The Great Acting Blog: "Phone Box Gun - Full Trailer Now Up"

 

This blog has become a real fulcrum for me, and I’m very grateful to those who take an interest in it, support it, and offer feedback. As it is, I’m delighted to be share with you the full trailer for our new film, Phone Box Gun. Hope you like it. James.

Vincent and Bob stick up a jewellery store to raise money so Vincent can get down to Mexico, and visit his long lost sister, who he didn’t even know he had.

Written and directed by James Devereaux, and featuring James with Alfie Black and John Giles, Phone Box Gun is a short tragi-comic film noir, minimal and shot in black and white, which looks at the nature of friendship, storytelling and the imagination.

To read previous posts about Phone Box Gun, check-out the links below:

The Acting Style Of Phone Box Gun

Stills From Phone Box Gun

Some Thoughts On Self-Production

Only Worry About Action

To learn about our next film, please visit: Will It Stop Raining In Summer

Drifting Clouds Cinema Blog: Wonderful scene from Forman's Talent Competition, feat. Vera Kresadlova

Drifting Clouds Cinema Blog: A Note On Milos Forman's "Talent Competition"

I finally got round to watching Talent Competition, a wonderful drama-documentary about a singing contest, a sort of 1960s Iron Curtain version of Pop Idol. It's a film which is part of my favourite cinematic movement, the Czechslovak New Wave. However, one scene especially piqued me, such that I kept replaying it in order to fully absorb it, and that was a scene in which Vera Kresadlova, one of the contestants, gets up to perform a rock n roll number, which is in contrast to the drab folksy stuff the others had been singing. The song itself was catchy, however, what took me by the scene was Kresadlova, beautiful and charming for sure, but it was her genuine joy at performing the song that did it, and the genuine captivation on the faces of the audience. Truthful joy and captivation in films. We need to see more of it.

The Great Acting Blog: "Marjo-Riikka Makela's Response To My Blog On Why Actors Quit"

I am delighted to be presenting to you Marjo-Riikka's response to my post, Why Actors Quit. It is passionate, and full of wonderful insight - really a must read.

Marjo-Riikka is a US based Finnish actress and founder of the successful Los Angeles based acting studio, Chekhov Studio International. She received her training at the Russian Academy of Dramatic Arts (GITIS) and holds an MFA in Acting from CSULB. She was a company member of the groundbreaking theatre group The Actors’ Gang, and is a present guest artist at Antaeus and has extensive stage credits from Europe. In the USA some of Marjo-Riikka’s favourite roles include Medea under the direction of David Bridel, Yelena in Uncle Vanya at the Classic Stage Company in NYC,  plus her work with Sarah Kane and Andrei Malaev-Babel at the Stanislavsky Theatre Studio in Washington DC. Her directing credits include Shakespeare, Chekhov, Schiller, and devised work. She has been featured in Back Stage, the Los Angeles Times, American Theater Magazine and several major European publications.

 

 

This profession is not for every one and it is certainly not for those looking for "cosy routines".

 

Routine, in my opinion, should NOT be an option or any kind of goal for an actor, or any artist really. If an artist doesn't choose discipline for brave, at times innocent, "new born" eyes towards life itself, she/he becomes a cynic. I don't mean that an artist should not ever exercise a critical eye towards a circumstance or life condition, but in order to create new, one must be willing to let go of the established and look for the new within and outside of ourselves. "Cosy routines" hardly have brought much interesting or important art to the world!

I especially want to underline your sentence: "All the actors I've known who had purely cynical motives, have failed. All of them."

Yes! And of course they have:

Acting means creating new life and one cannot create life, nor be inspired by anything life affirming, with cynical motives. Yes, sure, one can create out of emotional states of anger and desperation (but those emotions still have within themselves a strong wish of changing the circumstance and a braveness of feeling them, experiencing the emotion) where as cynicism means turning a way from life itself, letting go of hope, saying no to the experience itself, which (and this all actors should know) makes uninteresting stories... or the end of a story altogether... lack of an objective....in this case an end to an acting "career".

A cynical attitude and inspiration (inspiration being the blessed state that an actor must find braveness and a pleasure to live in on a daily basis) cannot live in the same house. By "house" I mean your instrument, your whole being.

