Interview: Scott Jordan Harris on Rosebud Sleds and Horses’ Heads — The Greatest Movie Objects

Posted on October 21, 2013 at 3:59 pm

Scott Jordan Harris is the author of Rosebud Sleds and Horses’ Heads: 50 of Film’s Most Evocative Objects – An Illustrated Journey, a beautifully illustrated tribute to some of the most beloved props and costumes in film history. He writes about Marilyn Monroe’s dress in “The Seven Year Itch,” Dorothy’s ruby slippers in “The Wizard of Oz,” and Michael Myers’ mask from “Halloween.” He generously took the time to answer my questions about the book and these iconic objects.

Dorothy’s ruby slippers are one of the most popular items at the Smithsonian’s Museum of American History.  In the book, they’re silver.  Why the color change?

rosebudChanging them to red allowed “The Wizard of Oz” to fully exploit the potential of Technicolor. I say in the book that nothing has ever seemed quite so resplendently red as Dorothy’s ruby slippers and I think that’s true. The redness is crucial to their visual impact, which is crucial to their resonance.

Didn’t we see Rosebud burn in the film?  

We did. Just as writing a book about film’s most memorable characters would involve writing about some characters who die in the course of their movies, so writing about film’s most memorable objects meant writing about some objects that are destroyed onscreen. The book isn’t about props, as such. It’s about analyzing important objects in movies in the same way we analyze important characters, discussing their symbolism, their impact on the plot, and what they tell us about the characters around them.

Iconic objects are sometimes based on real life, like the championship belt in “Raging Bull,” and sometimes created just for the story, like the Maltese Falcon.

The two objects you mention—Jake LaMotta’s championship belt in “Raging Bull” and the Maltese Falcon in “The Maltese Falcon”—are two of my favourites. Both only actually appear in their films for a short time but both are crucial to our understanding of those classic movies.

The Maltese Falcon is the engine that powers the entire plot of its film. It is the only real connection the characters have and they wouldn’t encounter each other without it. The title belt doesn’t drive the plot of “Raging Bull” but is instead used, briefly and brilliantly, to comment on the main character. The way Robert De Niro’s Jake LaMotta behaves towards the middleweight championship belt, using physical violence to destroy the symbol of his best achievements while believing he is acting rationally, is a potent metaphor for the way he behaves in life.

Have HD and 3D and CGI affected the way props are created?

Dramatically so, I would say. CGI in particular has altered what we think of as a prop and what we think of as a character, which is an area of discussion that always fascinates me. Had “Life of Pi” been made years ago, for example, the tiger might have been a sophisticated animatronic puppet. We would have called it a prop and thought of it as an object. Because it was CGI, we think of it solely as a character.

If you could have one of the items from your book in your home, which one would you pick?

In a sense, I have one. My friend, the film writer Elisabeth Rappe, bought me a Sheriff Woody doll that sat on my bookshelves while I was writing the book.

If I could choose another, I’d have a real, working hoverboard from “Back to the Future Part II”. I was a young child when the movie came out and the hoverboard represented the true magic of the movies to me and to many people of my generation. I still feel almost cheated that hoverboards don’t exist, not by the movies but by reality.

What makes a prop or a costume iconic?

Very few movie objects become truly iconic. There are the ruby slippers, Marilyn Monroe’s white dress from “The Seven Year Itch” and perhaps a few others. Those objects have a cultural significance beyond a single film.

There are a few qualities they share. The first is an unforgettable look that makes them immediately recognizable and the second is an emotional resonance so powerful it approaches the universal. They often also have an unmistakable symbolism. The ruby slippers suggest the power of childhood fantasy and escapism, for example, while the white dress is a perfect image of irrepressible sexuality.

How did you find the artists to illustrate the book and what made them right for this project?

The book was developed from a column I wrote for a British film magazine called “The Big Picture”, of which I was editor for a couple of years. The editor-in-chief has a background in graphic design and knew various illustrators he thought might be right for the book. He spoke to them about it, they submitted portfolios, and we chose the three we thought would work best. The way their three distinct styles would blend to create the look of the book was an important factor in the decision, as was the ability to highlight in the illustrations certain aspects of the objects highlighted in the text.

In a digital world, how can a book like this demonstrate the benefits of a traditional book on paper?

As Rosebud Sleds and Horses’ Heads is about evocative objects, one of the aims behind it was to create a book that was an interesting object in itself, something that was enjoyable to handle and to display but that would still cost less than $20. That was easy for me to say, though. I’m a writer: all I do is type. It was the publishers, the printers and, most of all, the illustrators (Charlie Marshall, David McMillan and Jayde Perkin) who had the responsibility of making the book an impressive physical object, and I’m indebted to them for pulling it off.

