http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0959337/
Director:
Sam Mendes
Writers:
Justin Haythe (screenplay)
Richard Yates (book)
Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Kathy Bates, Michael Shannon
Plot outline: A young couple living in a Connecticut suburb during the mid-1950s struggle to come to terms with their personal problems while trying to raise their two children.
When I saw the Reservation Road topic I thought it was a topic about this movie. I've read this book and it's a great fucking book. Mendes is going to handle it like American Beauty 2? It travels some of the same lines but here's the thing: the book is already one of those realistic fiction novels that wants to show and not tell. Mendes is a filmmaker who likes to show big. I expect disappointment.
It is a great book, and it's a definite predecessor to American Beauty (and every other bit post-60s suburban disquiet in film and literature). Michael Shannon will be great in it. It'll look lovely. But that might be about it.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fimg.movies.yahoo.com%2Fymv%2Fus%2Fimg%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Fparamount_vantage%2Frevolutionary_road%2Frevolutionaryroad_galleryposter.jpg&hash=19c2392880a78c13ced420b4108fa5879aba8a6c)
Trailer here. (http://movies.yahoo.com/premieres/9951304/standardformat/)
Release Date: December 26th, 2008 (wide)
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Kathy Bates, David Harbour, Michael Shannon
Directed by: Sam Mendes
Premise: The story of a young couple trying to find fulfillment in an age of conformity. Trapped in a world of encoded convention, they dream without faith, as lies and self-deceptions build to explosive consequences.
this looks great. love the Mad Men look and everything except Leo playing an adult.
i cannot trust mendes. otherwise i'd probably be sold. although the dialogue is kinda meh with stuff like "i hope so. i really hope so." etc. and mad men has probably done it better.
Mac did you delete my months old Revolutionary Road topic after you started this one? Because I bet you did.
BTW this is an adaptation of a great book.
This looks utterly fantastic. I get major chills at the last 30 seconds and Nina Simone's voice just takes the emotional apex of the trailer and sends it over the top. It's filmmaking like this that reminds me of why I want to start making movies.
New Trailer here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOgj2SqMUZo)
i echo pickles comment on the "i really hope so" line but that aside, this second trailer is pretty awesome.
Hey how did this happen?
Quote from: w/o horse on November 18, 2008, 12:54:45 PM
Hey how did this happen?
Searching for something else, I found your thread in Now Showing and merged the two.
Sam Mendes, 'Revolutionary Road'
'Revolutionary Road' marks Sam Mendes' first collaboration with his actress wife, Kate Winslet. Sometimes on set he hid around the corner.
By Rachel Abramowitz; Los Angeles Times
There are those who will see "Revolutionary Road," the long-awaited reteaming of Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, as some deeply troubling coda to their famed cine-love in the top-grossing movie of all time, "Titanic." In that film, the duo played two dreamers whose lives are dashed by a gargantuan iceberg. In "Revolutionary Road," they repeat as dreamers, of the 1950s variety, only this time their future is sabotaged by conformity, fear and the acrid taste of self-loathing. It's as if Jack and Rose ran off together but it didn't end happily ever after.
From the look on his face, it's clear that this reading of the film has occurred to director Sam Mendes. "I'm not going to say that, but you can!" he says with devilish glee. With a thatch of black curly hair and rounded features, Mendes is pointedly not going there. That's messing with cinematic history, our complicated feelings toward icons in their iconic performances, and sometimes a movie is just a movie, a universe unto itself.
"Revolutionary Road" has its meta-theme also in Mendes' life. At 43, this baby-faced, Cambridge-educated Englishman is fast becoming the poet laureate of American suburbia, first with "American Beauty," now with the 1950s edition, "Revolutionary Road," and soon with another film -- this time a comedy -- about marriage. "Away We Go," an original screenplay by author Dave Eggers and his wife, Vendela Vida, follows a young couple as they travel the country in search of the best place to raise their future child.
Yet, curled up in his chair in his Four Seasons hotel room, Mendes doesn't see the leitmotif of his work that way. "I don't think that I am obsessed with suburbia. But I definitely feel drawn to family dynamics and dynamics between parents and children and men and women. And that, you know, I find very fascinating and very fulfilling. And I don't have any axes to grind; I'm not on a crusade . . ." No unhappy traumas growing up to recycle, he says, though he notes he had a "complicated childhood" as the only son of divorced parents. In fact, he explains himself as "definitely obsessed by characters who are lost and are trying to find their way through life. Now to answer the obvious question: Are you a character who has lost his way? Well, maybe I am!"
Doesn't shy away
This said, Mendes does not appear lost artistically. Films about family have tended to migrate away from the big screen recently, but perhaps it's Mendes' gift to make ordinary, relatable life events feel big, even operatic, the way they feel to the people who must experience them. And he's deeply interested in love. "He's very romantic. He has a romantic way of looking around the world," says producer Scott Rudin, who has done a number of plays with Mendes as well as "Revolutionary Road." "The moment-to-moment detailed calibration of an emotional reality is what Sam does brilliantly."
"Revolutionary Road" certainly sears the mind -- it's like a post-traumatic-stress-disorder flashback for those who've experienced the troughs of married life, made all the more poignant by the real sensation that the young Wheelers of the film are actually groping to stay together, not fly apart. "In the middle of it is this ache, this longing to make it work," says Mendes. "This is a movie about people wanting to stay together and not being able to."
Based on the cherished 1961 novel by Richard Yates, the film is set in the era of the man in the gray-flannel suit, with the little wife who stays in the suburbs tending the 2.5 blond progeny, but it's not simply about cool retro cars, martinis at lunch and retrograde gender relations. The film turns around the suggestion -- by an increasingly disconsolate April Wheeler, played by Winslet -- that they chuck these stifling lives and move to Paris, a plan that at first makes her husband, Frank (DiCaprio), fall in love with her again but eventually grows to scare him.
"I would argue that she is one of the great feminist heroines," says Mendes. "She's the only person in the movie that is big enough to face the truth. You know well this is not a movie about a woman who wants to go to Paris. It's a movie about a woman who wants her life back and can still remember the dreams she once had and is finally wakening up, which a lot of people do in their 30s and 40s, who go, 'How did I get here? This is not what I wanted. But I never made the decision, this all happened in increments -- I had a child and I had to compromise and I had to do this and that and suddenly I've lost my way. Now I'm just like everyone else and I thought I was special.' "
It was Winslet, Mendes' wife of five years, who first brought him "Revolutionary Road." This is the first time they've worked together, and Mendes says he was surprised by his wife's ferocious work ethic (which included retreating to her trailer), but perhaps less so by her need sometimes to be free of her husband's gaze. "I was very aware that my presence when she is playing one half of a marriage was going to make her feel self-conscious, so I would often go hide around a corner, you know? And then watch her on one of the monitor screens," says Mendes. On occasion, he'd tried to stand by the camera; with his roots in theater, he likes to get up close, but Winslet would say, "You can't stand there." He laughs. "She would say, 'You are breathing down my neck.' "
Sometimes he didn't even recognize Winslet when he actually saw her on screen. "Her face behaved differently than how it does at home," he says. "There was no aging, no big makeover, but it wasn't Kate. It was somebody else. But it's a very subtle form of possession that she has."
It's the alchemy of Yates' novel and the movie that the audience's empathy constantly switches back and forth between Frank and April, so much so that the film's finale is certain to provoke a few battles of the sexes on the way to the parking lot. DiCaprio, who gives one of his most nuanced performances since "What's Eating Gilbert Grape," says he didn't feel like the odd man out.
"It was a family-run movie," says DiCaprio, who has remained friends with Winslet since their "Titanic" days. "I felt like they had a great trust level. Kate and I had a great trust level. It lent itself to Sam and I having a trust level. It's invaluable when you're able to be completely honest with each other about the material." Mendes not only put them through theater-like rehearsals, but also shot the movie sequentially, so they could follow their characters' journey from angry ennui to giddiness and back to despair.
