Showing posts with label Jack Coyle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jack Coyle. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 27, 2024



By JAKE COYLE
Updated 3:12 PM EST, November 27, 2024

NEW YORK (AP) — Angelina Jolie never expected to hit all the notes. But finding the breath of Maria Callas was enough to bring things out of Jolie that she didn’t even know were in her.

“All of us, we really don’t realize where things land in our body over a lifetime of different experiences and where we hold it to protect ourselves,” Jolie said in a recent interview. “We hold it in our stomachs. We hold it in our chest. We breathe from a different place when we’re nervous or we’re sad.

“The first few weeks were the hardest because my body had to open and I had to breathe again,” she adds. “And that was a discovery of how much I wasn’t.”

In Pablo Larraín’s “Maria,” which Netflix released in theaters Wednesday before it begins streaming on Dec. 11, Jolie gives, if not the performance of her career, then certainly of her last decade. Beginning with 2010’s “In the Land of Blood and Honey,” Jolie has spent recent years directing films while prioritizing raising her six children.

“So my choices for quite a few years were whatever was smart financially and short. I worked very little the last eight years,” says Jolie. “And I was kind of drained. I couldn’t for a while.”

But her youngest kids are now 16. And for the first time in years, Jolie is back in the spotlight, in full movie-star mode. Her commanding performance in “Maria” seems assured of bringing Jolie her third Oscar nomination. (She won supporting actress in 2000 for “Girl, Interrupted.”) For an actress whose filmography might lack a signature movie, “Maria” may be Jolie’s defining role.

Jolie’s oldest children, Maddox and Pax, worked on the set of the film. There, they saw a version of their mother they hadn’t seen before.

“They had certainly seen me sad in my life. But I don’t cry in front of my children like that,” Jolie says of the emotion Callas dredged up in her. “That was a moment in realizing they were going to be with me, side by side, in this process of really understanding the depth of some of the pain I carry.”

Jolie, who met a reporter earlier this fall at the Carlyle Hotel, didn’t speak in any detail of that pain. But it was hard not to sense some it had to do with her lengthy and ongoing divorce from Brad Pitt, with whom she had six children.

Just prior to meeting, a judge allowed Pitt’s remaining claim against Jolie, over the French winery Château Miraval, to proceed. On Monday, a judge ruled that Pitt must disclose documents Jolie’s legal team have sought that they allege include “communications concerning abuse.” Pitt has denied ever being abusive.

The result of the U.S. presidential election was also just days old, though Jolie — special envoy for the United Nations Refugee Agency from 2012 to 2022 – wasn’t inclined to talk politics. Asked about Donald Trump’s win, she responded, “Global storytelling is essential,” before adding: “That’s what I’m focusing on. Listening. Listening to the voices of people in my country and around the world.”

Balancing such things — reports concerning her private life, questions that accompany someone of her fame — is a big reason why Jolie is so suited to the part of Callas. The film takes place during the American-born soprano’s final days. (She died of a heart attack at 53 in 1977.) Spending much of her time in her grand Paris apartment, Callas hasn’t sung publicly in years; she’s lost her voice. Imprisoned by the myth she’s created, Callas is redefining herself and her voice. An instructor tells her he wants to hear “Callas, not Maria.” The movie, of course, is more concerned with Maria.

It’s Larrain’s third portrait of 20th century female icon, following “Jackie” (with Natalie Portman as Jacqueline Kennedy) and “Spencer” (with Kristen Stewart as Princess Diana). As Callas, Jolie is wonderfully regal — a self-possessed diva who deliciously, in lines penned by screenwriter Steven Knight, spouts lines like: “I took liberties all my life and the world took liberties with me.”

Asked if she identified with that line, Jolie answered, “Yeah, yeah.” Then she took a long pause.

“I’m sure people will read a lot into this and there’s probably a lot I could say but don’t want to feed into,” Jolie eventually continues. “I know she was a public person because she loved her work. And I’m a public person because I love my work, not because I like being public. I think some people are more comfortable with a public life, and I’ve never been fully comfortable with it.”

When Larraín first approached Jolie about the role, he screened “Spencer” for her. That film, like “Jackie” and “Maria,” eschews a biopic approach to instead intimately focus on a specific moment of crisis. Larraín was convinced Jolie was meant for the role.

“I felt she could have that magnetism,” Larraín says. “The enigmatic diva that’s come to a point in her life where she has to take control of her life again. But the weight of her experience, of her music, of her singing, everything, is on her back. And she carries that. It’s someone who’s already loaded with a life that’s been intense.”