What was the biggest surprise you uncovered in researching the book?

Years ago, when I first became interested in the subject but well before I started writing the book, I researched the horse’s head in “The Godfather”. It was a little shocking to learn that it was a real horse’s head. When I tell people that, they sometimes think it was the real head of the live horse that is seen earlier in the film. It wasn’t: it was bought from a dog food factory and then painted so that it appeared to be the head of the horse that plays the racehorse in the earlier scene. I’d be fascinated to talk to the person who had to paint the head. It can’t have been a pleasant job.

Something that surprised me when I began research with the book in mind was that a book about evocative objects on film didn’t already exist. There are many wonderful books about objects in other areas of life and about film memorabilia, but I couldn’t find one written from a film critic’s point of view about the role objects play in movies. I wanted to read one, so I wrote one.

What movie object do you get asked about most often?Grease-2-bowling-797824

The object people talk to me about most frequently is their favorite object, the one there was no way I could possibly have left out of the book, but somehow did. That object has been everything from the watermelon in The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the Eighth Dimension to the bowling ball in Grease 2.

Those are always enjoyable conversations. It’s not like those times as a critic when you’re forced to write a top 10 list and people call you an idiot for not including X or Y. Rosebud Sleds and Horses’ Heads was never intended to be a definitive collection of the “greatest” film objects, but a celebration of some of the most evocative, and I love talking to people about their favorites. It’s such a fertile subject.

Related Tags:

 

Books Interview Understanding Media and Pop Culture Writers

Tribute: Tom Clancy

Posted on October 2, 2013 at 2:35 pm

I once boarded an airplane and counted a dozen different Tom Clancy books being read in those pre-Kindle days as I walked down the row.  On another trip, I flew on four planes and on all four was seated next to someone reading a Tom Clancy book.  Clancy, who died today at age 66, was the master of the “airplane novel,” the gripping thriller that is just right for passing the time while traveling.  Clancy’s trademark was the detailed descriptions of weapons and other military technology.  He made it all seem both fantastic and realistic.  That’s because it was both.  Clancy was as famous for his meticulous research into dense and arcane government reports.  That research produced his nonfiction “Guided Tour” series about military machinery. That’s just the background, though. What made his books come alive was the intensity of the peril in his plots and the integrity and dedication of the characters, especially Jack Ryan and Admiral Greer.

Clancy’s Jack Ryan books have been made into four movies (so far): The Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, and Clear and Present Danger) (Alec Baldwin as Ryan in the first one and Harrison Ford in the second and third), plus The Sum of All Fears, a prequel with Ben Affleck. “Jack Ryan: Shadow One” is now in production, directed by Kenneth Branagh and starring “Star Trek’s” Chris Pine.

“The Hunt for Red October” is one of my favorite thrillers, with an all-star cast and a sensational storyline.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ak917meUoo

But I hope Clancy will also be remembered for his extraordinary kindness, as shown in this story he wrote about his friendship with a very, very sick little boy. He will be missed.

Related Tags:

 

Tribute Writers

Interview: Galley Molina of “I’m In Love With a Church Girl”

Posted on October 2, 2013 at 8:00 am

I’m in Love With a Church Girl is inspired by the true story of writer/director Galley Molina.  It stars Ja Rule, Stephen Baldwin, T-Bone, and Michael Madsen, and will be in theaters on October 18.  I enjoyed speaking to Galley about what inspired him to make this film.

You wrote this story while you were in prison, I understand?

I had started writing mostly as an escape so it was unintended. I would write so much, kind of like a release. When I was writing, I could feel the leather in your car and smell your food, your favorite food, so I just started writing these stories.  And as I started writing and it started coming together, I realized I had a lot of friends who would read them inside. They’d be like “hey man, this is really cool, man” and it got to the point where a lot of the inmates were like, “Hey you gotta go read these stories, man, they’re cool.”  When the Church Girl story was done I had some real good friends ‘cause I  I was serving while serving time so to speak while I was in the chapel – and a lot of the guys would say, “I want to meet a church girl,” or “Is this really true?”  So it just became one of those things where you got to minister, you got to share, you got to inspire, you got to release at the same time. So that’s kinda how it started. My intent was just to possibly publish some books when I got home, but it turned into obviously more than that – it turned into a movie and the rest as they say is history.

How do you bring your faith onto a movie set and keep everybody on the same message?

