Interview: Vera Farmiga of ‘Higher Ground’

Posted on August 24, 2011 at 3:48 pm

Vera Farmiga (“The Departed,” “Up in the Air”) directed and stars in a new film based on the memoir by Carolyn S. Briggs, Higher Ground: A Memoir of Salvation Found and Lost. As she spoke to a small group of reporters in a Georgetown hotel, it was clear that she shares her character’s passionate yearning for an intimate connection with the Almighty.

I began by asking her about her character’s hair, which seems to reflect not just the changing fashions over the decades covered in the film, but her spiritual and emotional state as well. “It was three different time periods. The church changes. It goes from worshipping outside to worshipping in basements, hallways, annexes, to a proper, steeple-topped church. As the hippies turn into yuppies, so do the hairstyles. Her hair starts off wild and carefree and long and tangled. And passionate. And then there are the trials and tribulations and ebbs and flows of her path, and she engages in spiritual warfare and her hair also has its phases. Childbirth, and then she gets shorter. We did a perm curl – it gets corrupted. It gets poisoned — by a home perm! And then by the end it’s a looser wave, gentler.”

She admitted that this book was an unusual choice for her debut as a director. “It chose me. I really feel that way. I tried to wriggle out of its grasp, several times. Every time I tried, something else would happen that made it unstoppable….It touched me in divinely mysterious ways. It slayed me in the spirit. I loved this woman’s yearning to be passionate in her faith and all her relationships. That yearning is such a holiness to me that it touched me in a very deep way. I wanted to defend her journey….It was so juicy to me….I had a lot of ideas I wanted to bring into the film, ideas about music and praise and worship and joy.” It began to come together when her mentor, Deborah Granick, agreed to advise her and John Hawkes (from Granick’s “Winter’s Bone” agreed to appear in the film. “Before I knew it, I was on the set, having to deliver the last speech first.” And after that, she relaxed and enjoyed it.

“A story about God tends to make people tremble,” she said, “as the Almighty should. We all have our personal concepts of that that means. But that three-letter word makes people quake, especially in Hollywood.” But she had the support of her producers (including her husband) who “totally vibed with my vision, no mockery or judgment, just to look at how arduous that spiritual road is, how bumpy. No matter what your religion is, what your spiritual tenets are, what your idea of God is, we’re all on the same human team, trying to transcend self and look upwards for healing and holiness.”

She spoke of learning from directors like Granik, Anthony Minghella, and Martin Scorsese about the spirit they bring to their work, “their leadership, their approach, their wholesomeness, their joy, the good cheer that they spread as they attack their missions. In order for it to be a ‘holy experience,’ everyone’s got to be invested. You have to treat them like kings and queens and show them you are truly grateful.”

Farmiga cast her real-life sister as the younger version of her character. “We have the benefit of genetic similarity, so we did not have to do much as far as matching our performances. We move in similar ways because of the house we grew up in, probably even the Ukranian folk-dancing!”

I asked her about the portrayal of the main character’s friendship in the film. “I’ve learned so much from my best friends and they demand so much of me and inspire me in the ways that make me me. The character is able to be her best carnal self and her best spiritual self because of her friendship with Annika. We wanted to make it the most passionate and pure relationship — and then it gets taken away so she can find it within herself, the same energy, the same approach with the rest of her relationships, including her relationship with God.”

The tone of the film is respectful of all of its characters and their journeys. “My heart and my intent, indigenous to my personality is not cynicism, but compassion and serenity and gentleness and respect. I’m curious, what draws me into a story is recognizing my humanity, my imperfections, telling a story about struggle. This is not a general statement about Christianity; this is a moment this woman found herself in. We are still finding our voices.”

Interview: Robert Rodriguez of ‘Spy Kids: All the Time in the World in 4D’

Posted on August 15, 2011 at 12:30 pm

Robert Rodriguez is a ground-breaking movie director whose first film, “El Mariachi,” was made on a micro budget of $7000 (with another $220,000 after it was purchased for release). He is known for striking visuals and ultra-violence in movies like Once Upon a Time in Mexico and “From Dusk til Dawn” and for wildly imaginative family movies like Shorts and the Spy Kids series. Rodriguez continues to operate outside of the film-making establishment. He has established his own film-making set-up in his home town of Austin, Texas, and works with his family, writing, editing, shooting, and directing himself, with his ex-wife, Elizabeth Avellan, and his sister as his producers, and his cousin Danny Trejo appearing in many of his movies, including this one as “Uncle Machete.”