“There’s a loneliness that we both share,” Jolie says. “That’s not necessarily a bad thing. I think people can be alone and lonely sometimes, and that can be part of who they are.”

Larraín, the Chilean filmmaker, grew up in Santiago going to the opera, and he has long yearned to bring its full power and majesty to a movie. In Callas, he heard something that transfixed him.

“I hear something near perfection, but at the same time, it’s something that’s about to be destroyed,” Larraín says. “So it’s as fragile and as strong as possible. It lives in both extremes. That’s why it’s so moving. I hear a voice that’s about to be broken, but it doesn’t.”

In Callas’ less perfect moments singing in the film, Larraín fuses archival recordings of Callas with Jolie’s own voice. Some mix of the two runs throughout “Maria.” “Early in the process,” Jolie says, “I discovered that you can’t fake-sing opera.”

Jolie has said she never sang before, not even karaoke. But the experience has left her with a newfound appreciation of opera and its healing properties.

“I wonder if it’s something you lean into as you get older,” Jolie says. “Maybe your depth of pain is bigger, your depth of loss is bigger, and that sound in opera meets that, the enormity of it.”

If Larraín’s approach to “Maria” is predicated on an unknowingness, he’s inclined to say something similar about his star.

“Because of media and social media, some people might think that they know a lot about Angelina,” he says. “Maria, I read nine biographies of her. I saw everything. I read every interview. I made this movie. But I don’t think I would be capable of telling you who she was us. So if there’s an element in common, it’s that. They carry an enormous amount of mystery. Even if you think that you know them, you don’t.”

Whether “Maria” means more acting in the future for Jolie, she’s not sure. “There’s not a clear map,” she says. Besides, Jolie isn’t quite ready to shake Callas.

“When you play a real person, you feel at some point that they become your friend,” says Jolie. “Right now, it’s still a little personal. It’s funny, I’ll be at a premiere or I’ll walk into a room and someone will start blaring her music for fun, but I have this crazy internal sense memory of dropping to my knees and crying.”


Posted by at
Labels: , ,

Wednesday, October 11, 2017




"They (Paltrow and Jolie) wanted to come forward in the wake of the first story we broke. They wanted to support other women."



By LINDSEY BAHR

NEW YORK -- They waited years to speak, but two of Hollywood's most powerful women might have helped seal the fate of Harvey Weinstein.

Both Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie added their first-person accounts of uncomfortable experiences with Weinstein to the ever-growing list of accusations against the movie mogul from women alleging decades of systematic sexual harassment and assault. The accusers have come from everywhere - actresses you've heard of, actresses you haven't, models, assistants, employees, a reporter and young women who found themselves in the orbit of the powerful executive.

But, as the story often goes, no one expected it to go this high.

Speaking to The New York Times, in the paper's second round of Weinstein exposés, Paltrow describes a now familiar-sounding scene of her at age 22 being asked to meet Weinstein, who had just cast her as the title character in the adaptation of Jane Austen's "Emma." She was summoned to Weinstein's hotel room, where he proceeded to touch her and suggest a massage in the bedroom.

Jolie also remembered Weinstein making advances in a hotel room early in her career. She never worked with him again.

The damning accounts came just hours after The New Yorker published its own explosive investigation into Weinstein's conduct that included three accusations of rape: One from Italian actress and director Asia Argento. There were accounts of harassment from Mira Sorvino and Rosanna Arquette and others too. The New Yorker also reported that 16 former and current executives and assistants at The Weinstein Co. and Miramax either witnessed or knew of Weinstein's unwanted sexual advances: "All sixteen said the behavior was widely known within both Miramax and the Weinstein Company."

It is a list that continued to grow Tuesday as the minutes ticked by. After the one-two punch of the Times and The New Yorker articles Tuesday, more accusations followed too. One from a former actress who recounted Weinstein meeting her wearing a bathrobe with nothing on underneath at the Sundance Film Festival in 2008, the other from actress Heather Graham, who says he implied she would have to sleep with him for a role.

A representative for the mogul vehemently denied allegations of non-consensual sex in a statement to the magazine.

"I can't think of a movie-business scandal of this scale," author and entertainment writer Mark Harris tweeted on Tuesday. "It pushes into and implicates every corner of the industry."

The entertainment industry, which Weinstein ruled for so long, is quaking at the revelations from Paltrow, Jolie and others.

"These are people who everyone knows and everyone respects," said Anne Thompson, the editor at large of IndieWire. "I thought he was done before."

