Interview: Mike Mills of ‘Beginners’

Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:00 am

Mike Mills is a graphic designer-turned film-maker. His new movie, “Beginners,” is inspired by his own experience. Ewan McGregor plays Oliver, a graphic designer whose father, at age 74, came out and declared that he would spend the rest of his life as an openly gay man. The film goes back and forth in time as the father, played by Christopher Plummer, thoroughly enjoys his new life, even after he becomes ill with cancer. After his death, Oliver begins to explore a relationship with a French actress (Mélanie Laurent of “Inglourious Basterds”), both haunted and inspired by his father’s late-life changes.

I spoke to Mills about grief, dogs, and falling in love without talking.

I loved the authenticity of the portrayal of the designer, very rare in movies. Was that you in the close-up of the hand doing the lettering and drawing? It was clearly someone who was both talented and experienced.

It’s me and Ewan. I taught Ewan to draw a bit. He wanted to learn. He’s really crafty. He builds bikes and motorcycles and cars. He started drawing and he was very quick to figure it out.

And when he did not want to do what the client wanted for the album cover — that was very true not just for artists but for any creative person.

Especially when you are in that grief place, where you don’t really want to compromise. You feel like life is short so you want to go for it the way that seems right to you. You can be unreasonable and uncompromising and not even aware of it. It’s sort of a beautiful thing. It’s a weird gift of grief.

Tell me about your decision to structure it the way you did, impressionistically rather than chronologically.

It started because that was what grief was like for me. You’re walking around in the present, but bits of conversations and memories keep coming back to you. All those emotional exchanges are still so alive, constantly slipping in time. All the assumptions that we assume all day long become impossible to sustain. Incredibly un-complacent and uncomfortable. And as a film-maker, I like movies that do that, like “8 1/2” and “Stardust Memories” or “Annie Hall.” They’re very formally playful. I’m more comfortable if I can work on a story in a more broken-down, multi-viewed way. I’ve got the history monologues, the conversations with the dog. The denser and more multi-platformed it is, the freer I felt.

The dog is wonderful!

Animals are really important to me. I have a boarder collie and it is one of the most important relationships in my whole life. We talk all the time. Obviously, in the movie, it is Oliver projecting what the dog is saying. It’s a way for him to express his feelings. It became a neat, sideways way to get into Oliver’s brain. Dogs are wonderfully mysterious. We don’t know what they are thinking. It’s that otherness that fascinates us. They love us across the species divide and we love them. The same thing with the drawings. It wasn’t me trying to get my drawings into the film. It worked as a way to show Oliver’s emotions. I could go from a memory to cut to a drawing and it made sense emotionally because you’re seeing his reaction, his world.

I’d like to know where the idea came from that when Oliver meets the girl he falls for she can’t talk and can only communicate by notes.

That came from Lou Taylor Pucci, who was in my last film. He plays the magician in the party scene — partly because I got that whole idea from him. He met a girl when he had laryngitis and he couldn’t talk. He met a girl and fell in love in a way that he wouldn’t have if he was talking. He couldn’t be superficial and take the easy route. He got really vulnerable really fast. He told me that story and I asked if I could use it.

(more…)

Related Tags:

Interview: Chad Ahrendt of ‘Reconciliation’ (Part 2)

Posted on May 16, 2011 at 3:55 pm

Part 2 of my interview with writer/director/producer/editor Chad Ahrendt of “Reconciliation,” a faith-inspired film about a man who reaches out to the gay father who abandoned him.

7. For those who consider homosexuality a sin, what is the greatest barrier to finding a loving way to stay connected to friends and family who are gay and those who feel differently?

Every situation is different so it’s hard to pinpoint what the barrier might be for a particular individual, family or circumstance. It’s important to remember we can’t change anyone else, nor are we called to change others. We are called to share the Gospel. God changes people. Sanctification (becoming more Christ like) is a process of growing in holiness and obedience to the Lord and we only have control over our self and the choices we make. So, is that Christian living a holy life or are there areas where he or she is “picking and choosing” what to follow and obey in God’s Word? How might “picking and choosing” be viewed from a non-believer? Does that Christian truly understand the Gospel and if so is he or she being a proper example of it? Does that Christian remember the grace, love, patience and compassion with which the Lord dealt with him or her before coming to know the Lord and the times when they stumble? Over and over again scripture talks about love – loving God, loving our neighbors, loving our enemies, love covering a multitude of sins, and let us never forget it is love that drew each of us to Christ. Scripture equally talks about God’s hatred for all sin and so we should never condone any sin, but the question becomes is that Christian winking at other sins while holding homosexuality to an unbiblical hierarchy of sin? Does a family have the same rules and standard for their daughter and her boyfriend as they do with their son and his boyfriend?