"When you're able to live someone's life out like that, a lot of things become second nature. You're able to understand your character on a much more intimate level." Mendes also provokes and "asks his actors penetrating questions. A lot of time, he wasn't imposing his belief about what you're doing. He put you completely in control of your character," says DiCaprio, but "he would come up, sometimes at very jarring moments, and ask, 'What are you really thinking?' "
In an hour with Sam Mendes, it's clear the man has a gift for a kind of feminine intimacy. He's adept at learning others' secrets, all the while not giving up his own. It's like being whirled by a masterful dance partner.
"Sam comes at everything with an indomitable attitude," says DreamWorks Co-Chairman Stacey Snider, who made both "Jarhead" and "Revolutionary Road" with Mendes. "That doesn't mean if you ask a question or shake the trees a little bit he won't go back and think how to respond, but he's not neurotic. He's calm, confident, able, and he makes you feel great to be following him." Snider says she's "tried to woo, entice, persuade, cajole him to do a lot of material, but he passes on so much. When he fixes on something, it's with unwavering commitment. He held on to ['Revolutionary Road'] for a couple of years."
Newfound inspiration
Mendes says "Revolutionary Road" re-inspired him, after a period of distraction that set in after he left running the Donmar Warehouse theater. Often termed the Orson Welles of England, Mendes started directing professional theater at the age of 23 and was a mere 27 when he took over the Donmar and turned it into a major theatrical incubator, launching well-received productions of "Cabaret" and "The Blue Room," which traveled to Broadway. He left in 2002, right after his second movie, the period gangster drama "Road to Perdition."
"I felt a bit stale," says Mendes. "Which is weird because I was in my mid-30s, but I just felt like I had run out of ideas." He was also enjoying staying at home with his family, which includes Winslet, his stepdaughter Mia, now 8, and their son Joseph, 4.
The family has been living in New York recently, and Mendes and Winslet try to ensure that one or the other can be with the kids. "We usually stagger it so there is always one of us to put them to bed and take them to school. We like to have our hands on them; we don't have a live-in nanny or anything like that. You know, it is our kids." Mendes can certainly talk the parental talk -- about his son's passions for Pokémon, or mimicking how the two kids jostle for turns on the computer. He calls Joe his best friend, and it's clear the children have affected his world view.
In making "American Beauty," he entered that world through the disaffected teenagers. With "Revolutionary Road," he saw the drama through a parent's eyes, though that world view is certainly not his. He most identifies with his new film, about a pregnant couple (Maya Rudolph and John Krasinski) who, unlike the Wheelers, leave where they are and "embark on a road trip to find the perfect place to give birth, which they ultimately find."
"I'm an optimist. I don't find myself depressive, and I'm more of a regenerative. I kind of cancel and continue. I do not dwell on the past. This is just my nature and it's Kate's too. I tend to be happy whatever surroundings I'm given."
That seems like willed optimism, a choice, because Mendes clearly understands the potency of a piece like "Revolutionary Road," which depicts both the savagery of love and its potential to raise us out of our humdrum existences. They're two sides of the same coin.
"Only someone who truly knows you can pin you and enter secret rooms you know. And that's when things get really nasty, things go beyond words, you know?" says Mendes. "It's a wonderful thing to be known, but it's also very dangerous. Wouldn't you say?"
Kate Winslet is one of the most beautiful women in the history of film. I'd just like to say that.
Quote from: Stefen on December 13, 2008, 11:53:04 PM
Kate Winslet is one of the most beautiful women in the history of film. I'd just like to say that.
Check out her beard in The Reader...that shit really catches the light something incredible.
Yes. She really immersed herself in playing the role of YOUR MOM.
I guess you're right...but even my Mom couldn't make that dialogue palatable.
"-I'll bet you're really good at it...
-At what?
-Reading"
Sorry...didn't mean to sully the Revolutionary Road thread with this The Reader nonsense.
I'd still, ya know, even with the beard. I'd find her a very handsome woman.
Agreed. I love how she was supposed to be ugly in Little Children. Oh, how I love "movie" ugly.
Little Children is where she was the hottest. She's a little thicker and really dumpy. Plus she's a huge slut in that flick.
Quote from: Stefen on December 13, 2008, 11:53:04 PM
Kate Winslet is one of the most beautiful women in the history of film. I'd just like to say that.
yes and
Quote from: Stefen on December 14, 2008, 04:08:32 PM
Little Children is where she was the hottest.
yes.