Paltrow might have been early in her career when she met Weinstein in that hotel room, but she was hardly an unknown in Hollywood circles.

"Gwyneth Paltrow is a child of Hollywood," Thompson said. "She's Steven Spielberg's goddaughter. This is someone who all the powerful people in Hollywood know very well as a family friend."

Tuesday's revelations might be the death knell for the era of Harvey Weinstein.

After last week's initial report from the Times, which spotlighted accounts from Ashley Judd and sexual harassment settlements given to people like Rose McGowan, condemnations trickled in from Hollywood and Washington D.C. But as the days went by and accusations both continued and escalated, it soon turned into a flood. Now President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, Bob Iger, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Judd Apatow, Judi Dench, Glenn Close and more and have all come out with statements against him and in support of the women who are speaking out.
Even Weinstein's wife of 10 years, Marchesa designer Georgina Chapman, said Tuesday that she plans to divorce him. The company he helped co-found not only fired him, but its board of directors, including his brother Bob Weinstein, stated that Weinstein's "alleged actions are antithetical to human decency" and that they had no knowledge of this conduct. The University of Southern California School of Cinematic Arts rejected a $5 million pledge from Weinstein that was intended for a female filmmaker endowment.

Weinstein, it seems, has no one left on his side but his lawyers, and possibly Lindsay Lohan, who said in an Instagram story late Tuesday that she feels "very bad" for him.

For now, everyone is waiting to see where the chips will fall and who will be implicated or exposed in what The New Yorker described as a "culture of complicity" that could extend far outside the confines of Miramax and Weinstein Company employees.

Weinstein himself has not commented since the initial Times expose published last week. Others are wondering whether accusations will come out against more powerful men in the industry, or if real changes might start to be implemented.

"I worry that when predators like Weinstein go away, the whole web of obstacles for women in business remains," wrote actor Alan Alda on Twitter. "Still lots of work to be done."

The same thing is on the mind of Cathy Schulman, the president of the advocacy group Women in Film, who says that the culture that allowed Weinstein to operate for so long is related to the vast underrepresentation of women in Hollywood in all aspects of the business.

"One thing I haven't seen is a lot of statements from the big corporations. I haven't seen the studios and networks and agencies make comments. At the end of the day, what are they going to do? It's those people who make decisions about which content to finance. Are they going to make a change because of all this? That's the big question mark," she asked.

"Frankly if everyone is going to speak up and it's going to be yesterday's fish wrap and let's wait for a hiatus and bring the guys back, then what have we really done?"
___
AP Film Writer Jake Coyle contributed from New York.


variety

Disney CEO Bob Iger weighed in on the sexual harassment allegations against media mogul Harvey Weinstein.
“Harvey Weinstein’s reported behavior is abhorrent and unacceptable, and it has no place in our society,” Iger said in a statement obtained by Variety on Tuesday.
The Walt Disney Company owned Weinstein’s Miramax from 1993 to 2005. Disney said it was “unaware of any complaints, lawsuits or settlements” regarding Weinstein’s sexual behavior while Miramax’s was owned by Disney, according to the New York Times. Weinstein left Disney in 2005 to found the Weinstein Company, where he was recently ousted following the New York Times misconduct bombshell.
In Disney’s statement to the Times, the company said Weinstein and his brother, Bob Weinstein, “operated and managed their business with virtual autonomy” during their tenure there.
Michael Eisner, who ran Disney while the Weinsteins operated Miramax there, responded to the allegations earlier on Tuesday. “Fired Weinsteins because they were irresponsible, and Harvey was an incorrigible bully. Had no idea he was capable of these horrible actions,” he wrote on Twitter.
On Tuesday, the New Yorker published a devastating article alleging Weinstein raped three women. The news follows the New York Times’ original investigation last Thursday, which detailed three decades of sexual harassment allegations against Weinstein. Since, dozens of women including Angelina Jolie, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Heather Graham have come forward with their accounts of Weinstein’s sexual assault and harassment.



