MiNDFOOD speaks with Angelina Jolie and writer, Loung Ung, about the importance of family in their new Netflix film, 'First They Killed My Father: A Daughter of Cambodia Remembers'

Thanks Sara

Angelina Jolie reveals what will make you emotional in her new movie 'First They Killed My Father' >> https://t.co/AYhqiaaPd6 pic.twitter.com/hjfWMVLLl9

— MTV UK (@MTVUK) September 16, 2017

showbiz411

Angelina Jolie- Jon Voight Reunion A Byproduct of Family Loss and Redemption in Her Excellent New Film

by Roger Friedman - September 15, 2017 1:09 pm

 Jon Voight is certainly back in daughter Angelina Jolie’s inner circle. He came with her and the kids to the NY premiere last night of her extraordinary new film, “First They Killed My Father.” (And second, they made up with him. Par umpum!)

Hard to imagine how this whole rapprochement works since Jolie and Voight are further apart on the political scale than Patti Davis was from her parents, Ronald and Nancy Reagan. But maybe it’s a lesson to a lot of families split by the current political climate. Blood is thicker than water. The lesson of family is the underscore for “First They Killed My Father.”

Certainly we learn that from Jolie’s film, which would be hailed as a “masterpiece” if it had been made by Spielberg or Eastwood. “First They Killed My Father” should put Angelina right in the ranks of the top directors– it’s an astounding achievement on a grand level and really deserves a Best Picture nomination.

It’s on the level of one of Eastwood’s best films, “Letters from Iwo Jima.” There is no English spoken. Much of the movie is Cambodian or Vietnamese. A good deal of it is without dialogue as child star Sareum Srey Moch navigates holy hell as the Khmer Rouge threaten to obliterate her country. All the children are exceptional, and you can tell that they really responded to Jolie. The really extraordinary move Jolie makes as a director here is that she has no adults, and no “Stars”– there is no ‘draw’ of a name. You don’t suddenly see a Movie Star show up as guide through the film. That’s how confident she is.

The film is based on a book Jolie bought for $2 the first time she went to Cambodia 17 years ago. “First They Killed My Father” is written by Loung Ung (played by young Moch). Loung came to the Toronto Film Festival and to last night’s NY premiere with one of her brothers, also portrayed in the film. They are a shining example of why immigration is so important. After the harrowing true events of the movie they came to the US and grew up in Cleveland. They are all incredibly accomplished, great successes. More importantly, they are alive and well. Meeting them takes your breath away.

The reunion with Jon Voight certainly comes from the lessons of the film. The whole point of the film– far more than the political– is the fabric of Loung’s family knitting back together. It’s a metaphor for Jolie’s life.

See this movie. And let’s hope it does well enough that brings awards and recognition for Jolie as a filmmaker at last. She deserves it.

bits

Publicists and writers like Friedman may lament the new Academy rules prohibiting campaigning by nominees during the voting period but the exhausted nominees themselves are probably relieved.

I expect Ang Lee is now relaxing in Taiwan and studying Cleopatra's script.  By the time he returns to L.A. for the Oscars, he should be ready to sit down with Pascal, Rudin and Jolie to discuss his take.

  -- Fussy



From Showbiz411

What Happened to All the Talk About the Oscars? Academy Ban is Hurting Traditional Press Push

 01/21/13 9:19pm Roger Friedman

It’s January 22nd, with a little more than a month to go before the Academy Awards. The nominations for the Oscars were announced on January 10th–12 days ago– to much fanfare after weeks of campaigning and publicity. The build up and what comes after is supposed to fuel the interest in the ABC telecast on February 24th–and also help the movies and actors who were nominated.
But since January 10th, it’s been all radio silence on the subject of the Oscars. What happened? I’ll tell you: new Academy rules for this year prevent studios and producers from any more campaigning. There are no more cocktail parties, lunches, or dinners. Movies can be screened, but no food or drink can be served. All the fun involved with the Oscars– meeting the casts, chowing down, and writing about it the next day–has been elimninated.
The idea was to make it all a level playing field. There are always accusations that some studios (usually The Weinstein Company) overdo it with the socializing. And evening it out for everyone is a smart idea. But erasing all of it, for six weeks or so, is a mistake. A big one.
If this were the case in actual political campaigning, the correlation would be that prior to the conventions, you could entertain potential voters. But between the choosing of the nominees and the election–from Labor Day til November 7th or so–all talk of the candidates would cease.
The result is that no one is talking about the Academy Awards at all. And wasn’t the point of moving up the nominations announcement by a week to kick off a major marketing push? But when the Oscars finally arrive this year, there will have been a paucity of publicity surrounding the movies and the show.

You can read the rest at the site.