I believe that you can’t just talk about it; you got to be about it. We had a really blessed set I will say, most of the time, I hear stories now ‘cause I talk to a lot of producers and filmmakers now and there’re like, “Ah man I had this story and I had that story” and they were all these nightmares. If you watch the youtube videos, or if you go to the website and you watch some of the behind the scenes videos, you’ll see our first day on the set. And I opened up in prayer. And obviously, we can’t assume that everybody’s a Christian or that everyone believes in God or that there’s not any other type of faiths on the set.  So I prefaced by saying, “Hey this is a faith based film, we’re honoring God, we’re going to pray to God, I don’t want to offend anybody but this is what it is.” And so, aside from that, it’s no different than your daily walk. I don’t want anybody to see me saying this and doing that or think I fear who’s watching me. Or who I don’t think is watching me. It’s the same way on set. The spirit was definitely present on the set because we didn’t really have any situations through the whole thing so I guess to answer your question; it’s just that we’re not any different on set than we are at church.

Even though this is a fictional story, some elements of it are based on your life right?

I had to be careful how I said those things, moving forward as my lawyer was telling me, “Hey, you can’t say this is based on your life but you can say loosely based.”  There are a lot of similarities – a lot of the story is true – some of it’s not true. The things that I felt needed to be changed in the story — we just got our rating yesterday for the film and it’s a PG, not PG 13. I think we didn’t need to show certain things. There’s no cursing in this film. There’s no violence, not any heavy violence, no sex scenes – nothing like that. I didn’t need to tell a lot of those things or show a lot of those things, you could just kinda say things without having to say them. When you see these people on the screen, you’ll be like, ‘oh these are some very serious individuals’ or you assume that what they are doing is wrong. But yes, for the most part, this is based on my life and the love story part and the tainted past and going to church, so yeah I’d say it’s very loosely based on my life.

So how do you go about casting somebody who will essentially to play you?

Good question, you know it’s funny when we were casting this film, I went out to Hollywood actors, like real legitimate actors, went through the real agencies with real offers, we spent a lot of money on this film, we spent millions of dollars on this film.  We didn’t go out like a lot of films, and even a lot of films in our genre with very limited resources and limited budgets and try to create something that we didn’t have the resources or budget to do. So when I went after real Hollywood talent, I shone the light I guess you can say, they didn’t take it seriously or when they saw the word “church” in the title they were not going to stereotype or type cast an actor into a church film.  So that was hard. They didn’t even want to read the script. So we re-grouped and God – there’s a story in the Bible that says go to your cupboard and bring me your jars, and basically what it means is everything you need is inside your house right now.  My relationships over the years have been embedded in the media industry and a lot of it was in music, so if you notice, a lot of the cast, they’re musicians, they’re rappers, they’re singers, T-bone, and Ja Rule and AJ and so it  just ended up being that way. And then to try to find a pool of talent that can really act, there’s not this huge Christian pool of talent out there, or at least that are admint, “Yes I’m a Christian actor” or “I’m an actor and I’m Christian,” so I couldn’t put a Yankee hat on Kirk Cameron and say, “Hey man I need you to play Miles Montego,” that just isn’t gonna work.  And they all did such an amazing job and we’re really excited to see peoples’ reaction when they see Ja Rule act in this film.churchgirl

I have a theory that musicians in general can do very well in acting because you’re telling a story with a song. And also a lot of acting has to do with sense of rhythm and timing and I think that is something they understand.

You’re 100 percent right. I never really heard it put that way. I’ve always looked at it as for example, rappers, why do rappers get on the road? They are very passionate people. They are really passionate people and acting is passion. And like you say, they know how to memorize lines because they memorize songs and to hear it that way is great. It’s telling a story in a different way so that I totally agree with you.

What is it about movies and music that communicates so powerfully with people?

I think first of all, they are the biggest platforms in the world; television, film and music. It’s global; I mean it’s even bigger than a book. Obviously a full feature film – everybody goes to a movie or ends up seeing a movie on television, everybody can hear a record on the internet or their iPod or on the radio. I think that’s how we communicate these days – that’s how trends are set – that’s how news is relayed from one side of the world to the other, so at the end of the day, it comes down to it is the biggest platform in the world – is the media – and second of all, that’s why I think – and to answer your question- we have to be very responsible in how we use it. Now can you say… imagine if the apostles had jets or internet.  How fast would the Word have spread?

Can you imagine that because –think about it- these guys with Jesus – Jesus only walked a certain portion of the earth – he didn’t walk the around the world, he didn’t walk on all the continents so if they had been able to get on a jet or send a text over to the next country – the Word would have spread that much faster. So, us as musicians as filmmakers, as producers and directors, labels, CEO’s – we need to make sure that when we’re using these platforms that we are being responsible. As Christians we need to make sure we’re Christ honoring and not pound people over the head with it. But just be responsible with it and try to entertain at the same time. And so I think everyone is always going to be drawn to the movies. Like Israel Houghton said, you may not be able to get someone to go to church with you, but you can definitely get them to go to the movies with you.