I spoke to him about the fourth in the “Spy Kids” series, this one in “4D.”

What does 4D mean?

It’s been a very scrappily innovative series since the beginning. In “Spy Kids 2” we started shooting digital. And with the digital camera, I thought, “Hey, I think I could bring 3D back.” It hadn’t been tried in 20 years. I tried it with “Spy Kids 3” and that became the biggest “Spy Kids” of all, and Jeffrey Katzenberg took note of that and said, “We’re really going to bring 3D back.” In keeping with the series, with everyone being 3D, we really had to go to 4D. I remembered a film with “Odorama” called “Polyester.” That wasn’t a family film, but I said, “That would be a terrific gimmick in a family movie and I’m sure the technology has gotten a lot better.” It has — everything doesn’t smell like batteries.

How do you keep the smells from colliding with each other?

They don’t do that any more. It used to be that all the smells had a real chemical base to them and they all started smelling the same after about the third or fourth one. Once you got to the dirty socks, everything kind of smelled that way. But now they call stay really distinct. The technology has really gotten better, and I didn’t have to do anything but pick which flavors I wanted and they put them on the card for me. And it’s free, just as with the 3D movie where we gave the glasses away for free as well. It’s a level of interactivity that you just don’t get in a movie. Kids are so into interactive things like video games for entertainment. A movie can be very passive by comparison. This brings back the active excitement of putting yourself one step closer to the actors and the characters on screen because you’re smelling exactly what they’re smelling at the same time. In the tests we did, the kids felt it was really a home run as far as making them feel they were a part of the action. That’s what you hope to do with another dimension, just make them feel closer to what is going on in the movie.

One of my favorite things about theThe Spy Kids Trilogy is the fantastic gadgets the kids get to use. What’s your favorite gadget in this film?

There’s a dog they could never understand who watches over the kids in the house and he turns out to be a robot dog voiced by Ricky Gervais. That’s probably my favorite. He can do just about anything. He’s like a multi-tool gadget knife and James Bond car all built into a dog. And another of my favorite gadgets is the hammer hands that the boy puts on, like Hulk hands — they can smash through anything you touch. I think my little boy would really love them.

I love the way the “Spy Kids” movies have a lot of action but very little violence.

There’s a very comic line to the action and a lot of it comes back on the kids themselves, so it really promotes adventure and not violence. That’s what parents have always loved about the series. I’m always very careful not to put anything over the kids heads in my family films.

Is there anything you wanted to include in this one that you didn’t get to do?

I wanted to do a James Bond-type song over the end credits with the dog’s head like Sheena Easton but we didn’t make it happen. Maybe next time!

How do you cast a villain? What do you look for?

You want a surprising quality. The villains in my movies are never really villains; they’re just misguided. The children always teach the villain a lesson. They don’t defeat him. This movie’s villain is the Timekeeper, and he’s very much me. I’m always worried about time there is. Seeing my kids grow up so fast, I always want to freeze time. So he is just a little eccentric and it turns out he has a tremendous amount of heart. He’s a super-villain with family values. You need someone who’s a real chameleon. I knew Jeremy Piven could create three or four distinct characters and pull it all together. He has a lot of heart as an actor.

The “Spy Kids” movies are always about the importance of family. In the earlier movies, there was a typical nuclear family but in this one there’s an issue a lot of kids have to deal with — adapting to a blended family.

I got the idea from seeing Jessica Alba on the set of “Machete” with her baby, but dressed for filming. I thought, “Wow, she kind of looks like a spy, and having to deal with this baby — wouldn’t that be cool as an element in the ‘Spy Kids’ movies.” I said to her, “You should be the mother in the new ‘Spy Kids’ movie and have to take the baby on a spy mission.” She said, “I’d probably have to be a step-mother because I am too young to be the mother of school-age kids.” So I thought, “that’s even better.” She’d be harboring this big secret and kids are really sensitive. They know when someone is hiding something from them. So they don’t really like her as a stepmom because they can tell she is not being honest. Through this mission they find out what her secret is and everyone becomes closer because of it. I thought that would add a really great wrinkle to the whole idea of what family means.

I also like the way the kids in your movies are real kids but also very brave and capable.

Kids crave things that empower them. Seeing kids on screen flying around saving the world gets into their dreams and they identify with it and pay-act it out. I saw it in my own two youngest, who weren’t born when the first ones came out. I told them I made them but they did not really understand what that meant. They just like them and pretend to be spies and to be strong.

And Machete is in this movie?

Danny Trejo’s code name in the original “Spy Kids” movie was Machete. We were doing a nod to this idea for a movie that we never got off the ground. We had been talking about doing a “Machete” movie since “Desperado.” So we said, “We should make your character’s code name ‘Machete.'” His name was really Isadore. He’s not the same character as in the movie “Machete!”

That’s good to know, but I hope he doesn’t text.

No, he doesn’t text. Some things are sacred!

Interview: Joseph Dorman of ‘Sholem Aleichem: Laughing in the Darkness’

Posted on August 10, 2011 at 8:00 am

The writer Sholem Aleichem was born Sholom Rabinowitz. He grew up in a Russian shtetl. Today, he is most widely remembered as the author of the stories which became the basis for Fiddler on the Roof. But a new documentary from Joseph Dorman (“Arguing the World”) called “Sholem Aleichem: Laughing in the Darkness” makes a case for the man who changed his name to Yiddish for “Hello Friends” as not just a teller of folktales but a major literary figure. Mr. Dorman spoke to me about making the film, which is opening around the country.

Tell me how you became involved with this project.

I really stumbled onto it. I am not a native Yiddish speaker, nor were my parents. Yiddish was lost in my family between my grandparents’ generation and my parents’. I finished my last film a decade ago, “Arguing the World,” and was desperately looking for a project. A friend of mine, a professor of Yiddish literature at Rutgers, suggested doing something about Sholem Aleichem. He had originally thought about doing a film himself, about Sholem Aleichem as a failed immigrant in America and he had curated an exhibit on that a few years earlier. I thought, “I don’t know much about him, I know the name from Fiddler on the Roof. This will keep me busy until I find what I want to do.”

But in a very short time it turned out to be what I wanted to do. It moved from a way station to a destination. I spent the next ten years of my life working on it and falling deeper and deeper in love with Sholem Aleichem’s work and fascinated by his world.

Why is “Fiddler” all most people know about him?

Fiddler on the Roof should have its due. It is a brilliant popular entertainment, kind of a miraculous adaptation in many ways. He did his own theatrical adaptation and really focused on the Chava story . “Fiddler” is entertainment, re-interpreted for its time. It’s a classic comedy in a sense because everything is wrapped up neatly at the end. Tevye is coming to America. But at the end of the Tevye stories, it is a tragedy in the classical sense. Tevye is homeless. He doesn’t know where he’s going. He’s like Lear. His world drops out from under him.

What’s so fascinating about the Tevye stories is that he started them when he was younger and wrote them over 20 years. His own experience informed them and they get deeper and darker as they go along. They become a tragedy, something larger about the nature of man’s alone-ness in the universe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z6cJ2_RLdA

You were able to uncover some real treasures in your research. What were some of your “Eureka” moments?

Because of the budget I did most of the research myself. There are 300 photographs in the film and the bulk of them come from the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research. It is a marvelous repository for Eastern European Jewish life, originally set up in Vilna between the wars, when the intellectuals of the time realized that the world of the shtetl was beginning to disappear. I would go there and keep looking through there — half the reason for doing a film like this is to get a chance to look at the treasure trove of these photos.

There are a number of photographers. One of the most remarkable was Alter Kacyzne. He was a writer, a protégé of one of the other classic Yiddish writers, Isaac Leib Peretz of Warsaw. He took photographs for the Jewish Daily Forward in the 20’s and 30’s. Even then he was photographing in a nostalgic way for an audience that had been separated form it. People didn’t want to see it as it looked at this moment. They wanted to see the eternal shtetl. Religious Jews are shot as they had been for centuries rather than trying to capture that moment in time.

Another man I don’t know much about is Menakhem Kipnes, who also has wonderful portraits. The last great discovery — and it wasn’t my discovery — was that I found out through one of my interview subjects was about a series of photos from the expedition of an ethnographer called An-Sky. He’s a remarkable figure, born in a shtetl, who became radicalized and a socialist. He decided what he wanted to do most of all was to leave the shtetl and study Russian coal minders. He moved to St. Petersburg, continued to be a writer and an intellectual, and it was probably the post-1905 pograms that radicalized him as a Jew. He realized he needed to turn his talents toward his own people. He realized that the shtetls were rapidly changing and so he organized ethnographic expeditions, recorded songs, and took along his nephew to take these remarkable, remarkable photos. Until the last few years, they’ve been unknown in the West. Now they’ve been published in a beautiful book. They are some of the most beautiful photos in the film. An-Sky was also the author of the famous Yiddish play, The Dybbuk.

I was so happy to see the involvement of Aaron Lansky of the Yiddish Book Center in your film. I am a big fan of his book, Outwitting History: The Amazing Adventures of a Man Who Rescued a Million Yiddish Books.

The sad irony of Yiddish and its fate in the modern world is at the very moment that writers like Sholem Aleichem were bringing it to its literary flowering, taking this thousand year old language which had been looked down on as a street language or a language for women, not working of intellectual vehicle or a vehicle for literature — that was supposed to be Hebrew — at the very moment that writers were using it in all its richness, that was also the very moment it was ceasing to be the vernacular of the Jews. 90 percent of Jews in the world at that moment were speaking it but that was beginning to change as the Jews were leaving the shtetls to go to America or the big Russian cities or to Palestine. An amazing flowering was taking place over 100 years with Isaac Bashevis Singer at the end. This remarkable literature was produced, but it has been by the bulk of Jews forgotten, not just lost in translation but in the movement of Jews but their assimilation into other cultures. It’s a living language for Chassidic Jews, but not for anyone else. What’s nice about what’s happening is that generations younger than mine are realizing what’s been lost and there’s kind of an upsurge now and younger generations are studying it and learning it and that is wonderful. But it is not going to be a living language for secular Jews again. What is important about what Aaron is doing is the importance of being able to read this literature in whatever language you speak. Aaron is very committed to preserving those Yiddish books for Yiddish speakers but even more important is preserving Yiddish language and Yiddish culture whether you speak it or not.

We do speak it in a certain way because it is the ghost in our machine. It informs even the English we speak. One of the most beautiful things I heard was from a young Russian student who said, “It didn’t feel like I was learning Yiddish; it felt like I was somehow remembering Yiddish.”

In this film you make a strong case for Sholem Aleichem as not just a folklorist but a literary figure.

He is the equal of a Chekhov or any other great writer. This is top shelf world literature. It does not have to be couched in cultural terms to make him an important writer. Another irony that exists is that he was trying to reach not an illiterate but an uneducated audience. He created a folksy persona so undeducated people could relate to him. But very sophisticated literature. The very success of that persona masked how sophisticated and intentional an artist he was. He is thought of as a stenographer who wrote down what people spoke. But he took what seems to be everyday language and transmutes it to poetry. He is a great of world literature. Comedy is deceptive. If you laugh, how can it be serious? But of course it can be.

The stories are very particular to their place but the themes have universal appeal.

There are stories about fathers and daughters all over the world. There’s an annual yahrzeit, a memorial for Sholem Aleichem every year. At the last one, there were five men from China who are starting a Sholem Aleichem research center in Shanghai. As the Chinese leave the small towns for the big cities now, they are experiencing what he wrote about.

Comic-Con: The Director Mash-Ups

Posted on July 24, 2011 at 11:45 am

One of the great pleasures of Comic-Con is hearing film-makers talk to us about their movies. But it gets exponentially better when we get to listen in to them talk to each other. The infinitely generous Guillermo Del Toro (he gave out his email address and invited fans to write to ask to visit him on set) shared the stage at Comic-Con’s largest venue in two separate events, one with Jon Favreau and one with protege Nicolas Winding Refn.

Del Toro co-wrote and produced a remake of the cult classic “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark.” The original, a 1973 made-for-television movie starring Kim Darby and Jim Hutton was about a young wife who discovers scary creatures in a house she has inherited. In the new version, it is a little girl living with her father (Guy Pearce) and his new girlfriend (Katie Holmes) who hears the creepy rasp, “Saaaaaally, Saaaaaaally….” In the first-ever Comic-Con event from impressive new studio Film District, he appeared to discuss the film with Danish director Refn, of “Drive,” also produced by Del Toro. “It is our duty to produce first-time film-makers,” Del Toro, told the crowd. He spoke about the power of fantasy. His background was in special effects and creature fabrication and he speaks lovingly of the monsters he creates and the importance of details. “Context is everything in a fable because every story has already been told.” Refn said that “tracking is good, but still imprints on our brains.” He loves the images where what matters is what is behind, when what is in the background engulfs the image.