Vanity Fair & Tom

Tom Cruise Dumped from Hollywood by Vanity Fair

09/02/12 2:51am Roger Friedman 

 Well, it’s quite fascinating: Graydon Carter, never afraid of a bold move, has dumped Tom Cruise from the Hollywood elite. In the new issue of Vanity Fair, Carter has published a cover story by Maureen Orth exposing Tom Cruise’s entire background in Scientology. The magazine has used a pick-up picture — very very rare for them– of Katie Holmes on the cover to sell issues, just like People or Us Weekly. The party, my friends, is over.
By doing this, Carter slams right into friends at CAA, the agency that represents Tom. He also essentially ends any relationship with Cruise. Since I’m not able yet to read the entire story–and won’t be until tonight–I am only going by the teaser on the Vanity Fair home page and by comments made on the blog belonging to former Scientologist and very active outside revealer Marty Rathbun. It doesn’t look good, that’s for sure.
Here’s a link to one of my original stories from FoxNews.com, 2005. I notice Fox has erased my byline. Ah well. Anyway:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160192,00.html
VF and Orth, probably through Rathbun, have played a devasating card in the Cruise-Scientology story. They’ve gotten a 33 year old actress named Nazanin Boniadi, a real beauty with a lilting English accent, to tell how she was auditioned as a possible wife for Cruise in 2004. Boniadi, who later got a lot of TV work, was an ambitious Scientology student from 2000 to 2003. She worked her way up to “OT5″–Operating Thetan, level 5– in short order. She was being fast tracked to be a big celebrity Scientologist.
It may be that Boniadi has left Scientology now as she is very friendly with another escapee, director Paul Haggis, as well. But her story from 2004 tracks with stories I wrote the following year about women being auditioned to be Mrs. Cruise. Jennifer Garner, Scarlett Johnansson, and Kate Bosworth were on that list.
Katie Holmes, the youngest and most vulnerable, wound up the “winner.” I reported then exclusively that she left New York for a meeting with Cruise on “Mission Impossible 3″ around April 12, 2005 and was not seen or heard from again for 16 days until she turned up in Rome as the love of Tom Cruise’s life. The situation progressed quickly from there. Katie cut off all her ties to friends and business associates. She became pregnant with Suri and married Cruise. And then it all fell apart quickly this past spring, seven years later.
On Sunday evening, once I’ve read Orth’s piece, I’ll address other issues. But for now, just the notion that Vanity Fair–once very friendly to Cruise–has pulled the trigger is fascinating and brave of Carter. He senses that Cruise is “done” in Hollywood anyway. His power has been sapped by Holmes’s sneak attack this summer–a divorce in 11 days–unheard of.
And it’s not just CAA that Carter is toying with. It’s also Cruise’s legendary pit bull attorney Bert Fields. Because for Vanity Fair to take this on brings the discussion to a higher level than when it’s been in a tabloid. It’s also going to make it nearly a mission impossible for Cruise to publicity for his next film at Christmas without all of this being a major issue. Cruise may now have a seat next to Mel Gibson in Hollywood’s permanant penalty box.
Meanwhile, Boniadi remains fascinating, too. The Iranian born actress makes no mention of her deep (former?) association with Scientology on her website. It’s all about her work with Amnesty International now. Raw ambition in Hollywood–it’s the stuff of Jackie Collins novels. In fact, if I were my pal Jackie, I’d be typing right now as fast as I could. The rise of Naz Boniadi is a classic.
More tonight…

Tom Cruise’s Scientology Marriages: The Secret Wife-Auditioning Process Before Katie Holmes, Revealed

In the October issue, Vanity Fair special correspondent Maureen Orth reports that in 2004 Scientology embarked on a top-secret project headed by Shelly Miscavige, wife of Scientology chief David Miscavige, which involved finding a girlfriend for Tom Cruise. According to several sources, the organization devised an elaborate auditioning process in which actresses who were already Scientology members were called in, told they were auditioning for a new training film, and then asked a series of curious questions including: “What do you think of Tom Cruise?” Marc Headley, a Scientologist from age seven, who says he watched a number of the audition videotapes when he was head of Scientology’s in-house studio, tells Orth, “It’s not like you only have to please your husband—you have to toe the line for Scientology.” Both Nicole Kidman and Penélope Cruz ran afoul of Scientology and David Miscavige, according to another former Scientologist. “You can’t do anything to displease Scientology, because Tom Cruise will freak out,” Headley says. (Scientology representatives deny that any such search took place and have dismissed several of the story’s sources as disgruntled apostates. David Miscavige and Tom Cruise declined to be interviewed.)

According to Orth, Nazanin Boniadi, an Iranian-born, London-raised actress and Scientologist, was selected and dated Cruise from November 2004 until January 2005. Initially she was told only that she had been selected for a very important mission. In a month-long preparation in October 2004, she was audited every day, a process in which she told a high-ranking Scientology official her innermost secrets and every detail of her sex life. Boniadi allegedly was told to lose her braces, her red highlights, and her boyfriend. According to a knowledgeable source, she was shown confidential auditing files of her boyfriend to expedite a breakup. (Scientology denies any misuse of confidential material.) The source says Boniadi signed a confidentiality agreement and was told that if she “messed up” in any way she would be declared a Suppressive Person (a pariah and enemy of Scientology).

Orth reports that in November 2004 Boniadi was flown to New York, where she met Cruise. That’s when she first sensed that this was possibly going to be an arranged marriage. For their first date Cruise and Boniadi went to dinner at Nobu with an entourage of Scientology aides, then to the skating rink at Rockefeller Center, which was closed to the public especially for them. The two spent that first night together but, according to several sources, they did not have sex. At the Trump Tower, where Cruise and the entourage had rented an entire floor, Cruise purportedly told Boniadi, “I’ve never felt this way before.” She was given a second confidentiality agreement specifically about Cruise to sign. Boniadi could tell her worried parents (her mother was also a Scientologist) only that she was in New York on a special Scientology project.

Though the first month of the relationship was bliss, by the second month Boniadi was more and more often found wanting, Orth reports. According to the knowledgeable source, anything she said or did that Cruise found fault with he immediately reported to a member of the Scientology staff, and she would be audited for it. This began with her very first words to him, “Very well done,” regarding his receiving Scientology’s Freedom Medal of Valor. The phrase implied that Cruise was her junior. According to the knowledgeable source, Boniadi also offended Scientology chief David Miscavige, who speaks rapidly, because she kept saying, “Excuse me?” when she was entertaining him and his wife during a visit to Telluride. In Scientology, the ability to have your communication “land” is crucial. Boniadi was excoriated by Cruise for disrespecting Miscavige. (A representative for Miscavige told Vanity Fair, “Mr. Miscavige doesn’t remember any girlfriend of anyone, in his entire life, insulting him.”)