Being an actor means to be a "professional human being". It means finding daily inspiration about life, without excuses. This is a very life-affirming profession! Being a successful, happy “professional human being” who has the ability, courage and stamina to explore and express all colors of the human condition. To be an actor, one must love the art of acting and understand and keep in mind that this is a profession of calling.

Acting is also a profession of joy. Even when the character is suffering, a part of the actor’s creative being will be enjoying the ride, the creation!

Learning to empower oneself as a creator in any job situation, and being inspired to love all aspects of the actor’s creative process is crucial for the actor’s personal feeling of success and happiness.

I also call for and enjoy working with those actors who want to expand their ability for empathy, widen their emotional and physical range, and find organic ways to achieve character transformation, these being some of the key elements to great acting. Even tough we don't do brain surgery, we can make a difference of some sort in the world and do what I call "soul surgery". It is my great hope that we can increase empathy in the world by telling the stories and sharing the visceral experience of the characters we play.

I don't believe that some one with a true nature of an actor, will ever "successfully" quit. One might take a break from auditioning or take a vacation after a long run of a stage play, but if someone is an actor, a true creator of this kind, he/she will always look to create in one way or another, otherwise one would find oneself to be miserable!

Of course, I am very happy for those who decided that acting wasn't just their greatest passion, and almost a necessity for them. It is probably a good idea to do something else, if you have an option! One should only choose this profession, acting, if this is what brings you the greatest happiness and makes sense for your life. Otherwise dear people, by all means do something else! Life is full of possibilities! So many more important professions are awaiting, many things to get done in this world! I truly mean this and am not writing this with any sarcasm.

I think what actors often mean when they say that they want to "quit" is that they want to quit desperately running after "the dream". This in my opinion can be a good thing. I know many actors who, after "quitting", started booking much more acting work, because they now had let go of that nasty, desperate energy and neediness of being accepted by every one in the business and "booking that job" and had now grounded themselves to their own special artistic individuality and started nourishing and enjoying their creativeness in a more creative way. In other words instead of trying to impress someone they started enjoying expressing themselves! They got to a place where they felt more whole as a human being and had accepted that whether they booked acting work or not, they had value as a human being. They did, in most cases, return to enjoying and having acting careers. They might also have found other kinds of creative work to support them financially so they could enjoy the acting when they did it.

In acting, the real dream is always already here already, with every role we are working on. One of the biggest paybacks for actors is that we get to live in the imaginary circumstances on daily basis. We get to experience the many lives and life experiences we never otherwise would, and we get to embrace and nourish empathy and story telling. If acting is seen this way, why would any one want to quit? Unless it is your bliss to be doing something more important in the world, and then please do! If we all were actors, the world would not get much done!
I'd like to end with this:

Acting is not a profession of competing with other actors, but rather a vocation of sharing with fellow human beings.

Stay inspired!

Warmly,
Marjo-Riikka Makela
Actor, Director, Artistic Director
Chekhov Studio International

 

 

Drifting Clouds Cinema Blog: "Nuts4R2 Reviews Cronenberg's Cosmopolis"

Cos n’ Effect


Cosmopolis 2012
France/Canada/Portugal/Italy  
Directed by David Cronenberg
Playing at UK cinemas now

Warning: In reading this review you will be sitting 
in a metaphorical traffic jam with a load of spoilers
glancing at you from other lanes. Beware.

I should probably start off this little review with a warning that I haven’t actually read Don DeLillo’s novel, the one that Cronenberg took as his starting point for this work. So I don’t know if this movie version is actually a literal adaptation of the work or if Cronenberg has taken the spirit of it and done his own thing with it (like Naked Lunch, for example). What I can say, though, is that Cronenberg probably wouldn’t have touched this if the source material wasn’t already something which he responds to on an artistic level and it would be true to say that it fits nicely into his oeuvre and is especially in tune with his earlier works, although actual bodily decay/mutation is not an issue for the characters in this one.