Later, Del Toro appeared with Favreau to compare and appreciate each other’s approach. Favreau, as shown in “Iron Man,” likes mechanical effects. Del Toro (“Hellboy”) takes advantage of whatever illusions technology can provide. “There was not a single real thing in ‘Pan’s Labyrinth.'” Favreau called in Del Toro for advice on some of the action scenes in “Cowboys & Aliens.” And he urged us all to be on the lookout for a new book about Del Toro’s “Bleak House,” his very own haunted mansion. Speaking of which, one thing these two directors have in common is forthcoming films based on Disney theme park attractions. Favreau is working with Michael Chabon on “The Magic Kingdom,” and Del Toro will direct “The Haunted Mansion,” which will do its job if it erases the memory of the Eddie Murphy version. Del Toro assured us that this one will not be a comedy.

Related Tags:

Directors Festivals

Interview: Mike Cahill and Brit Marling of ‘Another Earth’

Posted on July 22, 2011 at 10:27 pm

Mike Cahill and Brit Marling co-wrote “Another Earth.” He directed, shot, and edited, and she stars as Rhoda, a gifted teenager who makes a tragic mistake. Driving home after a party, she causes an accident that kills a young mother and her son and injures the father, a professor of music, played by William Mapother (“In the Bedroom” and “Lost”). When she gets out of prison, she goes to see him to apologize, but when he answers the door she loses her nerve. She tells him she is there to offer a trial house-cleaning service, and ends up going back every week.

Meanwhile, another planet has been discovered that looks exactly like earth, and an industrialist is planning to take an expedition to see if it is really an exact parallel.

It is an extraordinarily accomplished film and I was delighted to get a chance to speak with Mike and Brit.

Mike Cahill

What was it like to have your movie premiere at Sundance?

It was a dream come true, so much fun. It was interesting to have this little baby and release it to the world there. The programmers are so cool and thoughtful. I loved every moment.

And what has been the reaction now that it is about to be released?

It’s been positive. The Q&A’s have been one of my favorite things. There’s always something new that comes out of them. They haven’t been repetitive.

William Mapother is extraordinary in the film. How did he work with you on creating his character?

I loved how in “In the Bedroom” he had such a fully realized character. He had this intensity and intimidating screen energy that was wonderful because I could harness that for the beginning of his arc, and then as his character develops, we could crack that open and this joyous light that he does have inside could shine through and it would be really beautiful. He read the script, we talked for two hours on the phone and he said, “I’m in.” What was great was that he really dug into his character. I really wanted to have rehearsals with Brit and he was very generous to give us two weeks. We would meet every day at his house in Los Angeles and read the script and get on our feet and work through scenes. I wanted to create an atmosphere that was very free and open for collaboration. Because both Brit and William cared so deeply and did so much homework, their ideas about how things would unfold were very important to me. So almost in a Mike Leigh way we would just freeform and feel it out. We didn’t change too much but we did add a few scenes and tweak a little bit of dialog and subtract some things. It was really organic and freeing and really helped me. When someone enters the room who is living from the POV of their character so deeply, and you can tell that they’ve done that hard work of imagining the childhood, the lifelong experience prior to the first frame of the film, they have that passion for the project and what they are bringing is really valuable.

There’s a moment where he’s parked outside her house. She comes over to the car and William said, “My character would ask her to come around the other side because he’d be scared of traffic, right?” One little line, one little idea, yet so meaningful about that person’s life and experience. One extra beat in the film but it adds a great deal of authenticity.

One thing that surprised me about the film is how expensive it looks because I know you made it for very little money. If you had another million dollars in the budget, what would you have spent it on?

Better craft services! I think the budgetary constraints are a gift to the artist. Your mind has to be creative in different ways and it opens up different channels and makes you think of interesting solutions. I wouldn’t change it. I’d pay everyone more if I had more money but that’s it.

