Jessica Chastain, Tom Hiddleston, and Mia Wasikowska play the leads in Guillermo del Toro’s new psychological horror film, “Crimson Peak,” but it is the house that is the star of the film. Del Toro’s brilliant visuals immerse the audience in the growing sense of oppressive dread of the twisted ghost story. As creepy and terrifying as the story is, the details of the house are endlessly enticing. So I am thrilled that there is a book about the making of the film that is as imaginative and enthralling as the film.
Crimson Peak: The Art of Darkness, by Mark Salisbury, is a sumptuous treat with fascinating behind-the-scenes details, production drawings, and intricate visuals that are a work of art on its own.
There are inserts and insets throughout, giving the reader the experience of discovering secret treasures. The designs are wildly imaginative and yet somehow seem as they they have always lived in our most private nightmares. The insights from the stars, director, and designers take us into a world almost as fascinating as the world of the story — the fantasy, insight, skill, and work that are necessary for creating art, whether a movie or a book.
Interview: Leonard Maltin on His New Classic Movie Guide
Posted on October 25, 2015 at 3:10 pm
The third edition of Leonard Maltin’s indispensible guide to older movies is now called Turner Classic Movies Presents Leonard Maltin’s Classic Movie Guide: From the Silent Era Through 1965. It is even more important than ever in the era of universal accessibility to the classics (and the enjoyable non-classics) via cable and Netflix, and it is easier to use than ever if you have a Kindle. It was a thrill to get a chance to interview Maltin, not only one of the most knowledgeable and thoughtful film historians of all time, but the very essence of a gentleman, gracious and considerate. His Maltin on Movies podcast is a pleasure to listen to, especially when his daughter Jessie is included.
When you and I were young, the quest to find classic old movies and neglected gems was, well, like something out of a movie. Did you take any extraordinary measures or have any adventures in tracking down movies you wanted to see?
When I was a kid, I sometimes forced myself to go to sleep early, set the alarm for 2am, and woke up to watch a film on the late, late show. I had to keep the volume down so I wouldn’t wake the rest of the household. Then I had to try to get back to sleep so I could function in school the next day—which wasn’t easy. I never could have foreseen that there would be a day when thousands of movies were easily and instantly accessible on video or through streaming. The question is whether or not today’s young people are curious to see, or seek out, older films.
How has the broad availability of movies on DVD, cable, and streaming changed the questions you get about movies? How as it changed the way people think about movies?
I worry that people accept the availability of movies at home as an adequate way to watch them and don’t value the opportunity to see vintage films on a big screen—the way they were meant to be seen. But I think the biggest change is that people can now obsess about movies they like and watch them over and over again. They’ve memorized some films and know them much more intimately than I do. I don’t have the luxury of doing that because I try to keep up with the latest releases and also enjoy diving into films of the past.
How has the style of acting changed since the classic era covered in your book? Which actors do you think come across more as relics of their eras and which do you think still seem timeless?
Some actors of the 1930s and 40s used a declamatory style of acting that came from the stage, while others had a more naturalistic approach and delivery. I don’t think Humphrey Bogart or Spencer Tracy are dated at all.
You have very limited space to write about each film. Once you have indicated the plot and quality, what are some of the elements you like to point out to readers? Cinematography? A great performance in a supporting role?
The answer is: whatever stands out to us. If the cinematography is exceptional, we like to point that out, but the same is true of a great music score, or a scene-stealing performance in a supporting role.
You have from the beginning been a stickler for getting the movie’s running time right. How do you get the definitive number?
Nowadays it’s easy with access to DVDs and downloads. In the past it was a great challenge, because no two sources seem to agree. I once asked a guy at United Artists how they determined accurate running times for films in their library and he said, “Uh… we used your book.” It was flattering, of course, but not terribly useful.
I enjoyed your podcast discussion with your daughter about “comfort movies.” What are some of your favorites and what makes them so comforting?