I think that’s it right there.  And what are you going to do next?

We’re gearing up for the next two films – we’re gearing up for one that’s called the The Promise, and it’s based on a song Shout to the Lord by Darling Chet and next will be a couple of scripts which I co-wrote which has been really fun. We’re doing the story of Job – a modern day man but we’re calling it Boj- we’re spelling it backwards – which is really cool. That story wrote itself in today’s time. It wasn’t a hard reach for that script. But I will say that these next couple of films will be very epic. We’re bringing in the same director who did Church Girl, a lot of the same team. These movies are going to be very epic in the sense there’s nothing really urban about these films as it was on Church Girl. A-list actors.  Faith-based films have never been done like what we’re planning. I believe we raised the bar with Church Girl, as far as production level. You can see just by the trailers the quality of this film. Not talking about the content, just the production of the film could be put up against any Universal Lionsgate film. We use the same cameras, the same crews, the same lighting and all that type of stuff same as Union films, WGA, SAG but these two films man are gonna be real epic, meaning proportion, twice the budget. And we can spend 10 million dollars like Hollywood spends 25 million, the same way we did Church Girl. It’s about being good stewards with it and so we’re excited. Those are the next two films, Israel and I are partners now, everything that we do – we merge our companies together. We did this last record together, the G Step 7 record which is an amazing record. I think it will be a staple in the church for a long time to come. We won a Grammy on that record this year. We’re gearing up for a couple of more records, we released that “Darling Chet” record, we’re doing Bible study curriculums. RGM stands for Reverence God and Media, which means that any form of media that we can put our hands, our thoughts and our hearts to – to spread the Gospel – that’s what we’re gonna do. So definitely in the next two films, we start pre-production real soon here – and the next couple of months will be the next couple of more records and one of the things that I think I’m really excited about to be honest, is a television show that we’re developing as a sitcom. It’s a faith based sitcom, it won’t feel so faith based, but it is from front to back. We’re in the mists of developing that now for network. So that’s going to be one of our fun baby projects ‘cause it’s coming together.

Related Tags:

 

Interview Spiritual films Writers

Interview: Ron Clements and John Musker of “The Little Mermaid”

Posted on September 30, 2013 at 3:59 pm

After Walt Disney died, the studio he founded faltered, especially Disney animation.  Following the powerhouse classics like “Peter Pan,” “Dumbo,” and “The Jungle Book” (the last animated film Walt Disney supervised personally), the animation division became mired in struggles that produced disappointments like “The Black Cauldron.” The documentary Waking Sleeping Beauty tells the story of Walt’s nephew, Roy E. Disney, executives Jeffrey Katzenberg and Michael Eisner, and a new team of animators, writers, and producers brought the studio back for another series of instant classics like “The Lion King” and “Beauty and the Beast.”  The movie that was the turning point was this week’s DVD/Blu-Ray Pick of the Week, The Little Mermaid, one of my very favorites.  It was a thrill to speak to the writer/director team of Ron Clements and John Musker about how it all came together.

Tell me how you first started working on this movie, because this was a big transitional moment for Disney animation.

RC: Well, I actually pitched the movie. This was around I think 1985. \I’m bad with dates but this was period of shortly after those kind of a big transition at Disney. Mike Eisner and Roy Disney and Jeffrey Katzenberg came. Roy Disney came back to Disney. He had left for a while. Michael had this thing called “Gong Show.” He’d come over from Paramount Studios. I guess they had that there. It was a way for generating new ideas for animated films or for any films. But in this case, animated films. So he got a group of story people and the directors together in a room. The idea was that everyone was supposed to go out and find five new ideas for animated features. Then, we would meet again in 2 weeks and pitch the ideas. They called it the “Gong Show” because if your idea was not good, it got a gong.  So I took that very seriously and I looked for ideas. That same night I went into a bookstore in North Hollywood. I picked up a book of fairy tales, just kind of looking for ideas. I came across The Little Mermaid. I don’t know if I had ever read the story before so I was reading it on the bookstore. As I was reading it, I got really excited because Hans Christian Andersen writes very visually and very cinematically. The images just kind of leap off the page. I thought, “This could really make a great movie. I wonder why they’ve never done this.” Then, as I got through the story I realized maybe part of the reason is that it’s a very, very sad story.  It kind of starts sad and then it gets sadder. Then she dies in the end.

