Archive | September, 2009

Tags: , ,

New Fantastic Mr. Fox trailer looks very Wes Anderson-y

Posted on 30 September 2009 by ShepRamsey

If you had any doubt that the upcoming stop-motion animated flick Fantastic Mr. Fox was directed by Wes Anderson, then this new trailer should put those worries to bed.  Continue Reading

Comments (0)

Tags: ,

New posters. New Moon. Same old crap.

Posted on 29 September 2009 by ShepRamsey

Normally I wouldn’t bother with something like this, but it’s a slow news day and I thought of that headline and it made me chuckle.  Continue Reading

Comments (1)

Tags: , ,

Surrogates delivers; the fate of sci-fi cinema uncertain.

Posted on 29 September 2009 by Quaid

We’ve been blessed with a couple of pretty decent sci-fi flicks coming out.  Last month we got District 9, and it was somehow both an action romp in the tradition of Peter Jackson splatter fests as well as an interesting social and political satire–all wrapped up in an aliens-as-the-good-guys sci-fi flick. Continue Reading

Comments (0)

Tags: ,

A Nightmare on Elm Street teaser trailer looks like it might be kinda cool

Posted on 28 September 2009 by ShepRamsey

I think what surprises me most about this first glimpse of the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street is how much it borrows from the original film.  Continue Reading

Comments (5)


Audrey Tautou Talks Coco Before Chanel!

Posted on 27 September 2009 by Quaid

You’ve seen Anna’s thoughts about the movie well as her impressions of its star, Audrey Tautou.  Now it’s time to take a gander at the full interview as Tautou talks all things Coco Before Chanel

Coco_posterAT:  Is it a problem if I speak French and he translates simply because he will have—you know—he will express much more clearly my thoughts. You don’t mind?

Q:  No.

AT:  Thanks. I did like 23 interviews and my answers were so stupid, I was like—ahhh! I have to answer in French. It will be more interesting, and maybe a tiny bit better.

Q:  How much information for the film—were there pictures that you found of Coco—for the beginnings of her life?


Translator:  Because of the choice of the part of her life, that this film depicted, there was actually very little that was known about—(noise as voice recorders are pushed toward the translator instead of Coco.)  Alright, because of the part of her life that was chosen to be depicted in this film, there was actually not a lot of information out there, and also, what she said about this period was often full of lies. She wanted to hide a lot of the facts. So, um, one of the instrumental pieces was the biography written by Edmond Charlarou, who had done an exhaustive sort of investigation for five years to get to the bottom of who Coco Chanel was in this period. And then, there were other books that Audrey read about this period, and she could tell from the different books, who believed in the lies that Coco spread about herself and who didn’t. And in the case of Edmond who wrote the definitive biography, he dispelled many of the lies that Coco was trying to set up.

Q:  Were you afraid at all playing an actual person? How did you approach this role as opposed to roles that aren’t—that are fictional?


Translator:  Ok, yes. Playing somebody who has a celebrity quotient, or that people know about adds extra pressure because in the public’s mind, they already have preconceptions or they think they know that person. But based on the research they did both on watching videos and seeing a lot of photographs and also reading the novels, it informed the way she wanted to interperet this person. And that actually gave her a lot of freedom to inject her own—colors into this character.

Q:  So did you feel more liberated working with fictional characters than with this real character?


Translator:  She doesn’t feel liberated or constrained in the way that you asked the question. And there’s actually some comfort in playing somebody who has—who’s existed and has a psychology that’s already there. But where she worked was on the border—that frontier between interpreting and finding, exploring this part of her life that not a lot of people knew about and then the other side—the minichisma, not the imitation, but trying to recreate the part that was in the public eye. So it’s really work along that border between the fictional and the persona that people knew about.

Q:  What was it about Anne Fontaine that attracted you to her project and resonated with you?


