Interview: Henry-Alex Rubin, Director of “Disconnect”

Posted on April 8, 2013 at 8:00 am

Henry-Alex Rubin, director of the new movie, “Disconnect,” and I were were talking about the movie when his phone beeped. He reached into his pocket to turn it off and we both laughed at the real-life example of the movie’s theme. “Disconnect” has three stories about the ways that technology has affected our ability to connect to each other, and our conversation was being interrupted by a signal that it was his turn in an online word game.

“It’s not a social networking thriller,” he told me. It is a drama about the ways in which we reach out to each other and how technology has changed that, for better and for worse. Rubin is the award-winning documentarian who made the terrific “Murderball,” about wheelchair athletes (watch for one of them in a brief appearance in “Disconnect” as a drug dealer). In his first feature film, written by Andrew Stern, a young couple grieving over a devastating loss is hit with identity theft, a lonely teenager is pranked by classmates into thinking he is corresponding with a girl, and a reporter doing an expose of teens who perform for webcams finds that her judgement and ethics can be compromised. Rubin emphasized that the technology leads to connection and support in some cases as well as inflicting damage in others.

He was brought to the project by the producers because they wanted the film to have a documentary feel. “I filmed it like a documentary,” Rubin said. Instead of cameras and microphones intruding on the space around the actors, he used long lenses and pin microphones to keep the crew farther away and promote a more natural, intimate atmosphere for the actors. “And there were no mistakes,” he said. Particularly with the younger actors, he encouraged them to try whatever was comfortable for them by telling them that whatever they did was fine. “We kept rolling. If I had a note, I would not say ‘Cut.’ I would just tell them to go again and we would keep going.” For the older actors, like Jason Bateman, “who’s been surrounded by cameras since he was a kid and is completely comfortable,” it was less important.

But the film presented Batemen with a new challenge as well. “This was his first ever full-on dramatic role,” said Rubin. He plays the devoted but distracted father of the boy who is devastated by an online Catfish prank. “I had him grow a beard, so he would look a little different, to help separate him from what the audience would expect.”

Rubin did something different with Paula Patten, too, who plays a grieving mother drawn to an online support group. “It’s hard to make a woman as beautiful as she is look like a real person,” he said. He encouraged her to work without make-up and leave her hair messy. Her husband was played by Alexander Skarsgård, who also got a bit scruffy for the part, “with bags under his eyes and even put on a little paunch.”

Some things never change. People want to feel understood and important to one another, and that can be difficult. But it feels like technology has ramped up the stakes and we are still struggling to understand it. “There’s a line in the film that I got from Frank Grillo,” he told me. Grillo plays the single father of one of the kids who play the prank. Even though his character is an expert in computer safety, he does not know what his son is doing. “He says, ‘Computer time is up.’ He told me that’s what he says to his kids, so we put it in. ” That line is a reminder that no one knows what the rules are with technology that brings us together and keeps us apart.

Related Tags:

Directors Interview

Interview: Janet Tobias of the Holocaust Documentary “No Place on Earth”

Posted on April 7, 2013 at 3:58 pm

No Place on Earth is the extraordinary new documentary about a small group of Jews from Ukraine who hid from the Nazis in two caves for almost two years. Interviews with the survivors, narration from a book written in the 1960’s by the woman who was one of the leaders of the group, some re-enactments, and a powerful return to the caves 67 years after the end of the war. Tonight, as the annual observance of Yom Hashoah, the day of holocaust remembrance, it is especially meaningful to share this story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n00EE5CeatA

I spoke to director Janet Tobias about making the film.

One of the people in the film says, “We were not survivors. We were fighters.” What do you think that means?

They were fighters. They stuck together. Esther Stermer was an incredible mother and grandmother, a matriarch. She didn’t do the obvious thing. She decided to do what was necessary to survive and to protect her family. It’s an incredible story of what they accomplished. The lesson I take away from it is how much we depend on each other. they were greater as a collective whole than they were individually. Many of them would not have made it on their own. We do much better when we have each other than on our own.

The families were extended families, but it was a tough world. There had to be a group of people from each family who were willing to risk their lives on a weekly basis.

Tell me about the re-enactments of some of the scenes, which you shot in Hungary.

I was blessed with an incredibly great group of Hungarian actors, from Kati Lábán, who played Esther Stermer who is a very well-known actor in Hungary to some who had never acted before. We looked for approximation of physicality but I was not going to be completely literal because it is more important to have the person who has the right understanding of the story and the spirit. We did recreations, a hybrid between documentary and drama, because on the one hand you are in the presence of the last years of people who were eyewitnesses, who can say, “That happened to me. I saw it,” which is an incredible gift in documentary. On the other hand, the Stermers were fighters, as you said. They were actors on their environment. Lots of documentaries are about people contemplating their life. But the Stermers were fighters, not contemplators. They are doers. To show the incredible thing they accomplished, what they got up and did, that needed actors. Esther Stermer had a clock in her head. She kept a cooking schedule, a cleaning schedule. They knew when they could go out without moonlight. They observed the holidays. When they were buried alive, they did not give up and say “It’s over.” They said, “We need to do the following things in construction to even have a chance of figuring this out.” They were dramatic actors in real life, so we needed to match that.

And we had to show what it was like to live in the cave. I had never been in a cave except to walk by the opening on a hike. That world is a crazy strange world, the claustrophobic spaces, the mud, the darkness. It’s really hard to imagine, so we really needed to show people the world they were living in and navigating in, the world they ultimately found safer than the outside world.

You can see how dynamic they still are when they return to the cave, 67 years later. They were so young when they were in the cave.

You do hear Esther’s words in the book she wrote in 1960. And the leadership in the cave passed to young men. It shows how incredibly brave and honorable young men can be. Esther was running things underground but the father was afraid and so the leadership in the cave was teenage boys and young men in their 20’s because they were capable of doing things that kept everyone alive.

The story of the horse is almost like a fairy tale, especially when the families, who are so hungry, decide not to eat the horse but to let him go.

Even Sol did not believe his brother would come back with a horse. For Sol, it was this miraculous thing for his brother to find a horse to help them get supplies. They felt so blessed and lucky that they did not eat the horse.

And when they returned, no one in the town even said hello to them.

After the war, fighting continued in Ukraine. Partisans were fighting the Russians. Their possessions were taken by people who did not want to give them back. There was a lot of hostility to Jews, which is why there are no Jews in that town anymore. Their dog gave them the only greeting. We really wanted their return to be meaningful for them and it was. They are very special people.

Why was it important to show the photographs of the families of the survivors at the end?

What these 38 people did, each with individual experiences, each fighting hard, from the children to the grandparents — the ripple effect is life. All the children and grandchildren and great-children who became lawyers, doctors, construction workers, physical therapists, they are all alive because these people fought. Fighting and survival and preventing genocide, that starts one person at a time. One Polish woodcutter giving information, one person saying “We’re not going to leave our cousin behind,” that has a ripple effect of life with generations who make a difference.

Related Tags:

Directors Documentary

Interview: Wayne Blair of “The Sapphires”

Posted on March 26, 2013 at 8:00 am

Wayne Blair is an actor who starred in the live theatrical version of “The Sapphires,” the true story of three sisters and a cousin who became a successful girl group in 1960’s Australia. He directed the feature film based on the play, which opens this week. He spoke to me about bringing what he knows as an actor to directing a film and loving American country and western when he was growing up. His next project, as writer, director, and actor, is an Australian miniseries called “Redfern Now,” the first series written, directed and produced by Indigenous Australians.

How were you selected to direct this film?

It was a stage show, a musical, a sold-out theater show in Australia, and I was an actor in that show, and friends with the writer. He asked me if I wanted to direct the film. I’d done a lot of short films. But this is my first feature film.

How does being an actor help you as a director?

Your communication skills are much better. You can cut to the chase. You can see when an actor’s frustrated, when he’s firing on all cylinders. You know what they need to hear and how they need to hear it.

You’re too young to have grown up with the music of the 60’s. Were you familiar with these songs?

I grew up with it in my family and sort of stayed with me. I grew up more with more country and western, Merle Haggard and George Strait. “All my exes live in Texas……” Like that! When we finally got into soul we exaggerated it a little bit.

What was it like to have the people who really lived the story looking over your shoulder?

They were involved but they gave a lot of trust over to us. The co-writer is their son, and they were involved in the stage show. They knew we weren’t going to tamper with it much.

How did you do the casting?

We were looking for four girls that were newcomers, some new talent. We went looking all over Australia for girls who were not only great singers but great actors, and who could work with the family on the set. These four girls were the best. I don’t say this lightly. I was very fortunate, blessed in that sense. Chris O’Dowd was the last added and we really lucked out. I went to LA. “Bridesmaids” had just opened and they said, “You should go see this new guy coming out of Ireland.” It was a no-brainer.

What were you looking for on the costumes for the girls?

We just wanted something authentic. We were looking at two different times, 1958 and 1968. We were looking at four different women, making them look real but making them look great. So it was a bit of a challenge. But Tess Schofield just did amazing things with the budget we had, just keeping it very, very real, in a certain moment and time. We had our budget limitations and that was a great thing because you just make better choices.

Was the battle scene in Viet Nam the biggest challenge?

We shot this film in six weeks. Every day was a challenge. Shooting five people every day with two cameras — it takes it out of you. Shooting a lot of cast every day, and key cast — everyone had their line in almost every scene. But the battle, yes, that was a big challenge.

What’s the best advice you got about directing?

Just take it beat by beat, moment by moment, scene by scene, day by day. Make sure you get one scene, don’t think of the next. Make sure you get every moment that you’re after.

Related Tags:

Directors Interview

J.J. Abrams to Direct the new Star Wars

Posted on January 25, 2013 at 10:10 am

I am delighted with the news that J.J. Abrams will direct the new Disney-produced “Star Wars” movie. The man behind the “Lost,” “Fringe,” “Felicity,” and “Alias” television series has shown himself to be adept at being true to established franchises while revitalizing them with his films “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” and “Star Trek.” A perfect choice! Can’t wait to see where he takes the series.

Related Tags:

Directors

Interview: Roger Michell of “Hyde Park on Hudson”

Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:04 am

Roger Michell is the director of beloved films like “Notting Hill” and “Persuasion.” His latest is this week’s “Hyde Park on Hudson,” based on the real-life visit of the King and Queen of England to the home of President Franklin Roosevelt (beautifully played by Bill Murray) in Hyde Park, New York, where they were famously treated to a hot dog picnic. The movie also deals with Roosevelt’s relationship with his cousin Daisy and the other women in his life. When Daisy died at 99 years old, a suitcase full of letters was discovered that indicated she had a much more intimate relationship with Roosevelt than previously known. I spoke to Michell about the film.

Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said that Franklin Roosevelt had “a second-class intellect but a first-class temperament.” Tell me how you see him, not as a historical figure but as a character in this story.

I’ve never heard that description before, but having read about him quite a lot, he seemed to have had various strategies for governance which involved making people feel enormously relaxed around him, triangulating brilliantly between people. Often avoiding the issue at hand, but making his personality kind of glue people together or kind of get over difficulties simply by wafting his personality at them, and of course, that’s what he does in the film. That’s precisely what he does in this film, he creates a little bit of magic around this sort of gauche king. He makes the king feel a foot taller and at the same time, he scores this tiny—but enormous—political point by getting the king to eat a sausage. What could be better?

Please—a hotdog! That is a famous story, often quoted in books about entertaining.

You see, that’s amazing, that’s very unknown in England—that idea. But you still often see stage-managed pictures of presidents eating street food, don’t you? Eating a hotdog at the ball game or something. And it created quite a stir at the time, it was reported upon and it became a political tool, a political lever.

I like your use of the term “strategies,” because I think that’s a very apt one, and it seemed to me that his relationship with his cousin was in a way, a strategy for management of himself, and a sort of compensation. So tell me a little bit about what you think about that relationship, and what it meant to both of them.

What’s striking about the letters is their banality, you know. Well, they’re published and they’re expurgated—she didn’t really release all the letters, she destroyed tantalizing passages of letters and of diaries—but they’re very affectionate letters, they’re usually letters about dogs or little bits of gossip or about the countryside. They share an intimacy which feels like it’s not intellectually demanding for either of them, and I think maybe that touches on what you just said, that she was strategically…restful, deeply restful, undemanding, sweet-natured and like a sort of human stamp album, you know? And their relationship went on for much longer than it’s depicted in our film had started much earlier and it survived for much longer; after he died, she held this clutched the secret joy to herself until her death at the age of 99.

That’s not the way people do it these days, is it?

No, it’s not.

There’s a great dignity to that.

Enormously dignified. And he asked her to become the first curator of his library, which she did for many years. She took the only two photographs in existence of him in a wheelchair, for example. She, along with other members of his harem, were at his bedside when he died. So, it was very sustained and successful—I imagine, on both sides—successful relationship, amongst many others. He clearly had this incredible ability to sustain without necessarily compartmentalizing all these women who often knew each other and sort of got along and okay with each other, like a Mormon with several wives.

And tell me your thoughts on Eleanor, FDR’s wife (and another distant cousin).

Well, she was obviously an extraordinary woman, but I think that their marriage was so, even after all the complications of his terrible betrayal of her very early in their married life, and to go off with her social secretary, her best friend…in spite of all that, they seemed to enjoy this fabulous relationship, and to feed each other, basically, very considerably. You get the sort of sense of Eleanor’s touch in a lot of what he did, and I think she was constantly kind of throwing memos and letters and ideas and suggestions and demands at his desk.

Olivia Williams gives a beautiful performance as Eleanor, and one of my favorite moments in the movie was the look on her face as she does this sort of half curtsy, doing it but not really doing it.

She doesn’t want to do it.

And you did a good job of making a very beautiful actress look not so beautiful.

Yes, I know. And we cast an English actress because Eleanor, she sounded virtually English.

Right, that’s what upper-class people sounded like in those days.

I went to see Olivia in a play in London, I know Olivia—and it was an American play, actually, but I was suddenly struck by the fact that she was facially not totally dissimilar to Eleanor. She’s too young for the part, but with some teeth and some hair, she did it brilliantly.

I want to talk to you a little bit about casting, because I thought you did a brilliant job with casting, but certainly not the obvious choice for FDR, Bill Murray, for a lot of reasons.

Roger: Well, that was a big stretch for Bill—he was frightened. He had never done anything like this before, and he was aware that he was taking on a big responsibility to, as he puts it, to portray somebody who’s on a dime, who’s really sort of embedded as an icon, but he put in the work. He spent time with polio survivors, he had diction coaches both here and there, we had people who’d advise him on how to walk with the crutches, how FDR had this enormous upper-body strength because of learning how to grapple himself around desks and objects and things. And he did a lot of reading, and he was very thoughtful about it and really committed to it. And I cast him because I really—and this is for real, I know people say this, but—I didn’t think I wanted to make the film without him, because I couldn’t think of another actor who would be as forgivable as Bill and as mischievous and as playful. Because he does things in the film which are bad, and I didn’t want it to feel like the Dominic Strauss-Kahn story, or even the Bill Clinton story. It’s more delicate than that and it’s more miraculous, in a way, that he was able to sustain all these relationships without imperiling people, and I didn’t think I could do that with nearly every other actor I thought of. There would be something predatory or just frankly downright bad about the behavior; whereas with Bill it is bad behavior, but it’s kind of sweet-natured and it’s forgivable. The film forgives, anyway.

We understand this movie is not a history lesson; it’s a story about people, and how do you think that it relates to today’s life? Obviously we look at presidents and celebrities very differently now, so what lessons do you want people to take home?

Well, I think there are questions raised about secrecy which are interesting. I think that, and I don’t know the answer, as to whether the current fetish for transparency is going to remain a productive one. Will it mean that only the dullest of the dull will be joining to politics? Because they have nothing to hide, see what I mean? Or is it for the common good that now we seem to need to know everything about everybody before they can do anything? Probably a bit of both. I think the conundrum with the special relationship remains very complex between our countries. I’ve worked with Richard Nelson a lot, I’ve done lots of plays by Richard, so that was a kind of ongoing relationship. He always writes about our two countries in one respect or another. I always find that…well, in England, we’re stuck between Europe and America, and most of the big political meltdowns in England since the war have been about whether we really join you guys or whether we’ve really become European, which is why we haven’t joined the monetary system, but he have joined the EU. So that’s the kind of cultural enigma of our times, and in England we felt supplicant to you, and adoring of everything that you can offer, and yet resentful. And there was a big switch after the war, I mean, before the war, England really did cover the globe and had the kind of moral superiority and cultural superiority, and after the war, Britain was so badly hit.

After the war, Soviet Union sort of did a massive land grab on Eastern Europe, but in a way, you guys did the same in the west. We suddenly found our economies were linked with yours, we had your weapon systems all over our country and we had your army still over West Germany, so how different was it, really? I mean, it was different, but culturally, it was a kind of enforced hegemony, and we all worshiped your movies and we all started wearing jeans and we started wearing your clothes. It’s full of rivalry and will continue to be complicated and interesting. I mean, we bask in this fiction of the special relationship, it is is not really special. It can’t be.

Related Tags:

Directors Interview