Saturday, March 31, 2012

LOOPER JGL INTERVIEW



LOOPER JGL INTERVIEW

In the futuristic action thriller Looper, from writer/director Rian Johnson (Brick, The Brothers Bloom), the mob uses time travel to get rid of someone by sending their target 30 years into the past where a hired gun (known as a “looper”) is waiting to assassinate them. And then, one day, a looper named Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) suddenly recognizes one of his targets as his future self (played by Bruce Willis). The film also stars Emily Blunt, Paul Dano, Piper Perabo and Jeff Daniels.

Prior to their panel presentation at WonderCon 2012, actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt and filmmaker Rian Johnson met with press to talk about why they enjoy working together, Check out what they had to say:

Bruce Willis & JGL play the Same Character

Q: A lot of times, it’s hard to find the audience for a film and get people interested enough to go out and see it, but with this, people are clamoring just to see the first possible footage. What does that feel like? How gratifying is that?

GORDON-LEVITT: It’s nice. I love movies. I don’t just like them, I love them. So, to be somewhere like WonderCon, amongst other people who feel that strongly as well, is exciting.


JOHNSON: We were talking about the push and pull of how much you tell and how much you hold back. When I see a news story on a site, about a movie that I’m interested in, it’s like the mouse going for the pleasure button and I click it. But then, when I see the movie, it’s like, “Oh, I would have enjoyed the movie that much more, if I hadn’t known that.” For me, this is the first time I’m working with a movie where there is that thing of, “How much do we give away? How much do we tease?” It’s an interesting process.


Q: So, what can you tease about this movie?

JOHNSON: The first big thing is how Joe plays a younger version of Bruce Willis, with the prosthetic make-up on him. We slathered his face with uncomfortable gunk.


JGL: It took almost three hours to apply the make-up. It’s a different face, and that was obviously the foundation of the character. Well, that’s not true. The foundation of the character was just Bruce [Willis], and studying him, watching his movies and listening to his voice. For me, it was definitely one of the more interesting challenges I’ve ever tackled, as an actor. I think I could probably say that it’s my favorite performance of my own.

Q: Since the role was written for Joe, how did you decide that Bruce Willis would be the right actor to play the older version of the character?

JOHNSON: I had already written it for Joe, and then we cast Bruce in it, and then we dealt with, “Okay, how do we figure this out?” As our ingenious make-up designer pointed out, they actually look very dissimilar. They don’t look alike, at all. So, our approach was to pick a couple key features and alter those. When Joe showed up on set and started shooting, I was still very, very nervous ‘cause we had committed to this extreme make-up and it’s not like we had totally transformed him, so that he looked like Bruce in Moonlighting, or something. It was a hybrid. But, when Joe kicked in the performance, I knew that was going to take it a long way. It was amazing how much of a transformation there was, once Joe started doing the voice. The other thrilling thing about it, for me, was that it wasn’t imitation. He created a character, but it was a character that could be a young Bruce Willis. It was an amazing high-wire act that Joe was pulling off, every day. For me, it was just really fun to watch.

Q: Did you and Bruce Willis meet and talk about how you were going to play the same character?

JGL: I based my character on him. I watched his movies, and I would take the audio out of his movies and put it on my iPod, so I could listen to him. But, most of all, I just got to hang out with him, have dinner, have conversations and get to know him. It was a fascinating challenge because I didn’t want to do an impression of him. First of all, I’m not a good impersonator. Second of all, I just didn’t think that would be appropriate. It’s not a comedy. But, creating a character that was more him than me was fascinating. Then, we had this special effects makeup, every morning, for three hours, so my face is not my face. To look in the mirror every day and see someone else’s face was a trip. It was sort of a dream. As an actor, what I get off on most is becoming someone else.

JGL playing a young Bruce Willis
Q: What did you learn about Bruce as you were studying his work, and what was the biggest challenge for you?

JGL: Bruce is actually a very understated guy. It’s interesting because he’s such a large personality that your first instinct is to try to be large. But, in fact, he draws a lot of his power from stillness, and he actually speaks quietly. It tricks you, at first, because you wouldn’t think that he speaks quietly because his voice makes such a powerful impression. It took me a second to figure that out. I do think that a lot of the closest moments that I got him were actually the quieter, stiller moments.

Q: Was the plan always to have two different actors for the older and younger versions of this character?

JOHNSON: Initially, when I cast Joe and we were talking about it before we had cast Bruce, we were talking about the option of just doing make-up or something else.

JGL: The egotistical actor in me was like, “Let me do both!,” but I’m so glad that’s not what we did.

JOHNSON: The reason that I actually came down against it was twofold. First, I think with aging make-up on younger actors, I don’t feel like I’ve ever seen it completely work. There’s been some tremendous work that’s been done, but I feel like, if you know what an actor looks like who’s young, as a movie-goer, I can usually see right through it. The bigger thing for me, and what emotionally pulled me into the movie, was the idea of a young man sitting across from an older man, who’s himself. You can make someone up. Joe is a fantastic actor. But, there’s something about a span of 25 years between two people that you can’t fake. That just buys you something that’s intangible and very essential to what this movie is basically about. And so, I thought it was really important to have two actors actually sitting across from each other, with that age gap between them.

JGL: And there’s no way that I could have delivered the character that Bruce did. Bruce is magnificent in this movie. He gives a really strong performance. That’s not something I could have done, at all.

Q: How would you describe the universe of this film?

JOHNSON: Well, it’s the near future and it’s very, very grounded. It is 30 years in the future. It’s kind of dystopian. Everything has fallen apart a little bit. But, it’s not as completely conceptualized as something like Blade Runner. It is a little more grounded and a little more down-to-earth. The truth is that, even though we had some fun with the futuristic elements, the movie is very action and character driven. The world that it takes place in was less about making a very distinct future world and more about these characters really driving us through this thing. It was more about, “What’s a world that we can pull off on our budget that looks real and makes sense, as a future?”

Q: With time travel comes rules. Did you start from scratch to create your own idea of how time travel works, or were you influenced by other methods?

JOHNSON: The biggest influence, in terms of how to handle it from a storytelling point of view, was the first Terminator movie. I loved that film, for so many reasons. The genius thing about how it uses time travel was how it set up the premise and then got out of the way, so you’re not spending the whole movie explaining things on chalkboards. I also love time travel movies that do that. Primer is one of my favorite films. But, for this specifically, it’s really the characters and the action that drives it through. For me, it was about, “How do we use time travel without making the audience think about time travel, the entire time?”
JGL in Looper as Bruce Willis

Q: Have you thought about this film as a franchise or possible sequels, or are you just focusing on this film?

JOHNSON: I don’t think about it. I don’t think in those terms. Storytelling wise, you’ve gotta take it as far as you can possibly take it with each individual movie. If you’re holding out something for a sequel or some cliff-hanger, that’s not how I think of a satisfying story.


JGL: It’s a very complete story. Rian doesn’t write stuff with money in mind. It’s not that kind of process.

Q: Could you see the character continuing to grow, in additional stories?

JOHNSON: I’d be curious to hear your answer to that, once you see the film.

Friday, March 30, 2012

RESIDENT EVIL: RETRIBUTION – INTERVIEW (Paul W.S. Anderson)



RESIDENT EVIL: RETRIBUTION – INTERVIEW

Writer-Director Paul W.S. Has recently been talking to Shock Till You Drop about his latest Resident Evil Film.

At WonderCon 2012 in Anaheim, California, Shock Till You Drop try to find out where he's at in the production process and to discuss new creatures, opening up the Resident Evil world and those supposed flashbacks that were hinted at in the teaser.


Shock Till You Drop:  Where are you at right now and how are things going in post-production?

Paul W.S. Anderson:  Editing the director's cut right now and stuck in the editing room, editing furiously.

Shock:  Good job on the trailer.  I was suprised to see one released so early.

Anderson:  Well, we were talking about it while we were shooting in the movie.  We wanted to get the teaser out as a statement of intent - we're taking the movie globally.  I said if we were going to do another Resident Evil, we had to raise the bar in terms of scope and scale of the film.  I wanted to make the first really epic undead movie, epic post-apocalyptic film and that's what we've done.

Shock:  Did you shoot anything specifically for the teaser that won't appear in the film?

Milla and Li on set taking pics
Anderson:  Everything's from the movie, other than the people standing around with their Sony products.  [laughs] I love them, though, because they all deserve to be eaten alive.

Shock:  Ah, so the White House footage with those flying creature - all the movie...

Anderson:  Those are from Resident Evil 5.  Part of raising the bar is making the creatures and the undead more of a challenge for our characters.  I felt like humanity had its superiority for far too long.  If you could make it to the chopper and take off, you're safe, nothing can get you.  That's not the case because they introduced these cool parasitic creatures from Resident Evil 5, the video game, and we make use of them in this movie.  In the White House scene they're tearing these big choppers out of the sky, so there's no safety.  Plus, we have the Las Plagas parasite introduced in the Resident Evil 4 video game which is still an infection - people want to eat you - but now they have motor skills and have a degree of intelligence.  They can ride motorcycles and shoot machine guns.  It makes survival more challenging.

Shock:  Since you're opening the scope, are we going to see what survivors are doing around the world?  Because the films have always been limited to one specific group that Alice encounters...

Anderson:  Yes, because we go to more international locations - to enforce the epic scale of it.  We go to Washington D.C. and see the Capitol building torn down, we go to Times Square, Red Square, back to Tokyo so it does have a global reach.

Milla Jovovich getting ready to take on Alien Menace

Shock: SyFy recently ran a double-feature of the first two Resident Evil films and it's amazing to see how much this series has evolved...

Anderson:  Mutated?

Shock:  Or that, no pun intended?  I can imagine you ever thought you'd be able to take the series this far and be given the freedom to explore the universe this much.

Anderson:  You dream and those dreams came true.  This is a franchise I'm incredibly proud of.  When you go from the humble beginnings of the first film, which was a film financed outside of studio system - we didn't have a U.S. distribution deal in place - it went from this little film that could to building a billion dollar franchise.  To evolve from that contained chamber piece horror the first movie was to a much more epic scope is very gratifying.  It is an evolution though, because you look at the history of other franchises - which I do a lot - the ones that succeed are the ones that evolve.  They say learn from the best or steal from the best and, obviously, a big fan of Alien, you look at the first two movies - from Ridley and Cameron - they're a genius lesson in how to keep a franchise fresh.  The way Cameron came in and knew Ridley had done such a good job with that tight, claustrophobic movie there was no way he could match that.  So, he made his own film - scary but it had all of these action elements as well.  That's always been a lesson for me and that's what I tried to apply here.  Allow yourself to evolve and mutate so you're delivering familiar elements for the fans but do something fresh as well.

Michelle Rodriguez is Back!!
Shock:  Using that example of Alien and Aliens, you're talking about two different directors.  With this series, especially Afterlife and now Retribution, we're talking about one director putting pressure on himself to raise the bar. That must be difficult...

Anderson:  Yes, definitely.  I spend a lot of time thinking about it, that's for sure.  The clip we're showing today - set in the corridors of Umbrella - we've spend so much time in corridors.  Corridors made of metal, corridors made of this and that.  How are we going to be different?  The production design in this movie is out of this world.  Beautiful.  We manufactured this one particular set out of glass - the type they make skyscrapers out of.  It gave us a unique visual look because it's sort of self-illuminating.  We had lights coming through the floor, wall and ceiling.  So crisp and white.  But once you start spraying the blood around, you've got red on the white floor, Milla dressed in black.  It's a graphic and fresh look.  It's definitely a Resident Evil movie.  There's Milla, the undead, the Umbrella corporation logo - but it's a look you've never seen before in the franchise.  That's what I'm always looking for.

Shock:  Now, in the teaser, we had a little taste of what looks like Alice with kids in a suburban environment.  And when we were on set, there was rumblings of perhaps flashbacks of some sort.  Now that you're editing, how much of these flashbacks take up the film?

Anderson:  It's a pretty big chunk.  It's not the whole film and but there's a big chunk where you spend time with her in that environment and you really get into it.  It's a piece I'm really proud of because, again, we've never really done this in the "real world."  The first movie was in this stylized environment and, since then, has always been apocalyptic.  So, to go to this real suburban neighborhood was a real thrill.

Alice is kicking ass!!
Shock:  Was this a concept that you maybe wanted to toy with earlier but wasn't given the chance?  Or did the introduction of this world come about organically and just feel like the right time to do it?

Anderson:  Not really,  it felt like the right time.  And I came up with the right story idea to explore that environment.  It was fun to shoot in a real suburban environment.  None of the home owners wanted us there.  None of them.  It was an up market with fairly rich people.  They didn't need the location fees we were giving them.  But, every kid in the neighborhood wanted us there.  Basically, all of the teen kids bullied their parents into letting us shoot there for a week.  In return, all of the kids kind of became zombies in the movies.  By the end, though, they wanted to kick us out because we were setting things on fire, crashing things - even if they thought it was fun, what they did not want is this big film crew at the end of their garden.  When we pulled out, I told my team to shoot everything we needed because we were never going to get the chance to come back for re-shoots.


Tuesday, March 27, 2012

TOP 10 BOX OFFICE FILMS IN SA (March 23-25)


SOUTH AFRICAN BOX OFFICE, TOP 10 FILMS IN SA

Weekend March 23-25

POSTION
MOVIE
WEEKEND GROSS
(Estimated)
TOTAL GROSS
(Estimated)
WEEKS ON CIRCUIT

1

DR. SEUSS’ THE LORAX

R 1 915 000

R 1 915 000

1

2

JOURNEY 2 THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND

R 1 753 000

R 5 634 000

2

3

THE BEST EXOTIC MARIGOLD HOTEL

R 879 600

R 879 600

1

4

21 JUMP STREET

R 856 000

R 856 000

1

5

THIS MEANS WAR

R 569 000

R 6 349 700

5

6

CONTRABAND

R565 800

R 1 880 900

2

7

JOHN CARTER

R 532 600

R 4 900 000

3

8

SEMI-SOET

R 526 000

R 7 400 000

6

9

MATERIAL

R 350 000

R 6 800 000

6

10

SAFE HOUSE

R 299 000

R 9 470 000

7