According to Orth, Boniadi was in love with Cruise, but the intensity of his affection, especially his predilection for public displays, overwhelmed her. “I get more love from an extra than I get from you,” the actor reportedly complained. Every day Boniadi spent two to three hours purging herself of “negative thoughts about Tom.” She felt completely shut off; her only source of money was a credit card issued in the name of Cruise’s production company.

Following the alleged episode with Miscavige, Cruise barely acknowledged Boniadi, though she had moved into his house and they shared a bedroom. By the third week in January, she was asked to move into Scientology’s Celebrity Centre. Boniadi was told that Cruise “wants someone with her own power—like Nicole.” When she asked why Cruise would not break up with her himself, she was told he was not to be disturbed. A Scientology official allegedly told her, by way of explanation, “Naz, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”

When a friend at a Scientology center in Florida, where Boniadi was subsequently sent, asked why she was crying all the time, Boniadi broke down and told her about her relationship with Cruise, which she had been forbidden to do. According to the knowledgeable source, the friend reported her. Boniadi’s punishment was to scrub toilets with a toothbrush, clean bathroom tiles with acid, and dig ditches in the middle of the night. After that she was sent out to sell Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics on street corners. (A Scientology spokesperson responds: “The Church does not punish people, especially in [that] manner.”)

Orth also reveals:

• According to several sources, Scientology made secret videotapes of Tom Cruise’s audits. (Scientology denies that Cruise’s audits were ever taped.)
• David Miscavige’s alleged indiscretions with audit reports of high-profile Scientologists. (Scientology representatives insist that Miscavige has always “rigorously upheld the sanctity and confidentiality of ministerial communications.”)
• Katie Holmes’s pre-nuptial agreement with Cruise, negotiated by her father, Martin, a divorce lawyer, reportedly filled five Bankers Boxes.
• Martin Holmes’s concerns about keeping his daughter from Scientology’s clutches before Suri was born.
• Why Cruise and Nicole Kidman’s children, Bella and Connor, were estranged from their mother.

Exclusive: Oscar Winner Paul Haggis on Tom Cruise Scientology Girlfriend: “I’m appalled that any church would treat its parishioners this way”

 

09/02/12 7:58pm Roger Friedman 

EXCLUSIVE: Oscar winning “Crash” writer-director Paul Haggis has confirmed for me the story of Naz Boniadi, the beautiful Iranian born actress whom Scientology tried to groom as Tom Cruise’s girlfriend in 2004-2005. Vanity Fair has just released a teaser of their extraordinary story (kudos to Graydon Carter) about Cruise’s auditioning of women to be his wife in the months leading up to his choosing of Katie Holmes in April 2005. Haggis left Scientology two years ago, which I wrote about extensively. His exit was then chronicled in the New Yorker. Haggis confirms Boniadi’s saga, and tells me that she, too, has left the cult. Here’s his email to me from Rome, where he ‘s prepping a film. Haggis says he will have no other comment on this situation beyond this:
“I’ve known Nazanin for about three years.  I met her through a mutual friend when I was doing my own personal research into the allegations against Scientology, before I wrote my letter of resignation.  Naz was embarrassed by her unwitting involvement in this incident and never wanted it to come out, so I kept silent. However I was deeply disturbed by how the highest ranking members of a church could so easily justify using one of their members; how they so callously punished her and then so effectively silenced her when it was done.  It wasn’t just the threats; they actually made her feel ashamed, when all she had been was human and trusting.
After I wrote my resignation letter, a dozen or more “friends” and officials of the church repeatedly descended on me to demand that I destroy the letter and resign quietly.  I told them that wasn’t an option for me.  I also told them that I had more sources of information about the troubling nature of the organization then I was at liberty to divulge. This was one.
I’ve met quite a number of people who have been treated shamefully but are afraid to speak out.  This story will draw attention because of our fascination with celebrity.  Most of the others are just ordinary people whose stories, if told, would not appear in a magazine.  They live in fear of retribution, legal, financial or personal, even some famous ones.  They fear an incredibly wealthy organization that boasts that it seeks truth, empowers people, brings families together, encourages independent thought and free speech, and champions human rights.  I would like to say that i don’t know how its members, many of them good and intelligent people, can remain so purposely blind when they are faced with evidence like this every day, but then I am no one to talk.  I was happily blind for many years, so I know the shame that Naz feels.

In Naz’s case, she has no right to feel ashamed.  She is not only a terrific actress at the beginning of a very promising career, she is a dedicated human rights activist and a truly lovely and caring person. The last thing she wanted or needed is this kind of publicity, but here it is, and I am sure she will deal with it with the same grace and dignity she exudes in her daily life.   I’m appalled that any church would treat its parishioners this way, but Naz has never cast herself as a victim. She is strong and resilient and I am very proud to call her a friend.”
He adds in a second email:
“And FYI, in case this wasn’t clear, Naz quietly and privately resigned from the church a couple of years ago after several years of trying to handle this injustice internally, to no avail.”