One of my favorite scenes is when the earth scientist communicates with her counterpart on the other planet. It was really well done.

That was inspired by the moon landing. The everyman and everywoman experience of watching it on television, and all these people walking out of their houses and looking up at the moon. I took those stories and said, we’re not the hundred million dollar Hollywood movie, where you can show the spacecraft landing. We’re telling the story of the people who watch what is happening on television. And somehow there is a power and connection because it affects everyone. And that moment when she realizes she is talking to herself in a way worked on the page, in rehearsals, right from the beginning. The performance by Diane Cielsa was wonderful, so specific.

Tell me about your ideas on the look of the film.

There were certain colors that were very important. In the first ten minutes of the film, Rhoda has this red dress and it’s the only time we see red. It was symbolic of her energy and vitality. Later we only see it with the two things that remind us of John’s past, his child’s robot and his wife’s sweater. Other than that, it’s all blue, gray, very drab. All of it reflects the story. As their relationship begins to blossom, the colors warm up. As he gets his life back, he begins to dress like the man he was. We wanted it to be subtle but enough to inform the story.

You mentioned Mike Leigh. What other film-makers have inspired you?

Julian Schnabel’s film, “Basquiat” made me want to make films. I’d always been interested in film but it was my hobby. There was something about the way he made the film, so freeing, breaking convention in an artful way, it is poetry. Then I became obsessed! And I love Krzysztof Kieslowski, the way his films are based in realism but with something magical underneath.

You didn’t study film at Georgetown. You studied economics.

With economics, you understand incentives, opportunity costs, efficiency, all vital elements to making a film and living life!

Brit Marling

Mike told me about how closely you worked with William Mapother on your characters and their relationship. What was that like for you?

The moment he signed on was the moment we had a movie. Mike and I had both seen his work in “Lost,” and when the casting director recommended him, and we were like, “He’s perfect! The part seemed so right for him.” He has such a gravitas on screen. No one else could have filled out the part the way he did. He has this intense energy and this very deep romantic side. He is really thorough at how he approaches the character, which is really inspiring. He thinks of every date, the times, the season, what it has been like to be on these medicines, what he is still taking, how that is affecting him. It feels very real because he’s done his homework. He also showed us that Rhoda and John needed a bit more time to come together. He said, “I wouldn’t open up that quickly. It’s going to take a few goes.” We added more time, more breath into that and it felt more natural.

How do you as a screenwriter learn from your experience as an actress or the other way around?

When you begin the acting part of it, you’ve done a lot of the homework for the part through the writing. You have spent so much time daydreaming and imagining Rhoda from a writing perspective that when you put on the actor hat you have already thought through quite a bit of the story. You’re always trying to say the most through the fewest number of scenes and the least dialog. The power of cinema is not auditory — someone once told me a play is 80 percent auditory and 20 percent visual and a film is the reverse. You’re really thinking of everything as part of the whole. How do you get to the heart of the relationship between two people in three scenes as opposed to five? How can you keep whittling it away to get to the center of emotion?

You set a challenge for yourself as an actress in creating a character who does so much internally, very subdued. You had to convey a lot through expression rather than dialog.

I didn’t really notice because when you’re in it, you feel like it is deafeningly loud. The emotions are like nuclear bombs and fireworks are going on inside you, the sight of his house — you don’t say anything because you don’t need to. What could you possibly say?

Rhoda is befriended by a janitor who takes a shocking and tragic step. Tell me about his contribution to the story.

We felt that both John and Rhoda really needed to be disconnected from other people. That’s why the connection they find in each other is so important. But we also liked the idea of someone who has a foil or a mirror to Rhoda who is also suffering tremendous grief. You don’t find out why but you don’t need to. They recognize in each other the symptoms of grief. And in the way he hurts himself, you feel that potential danger for her, too. You see what that intensity of internal suffering can cause.

What does the element of science fiction, which is underplayed but important, add to this film?

I love “Twelve Monkeys,” the power of that final scene. There is something about science fiction that can get to the ineffable things that we feel but cannot explain, the way we feel connected to each other and to alternate versions of ourselves. We can’t articulate that yet through science. Are there an infinite number of mes talking to an infinite number of yous? Science fiction, like spirituality, gives us a vocabulary, a poetry, a breath, to get to the unsayable things.

Related Tags:

Actors Breakthrough Perfomers Directors