman), is odd. They rarely communicate. He has taken to masturbating to an online porn site with panties on his head. Empty and unhappy as her life is, Sarah becomes durable through the vitality of the little victories. She smiles after making witty remarks to the Stepford-esque wives in the park. She gets a charge out of asking for a hug from the cute stay-at-home dad, Brad (Patrick Wilson).

Brad is the talk of the suburbs because of his emasculated function. His wife (Jennifer Connelly) is a documentary filmmaker. Upon meeting Sarah, Brad also discovers a “charge” and the two become playful. The flirtation accelerates with the unremitting strain of time and soon the two are engaged in a fiery affair.

Also in the mix is Ronnie (Jackie Earle Haley), a sex offender. He lives with his mother (Phillis Somerville). Larry (Noah Emmerich), a former cop, has made it his mission to ensure that Ronnie’s stay in the neighbourhood is less than cosy. He pesters him regularly, displacing his own failings on the sex offender.

How these stories entwine and why they have value in relation to one another is something I’ll leave to the viewer. Every character matters in Field’s grand motion picture and each one is so deftly drawn as to be appalling and wholly significant all at once. To be sure, the little children of which the title speaks are not the accessories these people lug from place to place. Instead, the immaturity and illogicality lies with the “adults.”

The performances are impeccable, led by the greatest single actress of our generation in Kate Winslet. Her ability to transform herself into the normalcy of suburbia is awe-inspiring. As she pushes her daughter on the swings in mandatory “mom” overalls, for instance, Winslet purely lives the part. The other players are also fantastic, especially Haley. I have not had the pleasure of seeing him before (that I recall) and I assure you he is an absolute delight.

Little Children is a tremendous motion picture, sparkling with piercing satire and sweltering sexuality. There are freaks of some sort behind every door in this suburban hellhole and Field’s summons to this outlandish earth should be accepted cheerfully by anyone interested in modern cinema at its finest.

9.7/10

Trailer:

Dientag, 20.01.09 | 00.40 – 02.45 | ORF2 | USA 2002 | Regie: Todd Field

Das Ehepaar Fowler scheint Glück und Zufriedenheit für sich gepachtet zu haben. Dr. Matt Fowler betreibt eine kleine Praxis im Ort und seine Frau findet ihre Erfüllung in dem Chor, den sie erfolgreich von einer Aufführung zur nächsten leitet. Einzig die Beziehung ihres gerade einmal volljährigen Sohnes zu einer in Trennung lebenden, reiferen Frau, passt nicht so ganz in ihr kleinbürgerliches Weltbild. Als Frank eines Tages tot aufgefunden wird, droht die heile Welt der Fowlers in sich zusammenzustürzen. Preisgekröntes Regiedebüt.

Trailer: