XIXAX Film Forum

Film Discussion => The Vault => Topic started by: Pozer on July 15, 2012, 01:01:16 PM

Title: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Pozer on July 15, 2012, 01:01:16 PM
someone had to start this thread on Ghostboy's new film sooner or later. excited for the dude ...

Rooney Mara, Ben Foster & Casey Affleck To Star In '70s-Set Drama 'Ain't Them Bodies Saints'
Source: Playlist

After a busy week, you'll excuse Rooney Mara's agents if they turn off their cell phones and have a much earned nap. In the last few days the actress has signed on to replace Carey Mulligan in Spike Jonze's upcoming film and taken a lead role in the upcoming adaptation of Colm Toibin's "Brooklyn." And now to close off the week, she's landed another gig that will see her star opposite two of our favorite actors.

Deadline reports that Mara will join Ben Foster and Casey Affleck in "Ain't Them Bodies Saints." Set to be written and directed by David Lowery, the project was part of last summer's Creative Producing Labs and Creative Producing Summit at Sundance, and it boasts a pretty great premise. Set in the 1970s, the film tells the story of an outlaw who escapes from prison and sets out across the Texas countryside to reunite with his wife and the daughter he never met. On his journey the past begins to catch up with him.

Lowery made an impression on the festival circuit last year with his short film "Pioneer" (trailer below), which won the 2011 Grand Jury Award at the 2011 SXSW Film Festival. And clearly, he has cooked up something compelling here to attract such a cast. No word yet on when lensing might take place not only because of Mara's packed schedule, but also due to the fact that financing is still being lined up. But with that cast, financiers shouldn't be too hard to find. Fun fact: Toby Hallbrooks, one of the producers on the film, was once a member of The Polyphonic Spree.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/rooney-mara-ben-foster-casey-affleck-to-star-in-70s-set-drama-aint-them-bodies-saints-20120427 (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/rooney-mara-ben-foster-casey-affleck-to-star-in-70s-set-drama-aint-them-bodies-saints-20120427)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on July 15, 2012, 03:07:07 PM
He's been outed!

Anyway I can't summarize it better than this:

Quote from: Pubrick
rooney fucking mara

casey fucking affleck

david fucking lowery
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Fernando on July 18, 2012, 11:27:52 AM
congrats ghostboy, that is an incredible cast for your first try at the big leagues.

wish you the best of luck.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on July 18, 2012, 05:36:49 PM
I keep trying to piece together story details from the intermittent updates he's posting on Twitter (https://twitter.com/davidlowery/), and so far I've figured out that there are cars and it's set in the '60s.  Spoiler alert!

Also, Xixax better get a special thanks in the credits.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Robyn on July 18, 2012, 08:27:19 PM
So, who will join him? Who will have a try at it and fail? What Xixaxers have the best change of getting big?

Maybe Xixax is the name of the next new wave and Xixax will be remembered as the legendary filmmaker forum. You never know, right?
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on July 18, 2012, 09:57:10 PM
Ghostboy and Pete should collaborate.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on July 18, 2012, 10:42:57 PM
Just Withnail made one of the best short films (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=11191.0) I've ever seen; I would love to see him tackle a feature.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: ©brad on July 18, 2012, 10:58:40 PM
Just Withnail made one of the best short films (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=11191.0) I've ever seen; I would love to see him tackle a feature.

I second this.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Just Withnail on July 19, 2012, 04:23:56 AM
Thanks guys, I'm flattered :)

And Ghostboy, holy shit! Really cool to see you make it.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: I am Schmi on July 21, 2012, 07:12:45 AM
Been following this film for a few weeks, seems interesting. Specifically interested in Rooney Mara's participation. Casey Affleck is fantastic too.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: modage on July 25, 2012, 10:32:40 AM
'Ain't Them Bodies Saints' With Rooney Mara, Casey Affleck & Ben Foster Now Shooting, Keith Carradine & Nate Parker Join
Source: The Playlist (but not me)

For a newcomer on the scene, David Lowery has it pretty damn good. "Ain't Them Bodies Saints," his directorial debut developed in the Sundance Labs, was announced earlier this year, but was said to still be seeking financing. But lo and behold, things have worked out smashingly, as its currently in front of cameras and has now added vet Keith Carradine and youngster Nate Parker to the highly promising cast which already includes Rooney Mara, Casey Affleck and Ben Foster.

The film sees Affleck playing a convict who escapes prison and sets off across Texas as he lookes to unite with his wife and a daughter he has never seen. Mara is presumably playing the wife with the duo and their story excitingly described as a "Bonnie & Clyde"-esque tale. No word on what exact roles Foster, Carradine or Parker are playing but, as Affleck's character apparently "sees the past starting to catch up to him," we imagine the quality trio would have something to do with that. Oh, and it's all set in the '70s as well just to make the whole thing a little more intriguing.

Lowery has already impressed with his short film "Pioneer" which was on the festival scene last year and took home a Grand Jury prize at SXSW. The fact Lowery and the project earned entrance into the Sundance Labs is a good sign -- Sean Durkin of "Martha Marcy May Marlene" is one of the most successful graduates of recent time with some of the creative advisors there including Gregg Araki, Andrea Arnold, Scott Z. Burns, Mark Boal, John Cameron Mitchell, Ed Harris, and, of course, Robert Redford. We presume the goal is for the film to hit Park City next January.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on August 05, 2012, 07:43:03 PM
He's got Skinny Pete from Breaking Bad, too.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Reelist on August 05, 2012, 07:53:17 PM
I won't be able to relate to Ghostboy in any way but as a God from now on. Please, stay away David. So I can contain my gushing.

( I think I am speaking on behalf of all of xixax for this one )
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on August 05, 2012, 08:35:23 PM
We're making him shy now. Or maybe he's just busy.  :ponder:
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on August 05, 2012, 10:43:45 PM
Just really busy!

I have zero objectivity at this point. This has been a crazy experience. 1.5 weeks to go.

Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on August 05, 2012, 11:04:30 PM
Are you keeping some kind of production journal or something? We need at least a minor debriefing when you're done.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on August 05, 2012, 11:12:20 PM
I vent a lot on twitter. @davidpatricklowery
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Alexandro on August 06, 2012, 10:03:08 AM
holy shit! I didn't know!!
the best of luck!!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: ono on August 06, 2012, 02:52:29 PM
I vent a lot on twitter. @davidpatricklowery

...or just @davidlowery.  :oops:
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on August 06, 2012, 04:55:26 PM
He's too busy directing the best movie of 2013 (no pressure) to get his twitter handle right.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ravi on August 15, 2012, 03:58:42 PM
Behind-the-scenes photos (http://atbsfilm.tumblr.com/)

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6k630zG8w1ranr3jo1_1280.jpg)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on August 15, 2012, 04:13:11 PM
Ghostboy, I just recognized your steadicam operator, Dave Isern, in one of the photos.  He was our replacement DP on G.P.S.  Great guy, hell of a camera operator.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: InTylerWeTrust on August 15, 2012, 04:26:42 PM
God damn, that looks so fucking cool....

Great. Now I'm depressed and inspired at the same time   :)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Champion Souza on August 15, 2012, 09:24:11 PM
Ghostboy has a helluva soup strainer. 

Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Reelist on August 15, 2012, 11:06:59 PM
HE'S FINISHED ( shooting )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1PYp-fsZOA

 :bravo:
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Pubrick on August 16, 2012, 04:08:40 AM
Well that was quick.

I hope he remembered to turn the camera on.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: RegularKarate on August 16, 2012, 12:12:42 PM
Well that was quick.

I hope he remembered to turn the camera on.

Actually, if you look at the pic that Ravi poster, you'll see that he never used a camera. He takes people on tours of the film's locations and tells them what happens. The dude with the coffee seems a little bored, but I'm sure it's great.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Reelist on October 09, 2012, 04:05:15 PM
I wonder if this is gonna be anywhere near as good as 'Boondock Saints'
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: MacGuffin on November 28, 2012, 05:07:49 PM
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/11/29/arts/thembodies/thembodies-blog480.jpg)


First Official Image Of Rooney Mara & Casey Affleck In 'Ain't Them Bodies Saints'
Source:Playlist
 
Rooney Mara, Ben Foster and Casey Affleck. Those three names tied to one movie should be enough reason alone for you to go see it, but in a "Bonnie & Clyde"-esque, '70s set drama? Yeah, we're definitely in.

The trio are starring in "Ain't Them Bodies Saints," which shot over the summer and is gearing up to premiere at the Sundance Film Festival in Janaury. The project comes from writer and director David Lowery, whose short film "Pioneer" won the 2011 Grand Jury Award at the 2011 SXSW Film Festival. 'Saints' is something he developed as part of the Creative Producing Labs and Creative Producing Summit at Sundance, and he has certainly taken it over the finish line in a pretty spectactular way. Here's the official synopsis:

In the tradition of BADLANDS and BONNIE & CLYDE, AIN'T THEM BODIES SAINTS tells the story of Bob Muldoon and Ruth Guthrie, two young outlaws who are brought down by the authorities in the hills of Texas. Four years later, Bob escapes from prison and sets out across the countryside to find Ruth and the daughter he's never met - unaware that Ruth has set her past behind her and struck up a relationship with a lawman who is tied to their violent past.

Keith Carrandine and Nate Parker co-star, and while it will be looking for distribution in Park City, we don't think it'll have any trouble finding any.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ravi on December 07, 2012, 02:21:37 PM
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118063280

Variety announces 10 Directors to Watch
Line-up includes two films preeming at Sundance
Posted: Fri., Dec. 7, 2012, 4:00am PT
By PETER DEBRUGE

Variety has announced its 10 Directors to Watch list, representing up-and-coming helmers whose early work suggests promising careers ahead.

The lineup includes Haifaa Al-Mansour ("Wadjda"), Wayne Blair ("The Sapphires"), John Krokidas ("Kill Your Darlings"), Tobias Lindholm ("A Hijacking"), David Lowery ("Ain't Them Bodies Saints"), Andres Muschietti ("Mama"), David Ondricek ("In the Shadow") and Rebecca Thomas ("Electrick Children"), along with two directing duos.

Jon Lucas and Scott Moore, who wrote "The Hangover," make their helming debut with "21 and Over" this spring, while "Kon-Tiki" directors Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg represent Norway in the Oscar foreign-language film race. Ondricek's "In the Shadow" was also submitted for Academy consideration, representing the Czech Republic.

The internationally diverse group ranges from Al-Mansour, Saudi Arabia's first female director, to Aussie helmer Blair, whose lively look at Aboriginal girl group "The Sapphires" debuted at Cannes. "Mama," a remake of Argentine director Muschietti's Spanish short film, was produced by Guillermo del Toro, stars Jessica Chastain. Universal will release the pic on Jan. 18.

Profiles will run in the Jan. 3 Daily Variety.

Several of the directors have spent the year traveling the fest circuit, with at least five screening their work at the Palm Springs Film Festival next month, where Variety hosts its 10 Directors to Watch event on Jan. 6. Later in the month, "Ain't Them Bodies Saints" and "Kill Your Darlings" will preem in narrative competition at Sundance.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Sleepless on December 07, 2012, 03:52:07 PM
David Lowery ("Ain't Them Bodies Saints")

Awesome! Congrats!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on December 18, 2012, 08:43:38 PM
AHHH, Kentucker Audley was talking about ATBS in his Open Five 2 Q&A and my feed cut to an automatic commercial!!

He named his relationships with other characters/actors (in ATBS) and dropped a fun spoiler, which spoiler was related to his role.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on December 18, 2012, 09:17:13 PM
I was watching that, too. It was a good Q&A.

I don't think this spoiler is being kept under too much of a wrap, as I know it's been mentioned before somewhere... maybe it was just Twitter banter... I won't say it here, though.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on December 18, 2012, 09:29:52 PM
Mmhmm, I mentioned the spoiler to recap, and didn't name it to protect the purists. Didn't think it was a wrongful disclosure.

Forgot to mention Audley said he asked Lowery to edit Open Five 2, but Lowery passed due to a packed schedule. Aka make room for Xixax ;)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: MacGuffin on January 08, 2013, 01:25:19 PM
Meet the Filmmaker


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUhm2w-SxGQ
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: modage on January 11, 2013, 03:24:20 PM
Hey! Look who's in the NY TImes.

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/01/13/arts/13SUNDANCE2/13SUNDANCE2_SPAN-popup.jpg)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/movies/a-talk-with-directors-rejected-by-sundance-festival.html

The director David Lowery argued that being denied by Sundance is the mark of a true independent filmmaker. “The sense of struggle really bonds people,” he said.

Mr. Lowery, who can remember wallowing in a “very cliché, melancholy” walk in a cold November rain after an early rejection from Sundance, endured many more over 10 years as he learned to “bite the bullet,” he said. “And then you move on to Plan B.”

Finally, in 2011, he had a short accepted there. This year his feature “Ain’t Them Bodies Saints” made it in and is the subject of early positive buzz. Mr. Lowery, a Texas native, can credit Slamdance, the upstart festival that takes place in Park City at the same time as Sundance, and South by Southwest with giving him his first big break. Both showed his 2008 Sundance-rejected short, “A Catalog of Anticipations.”


Bonus (http://carpetbagger.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/from-sundance-a-competition-slate-that-could-be-called-accessible).
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: ono on January 11, 2013, 04:13:25 PM
No one's said it yet, I guess because he's one of us.  Ain't Them Bodies Saints is just a horrible title.  I'm excited for anyone here who achieves any sort of success, but wow, that's painful.

GB seems to be sporting a Plainview/Bronson/Swanson look.  That's one helluva 'stache.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on January 11, 2013, 04:34:49 PM
It's an awkward title, but not a bad title.  Especially if there's a strong context for it within the film.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on January 11, 2013, 04:51:34 PM
has a kind of amber obscurity that feels appropriate for the movie, based on what lowery has said about it. and beyond clarity or mellifluousness, it seems important that your title reflects a quality back onto you. the thing i like about the title is that no other movie would be titled this.

he's blogged about outside pressure to change the title, and i guess if he'd wanted to he would have. he seems willing to accept the trade of some people not liking it or understanding it for a kind of artistic cohesiveness.

if we're in confessional mode, i'm worried about the period setting. worried about nostalgic amplification, romanticizing. curious what the period setting will bring to the movie, besides art department treasures. agree with soderbergh that most period stuff would work just as well in a modern context. st. nick worked in a kind of timeless way that transcended period considerations, why wouldn't that have worked here? will find out.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: ©brad on January 11, 2013, 04:59:22 PM
No one's said it yet, I guess because he's one of us.  Ain't Them Bodies Saints is just a horrible title.  I'm excited for anyone here who achieves any sort of success, but wow, that's painful.

Wow I really disagree. I think the title is awesome. It's unusual and evocative and makes me want to pick up the movie. More than I can say for The Master (purely on a title basis).
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Reelist on January 11, 2013, 10:41:00 PM
Ain't Them Bodies Saints is just a horrible title. 

basically echoing what Polka said...


you'd only say it's 'bad' because you don't what it's referring to. I think it's a good title because it doesn't let you off the hook by blatantly telling you what the movie is about, you have to find out for yourself. It obviously seems to be taken from a piece of dialogue in the film, and once you hear it, it'll make a lot more sense, then I guess we'll know why he picked it.

The other day I thought that maybe it has to do with dead bodies going up to heaven or something? I don't know...
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on January 12, 2013, 03:40:50 AM
Also it sounds great. English is not my main language and I just love to say this title out loud.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Tictacbk on January 14, 2013, 12:12:16 AM
Ain't Them Bodies Saints is just a horrible title.

I think its a great title, and thats coming from someone who won't shutup about how much he hates the title "Silver Linings Playbook".   When I see it paired with that one image we have so far, somehow it makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: RegularKarate on January 14, 2013, 12:44:46 PM
Town grump, Ono is just being his usual self.