The dam finally burst on the Harvey Weinstein story. Now everyone is writing that it’s amazing it took this long. For years there were the whispers, but not the evidence. Harvey spent most of the hours of his working day ensuring that all the bad stories went away, killed, evaporated, spun into something diametrically its opposite. It was a common sight outside a Harvey opening party to see one of his publicists trapped in a car on the phone, spinning — spinning the dross of some new outrage into gold.
When I founded Talk magazine in 1998 with Miramax, the movie company Harvey founded with his brother Bob, I also took over the running of their  fledgling book  company with Jonathan Burnham as editor in chief. Strange contracts pre-dating us would suddenly surface, book deals with no deadline attached authored by attractive or nearly famous women, one I recall was by the stewardess on a private plane. It was startling — and professionally mortifying — to discover how many hacks writing  gossip columns or entertainment coverage were on the Miramax payroll with a “consultancy” or  a “development deal” (one even at The New York Times).
Harvey engaged sexual harassment’s legal bulldog, Lisa Bloom, she who brought down Bill O’Reilly and recently appeared on the stage of Women in the World’s Canada Summit as thrilling feminist avenger. Then, it emerged The Weinstein Company bought Bloom’s book on Trayvon Martin for a movie — classic Harvey M.O. Even Bloom’s mother, Gloria Allred was appalled (and perhaps the critical voice in making her daughter quit).
An occupational hazard of editing Talk was aborting the pieces Harvey assigned on his nightly trolling from reporters who had tried to get a bad rumor confirmed. Another of his co-opting tactics was to offer a juicy negative nugget about one of the movie stars in his films or people in his media circle (fairly often, me) in a trade to quash a dangerous piece about himself.
What I learned about Harvey in the two years of proximity with him at Talk was that nothing about his outward persona, the beguiling Falstaffian charmer who persuaded — or bamboozled — me into leaving The New Yorker and joining him, was the truth. He is very Trumpian in that regard.
He comes off as a big, blustery, rough diamond kind of a guy, the kind of old-time studio chief who lives large, writes big checks and exudes bonhomie. Wrong. The real Harvey is fearful, paranoid, and hates being touched (at any rate, when fully dressed).
Winning, for him, was a blood sport. Deals never close. They are renegotiated down to the bone after the press release. A business meeting listening to him discuss Miramax deals in progress reminded me of the wire tap transcripts of John Gotti and his inner circle at the Bergin Hunt and Fish Club in Queens. “So just close it fast, then fuck him later with the subsidiary rights.”
Like all bullies, he folds when he’s faced down and becomes wheedling and sycophantic. His volcanic rage erupts from raw insecurity. I often used to wonder if the physical dissonance between his personal grossness and his artistic sensibility — which was genuine — made him crazy. It’s no accident that Harvey’s preferred routine for sexual entrapment was to strip down and open the door of his hotel suite in an open bathrobe, or nothing at all. A rich, powerful movie mogul could now do what he couldn’t all those years in high school and tell a beautiful, cowering girl: This is who I am. Now that everyone knows the truth, deep down it may be, for him, a relief.
It takes one brave whistleblower and then two to get the ball rolling and give the shattered sharers of the same story permission to speak out to The New York Times. Kudos to Ashley Judd and Rose McGowan, and now all the many new voices captured by Ronan Farrow in The New Yorker. Harvey is an intimidating and ferocious man. Crossing him, even now, is scary. But it’s a different era now. Cosby. Ailes. O‘Reilly, Weinstein. It’s over, except for one — the serial sexual harasser in the White House.



















Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, September 13, 2017






TORONTO (AP) — Angelina Jolie arrives for an interview with the familiar harried air of a parent who has just barely managed to withdraw from her children, all six of whom she’s left having breakfast upstairs in their Toronto hotel suite.

“The reason I was a little late is they made me change,” Jolie says, smiling. “They thought what I was wearing was too revealing.”

It’s just another example of the extreme balancing act of Jolie’s life, one which combines global celebrity with humanitarian devotion, A-list stardom with sober filmmaking, glamour and family. “I actually went to a premiere once with pee on me,” she says. “It was when the kids were little and I just got peed on at the last minute. There was nothing to do but wear it.”

But Jolie’s latest film, the powerfully immersive Cambodian genocide drama “First They Killed My Father,” represents a kind of amalgamation of Jolie’s multifarious life. Her initial interest in Cambodia came when she arrived — in a much earlier life — to make “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider” in 2000. She became infatuated with the country and its people, began goodwill work for the U.N.’s refugee agency and adopted her first child, Maddox, from Cambodia.

“First They Killed My Father,” which hits Netflix and select theaters Friday, is based on Loung Ung’s 2000 memoir. The film hues close to Ung’s perspective as a five-year-old girl living with her family in Phnom Penn when the Khmer Rouge march in, force the residents to flee and then imprison Ung’s family in a labor camp, brutally indoctrinating them to a classless society. Some two million (nearly a quarter of the country) died during the Khmer Rouge’s four year reign of terror.