Often, it’s movies I saw while growing up. They’re like old friends, in a way. When I revisit Singin’ in the Rain or Yankee Doodle Dandy or any number of others, I’m not just enjoying the films all over again but recapturing my youth, I suppose.
Sherlock Holmes has been portrayed more times on screen than any other fictional character. Who is your favorite?
I grew up on Basil Rathbone as Holmes with that wonderful character actor Nigel Bruce as Dr. Watson and retain a special fondness for them. But I enjoy and appreciate many other Holmses over the years—the latest being Ian McKellen in Mr. Holmes.
Abraham Lincoln has been portrayed on screen more times than any other historical character. Who is your favorite?
That’s another one that’s hard to choose. Daniel Day-Lewis was magnificent in Steven Spielberg’s recent film, but that doesn’t prevent me from still enjoying Henry Fonda in John Ford’s Young Mr. Lincoln.
One thing I especially enjoy in your write-ups is your mention of unexpected appearances, sometimes by directors but usually by actors who were not yet famous. Do you have a favorite example?
It’s always fun to spot an up-and-coming actor in an early role. I can’t pinpoint a favorite off the top of my head.
When you and the brain trust that works with you on this book disagree about the quality of a film, how do you decide the rating?
That’s the benefit of being editor-in-chief: I have the final say.
Interview: Reverend T.D. Jakes on His New Book, Destiny
Posted on October 19, 2015 at 3:35 pm
It is always refreshing and inspiring to talk to Reverend T.D. Jakes, and it was a great pleasure to have a chance to hear more about his new book, Destiny: Step into Your Purpose, a follow-up to his best-seller, Instinct.
You write that the conditions of our lives can distract us from meaning, allowing urgent to interrupt the important. How can people achieve some perspective?
We have confused busyness with effectiveness. We are busier than we’ve ever been before but perhaps less effective than we’ve ever been. And what I tried to lay out in the book is to cut away the clutter of all the things that you think you’re supposed to do that are not central to what your destiny or what your primary purpose is. And that’s why I devoted so much time to talking about priorities. Because I’m not saying that the busy things should not be done but they should not take priority over the purposeful things that we were created to do.
I sometimes think that that comes from a failure of courage. We are not comfortable thinking about our priorities and so we distract ourselves with a lot of busyness. Where do those messages come from?
A lot of it comes from our environment, our surrounding. We are often mentored by people who are mediocre, to be candid. When you get an opportunity to read or think or be exposed to somebody who is really progressive and got things done, their philosophical ideology is contagious. To find out from them — what did you prioritize, what did you make important, what did you regret, not just what you did right, what did you do wrong because we all do things that we look back on and say, “What was I thinking?” But to always remain a student, the liquidity of thought and nimbleness of mind to approach life from a perspective of a vacuum of “feed me, fill me,” not to always come into the class as a professor but to enter into the class as a student and to learn from your environment and the people that you are exposed to creates an environment to discovery.
A lot of us have become what our parents have modeled but we are not living in our parents’ world and they modeled to us something that may not work today. There were some things that my mother was diligently teaching me that are antiquated now that we don’t to be anymore. And so I think that we have to update and constantly remain relevant and I don’t think you get old until you stop learning.
I think we sometimes believe that the people who are achievers are in another category and that they are not still learning when in fact they are the ones who are still learning the most.
Absolutely! And the weirdest thing is that we do put them in another category and it is really not true. What is really beautiful is our ordinariness. Of course when you think about Jesus it doesn’t get any better than that and yet he looked so ordinary that the Roman soldiers had to hire somebody to point him out. And it was his ordinariness that made him special. It wasn’t like he was running around with some sign on him that says, “Hi, I’m Jesus.” He interacted with people who were flawed, who had different philosophical ideologies, who epitomizes what Beliefnet is doing. He engaged people where they were in a way that is non-traditional.