I think the name is great. It's interesting and I like the sound of it. Not boring... that's what I like, it's not boring.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: bonanzataz on January 20, 2013, 10:49:08 AM
I'm currently at Sundance. The premiere starts in two and a half hours. I'm on the waitlist line to get in and it's looking unlikely with about 80 people in front of me. All to see the movie made by the guy I used to post with on the Paul Thomas Anderson message boards. I'm like weirdly proud, and if I get in, I'll likely post a full report that'll read "holy shit. Wow guys"
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: modage on January 20, 2013, 03:07:37 PM
This is great. I'm so fucking proud of Ghostboy right now I'm beaming. I cried a little at the end.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on January 20, 2013, 03:17:11 PM
Tweets are rolling in and the response is very positive. Comparisons to Badlands and lots of people highlighting the acting and the score. Congrats, David!

The crowd at Sundance seem to like the title a lot, by the way. I guess we'll see how the public likes it when it comes out!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Alexandro on January 20, 2013, 09:31:29 PM
I feel like Ray Liotta in Good Fellas when Joe Pesci is going to be made, saying that if one of us gets made, is like all of us gets made. Except Ghostboy is not whacked, he comes out a winner. Congratulations, man. Can't wait to see it very soon in some mexican festival later in the year.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on January 21, 2013, 12:42:49 AM
Playlist review (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/sundance-review-searing-terrific-aint-them-bodies-saints-will-have-the-movie-world-talking-all-year-long-20130120) (not by mod)


EDIT: Fuck it.  Fair use!*

Quote
Searing & Terrific 'Ain't Them Bodies Saints' Will Have The Movie World Talking All Year Long

Set in 1970s Texas, but stationed inside an authentic milieu and era that feels timeless and classic, David Lowery's second feature-length effort, "Ain't Them Bodies Saints," is the culmination of a filmmaker who has put in over a decade of work in the trenches as an editor, cinematographer, writer, electrical department hand and more (fun fact: he's also the editor of Shane Carruth's "Upstream Color"). The jack-of-all-trades is not only fluent with several languages within the vocabulary of this medium, he clearly has an innate understanding of each. Lowery is the real deal and understands filmmaking, and this is abundantly clear in this searing, romantic crime drama and love story.

Tuned to the pitch of a moody and dark folk ballad that just won't end well, 'Saints' takes the familiar outlaw narrative and attempts to subvert it with a twist. Instead of lovers on the run from the law, it's lovers kept apart by the same forces. It's "Badlands" with a deeper aching heart as the Bonnie and Clyde of this story yearn for each other, but are kept apart by their own misguided circumstances.

With a muddy drawn title card that reads, "This was in Texas," the film opens up with a beautiful and then arresting and electric ten-minute prologue. Bob Muldoon (Casey Affleck) and his wild child wife Ruth Guthrie (Rooney Mara) are criminals. They're also passionate lovers, and she's expecting a child. They plan a robbery with their pal Freddy (Kentucker Audley), but soon the law have them cornered in a violent shoot-out. Freddy is killed. Ruth shoots a police officer named Patrick Wheeler (Ben Foster), and sensing bloody revenge and no way out, Bob surrenders and takes the blame for shooting the lawman despite Ruth's pleas to make a run for it. 'Saints' then begins.

Sentenced to a long stretch in prison, Bob goes away, but Ruth is acquitted; though positioned as a victim of these two criminal masterminds to ensure she can raise her baby out of jail, she is no innocent. Her advisor and friend Skerritt (an excellent Keith Carradine), who seemingly planned the robbery in the first place, acts as a father figure and helps her out by selling Ruth and Bob's old home and placing her in a house he owns next door to him where she can care for her daughter and he can safely watch over them.

Four years later, Bob is still in jail and Ruth is raising a curious and precocious little girl on her own. In this time, Patrick Wheeler has graduated to become a local sheriff and he's become curiously interested in Ruth. Not only because of their connection – she was involved in this crime where he was shot years ago – but seemingly because of his empathy for her. Though her dark, alluring beauty sure doesn't hurt either. And just as Wheeler begins poking his nose into Ruth's life, she learns that her husband, after his sixth attempt, has escaped from jail.

While the law is convinced that Bob is coming to reunite with his family, Ruth vows that he would know better to bring that kind of trouble to her doorstep now. But the impassioned Bob, who wrote a letter to Ruth every day in jail, lives for Ruth and his driving impetus is to reconcile with his wife and the daughter he's never met at all costs. And like a bad moon rising, with a portentous storm brewing on the horizon, "Ain't Them Bodies Saints" begins to tighten its anxious grip as Bob makes his way back to Texas, as Ruth fears for the prospect of his return and Patrick becomes more entwined in her life. Knowing that Bob will show his head, the protective Skerritt begins to put the feelers out on his whereabouts, but Bob's first stop is a local dive run by his friend Sweetie (a terrific Nate Parker). 'Saints' then lights a long fuse that throbs and slowly burns with beautiful and riveting intensity that rarely lets up.

While spiritually indebted to Terrence Malick – and yes, it possesses its fair share of the filmmaker's sun-kissed photography and the like – it's far too simple and reductive to just pass it off as nothing more. While perhaps a distant cousin, with very different concerns and personal preoccupations, it's ultimately a very different, darker beast (there's just as much Cormac McCarthy tenor in there if not more). Hickory smoked and sunstroked, Bradford Young's tremendous eye makes for some breathtaking and dusty gorgeous visuals, feeling tactile and lived-in. And just as sublime, and another MVP of the picture's below-the-line talent, is probably Daniel Hart's haunting and moody score. Cripple-creek fiddles pluck away anxiously, cellos drone, banjos twang out with ghostly notes and violins cry into the night sky creating a sonorous musical backdrop for this brooding picture to lay its ten gallon hat on.

And the performances are all top notch. Mara and Affleck's brief romantic sequences are moving, and the entire cast delivers pitch perfect turns and there's not a false note within. But the film's secret weapon might just be the inquisitive and caring cop played by Foster. His smoldering intensity does so much with so little, and it's a terrific, textured performance that hopefully gets him further notice.

Building like a spiritual sermon on fire, "Ain't Them Bodies Saints" coils up to a terrific crescendo that's arresting and devastating. But if there's one main issue to be found, it may be its length. Some small trims throughout could help the pace a bit and also reduce the fatigue of the film's long sweaty simmer. But that minor quibble aside, Lowery has stepped up to be noticed, and "Ain't Them Bodies Saints" is a wholly engrossing and impressive piece of work that the movie world will be talking about all year long. [A-]



* I know that's not what fair use means.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on January 21, 2013, 08:19:13 AM
So who's going to start the David Lowery Fan Page?


Congrats, Ghostboy, realizing the Xixax Dream. I'm very excited for you. Can't wait to see it.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on January 21, 2013, 12:19:56 PM
Fuck the fan page! When is he going to have his own forum?
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: RegularKarate on January 21, 2013, 03:31:58 PM
Man oh Man... I keep saying this, but I'm so excited about this movie!
WHEN DO I GET TO SEE IT?!?!?! SXSW?
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on January 21, 2013, 03:40:11 PM
David, I know it's not going to be entirely in your hands, but if you don't bring this movie to SXSW I am going to be so mad at you.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Cloudy on January 21, 2013, 04:28:20 PM
Like everyone has previously stated: I badly want to see this. Great reviews, and really enjoying the interviews. Realizing the xixax dream. Fuck yes.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: MacGuffin on January 21, 2013, 06:03:42 PM
Sundance: Five Directors To Watch
By DOMINIC PATTEN | Friday January 18, 2013 @ 9:00am PST

If the Sundance Film Festival is about anything, it’s about the directors. Careers are made in Park City with the right combination of talent, content, context and reception. Look at what happened in 2012 with Beasts Of The Southern Wild. Benh Zeitlin’s feature directorial debut seemed to come out of nowhere to win the festival’s Grand Jury Prize for Dramatic films. Now the fantasy drama is nominated for multiple Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Director. No predictions of course, but here’s five directors worth watching at Sundance this year.

David Lowery, Ain’t Them Bodies Saints: Lowery is actually a triple threat this Sundance. The Texan has the outlaw Rooney Mara and Casey Affleck starrer, which he directed and wrote, at the festival; Pit Stop, which he co-wrote, in the NEXT sidebar; and Upstream Color, on which he was one of the editors. Not bad for a guy who’s directorial feature debut St. Nick got rejected by Sundance back in 2009. Then again, Lowery’s short Pioneer won the Grand Jury Prize in 2011, so 2013 could really be his year.

-------------------------------------

Sundance: ‘Ain’t Them Bodies Saints’ Wins Indian Paintbrush Grant
By THE DEADLINE TEAM | Sunday January 20, 2013 @ 1:19pm PST

Indian Paintbrush has chosen Sundance contender Ain’t Them Bodies Saints and producers Toby Halbrooks, James M. Johnston and their company Sailor Bear as recipients of the 2013 Indian Paintbrush Producer’s Award and accompanying $10,000 grant. Ain’t Them Bodies Saints was written and directed by David Lowery. The award was announced today at the Sundance Institute Feature Film Program Producers Lunch. Mark Roybal of Indian Paintbrush made the announcement. Indian Paintbrush’s latest production, Breathe In directed by Drake Doremus, just debuted at the festival.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: I am Schmi on January 21, 2013, 08:20:53 PM
So, does this mean Ghostboy won't be visiting the forum anymore?
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Reelist on January 21, 2013, 09:04:39 PM
So, does this mean Ghostboy won't be visiting the forum anymore?


He's gonna start his own message board with the name of another Nina Hagen song:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zj6nbc4Cjs
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on January 22, 2013, 10:42:08 PM
You can see David and some other folks talking about screenwriting at a Sundance panel here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ciJAhtsX6U&feature=youtu.be

(I'm not sure if the link is up for a temporary time or if it is a permanent link)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: 72teeth on January 23, 2013, 02:51:52 PM
 :bravo:

This is awesome man, looking very very forward to seeing this
Congrats and cheers to many many more!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Kellen on January 23, 2013, 03:24:42 PM
I had no idea that this flick was doen by one of the xixax members.  Fucking awesome to say the least, I've read some of the reviews so far and I can't wait to get a chance to check this out when it's in my area.  Congrats Ghostboy!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Tictacbk on January 23, 2013, 03:58:59 PM
Ghostboy needs to post something so we can give him due respect. 


...By which I mean up-vote his post.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: RegularKarate on January 23, 2013, 04:15:18 PM
I'm sure he's magnificently busy right now.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on January 23, 2013, 04:23:00 PM
well someone's gotta operate the juicer
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on January 23, 2013, 04:32:14 PM
Huffpo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hogan/sundance-oscars-2014_b_2528859.html) and Hitfix (http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/sundance-2013-which-films-might-find-oscar-traction-next-season) articles speculating which Sundance films could factor into next year's awards season.  ATBS features prominently in both, primarily in regard to the performances.

I have to think a distribution deal is inevitable at any moment now, with the kind of buzz and acclaim it has swirling around it.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on January 23, 2013, 04:33:08 PM
I'm still here!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Sleepless on January 23, 2013, 04:41:41 PM
Congrats! Can't wait to see it! Well done!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on January 23, 2013, 04:47:57 PM
I'm still here!
to die for! we were all lonesome jims here, soul survivors smoking 200 cigarettes, thinking you were gone baby gone. but nah, you're committed.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: max from fearless on January 23, 2013, 05:56:58 PM
Congratulations! Also been reading your road-dog-prods blog, loads of good stuff on there, especially liked the interview you did with Shane Carruth for Primer.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Kellen on January 24, 2013, 12:56:43 PM
8.5/10 at Slashfilm (http://www.slashfilm.com/aint-them-bodies-saints-review-a-modest-but-powerful-modern-western-sundance-2013/)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: modage on January 24, 2013, 01:14:07 PM
Top 5 Films of Sundance (http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/videos/travers-5-sundance-films-that-bode-well-for-2013-20130124) - Rolling Stone
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Pozer on January 24, 2013, 11:14:38 PM
sheesh this kid is killin it

http://www.deadline.com/2013/01/sundance-ifc-acquiring-aint-them-bodies-saints/#utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.deadline.com/2013/01/sundance-ifc-acquiring-aint-them-bodies-saints/#utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ravi on January 25, 2013, 01:13:13 AM
sheesh this kid is killin it

http://www.deadline.com/2013/01/sundance-ifc-acquiring-aint-them-bodies-saints/#utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.deadline.com/2013/01/sundance-ifc-acquiring-aint-them-bodies-saints/#utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)

IFC = Possible Criterion release???  :ponder:
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on January 25, 2013, 01:47:26 AM
Here's a conversation Ravi and I had on Facebook. I'd love to hear what y'all think of this. It involves a lot of me talking out of my butthole about stuff I don't know about, but really, it's not a crazy idea.

----------------------------

Ravi:
That means there's a chance this could be a Criterion DVD/Blu-Ray release...

Matt:
True, hadn't thought of that. I know that Weinstein Co. has foreign rights and had an option for North American rights, and I read a piece that posited that they could get this and try to shoot for Oscar if they wanted to. It seems that they are going to try that with FRUITVALE, which I hear is really working for people.

My impression of IFC is that they don't hit as hard with the advertising or the awards push. To be honest, I'm a little surprised by this acquisition because I can't remember the last time IFC really hit something out of the ballpark. I know that this movie will be a hard sell to large audiences, but it seemed to me that a heavier hitter like Weinstein could really leverage the hell out of the cast and make back more money.

The other thing is that I thought North America is where they're going to do their best potential business, because this is a movie about outlaws in Texas, and how do you sell that overseas? I also think that "Sundance" is more meaningful to North American audiences.

But IFC's relationship with Criterion is a very interesting point. Every mention of ATBS hails the arrival of Mr. Lowery, which makes it sound like this is one of the most distinctly auteur-driven films of the festival (along with BEFORE MIDNIGHT which also has a likely shot at Criterion for the whole trilogy, and UPSTREAM COLOR because Shane Carruth was a one-man band on it, so you can't say it's not auteur). Criterion is all about that auteur shit, so it's not a crazy idea.

The article mentions that Sony Pictures Classics was in the running and that did seem like the most natural fit for this film, all things considered. Their pedigree is higher. They're a classier joint.

I don't imagine that this is simply a highest-bidder-wins-type situation. It's gotta be about what they can offer the film in distribution and advertising, as well. I'm wondering what IFC is offering besides the "low seven figures" that this article mentions.

IFC does hit VOD harder than most. I wonder if that's a part. Maybe they want VOD to play a big part in this.

Lots of IFC films come and go with barely a blip in the market, so I am a bit concerned, but if they shoot for Criterion then it's really a whole other game, and IFC is their best shot.

I think that all makes sense. Right?

Ravi:
Maybe IFC offered a better back-end deal, or some other incentives, monetary or otherwise. Control over the marketing (trailers, posters, etc.) perhaps?

Matt:
It comes down to incentives one way or the other. Just a matter of what incentives, and a push for Criterion isn't out of the question. Really, why not? They did it with TINY FURNITURE and WEEKEND, which weren't obvious choices, and they did it with THE KID WITH THE BIKE, too. And really, if Criterion was mentioned, that would be hard to turn down.

I don't recall IFC giving filmmakers much control over marketing. Their marketing is honestly pretty gaudy and unimpressive (take a look: http://www.ifcfilms.com/in-theaters-on-demand). But they are ahead of the game in this VOD thing and might well have a better working distribution model for earning a profit. It's not as glamorous. The films don't pop up on as many screens (but that keeps distribution costs down). More of each dollar goes to the company and perhaps back to the filmmakers. Money money money money money. Maybe.

Ravi:
Yeah, their posters are pretty shitty.

ATBS seems like it would be one of their biggest releases, as far as cast and festival buzz are concerned.

Matt:
Yeah really. Looking at all their titles--ATBS doesn't even seem to fit, EXCEPT for their Criterion titles!

I was just thinking that the closest title they have to ATBS is THE FORGIVENESS OF BLOOD. I double-checked, and guess what? Criterion, baby!

Let's call it. AIN'T THEM BODIES SAINTS -- CRITERION COLLECTION.

Ravi:
WOO HOO!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on January 25, 2013, 11:54:10 AM
Audio interview with David: http://www.filmlinc.com/daily/entry/daily-buzz-sundance-episode-8-david-lowery-aint-them-bodies-saints (starts about a minute in and goes for about 15 minutes)

Also, IFC finalized the deal and it will be a multi-platform release. Seems to be aiming for something similar to MARGIN CALL (which had a different distributor, but still), which is looked to as a prime example of doing big business on VOD. So I think, profit-wise, this deal could work out very well. IFC hits VOD pretty hard.

Then on top of that, there's Criterion. Friend of mine who saw the movie at the festival and knows the Criterion Collection very well said it would totally fit. I also asked Gold Trumpet and he said he also thought it was quite possible.

All in all, the deal's making sense to me now.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Kellen on January 25, 2013, 02:22:23 PM
GB is on the playlist's breakout artists of Sundance list (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/the-breakout-artists-of-the-2013-sundance-film-festival-20130125)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Alexandro on January 25, 2013, 10:23:17 PM
this is really weird, I feel like there should be a party...so I'm getting drunk.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on January 26, 2013, 09:30:56 PM
"He says all right and he's laughing." Bradford Young on the phone, winning cinematography prize for AIN'T THEM BODIES SAINTS. (Shot on 35!)

via @IndieFocus
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Just Withnail on January 27, 2013, 10:01:04 AM
Watching this happen is just incredible. I remember GB posting his short "Looking for Love" here (or on his blog?) around ten years ago. And now this. Congratulations man!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on January 29, 2013, 02:19:46 PM
i feel confused when this is called his debut. is st. nick struck from the record? whyyy
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on January 29, 2013, 03:16:15 PM
I think just not a lot of people are aware of it. I do my best to correct them.

What's really weird is when people say it's my THIRD feature, because that means they found out about the film I made right out of high school that I don't ever ever talk about and which only exists on VHS.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on January 29, 2013, 03:30:13 PM
Presumably those people are going off your IMDb page.

This happens all the time, though.  People still call Sixth Sense Shyamalan's first film, when it was actually his third.  It says more about the state of entertainment journalism than anything else.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Just Withnail on January 29, 2013, 04:11:01 PM
which only exists on VHS.

For now. One day, the internet will claim it. You can lock it up in a vault and throw it in the sea, but the internet will claim it.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Pubrick on January 29, 2013, 07:45:22 PM
they probably just mean your "breakthrough" film, but can't think of the right word for it.

like outkast with Stankonia. white people hadn't heard of them before that.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: samsong on January 30, 2013, 01:02:58 AM
trailer?!?!?!?!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: modage on January 30, 2013, 09:51:32 AM
ATBS on Indiewire's Critics Poll for Sundance 2013:

Best Narrative Feature #2 (after Before Midnight)
Best Supporting Performance #1 (Ben Foster)
Best Director #2 (after Richard Linklater/Before Midnight)
Best Ensemble #1

Rooney & Casey #7 & #8 on Best Performance
Carradine #13 on Supporting

http://www.indiewire.com/survey/top-films-and-performances-of-sundance-2013/
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: modage on February 01, 2013, 09:30:58 AM
Thanks to Ghostboy for letting me pester him into making this happen. And to um, recording it a second time when the first one didn't turn out...

XIXAX TAKING OVER (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/interview-director-david-lowery-talks-aint-them-bodies-saints-starring-rooney-mara-casey-affleck-20130201?page=1#blogPostHeaderPanel)

(http://www.indiewire.com/static/dims4/INDIEWIRE/3a62b03/4102462740/thumbnail/680x478/http://d1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net/c9/7f41906c2b11e29dc322000a1d0930/file/lowery.jpg)

Interview: Ghostboy Discusses His Sundance Sensation 'Ain't Them Bodies Saints' & Assembling 'Upstream Color'
By: Modage

David Lowery went from being a relative unknown to having one of the heavily anticipated films of this year’s Sundance Film Festival, the outlaw drama, “Ain’t Them Bodies Saints.” Though his most recent short film “Pioneer” picked up acclaim at the festival in 2011, not many saw his previous micro budgeted feature “St. Nick,” a dreamy brother-sister tale which cast only non-professional actors. And yet the anticipation for this film was off the charts thanks in part to the casting of Casey Affleck, Rooney Mara, Ben Foster, Keith Carradine and Nate Parker for this “Bonnie & Clyde”-like tale of criminals determined to reunite with each other at whatever cost.

Our review from Sundance called, “Ain’t Them Bodies Saints” a “wholly engrossing and impressive piece of work that the movie world will be talking about all year long” and in a recent Indiewire Critics Poll, Lowery and the film were ranked as the #2 Best Director and Feature of the festival (behind Richard Linklater's “Before Midnight”). As if being the writer and director for one of the most well received films at the festival wasn’t enough, he was also the co-editor of Shane Carruth’s beguilingly abstract “Upstream Color” and the co-writer of the NEXT selected love story “Pit Stop.” Shortly after IFC Films picked up ‘Saints’ for distribution, we spoke to Lowery about his unexpected influences for the film, sidestepping clichés and pulling off the ultimate Sundance hat-trick.

Where did your initial idea for the movie come from?
The idea for the film came sort of as a response to my first feature, “St. Nick” which was a slow and nearly silent film about children running away from home. I wanted to move in a different direction, so I thought, “Well, I made this incredibly slow, very ponderous and serious movie, let’s try something different. Let’s make an action film next.” It started as sort of a lark and I started to try to write something but very quickly the action part fell away. Initially I was going to open the film with this giant jailbreak scene with lots of intense action and chases, but maybe subconsciously I was disinterested in the action part of it, so I just skipped the actual jailbreak and started with the guy already out. I still think the film really is my version of an action film -- only the whole film is all about the aftermath of action rather than the action itself.

The other big inspiration was just like a lot of the classic American films from the ‘40s through the ‘70s. I really wanted to make something that felt very old-fashioned. With “St. Nick” I was very much into European cinema and, especially Pan-Asian cinema, directors like Tsai Ming Liang and Hou Hsiao-Hsien and [Hungarian filmmaker] Bela Tarr and all the filmmakers that really mastered the art of the long, long take where nothing much happens and yet a lot happens at the same time. And I love that genre of filmmaking but having made that film already, I was ready to try something else and I was really getting into some American filmmakers like John Ford, John Huston and also '70s filmmakers like Robert Altman and Michael Cimino. So I felt a strong desire to make a film in that mode that had that sort of clarity, simplicity and muscularity. I really wanted to tell a classic story that was pretty well known, not like a true story or anything but a film that followed traditional beats where you wouldn’t have to pay too much attention to as far as the plot goes. I really love movies where you’re able to sit back and luxuriate in the details or the characters or the moments in between the big scenes. That’s what I really was, more than anything else, really trying to do.

I’ve spoken a lot about how “McCabe & Mrs. Miller” was influence on this movie but more than the film itself, perhaps, is something that Robert Altman had said on the commentary track which is that if you give an audience a story that they already know, it gives you an opportunity to just mess around in that story, to look in the corners and find all the weird details that you wouldn’t necessarily notice in another film. But because everyone knows where it’s going because it’s all so familiar, you’re really able to present something entirely different and entirely new by paying attention to what’s happening behind the action, so to speak.

Were there any clichés of this kind of outlaw story that you consciously tried to stay away from?
When I writing the script, I was always thinking, “If I were watching the movie, would I be disappointed if I went in this direction?” And sometimes you do have to go in those directions because it seems proper or it seems easy but those are always the directions I would have to catch myself on. For example, there's a certain expectation in these types of films that the outlaw and the sheriff are going to have a confrontation at the end, which is the way to tell this story traditionally by having those characters fulfill their archetypes. So I was always trying to find circuitous routes to achieving those classic moments or clichés as you might say. So indeed, the sheriff and the outlaw do indeed have a confrontation at the end but it’s not the one that you might expect from “High Noon” or any of those classic movies where the good guy and the bad guy finally meet up. And there’s certainly plenty of clichés but if you do them well -- by side stepping the expectation and yet fulfilling it in a roundabout manner -- they are satisfying in a really wonderful way. And so when I was writing the script I was always just very conscious of where I needed to get to but I always looked for backhanded way to get there.

Most people would probably guess "Badlands" or "Bonnie & Clyde" as being touchstones for the film but can you talk about some of your more conscious influences?
You have a whole catalogue of things you’ve digested throughout your life that you draw on as you’re creating something. “McCabe & Mrs. Miller” -- certainly that was a big one -- and we also looked at a lot of Claire Denis movies, especially “35 Shots of Rum.” There was something about that one that I felt really tonally applied to this film. There’s a scene in that movie where the characters’ car breaks down and they go into a bar late at night, turn on the jukebox and dance with each other. There’s a feeling in that, a warmth and congeniality that somehow really, I felt, applied to this movie in a strange way. The scene’s on YouTube and I sent a link to it to everyone that worked on the movie. The scene in the movie where Casey wanders around the bar listening to a song on the jukebox I think owes a little bit to that.

And there’s no denying that “There Will Be Blood” was a big touchstone as well just because they achieved something that we were after: to create a really old-fashioned motion picture that yet has a strange modernity to it as well. On the technical side of things, we definitely followed in that film's footsteps by shooting on 35mm film, using old fashioned lenses and trying to limit the number of modern filmmaking contrivances. We didn’t use any modern lighting equipment and the camera was locked down or on an old dolly for the most part, sometimes we broke out a steadicam but we never used a crane or anything like that. We tried to keep everything as stately and as old-fashioned as possible. I know my cinematographer Bradford Young talked to ["There Will Be Blood" DP] Robert Elswit just to get some tips on how to process the film in an old-fashioned way. I don’t know how many of those secrets were divulged because I know cinematographers like to keep their tricks close to their chest but that discussion was certainly something we were very keen on having.

How important was music to you while you were writing the script? And when you were on the set?
Music was also a huge part of how the film wound up feeling. When I was first starting to talk to the cast or crew, I put together a playlist on Dropbox and sent it to everybody. I would say, “Here’s a song that I want a certain scene to feel like ” or “I want the whole movie to feel like this.” Sometimes it was very specific dialogue that would echo lyrics of a certain song and sometimes we would just reference it with our composer for mood. But more often than not it was just the tone of it, the overall feel of the music played a big influence both in the writing of the script and all the way through the shooting of the movie. While we were setting up the camera we would have music playing sometimes to try and get into this mood of what I wanted the movie to feel like.

I can probably just call out the entire playlist that I had: Joanna Newsom was a huge part of it; for Rooney’s character, I gave her a bunch of songs that very specifically applied to the journey that character takes. There’s one song in particular called “Go Long” and one draft of the script had very specific quotes from that song in the letters that her character writes. And then Bill Callahan and Bonnie Prince Billy were also a huge influence. I would just listen to all of them on repeat just constantly. “Ramblin’ Blues” by Mickey Newbury, “Christmas in Prison” by John Prine was something that I wanted to have in the credits at one point, Nick Cave a little bit here and there, but it was Joanna Newsom that was such a huge part of how everything came together in the movie tonally and what I wanted it to feel like. In the movie there’s still a lyrical reference and I was so glad that that made the final cut because it was such a huge part of where the movie came from.

Had Mara heard of Newsom before?
It was the first she had heard of her but she definitely has heard of her now because I just keep talking about her and sending her music. I feel like if Joanna Newsom were to watch it, she would definitely catch the reference and if you were to watch it again, if you know her music well, you might catch it as well.

To switch gears a little bit, you also co-edited "Upstream Color" which was very narratively fragmented. Was the film built that way on the page or was that something that developed in the editing room?
The script is very similar to the finished film. If you had entered a new scene every time the movie had cut from one location to the other, I think the script would have been about 300 pages long but it was pretty accurate to the running time, probably about 90 pages. But the movie evolves as you shoot it and that was certainly the case with “Upstream Color.” As I was editing it, I was looking back at the script and it’s remarkably close and I think that speaks to Shane’s clarity of vision. He knows from the very beginning what it is he’s after and sometimes that evolved a little bit. One of those instances would be that scene where it’s cutting back and forth, over the course of the conversation, and that was a scene that I cut it that way because Shane was off shooting another scene and I was looking at the footage and saw that they had shot the same conversation multiple times in different locations and was thinking, “Well, this is probably how this was meant to go.” Very often that’s how the whole movie was put together. You ascertain what the director intended and then as it goes it just all starts to fit together.

In this movie in particular, because there’s so much density to it, it developed a musicality and the cutting became a very rhythmic thing. I think that was always intended but it was really fun to figure it out from the footage. For the first month that I was editing, I had very little interaction with Shane because he was still shooting the film. As we got towards the end and things were picking up, we just got faster and faster. At some point we had finished the film and we were looking at the first assembly and realized that the last thirty minutes had no dialogue. It wasn’t something conscious that we were after and it wasn’t something that was scripted, it just worked out that way. It was such a natural and instinctive thing that it took a little while for us to realize that it was indeed a silent movie for the last reel or two and all the dialogue prior to that is all just quotes from “Walden.” That’s something that was a wonderful surprise to realize that the movie had gone in that direction of its own accord almost and that it wasn’t an intentional decision. I’m a big believer in gut instinct and following whatever feels right and that was a very definite case of following that instinct and winding up with a movie that worked that way.

Do you think you might work with Carruth again in the future?
I would love to collaborate with him. I know what his next film is and when he’s hoping to shoot it, but we’ll see how things go. At the very least I would always hope to be a sounding board and someone he can show a cut to. He was the very first person to see a cut of “Ain’t Them Bodies Saints.” I look forward to working together at the very least in the capacity of friends showing each other movies or just friends hanging out, that’s always the bar by which I set all collaborations. Hopefully we’ll hang out in the future a lot and sometimes that will involve making movies.

Did it change much from that first cut Shane saw to the final cut at Sundance? What was his feedback like?
Yeah, it changed a lot. The first cut was cut for tone more than anything else the first time and it was really different. At the moment that was the best version of it, and I was like “Alright, we got it, here it is. This is the final cut it’s not going to change at all.” I kind of knew that wasn’t true but at the same time I had gotten to that plateau for a moment and just sat back like, “Okay, this is great. I got it to where it needs to be.” Then we would show it to people and you realize, “Oh, wait, it’s not there at all.” Nonetheless, Shane watched that first cut and gave us great notes and at one point, he even recut a scene for me because he had some ideas and he said, “I can just explain it better if I recut it.” So he did that which gave some remarkable clarity on how to put the movie together. That scene that he cut isn’t in the movie in that way, but just the way he did it was the spark that gave me an idea for how the rest of the movie could work and gave me confidence to try some new things.

Do you have any idea what's next?
I’m working on three different screenplays at the moment, just taking a lazy Susan approach and trying to get a little bit done on each one on every day until whichever one catches fire first is magically done which is how all my scripts always seem to finish themselves. I never know exactly how I finish any screenplay because it usually takes about six months for the first twenty pages and then all of a sudden it’ll be done one day and I don’t remember how I wrote it. I’m waiting for that to happen and I would love to be getting something going by the end of the year because it’s really difficult to make a film and while you’re in the midst of it you’re like, “Why did I choose this? Why did I ever sign up for this?” And then as soon as you wrap, on the last day, you’re like “Man, I can’t wait to make another one.” The longer you go without having made one, the more you just want to get back behind the camera. Right now, I’m just really excited about making something new and learning new things and growing as a person and as a filmmaker. I’m always just curious, I want to know more about everything and to accomplish that I make movies. So, I’m ready to learn some more.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on February 01, 2013, 01:00:42 PM
great answers
not worried about period setting anymore
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Alexandro on February 01, 2013, 01:34:46 PM
really excited about the altman influence here. most of my filmmaker and film geeks friends underrate him heavily, sometimes it feels like PTA is the only filmmaker in the world to ever mention him. but he's huge and I hope in time his work gets more revered by the younger generations.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Kellen on February 01, 2013, 11:16:54 PM
Psyched on the Joanna Newsom reference.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: MacGuffin on March 13, 2013, 01:29:13 PM
The Sundance hit “Ain’t Them Bodies Saints” will be released on August 16 by IFC. A convict (Casey Affleck) travels across Texas to reunite with his wife (Rooney Mara) and the daughter he’s never met. As Rodrigo Perez wrote in our Sundance review, “‘It's ‘Badlands’ with a deeper aching heart as the Bonnie and Clyde of this story yearn for each other, but are kept apart by their own misguided circumstances.” With a great cast (including Keith Carradine as the wife’s father figure) and crew (director is jack-of-all-trades David Lowery), this is one to look out for.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on March 13, 2013, 01:52:54 PM
Yay!

It'll start off in NY and LA and probably several theaters in Texas, but I think it'll open relatively wide (for an art house film) after that.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: RegularKarate on March 13, 2013, 02:47:25 PM
It'll start off in NY and LA and probably several theaters in Texas, but I think it'll open relatively wide (for an art house film) after that.

I hope it's safe to assume that Austin will be one of those Texas theaters because I can't think of a better time and place to see this than a hot Texas summer.
Trailer soon? I've been braggin' about David to everyone here for a while now.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on March 13, 2013, 03:05:01 PM
Pretty please and thank you on whenever you can get a trailer out.  It's pretty amazing that over a month after Sundance, with a theatrical deal in place, all any of us have seen of the movie (well, those of us who haven't SEEN THE MOVIE) is a single promotional still.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on March 13, 2013, 03:54:11 PM
The trailer(s) and posters and such will start hitting in May.

And yeah, it'll definitely open in Austin, if not that first weekend than the week after. It'll open theatrically in all major markets and a fair amount of not-so-major ones as well.

Releasing just one still was definitely by design. New ones will be trickling out soon, though. There's going to be some pretty cool stuff coming out in the run-up to the release. Taking a few pages from The Master playbook...
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 13, 2013, 04:50:20 PM
Ain't them trailers late...

My deepest apologies for what I just did.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Cloudy on April 01, 2013, 09:50:06 PM
That image is such a great tease to the "scenery you can touch" as Ghostboy/DL put it in one of his interviews. I remember him speaking of using TWBB as a precedent for that approach. Did he ever divulge all the lenses/camera/stock/etc. he was working with? I forgot whether he used film or not...
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Drenk on April 22, 2013, 09:33:31 AM
The movie is at Cannes for La Semaine de la Critique. Cool.

In french, it's Texas's Lovers. :yabbse-undecided:

And a new still, right? Or not exactly the same.

(http://i80.servimg.com/u/f80/11/65/95/74/captur11.jpg)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on May 01, 2013, 09:06:34 PM
http://www.lafilmfest.com/films/summer-showcase/

fun, nice, fun, nice. guess this fest also has i'm so excited! and only god forgives. i haven't been to this fest for a few years (since a shaw bros restoration event at the hammer museum -- lol maybe) and the tickets seem confusing, but

lowery, if you're city entering and chilling, your movie is playing in a showcase that my friend's movie is playing in. he saw your movie at sundance and was a big fan. idk, message me if you're in the city, if you want
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: MacGuffin on May 10, 2013, 02:08:04 AM
New Stills


(http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads//2013/05/dxUCKDZ.jpg)

(http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads//2013/05/u15hiLF.jpg)

(http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads//2013/05/6l1ruPj.jpg)

(http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads//2013/05/IFOo6ZA.jpg)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on May 10, 2013, 02:13:42 AM
Starring Ben Foster as Daniel Plainview.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on May 10, 2013, 03:43:56 AM
Also, after watching Side Effects, I will now be extremely jealous of anyone who gets to work with Rooney Mara.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Cloudy on May 10, 2013, 04:26:37 AM
I wannna know how the experience was working with these actors.

Can we get XIXAX to do a Q&A with Ghostboy?
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on May 10, 2013, 08:32:28 AM
I just woke up from a dream that I was watching this movie. There was an extreme moment of violence that jolted me awake. Good job.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: ©brad on May 10, 2013, 10:20:12 AM
I'm more excited for this than I am Inherent Vice.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on May 11, 2013, 01:54:57 AM
I just woke up from a dream that I was watching this movie. There was an extreme moment of violence that jolted me awake. Good job.

I will dispel any hope for extreme violence right now, but I still hope that it lives up to your dream in some regards!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: ono on May 12, 2013, 12:41:00 AM
It got a little plug in Rolling Stone on page 80:

"You can call it a Texas Bonnie and Clyde, but Ruth (Rooney Mara) and Bob (Casey Affleck) - both terrific - make their own kind of history with a local sheriff (Ben Foster) in David Lowery's lyrical spellbinder about a love triangle out of balance.  August 17th"
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Lottery on May 16, 2013, 03:34:22 AM
This movie has been yelling 'Days of Badlands' at me this whole time. It would be nice if it was kinda like that.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: modage on May 16, 2013, 11:28:25 AM
First clip:
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/05/16/aint-them-bodies-saints-casey-affleck-rooney-mara/
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on May 16, 2013, 11:39:57 AM
aww, i remember when lowery tweeted about an ew smile. happy
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Cloudy on May 16, 2013, 02:36:59 PM
That...was a great clip! I love Casey and Rooney's chemistry, shitttttt. This is gonna be good. (mmm...that direct sun to lens right when she goes into his arms....i like)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: pete on May 16, 2013, 03:16:40 PM
beautiful.
backlit both ways!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Kellen on May 16, 2013, 04:36:18 PM
Yes, can't wait to watch this!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: modage on May 17, 2013, 02:19:11 PM
(http://bitcast-a-sm.bitgravity.com/slashfilm/wp/wp-content/images/atbs_finalposter_for_web-550x814.jpg)

Aint Them Bodies Saints opens on August 16, and hits VOD on August 19.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: xerxes on May 17, 2013, 09:14:53 PM
That clip sure has me excited.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on May 17, 2013, 09:31:14 PM
I didn't believe this was really a movie and not just a bunch of still pictures until I saw that clip.

Also, 25-minute chit-chat with David:

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/aint-them-bodies-saints-david-lowery

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vi5aGXSyck
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Cloudy on May 18, 2013, 12:49:56 AM
My excitement/anticipation for this is going bonkers. That clip was such a great choice, and that poster is unique and special. Probably won't watch that interview until after the screening.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Kellen on May 18, 2013, 02:32:09 PM
The poster is wonderful, it looks like something you would see on a Criterion release.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: MacGuffin on May 20, 2013, 12:39:46 PM
Presentation at Cannes:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBBljpawVnU
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on May 20, 2013, 01:32:37 PM
Ghostboy in Cannes. This is quite surreal.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Pubrick on May 20, 2013, 02:10:15 PM
prediction: the lowery stare is the next kubrick stare.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: ©brad on May 20, 2013, 05:27:08 PM
(http://media.tumblr.com/82df3d4310e3f584e7cb8f8f512652fd/tumblr_inline_misc3f7laP1qz4rgp.gif)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: MacGuffin on May 21, 2013, 08:38:03 AM
Hollywood Reporter interview


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_mqTU4ESco
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Pubrick on May 21, 2013, 09:26:37 AM
correction: rooney mara stare is the new lowery stare.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on May 22, 2013, 09:34:02 AM
As evidenced by some of the reactions here in Cannes, don't let your expectations go TOO bonkers!

The trailer should be out in a few days. It's spoiler-ish, although you won't know in what way until after you see the movie. There will be a series of spoiler-free teasers coming out very soon as well, for those who would rather wait...
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on May 22, 2013, 10:52:31 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLGHftr5s7A

Variety titled the video "Ain't Them Body Saints" HAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT IDIOTS!

Nice interview, though.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on May 24, 2013, 12:42:58 PM
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/aintthembodiessaints/

TRAILERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR HOLY SHIT!! I cannot wait. I will hassle everyone to go see this movie.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: ©brad on May 24, 2013, 01:12:16 PM
Gahhhhhh I want to watch so bad but GB said it was spoilerful! To watch or not to watch? I'm going to try and hold off and just watch the upcoming teasers. It's not going to be easy though.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: xerxes on May 24, 2013, 01:14:40 PM
My expectations have now gone bonkers.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: 03 on May 24, 2013, 01:41:45 PM
wow. that was amazing. definitely worth the wait.
this is just speculation but i would say the trailer isnt that spoilerful unless you remember every little clip from it while watching the movie. i really hope this comes somewhere close to me. looks incredible.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Frederico Fellini on May 24, 2013, 02:13:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6FhsOYXRAY



Cannot wait to see it. Good job, Ghostboy.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Tictacbk on May 24, 2013, 02:21:10 PM
This looks fantastic, and man does it LOOK  :shock: fantastic.  Can't wait.  Congrats Ghostboy.


Edit: link for new page:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6FhsOYXRAY
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on May 24, 2013, 03:11:41 PM
Excellent! Kind of exactly what I expected. It's definitely this moody world that you want to be immersed in. Inviting and beautiful, with enough darkness.

The trailer didn't seem excessively spoilerful to me. I think it's mixed up enough that the chronology is not totally clear, and you're not even exactly sure what roles the supporting characters play in the story. Either that or my brain was in spoiler protection mode.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Kellen on May 24, 2013, 04:02:17 PM
Holy shit this looks really good!  Props Ghostboy  :bravo:
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Neil on May 24, 2013, 04:47:43 PM
I am agreement with the rest of you folks.  I  really hope this film does well for you GB!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: I am Schmi on May 24, 2013, 07:45:52 PM
Wow, what an amazing trailer. Who did the soundtrack that accompanied the trailer? It is fantastic.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: MacGuffin on May 24, 2013, 07:48:34 PM
I see the Malick influence. There was a bit of twirling.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Lottery on May 24, 2013, 07:49:57 PM
Poor Affleck, he just wants to love.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on May 24, 2013, 08:00:57 PM
I see the Malick influence. There was a bit of twirling.

Guilty as charged, but for the record, the trailer contains 50% more twirling and 100% more ECUs of grass blowing in the wind than there are in the actual movie!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on May 24, 2013, 10:28:27 PM
When I go see this and there are no extreme close-ups of grass blowing in the wind, I am going to RIOT.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Cloudy on May 25, 2013, 02:57:04 AM
I still think that clip>trailer. Love that scene. Feels good in all senses. Still going bonkers over here.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Alexandro on May 25, 2013, 12:49:39 PM
I started it but then thought why would I see this trailer? I know enough about this film already and I want to see it blindly when I have the chance, I want to give it that treatment.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on May 28, 2013, 01:10:15 AM
Ghostboy, any chance you'll be showing up in Seattle for either of the SIFF screenings?
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on May 28, 2013, 03:18:37 PM
I will be at the one in Seattle on Friday.

I'll also be at the first LA Film Fest screening on the 15th, with the cast, and at BAM in New York a few days later. Lots of road tripping!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on May 28, 2013, 04:09:10 PM
There's a screening in Kirkland (east of Seattle) this coming Friday, and one in Seattle next week, Friday the 7th. Hopefully the latter is the one you're referring to, since that's the one I'm planning on going to.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Pubrick on May 28, 2013, 06:17:14 PM
any chance this'll get shown in australia this year? if not an actual release then how bout the brisbane international film festival in november?

i normally would not think my local festival is worthy of anything special (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=9069.msg229957#msg229957), but our street cred is certainly rising since it was announced that we'll be hosting the G-20 summit next year.

so, basically, are you saying you're better than the combined force of the most powerful leaders on earth?

GB and his posse:

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lg9ml6c8pW1qg0rnuo1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on May 28, 2013, 09:39:18 PM
I'm not sure what the plans for Australia are yet. I THINK we sold the rights there, but I can't recall for sure. I need to get an updated foreign sales chart.

I sure as hell hope that it plays at that festival and that I'm able to attend. I've never been to the antipodes and would love to go, and I'm also trying to travel with the film as much as possible. Engaging in a bit of good ol' fashioned hucksterism, getting people out to the cinema...

Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on May 28, 2013, 11:29:31 PM
Xerxes and I are going to TRY to go to the screening at the LA Film Fest. Well, he might definitely go, but the timing may or may not work out for me.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on May 31, 2013, 10:44:05 PM
In my seat, beer in hand, waiting for the movie to start. Ghostboy, let me know if there are any parts of the movie that would be good for going and getting more beer.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on May 31, 2013, 10:51:43 PM
Maybe while Bob is wandering around the old farmhouse...
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on June 01, 2013, 01:20:42 AM
Damn it, not a wasted minute in the film. I had to settle for one beer.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on June 01, 2013, 02:48:31 AM
Short, first-impression review:

I don't know how there's a cut of this film that's eight minutes shorter than the one I just watched, because like I said above, there wasn't an extraneous minute to be found. The storytelling is so economical and the pacing so hypnotic, I really can't even imagine where these cuts are going.

As good as Affleck, Mara, and Foster are, and they are very good, Keith Carradine runs away with the movie. It's an absolute master-class on film acting; you can see everything going on in his mind without him having to move a muscle. I honestly believe this is the best performance of Carradine's career.

The little girl is also amazing. Getting natural, un-precocious performances out of children, especially a child that young, is a feat of directing skill. All the kudos in the world for that one.

I'm fascinated by the story structure, how the three main characters form this sort of triune of protagonists/antagonists, where each is both the hero of their own story and the villain (in a sense) of another's. And somehow through that they're all able to achieve some sort of redemption. It's a complex construction that somehow plays very naturally and simply on the screen.

And of course, all the technical marks: the film looks beautiful, there's such an authenticity and a timelessness to the costumes and set design that it looks like you could rub the screen and come away with dirt on your finger. The score is perfection. I hate to reuse the word hypnotic, but there you have it.

I can't wait for more people to see this, because it's a rich film that's rife for discussion, and this is going to become a very long thread by the end of summer.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Just Withnail on June 01, 2013, 10:58:50 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n15QHUwRSqQ
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Lottery on June 01, 2013, 11:48:28 AM
Excellent interview.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: xerxes on June 17, 2013, 06:02:24 PM
I'm waiting in the rush line for the 4:50 screening and I'm scared I won't make it in. Is there some secret xixax code to get in?
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on June 17, 2013, 06:35:24 PM
Is there some secret xixax code to get in?

"Ratner sent me."
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on June 17, 2013, 06:41:07 PM
You should be fine. Everyone in the rush line on Saturday got in. I wish I was still there to say hello!

P.S. As the movie screens more widely, I hope folks here will feel free to discuss the movie and what they liked and didn't like freely. For better or worse, the picture is just about out of my hands at this point, which is terrifying and exciting at the same time. If anyone feels inclined, redommending it to friends and posting on twitter and/or Facebook will be much appreciated. And if anyone hates it, I hope it's at least a complex sort of hate that inspires discussion!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: xerxes on June 17, 2013, 07:00:26 PM
Damn, no luck. No rushes in this time. Pretty bummed.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: MacGuffin on July 17, 2013, 12:11:17 PM
(http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2013/07/16/Them-Bodies-Saints.jpg)


Ain’t Them Bodies Saints’ poster and director David Lowery on Rooney Mara, violence, and indies
By Lindsey Bahr; EW

It’s Texas sometime in the 1970s and Ruth Guthrie and Bob Muldoon are in love. But in Ain’t Them Bodies Saints, the passionate, earnest couple cannot stay together. There’s a confrontation with the police, and Bob (Casey Affleck) ends up in prison, while Ruth (Rooney Mara) raises their daughter alone. But Ruth’s quiet life is upended when she gets word that Bob has escaped from prison.
With Ain’t Them Bodies Saints, which premiered at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival and will be released in theaters on Aug. 16 (and VOD on Aug. 23), director David Lowery crafts a tightly constructed, lyrical portrait of people tied together by love, tragic circumstance, and obligation. And even though there are guns, wounds, threats, and betrayals, Lowery has somehow managed to make nearly every character empathetic. EW spoke with Lowery about the film, his love of Robert Altman, his use of violence in the film, and the state of independent movies. Take a look after the break. WARNING: MINOR SPOILERS.

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: The movie focuses on Bob Muldoon (Affleck), Ruth Guthrie (Mara), and the local policeman Patrick Wheeler (Ben Foster). Is it any one character’s story?
David Lowery: I really wanted it to feel as evenly divided amongst the three as possible. You can break it down in terms of screen time and make calls on that, but I think the thing that has been really gratifying to me is that everyone who sees it comes away gravitating towards one character’s story. That’s really nice to hear because my goal was to be even-handed with everybody.

All the main characters are incredibly empathetic, even though some commit crimes, intentionally or not.
I really wanted to make a movie with a lot of nice people in it. I wanted to do something where everybody was trying to do the right thing — even though they all have different ideas of what is “right.” I don’t like to hate anyone. Even Keith Carradine’s character, who could have easily turned into a villain of some sort, I just wanted to make him nice.

Your use of violence in the film seems very measured for a Western. The characters may use the threat of violence, but any acts are generally out of self-preservation or done by accident. Why is that?
When it came to Bob, he’s a character who wishes he could hold a gun with some degree of authority. He’s like a little kid with a cap gun. He never thinks about what the consequences are or the fact that this might hurt somebody. He’s never actually thinking of what he’s doing in violent terms. When he’s given the opportunity to actually shoot someone, he can’t do it. The gun was just an accessory to an image more than it was an implementation of violence. Ruth, her perspective was slightly different because she actually did shoot someone and had to deal with that.

What was your goal with how to present the violence?
I don’t like violence that’s made to be cool, and I hate fetishizing it. In this movie, when the violence does break out towards the end, it happens quickly and in a way that’s not glamorous. I wanted it to be thrilling, but not exciting. I didn’t want people to walk away thinking that was a fun part of the movie. I’ve shot one gun once and I hated it. I wanted all the violence in the movie to contain that disgust.

Bob even asks at one point, in a comedic respite from the tension and action, “Why did you shoot me?!”
It’s really hard for me to wrap my head around certain things, and one of those things is the idea of actually hating someone enough to want to get revenge. I always wonder, “Why would this guy do this?” And I thought, well, I’m just going to have him say it. I shot it and thought it wouldn’t work. It’s such a weird thing to have someone say that in the middle of a shoot-out. But those words actually ended up making sense.

Ben Foster is so compelling in this film, and he said once that Patrick represented
“core American values.” Is this something you talked about while developing his character?

I think it goes further back than American values. It’s this idea of chivalry and being a gentleman. Here’s a character who, in the archetypal sense, would normally be out to get Bob, or after something more duplicitous. I wanted to take that character and make him be open and to be able to let things go. I tried to make him a genuinely good man.

Rooney Mara is terrific too, and her career is really taking off. What was it like working with her?
She’s remarkable. It might sound lazy, but as a director you kind of hope that actors will intuitively get everything you want so you don’t really have to explain too much to them. But it’s great when it happens. It just means you’re on the same page with somebody. She definitely had that. She got the project. She got the character. And she was very professional. She’d come knowing her lines. She could do any scene at the drop of a hat. So that freed up our ability to discuss different options of where to take things and push it further than we had on the page.

You’ve talked a lot about the influence of Robert Altman’s McCabe and Mrs. Miller and you were able to cast Keith Carradine, who appeared in McCabe and Mrs. Miller, in a key role. How did you get connected with him?
He came on pretty late in the game. We were having a lot of trouble casting that part. I’d initially wanted to go out to him and for whatever reason we weren’t able to get the script to him. We were already shooting by the time we got the script to him, and he read it and came to town. It was a nice that he has a direct tie to McCabe and Mrs. Miller, but first and foremost was the quality of his acting.

You’re in a very enviable spot in the independent film world. You co-edited Shane Carruth’s Upstream Color, you’ve worked with Joe Swanberg, you are connected to the Ross brothers. Are you optimistic about the state of indies?
I would make Ain’t Them Bodies Saints for $12,000 if that’s all I had to do it with. The means to make things are constantly available and there’s nothing stopping me. They can be big or small, but I know that I can always make something and express myself through this form. I think that’s true of my peers and collaborators too. We’ve all chosen this medium outside of any industry factors. We can do it on our own. If the industry pays attention and wants to give us money or help us make a living, that’s icing on the cake, but that’s not the goal.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on July 22, 2013, 01:42:41 PM
felt excited for you that it's playing at cinema 21 in portland (aug 30). that's the most beautiful theater in portland, by far. they have another really nice theater that i'm sure you're aware of, and it's a really nice theater, but cinema 21 is by far more beautiful. victory here
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on July 29, 2013, 02:44:00 PM
the other day alex ross perry tweeted a thank you to producers and included lowery, and i wondered why without knowing why, and then i thought about other things anyway, and today --

alex ross perry's next movie "listen up philip" has an atbs producer list including david lowery, and james johnston and toby halbrooks, and the casting news was jason schwartzman and elisabeth moss

i'm going to put this here because duh we have a favorite name, although the movie will get its own thread and that will be good
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on July 30, 2013, 12:01:15 AM
Indeed, we're gonna use whatever good will this movie has given us to help our friends however we can. We loved Alex's film THE COLOR WHEEL and are excited to be making this new one happen. Unfortunately for me, it starts shooting right around the time SAINTS is coming out both here and abroad, so I'll be gone for most of it. But my fellas have my back.

THE COLOR WHEEL is on iTunes, if anyone is interested in seeing my favorite independent comedy of the past few years.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on July 30, 2013, 12:38:50 AM
i have an outright hilarious story from when the color wheel played in la. i'd guess lowery has heard it from people who were there (for example alex ross perry), it's jeff garlin battling a heckler with a comedic response. where was garlin? chilling in the audience

on topic, lowery is a good person :love: :love:
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: max from fearless on July 31, 2013, 08:08:50 AM
After a week of being sick and spending too much time watching Claire Denis filmmaking workshops, I finally broke my movie sabbatical and watched THE COLOR WHEEL then jumped straight into Sophie Takal's GREEN.

THE COLOR WHEEL is INCREDIBLE. Vicious, heartfelt and hilarious. I got that same feeling I got whilst watching The Master, like this filmmaker was seeing how far they could push everything, the form, the characters, the performances, the situations/scenes. This shit had bite. Loved it and Green was similarly strong and singular and just totally it's own thing with great performances. Super inspiring. Thanks for the recommendation. Now onto Sun Don't Shine.

Looking forward to Saints. Any idea when it's reaching London?
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on August 04, 2013, 10:50:08 PM
as a trailer, before johnnie to's drug war, at the sundance on sunset blvd, there came the saints. it's wonderful they're headed to los angeles
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on August 05, 2013, 04:09:13 AM
I never cease to get excited when I see the trailer at the theater.

The movie opens in NY and LA on the 16th, about 20 more cities on the 23rd and then continues to expand through September 20th. It'll be in the UK on September 6th and France on the 18th. If anyone is looking for specific city information, let me know.

The lead-up to the release has been equal parts intense /  frustrating / terrifying / exciting. I tried watching the movie myself again the other day and couldn't get through ten minutes of it. My feelings towards it change on a moment by moment basis. Sometimes I love the jam-packed first 20 minutes and wonder how I let the rest of the movie get so slow. Lately I can't believe the first 20 minutes are so fast and wish I had let them take a breather. I can't wait for it to be a year or two old, at which point the hypersensitivity will have worn off and I can embrace it again!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: modage on August 05, 2013, 08:59:24 AM
Saw the trailer yesterday before Blue Jasmine at BAM in Brooklyn, seen the movie twice and I still can't believe it!  :bravo:
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: RegularKarate on August 05, 2013, 11:46:53 AM
I saw the trailer at Violet Crown here in Austin and now I see they're showing St. Nick right now... that's pretty cool.
Can't wait to see ATBS!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on August 05, 2013, 02:01:19 PM
If anyone is looking for specific city information, let me know.
mmhmm, the names of the theaters that will play the movie in los angeles. you can tell me now and i'll get excited, or i'll wait for the wednesday before the friday and get excited

The lead-up to the release has been equal parts intense /  frustrating / terrifying / exciting. I tried watching the movie myself again the other day and couldn't get through ten minutes of it. My feelings towards it change on a moment by moment basis. Sometimes I love the jam-packed first 20 minutes and wonder how I let the rest of the movie get so slow. Lately I can't believe the first 20 minutes are so fast and wish I had let them take a breather. I can't wait for it to be a year or two old, at which point the hypersensitivity will have worn off and I can embrace it again!
of course my fav word here is exciting, and of course i feel excited for you! i don't think you're being hypersensitive, or at least i don't think you're only being hypersensitive. any and every creator of anything, whom i've known or read about, has gone through these feelings. you created something, and now you look at it and think of other ways you might've created it. one day it'll be a creation of yours from long ago. all this is heaven
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: modage on August 05, 2013, 03:27:07 PM
Oh and I keep meaning to ask, what song's misheard lyric of the title come from?
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on August 05, 2013, 03:31:33 PM
"Hit Me Baby, One More Time"
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: MacGuffin on August 05, 2013, 03:59:30 PM
Preview Clip


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OThPqWJN0RQ
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on August 05, 2013, 05:49:08 PM

mmhmm, the names of the theaters that will play the movie in los angeles. you can tell me now and i'll get excited, or i'll wait for the wednesday before the friday and get excited


It'll be at the Landmark on Pico on the 16th. The following week, it'll open at the Sunset 5.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on August 05, 2013, 06:04:41 PM
that landmark is a beautiful and nice theater! it's where beautiful and nice movies land in los angeles. the curtains have opened for you <3

upstairs they have one couch theater. i think movies cycle into there, or maybe they select movies for that theater. it's a lower population, but the population sits on couches, and it's not some kind of eating area. that's my new goal. my second goal is any other screen there. i'll feel happy for you, when i tell you that's where i saw it

(couch photo, for history)
(http://i.imgur.com/jolgKiV.jpg)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: modage on August 10, 2013, 09:13:36 AM
NY Times profile on Ghostboy
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/movies/david-lowery-directs-aint-them-bodies-saints.html
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on August 10, 2013, 11:09:33 AM
That's fine, but when is a major publication going to cover him?
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: ©brad on August 11, 2013, 09:41:08 AM
NY Times profile on Ghostboy
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/movies/david-lowery-directs-aint-them-bodies-saints.html

Amazing! So excited to see this.

And I want to hear about those notes from Weinstein. Were they constructive?
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: modage on August 14, 2013, 11:22:37 AM
3 Most Fascinating Celebrities At The AIN'T THEM BODIES SAINTS Premiere.

3. Tiffani Amber Thiessen
2. Richard Gere
1. Courtney Love

Runner Up: Rooney Mara.

Source: Getty Images (http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&language=en-US&family=editorial&p=ain%27t+them+bodies&assetType=image#).
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Sleepless on August 14, 2013, 12:02:22 PM
Variety just posted an article that purports to be all about mustaches on the set of ATBS but actually spoils the ending. Beware.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: BB on August 15, 2013, 11:15:41 PM
Hey Ghostboy, when and where are you opening in Toronto? All the reviews everywhere have got me super pumped!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: ©brad on August 16, 2013, 12:17:19 PM
Very nice review (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2013/08/david-lowreys-aint-them-bodies-saints.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter) in the New Yorker. I'm going tomorrow with some friends, can't wait.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on August 16, 2013, 12:38:29 PM
^^ richard brody, yeah

^^ la?

i'm going today or tomorrow and i've previously declared my goal
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on August 16, 2013, 12:59:59 PM
plays at the academy on sunday, btw
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Sleepless on August 16, 2013, 01:44:07 PM
Five star review prominently featured on The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jan/25/aint-them-bodies-saints-review)

EDIT: That's actually their Sundance review recycled from January
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on August 16, 2013, 02:29:32 PM
That New Yorker review was a good one to wake up to. So was the Salon piece. 78% on Rotten Tomatos - not too shabby thus far!

A bunch of the negative reviews are good too. Slant, Reverse Shot...I don't like 'em but their points are valid and well made and are the type of negative review that would make me still want to see the movie.

Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on August 16, 2013, 02:36:43 PM
I feel like the Slant review really misread Ruth's character. Like, to the extent that it makes me think they weren't really paying attention to the movie.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Tictacbk on August 16, 2013, 02:38:44 PM
Really rave reviews just now on KPCC (NPR station in LA).  Guy said you've got "the best debut film [he's] seen in probably 15 years!"


Excited to see this at some point this week. 
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on August 16, 2013, 02:45:27 PM
ahhh, debutt. i should've played st. nick around town
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on August 16, 2013, 02:46:05 PM
I feel like the Slant review really misread Ruth's character. Like, to the extent that it makes me think they weren't really paying attention to the movie.

I agree, and it was really surprising to me - but I was interested in the very fact that they were able to read her in that way. It made me think about the movie in a new way.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on August 16, 2013, 02:47:20 PM
Really rave reviews just now on KPCC (NPR station in LA).  Guy said you've got "the best debut film [he's] seen in probably 15 years!"

Whoa! That is awesome.

ST NICK was a minor enough blip on the cinematic landscape that I don't blame anyone for not knowing about it. I can't wait for it to get some sort of release in the near future though. It holds up.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Alexandro on August 16, 2013, 02:49:32 PM
goddamn it. these are some great reviews. all the luck in the world with the academy awards, man. we all know it's possible.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on August 16, 2013, 02:55:19 PM
i'd be going to see this anyway, because of course i don't want to punch my computer, but beyond that and beyond what i've read and beyond etc, st nick. st nick holds the fuck up, for sure. imo there's nothing minor, there's something great. not at all some kind of movie you'd have to deny for the rest of your life, no way
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: xerxes on August 16, 2013, 03:14:09 PM
I was going to wait until tomorrow, but all this press is so exciting that I think I'm just gonna skip my friend's birthday party and go see it tonight instead. Woohoo!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: MacGuffin on August 16, 2013, 03:26:16 PM
(http://img2-2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2013/08/15/Aint-Them-Bodies-Saints-Cover.jpg)


In Ain't Them Bodies Saints, the Sundance award-winner that opens in theaters today, Casey Affleck and Rooney Mara play two outlaws whose 1970s crime spree ends with him in jail and her pregnant with their child. Years later, he escapes, intent on reuniting with his family, but not altogether aware of what dangers await him at home. For most of the film, the two lovers are apart, but their scenes together proved so fun and rewarding that writer/director David Lowery wrote what he hoped would be a follow-up short film, a prequel of sorts that captures their Bonnie and Clyde days. ''Casey and Rooney and I talked about it on the set, that we wanted to prolong that experience,'' says Lowery. ''But it never worked out because everyone's schedules are so complex.'' Instead, IFC Films suggested a comic book, and put him in touch with Criterion Collection artist Eric Skillman. Together with comic-book artist Matthew Southworth, they made New Tattoo, a compelling prelude to the events that occur in the film. ''I really loved these characters and I loved getting to spend a little more time with them on the page,'' says Lowery. —Jeff Labrecque



http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20483133_20726041,00.html
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on August 16, 2013, 03:34:25 PM
Aw hellll yeah.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Tictacbk on August 16, 2013, 03:38:03 PM
You can hear the review I was talking about starting around the 16:50 mark here: http://www.scpr.org/programs/filmweek/2013/08/16/33285/filmweek-08-16-13-lee-daniels-the-butler-kick-ass/ (http://www.scpr.org/programs/filmweek/2013/08/16/33285/filmweek-08-16-13-lee-daniels-the-butler-kick-ass/)

They start saying really nice things about Ghostboy (though they insist on using his real name) around 18:40.

congrats again!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: modage on August 17, 2013, 09:04:41 AM
EXCLUSIVE: Had lunch with Ghostboy yesterday. He is doing very well.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on August 17, 2013, 01:03:32 PM
EXCLUSIVE: Ate Chinese take-out by myself, seasoned with the tears of my failure.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on August 17, 2013, 02:06:27 PM
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77060273/

the info isn't unknown to xixax. the point is a prominent los angeles cinephile said all the right things, in the right place, and in a positive way

will lowery be at the academy on sunday? doesn't sound like it :/ seeing this at 3
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on August 17, 2013, 07:04:05 PM
such a surprising and sweet story to share. during the end credits i was thinking about how the font looked, and i turned around toward the projector. i asked my friend, with whom i've watched ~100 movies, "is this a dcp?" omg, my friend was crying! true story. haven't seen my friend cry after a movie, never, and he was for this! true

proud of your big ol' texas sky becoming the sky for so many others

crowded theater, btw. nice. people said positive things about the movie while in exiting environments <333
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on August 18, 2013, 12:36:21 AM
I never anticipated that I'd make a tearjerker, but this seems to be having that effect on a lot of people. Thank you for going to see it!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Pubrick on August 18, 2013, 11:10:04 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/rGv10EJ.jpg)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: xerxes on August 19, 2013, 02:48:05 PM
Possible spoilers so beware.