Mirror, Mirror & Julia: The Good & The Bad

'Mirror Mirror' Early Review and Round-Up: Leave Princess Fairy Tales to Disney

Reviews by Anne Thompson | March 29, 2012 3:09 PM |

"Mirror Mirror" means a lot to producer/distributor Relativity Media, which needs hits in order to survive. That's why the $60-million PG flick is aimed so squarely at a mainstream family audience. Visually, it looks like a movie directed by Tarsem Singh ("The Immortals"), but it doesn't feel like one. The movie will play young. Very young.
For one thing, Singh is relying on an all-too familiar Grimm fairy tale (reworked by Marc Klein and Jason Keller), which is at best fitfully amusing, thanks to Julia Roberts (who literally has bee-sting lips), Nathan Lane and the Seven Dwarfs, and most of the time, makes you wish you were watching "Tangled" instead. This princess stuff is Disney turf. No one does it better.
While the producers did hire Disney composer Alan Menken to write the score, it's uninspired and treacly. This is yet another case where live actors mixed with clever VFX (the dwarves run, leap and fly on cool accordion stilts) don't come close to giving us that soaring Disney magic. Some of the animation fakery (the gorgeous opening intro, the evil Queen's ageless mirror) works better than the rest of the movie, which just feels fake. "Mirror Mirror" has no new take on this story (didn't the Red Queen already play live chess in "Alice in Wonderland"?), and veers from irritating to dull.
Lily Collins' Snow White is a doltish drip; we don't believe that Armie Hammer's handsome buffoon of a Prince Charming is in love with her (remarkably, Hammer survives this movie), nor the Seven Dwarfs for that matter. The Queen's feelings toward her step-daughter almost make sense. Why is the gang of seven thieves teaching her to fight and rob? So she can be slightly more acceptable to a modern audience? In one scene she clashes swords, pitifully, with the Prince. It's unbelievable. (The Playlist interviewed Collins and Hammer here.)
The tone veers all over the place. The best thing in the movie is the Bollywood closing number, which holds a clue to the kind of daring the movie lacks. Singh has plans to take a very different direction on his next, "Eye In the Sky." Who can blame him? While the often incoherent filmmaker has always favored style over content in the past, he was never this insipid.
A smattering of reviews is below.
Roger Ebert:
"'Mirror Mirror' is a sumptuous fantasy for the eyes and a pinball game for the mind, as story elements collide and roll around bumping into each other,..It's almost uncanny in some scenes here, how Lily Collins (daughter of Phil Collins) looks like Audrey Hepburn,..She's all sweet, all innocent, but Julia Roberts steals the show with her imperious and autocratic Queen. All of this is in place and looks great, but the dialogue is rather flat, the movie sort of boring, and there's not much energy in the two places it should really be felt: Between the Queen and Snow White, and between Snow and the Prince. The story is a listless tale that moves at a stately pace through settings that could have supported fireworks."
Variety:
"Poised between revisionist fairy tale and smirking sendup, this gaudy, over-frosted cream puff of a movie half-heartedly positions its famous heroine as a dagger-wielding proto-feminist, yet ultimately suffers the same fatal flaw as Julia Roberts' evil queen: It doesn't really care about anything except how pretty it looks."
Christy Lemire:
"Julia Roberts chews up the scenery and spits it back out again with great brio in her first truly villainous role as the evil Queen in 'Mirror Mirror.' And oh, what scenery it is,..Basically, the scenery IS the movie,..Collins has a lovely screen presence — she's got this young Audrey Hepburn thing going — but she lacks a certain oomph, even after her character has learned to fight and supposedly found her inner strength. Roberts rules her at every turn, even when she flashes that iconic smile in cruel fashion. She seems to be reveling in playing a role that's such a departure; that sense of joy only sporadically finds its way to the rest of the film."
Roger Moore:
"If only they'd put more 'Heigh Ho' into the script, found more funny things for Nathan Lane (the queen's aide) to say and do. If only Roberts had had the guts to play mean (This is an image-obsessed movie star pulling her punches.). If only they'd found a Snow White with some spark to her. 'Mirror Mirror' leaves us with those 'if onlys,' and reminds us that the original incantation missed the big point. Casting 'the fairest of them all' can't save you from a heroine as dull as her character's name."
TheWrap:
"Somewhere between the pitch meeting and the movie's opening, this sadly earthbound fairy tale lost its happy ending. 'Mirror Mirror' is minor minor,..Part of 'Mirror’'s problem is that the screenplay, credited to two writers and with a third getting a story credit, is all over the place. At times, it seems that the movie is a satire about anxiety over aging, as the Queen frets over who’s the fairest in the land. But it also hints at a political agenda, as when the villagers are told that the onerous taxes collected by the Queen are being used to keep them safe, and at being about feminism, as when Snow White and the Prince battle for the upper hand while bickering or crossing swords."

Media & Entertainment

|

Roger Friedman, Contributor

3/30/2012 @ 12:27PM |182 views

"Mirror Mirror": Julia Roberts' Latest Bomb Opens Today

HOLLYWOOD, CA - MARCH 17: Actress Julia Roberts arrives at Relativity Media's 'Mirror Mirror' Los Angeles premiere at Grauman's Chinese Theatre on March 17, 2012 in Hollywood, California. (Image credit: via @daylife)

I told you the other day about the movie “Mirror Mirror” being held from critics until the last minute. It opens today and unless a lot of children under the age of 10 see it, “Mirror Mirror” is headed to DVD and cable rather quickly. It’s scored a low 52% rating on Rotten tomatoes.com with 43 positive reviews and 40 negative. The positive ones came mostly from small bloggers. Reviewers from large news organizations were not amused. “Mirror Mirror” joins “Larry Crowne” as the second big Roberts disaster in a row. But “Eat Pray Love”-which made money–was intolerable.
Roberts is well past her glory run of films she made with partner Elaine Goldsmith Thomas in the 90s–from “Pretty Woman” and “Erin Brockovich” to “Notting Hill” and “Runaway Bride.” Those days are over. She went from being fetching and cute to brittle and self-important. She and Goldsmith-Thomas, who’d been her agent and then her producing partner, parted company long ago. Roberts also had a notorious falling out with Susan Sarandon during the making of “Step Mom.” Another recent film, “Duplicity,” was completely incoherent.
In today’s New York Times, reviewer Manohla Dargis says Roberts looks very amused with herself. Well, at least someone is. “Mirror Mirror,” which had a review embargo until last night, looks great–all sterling computer graphics–but it’s a witless, tiresome, one note joke. Roberts is completely self-aware as an actresss. Where Glenn Close was a perfect Cruella de Vil, and Meryl Streep was tantalizing in “Prada,” Roberts just keeps winking at the camera, and hamming it up. It’s a wonder she didn’t gain weight from all the scenery she chewed. Luckily, most of it wasn’t real.
Here’s a clip from a Charlie Rose interview with Roberts. FFwd it to around 4:40. I always thought it was interesting that she never credited anyone else with choosing her films or developing material during her run of hits. She thought she did it herself. And now those people are gone. “Mirror Mirror” according to Dorothy Pomerantz‘s excellent report here yesterday, cost $80 million, not including another $20 for promotion.