The film isn’t just a shattering view of war through a child’s eyes, it’s intended as a cathartic healing for Cambodia itself, and a personal journey into the past of Maddox’s countrymen. The 16-year-old, credited as an executive producer, collaborated with her mother on the production, which was shot in Cambodia with local actors, both professional and not.

“I said to my son Maddox, who’s known Luong his whole life, when you’re ready, we should tell Luong’s story. But we have to tell it together,” Jolie says. “We had this script for a few years and he came up to me and said, ‘I’m ready.’”

Jolie’s heavily-watched appearance at the Toronto International Film Festival was her most public since she filed for divorce from Brad Pitt after 12 years together — two of them married. Jolie acknowledged it’s been a difficult period of transition and that her filmmaking has been put on pause. She has an acting gig lined up (“Maleficent 2”) but the yearslong work of directing has for now been tabled.

“I’ve needed to take over a year off just to be with my kids,” Jolie says. “All I’ve done is some of my humanitarian work and my teaching. I’ve done nothing else for over a year. Now that they’re all older, the decisions really have to be made together because they home school and they’ll be with me and they have a lot of opinions about what to do.”

Now that her children are getting older, Jolie hopes that the other children will work with her, too. But, she assures, Maddox had to work hard, and wouldn’t have earned a credit if he didn’t.
“I asked Maddox and Pax if they’d work with me again. I think all the kids eventually want to do something. My little boy who’s nine said he wants to train me because he thinks I’m out of shape. So maybe I’ll just be working with my children,” says Jolie, joking but also delighted about the idea: a close-knit, globe-trotting clan of moviemaking adventurers, schooled in classrooms in Cambodian rice fields and African plains. “Now,” she says, “where next?”

Luong Ung, 47, came to Vermont from a refugee camp in Thailand as a 10-year-old. She now is married and lives in Cleveland, but she and Jolie have long been friends. She and Jolie co-wrote the script. Jolie also enlisted Rithy Panh, the Oscar-nominated director of the Cambodian genocide documentary “The Missing Picture,” as co-producer.

“There’s probably a Hollywood version of this, but this wasn’t about that,” says Ung. “This was about honor and celebration and remembrance.”

If Pahn had said no, or if she couldn’t film the movie in Cambodia, Jolie says she wouldn’t have made “First They Killed My Father.” For a county still struggling with its history of genocide, the process of remembering and re-enacting was more important than the finished work. “It’s not really the film itself,” says Jolie. “Preparing to make it was also preparing to understand and communicate with a country and help a country to speak.”

Pahn likes to joke that Jolie, 42, is “a Cambodian woman reincarnated.” It’s clear that the two are bonded by a strong belief in family. Pahn’s experience may represent Cambodia’s, but “First They Killed My Father” is also an indelibly heart-wrenching story about a family torn apart by war, yet unbroken.

“Even when the soldiers told us my parents were enemies of the state, I knew they loved me and I loved them. There was never a question about that,” says Pahn. “After I lost them, what they said to me at a young age, their spirits continue to say to me. I continue to be raised by my parents.”
Making the film had its own emotions. Jolie had a therapist on set for those whose memories were too painfully resurrected. One man dropped to his knees when he saw the Khmer Rouge actors marching over a bridge. Despite the care taken in the process, Jolie found herself defending the film’s casting process after she was quoted in Vanity Fair describing an improvisation game in which money would be given and then taken from young actors. Jolie says the suggestion that it was a real scenario was “false and upsetting.”

Jolie instead hopes the film brings audiences closer to the Cambodian people, as well as other countries now experiencing violent tumult. “This could be Syria,” she says. “This could be Myanmar.” But it also concludes Jolie’s most massive undertaking — a movie made for an entire country.

“I didn’t plan on becoming a director,” Jolie says. “But through directing I’ve had to learn a lot. And I’ve tried different styles and I’ve learned different things. When I did ‘Unbroken,’ I was going to the classics that I loved and trying to understand that. This one, I think I finally found something that was just mine, that wasn’t something that I was in any way trying to emulate. I was thinking: I know children and I love the way children look at things.”
___
Follow AP Film Writer Jake Coyle on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/jakecoyleAP



Interview Highlights

On what Ung thought was happening when the Khmer Rouge told her family they had to leave Phnom Penh
Loung Ung: I had no idea where we were going. ... The soldiers, the Khmer Rouge soldiers, came in their trucks with black shirts and pants and carrying guns and grenades on their belts and also wearing huge smiles and screaming to the people that the war was over, the war was over, and to pack as little as we could to sustain us for three days and we could come back after three days. Those were the hopes and the dreams that I held on to. I completely believed that we could come back in three days.
 And my family and I eventually ended up at various different work camps moving from one work camp to another. And it didn't matter if you were 6 or 60; you worked. You built trenches, you [dug] dams, you grew food to support a war you didn't want, didn't know about. And we had no say in it at all.