Translator:  K.  I think the attraction was that the film was actually focusing on a short period of her life and not a sprawling epic biography and that this is a study of that character at that point in time. And the fact that Anne Fontaine is a woman, and the director, and she had a very keen perception of the psychology of the character, and she had an understanding of what it means to function in a mans world and to advance and make break-throughs in that, and the fact that she—this is not a movie about clothing. This is a movie about somebody who is advancing and the fashion is a part of that journey, and it’s not the end in and of itself.

Q:  She broke the rules of the fashion at the time. Do you have any agree with her fashion, or have thoughts about it and fashion today?

AT:  I would say that she broke the rules in fashion, because she broke the rules of woman’s behavior. So I think clothes for her was not like—was not superficial. It was something—it was an expression of her spirit. That’s the reason why her style is still so present today and so fashionable. It was—I would say—Chanel’s style is almost never about “fashion.” It’s so unfashionable. So – (she continues in FRENCH).

Translator:  Were you asking Audrey what is her relationship herself to fashion?


Translator:  She does not personally like to follow fads in fasion. When things change and her personality isn’t really expressed. You know, when you accept whatever the new fad is, just because that’s the thing of the moment. That’s not what she gravitates to. She prefers the clothing, and she does like clothing, but it’s more a personal expression, but not “following” something.

Q:  I was interested to know if you would continue with Coco’s life. I guess not. You liked doing just the small time period in her life. I think it would have been interesting seeing a sequel of what happened after. Because she had massive success and quite a few lovers.


Translator:  In part, if you’re interested in the rest of her life, it’s because this film explores the mystery of who she was and she lived 82+ years, it would have been too reductive if we’d tried to cover every chapter in her life.

AT:  But it’s true that she had such a rich life that you could make ten movies about her, because she had an amazing love life, very romantic, full of hope and tragendy, and men were very important for her, and she creates so many amazing things, not only about the style, but I talk about—the perfume, and Chanel No. 5—it’s an amazing—everything was revolutionary. It seems so novel and modern—It’s really in fashion today—but at that time, it was just completely new, and for many many things. Chanel is such an interesting and unique personality, and so that is the reason why for me this character deserved to be treated deeply. You know.

Q:  If there were other parts that you could have included in the film—are there any particular moments of her life that you would have loved to make as a part of this movie or if you were to make a different movie, are there other parts of her life that you would like to touch upon?

AT:  Well I think that I am interested in—(FRENCH)

Translator:  She’s very moved by that very final chapter of Coco Chanel, when she was at the end of her life. For so many decades she was ahead of the times and there’s a part towards the end where society not only caught up with her, but then surpassed her. And she changed.


Translator:  She lived in incredible solitude at the end, after having a life full of people and lovers, she lived in a deep solitude, thought she still worked and she was—and she always kept this sense of the repartee, the verb—the joy of the verbal joust, and the sense of humor.

AT:  And the last little thing:  the way she wanted to keep control on her life, and if this is true–when she was living in the Ritz at the end of her life, she saw the receptionist of the hotel that she knew, and she said, “I’m going to die in 7 minutes,” and she died 8 minutes after.

Q:  That is control!

AT:  It’s amazing, yeah.

Q:  You worked with male directors and now you’ve worked with Anne Fontaine, did you see any difference between your characters, your strong female characters in those films?

AT:  No, I don’t see any difference in fact. I have no idea. Also, because I don’t really like to analyze my work, and my relationship with a director. I don’t like to have distance with the part I’m playing or—you know, the project I’m on or the story we are telling. When I’m involved, I’m—you know—I don’t look at it from—

Translator:  Not objectively from the third person.

AT:  But again, I really think that it was very essential for such—to treat such a human—woman—character—a woman—to be directed by a female. I really—I don’t know why, but Chanel was so feminine and special. A man can understand her, but a woman can feel her.                           

Comments (2)

Tags: ,

Disney’s Anne Frank remake goes into turnaround as David Mamet looks kind of cookey

Posted on 25 September 2009 by HansKlopek

A remake of The Diary of Anne Frank? Cool. And David Mamet doing the adaptation? Even cooler. The script that Mamet ultimately turned in? Apparently not so cool. Continue Reading

Comments (1)


Recent Comments

  • Loading...