http://youtu.be/sGSmR1SfRb0



And in the other corner, a contrarian view from Guy Lodge.

Review: Delightful 'Mirror Mirror' restores magic to fairytale revisionism

Tarsem's latest opens in theaters today

Friday, Mar 30, 2012 9:58 AM

Guy Lodge

• Critic's Rating A-
• Readers' Rating n/a

"I bet you think you know this story. You don't -- the real one's much more gory." With this crisp opening couplet, Roald Dahl announced his imminent desanctification of the Grimm Brothers' "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves," one of six done-to-death fairytales given a black-comic makeover in his 1982 bestseller "Revolting Rhymes."
Dahl's book was itself a tangy kid-lit response to Angela Carter's ingenious adult sexualization of that dusty literary canon in her essential 1979 volume "The Bloody Chamber"; working at opposite ends of the scale, both writers were making a concerted effort to reclaim these darkly symbolic stories, originally targeted to grown-ups, from their sweetened, child-oriented colonization by Disney. Bar the occasional valiant but underseen effort, however -- Neil Jordan's Carter adaptation "The Company of Wolves" among them -- it was a while before Hollywood arrived at a similarly subversive memo, particularly as Disney revived their commercial fortunes at the end of the 1980s by returning to the pages of Andersen and Perrault, their traditionalist approach interrupted only by happier endings.
By the time the theoretical spirit of Dahl had entered mainstream cinema, it had curdled most unappetizingly: the sloppy, biliously spirited 2001 smash "Shrek" earned a lot of undue credit for its alternately cynical and scatological disrespect of fairytale tropes, but the absence of any moral or ideological fiber in their place made for an increasingly vapid and joyless subgenre. (And that's before we even touch the likes of "Hoodwinked!.")
There's only so long one can titter at oh-so-naughty character names like "Farquad" before one craves a bit more perspective, a bit less guile, or both -- particularly with filmmakers like Catherine Breillat, Julia Leigh and even Darren Aronofsky playing rather more inventive, romantic, spiritually loyal games with the fairytale form, though still within the adult bracket.
It'd be a stretch of both the truth and the film's very intention to say that "Mirror Mirror," Tarsem Singh's lithe, literate, extravagantly daffy redesign of "Snow White," quite fulfils that lofty brief -- it's girlier and more good-natured than anything from the Dahl school of storytelling, for starters, though with its scattering of macabre visual gags and morally corrupt septet of dwarves, I'm willing to bet there's a dog-eared copy of "Revolting Rhymes" on the bookshelf of writer Melissa Wallack. But for all its parodic 21st-century nudges, it's also an authentic fairytale, at least three parts swoon to one part snark, unapologetically reclaiming the genre from "Shrek" levels of smugness.  
There's the merest threat of a false note in the film's opening beats, but it's a momentarily alarming one: "They called her Snow White," Julia Roberts narrates, her familiarly spiky tones tinged with creamy contempt, "because it was the most pretentious name they could come up with."
It's a reasonably smart line, one that gently announces a wink-wink postmodern perspective while still sounding more or less in character from Roberts's bored, haughty Wicked Queen. (After all, if we're likening magic-kingdom royalty to contemporary notions of celebrity, "Snow White" is just the sort of affected moniker Hollywood's great and good assign their offspring, inviting similar sneers.) But even as it got the required chuckle, this blithe intrusion of 21st-century irony sets up prickling concerns that we are, once more, pitching ourselves far above the source.
No sooner are such concerns established, however, than they are thrillingly banished by the exquisitely animated shadow-box prologue that follows. Tidily filling in the nuts and bolts of the Snow White legend for younger viewers that haven't yet made its acquaintance -- both responsible and responsive to its audience, this is the rare revisionist fairytale that doesn't take its public-domain source as a given -- with an elegantly revolving diorama of layered, stylized tableaux from multiple schools of past illustration, it's a knockout sequence in isolation. More crucially, however, it sets up the storybook meter and heightened visual fancy that are to be the cornerstones of this adaptation; even when it shifts into frenetic comic riffing, "Mirror Mirror" remains bound by its obligations to magic.
That Tarsem, the advertising-schooled oddball whose astonishing visual concepts are rarely tethered by logic or practicality, should prove such a delicious fit for the genre is hardly surprising. To various degrees, his three previous features -- "The Cell," "The Fall" and last year's swords-and-sandals-and-fetishwear spectacular "Immortals" -- have all been fairytales to one degree or another, precoccupied with parallel realms and dream coding.
After flirting (okay, fucking) with Greek mythology in his last film, the similarly entrenched universe of European folklore was an obvious follow-up destination, and it's been suitably, rewardingly Tarsem-ized: the director's singular panoply of culture-clashing motifs, his saturated blood-and-mustard palette and, of course, his enduring mask fetish are splashed liberally across Tom Foden's dazzling, CGI-brushed production design, which expands the expected Gothic spaces of past screen renditions with vast, gilded orientalism and the occasional witty flash of bare-boards theatricality.
It's hard to think of a contemporary director whose auteur credentials are represented quite so assertively by his story worlds. It harder still to imagine his future work without the similarly defining contributions of the late Eiko Ishioka, whose jaw-droppingly catholic costumes -- touching on everything from commedia dell'arte burlesque to block-colored Asian warrior wear to laser-cut Hollywood glamor, complete with a closing nod to Disney's own iconic Snow White gown -- represent a stunning sign-off to an extraordinary career; if a posthumous Oscar nod doesn't materialize, serious words need to be had with that Academy branch.
The bigger surprise, then, is that Tarsem should be so comfortable with the frisky farce that makes up much of the film's second half, its unashamed silliness cresting with a potentially disastrous, but finally riotous, sequence in which Armie Hammer's appealingly dim Prince Charming is possessed by the spirit of a slobbering puppy; the director's work has always toyed with absurdism, but never copped to it quite so openly or gleefully.
Still, to credit Tarsem's bouncy pacing and the neat emotional throughline of the script -- Roberts' narration turns on a clever literary somersault about whose story "Snow White" even is -- for keeping the soufflé from falling is to undersell the invaluable contributions of an imaginatively chosen cast, who tussle far more playfully with their helmer for control of the scenes than any remarkably attired Tarsem ensemble to date.
Roberts especially, more alert and mischievous than she's been in anything since "Erin Brockovich," is having a blast. Her gawky sweetheart charm makes her an unlikely choice for high-camp villainess duty, but her strikingly venomous line readings (in, admittedly, a touch-and-go accent) and stroppy body language swiftly prove the wisdom of casting someone who might well have played the wide-eyed princess 20 years ago: it's that much clearer why the Queen would feel personally affronted by Lily Collins' milky charms. (Further points to Roberts for being a good enough sport to undergo a black-hearted makeover scene that pokes wicked fun at her profession's own vanity.)
Roberts doesn't have it all her own way. Collins belies her wan appearance to emerge as a surprisingly game heroine; her interaction with the endearingly characterized dwarves, notably one (an excellent Martin Klebba) whose name in the 1937 Disney rendition would have to be Skeezy, gives the character spark beyond her slighty rudimentary proto-feminist assignation.
Better yet is Hammer, revealed here as a comedian of expressive elasticity and calculatedly slack timing, whose forte clearly lies in goofily undermining his immaculate WASPish hotness: "Someone get the man a light covering," a blushing, twinkly-eyed Roberts barks to an orderly as the Prince enters her court, sheepishly shirtless. It's a million miles from Angela Carter, but this subtle sexing of characters in an otherwise fluffy family petit four is a welcome sign that Tarsem's fairytales have some blood running through their veins.
For more views on movies, awards season and other pursuits, follow @GuyLodge on Twitter.