Secondly, does that Christian realize his or her sexual brokenness? We are all tempted by sexual sin and many, even within the church body, struggle with various sexual sins daily. The fact that we are all sexually broken apart from God’s original intention should not only humble us, it should also make us more compassionate and understanding. As Christians we shouldn’t feel condemned by our brokenness, rather look to the Cross and praise the Lord for He has defeated sin and given us a way to no longer be in bondage to sexual immorality. With God’s Word, Spirit and strength we can fight sin, flee temptation and press on in pursuit of holiness.

Thirdly, while the Lord only truly knows a person’s heart He does say we can know people by the fruit they are bearing – fruit of the Spirit or fruit of the flesh. Billions profess to follow Christ and if that were true our world would look radically different. Read 1 Corinthians 5 if one wants to see how sexual immorality of any kind defiles the church and destroys families and read verses 9-13 carefully to see how God calls the church not to judge non-believers, but to judge believers and “purge” the sexually immoral from the church. If the church obeyed these verses we’d either see repentance on a grand scale or the church pews would almost be empty. As a church body I encourage us to get back to the Gospel, raise up men and women to be obedient in the Lord’s ways, take the plank out of our own eye when it comes to sexual immorality, and humbly fall on our face before the Cross and repent of the judgment, hatred and condemnation we’ve cast upon those with same-sex attraction – and then start loving them as Christ loves them and desires to be reconciled to them.

8. Is the forgiver or the forgiven the primary beneficiary of forgiveness?

Every situation is different, but speaking of forgiveness from a purely broken world perspective I think both can equally be the primary beneficiaries for different reasons. Take the examples of forgiveness in the movie between father and son. The father abandoned his family causing the son to say some very hateful things to his father, even denying his dad’s existence. Their choice to sin against one another brought about guilt, shame and loneliness. Through love, compassion, and listening that brought about better understanding of the circumstances they were able to extend grace and forgiveness and reconciliation was possible. Each benefited equally as father and son reunited. The bondage to shame and guilt were broken as love and grace abounded.

In the situation of the Cross there is only one offended and sinned against party – God. God, being perfectly holy and blameless, is entirely dedicated to reconciliation with the offender – all of humanity. Mankind, irrefutably guilty, rejects God and His holiness instead choosing to seek their own path. Injustice cannot just be overlooked, there must be a price paid. In God’s steadfast love for His disobedient creation He takes that penalty upon Himself by sending his Son, Jesus Christ, who voluntarily took mankind’s punishment as the perfect intermediary. At the Cross God’s wrath for sin meets God’s love for mankind. Who is the primary beneficiary in this instance?

9. Why is forgiveness so difficult?

Usually when we are sinned against there is a consequence whether it be financial, emotional or both. We want the other person to pay a price for the damage done. We want them to feel similar heartache as they caused us. We think, “Why should the offender get a free pass?” The irony is that’s exactly what God gives each of us – in essence a “free pass,” because Christ took our penalty upon Himself. Christ took the wrath each of us deserves. Jesus, completely innocent, was made guilty for our sake.

In our judicial system if we are caught breaking the law we expect there will be a penalty to pay depending on the crime. In the situation with God, He excuses our sin because the price has been paid, but this is hard for many to accept because they want to “repay their debt.” God gives it as a free gift, knowing there is nothing we could do to ever repay and if we could then we would feel entitled. That’s love. That’s true forgiveness. That’s the example we should never forget.

10. What is the importance of the chaplain’s comments?

The chaplain’s words are very challenging for everyone, because they make everyone stop and think. The chaplain is a man that has been transformed by God and His word, and he does not cater to the left or right wing agenda. His only agenda is to share the Gospel and God’s transforming power which is counter intuitive to the American culture that is increasingly becoming more and more all about “self.” If one really listens to all his words they will have a better understanding of the Gospel, the brokenness of this world, and how we can better become the hands and feet of Christ to a broken and lost world. There are two kinds of people in the world: those that are broken and following Christ, and those that are broken apart from Christ.

11. What did you learn from making this film and what do you hope people will learn from watching it?

Homosexuality is a polarizing topic that isn’t going away so Christians need to educate themselves properly from a Biblical and Gospel point of view. Today we see major denominations straying from God’s Word to appease the masses. As individuals we must decide where we stand on God’s Word, even when it means opposition from the world. As Christians we must ask ourselves if we are living a holy life and being a Christ like example or is their sexual sin we need to repent of? The church has been losing the battle on sexual purity for a long time now. Pastors must be proactive and talk about the difficult topics and educate their congregations on God’s standard.

We have two hopes for the movie: First, is that people will be reminded or introduced for the first time to the true essentials of the Gospel: God created all of us. He loves all of us. We have all rejected and turned away from Him and despite our rejection and disobedience He loves us so much and desires to be reconciled with each of us that He took our penalty upon Himself. It’s our choice to accept or continue rejecting what Christ has done for us and then because of our gratitude for what He has done we will gladly learn to walk in obedience to His ways. We must remember it is Christ that heals and changes a person and these changes begin after a person has surrendered his or her life back to the Creator. If people could truly change themselves what was the purpose of the Cross? Secondly, that as we all start to realize our own sexual brokenness apart from God’s original design we will repent of it and turn to the Lord and become more understanding and compassionate to those that don’t know the Lord. God did not intend for mankind to be in bondage to all the sexual immorality listed in the Bible. God does not call people to be straight, gay, or bisexual. In Leviticus 11 and 1 Peter 1 God says “Be holy, for I am holy.” We have all missed God’s mark for “Holy Sexuality.” Lets not be condemned of our sin, rather repent and turn to the Lord’s ways and walk in obedience to His calling on our life. Lets stop identifying ourselves with all these man made labels that only separate us and instead look at the Cross that unites us.

People can watch the trailer & find out more or follow the film on Facebook. Buy “Reconciliation” on DVD.

I have one copy to give away to the first person to send me an email at moviemom@moviemom.com with “Reconciliation” in the subject line — don’t forget to include your address.

Related Tags:

Directors Interview Writers

Interview: Chad Ahrendt of ‘Reconciliation’ (Part 1)

Posted on May 15, 2011 at 8:00 am

Chad Ahrendt is the writer/director/producer and editor of a new film called “Reconciliation,” about a man named Grant whose impending fatherhood causes him to think about repairing the rift with his gay father. He was kind enough to answer my questions about the film and its messages of love, compassion, and forgiveness.

1. How did the project begin?

In some respects the project began four years ago when I surrendered my life to Christ, but really it began when my parents starting dating in the early 70’s and had me soon after. I didn’t grow up in a Christian home, nor did we talk about God often. In college I was introduced to Christianity, but I didn’t come to know the Lord and fully surrender my life to Him until four years ago. Prior to that I had been working at Columbia Pictures for over a decade on 15 big budget studio films from “Jerry MaGuire,” “As Good As It Gets,” to “Dreamgirls.”

After coming to know the Lord, He started revealing His desire for me to make this movie. People have said this before, but I truly mean He wanted this story to be told – because I had ZERO interest in making this movie knowing what a polarizing topic homosexuality is and the repercussions that might come of it. The movie is loosely based on my own life and the reaction I had when I found out in the late 70’s that my dad was gay. I was teased and bullied at school when a few friends found out about my dad and I remember rumors being spread that I too was gay. I’ve never had same-sex attractions, but I surely didn’t want to be guilty by association so when my mom and I moved away I made sure nobody would know about my dad. Then in the 80’s I started hearing homosexuality wasn’t genetic, but it was a choice and my fear turned to anger because he left my mother and I to pursue his desires, in my mind making the conscious choice I was less important. Often we hear “Christians or God hate(s) homosexuals,” but the irony in my case is it wasn’t until I surrendered my life to the Lord was I finally able to fully love my dad. The Lord was very clear that He wanted me to love and forgive my dad as God has loved and forgiven me of all my messiness…not only that, but as I read and researched all of Scripture the Lord exposed my own sexual brokenness as a “heterosexual.”

After much research I finally sat down and began writing the script, praying daily for the Lord’s supervision over every word.

2. Did you have difficulty getting support for it?

Absolutely. Although the story mainly follows an estranged father and son struggling to overcome the heartbreaking consequences of their past as they seek forgiveness and reconciliation, all everyone could concentrate on was the homosexual aspects in the movie and whether homosexuality is perceived as a sin or not. Studio and faith-based production companies enjoyed the script, but didn’t want to touch the project for very different reasons. Secular executives were more interested in a form of “universalism” and not talking about “sin,” whereas faith-based companies were excited the movie clearly presented the Gospel they had concerns about alienating a portion of their fans who might have varying opinions about homosexuality being a sin or not.

I knew the Lord wanted the movie made which gave me confidence He’d open the right doors at the right time to get the project financed and distributed – and He blew the doors wide open bringing together an amazing cast, crew, locations, and independent financing that allowed us to tell the story He wanted to tell, a story focused on the Gospel and no other agenda. The Lord’s ways are so much better then our ways!

3. Why was it so hard for Grant to forgive his father?

Jeff’s choice to pursue his sexual desires over his family set off a chain of events that would leave lasting repercussions and ultimately break the father/son bond. Divorce, no matter the reason is very difficult for a child to understand. Jeff lied to Grant about the reason for the divorce causing Grant to feel even more betrayed, ultimately losing trust in his father. Jeff’s sexual desires being exposed at Grant’s 10^th birthday party, caused Grant to be bullied and teased at school. Grant already felt the consequences emotionally, now he experienced them physically from his peers. What had Grant done to deserve this? He didn’t choose his father and mother, but nevertheless he paid for their choices. Consider all the emotions of abandonment, deceit, embarrassment, shame, confusion, fear, anger, physical abuse and teasing from peers, the era of the 1970’s and one starts to empathize with Grant’s broken and hardened heart. One might even begin to understand, not condone, Grant’s unchecked anger that festered into hatred. Grant’s choices to hate and disown his father were also sinful and led him to deceive others. Grant’s lies and hatred of his dad were confronted when he came to know Christ. As the Lord exposed areas of Grant’s life that needed to be brought to the Cross and repented of, He also softened Grant’s heart by pouring out His unconditional love and forgiveness upon Grant – a Father’s true love that Grant had never known growing up. The hatred and anger were being transformed by God’s Word and the Holy Spirit, but because Grant didn’t come clean to his wife about his dad Grant felt shame and guilt for the way he treated his dad and the lies he told, instead of God’s intention for grace and freedom that comes from repentance. Eventually, the Lord made a way for everything to be worked out for good. Grant really needed to forgive himself and truly understand God’s grace and forgiveness, and once he did he could extend the same forgiveness.

Life is messy and it takes work, sometimes-uncomfortable work, for reconciliation to be possible. Yes, reconciliation will look differently for everyone depending on the wound and situation, but no matter what we are called to forgive as we have been forgiven. Let us never forget the amount of grace, compassion, patience, love and Truth with which the Lord has dealt with each of us.

(more…)

Related Tags:

Directors Interview Writers

Interview: Jodie Foster, director and star of The Beaver

Posted on May 3, 2011 at 10:00 am

Jodie Foster directed and co-stars in “The Beaver,” a movie notorious already for two reasons. First, its script by newcomer Kyle Killen was on top of the famous “black list” of outstanding unproduced screenplays. Everyone knew how smart and distinctive it was and everyone know it would be very tough to film and very tough to find an audience for a story about a severely depressed man who finds that he is able to communicate through a beaver puppet he finds in a dumpster. Second, the lead role of Walter is played by Mel Gibson, whose behavior in the past few years has ranged from volatile to profoundly offensive. But one of Foster’s many outstanding characteristics is her commitment to her work and to her friends. It was a deeply rewarding pleasure to speak with her about the challenges of making this film and what she has learned from the movies and the people she has worked with in making them since she was a child.

Unlike ventriloquists (seen most recently in the documentary, Dumbstruck), Mel Gibson continues to act even when he is “speaking” through the beaver puppet on his hand. Do you as a director intend the other characters on screen and the audience to look at him rather than the puppet?

I was surprised that people didn’t watch the puppet more. I liked that about it. I never wanted the audience to forget that there was a man behind the puppet. It was a widescreen format. We used an anamorphic lens, and that allows you to do two things. First, it lets you keep two people in the frame almost all the time, even in close-up. And with depth of field you can switch the focus very quickly from the front of the frame, where the puppet is, to where he is, so there’s a real distinction to the field that allows you to keep them in the same frame at all times in the beginning of the film and yet separate them emotionally. We’re always, always following Walter’s path. Then, as time goes on, we change that and allow the beaver to start taking over about halfway through the movie.

It seems to me that making a film is a little bit like having a puppet on your hand. Instead of telling your story through one imaginary character, you’ve got many.

Yes, that’s pretty accurate. It’s not just the director’s and the actor’s voice but the writer’s, the costume designer’s, the props, production design. They’re all different languages and each one contributes to telling this one story. There are other experts and you make decisions.

Tell me about how you worked with the costume designer to tell the story.

I’ve made many movies with Susan Lyall. I love her stuff because it’s really real. She spends a lot of time combing through vintage stores and looking through bins. She didn’t come up through theater, so she doesn’t do draping and all that stuff. She has a little bit of a different bent and I think it is more authentic. The idea that there is this perfect icon, valedictorian and a cheerleader — that’s just a delusion. Not only do they not exist, but when it appears they do, there’s a whole other side to them. So for the character played by Jennifer Lawrence, at first she has a lot of make-up and that perfect WASP-y cheerleader outfit. But as you get to know her — as Porter gets to know her, she changes and becomes a deeper and truer person and becomes more informal.

Your cast is one of the movie’s great strengths, including Jennifer Lawrence, nominated last year for an Oscar for her role in “Winter’s Bone” and soon to star in the big budget film of “The Hunger Games” and the brilliant theater actress Cherry Jones. How did you select them?

I’m always trying to get Cherry in movies. I love her. Anton Yelchin is also amazing and really shares the screen with Mel. Casting is a long process for me. I take a lot of time. Some people you know right away. Anton I knew right away. I met with some other actors but I was never serious about anyone but him. I’d seen a lot of his work. I knew that he could handle the wit, the lightness of the character but also had the dramatic side. Plus, he looks like a combination of Mel and me so I was pleased about that! I knew he could hold the screen with Mel even though they don’t have many scenes together, just one at the end of the movie. The rest of the time they are fighting each other from opposite corners. I spend a lot of time just making sure that it’s true. There’s really nothing else you can ask.

Everybody reads for me. I was never weird about that. I never minded coming in and reading. They should know if I’m the right person and I should know if I want to do a movie. Some of it is just to hear it. When I’m casting I’m still in the process of figuring out what the movie’s about, making decisions about locations, photography, and all that. When I can hear it, either around a table or at an audition, then I can really see how things are going to work. If I don’t get that process with the actors I’m walking into a mystery and I don’t want to do it.

You have quite a challenge in having a clinically depressed person as your main character. Even more than other illnesses, depression makes a person inaccessible and disturbing.

The world is littered with movies about people that are depressed that either did not come out or are not successful. I read this article in the New York Times that I thought was so smart about obsessive ruminators. It’s a real phenomenon. I thought, “I do that!” People who are good artists don’t just type it into the typewriter and win the Pulitzer Prize. It takes a lot of rumination and thought, a lot of time thinking, “Why did that happen that way?” “How do those two things fit together?” and waking up at 3 in the morning to think about it. It’s a very depressive process. You go over and over and over drama and it can be depressing and isolating. But you come out the other side. And people who don’t, who just go to the beach and play volleyball to cope with their problems don’t get to the other side of their issues. So I see it as a gift, and essential for being an excellent artist. But it does make you alienated from the rest of the population.

There’s a very delicate structure to the film. We start out inside Walter’s head. He’s so lost at that point he’s not even speaking. The beaver is speaking for him. It’s a light, witty, but removed voice. It’s remote. And that gets you through the first part of the movie. And then when he starts to want to live again, you get that burst of vitality. It really isn’t until the second half when reality sets in and the drama begins.

Is the puppet’s accent another way for him to be separate from Walter?

Yes. Walter wants the beaver to be everything that he’s not — charming, quick-witted, blue-collar, decisive. The beaver is somebody who is a leader.

There’s a fairy tale quality to the movie — the narration and the quick turn-around in Walter’s business.

It’s a fable. It’s a dark fable at times. I don’t see anyone walking around with a puppet on his hand in real life. Puppet therapy is very common for children. It’s not something that adults take on. It should be seen as a fable, carrying through to the ending as well.

It’s a fable in its facts but the underlying theme of finding a way to take a break from your negative elements is psychologically valid and dramatically compelling.

He adopts a survival tool. People who go through tragic circumstances where they don’t have another option adopt a survival tool and any therapist will tell you it’s a good thing. But you adopt and adapt these survival tools as a child — at a certain point, when you grow up, they can start to kill you. You have to amputate them. You have to get rid of your survival tool or it will take you over and destroy you.

Related Tags:

Actors Directors Interview

Interview: Carl Christman of ‘Selling God’

Posted on April 27, 2011 at 3:59 pm

Carl Christman, writer/director of the documentary Selling God, answered my questions about his film, an exploration of the way that fundamentalists market their religion.

How did you come to this project?

My films are a form of catharsis. I have many opinions about the major issues in life and feel the overwhelming desire to share my ideas. In past films I have dealt with War and Patriotism (Freedom Fries) as well as Terrorism and Fear (Culture of Fear.) The topic of religion seemed to be worthy of discussion.

How do evangelicals differ from other religious groups in spreading their religion?

Most religions movements work to spread their message. What sets the evangelical movement apart, and prompted me to focus on it in this film, is the skill with which they do it. They have very effectively used all forms of media and marketing to get their message out.

Are evangelicals successful in converting outsiders? In retaining those who grew up in the faith?

Judging by the continued growth and increased power of the evangelical movement I would say they are very effective at converting outsiders.

What do they consider the biggest threat to their way of belief?

There seems to be a feeling among many evangelicals that they are under attack from secularism. Since secularism is basically defined as being non-religious this means that religion is under attack from non-religion. Since three quarters of Americans identify themselves as Christian, however, I do not see Christianity as being in any danger.

Are they a political force?

The evangelical movement is definitely a political force. Evangelicals make up roughly a quarter of all Americans. This is a highly prized demographic for politicians and has tipped the balance in many elections.

How are some evangelicals like people who market books or music or other consumer goods?

My point in this film is to show how the marketing of religion is very similar to the marketing of anything else. The same techniques are used whether one is selling clothing or cars, soda or salvation.

Who do you think is the audience for this film?

Selling God has different audiences that watch the film for different reasons. Those that are not religious are likely to view it from the outside as a critique on the evangelical movement. Evangelicals are likely to watch the film and relate to the examples I offer, often on a personal level. In talking to people that grew up in the various denominations I dealt with in the film I found that they were amused by my unique take on the religious customs they had often taken for granted.

Did the evangelical community respond?

Most of my evangelical friends thought this was a thought-provoking critique. They did not necessarily agree with all of my conclusions, but they certainly enjoyed the process of exploration.

Do you see hypocrisy in the way that Christianity is marketed?

I do not see the marketing of Christianity as hypocritical. There is nothing that I am aware of in the tenets of Christianity that opposes marketing. Many people will not like talking about Christianity in terms of marketing, because they view it as being above such earthly techniques. I, however, have enjoyed applying the well-known consumer paradigm to the world’s largest religion. Hopefully this film offers a unique perspective on religion.

What good works do the members of this community support (other than trying to make converts)?

The Christian community has established many important institutions that improve all of our lives. I went to Christian schools from pre-school through college and I now teach at a Christian university.

What was the biggest challenge you faced in making the movie? What surprised you?

The biggest challenge in making this movie was trying to get access. Much of the footage I wanted to use was not easily available and many of the people I wanted to interview were not willing to speak with me. When I did have people welcome me with open arms it really stood out. I remember being outside the local Unitarian Church getting some shots from the street. When some of the parishioners saw my camera operator and myself outside, they invited us into their church, allowed us to film inside and spoke with us about their faith. I found their openness very refreshing.

Related Tags:

Directors Documentary Interview