Set in a world where the rich can rise or fall in a day due to the instability of the economy, a rich power player called Erik Packer, who looks a bit of a thug actually (Who the heck is Robert Pattinson? He looks like Tarantino and you just want to punch him.), embarks on a quest to be driven in his deluxe limo downtown to get his haircut... a journey which will take him all day and into the night and see his fortunes fall due to, and I paraphrase the words of one character, his inability to predict the random elements of nature within the patterns of the stock market figures, as represented metaphorically by the discovery of his asymmetrical prostate. During his day he plays host to numerous visitors both in his limousine and in various interior spaces, while worrying about a “credible death threat” and getting the pretty-boy veneer stripped from him as he shows his true thuggish nature by the end of the piece.

For a road movie, it’s a pretty claustrophobic one with the majority or the film (if not all of it, actually) shot in sets rather than locations (as far as I could tell). The visitors with whom he talks money or philosophy or poetry or has sex with include some fairly famous names giving fine performances (Juliette Binoche and Samantha Morton, to name two) and for the most part the script is quite dense and I’d normally find this pretty interesting but, I have to say, I spent a lot of my time in front of this movie feeling kinda bored. The attitude of the main character didn’t help this lethal malaise that infected me as I started watching his movie but, at the same time, I got the impression I was watching a future classic in that it so neatly dovetails into that “easy-to-decode” early Cronenberg phase. Well, I say early but I saw traces of eXistenZ in it too... in addition to some of his earlier works like Videodrome and the remarkable Crash.

Talking of which, I think the choice of lead actor, or at least his style of acting, is a definite shift for Cronenberg in that he used to use some pretty inspired and charismatic actors to portray the kind of cooled down, emotionally vacant characters he often populates his films with... James Woods, James Spader, Debbie Harry and Jeff Goldblum spring instantly to mind. Pattinson seems to throw less fire into his role but I don’t think that makes him any worse an actor than those other guys because of it. Contrarily, and possibly even serendipitously, Pattinson’s lack of presence may be the exact kind of stripped down perspective that both he and Cronenberg are going for in this one... and if that’s the case then it might be because the last scene in this movie which the narrative leads to is such an intense, suspenseful one.

Following the eye stabbing of a VIP live on television, as seen in Erik Packer’s limousine, the director further re-enforces the unexpected and damaging properties of violence with a brutal, point blank slaying of an important regular character towards the end of the film. You will see it coming... but still you feel the injustice of the decision made, just as the person responsible will have to embrace the consequences of this act later on, towards the end of the film. This wariness around tools of violence is the way that Cronenberg sets the scene for the final act of the movie, which is a double header between Robert Pattinson and the remarkable actor Paul Giametti as the target and the assassin come face to face with each other in a run down apartment. Steven Spielberg used a similar emotional device in the opening of Jurassic Park, when the power of the dinosaurs is demonstrated with deadly results to ramp up and heighten audience expectation and anxiety when we see these beasties again, for instance. As did David Lynch when he introduced his audience to Sailor Ripley in Wild At Heart with that notorious, literally head-banging, opening. What this does for Cronenberg’s movie is it gives it a very intense edge that one minute either actor could  shoot the other at any time during their long and twisty-turny conversation. This gets almost unbearable at times and makes me wonder if Pattinson isn’t such a bad actor after all, if he can credibly hold screen time against Giametti.

As I said earlier, Cronenberg’s obsession with physical decay and mutation is not mirrored in this movie but the story does concern itself with the gradual decline of the human mind after a day doesn’t quite go just as you’d expect it too. This is reflected in both protagonist and antagonist in the final scene and, frankly, if by that point you can still work out which one actually is protagonist and which is antagonist, then you’re doing well. This is also mirrored in the journey of the physical media the film is made up of, at least that’s what I thought, since the early shots of the terrain outside of the limousine look much like the fake, projected backdrop the director used deliberately in certain scenes of eXistenZ whereas, as Packer presumably gets poorer, everything starts to look a little more grimy and real... to the point where an incident leaves Packer messy and angry on the streets. The ramshackle set design of the place where Giametti’s character lives seems very much, to me at least, as an external projection of that “slow, body-horror mutation” that marked this director’s early works (or his early funny ones, if you will).

Another great thing which also harkens back to the early Cronenberg is the ending. I’ve been suckered in before with Cronenberg’s endings stopping a few seconds short of where you’d like them to end and he’s done exactly the same to me with this one. He puts you in a place where you are trying to figure out which of the two or three possible endings that Cronenberg has deftly lead you too will be the final, end game of the movie and... as the seconds drag on... your choices are suddenly taken away from you and I’ve definitely seen a few of his movies end in exactly the same way as this one did. It’s nice that there’s a certain symetry at work here... maybe Cronenberg’s prostate is less skewed than his main protagonist’s. Either way, it’s a nice way to finish and I certainly didn’t share the groan that the majority of the other six members of the audience, in the cinema that I saw it in, let out as a collective response to the commencement of the final credits.