Early Cannes

Cannes ’12: Maybe Marion Cotillard, David Cronenberg, Robert Pattinson, Jack Kerouac, Malick?

03/20/12 11:21am Roger Friedman 

 

We’re getting closer to the announcement of what’s going to happen in the 2012 Cannes Film Festival. We already know two things: Wes Anderson is opening the festival with “Moonrise Kingdom” and Woody Allen is not going with the newly named “To Rome with Love.” But here are some thoughts from various sources. They do say “Rust & Bone” with Marion Cotillard is in. So, too, is David Cronenberg’s “Cosmopolis” with Robert Pattinson of “Twilight” fame. High on everyone’s list is Walter Salles’s film of Jack Kerouac’s “On the Road.” Another name mentioned is popular Cannes filmmaker Michael Haneke, with “Amour” starring Isabelle Huppert. Then there’s the matter of Terrence Malick. He has two movies in post-production, one with Ben Affleck and Jessica Chastain (among others) which was thought to have been finished before “Tree of Life” was released. Any more ideas? Let me know at roger@showbiz411.com

Friedman on J-P Foundation 2010 Tax Filing

Brangelina Charity A Plus: $1 Mil to Haiti, Plus Brad Donated to New Orleans Hero’s Funeral

02/08/12 10:31am Roger Friedman

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie continue to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to charity. Their Jolie Pitt Foundation’s 2010 tax filing just became available. Of the over $2.3 million they gave away in 2010, $1 million went to Doctors without Borders treating patients in Haiti. But sometimes it’s the little things that count, too. Brad paid $3,000 toward a funeral for beloved New Orleans civic leader and his friend, Pamela Dashiell, who died unexpectedly at age 61 in December 2009. Dashiell had been a leader in New Orleans’s famous Lower 9th Ward where the most damage occurred from Hurricane Katrina. Big donation are wonderful, but something like that kind of breaks your heart.
The Jolie Pitt Foundation is also kind of a template for smart giving. For example, under a micro financing plan they loaned 201 needy Cambodians $21,000 for small businesses to purchase crop seeds and agricultural tools– a similar program to Kiva.org. All the money has been paid back.
Their largest expenditures went to SOS Childrens Villages ($250,000) and to other children’s causes around the world. But they also donated $200,000 to Drury University in Springfield, Missouri –Brad’s hometown– and $15,000 to Operation Blankets of Love in Granada Hills, California–they help rescue pets and abandoned animals.
The foundation noted that even though they have a fair market value of over $6 million, 2010 was a year of “contraction,” leading to fewer donations. (“Tree of Life” and “In the Land of Blood and Honey” weren’t exactly blockbusters.) Still they noted that their donations repesented 25% of their assets–which is highly generous.
Read also: http://www.showbiz411.com/2011/08/01/brad-pitt-angelina-jolie-shelled-out-5-mil-to-charity-in-2009

NYFCC 2

 

 

Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Meryl Streep, Robert DeNiro Rock New York Film Critics Dinner

 

01/10/12 1:53am Roger Friedman

 

Brad Pitt was hilarious and touching last night accepting his Best Actor award from the New York Film Critics Circle. Joining other honorees Meryl Streep, Albert Brooks, Jessica Chastain and the folks from “The Artist,” Pitt was a little nervous and actually spoke softly from the podium at restaurant.

Angelina Jolie was with him, looking more gorgeous than ever, accepting kudos for her underrated film “In the Land of Blood and Honey.” Viola Davis, herself a nominee for “The Help” from many different groups, presented Best Actress to Streep. Davis joked: “I popped a lot of Stress Tabs when we made ‘Doubt’.” Streep was philosophical, having won the same award two years ago: “We do this for love, and for as long as we can.”

Surprise presenters were Robert DeNiro –who had trouble with “Artist” director Michel Hazanavicius‘s name–and Francis Ford Coppola, who came for “Artist” producer Thomas Langmann. The Coppolas, it turns out, have been long time friends of the Langmann family. Famed late French film director Claude Berri (“Jean de Florette”) was Langmann’s father–his real name was Claude Berel Langmann. And Thomas told me something stunning: when Claude Berri won an Oscar in 1966 for a short film, “Le Poulet” but he didn’t have the money to go to Hollywood and claim it. The Academy mailed it to him instead! Sacre bleu!

Anyway, back to Brad Pitt, who’s on track to win the Oscar for his work in “Moneyball.” He said the award was a big deal considering “I’d never been on ap plane til I was 25.” He talked about coming to New York to audition for a soap opera in 1989. “I had to put myself up in an apartment on Christopher Street,” Brad recalled. “My first impression of the city was There are a lot of guys around here. But they’re so nice!” That got big laughs.

He continued: “On set the clock’s ricking, the camera’ rolling. A lot of what we do comes out of instinct and intuition. I am continually surprised about how much I learn about storytelling and filmmaking from your reviews. We are complex, we are industries to ourselves, we are difficult to each other…we live in continual flux, Christians and Muslims, Democrat and Republican, Denby and Rudin…” — a reference to a recent feud between producer Scott Rudin and film critic David Denby. Again more laughs.

He said: “It never crossed my mind that I’d be here.” And then, almost as an afterthought as he was leaving the stage, Pitt said: “I love films, I absolutely  love them. I consider it a great privilege,  I thank you for this, it means so much to me, and I’m glad this wasn’t televised.”

 

Pitt, Streep, and the 77th annual NYFCC awards

 

Published: Tuesday, January 10, 2012, 12:33 AM     Updated: Tuesday, January 10, 2012, 1:03 AM

  By Stephen Whitty/The Star-Ledger

“I’m so glad,” Brad Pitt muttered, stepping away from the mike, “this isn’t televised.”
Well, he may be glad – or otherwise there’d be endless YouTube clips of him talking about once getting cruised on Christopher Street (or busybodies wondering why he forgot to thank Angelina Jolie in his best-actor acceptance speech).

But there are plenty of movie fans who are probably sad today that Monday night’s New York Film Critics Circle awards were presented without any network cameras around.

Because that means film buffs didn’t get to see Viola Davis present the best actress award to her very real Oscar rival Meryl Streep (“It’s a testament to her that she’d do this in this year, which is her year,” Streep graciously said, on taking the stage.)

It means they also didn’t get to see the sweetly overcome Jessica Chastain barely get through her acceptance speech for best supporting actress without breaking into tears. Or a wry Albert Brooks, a best supporting actor winner for “Drive,” nearly bringing the audience to tears of laughter with his.
But then that’s one of the things that makes the New York Film Critics Awards special. Thirty-odd – sometimes very odd -- critics, and their guests. A dozen or so honorees, and their guests. Three open bars. And no television cameras at all.

But the gala – now in its 77th year – isn’t just an excuse for people to let their hair down (or, in the case of some of the older honorees, let other people’s hair down). It’s also the unofficial start of the big-time awards season, the Iowa caucus to the Oscars’ national convention.

(WEINSTEIN)"The Artist," with Jean DuJardin and Berenice Bejo, danced its way into critics' hearts.

And for two groups who sometimes seem to be natural enemies – movie critics and movie makers – it marks a brief and glorious truce.

Not that a certain nervousness doesn’t prevail. “I know the pressure’s on,” Brooks said early in the evening, standing in a crush of people at the Manhattan club Crimson. “But I’m up for it.”

“I just hope I don’t embarrass myself,” Chastain said, already breathless and edgy about her speech.
But once Chairman John Anderson kicked things off, the evening rolled on with good humor and warm feelings. And, perhaps, with an idea of who Oscar’s big winners might be in 2012.

The neo-silent film “The Artist” won the top prizes, picking up awards for best picture and best director. And it got the biggest presenters, too, with the legendary Robert De Niro passing out the directing prize (even though he couldn’t pronounce filmmaker Michael Hazanavicius’ name) and Francis Ford Coppola awarding the one for best film.

But “Tree of Life” won the most nods, with certificates for its photography, and for Chastain’s and Pitt’s performances (although both were honored for other films, as well).
Taking the stage, a visibly trembling Chastain immediately opened the folder to check her citation. “Yeah, says my name,” she joked. “Can’t change your mind!”
But then she went on to thank the critics (who had also honored her for “Take Shelter” and “The Help,”) saying she had read them since she first moved to New York to study at Juilliard. “You guided me,” she said of the reviews she read then. “You opened my world.”

(WEINSTEIN)Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher in "The Iron Lady" -- a vote-getter.