On the last time she saw her father
Ung: This is a little over a year into the Khmer Rouge rule, and information was sparse. We didn't know what was going on; we didn't know what was happening. But we did notice that people were starting to disappear in the village — that a brother over there, or a sister or an uncle or a father were quietly disappearing into the night. So we knew something was up. But my child's heart didn't want to know any of this until the soldiers — two of them— came to collect my father. And they had, again, guns, and they came in and asked [for] my father by his name and said that they needed him to go and remove an ox cart stuck in the mud.
And I remember very clearly that my father went into the hut and talked to my mother, and then how she sobbed and she cried in a way I've never heard her cry before. It was like an animal caged and not knowing where to go next. And then when he came out of the hut, one by one, he picked up my brothers and sister in his arms. And when it was my turn, I had the instinct of heart to wrap my arms around his neck and to rest my face next to his cheek and just knowing that I would never see him again. And he walked off into the sunset with the soldiers on either side of him.
And I remember also very clearly wondering how there could be such beauty in the world when there was only hell and hurt to my heart. And we were told later that my father had been taken and was later executed.

On coming to understand her mother's decision to send her and her siblings away
Ung: She gathered my brother, Kim, my sister, Chou, myself and another sister, Geak, and told us to leave her. And we didn't want to leave her. I didn't want to leave her. And when I said no, she turned me by my shoulders and pushed me out the door and said, "Get out."
It was the moment where I just did not understand the strength and beauty and courage of a mother's heart. ... For years after this, I thought my mother was weak, I thought she didn't love me, I thought she wasn't strong enough to keep me. And I felt abandoned and I wanted to stay with her. And writing it in a child's voice and to go back into that place and imagine what my mother must have gone through — knowing that if she didn't send us away, we might not have made it here today. ... She gave us a fighting chance to survive apart by separating us and pushing us out of the door. ... I never saw her again.

On how Jolie discovered Ung's memoir while on a film shoot in Cambodia
Angelina Jolie: I went into Cambodia like many people in America: I didn't know what I should've known. I wasn't educated properly, and I felt very ignorant. And one day I was off work and went for a little walk and bought a $2 book at a street corner, and it was Loung Ung's book. And it was through that book that I really understood what had happened. And I was drawn to the way that she had written it, through the eyes of a child, through the experience of a little girl.

On filming from the point of view of a child
Jolie: We had a lot of crew members walking around on their knees trying to figure out what she would actually see, what could she actually reach, what could she do.
But what was interesting, for me, is it was very clear early that the POV wasn't just going to be the technical of where she's at — it was the emotional. Because she's 5, she's very distracted. She doesn't understand what's happening. She doesn't want to understand what's happening. She always looks to Pa: If Pa smiles, it's OK. That's how children gauge what's going on. You don't have a normal scene where you have five people sitting around telling the audience what's going on. So in a way, the audience might be confused a little bit about politics because you're being told by Pa, "It's OK." But you have to check the clues around you and try to see beyond what's she seeing.

On knowing the film could be a trigger for the Cambodians who were working on it
Jolie: It's very sensitive, and we had to be very conscious of many things. Above all, many of our crew members are survivors of war. So to recreate these things, to have Khmer Rouge soldiers marching over a bridge in an area where people are not used to film ... the amount of awareness you have to do, the amount of talking, the amount of therapists on set — would it be cathartic or would it go badly? And it's to the resilience and the openness of the Cambodian people that it went well, and it was cathartic, and I was honored to witness them make it.

Mallory Yu and Jolie Myers produced and edited this interview for broadcast, and Nicole Cohen adapted it for the Web.




Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, May 15, 2017



Jake Coyle, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
May 15, 2017, Last Updated: 1:40 PM ET



NEW YORK (AP) — Brad Pitt and Gen. Stanley McChrystal — the inspiration to Pitt’s four-star Afghanistan commander in the upcoming Netflix war satire “War Machine “— would seem to be worlds apart. One, an affable member of Hollywood’s elite; the other a hard-charging lifetime military man. But Pitt found one connection with his character: a swollen ego, and the damage done.