If Cronenberg is your thing and you like his early work, especially Videodrome and eXistenZ, then you might like to give Cosmopolis a chance, although it has to be understood that my comparisons to these two works are not to be found in the surface details of the movie and if you look for them there then you will see no similarity, other than the very fluid, slow and steady camerawork that Cronenberg likes to view his ideas from. On the other hand, if you struggle with the emotional aspects of Cronenberg’s work usually, then you might be quite lost in this one since very few of the characters express themselves as being anything other than voyeurs to the events that are actually happening to them... and often don’t seem that present in the moment, getting drawn along in the wake of the cause and effect and ultimate downward spiral of... well... of following the flow of the money.

Personally I’m glad I saw this one but I have no idea if I could sit through it again... although I can see how his kind of movie could be best seen as a personal, individual experience with just the lone viewer and a DVD, as opposed to the normally preferred venue of the cinema. That is to say, Cosmopolis is a dish best served cold, perhaps?

 

Click here to read more by Nuts4R2
 

 

The Great Acting Blog: "Actor As Auteur - Woody Allen"

 

 

“the idea of an actor who becomes the writer, the director, the true auteur, who places himself at the centre of that cinematic universe consistently through a number of films so that ultimately the persona does enter the culture” - Annette Insdorf on Woody Allen

 

They say the films of Woody Allen are an acquired taste, that not everybody likes them, certainly it's true that his films are not considered to be financially successfully in the conventional sense. As a kid, I loathed the Allen films I occasionally stumbled upon on television, finding them to be tedious and unfunny. It wasn't until years later that I became hooked on his irony, via Deconstructing Harry and especially the scene where he is arguing with his wife (played by Kirsty Alley) because she is the obstacle to him seeing more women. Allen has also been prolific, producing 48 films in 46 years, an impressive output, and even more so when we consider that Allen has made all of his films in the commercial sector and with complete artistic freedom, no financier goes anywhere near his productions – people talk about independent filmmkers, Woody Allen is the real thing.

However, I was piqued recently when I learned that Woody Allen doesn't take a break in between films, ie – when he finishes editing one film, he sits down at his typewriter the next day and starts to write the script for the next. No holiday, no chilling out in Ibiza, just a continuation of the work. This consistent work-rate does go someway to explaining the consistent quality and sheer volume of Allen's work, but does not tell us the full story. Afterall, what drives a man to write, direct and star in feature films for almost 50 years (and counting)? That's not an easy question to answer. Allen has little interest in critical acclaim, but clearly he must have a great love for his work – you cannot dedicate yourself to something in the way Allen does without loving it – he must love (and be pre-occupied by) going through the process of and completing a new work, and he must enjoy seeing the effect his work has upon an audience (although I don't believe that Allen is obssessed with popularity). We also know that Allen possesses a pre-occupiation with death, and has an overwhelming consciousness that life is finite, and therefore he may simply be trying to get as much as much as possible done before he goes. Another clue might be Allen's recent comment that he is still searching for the delivery of a cinematic masterpiece (many consider Manhatten to be one, but Allen himself does not), and so his prolific output could be the result of an obsession with mastering his art, an addiction to constantly refining and strengthening his aesthetic – certainly he has the creative engine for such an undertaking.

Whatever drives Woody Allen, his accomplishment has been astonishing, and is certainly something actors can look at as inspiring and worth aiming for. Woody Allen has worked his entire life on material he loves and with total artistic freedom. He understands that his performances and his skills and talents do not exist in order to flatter so-called “gatekeepers”, but to serve the particular film he is working on, and further explore whatever artistic lines of enquiry pre-occupy him at any given time. That doesn't seem like a bad way to live life .

Annette Insdorf comment on Woody Allen

"The idea of an actor who becomes the writer, the director, the true auteur, who places himself at the centre of that cinematic universe consistently through a number of films so that ultimately the persona does enter the culture."