I find that we have slipped into so many silos, particularly in this country, where we only interact with people who vote like us, think like us and dress like us. And it has dumbed down our thinking. Nature teaches us that cross-pollination brings forth fruit but we have stopped cross pollinating, intellectually, spiritually when we only talk to people and we only watch on TV those programs that are a reflection of us.
How do we find people that are worth learning from?
You look for fulfillment in their eyes — and fear.
Fear?
Let me tell it this way, I recently was doing a test program for a talk show, I did a couple months of that and really, really enjoyed doing it, I was excited about it. I was lying in my bed in New York. I called my wife in the middle of the night and she said, “What are you doing up?” and I said, “I’m lying in the bed laughing” and she said, “What are you laughing about?” and I said, “Because I’m scared again.”
It is the beautiful gift of being thrown off-center. I am generally the interviewee not the interviewer so it was a role switch. And it threw me off, I wasn’t so sure of myself and I thought, “Oh gosh, suppose I mess it up, suppose I forget something I should’ve remembered.” And I thought what a gift it is to be a little intimidated, to be a little bit vulnerable, to be a little bit afraid. It makes us a little more prayerful, more careful and while God may have not given us the spirit of fear he was wise enough to give us the inclination to be afraid. It protects us in the jungle of life. And so I think when our lives become so predictable that we are not thrown off center we stop living. So that’s what I meant about fear. When you see somebody who is attacking something with intimidation like they are climbing up Mount Everest so to speak, get behind them, get behind them, get with them, join them on the journey. Because to get to see somebody struggle… My son said, “Daddy you taught me more by doing the talkshow than you did anything you’ve ever done.”
Do you feel that a fear mode is when you are most open to learning?
Oh yes, absolutely! And I was the most effective because I had told him things that he had never seen modeled. So he thought, “Dad is just confident, dad has just got a good ability.” But he knew daddy was nervous and he knew that he was intimidated and he got to see me fight my giant. That’s why I say if you see somebody with fulfillment in their eyes and fear get in behind them and follow them and you will learn things that are absolutely amazing.
In the book you say sometimes we do not surround ourselves with the right people. How do we find the right people?
We can talk about that all day. One thing that I notice all doctors run with doctors, lawyers run with lawyers, preachers run with preachers and isn’t that boring? Because when everybody that you run with does what you do they compete with you, they do not complete you. One of the wisest things you can do is put around you people who are strong where you are weak, who were very different from you. I learned that the trick to having great party is diversity around the table. You know, smart people from different worlds who engage each other makes the whole night amazing.
And we don’t always do this in our lives. Sometimes we put around us people who need us but they don’t complete us. We put around us people who lead us but don’t feed us. So we’re always feeding and never been fed, we are always giving and never receiving and our ability to receive gets rusty because we are never thrown off kilter and brought into an environment where we’re not the smartest person in the world and that’s a good thing. I think one of the greatest blessings of my life is that I had been able to be in so many different worlds and rooms. I describe myself as one of the few people who could have breakfast with Pat Robertson and lunch with Jesse Jackson. You know those are two different worlds. To be able to interact with extremes and polarities has made me broader. It has helped me to have a point of view that is not easily categorized and I think those opportunities, both of them at different times have said some things I don’t agree with but that doesn’t mean that we can’t have lunch. And maybe I can include influence a conversation or maybe I can learn from them… There’s just so many things… I think we are becoming so tribal in a way that makes me wonder if we’re not digressing as a society by tribalism.
How does this book help people locate their destiny?
I’m coming to a place in my life where I am doing less and less things that don’t make me thirsty to get out of the bed in the morning. You know what I’m saying? I’m not doing things just because you expect me to. If I don’t feel the passion and I don’t see the purpose I’m not doing it. With the few years I got left I’m going to be picky. I’m going to do things that make me feel alive and make me feel thirsty and creative. And so I think that’s one of the things you can do, find the thing that makes your eyes light up, that makes you read, that makes you thirst. Look for your passion and you’ll find your purpose.
