Interview: AnnaSophia Robb and Alexander Ludwig of ‘Witch Mountain’

Posted on August 3, 2009 at 3:58 pm

The young stars of Race to Witch Mountain talked to me about making the movie, a re-imagining of the Disney classic, Escape to Witch Mountain, about a brother and sister with extraordinary powers. AnnaSophia Robb and Alexander Ludwig could not have been more fun to talk to — they were both so bright, engaged, polite, curious, and excited about the film. It was easy to see why they work together so well on screen. They have an effortless chemistry, a shared perspective, and great chemistry. When they assured me that they were the best of friends, I believed it.

One of the big challenges of making this movie had to be acting as though you could really see all of the effects that were not added in until later. How did you know what to visualize and where to look?

AnnaSophia: Andy was really great about explaining everything, all the visuals. And a lot of it was there — the only green screen work we did was in the cab.

You had to play characters who looked like human children but in reality were aliens for whom everything on Earth was new and strange. How do you create those characters?

Alexander: It was a really good opportunity for both of us because we had creative freedom to sculpt our own characters. No one really knows what aliens are like so we got to form our own characters.

Did you coordinate with each other to make sure that your characterizations were consistent?

Alexander: We became super-close. Since we were playing not just aliens from the same planet but brother and sister, we had to have to have similar qualities. So we would share our ideas. And then she just shut me down whenever I suggested anything! (laughs)

AnnaSophia: We would go over stuff and talk about it with each other. And his suggestions were great!

How do you create that feeling of excitement and urgency?

AnnaSophia: That is part of what we do as actors. And it is one thing Andy was great about, reminding us to keep our energy up, that you don’t know these these people are following you. Alexander was great about that, helped me keep focused on the fact that we were running for our lives.

Tell me about working with Duane Johnson! I’ll bet he is a lot of fun.

Alexander: Working with Duane is a joy. He is honestly a phenomenal guy, like an older brother to us. It was an inspiration to work with someone who came from so little, achieved so much, and is still such a genuine guy, such a professional.

Who are the actors who inspire you?

AnnaSophia: Meryl Streep, Natalie Portman — I want to go to university like her — Scarlett Johansson, Leonardio DiCaprio isincredible.

Alexander: I agree on all of her choices! Meryl Streep is phenomenal, Leonardo DiCaprio is truly inspirational, a phenomenal actor, Johnny Depp is an amazing amazing actor, unreal, Brad Pitt is another one I admire.

Tell me about Andy Fickman, the director. I saw him at Comic-Con and really enjoyed his enthusiasm.

Alexander: Andy is great — it’s like a toy store exploded in his office. He knows how to surround you in the environment of the story and makes you believe in the project.

Do you believe that there is life on other planets?

AnnaSophia: We have such a large universe, there must be something out there.

Alexander: I totally agree, the options and imagination are limitless, we can’t be the one planet out of all these billions to have life.

I have one copy of the DVD to give away to the first person who writes me at moviemom@moviemom.com with “Witch Mountain” in the subject line. Tell me why you like this movie!

Related Tags:

Actors Interview

Paul Peterson — Protector of Child Actors

Posted on July 28, 2009 at 12:52 pm

Paul Peterson was one of my first celebrity crushes when he appeared on The Donna Reed Show. He was briefly a Mousketeer at age 8 and played Cary Grant’s son (with Sophia Loren as his babysitter) in the affecting romantic comedy Houseboat. But his greatest success in show business was in the classic suburban sitcom with Donna Reed, Shelly Fabares, and Carl Betz.
He had trouble finding work as an actor after the show ended and his difficulties led him to become the leading advocate for child performers, founding the non-profit group A Minor Consideration. He has been an outspoken critic of Hollywood’s exploitive treatment of young actors and has been at the forefront of providing support and guidance for them and their families. Peterson’s decision to file suit on behalf of Nadya Suleman’s children has, along with recent concerns about the Gosselin children, underscored the importance of closing a to a troubling loophole — the very strict rules protecting child actors do not apply to children who appear in “reality” shows. I applaud Peterson for stepping in when child protective services have failed to make sure that Suleman’s eight infants and her older children get the care — and privacy — they need and deserve.

Related Tags:

Actors Behind the Scenes

Quote of the Week: Jeff Daniels

Posted on July 23, 2009 at 3:41 pm

Jeff Daniels is interviewed in the current issue of Esquire, where he made an important point about the difference between the way a character actor and a star approach a role.

Stars like to be likable. The Squid and the Whale is a perfect example. You get to the end scene, and that’s the point where the star turns to Noah Baumbach, the director, and says, “You know what’d be good? If I had a speech, heart-to-heart, a lot of tears. I’ve actually written something you might like.” It happens all the time. Noah and I — never. Not a word. If the guy’s got flaws, wear them on your sleeve. And stars don’t like to do that. And they’re paying you $20 million to do that thing you did that America loves, now just do it for them. It’s true.

Related Tags:

Actors Quote of the Week

Interviews: ‘In the Loop’

Posted on July 23, 2009 at 7:59 am

“In the Loop” is a scathingly funny satire about politics and politicians. While it names no names of individuals or countries or conflicts, it is inspired by the British and American government in the run-up to the Iraq war. But it is perpetually timely for its take on the pettiness and thuggery of complex organizations. Think “Dr. Strangelove” meets “The Office.”

I spoke to actor David Rasche and director Armando Iannucci, who also co-wrote, when they came to Washington DC for a screening and question and answer session.