It's really a beautiful film. In between the few flashes of violence is really a quiet, almost slow film. I don't mean slow in a negative way, it takes time to observe the characters and allows the world to open up organically. Man, I just have to stop and say that Keith Carradine is awesome. I could listen to that guy talk for hours, but I digress. I love how it builds slowly (but I don't know if builds is the right word) to a conclusion that everyone, except maybe Bob, can feel coming but can't really do anything to avoid. Definitely had some feelings there at the end. My only real complaint was the size of the screen they were showing it on. But I plan to see it again on a nice big screen when it opens a little wider. Will probably have more thoughts then.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Kellen on August 19, 2013, 06:53:54 PM
fuck, i need this film in my life.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on August 19, 2013, 07:09:55 PM
I'm aiming for one of the Saturday screenings with the Q&A at Violet Crown, whenever those tickets go on sale.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on August 20, 2013, 12:07:04 AM
I'm aiming for one of the Saturday screenings with the Q&A at Violet Crown, whenever those tickets go on sale.

I will be there for the evening shows, and maybe the afternoon ones as well. Looking forward to seeing you!

Meanwhile, I've been reading all the reviews because I'm a glutton for punishment just as much as I am for love. I read this one today and it hits a particular nail on the head that kinda sets up what the movie is in a very specific way that I love.

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2013/08/aint-them-bodies-saints.html

Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on August 20, 2013, 01:12:26 AM
enjoy how you link reviews and appreciate interpretations. you're nice about it

for conversational purposes, want to mention paste is great in the way it observes the multitude of visions saints presents. agreed. imo, skip the final paragraph, which tries to seal the praise with the white-lily hands of cinephilic semantics. doesn't work. the choice is for the artist -- film vs movie is an old and tired battle that misses important points about intentions. i really don't think saints is as basic and political as that battle, and the movie wouldn't shine if that was its point. paste makes planning art sound like planning a scheme. saints works because it nails its bullseye. an arrow is always an arrow, a bullet is always a bullet, and you just gotta know how to fire. lowery fires off, i think so

on another topic, malick comparisons are nodoubt helpful due to malick's platform, but i don't think that's where lowery stands. lowery stands on his own platform. a compliment of course. me and other people (~3) think malick's name keeps getting repeated because it's fun to say malick and in saints there's country and the sun sets. saints moves in its own way. i think paste also says that, in fact. that's a positive statement
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on August 20, 2013, 03:53:11 AM
just read this and want to remind myself or remind people to remind me or, you know

@davidehrlich (senior editor of @Filmdotcom)
rumor has it that, tomorrow, @filmdotcom is gonna premiere a new film by Bill & Turner Ross, shot on the set of AIN'T THEM BODIES SAINTS.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: modage on August 20, 2013, 09:05:13 AM
Front page.

http://thedissolve.com/

Edit: now moved here:
http://thedissolve.com/features/emerging/97-aint-them-bodies-saints-director-david-lowery-on-o/

Also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_NrEWsoVe4
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on August 20, 2013, 09:55:54 AM
!!!!
Quote
behind-the-scenes footage that’s being made available to the public. Rather than submit to the standard EPK garbage, Lowery invited brothers Bill and Turner Ross – the extraordinary documentary team responsible for “Tchoupitoulas” and “45365” – to chronicle day-to-day life on set.

The resulting film is a winsome work of art unto itself. Focusing on the quiet moments that ultimately define the production process (Affleck trying to stay in character between set-ups, cinematographer Bradford Young making sure his light falls on a prop just right), the Ross brothers’ footage isn’t just a neat glimpse behind the curtain for “Ain’t Them Bodies” fans, but also a fleetingly beautiful portrait of all the perfect little moments that are spent in the name of preserving a select few on film.
http://www.film.com/movies/bill-and-turner-ross-behind-the-scenes-documentary-for-aint-them-bodies-saints

(think that was already up earlier, lol)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: RegularKarate on August 20, 2013, 12:43:35 PM
I'm aiming for one of the Saturday screenings with the Q&A at Violet Crown, whenever those tickets go on sale.

This is the second time you've mentioned Q&A screenings at Violet Crown. Their website kinda sucks... where do you find this stuff?

I really hope I can make one of the screenings that David is at. I was going to go Friday, but if there's a chance D-Low (hate it?) will be there on Saturday, I might try to do some rearrangin'.

Saw the trailer again in front of Blue Jasmine last night and almost knocked my friend over signaling frantically toward it (I don't talk during trailers, I just get disruptively physical).
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on August 20, 2013, 01:29:59 PM
Yeah you have to click on the movie page itself; they don't really do a great job of promoting it, but they don't need to because they will sell out anyway.

http://violetcrowncinema.com/movie.php?slug=aint-them-bodies-saints

Tickets JUST went on sale, but not for Friday/Saturday for some reason. Perhaps a glitch, but I expect those will go on sale very soon.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: RegularKarate on August 20, 2013, 01:37:37 PM
Yeah you have to click on the movie page itself; they don't really do a great job of promoting it, but they don't need to because they will sell out anyway.

http://violetcrowncinema.com/movie.php?slug=aint-them-bodies-saints

Tickets JUST went on sale, but not for Friday/Saturday for some reason. Perhaps a glitch, but I expect those will go on sale very soon.

Sweet, thanks! Hoping for a Lowery appearance for an afternoon show.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on August 20, 2013, 01:58:55 PM
Okay. All tickets on sale now. 8pm is a safe bet for the Q&A, right David??? (If I should have gone for 5:50pm instead, I'll see if I can get them switched.)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on August 20, 2013, 04:52:08 PM
I will be at everything from afternoon onwards on Saturday - starting at 3:40...
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: RegularKarate on August 20, 2013, 06:07:02 PM
Hot Damn! 5:50 it is!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ravi on August 21, 2013, 12:50:01 PM
Dammit, I keep being unable to go to the screenings where you're doing Q&A. Had to go out of town when you did one in Dallas, and I'm working this Saturday.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on August 23, 2013, 02:34:12 PM
the event challenge was noticed by people here? pretty sure lowery himself initiated it. saints, drinking buddies, short term 12, and you're next -- see them all this weekend, photo the tickets, receive prizes. good game

i can't play. my timetables are different, and i won't be seeing you're next. nothing against you're next. i don't see movies that do that. could be a great movie

is someone here playing? good game
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on August 23, 2013, 02:51:08 PM
Interesting that anyone would say that this movie has a slow pace, as I was impressed by how quickly it moved. I suppose they must mean once everything is set up (which happens with tremendous economy), its interests settle on the quieter moments before the action picks up again in the last 3rd. But everything that's done is done as quickly as possible; the editing is tight.

I'm personally very curious about the trims that happened between Sundance and its final form. Maybe I'll ask David about this in person.

I find myself thinking about the editing more than anything, because I had already expected the wonderful cinematography, performances, and writing. Not that I didn't expect good editing, but the pace of it is really quite something. Also, I'm editing right now and it's good for me to see movies that are this tight.

I'll probably be the only one to compare these movies, but the first 15 minutes of this is not so very different from FAST FIVE, another movie that impressed me with its economy. Within the first 2 minutes of that movie, you see that Dom is being sent to prison, and then he gets rescued by the crew. You see the prison bus get flipped, and that's all. As soon as you get what happened, it moves to the next thing--not a second wasted. In a lot of ways, ATBS is closer in spirit to FAST FIVE than T. Malick. There's also a lot of driving in cars, getaways, a pregnant lady being shot at, law evasion in general, and a cop (Dwayne Johnson) who gets involved as an obstacle to the main guys but he's not a villain. It's really basically the same movie.

I liked it very much. I wish I could see it on film, or at least in high quality digital projection (the Violet Crown's projection quality is, alas, not great, just as you might expect from the most expensive place to see a movie in Austin). I'm really looking forward to seeing it again, and talking about it in more depth here once more people have seen't it.

Also, the music is really good. Immediately one of my favorite scores of the past long while.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on August 23, 2013, 06:38:26 PM
the event challenge was noticed by people here? pretty sure lowery himself initiated it. saints, drinking buddies, short term 12, and you're next -- see them all this weekend, photo the tickets, receive prizes. good game

i can't play. my timetables are different, and i won't be seeing you're next. nothing against you're next. i don't see movies that do that. could be a great movie

is someone here playing? good game

In case anyone needs to know what you're talking about: http://www.davidpatricklowery.com/weblog/2013/08/the_weekend_of.html (http://www.davidpatricklowery.com/weblog/2013/08/the_weekend_of.html)

I just saw You're Next earlier today (which I was going to do anyway), but then looked and realized that Drinking Buddies and Short Term 12 won't be showing near me for another two weeks. And ATBS is only currently showing at a theater I usually avoid going to. Hopefully there will still be swag left two weeks from now, because I want that swag.  I want that swag bad.

In a lot of ways, ATBS is closer in spirit to FAST FIVE than T. Malick... It's really basically the same movie.

If IFC isn't already prepping a poster featuring this quote across the top, they're wasting everybody's time.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on August 24, 2013, 01:43:28 AM
I just woke up from a dream that I was watching this movie. There was an extreme moment of violence that jolted me awake. Good job.

I will dispel any hope for extreme violence right now, but I still hope that it lives up to your dream in some regards!

I remember my dream: Ruth was trapped in the bathroom with gunmen outside. She shoots through the wall and a literal wave of blood splashes into the bathroom and fills the bathtub and covers the floor. More gunmen are about to enter and Ruth has to choose whether to face them or to dunk herself in the bathtub full of blood to hide from them. She chooses the latter, and that's when I woke up.

I like to imagine that that's a dream that Ruth would have, if she would ever let herself dream.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on August 24, 2013, 02:29:13 AM
That was ALMOST a scene directly out of the first draft! Minus the bathtub being full of blood.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Cloudy on August 24, 2013, 03:58:04 AM
Saw this tonight. It was as old-fashioned as it gets, and I ate it up--it was delicious. The cinematography...I'm not sure how I can word it without just pasting in  stills...it immersed me in the world completely, and the light...the attention to detail was so deep that another viewing is so necessary. The grain. The focus pulling. Camera movements (which ranged, and were NOT malick-y, I personally prefer this style. Felt more real). The sounds...and music were placed perfectly, never taking away a moment. Moments where there would usually be a score didn't, and left it quiet and true...I can really just go on. I have images in my head that I need to see again.

The rhythm of the editing was JUST as inspiring to be honest. The way these images flowed felt effortless and completely lucid. It felt like a haze from start to finish. But not an overt haze, more like an subconscious stream of an old yarn. I'm fucking pleased here.

The acting, and CASTING was fucking ridiculous. Some of my favorite actors from TV popping in all over, and perfectly casted, and acting their minds out. People were giving their all here, they really were just letting it out. One of my favorite Casey Affleck performances. All of this is a testament to the characters.

My only problem with it was that it REALLY lived up to the old-fashioned story and didn't go much further in the writing. I felt like there were moments where it could have capitalized on some more dynamism between the characters, conflicts, themes and the story, but I was honestly satisfied as is. At this particular moment, a film like this, going back to the roots of the pure goods is just necessary. Thinking about it more, I really would rather it not try to do anything "new" or inventive(story-wise), because this film feels so engrained in the roots and seeds of this story that trying anything else would ruin the purity of it. If that makes sense.

Anyways, that's all. We gotta do an exclusive XIXAX interview if that's possible on both fronts...
 
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Cloudy on August 24, 2013, 07:14:37 PM
This film definitely resonated even more the next day. Looking forward to the next viewing.

Here's the September American Cinematographer issue with the ATBS article:

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/162791327#fullscreen
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: RegularKarate on August 25, 2013, 08:54:12 PM
I have more goodness to pile on here. Loved the movie.

I went with five other friends and all of them came away feeling completely differently about the movie (no one disliked it, some wanted more, some really liked it, I loved it) and I think that alone is a sign of a good movie. A movie that doesn't just sit there and leave your brain immediately after... something we can talk about and have different thoughts and feelings about.

It's been covered, but cinematography and acting are amazing. This David Lowery guy is the real deal.

Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on August 25, 2013, 09:12:45 PM
Shane Carruth has talked about the concept of the "Album Movie," and I feel like this movie really works in that way, further crystalizing what David has talked about in wanting ATBS to feel like a folk song.

The idea is that it's like an album that you can put on over and over again, and once you've become really familiar with it, that's when watching or listening to it achieves its fullest effect. It's effective as a movie the first time around, but then parts of it stick in your mind (the wonderful score is a big part of this) and you want to watch it again to feel that feeling. The difference upon later viewings is that you're no longer being led by the movie; now you're truly indulging in it. You know it by heart and your goosebumps know the beat and the tune, so they can sing along.

Anyway, I've watched it twice now, and it's very re-watchable. I'll be watching and indulging in it many more times in the years to come.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on August 25, 2013, 09:33:36 PM
Thank you all for seeing it (and more than once)!

Cloudy, no need to cross out those lines about the script / story / dynamics - it's a very valid criticism (although I'm glad it didn't sink the movie)! The structure  and editing of the movie is more complex than the story, and to some extent I think the two are at odds. In hindsight I might have made things TOO simple, and obfuscated on top of that. It was an intentional choice, but one I've allowed myself a fair amount of second guessing on as I work on my new scripts.

The album movie is pretty much exactly what I was going for, which was why jumping into Upstream Color right before we started shooting this was such a perfect palette-setter.

Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on August 25, 2013, 09:42:19 PM
mmhm. album movie. considering it off topic, but relevant, to express the fact that the concept of an album movie has been around for a long time and is highly important. what do you think antonioni was up to, and what do you think jarmusch was up to (in cinphile circles it was common to have heard the limits of control described as music), and even bresson and ophuls and ohwow the list. apart from the concept and form, which are ofcourse important features also, the idea is that you can feel the movie, and the movie moves in a way that gives you the feeling

watch l'avventura 5 times and you'll see what i mean. l'avventura isn't a hard movie to understand, but each time you watch the movie you feel and/or understand a different part of the characters. this is my favorite example because, like is being talked about for this movie, the way you feel when you watch the movie controls the way you interpret the movie

this is linked to an idea i've mentioned here earlier: the movie doesn't cause the response, the person causes the response
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on August 26, 2013, 07:22:50 AM
Very true.

On a different note: here are a few MASTER style teaser trailers using footage that isn't in the movie (especially in the 1st one). These are what I wanted to put out into the world first, before any other footage. IFC didn't agree. Ah well.

https://vimeo.com/73112599

https://vimeo.com/73114624
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Reelist on August 26, 2013, 08:15:27 AM
SPOILERS SPOILERS  THE MOVIE IS OUT   SPOILERS



l'avventura Ain't Them Bodies Saints isn't a hard movie to understand, but each time you watch the movie you feel and/or understand a different part of the characters.

This was my main takeaway from the movie after two wildly different viewings. It is so steeped in the characters that if you're not aware of certain details in these people's lives, you miss out on a huge chunk of the story.


For example, upon first viewing I didn't know:

-Patrick Wheeler was the one Ruth shot ( until she asks him "remember that day?" )

-Skerritt's son had died in the shootout

-What exactly Skerritt's role was in Ruth's life ( I thought he was a cop at first )


On second viewing I could understand Skerritt's motivation a lot better. He lost a son and his best "employee" that day, and now he just wants to live out the rest of his life comfortably, knowing that Ruth and Sylvie are safe from harm. So when Bob escapes, it throws a monkey wrench into his whole plan, and he'll be dogged if that bastard does anything to try to take these girls he loves away from him.