Don’t try to find that from copying celebrities. All of the famous and rich is the what’s, the purposes comes from why. Money without purpose is nothing. Fame is a platform through which you can be heard but if you have nothing to say, what good is it other than getting through the restaurant a little quicker. I think that we need to get back to the whys and not the whats. If you chase the why the what will chase you, if you find your purpose the provision will find you, if you go on to the provision and you have no purpose the provision serves no purpose at all. What good is a car if you’re not going anywhere?
And that’s one of the reasons that I kind of want to be in the position to get in the room with them because I think sometimes when the church thinks about evangelism we always go to underserved communities, as if our doctors or lawyers or movie stars, our actors, our CEOs, our producers don’t need Jesus too. So to share your faith with the wider array of people could fill that void. I think that we are suffering from not only their inability to be meaningful in those high-profile worlds but they are a result of our negligence to touch them. It is really our negligence that created that because I know a lot of them and they stopped by the church before they became who they were. It’s not like they haven’t experienced us but because we were too narrow to throw our arms around them and so judgmental we missed an opportunity to create a transformative experience for somebody who had a platform who could have made a difference in the world.
What do you mean by a “plus ultra life?”
You have to realize my father got sick when I was 10 and he died when I was 16. I was born in between two dead babies. My mother lost one before me; she lost the one after me. When other fathers were teaching their kids to ride bicycles, which I never learned how to do, incidentally, my father was sick and on a kidney machine. There is nothing like being raised by somebody dying that makes you appreciate life. There is no other gift to give you that give you that ‘this can be taken away” and it makes you live differently than other people who take for granted that tomorrow will be there waiting, I don’t do that, I don’t do that.
Why are the steps you set out so important?
That’s what sets this book apart from other books. It goes beyond talking about purpose and destiny and goes out to the practical pragmatic steps, and those steps are different depending upon what your destiny is. So it’s hard to say in an interview or even in a book what those steps are because it may be different for a plumber than it is for an actor, than it is for preacher but everybody starts as somebody who is an apprentice.
And I talk about the beauty of rehearsal rather than recital, that sometimes we are so engrossed in the recital that we missed the rehearsal. We have raised a generation of people who know nothing about rehearsal only recital. They want quick answers, they want the destination but they don’t have the transportation. So this book is about steps, practical, pragmatic, process steps that lead you around to an expected end, and to celebrate the process and not just the promise, to enjoy the journey. Like in the creation, “And the evening and the morning was the first day and God said that it was good.” How can you say it was good when you weren’t finished? Giving yourself the permission to not be finished and celebrate accomplishment is very important in creating an atmosphere where you can remain creative. Sometimes we don’t celebrate till everything’s finished, that’s too late. I’m not sure there is a finish line.
I like the your very clear message to people who say they will wait until they are ready by telling them that it’s never a convenient time.
So here’s the thing — I don’t know about anybody else in my generation but I am shocked that my hair is white. I just can’t believe it. Where did the time go? And if you put off for tomorrow what you have the strength to do today, who says the strength will be there even if you are there tomorrow? You have to do with while you can, you have to do it while you can. A guy asked me why are you doing movies and running companies and you are a Pastor and I said, “I did it because I can.” I might not be able to tomorrow but I had the strength and I had the opportunities and I had the gift to be able to do it. Doing thing when you can is important. My mom died of Alzheimer’s which tells me you could be here and not be able to. So while you have the liquidity of thought to do something or energy or influence or connections you have to do that with all diligence or you miss your turn.
So what is the best way for somebody no matter what their skill to make a real contribution that can feel meaningful to them?
I think one of the problems that we have is that we’re so aware of other people’s gifts and we never know our own. And to see yourself as a gift requires that you have some level of self-esteem and worth of what you bring to the table. And I think sometimes we are so busy looking at what they bring to us that we don’t appreciate you bring to them. And then ultimately over time after the luster leaves what they bring to us we resent the fact that they don’t appreciate what bring to them when we should start the dialogue from the perspective of strength to strength.