Just wanted to say that. Actually no. I'm looking forward to this and The Reader; she was yesterday with Leno and my god is she beautiful, she looks way better now than in her titanic days.
Actually, wasn't here yesterday a post from Mac??? something about the reader thread not having posts or something, anyway, maybe mac should merge this with the reader. The Revolutionary Reader.
Let's just nuke both threads and create a thread titled, "My god, this Kate Winslet is beautiful"
Actually, I want to see this movie. I just sometimes find it very difficult to take Leo seriously as a respectable adult.
Quote from: Stefen on December 16, 2008, 12:38:27 PM
Let's just nuke both threads and create a thread titled, "My god, this Kate Winslet is beautiful"
http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=5779.0
Ok, I wish I had more time, and I will write more later, but as the first person who apparently has seen this film and written about here, I will say this:
This was mindblowing, brutal. I was in awe of Sam Mendes. This is his masterpiece. There was one sequence in the film that was so gutsy and visceral, so confident in cinema, that I started to cry out of joy and sadness. I haven't seen something like this since There Will Be Blood. Fucking gut level. That I haven't heard more about this film getting nominated is a travesty. Leo fucking delivers. I mean, he really goes somewhere else. His rage is bloodcurdling. Kate is her usual amazing.
See this movie.
Whoever said something bad about Sam Mendes in the past is a fucking moron. This film is brilliant in every possible way, especially when it comes to directing. Leonardo DiCaprio continues to be my favorite actor, and Kate Winslet is as amazing and beautiful as everyone else here has been saying, and as she's always been.
i don't know, i didn't love it. maybe i'm just on fuck suburbia overload (cities don't have all the answers either you know) but while watching this all i could think about was how mad men does everything this is trying to do, but better. mad men feels real and authentic to the period while still contemporary and relevant. this felt kind of outdated and tired. and the dialogue, so ridden with subtext and exposition, was a little hard to stomach. i liked how theatrical it was (hell it might have made a better play) and leo and kate, while a little over the top at times, definitely bring it. there are some beautiful moments and some wonderfully haunting imagery, particularly the shot of leo standing idly amongst the other suited ants in grand central station, but by and large i kept wanting to just watch mad men instead.. :yabbse-undecided:
i agree totally with cbrad.
semi-spoils
me too. it's a cut above perdition/jarhead which i really disliked, and it looks technically great most of the time, and the performances are quite good for the most part, and there are even a few great moments.. but i didn't love this at all. the choice to make everything so perfect, so pronounced, gave it an overall inhuman quality.. and not in a a good, theme-developing, trapped in a loveless marriage kind of way. i can see the book being much better because the motivations are so thought-driven/internal. i felt awful for leo/kate, but i didn't get the sense they were victims of suburbia or even that their problems were that complicated. i just felt like they weren't honest with each other over and over and obviously it tore them apart. it also didn't help that we barely saw a shred of their happy time together. and something about the score bugged me.. it felt really.. unsympathetic. like "this is what happens. this is what happens. it was bound to happen. the end." sam mendes has yet to come close to american beauty. i think all his films since then have suffered from this same relentless perfection. it plays against real drama, real stakes, real characters, etc.
well, i really liked it. little slow in the beginning, but then when you get to the halfway point, it moves. probably also took a while for me to get into it because i was not used the such theatricality in modern film, especially in the performances. they DID act like they were in a play, but this was not necessarily a bad thing. very classy actually. loved how they used colors, especially green.
sort of spoilers
as far as not digging the suburbia sucks premise, people have problems in cities too, yeah, who knows if the marriage would have worked in paris, but that wasn't the point. it wasn't about just leaving to go to a city, it was about getting out of a routine. living in suburbia is a certain type of boring repetition, but paris would have been new and afforded them a life they could not have had in america, even if there was a new kind of repetition involved. emotionally, the story carried weight for me. but then, i've never seen madmen.
major spoilers
i didn't want kate winslet to die, but i guess she had to. pffft. also, i think the movie could've ended with the neighbor being like "i don't want to talk about the whatelys anymore." those last two scenes seemed superfluous, but that last one made the audience laugh (but they laughed at the WEIRDEST shit).
Did you mean to write something under "major spoilers"?
minor spoilers
I've only seen the pilot to Mad Men, so I can't fully defend against a comparison to the show. But what I found refreshing about this was that we're not just being presented with 50s speak and taboos, I mean we're never being nudged when we see Kate Winselt drinking and smoking like a chimney even though we know she's pregnant. The consequence of all that isn't kitschy and never played up. cbrad, when you say "contemporary and relevant," I don't know why it needs to be contemporary. It's set in the 50s, based on Yates' book written in '61, it's very much about the post-war anxiety and the desperation for security that people bought into. It's a very critical look at the complacency that suburbia is rooted in. And the relevance of the film lies, for me, in the quelling of ambition and dreams, and the consequences of trapping yourself because of money or a passionless existence with promise.
Does the film need to be compared to Mad Men? It seems that Mad Men would owe a debt to a work like Revolutionary Road. And even then, the themes, the ideas, the fights, the dialogue of Yates are all there, from the actual period. Mad Men is more about focusing issues interesting to us, today, through the nostalgic prism of the 60s (I could be way off on this, right?), it seems. Whereas the verisimilitude of the film comes from the raw value of Yates' work. People yelled and screamed and were violent in their fights, in defending their dreams, and they are today; that's the relevance. Calling it outdated denies the work from being what it was and is.
And pic, I didn't see the perfection you seem to have noticed. If anything, the film had a rougher edge to it, more handheld work, less painterly lighting in favor of stark, realistic portrayals. More overblown backgrounds and pitch black interiors. The argument in front of the headlights, Leo alone in the house. One shot stands out where Kate is sitting at the table, and John (the mathematician) is yelling at her, but the shot never racks to him, it just stays on Kate. He's foregone more handsome camerawork in favor of a cinema that visually emotes, that sticks with Kate because she's not really listening, and his ideas come through in that. I felt like he had finally given up this perfection you're talking about.
I think you're right bonanzataz, it's not just about going to Paris. It could have been anything, it could have been wanting to make a film or open a store selling pies or whatever, and that's why it's not this urban vs. suburban. It's about passion vs. decay.
Quote from: Gamblour. on January 13, 2009, 07:59:50 AMDoes the film need to be compared to Mad Men? It seems that Mad Men would owe a debt to a work like Revolutionary Road.
for sure. i guess it's an unfair criticism. the book did come out first, and its fair to say that things like mad men and american beauty are the ones that are derivative. still, i would argue that these works tackle the same themes in more dynamic and original ways than this film adaptation did.
Quote from: Gamblour. on January 13, 2009, 07:59:50 AMcbrad, when you say "contemporary and relevant," I don't know why it needs to be contemporary. It's set in the 50s, based on Yates' book written in '61, it's very much about the post-war anxiety and the desperation for security that people bought into.
it doesn't. i wasn't really referring to the content/themes themselves, but moreso the execution. the heavy-handed, subtext heavy dialogue felt old and forced to me. i would assume the book benefits because much of what is going on with frank and april is internalized, no? do they really say lines like "we bought into the same hopeless delusion" and "our whole existence here is based on the premise that we're special" in the book? even if they did, you didn't really need to be that blatant in the film.
I tend to hate movies that are about upper middle class white people in the Suburbs. This was good, but not great and isn't exempt from my usual feelings. I didn't hate it, because the acting is really good, but as a whole, it just comes off as dated. I don't mean in the sense that it takes place in 1955, but I just mean that the subject matter, while shocking for the time, isn't really anything that works in the present for anything other than a corny Hallmark made for TV movie. It felt almost like Mendes was trying to re-create American Beauty, but in a more grown-up way to try and mask his lack of maturity as a filmmaker in the decade since 1999. It does a good job at re-creating the era, and a lot of credit for that should be given to the actors. Kate Winslet was great as always and Leo didn't bug me playing an adult as much as he normally does. Dylan Baker as the smug co-worker was annoying, but he was supposed to be and I wish we got more of him.
I've never read the book so I can't comment on that, but I can see how in the beginning of the 60's some of the subject matter would have been considered Taboo, but like I said, here it just comes off as dated.
I'd recommend it for a rental just for the acting alone. It has it's merits, but overall it just further illustrates what's considered best of the year material in a shitty year like 08.
7.0/10.
Spoilers..........
I thought the end with the, "How do you want your eggs?" Scrambled?" bit at the end right before the at home do it yourself abortion kit infomercial was in bad taste. That was what that whole part was for, right? Or is my brain just sick?
Haha I never thought of that, so I guess you're only slightly sick.
And we all keep saying it's a bad year for movies, but I think after last year being so amazing, it feels a lot worse than it actually is. The more I'm seeing from last year's slate, the more I'm realizing this. Every has its shitty or subpar lot, and every year some of them get nominated.
The film was like a punch to the gut; so full of a spectrum of emotions. I do think it could have done better with a bit of editing for pacing. But to watch this story play out of these two people who we hardly get an introduction to, yet we know and understand everything about them, was like watching a train wreck in slow motion that you couldn't look away from (yes, I purposefully avoided a Titanic/iceberg analogy that the media all clinged too).
Kate and Leo were on the mark, and I predict she will get her first Oscar for this. And why has no one mentioned Michael Shannon? He stole those scenes he was in.
Quote from: MacGuffin on January 20, 2009, 05:44:21 PM
Kate and Leo were on the mark, and I predict she will get her first Oscar for this. And why has no one mentioned Michael Shannon? He stole those scenes he was in.
Oh yeah, it's incredible. The supporting actors are so well cast. The sad neighbors and the meathead boss, pretty amazing all.
Quote from: Gamblour. on January 21, 2009, 04:24:16 AM
Quote from: MacGuffin on January 20, 2009, 05:44:21 PM
Kate and Leo were on the mark, and I predict she will get her first Oscar for this. And why has no one mentioned Michael Shannon? He stole those scenes he was in.
Oh yeah, it's incredible. The supporting actors are so well cast. The sad neighbors and the meathead boss, pretty amazing all.
I agree. Amazing powerhouse performances all around. I was very happy that I saw this in the theaters. Some of the images felt iconic in the making. Leo is taking on some amazing roles in the past few years and agents and studios are now noticing him as a Paul newman type of actor, using his star power from his earlier teen years to make films that really have some substance.
Quote from: SiliasRuby on January 24, 2009, 05:58:03 PMusing his star power from his earlier teen years to make films that really have some substance.
people have been saying that for years dude.
plenty of the films from his teens also had 'substance' though. this boy's life, basketball diaries, r + j, titanic, etc.
That there is no love for this in the Oscars is beyond me. This movie is as powerful and hard as it gets. I turned my head away at the end it was too much for me.
I'd like to say that I found that Frank was not a bad guy and this movie really is interesting in staying away from the ''50s man'' stereotype. I thought that April was seriously mentally ill from the first scene of the movie to the last. She needed a mother's little helper in a bottle of plastic. And she blamed Frank for many things that he is not responsible for (which he accuses her of many times in the movie). So yeah those were good characters.
I think the scenes where they fight are the most realistic hollywood has ever done. I remembered hearing my parents as a kid during these scenes and it was very powerful.
Quote from: picolas on January 25, 2009, 03:34:31 AM
Quote from: SiliasRuby on January 24, 2009, 05:58:03 PMusing his star power from his earlier teen years to make films that really have some substance.
people have been saying that for years dude.
plenty of the films from his teens also had 'substance' though. this boy's life, basketball diaries, r + j, titanic, etc.
Yes I don't either buy into the whole Leo DiCaprio as an actor for kids. He was always a serious actor and his good looks were often overstated because of the quality of the movies he's been in.
Quote from: Gamblour. on January 13, 2009, 07:59:50 AM
and that's why it's not this urban vs. suburban. It's about passion vs. decay.
Exactly. And that is timeless. And I don't get at all these criticisms about the film being irrelevant or something that doesn't "work for the present". I'm sorry but you guys are wrong. The crossroads these characters encounter are pretty much spot on for I would say most people today that have to make up their minds on wether to follow a dream or be "responsible" for a house, a family, whatever. It has nothing to do with the 50's really, and it has all to do with the decisions people make regarding their destiny.
The filmmaking is fantastic. I tried hard but couldn't find any of the "perfection" some people are talking about. Deakins is a fine, I would say one of the two or three finest cinematographers in the world, and he usually guarantees beautiful imaginary, wether in a Coen Brothers film or with M. Night Shyamalan or whoever he is working with. Mendes obviously wanted a more raw approach. I can't help but think some people haven't "forgiven" him for winning an oscar the year Magnolia came out. Because he gets some bad shit sometimes, and here's a director who can take awesome comedic and dramatic performances from actors, has a strong visual sense and great instincts. American Beauty isn't perfect but it's great for what it is.
Some of the scenes are incredible, particularly the sequence right after Michael Shannon's second appearence. Both of the main performances are equally a joy and a heartbreak to watch. I think those two got the better out of each other. And Michael Shannon totally steals every second he's onscreen.
The fact that Brad Pitt is up for an Oscar instead of Di Caprio just confirms again what a bunch of crap the whole thing is. This was a tremendous achievement.
My school is having a screening of this this week with a Q&A after with Michael Shannon. I haven't seen this film and don't know much about Michael Shannon so I was wondering if you guys had any recommendations for a question I should ask...
Well he portrays a person with a mental illness in the 50s and is often just dismissed with a "He's crazy." Actually, it would be the biggest favor ever if you could ask him what he did to research and learn about mental illness and stigma in the 50s and how he approached his character with what he learned. I would hope he didn't just try to play crazy to play crazy, because his character's power is built around stigma, so I hope he would have a conscientious approach.
But anyway, if you are able to ask him that and get an answer, that would be incredible.
I thought that the movie was great. I was able to ask him Gamblour's question and he said that he went out and bought a ton of math books because the character's a mathematician and read up about electroshock therapy, but that he mainly just went to the book whenever he had a question. He didn't really comment too much on the stigma of his illness in the '50s so I guess maybe he just went from the book and from his general knowledge? Because I'm a fucking fanboy I went up to him after and asked him if he liked the work of any directors and really wanted to work with any, and then asked him if he'd want to work with PT Anderson, and he said that he actually auditioned for the part of Henry in TWBB and still really wants to work with him.
Someone asked him if he was nervous about competing against Heath Ledger because of the all the buzz surrounding Ledger, and he gave some strange response about how Ledger shouldn't be a role model and if Ledger wins that he doesn't know what that would mean. I believe his exact quote was along the lines of, "If he wins, does that mean people should go out and take a bunch of pills or something? I don't know." I felt like he kind of missed the question.
Awesome. Thanks for the recap. I love when this type of stuff happens.
That's crazy what he said about Ledger.
Dude, that is really awesome of you. Thanks for asking. Yeah, I guess it doesn't make much sense for him to read up on stigma, considering that's really everyone else's job to judge him.
Wow thanks for that man !
Quote from: Convael on February 12, 2009, 09:49:27 PM
Someone asked him if he was nervous about competing against Heath Ledger because of the all the buzz surrounding Ledger, and he gave some strange response about how Ledger shouldn't be a role model and if Ledger wins that he doesn't know what that would mean. I believe his exact quote was along the lines of, "If he wins, does that mean people should go out and take a bunch of pills or something? I don't know." I felt like he kind of missed the question.
that's pretty horrible. he's a pretty superb actor tho. even more than that. first noticed him in Before the Devil i believe. just saw Bug for the first time on cable, another performance from him that couldn't be matched or bettered. and he would have been great as Henry by the way.
his minute role added so much to this film. so much there in his expression. he's so good at taming his performance of the psychotic character where most actors would fall into hamming it up territory.
this was just unpleasant. miserable people doing miserable things to each other. kate winslet's character was just a crazy bitch.
But she was hot as fuck. All being slutty and shit.
she has the ugliest godforsaken tits tho (see:the reader)
Her boobs are awesome. See: Titanic. Little Chilren.
i like her
pussy lips
and clit.
Lame.
She doesn't post here. Only Sam Mendes does (Pas Rap)