It's strange how I totally shifted who I identified with on second viewing. At first, of course, I was rooting for Bob to win and see true love prevail in the end. Although Skerritt is his main antagonist, Wheeler seems like the bigger threat for moving in on his girl. Once you see the outcome, however, questions are raised. I have to admit that I was letdown by the ending, as one would expect when you have to see the guy you've been following around for 90 minutes killed, but it didn't quite pack an emotional punch that saddened me. I was bothered by this and first thought it might have been an oversight on Ghostboy's part, but when I watched it again I saw Bob as this hopeless, doomed figure, wreaking havoc wherever he goes. Maybe he shouldn't be allowed to walk the Earth anymore, so what if he has the cutest daughter in the world?

I found Wheeler to be the hero of the story, as much as I initially would've opposed the thought, because in the end he saves the day. He gives Ruth and Sylvie the life neither Bob nor Skerritt could, and really everything turns out the best for them, when you consider the circumstances. The fact that Bob gets to see Sylvie for the first time before he dies is actually a triumphant ending for him, I would say. Very bittersweet, because it shows us that regardless of his love for her, his absence and the things he has to own up to in his past would've never allowed him to be a proper father. Wheeler picking her up and sheilding her from the gruesome sight expresses this beautifully. I think the only times I got choked up were the two hugs between Wheeler with Ruth and Sylvie.


This is just me trying to put the puzzle pieces together in my head, but I would like to reiterate what has already been said that this was technically amazing. I love that you're not afraid of the dark, because you captured some really stunning imagery that felt very unique to my eyes in these days of so many overlit/saturated movies. It was refreshing. I was really impressed by the performances as well, I worried about how Rooney and Casey would be able to pull off the accent, but they were pitch perfect. Everybody was, above anything the word I would use to describe this movie is authentic.

I look forward to many more viewings and discussions and so forth.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on August 26, 2013, 03:39:16 PM
when I watched it again I saw Bob as this hopeless, doomed figure, wreaking havoc wherever he goes. Maybe he shouldn't be allowed to walk the Earth anymore, so what if he has the cutest daughter in the world?
<3 this. example of an interpretation that doesn't fully convert across human matters, yet nails its point

i thought reelist was matt35mm when i saw the ^post. how did that happen? anyway i'm into ideas and examples right now
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Reelist on August 30, 2013, 11:09:46 AM
On a different note: here are a few MASTER style teaser trailers using footage that isn't in the movie (especially in the 1st one). These are what I wanted to put out into the world first, before any other footage. IFC didn't agree. Ah well.

https://vimeo.com/73112599

https://vimeo.com/73114624


Those are really great. It was cool to see more surrounding the shootout and Bob's journey home. They worked on me, because now I'm all revved up to see the movie again!

Do you plan to do a blossoms&blood/Back Beyond segment for the DVD as well?
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on August 30, 2013, 12:58:54 PM
Yeah. I have to make that ASAP. The dvd comes out in December. It'll have ST. NICK on it as well.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on August 31, 2013, 10:24:45 AM
Will this be available on demand online, not just through cable?
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on September 01, 2013, 11:08:10 AM
I don't think it will be until December-ish....
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Kellen on September 01, 2013, 10:59:30 PM
Very true.

On a different note: here are a few MASTER style teaser trailers using footage that isn't in the movie (especially in the 1st one). These are what I wanted to put out into the world first, before any other footage. IFC didn't agree. Ah well.

https://vimeo.com/73112599

https://vimeo.com/73114624

These teasers are beautiful. 
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Cloudy on September 02, 2013, 12:49:45 AM
The one for Ruth....absolutely beautiful. Didn't get to these 'til now.  :yabbse-thumbup:
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Lottery on September 02, 2013, 01:44:28 AM
Those teasers were awesome. I think I liked them more than the trailer.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: I am Schmi on September 06, 2013, 01:06:36 PM
Gah, is this no longer playing in theaters? I can't find it in any of my favorite theaters anymore. (SoCal Claremont area.)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: max from fearless on September 06, 2013, 05:10:19 PM
Came out in London today! Congrats. Looking forward to seeing it this weekend.
PS. The Ruth Guthrie trailer is friggin incredible along with Under the Skin teaser and the Gravity bits.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Kellen on September 06, 2013, 07:34:15 PM
Coming to my area Sept. 27, cannot wait!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Frederico Fellini on September 06, 2013, 08:01:48 PM
Where can I watch it in Boston?
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Drenk on September 15, 2013, 11:54:20 AM
Parisian subway hype. I'll watch it next week!

(http://i73.servimg.com/u/f73/11/65/95/74/img_1913.jpg)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ravi on September 18, 2013, 01:27:03 AM
Yeah. I have to make that ASAP. The dvd comes out in December. It'll have ST. NICK on it as well.

Blu-Ray/DVD will be released December 17, 2013 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/Aint-Them-Bodies-Saints-Blu-ray/ref=%26%2574%2561g%3d%2562l%2575r%2561yf%256fr%2575m%252d20?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1379318824&sr=1-44&tag=blurayforum-20&ASIN=B00F6Y3FT8)

I think it only played here in Dallas for a week (or I've been out of the movie loop longer than that) but I might drive down to Austin to see it this weekend. I really want to see it on the big screen.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Pubrick on September 22, 2013, 12:09:04 PM
Australian release date is 28th November for anyone wondering.

Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on September 22, 2013, 01:11:54 PM
Australian release date is 28th November for anyone wondering.

You, Lottery, and Flagpole Special, if he's still alive/not in jail for stalking you.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: tpfkabi on September 22, 2013, 03:01:29 PM
It's showing in Kilgore, Tx at the Kilgore Fall Film Festival 9/22-9/24.
I might try to go.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on September 22, 2013, 03:14:31 PM
Glad to hear about Australia. Also, I just found out that it hits iTunes next Friday.

I put the extra features for December's blu-ray together last week and there's a Back Beyond-style montage of things that were cut out. Looking at some of them now I think, "why did that have to go?" Lesson learned from this movie: try to get at least six months to edit all future films.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: squints on September 22, 2013, 03:34:30 PM
It's playing at the museum of art here in oklahoma city, going to see it this week!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Drenk on October 11, 2013, 11:16:27 AM
SPOILERS


A simple story. Simple feelings. Simple can result to something strong. Every character has a goal, and we can understand them. I want Bob to live in a farm with Ruth and his daughter, but I also want Patrick to live with Ruth. Take Shelter...At the end, when Patrick takes Sylvie away from her dying father, the contradiction broke my heart. I loved the interiors, they look very warm and safe. The characters want a quiet world, a safe place...even the action is almost quiet.
Every shot is magnificent. It was a blast. Light triggers moods, moods trigger memories which give relief to the screen.
About the album movie, I won't say much -others did, and better than I could-: it worked very well, and that's what makes the movie good: the way the movie moves with these characters...A sweet but bloody flow. It didn't work all the time for me, sometimes I was taken away but not for long, and I couldn't explain it. I felt weird about Casey Affleck too, but maybe because he's Robert Ford for me, and I couldn't forget that other character during the film.
I can't wait to see the next one.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: md on October 18, 2013, 01:03:59 AM
FYI

[admin edit: removed embed because it's pirated shit. support your local ghostboy!]

Its streaming here for free. 
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on October 18, 2013, 03:46:10 AM
that's so insulting. i feel like watching it now
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Reelist on October 18, 2013, 06:54:55 AM
That's not an official account, some douche just stole it and uploaded it. DON'T WATCH! SUPPORT GHOSTBOY!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on October 18, 2013, 11:35:27 AM
Wow, that thing had almost 16,000 views! I wish it had been uploaded in 10 parts. That would have been kinda awesome.

In other news, the DVD cover art will probably be revealed soon, and it is predictably not awesome. However, the poster art is on the flip side so anyone considering the blu-ray can take solace in the knowledge that their shelf will not totally be besmirched by more floating heads.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: modage on October 18, 2013, 12:21:02 PM
In other news, the DVD cover art will probably be revealed soon, and it is predictably not awesome.
Aw, how crushing it is to experience that from the inside?
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on October 18, 2013, 03:14:46 PM
Wow, that thing had almost 16,000 views! I wish it had been uploaded in 10 parts. That would have been kinda awesome.

In other news, the DVD cover art will probably be revealed soon, and it is predictably not awesome. However, the poster art is on the flip side so anyone considering the blu-ray can take solace in the knowledge that their shelf will not totally be besmirched by more floating heads.

We'll save you a spot in the Giant Fucking Face thread.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on October 18, 2013, 04:01:39 PM
In other news, the DVD cover art will probably be revealed soon, and it is predictably not awesome.
Aw, how crushing it is to experience that from the inside?

It wasn't AS bad as I thought it was going to be, but it's still disappointing to see something with plenty of great key art get distilled down into what is clearly a Photoshop template. I did get them to change the color scheme and use the font from the original poster. Small victories.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: I am Schmi on October 19, 2013, 11:38:32 PM
I just finally got around to watching this film, and just phenomenal in my opinion. Lowry wisely stuck by KISS, but still gave ATBS its own distinct feel. Great pacing, great characters, great acting, and gorgeous camerawork. Also, really liked the 'St Louis' monologue. I love that he didn't spell out what led Charles Baker's character to 'seek' out Bob, but maybe just a little more background than what we got would have been nice.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Reelist on October 20, 2013, 09:25:17 AM
Lowry wisely stuck by KISS


 :yabbse-huh:

Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: ono on October 20, 2013, 10:03:20 AM
*Lowery.  Keep it simple, stupid.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Lottery on October 20, 2013, 10:03:36 AM
Lowry wisely stuck by KISS


 :yabbse-huh:

I Was Made for Lovin' You plays in both opening and closing credits.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: I am Schmi on October 20, 2013, 01:05:50 PM
*Lowery.  Keep it simple, stupid.

Ha, yes. Thank you.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Reelist on October 20, 2013, 02:06:13 PM
explain what you mean by KISS, though.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: ono on October 20, 2013, 02:36:16 PM
Really?
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Reelist on October 20, 2013, 02:37:35 PM
you explain it
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: ono on October 20, 2013, 02:39:15 PM
*Lowery.  Keep it simple, stupid.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: I am Schmi on October 20, 2013, 02:52:25 PM
KISS is just an acronym for Keep It Simple Stupid. It basically means simplicity is better than complicating things.

If you're looking for me to elaborate on why I said it, I said it because Lowery took a very simple narrative and treated it in a simple way. It's so often I watch a film and see that the filmmakers tried to weave all of these complicated threads in the narrative and sometimes it just becomes confusing or misguided, but Lowery kept it simple. Simple characters, simple story, simple, simple, simple. But simplicity is not a bad thing. It just makes for a real accessible film to get into and it's easy to want to watch again and again.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Pubrick on October 20, 2013, 06:00:08 PM
You didn't need to explain that. It was pretty obvious what you meant from the use of the well known acronym.

What isn't obvious though is if you realise that Lowery is our very own Ghostboy.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Reelist on October 20, 2013, 06:02:56 PM
I never heard that acronym! I agree. very bare bones, no nonsense plot. Yet I notice more intimate details everytime.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Kellen on November 14, 2013, 06:06:40 PM
I finally got to see this yesterday, loved everything about it.

Favorite parts had to be:


**spoilers**

Bob talking about his escape from prison where he just got up and "walked out", Skerritt explaining that the list of names next to the gun all belonged to dead men, and the climax in which Bob sees his daughter only to have Ben Foster take her away.



Wonderful job GhostBoy.  Also the cinematography kicked ass!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Reelist on November 14, 2013, 06:56:12 PM
Spoiler

**spoilers**

Bob talking about his escape from prison where he just got up and "walked out"

The first time I saw it,  I thought it was a failed attempt at whimsy on ghost boys part. it wasn't until a later viewing on headphones that I heard his friend say "news said you jumped off a work truck" and finally got it :yabbse-wink:
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on November 28, 2013, 01:25:08 PM
oh you know, the way i heard about it i expected something bad, but i think it could've been better but isn't bad at all. in fact i think it says a little about the story, though i've already said too much

(http://i.imgur.com/DYtoAEq.jpg)

it's available for preorder. i'll buy it. just 'cause duh
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on November 28, 2013, 09:06:34 PM
Yeah, not a bad cover. It lacks a GFF (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=1180.0).
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on November 29, 2013, 01:04:37 AM
Plus, if you turn it inside-out,  you'll get the original movie poster, which will be the best bet for anyone who deems it worth a purchase.

Extras include a 6-min 'Back Beyond' style montage, two solo deleted scenes, a behind the scenes doc by the Ross Brothers (that's already floating about online), a handful of trailers and, if you get the blu-ray, my first feature film on the second disk.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Reelist on November 29, 2013, 08:58:17 AM
First item on my Christmas list for sure
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Pubrick on December 02, 2013, 01:12:13 AM
my first feature film on the second disk.

this is an awesome extra. is this a common thing? i don't think i've heard of an entire feature being packaged with another film as an extra just on the basis of it being by the same director, other than those bargain bin billy madison-happy gilmore-click type collections.

or is it just to dispel the misconception that this is your first film? like when outkast broke through with stankonia and everyone was like "wow such a great first album".
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on December 02, 2013, 02:39:00 AM
There are a few other comparable examples, all via Criterion - Jarmusch's PERMANENT VACATION is an extra on the STRANGER THAN PARADISE disc, and Linklater's YOU CAN'T LEARN TO PLOW is on the SLACKER dvd.

I think this is the perfect DVD release for ST. NICK. It's a bare-bones disc, unfortunately, but I've got some longstanding extras that I'll put online.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: ono on December 02, 2013, 03:43:21 AM
this is an awesome extra. is this a common thing? i don't think i've heard of an entire feature being packaged with another film as an extra just on the basis of it being by the same director, other than those bargain bin billy madison-happy gilmore-click type collections.
Rare, but not unheard of.  Linklater did it with Slacker.  His first was It's Impossible to Learn to Plow by Reading Books.  That's the only one that comes to mind.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Axolotl on December 02, 2013, 04:45:19 AM
The Criterion release of Soderbergh's King of the Hill also has his next feature, The Underneath, as an extra.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: 03 on December 02, 2013, 12:36:12 PM
yeah, definitely the best dvd feature ever.
guy maddin does it with almost all his releases, as well as other numerous underground directors.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: matt35mm on December 02, 2013, 04:42:07 PM
There's a recent movie called THE UNSPEAKABLE ACT that also has the director Dan Sallitt's previous feature ALL THE SHIPS AT SEA on the DVD.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Cloudy on December 07, 2013, 10:11:40 PM
Casey Affleck DP/30 Praising David Lowery

These are great, great words. Starts at 11:44
http://youtu.be/SSeKnyNVX9U?t=11m44s
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Lottery on December 07, 2013, 10:28:01 PM
Wow, that's some real high praise.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on December 08, 2013, 01:02:01 PM
i agree with what c affleck said. also, happy to hear what the interviewer said. andbut, of course that's true. just really happy for lowery and cinema in general, that i got to hear it. agreed
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Robyn on December 14, 2013, 04:52:55 PM
why is this called 'a texas love story' in sweden?
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Reelist on December 14, 2013, 04:56:21 PM
why is this called 'a texas love story' in sweden?

cuz that's what it's about!


No, it's probably that you swedes don't have a word for 'Ain't' or the translation is frjskl'fklfgdsgfdkw'fk' and it doesn't roll off the tongue as well.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Robyn on December 14, 2013, 06:18:00 PM
why is this called 'a texas love story' in sweden?

cuz that's what it's about!