How do we as parents help our children understand these lessons?
As a parent the thing I learned too late is that we talk more than we listen. I think that sometimes there comes a point in parenting where you are not the star of the world and very few parents get make that transition. My mother said to me, “I taught you how to have a deeper appreciation for your thoughts by listening to you when you talk.” She said parents who don’t listen to their children teach their children that what they think is not important. Those very core basic things have a lot to do with how we end up as a people and as a society and what level. I think we all have dysfunction but what level of dysfunction we have can be determined and prevented by how we were parented. My all-time heroes are my mother and father. They were flawed, they were very human, but they were very committed and very focused and I learned as much from their flaws as I did from their strengths. Flaws don’t exempt you from succeeding. You can drive a broken car and still get to school, even though you had to kick the door then roll out the window you can get there. And we have broken people husbands and wives and moms and dads and kids but that doesn’t mean we can’t arrive, if you learn how to work through the brokenness.
I Can’t Believe It’s Not Better — Hilarious New Comic Essays by Monica Heisey
Posted on October 19, 2015 at 8:00 am
Monica Heisey’s fans include Lena Dunham (“Girls”) and Rob Delaney (“Catastrophe”), and, now that I’ve read her new book, me. I Can’t Believe it’s Not Better: A Woman’s Guide to Coping With Life. Heisey is here to counter all of the faux help women get from magazine “tips” and frenemies.
Wisely, she starts with eight essays about food, from passionate love letters to burritos, dips, eating in bed, pizza, and cheese (in iambic pentameter!) she wisely is less enthusiastic on the subject of yoghurt, even the kind that keeps you regular. She has good advice for the office — both how to make it work and what to do when it doesn’t and you get fired. “Like flared jeans or smoking the wrong kind of drugs by accident, getting fired is an unpleasant though not life-ruining occurrence that most of us will experience at some point in our teens or twenties.” She is there to help you get through the thicket of faux-supportive advice from women’s magazines, the ones skewered by the very funny @manwhohasitall twitter feed, with genuine insight and sympathy and some real wisdom. Whether it’s a job interview or trying to decode a text to determine if someone is flirting with you, she is there to tell you she did it worse and make you laugh.
He keeps coming back to a character’s taking moral judgement into his own hands to commit murder, most recently this year in “Irrational Man.” What do you think this idea of literally getting away with murder is so resonant with him?
I think the fixation began with Woody’s desire to show death and evil as realistically as possible, and Martin Landau’s Judah Rosenthal (Crimes And Misdemeanors) is, perhaps, the most realistic killer captured on film. In short, it is obvious that the number of murders (usually unsolved) far outnumber the confessors- meaning, guilt is a malleable thing, and can be siphoned off for one’s own uses and rationalized away. Art has rarely shown this (especially not well), and the biggest example that we have of murder and guilt in the arts is Crime And Punishment. This film is an inversion of that, and even though Cassandra’s Dream does show guilt eating away at things to the point of destruction, even that is treated in a way that basks in its own inversions and exploits the viewer’s sense of complacency.
Bergman and Fellini are often mentioned as clear influences on Allen. Who else would you add to that list? And which current directors most look to him as an influence?
Bergman, Fellini, The Marx Brothers, Charlie Chaplin, Akira Kurosawa, Bob Hope (especially the persona), and Buster Keaton all had their place. I probably would not add much to the list of artistic influences. As for the work that’s been influenced by Woody, there is- literally- all of the ‘city’ rom-coms from the 1980s-90s, to shows like Sex And The City, Derek Cianfrance’s Blue Valentine, Whit Stillman’s Metropolitan, Kevin Smith’s Chasing Amy (his best film, in fact) and- I’d wager- the majority of films that try to put romance front and center as a ‘serious’ topic. I think the majority of these attempts failed, however, partly because so many fans take works like Manhattan and Annie Hall at face value and don’t recognize how so many of their illusions are being skewered.
Which is his most under-appreciated film?
It’s a tie between Stardust Memories (one of the 10 or 20 greatest films ever made) and Another Woman. Stardust Memories, in particular, has been seen as an ‘attack’ on Allen’s films, which is both ridiculous and irrelevant. In fact, it is one of the deepest comments on art and human relationships that I’ve ever seen, from the illusory ending of the ‘inner’ film, to the way that Sandy- despite being neurotic and the like- is both wanted and demanded by thousands of others not necessarily for his fame and money, but because he is a complete person. He simply knows HOW to create and retain a measure of health and self-purpose that the others do not. Yet his flaws are front and center, too, even as the film ends on a positive note: that all of these conflicts, from Sandy’s fears, to his fans’ neediness, are self-made, and immaterial in the end. In short, no one escape’s Woody’s eye…not even great artists, as Sandy apparently is. It is simply wrong, factually, to call Stardust Memories dour. And it has more a ‘happy’ ending. It is an ennobling one.
Is “Radio Days” is most autobiographical? Or “Annie Hall?”
Probably neither. Radio Days captures the spirit of what Allen has gone through and valued, but not necessarily the specifics. Annie Hall has small parts of his relationships and upbringing, but that’s about it. Stardust Memories and Interiors have elements of his life with Louise Lasser, and Husbands And Wives is viewed- incorrectly- as a kind of corollary to his relationship with Mia Farrow. It’s hard to get an artist’s “real life” from his work of art, unless one is dealing with a memoir. But you get much more than that: you get an artist’s INNER life, which is necessarily richer than the details. It’s not the details, per se; it is the REACTION to these details and how they’re interpreted and re-interpreted that matters most.
You say that with “Mighty Aphrodite” Allen stepped “outside his comforts.” What was different with this film?
It featured a number of self-conscious changes/additions. The ridiculous use of the Greek chorus might have an analogue with his skewering of the Russian literary classics in Love And Death, but while the earlier film was all gags, there are a number of truly serious and poetic moments in Mighty Aphrodite. For example, Michael Rappaport’s character is probably the dumbest character he’s had to this point- and while Cheech (Bullets Over Broadway) was a thug, he was an intelligent one. By contrast, Michael Rappaport plays an idiot that, instead of merely being forced into the role of a pure idiot, is fleshed out by whatever means possible for such a limited human being. Thus, when Mia Sorvino is having dinner with Rappaport, you see just how little the two can talk about, and how little- by extension- most people really have in their own relationships, built, as they are, upon things that don’t really last. And Rappaport, on his end, delivers a wonderful little monologue about a ‘dream’ he has- to be dropped naked into the middle of the snow by a bird. No matter how comic it is, there is also something knowing about the scene, too- that these are the limits for so many people, anyway, and that this is the way they create and retain meaning. In short, characters get precisely what they deserve: criticism, prodding, but also the opportunity to show off their own depths, if in fact they are available.
Which is your favorite score in his films?
I’ve always been partial to the music in Hannah And Her Sisters and Radio Days. The latter probably has Allen’s best use of music, while Hannah does interesting things with song titles and lyrics that often go at odds with what’s on the screen- as if Allen means something other than what he shows.
What do you want him to do that he has not done so far?
At this point, I’d want him to simply rest. He’s done more great work than almost any other filmmaker in cinematic history. The longer that he attempts to draw his material past the point of his own talent, the more filler he’ll be responsible for. If his last film were 2007’s stellar Cassandra’s Dream, we would all be tantalized with ‘What’s next?’ and hope that he’ll continue. Instead, we had the question answered in a way that will simply not matter a half century from now. On the other hand, I don’t really care, personally. Again: he’s done great work. He has certainly earned the right to waste people’s time so that he could pass the time in old age. Let him do what he feels he must.