So I was thinking about trying to come up with a way to put a little difference in the story so then it would have a little happier ending. I wanted to make the witch more of a villain than she was in the story and turn it into a little bit of more into a fairy tale. So I wrote up a two-page treatment with the basic idea.  There’s only one character name in the treatment and that’s Ariel. I called her “Ariel” in the treatment.  I’m not sure why but I sort of liked that name. Probably a good name for a mermaid.  I also looked for four more ideas because they wanted five ideas. There were other ideas that I came with that I wrote two-page treatments for. But when we reconvened, he said, “Just pitch your best idea.” When they got to me, I said “The Little Mermaid.”

It was gonged.

Partly because Disney had “Splash.”  They were working on a sequel to “Splash” which they never actually made. So they gonged it. But I gave them the treatment anyway and the other treatments. A couple days later, I got a call from Jeffrey Katzenberg. He went through the different treatments. Then, he said, “Michael and I looked at this ‘Little Mermaid’ thing and we think it’s really good. We want to do it. We want to put it into development,” which I was very excited about because I was really depressed when it got gonged.

One reason I love this movie is the traditional, hand-drawn animation.

JM: Growing up, I was always a fan of this animation. I drew my stuff. In college, I was a cartoonist at The Daily Northwestern. So I draw myself. I was an animator. But basically, I went to Northwestern to major in English, wound up in college for two years. Studied animation there. Came to Disney. My first week at Disney was the week that “Star Wars” came out. But anyway, I got to learn from Eric Larson, who’s one of the “Nine Old Men.” He was sort of the mentor for the younger animators.  Literally, you would take your animation to him and he would take a piece of paper and draw, show you how you could improve the acting and the timing and the phrasing and staging and all that sort of stuff. It was really a craft that was passed on from one to the other. But as a kid, certainly, the Disney animated films seemed more vivid to me than a live action film.

There was something about the caricature element, I think not only are things sort of bigger and broader but you can get to the essence of things. So it really had a very strong appeal. I saw “Sleeping Beauty” when I was like 6 years old at the Mercury Theatre.

Then when I came to Disney I was in the company of these wonderful artists. People like Glen Keane, like Mark Henn, who were brilliant animators who could really bring these things to life. Watching it, it was a magical moment always when you see the first animation come to life, like when I saw the first animation on Ariel or on Sebastian or the Genie when we did Aladdin. It isn’t a drawing anymore. It’s a real character. You started treating them that way. Even the animators get protective with their characters. “My character wouldn’t do that.” “Sebastian wouldn’t do that.” They’re all grounded on recognizable human behavior identified through your reliability.

The medium with which you tell the story has evolved over the years. I love 3D animation. I love hand drawn animation. Certainly, the big compelling emotionally evolving stories, wonderfully done in 3D.  I like Brad Bird and John Lasseter. But I still draw myself since I am fond of this kind of magic trick, where you can take all this expressiveness and power of drawing and add the element of performance and time. I do feel like animated films really combine a lot of different of art forms, film-making and writing and drawing and painting, to a certain extent even sculpting.  It’s a wonderful medium to work with as a craftsman because it’s such so rich and so varied and so expressive.

One of my all-time favorite Disney villains is Ursula the sea-witch. So tell me about developing that character.

UrsulaTheLittleMermaidRC: She was really a fun character to develop. I think John and I had a lot of fun with her. We had met with Howard Ashman fairly early on.  We talked about the songs. Mostly, about where they might go. We talked about the witch’s song.  Howard always saw the witch as Joan Collins, the “Dynasty” villain. When we wrote the script, we actually were thinking Beatrice Arthur a little bit. Then, when we went to casting, we wanted to try to cast Beatrice Arthur. Actually, I don’t think we ever got past her agent. They were insulted that we were thinking of her as a witch. I don’t think that they liked the idea. Pat Carroll then actually auditioned for the role. She did a great job. She really was just right. So that all worked out really well. Also, the other thing about the character is we developed her. She didn’t start out being part squid or part octopus. Before that, we explored her as part manta ray and part fish. Then we saw a pretty simple drawing, putting Ursula on an octopus body with tentacles.  That was like “Yeah, that’s it.” That’s right. We studied octopus footage just to see how they move. There was a very kind of seductive and yet scary aspect. It’s just the sinuous way they move. So it all kind of came together. John and I, we like villains. She was certainly fun to do.

And this movie also has one of my favorite Disney princes.

princeRC: I’m glad to hear you say that. I mean, because princes are tough. They are always tough. The toughest character to animate. That’s why in Snow White, you only see the prince at the very beginning of the movie and at the end of the movie. They’ve always kept the princes to a minimum. Same with Cinderella. Cinderella has a little better prince. But still, they’re hard to draw. They’re hard to animate. The acting is tough. A realistic girl is hard but guys are harder to do. Girls are more fun to draw. Guys are tough to draw. So it’s got to be a really good animator. Only the best animators really can do the prince. But it’s not the most fun character to animate. We really wanted him to be more of a character, more likeable and to get more of him. Even though, it’s a little bit of a kind of a thankless job. Even for the actors and the animators. It’s like it’s a tough job but somebody’s got to do it.