Rasche has shown a skill for deadpan comedy as the title detective character in “Sledge Hammer!” But this is not his first political role — he played a CIA staffer in “Burn After Reading” and the President of the United States in “DAG” and “The Sentinel.” He is a confirmed political junkie and was really looking forward to seeing the movie with a Washington D.C. audience.

What do you think will be special about showing this film in Washington?

Various cities have various characters but I’ve found my group here. My wife can’t wait to go to the screening and see Washington look at itself in the mirror.

How did you prepare for this role of a State Department official who is both hawkish and bureaocratic?

I’ve been preparing for this role for eight years, five hours a day watching CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. So I brought all of my ammunition to that character, and made him arrogant, self-serving, condescending and belittling and supercilious. If that reminds you of Rove, Rumsfeld, or Addington, well….

Mimi Kennedy is also very, very political, and she also spent five hours a night watching the news. She was very familiar with the terrain not just through watching the news but through her own work with Truth in Voting.

The script gave us an adversarial relationship. It told me a lot of what I thought about her. And we drew some of our performance from Washington itself. This place is fierce! People will talk to you as long as they are interested. And everyone is always like “My take on this is smarter than yours is,” or “Bob told me, he didn’t tell you??” Every moment is a contest. As they say, Washington is Hollywood for ugly people.

This is a British film that shows the contrasts — and similarities — between the UK and the US. Is there a difference in audiences or styles of humor?

There’s no difference in humor. This is a British film but it has the same two strains of DNA as in American comedy, the verbal wit and the situational.

Your character seems to believe that facts would only distract him from the truth.

I think there’s some Illinois in that. My dad was a little like that. You’d say, “Want to try this new kind of curry?” And he’s say “Nope! Nope! Nope!” I think that is just what Rumsfeld felt. He already had everything he needed. I’m from Illinois, too! I can sing the state song!

You cannot talk about this movie without discussing the astonishingly inventive invective, the avalanche of profanity and insult.

The funny thing about it is that it is volcanic but somehow innocent because of the sheer magnitude. There’s so much of it, it’s silly. This is ornate, it’s oriental, it’s unbelievable, embroidered. In London, if you have less than three c-words in a movie it’s 13 and under. One of the writers specialized in this and when they needed some sort of over-the-top rant they would ask him for it.

Related Tags:

Actors Directors Interview

Interview: D.W. Brown, Acting Coach to Stars and Future Stars

Posted on July 8, 2009 at 3:59 pm

D.W. Brown has trained, directed, and coached hundreds of actors and is co-artistic head of the distinguished and successful Joanne Baron/D.W. Brown Studio. His new book, You Can Act!: A Complete Guide for Actors is both practical and inspiring with tips, diagnostics, and reference material that guides newcomers and professional actors to everything from the classics to a shoot-’em up. He took the time to answer my questions about the book and his work.

On “Inside the Actor’s Studio,” I heard Alec Baldwin talk about the difference between an actor and a movie star. What do you think the difference is? Can you be both?

You certainly can be both because the ability to act is actually one of the traits that results in success for an actor. Imagine that. But there truly are other factors involved in being a star. Those would include the type you are, your basic physical attributes and your essential nature and how this present society responds to that type. There have always been femme fatale types like Angelina Jolie (Lauren Bacall), and the decent man like Tom Hanks (Henry Fonda); but we don’t seem to have much use for John Wayne types right now. There’s also the buzz factor. The industry feels a trend for certain people and their fame, a fame not necessarily related to their acting, and then it builds on itself.

I was surprised to see you say that “as long as you’re committing to the truth of your Action, you can pretty much be oblivious to whatever you’re saying and it will come off just fine.” How do you suggest an actor treat the words in the script?

Yes, I know it is heretical in some quarters to discount the text, but I’m only saying that an actor should do their job, trusting the writer has done theirs. It’s Shakespeare’s advice to actors when he said (through Hamlet’s mouth): “Suit the action to the word and the word to the action.” You use the words only as a blueprint to determine what you should be doing and, once that’s decided, you make the words total slaves to the thrust of your Action. Our society makes such a big deal out of the use of language and how you present yourself intelligently, an obligation to the words and their ideas is a curse. All these reasonable minds talking to reasonable minds. An actor needs to aim for gut.

Many actors are fine when they are speaking but get lost when another character is speaking. How do you teach them to maintain concentration?

We train the concentration of an actor so that they put their attention on what’s really going on, not just the words and how they themselves are coming across. The Meisner technique we teach at our school (The Joanne Baron/D.W. Brown Studio) is a brilliant method for getting an actor to habituate playing moments and working off their environment, mainly the subtextual interaction with other human beings.

What is the best way to prepare for a role set in another era?

Whatever the environment your character inhabits you have to examined the culture and its values, and then bring that to your performance; it may be by relating to events through the use of particularizations, which is saying to yourself: “This thing is to this character as blank would be if it happened to me.” By this I mean, if your character is discovered to be pregnant out of wedlock in the 60s, it might be for you as if you’d been discovered prostituting yourself. To play something set in a different era you might also have to alter how you carry yourself physically.

What is the best way to think about a character’s past? About the character’s goals?

The past may be hugely influential or barely at all. Although it’s often an interesting plot point, I think well-meaning actors tend to get too hung up on back story, whereas your character might simply have been born a shark or a saint. I do think connecting to a past can be very powerful if you think of the character as motivated for a larger purpose because of it. This might be the case with someone who, because of the sacrifices made by others to get them through college, strives passionately to succeed so as to honor them, or a person having been bullied taking revenge for all who have been bullied. I think a great way to think of a character’s goals is to imagine how it is that they want to be praised. Everyone wants to be praised. If not by the entire population, at least by that certain like-minded soul. Even a self-hater loves themselves as a self-hater.