No, it's probably that you swedes don't have a word for 'Ain't' or the translation is frjskl'fklfgdsgfdkw'fk' and it doesn't roll off the tongue as well.

dumma amerikan!
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Reelist on December 14, 2013, 06:25:43 PM
I just translated it, and it comes out:

är inte dessa organ helgon


that's fucking awful.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on December 14, 2013, 06:31:32 PM
szwedzki słowa wyglądają okropnie w ogólnym haha właśnie dostałem szwecja jeść tosty hahaha * amerykański piątkę *
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Robyn on December 14, 2013, 06:42:09 PM
proof that swedish is beautiful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baImEzQYaMg
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on December 14, 2013, 07:34:59 PM
we're going off course, let's not mind, let's add up atb's numbers

kj that is a pretty song! i don't know what's being said, i don't mind. thanks for sharing. here's a music part from catherine breillat's a real young girl, it's when i first realized how badass other country's music can be, how the words sound different but culture is shared

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqVz_VFsufU
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Punch on December 30, 2013, 01:52:34 PM
https://soundcloud.com/the-playlist/dvd-is-the-new-vinyl-podcast

"DVD Is The New Vinyl" Podcast: David Lowery, James Gray.


David lowery talks about "Nashville".

James Gray talks about "Aint them Bodies Saints"






























Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Champion Souza on January 01, 2014, 07:30:36 PM
ATBS made Edgar Wright's best of the year list.

http://www.edgarwrighthere.com/2013/12/31/top-movies-tracks-of-2013/ (http://www.edgarwrighthere.com/2013/12/31/top-movies-tracks-of-2013/)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on January 07, 2014, 11:10:02 AM
redbox confirmed. sorry this photo is so fancy, not trying to show off my photography abilities

(http://i.imgur.com/loOk5LS.png)
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Mel on January 07, 2014, 03:25:02 PM
Film is growing on me as I get more time to digest it. First the bad and explanation.

It was very rough start for me. Some unintentional things have affected me so strongly in the first 10 minutes, that it took me another 20-30 minutes to get over it (not sure if completely). First of all: I don't like fast cutting, especially in the beginning of the film, when my eyes are just getting used to watching moving pictures. I had hard time following shootout scene, where discontinuity is so strongly marked. Then music with hand clapping starts...

Word of explanation: Piotr Rubik composed in 2005 music that used hand clapping heavily. It became mainstream hit in Poland and was played by radios over and over again on every occasion. Result? It became in very short time a source of jokes and memes.

...so I started laughing. Next thing I hear is voice over, which in my mind made whole presentation even more cheesy. Instead of moving ahead after concise and innocent introduction (story canvas), I was wondering why I'm watching this film with choppy editing, bad music and cheap voice over. Bad way to start.

This is pretty much everything bad I have to say about ATBS. I know this is all in my head, but it is hard to erase bad feeling and in the end we perceive things through our experience (without much control over it I guess). After that editing calmed down, some shots were hold for significant time. Other music themes started to coming up and I was enjoying the film.

It is a simple story, but film is far from that. Relations between characters are quite complicated. It isn't even a triangle, as we have father-like figure and child in the center, which makes whole construction even more unstable (it collapses in the end). If you tone down one thing (flatten the story), something else will pop up. In ATBS those are emotions, which are very present - not surprised that some people cried watching it.

I loved the second shootout: very romantic character (escape story told by character itself did a lot to establish that) in very unromantic scene. I guess that was a first murder on his hands, as he was very reluctant to do so. Holding a wide shot of a truck in the dark, worked for me very well from the perspective of the character: he doesn't know who is shooting, why he is shooting and lack of closeups adds to that. Whole romanticism is shattered even further, when driver doesn't recognize hitchhiker.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on January 08, 2014, 12:03:18 PM
(bragging about my olympian-perfect screenpics)

such a pretty shot from a deleted scene
(http://i.imgur.com/74C4Q5i.jpg)

alternative movie title that was sadly replaced
(http://i.imgur.com/tKN3h0P.jpg)

my personal favorite shot
(http://i.imgur.com/OCYYVh0.jpg)

typed out a response but i took too long and my login vanished along with my text, so i took that as fate
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on January 09, 2014, 01:02:03 AM
The first of those shots was still in the movie at Sundance. The last of the three wasn't. I added it back in after. One of those scenes that never quite felt right but I eventually got good enough to include. We ran out of sunlight to really nail it properly (you can see the sun setting from shot to shot in the movie) but truth be told, one of the things that REALLY bugged me about it was this giant dinosaur of a plant in the house across the street - you can see it sprouting out of Rooney's shoulder in that shot. We tried to get the neighbors to let us dig it up temporarily, but no luck. It was really an eyesore. One of those things I knew that nobody would probably ever notice but that I just couldn't get over.

Mel, I feel you on the opening cuttiness.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on January 09, 2014, 02:43:08 AM
see what you mean about the shrubbery. i wasn't thinking about the shrubbery. same about the fabric of that scene. what i like is how the blues have soaked into the house, soaked into her clothes, rested in her eyes. i like that
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Alexandro on January 21, 2014, 10:01:54 AM
Continuing with my rant on the American Hustle thread, when this film first came out last year it soon drew comparisons to the films of two american masters: Malick and Altman. The reasons are obvious. These are names that personally excite me because I miss Altman so much. i want him to be alive and make more movies. There's just no replacement for him. Which is why I'm so happy that this film is not trying to be him at all. Any reference or influence has been digested and came out new. The most satisfactory thing about ATBS is that you can feel a new voice coming up. Malick and Altman are easy points of reference, but the film is completely it's own beast, and the reason for that is because there is a true artist in charge.

I wish I could come up to this thread and mention things I didn't like, as Ghostboy was hoping. I know it's interesting to hear negative aspects of one's own work. But I simply think the film is fantastic. I almost burst into tears several times near the end (SPOILER: Bob watching his daughter from the window was just heartbreaking). Every expected twist is avoided because for all the exactitude in the plot, is the characters who give shape to the story. You are left watching them sort this whole thing out in a way that feels natural. As the film progresses, your sympathy for each character grows, which makes it harder and harder to pick a side. I loved that the film is so short and it gives us no time to settle. It does feel like an album you can play sometimes and get immersed in it. The beauty of the images, I kept thinking, are the work of a director and a dp relatively young, still in love with "the image", and I thanked that. The way the light looks, the colors. Shit. I just really liked it. Even though it gave David all these new opportunities and a very deserved share of acclaim, it still feels the film has been underrated. But I do believe it will become some sort of classic of the genre.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on January 30, 2014, 09:26:18 AM
So, there's no better place to ask this question: are there any plans for an european blu-ray of Ain't Them Bodies Saints? Amazon.uk only lists a US Import version, but the last time I ordered something from the US it got caught in customs and the price to retrieve it was absurd, and I don't want to risk that again. I really want to have the movie on blu, and take a look at St. Nick.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: NEON MERCURY on April 04, 2014, 09:10:16 PM
hey ghostboy. i just wanted to say congrats  :bravo:
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: jenkins on April 29, 2014, 06:19:55 PM
today i made a decision with a degree of value portrayable like this:

[visiting the margaret herrick library (http://www.oscars.org/library/)] ≤ [mistake of not having visited before through all this time in los angeles and being familiar with the academy and everything]

it's the academy's library of movie materials -- production materials, theory books, history books, scripts, posters, marketing, hand-written letters, etc. it's a goddamn treasure chest, and i just today thought of going to visit!!

well, no one's nominated me as mayor of los angeles. what a wonderful place. i stared around at books, then i headed toward where you have to go to write down which scripts you want to look at. i had to go to a computer to check script availability, but there was a sign that listed newly arrived scripts, and the top of the ifc list had ain't them bodies saints

now, i've been couple-times nominated as the mayor of spotting a token. my script request list went:
1. ain't them bodies saints
2. the blue angel
3. scarlet empress

^the first three scripts i knew i had to see when i had access to what felt like any script i could think of

the atbs script:
was binded by a yellow textury thing, common for scripts, i just don't remember the texture's name
inside the binder, the pages were normal
date listed was 8/2012,
as a "pink" draft, with "blue" and "white" drafts mentioned as previous drafts
94 pages
begins with PROLOGUE, the movie's opening scenes,
with i think script/movie differences, because an opening truck conversation was expanded in size, pretty sure
words are complimentary to the intended tone,
as in the the tone of the script suggests the tone of the movie
noticed it was common to mention when someone was thinking about something,
i guess to prepare for a future shot of the person,
and because, like i said, the prose echoes the vibe,
the only bummer i had was all those "and then" statements,
overall enjoyed reading it very much. i read 30% of it
in the academy's library
hell yeah

blue angel script:
doesn't exist, "no comprehensive scenario was ever made of the film"
this was an "authorized translation of the film continuity"
with an intro from von sternberg that says "none of the distinctive features that fill the film are indicated in the story by Mann"
and the book also had mann's original story,
this was a book not a script binder
ehh, kinda cool

(cooler)
scarlet empress script:
amazingly tall book, appropriate for scripting format in
October 12, 1933
with a similar texture for its binder as atbs had
title page had CATHERINE THE GREAT (<--crossed out in pencil!),
with THE SCARLET EMPRESS written above (in pencil)
enjoyed the hell out of seeing this
example of dialogue i adored --
Quote
CHILD: I don't want to be a queen
mother I want to be a toe dancer.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Mel on May 10, 2014, 06:07:46 AM
Few tidbits of mine. The other day ATBS crossed my mind for no apparent reason and I started wondering what is pulling me back to this film, what I liked about it and so on. I don't have definite answer.

Honesty towards characters - going where they take you and not the other way around. Characters doesn't feel squished into the story. It starts with characters and ends with characters. Does that make sense, since I have trouble explaining it?
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: tpfkabi on May 11, 2014, 10:39:20 PM
This weekend was a free Showtime weekend for DISH.
ATBS played at least twice. Last night it played at 7pm and was followed by...
The Master.
I recorded it, but haven't watched it yet.
Perfect timing, too.
I was planning to use a Redbox rental on the film, but it seems it was just removed from most of the locations around here.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on July 04, 2014, 02:16:02 AM
Rewatched this tonight and realized I never left a review here, so I'll write something brief.

The magic of this movie is how strangely engrossing it is, and how fast it feels, while the actual plot barely moves. I'm still not sure how Mr. Lowery pulled it off. At least some of it must be the editing. The rest is probably the way it's filled with so many small meaningful moments and never lingers on them for long; you quickly realize that you need to pay attention, and that these moments are clearly what the movie is about.

Some of them are a minute-long story that Bob tells, that's written so sparsely and perfectly you immediately want to play it back. My favorite is his story about Ruth screaming and him telling her that at the end of the day they're just two people in a room. I just butchered it with that paraphrase, but that scene blows me away. (Much is said about the visual beauty of the movie, but I honestly think the writing is its secret strength.)

Then there are the moments between Ruth and her daughter. I was taken aback by how much they moved me, because I'm rarely moved by scenes like that, but for example the scene of them walking and the daughter holding onto her dress really gets to me for some reason.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Reelist on September 29, 2015, 09:25:40 PM
I finally popped in the blu ray and watched this for my third time, and what's that saying? I forgot..I had gone through a stretch of watching no movies at all for a couple weeks, and with the house to myself and fall looming this seemed like just PERFECT thing. I really felt like I got it this time, whereas on the first viewings I was wrapped up in your decision making process as a director and thinking "is this a GREAT movie?" from beat to beat. I understood where the characters were coming from and how much that defined the path in front of them. Mostly, it became clear to me how much of a rat bastard Bob is, and how bad he is for Ruth even though they have such a powerful bond from being rebellious together. She is the crux of the story, and it's rare you see a movie with these thematic elements that has a single mother at the forefront. As an audience, we are begging to see them go out with a bang and have their last hurrah, but you took a moral stance by telling this in the way where it turns out the best for Ruth, and I applaud you for that. The characters are all deeply linked with a backstory that we never get to find out, but can feel the weight of in every scene.

There's such a dark, dark tone to everything, and visually it's almost colorless. I read somewhere that you wanted the entire movie to look like "an old piece of wood." I get that vibe, but in a lot of places I had issues with the yellow light. It seemed to take precedence over all the other color choices. I wonder how much you intended it have that look in the beginning, or it just turned out that way?

There's one criticism I will give and it's something that's taken me out of the film every time: When Bob gives the monologue into the mirror. Was that Casey improvising? He seems to be pulling words out of thin air and not even sure of what he'll say next. The movie is picking up such a pace at that point and it just kind of stalls there. I have to say it's quite painful to watch.

Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: pete on September 30, 2015, 02:09:51 PM
Bradford Young is staying upstairs in an AirBnB from my DP in LA, who himself just shot Krisha. I WANT THEM TO BE FRIENDS
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Ghostboy on September 30, 2015, 03:08:37 PM
Thank you for watching it a third time! This movie is difficult for me to talk about - I am super proud of it but can't watch it or think too much about it without my stomach winding up in knots over all the mistakes and other issues I have with it - but in the spirit of revisiting it...

I finally popped in the blu ray and watched this for my third time, and what's that saying? I forgot..I had gone through a stretch of watching no movies at all for a couple weeks, and with the house to myself and fall looming this seemed like just PERFECT thing. I really felt like I got it this time, whereas on the first viewings I was wrapped up in your decision making process as a director and thinking "is this a GREAT movie?" from beat to beat. I understood where the characters were coming from and how much that defined the path in front of them. Mostly, it became clear to me how much of a rat bastard Bob is, and how bad he is for Ruth even though they have such a powerful bond from being rebellious together. She is the crux of the story, and it's rare you see a movie with these thematic elements that has a single mother at the forefront. As an audience, we are begging to see them go out with a bang and have their last hurrah, but you took a moral stance by telling this in the way where it turns out the best for Ruth, and I applaud you for that. The characters are all deeply linked with a backstory that we never get to find out, but can feel the weight of in every scene.

Great, that's exactly what I was getting at with the heart of the thing, and it's the one thing I do feel we got mostly right!

Quote
There's such a dark, dark tone to everything, and visually it's almost colorless. I read somewhere that you wanted the entire movie to look like "an old piece of wood." I get that vibe, but in a lot of places I had issues with the yellow light. It seemed to take precedence over all the other color choices. I wonder how much you intended it have that look in the beginning, or it just turned out that way?

For better or worse, totally intended. We talked about it looking like a piece of wood, and also like we were shooting the whole thing through a glass of bourbon. I do love the look of it, although I wish we'd roughed it up a bit more at times and gotten messier.

Quote
There's one criticism I will give and it's something that's taken me out of the film every time: When Bob gives the monologue into the mirror. Was that Casey improvising? He seems to be pulling words out of thin air and not even sure of what he'll say next. The movie is picking up such a pace at that point and it just kind of stalls there. I have to say it's quite painful to watch.

The movie has too many monologues in the last 30 minutes, and this doesn't help - although I like this one and it usually goes over pretty well. But I know exactly where you're coming from. I wrote four different monologues for this scene and we just shot all of them, and Casey mixed them together and added his own things as well, like the hummingbird line. We stitched it together from two different takes. So it was written, but written with an eye towards elaboration.

Pete, my wife was in KRISHA! The connections never end.

Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: polkablues on October 19, 2015, 01:56:26 AM
Now available on Netflix Streaming, guys (in the US, at least).
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 13, 2017, 01:20:36 AM
Rotten Tomatoes made a list:

50 MOVIES & TV SHOWS TO NETFLIX AND CHILL THIS VALENTINE'S DAY (https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/50-certified-fresh-romantic-movies-to-netflix-and-chill-this-valentines-day/)

ATBS is #3.
Title: Re: Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Post by: Shughes on February 16, 2017, 09:12:33 AM
Does anyone know where to view the Ross Brothers' behind the scenes film online? It isn't on the UK release(s) as far as I can see and the site that was hosting it back when it was mentioned in this thread no longer has it.

And is there anywhere else to view the deleted scenes or other material surrounding this film? I'm not keen to import the US versions of the DVD/BluRay as I don't have a compatible player nor do I really watch any films via DVD these days. Though I would like to see St Nick also.

I loved The Master style teasers posted by GB a while ago and my love for this film grows with every viewing. The more I read about the making of it the more I want to discover.