Tell me a little bit about the challenge of underwater scenes and what that’s like for animators.

RC: When we first proposed it, we knew that it was going to be really, really challenging. I mean, for a lot of reasons. But one of the big reasons is two-thirds of the movie takes place underwater. All that requires a lot of arieleffects animation.  We have two kinds of animation in these animated films. We have character animation, the artists who animate the characters. They’re kind of like actors. We always feel they are actors with a pencil. Glen Keane and Mark Henn did Ariel. That’s what they do. Then, we have effects animators. Effects animators do the non-character stuff that moves which is like water, waves, or bubbles. Or fire or smoke or light effects, anything that moves that isn’t the character. This probably had more character animation than any Disney movie project since “Fantasia.” And it really had a lot of effects, even with the character stuff — like whenever Ariel is underwater, her hair has to move all the time.  Hair moving underwater is tricky. We had a lot of meetings about hair.  One of the extras in the video is some of the live action footage that we shot for reference to see the hair floating.

JM: You need people who have to do all the bubbles and all the underwater patterns and all that.  We had a budget and the schedule and everything so we really did have to pick our spots. Like “Here’s where the water is got to be, so it’s got to be the A level in this scene. In this other one, the water is not quite as important. This one is quick scene, we can kind of punch this one a little bit. But this one is got to be really the top of the line.”

The crazy thing is even to get the production level we want on the original film, we want some hand inking. They’ve gotten away from hand inking in fact, certainly. So we sent some of the bubbles in the movie actually to mainland China. They were inked in China.

Why does this story have such enduring appeal?

JM: You see at the heart of it, “The Little Mermaid” is the father-daughter story. It’s an overprotective father. There’s a daughter who is kind of adventurous and rebellious and wanting to see a new world. How do they resolve that? That story is still in place today.

Related Tags:

 

Animation Classic Directors Interview Writers

Interview: Joseph Gordon-Levitt of “Don Jon”

Posted on September 25, 2013 at 8:00 am

Joseph Gordon-Levitt met with a small group of journalists to talk about the film he wrote, directed, and stars in, “Don Jon.”  Gordon-Levitt, who has appeared in edgy independent films (“The Mysterious Skin,” “Brick”), teen romances (“10 Things I Hate About You”), ambitious, big-budget special effects films (“Inception,” “The Dark Knight Rises”), and prestige dramas (“Lincoln”), began acting as a child, first appearing in the popular sit-com “Third Rock From the Sun” when he was 13.  His grandfather was also an actor-turned director whose films included the classics “Cyrano de Bergerac” and “Pillow Talk.”donjon3820132

In “Don Jon” Gordon-Levitt plays Jon, a New Jersey guy who prefers pornography to real relationships, indeed to pretty much everything else.  He starts dating Barbara, played by Scarlett Johansson.  “This is a guy that everything has to be in the right place. He has very rigid expectations of what a man is supposed to look like and the hair is certainly part of that. And he keeps control. So he has got a pretty extreme version of it, and a lot of gel in his hair.  Both the Jon character and the Barbara character are people who are very intent on fitting into the conventional idea of what a masculine man is supposed to be and what a feminine woman is supposed to be. They are both very concerned with their looks and they put a lot of effort into their looks.  They use their looks to get what they want, and are disappointed with life because if you are so busy trying to fit yourself into a mold, you’re going to miss what’s actually beautiful about life, which is what makes people unique, not what makes everybody the same.”

Jon, Barbara, and many of the other characters in the film struggle to find a way to connect.  “Everything in Jon’s life is sort of a one-way street. He is not connecting or engaging with anyone. That goes for the women in his life, that goes for his family, his friends, his church, even his own body.  It’s an item on a checklist. He doesn’t listen; he just takes. At the beginning of the movie, he is finding that dissatisfying because there’s the sequence where he brings a young lady home from the bar and he is comparing her to this checklist that he has got of what he likes to see in a pornography video. Obviously, a real human being is not going to map onto that because there is a fundamental difference between a human being and an image on a screen. So he looks for what can satisfy him. The first thing he tries is the sort of conventional moral high ground: what your parents would want you to do, what his parents would want him to do – which is find the prettiest girl in the room and make her your girlfriend, your quasi-wife. So he does that and he follows all the rules and does what he is supposed to do. But he is still not satisfied because, again, if he is just doing what he is supposed to do, if you are just fitting into the mold, you’re not connecting.  They don’t listen to each other. They are not really paying attention to who each other is. They are sort of projecting onto each other what they think the other is supposed to be. And she is doing it to him just as bad as he is doing it to her.   I want to talk about how people treat each other more like things than like people sometimes and how media can play into that. And I guess this comes from my own personal experience of growing up working as an actor. Actors in our culture do get stigmatized and treated like objects on a shelf sometimes. But I don’t think it’s just actors; I think everybody experiences this. I’m sure you all have. I have, you have. You are talking to someone and you can tell they are not listening. You can tell they have already decided what you are and put you in a box with a label on it. This is what I was trying to make fun of. And I do think that the media contributes to that. That’s where I came to the idea of a relationship between a young man who watches too much pornography and a young woman who watches too many romantic Hollywood movies. They’ve both got these unrealistic expectations that they’ve learned from these kinds of media that they consume and it leads them to objectify people or to not connect. That’s the origin of where it came from.”

He talked about what he learned from the directors he worked with and how he used three different styles in this movie to create different moods. “The year leading up to shooting Don Jon, I worked with Rian Johnson on “Looper” and Chris Nolan on “Dark Knight Rises and Steven Spielberg who made “Lincoln.”  So I had a lot to go on. I was certainly watching carefully. But I’ve always loved watching. I spent my whole life on sets. I started working when I was six. I’ve always paid a lot of attention to what directors have done and what everyone else has done: what they are doing over here in the camera department or how they put together the set or what the script supervisor is up to, all those notes that they take, how is it, what is that.  I really like being a part of that team, being a part of something larger. I really wanted this movie to have a flair to the filmmaking. Especially comedies, it seems, often stay pretty conservative and just leave the comedy to the writing and acting and the rest of the filmmaking is very standardized. I didn’t want to do that. I wanted the filmmaking to reflect what was going on with the character and the evolution of the character. We divided it into three acts, which is the standard story structure in a 90-minute movie.  In the first act, when you meet Jon and his kind of world, the camera was all very kinetic, a lot of camera movement. The cutting was really fast and the music was all made of these big shiny synth sounds. Then, in the second act, once he is getting involved with the sort of traditional romance, the cameras are on dollies a lot. There is a lot of sweet, gentle movement. The cutting is very traditional Hollywood cutting, Frank Capra/Steven Spielberg-style classic Hollywood editing style. And the music is classic Hollywood orchestra.  And then, in the third act, when he is broken down and starts to get more curious and break out of his mold, the camera is almost all handheld, there is a lot less cutting, and the music gets really sparse and it is just played on a few guitars. So that was the idea to have the filmmaking move along with the evolution of the character.”

He especially appreciate the support he got from Christopher Nolan.  “I told Chris that I was going to direct a movie, and he, first of all, was encouraging. And that, just in itself, just him saying, ‘That’s great, I think you would be good at that.’ And taking it seriously really meant a lot. He would start asking me important questions like, ‘What kind of budget are you going to have? How many days are you thinking about, ballpark?  Where are you going to shoot?’ He asked me if I was sure I was going to act and direct at the same time, which is funny. Several journalists on this tour have said, “I heard Chris Nolan told you not to act and direct at the same time.” No, not at all. That’s not what he said. He just asked a question. People love to print negativity. He was really supportive. He even came on the set one day. We shot one day at the Warner Bros backlot and he was mixing sound for “Dark Knight Rises” at the time and he came by. He didn’t have to do that. That meant a lot. It goes to show why a lot of people really love working for him and he really cares about people that work for him. That’s why people do a really good job for him, I think.

“Rian Johnson was also super-encouraging. Rian was the first guy I showed my first draft of the script. Up to that point no one else had seen it. I was just writing this thing alone. I thought it was good. I was having fun writing it; but you never know sometimes. You can lose perspective. So him saying that, ‘I think you have something here. This feels like a movie. You have a complete story. I get it’ was encouraging. He also had important feedback and plenty of notes. But just him giving me the go-ahead was really a big turning point for me.”

These days, most movies are made digitally, but Gordon-Levitt worked with film.  “First of all, it actually is easier to shoot on film at this budget level. It is not a micro-budget movie, but it’s a low-budget movie. This is like half the budget of “500 Days of Summer” and probably like a tenth of the budget of the lowest-budget movie that a studio like Warner Bros would make. So shooting on those professional digital cameras is expensive. You need more tech, you need more crew, you need more time to set up, they are harder, they are more complicated machines, they break more often, etc. So there were actually a lot of practical reasons to shoot on film and the cost of developing the film and buying the film stock is outweighed by the cost of all that other stuff that comes along with like the digital cameras. But also, I still think it looks different. Look, digital cameras have come a long way and they look gorgeous. There are some movies that are shot digitally that I think look amazing like “Life of Pi” last year, one of the prettiest movies that came out. You could tell it wasn’t film. It looked great. But I wanted to shoot this one on film. I wanted it to have that classic look of like ‘this is a movie with a capital M.’ It’s a movie that is about movies and media. So I wanted it to really send all those signals, like this is a movie. Yeah, I always wanted it to be on film.”