Pitt – who was also honored for “Moneyball” -- remembered his first trip to New York too, back in 1989 to audition for a soap opera. He didn’t get the part, but he did stay with a friend down in the Village, and he thought the city was very special.

“My God, there’s a lot of guys in New York,” he remembered thinking, walking down Christopher Street. “But they’re so nice!”

Streep, meanwhile – a Circle favorite for “The Iron Lady” – chortled that she’d won her election more handily than Margaret Thatcher ever had. And Brooks, who won for his part in “Drive,” joked that “I would be the opposite of critic-proof. I’m critic-prone.”

There were other prickly in-jokes during the night, several nursed grudges and probably some regrets, as people made snarky jokes about fights with producers, or mourned the loss of jobs.

Also subject for some complaints was the increase in security that came, inevitably, with Pitt and Jolie. In past, more relaxed years, guests like George Clooney or Matt Damon would happily mix and mingle; I have fond memories of casually chatting with Warren Beatty about “Reds,” and meeting Sean Penn at the bar.
This year, there seemed to be many more large men with thick necks blocking the aisles, and a lot of velvet ropes suddenly hemming in the hosts at their own party.

But it was still a fun party. A lovely celebration of great performances, strong writing and amazing films. And whether it’s any sort of prediction of what the rest of the year will bring, it really doesn’t matter. As Brooks said, happily clutching his prize, “This is not the People’s Choice. This is the real thing.”

Tuesday, January 10th, 2012

Angeline Jolie Shows Us Who’s Boss In Leather

Oh look, it’ the sexy librarian! Only Angelina Jolie could wear a white blouse and leather skirt and still look so unbelievably hot. Full marks for the jade pendant and the killer pumps too. Angie and Brad Pitt were at the 77th Annual New York Film Critics Awards Gala in New York last night and rocked up looking like — that. BTW, that cane Brad’s toting around? That’s not a fashion statement, although we really wish it was. It’s due to an injury, as he revealed over the weekend, “I was carrying my daughter (Vivienne) down the hill and I slipped. It was either her or me.” Angelina also added that it hasn’t slowed him down, saying, “I like the cane. He’s not that kind of guy. He does everything still.” With his cane, and her leather, this may stray into kinky territory.

 

PICS: Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie sizzle at Critics' Circle Awards

By Eleanor Young  on Tuesday 10 January 2012

With awards season about to kick off in earnest, Hollywood royalty Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie set flashbulbs alight on the red carpet once again last night, at the prestigious Critics Circle Awards in New York.

Fresh from a dazzling appearance at the Palm Springs Film Festival – where Brad was awarded the Desert Palm Achievement Award - the pair struck a smouldering pose outside the event. And while Brad looked undeniably dapper in a sleek charcoal Versace suit - accessorised with a cooky cane, after he tore a ligament during a ski trip – it was Angelina who set tongues wagging.

Scoring yet another style hit to add to her collection, Ms Jolie was the epitome of chic as she sashayed down the red carpet, choosing a sizzling Ferragamo leather skirt, simple silk blouse and jaw-dropping jade jewels for the occasion.

Despite winning hands down in the fashion stakes, it was Brad who took home an award during the evening, garnering the prestigious Best Actor prize for his roles in Moneyball and The Tree of Life.
Meryl Streep was also present at the ceremony, taking home the Best Actress gone, while rising starlet Jessica Chastain was awarded the Best Supporting Actress prize for her role in The Help.
And with the Golden Globes just around the corner, we can't help feeling this is just a sign of things to come...

Showbiz 411 quotes Wesley Clark

Angelina Jolie Bosnia Film: Wesley Clark Says “Absolutely Truthful”

 
01/02/12 12:03am Roger Friedman
 

Our LA reporter LEAH SYDNEY taking note in December: With the kudos of a Golden Globe Nomination, Angelina Jolie’s moving new film, “In the Land of Blood and Honey,” the movie also got a thumbs up from General Wesley Clark, a retired General who also ran for President in 2004.  At the premiere in Hollywood The General told us, “I was there during that war, and this film was hard to watch but totally truthful.  Extremely realistic and terribly moving.” The General then had a chat with Angelina.
We then asked Angelina if the heaviness of the scenes ever go to her.
Angelina: “It was a kind and gentle set.  Both sides came together, especially during the heavy scenes. My cast and crew were just amazing.”

JP Foundation filing

Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie Shelled Out $5 Mil to Charity in 2009

08/01/11 1:06am Roger Friedman

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie gave away just under $5 million to charities in 2009 according to tax filings. Their Jolie-Pitt Foundation gave less in 2009 than in 2008, but it’s still a lot of money: $4.9 million. You can’t quibble with that. Their Form 990 filing shows that the couple supports organizations in Brad’s hometown of Springfield, Missouri, his interest in New Orleans, and Angelina’s concerns internationally (she funds groups in Cambodia, home to adopted son Maddox). They also pay little in salaries to the people running the fund, keeping expenses down in general. Madonna and her Raising Malawi/Kabbalah funds could learn a lot from Brad and Angelina.
The couple also doesn’t invest in schemes or dubious cults/religions. Their biggest donee: Brad’s Make It Right Foundation in New Orleans, which got $2 million. The money went right into building homes in that city. The second biggest donation was $1 million to the Pakistan Emergency Fund at the United Nations. Almost $700,000 went to organizations in Springfield including $333,000 to the endowment of a pediatric cancer fund in Brad’s mom’s name. They have a tremendous interest in helping children, too. Jolie-Pitt gave $100,000 to Kind, Inc. in Washington DC. That’s a group that helps pay for lawyers to represent abandoned children in dire straits around the U.S.
All in all, very impressive considering that already in 2011, Jolie-Pitt has awarded $500,000 to Joplin, Missouri for rebuilding their storm ravaged city.