“Hubris is a trap and it’s the trap of every great nation that has been number one for too long. You start believing your own stink,” Pitt says. “Anytime I’ve gotten in trouble, it’s because of my own hubris.”

Pitt, at the moment, may be particularly empathetic to such a drastic swing as the one that sank McChrystal via an infamous Rolling Stone profile . Pitt is now, for the first time since Angelina Jolie Pitt filed for divorce from him last September, stepping back into the limelight. He hasn’t been timid. In his first post-separation interview, to GQ , Pitt was unusually candid, speaking frankly about his struggles with alcohol and the pains of dividing their family.

Pitt was similarly forthright in a wide-ranging interview last week with The Associated Press. He called directly — “Hey man, it’s Brad” — and over the course of half an hour, discussed his present state of mind, his current attitude about acting and his alarm at the possibility of expanding the war in Afghanistan. Why the openness?

“I’ve got no secrets. I’ve got nothing to hide,” said Pitt. “We’re human and I find the human condition very interesting. If we’re not talking about it, then we’re not getting better.”

It’s undoubtedly a fraught period of transition for the 53-year-old actor. He said he’s spending his time now “keeping the ship afloat” and “figuring out the new configuration of our family.” ″Kids are everything,” he said, of their six children. “Kids are your life. They’re taking all the focus, as they should anyway.”

He’s getting through it, he assured. “I’m not suicidal or something,” Pitt said, laughing. “There’s still much beauty in the world and a lot of love. And a lot of love to be given. It’s all right. It’s just life.”
Pitt was most keen to discuss “War Machine” and the strong passions behind it. The film, written and directed by the Australian filmmaker David Michod (“Animal Kingdom”), is based on Michael Hastings’ 2012 book “The Operators,” which chronicled McChrystal’s tumultuous and short-lived stewardship of the war in Afghanistan.

“War Machine,” which debuts on Netflix May 26, takes a slightly fictionalized approach. Pitt’s character is named Gen. Glen McMahon, but the events and personalities covered correspond accurately with McChrystal’s downfall. The switch, made after the project was announced, saved the film from some potentially thorny legal issues.

“We had no interest in impugning General McChrystal or any of his guys,” said Pitt. “For me, the problem is more systematic.”

“The impetus for me was a visit to Walter Reed,” added Pitt, who visited the military medical center in 2014 . “Those young men and women — who are absolutely heroic in a very harrowing situation — their lives are forever changed and so are their families. It just really made me question who is spending this currency of dedication. Who’s writing the check? Who’s making the order?”
Particularly galling to Pitt was the request last week by advisers to President Donald Trump and military officials for several thousand more American troops in Afghanistan, a war that has already spanned more than 15 years. It’s time to rethink what “winning” means, he says.

“Nothing that we’ve ever done has said that more troops are going to do anything but cause any more damage, more loss of life and limb,” said Pitt. “We talk a lot about supporting our troops but I think supporting our troops is much more than giving them money and a pat on the back. I think it’s being responsible to how we use that ultimate dedication.”

Trump’s top advisers have said the president has not made any final decision about adding more troops in Afghanistan.

In “War Machine,” Michod summons some of the spirit of war comedies like “Catch 22" and “M-A-S-H.” The film captures an American military driven by politics, illusions and personal aspirations. Pitt’s general, with a deeper, gruffer voice than McChrystal’s, comes charging into Afghanistan with outlandish delusions of grandeur and departs amid self-inflicted scandal.
“We were tapping into a melding of war and comedy — two things that used to co-exist quite conformably, but in this day and age don’t,” said Michod. “It’s very interesting to see how the two coexist in the public sphere given how strangely earnest all conversation about war has gotten in a possibly warped way. But there’s something almost truer in that kind of great comedy treatment of decades past than the nature of the discussion that goes on today.”

Michod grants it’s an approach that makes for some wild swings of tone in “War Machine,” but he says a mix of absurdity and tragedy is ultimately more realistic.

“At core, the thing to me that’s most powerful about ‘War Machine’ and what made it feel important to me was that it was about the way personalities can have an incredibly powerful and often a powerfully damaged ripple effect across the world,” said Michod. “The movie is called ‘War Machine,’ but that machine is made up of individuals, individuals with their own strengths and ambitions.”

Pitt said he discussed the film with McChrystal. “I feel for him,” said the actor. “He’s a product of us. He’s us.” McChrystal, who retired from the Army shortly after resigning command, has since launched a management consulting firm and penned a memoir. He declined to comment for this article.

Little about “War Machine” is typical for a Hollywood production. It would have never gotten made, Pitt said, without Netflix. The streaming service bankrolled the film for $60 million, making it one of Netflix’s most ambitious projects yet.

“The degree of difficulty on this one was ten,” said Pitt, “which is what makes it worth it for me to go get in front of the camera now.”

Through his production company Plan B, Pitt has become a remarkably successful producer. He was behind two of the last three best-picture winners (“Moonlight,” ″12 Years a Slave”) as well as other acclaimed releases like James Gray’s “The Lost City of Z.” At times, Pitt — though he’s prepping numerous projects, including a possible “World War Z” sequel — sounded almost as though his movie star days are behind him.

“I feel myself as I’m older gravitating more to the producing side than being in front of the camera,” said Pitt. “It’s a big commitment, a film, and it does take you away from your family. I just have to balance that. It’s not less important, itself, it’s just not as important as family. (‘War Machine’) I loved because it’s after something and we don’t know where we’re going to end up. It’s a delicate tightrope to walk.”

___
Follow AP Film Writer Jake Coyle on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/jakecoyleAP



AP

Highlights from AP interview with Brad Pitt

By Associated Press
Published: 13:17 EDT, 15 May 2017 | Updated: 13:17 EDT, 15 May 2017 


In a recent interview, Brad Pitt spoke to The Associated Press about his new film, "War Machine," in which he plays a slightly fictionalized version of Gen. Stanley McChrystal; stepping back into the limelight for the first time since Angelina Jolie Pitt filed for divorce from him; and his future in movies. Here are excerpted highlights:
___
ON ACKNOWLEDGING A DRINKING PROBLEM

I've got no secrets. I've got nothing to hide. We're human and I find the human condition very interesting. If we're not talking about it, then we're not getting better.
___
ON WHY HIS CHARACTER ISN'T NAMED GEN. STANLEY McCHRYSTAL
We had no interest in impugning General McChrystal or any of his guys. For me, the problem is more systematic. And the impetus for me was a visit to Walter Reed. Although those young men and women who are absolutely heroic in a very harrowing situation, their lives are forever changed and so are their families. I just really made me question who is spending this currency of dedication. Who's writing the check? Who's making the order?
___
ON SENDING MORE TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN
Nothing that we've ever done has said that more troops are going to do anything but cause any more damage, more loss of life and limb. So why are we not questioning this? It seems time for some kind of hearing. I don't trust a governmental I hearing. It needs to come from the people. We talk a lot about supporting our troops but I think supporting our troops is much more than giving them money and a pat on the back. I think it's being responsible to how we use that ultimate dedication. I guess it's this idea of American exceptionalism that I question the definition of. We are exceptional is so many ways. But it doesn't mean we can just throw might at any problem. We're sending them into a culture that we don't understand.
___
ON NETFLIX AND 'WAR MACHINE'
It wouldn't have gotten made without Netflix. The reality for the studios is it just doesn't make sense for them on paper. They can take the gamble up to $35 million on a risky film. And then otherwise they focus on big tent-poles which seem to be safer and make the big payoffs. It's not their fault in any way. The numbers just don't run for them. Now with Netflix and other entities like Netflix, it becomes a whole new delivery system for these kinds of films I prefer to gamble on. For us, it's opened up a whole new world of possibilities. I'll stick work with studios, I'll always do that, at least I think so, as long as they're around. Because they are still films that deserve to have the big-screen, cultural experience.
___
ON BEST-PICTURE WINNER 'MOONLIGHT'
That's what I'm most proud of. That's Barry Jenkins' - and the cast and crew -that's their vision, but to be able to help get it over the hill - a difficult movie, a challenging film like that, that feels good. That feels really good. I like that job.





In the May ratings period, talk shows scurry to sign up big stars.
“The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” has one of the biggest: Brad Pitt. The actor visits the CBS show on Tuesday. His film “War Machine” will be released May 26 on Netflix.

The lineup this week from Colbert:
Monday (tonight): Danny McBride, Jane Krakowski and a musical performance by Metallica.












Tuesday: Pitt, Gina Rodriguez, Ben Falcone and a musical performance by Jesus and Mary Chain.
Wednesday: Julie Chen of “The Talk,” Matt Walsh and David Ortiz.
Thursday: Ricky Gervais, Corey Hawkins of “24: Legacy” and a musical performance by The xx.
Friday: Jennifer Garner, Demetri Martin and Paula Poundstone.

Posted by at
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)