The title is a reference to the literary character Don Juan, an elegant, sophisticated man famous for seducing many women.  But Jon lives in suburban New Jersey.  “I don’t think it’s singular to any particular place or culture. He is Don Juan. Don Juan is an old classic literary figure. I did want to make it just a normal guy. I’m from the suburbs of LA and New Jersey is the suburbs of New York. I didn’t want to set it in like a cosmopolitan affluent setting where a lot of romantic comedies are set in Manhattan and London. I wanted it to be like normal, middle-income, suburban America because I think everybody knows people like this. We all are to a degree people like this.”

One challenge Gordon-Levitt took on and handled with exceptional grace was the depiction of the pornography.  He had to find a way to indicate what Jon was experiencing without distracting the audience.  “There are clips that are licensed from real pornography videos but very carefully selected, cut, cropped, and worked into very highly stylized sequences with voiceover and music and lots of cutting. The idea was to try to get inside his head, not to show you from an objective standpoint what it looks like. I think that would really be awkward and kind of dark. I wanted to make an entertaining comedy. It’s really more about getting inside of his head. So you don’t really see it. It’s all really close-up and it’s more about kind of his point of view. And he is an unreliable narrator. He is sort of assessing the situation the best that he can and telling how he sees it; but I think he is wrong at least as much as he is right. That was how I felt like we could approach it in a way that wouldn’t be alienating for people because it be funny and snappy and entertaining, and again, putting you inside the head of this protagonist.”

Another challenge was the portrayal of Jon’s sister, played by the very talented Brie Larson, who appears to be texting throughout the film and never speaks until the end.   “She didn’t talk, but she is listening. She is in those scenes, and a crucial part of those scenes. We talked all about her character. The backstory we came up with was: here’s a girl, a young woman who is three steps ahead of her brother even though she is the younger sister. This evolution that you begin to see Jon start, I feel that’s an evolution that she probably went through when she was like 16 or something. She realized, ‘You know what? My parents expect me to be this, I’m not that and I’m out of here. No one listens anyway, so why should I talk? So that is my feeling about that character…but she is listening, and that’s the thing, and we talked about that. We didn’t want her to just be like, ‘Oh, the ditsy girl is always on her phone.’  I feel like she is talking to colleagues about something they are working on or something like that. That’s an input/output device. That’s not just a one-way street.  We talked about Buster Keaton and how much you can do without saying anything. And I think she does. She kills it. Even before she speaks, she is crucial in those scenes.”

Gordon-Levitt cast his 1994 “Angels in the Outfield” co-star Tony Danza as Jon’s father. “That was a blast. Tony is such a good-natured, sweetheart of a guy which was funny having him play this character because Jon’s dad, Jon senior, has a short temper. He doesn’t listen to anything his family says and he is sort of a lecherous dude. It doesn’t come naturally to Tony because on screen, his instinct is to be likeable because that’s just how he naturally is. So I kept having to tell him like, ‘No man, I like you too much, you have to be willing to be a little less likeable’….But if the dad character was just a demon, it would be off-putting. I think he still has to have that charm and that’s important.”

His HitRecord collaborative production venture has just announced a new partnership with the Pivot channel.  “I have really grand, fanciful ambitions for all sorts of things that aren’t ready to be articulated probably yet. I’m just a very grateful man. I have been doing this for a long time. On the one hand, I never necessarily thought that I would have such fortunate opportunities. But on the other hand, I have got to say that part of doing well at anything, I think, is believing that you can do it. I always had parents that told me I could, told me I was good at what I was doing and supported me with what I was doing. I think you have to have that balance between the humility of not being too full of yourself; but on the other hand, believing in yourself and recognizing. There is a quote that I think is attributed to Nelson Mandela. He said that our light is more frightening than our darkness because if you look at the darkness within yourself, you can make excuses and shirk the responsibility of having to do anything and say, ‘Well, I’m not capable.’ But if you recognize the powerful light that is in yourself, that we all have within ourselves, that’s scary because with that light comes a certain responsibility to live up to it and do something. I love that quote. I think about that a lot. I don’t know, I might be avoiding your question or something. I guess my answer is you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

 

 

Related Tags:

 

Actors Directors Interview Writers
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2024, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik