Wonderstruck, a New Book by Brian Selznick
Posted on June 25, 2011 at 8:00 am
Award-winning author Brian Selznick has a trailer for his new book, Wonderstruck
Many thanks to my friend Paul Zelinsky for bringing this to my attention.
Interview: John Bengtson of Silent Visions, About Harold LLoyd
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 3:59 pm
John Bengston has tracked down the original locations for the three biggest comedy stars of the silent era. His books are a treasure trove for historians and film lovers, reminding us that these early films are not just masterpieces of comedy but also remarkable time capsules of early 20th century America. His Silent Visions: Discovering Early Hollywood and New York Through the Films of Harold Lloyd
In his day, Harold Lloyd was as or more successful than Chaplin or Keaton. Why is he not as widely remembered today?
Harold Lloyd was immensely popular; as popular as Chaplin in many polls, and more prolific. As a result, Lloyd sold more tickets during the Golden Age of Comedy than any other comedian, and retired as one of Hollywood’s wealthiest men. Lloyd owned all of his films outright, and completely controlled their distribution. Lloyd was concerned about how his films would be received in later years, and did not want them shown cut up on television interrupted by beer commercials. So at a time when other silent comedians began enjoying a renaissance, Lloyd’s films were generally unavailable. The ironic consequence of Lloyd’s efforts to preserve his legacy was that it kept his films out of reach from a generation of film fans, breaking the chain of public recognition. For years then Lloyd’s films have not garnered the attention they deserved. Lloyd’s films are now available on DVD, and comedy fans unfamiliar with his work are in for a real treat.
Lloyd famously did his own stunts (usually without any safety equipment) and one early accident severely damaged his right hand. How did he compensate in his stunts and how did he camouflage the injury on screen?
Lloyd performed numerous stunt climbing sequences throughout his career, even though he only had one complete hand. In a freak accident, Lloyd lost nearly half of his right hand posing for a gag publicity photo by pretending to light a cigarette with the sputtering fuse of a fake bomb. Inexplicably the property bomb contained a real charge that discharged moments after Harold lowered it away from his face. Although the accident was news at the time, Lloyd worked hard to preserve the illusion that he was not injured, wearing a tightly fitted glove over a prosthetic thumb and finger when filming. Lloyd also cleverly staged scenes to favor his left hand, filmed mirror reflections of his left hand as his “right,” and used hand doubles for certain closeups. When posing for news photos in public, Lloyd usually adopted a causal stance with his right hand in his pocket.
Can you explain a little bit about your research techniques? What were your resources for tracking down buildings that no longer exist? Do any records exist from the making of the films?
When I began this research 15 years ago, I had little choice but to visit Southern California libraries and photo archives in person. Today I make most of my discoveries sitting at my home computer, hundreds of miles from Los Angeles. With the Internet it is now possible to search vintage photo archives, highly detailed real estate atlases and fire insurance maps, 1920s newspapers and telephone directories, and even historic aerial photos online. Further, with Google Street View and Bing Map’s Bird’s Eye View, one can hop across town to see how these film locations look today, without having to fight traffic.
When attempting to solve a location, I start with obvious things like street signs and the names of business establishments in the background. Sometimes the street will have an unusual curve, or a staggered intersection. The angle of the sun usually tells you the direction of the street, and landmarks such as trolley tracks, parks, and churches provide other clues. My only clue for discovering the church Buster Keaton used in Seven Chances (1925) was noticing that it stood at the southeast corner of a “T” intersection, but armed with a few vintage maps that was sufficient. I am now so familiar with how Los Angeles appeared in the 1920s that I can identify many scenes that contain no outward clues at all.
What did Lloyd look for in selecting locations? Did he use any more than once?
Lloyd’s favorite place to film was at Third and Grand, atop Bunker Hill in Los Angeles, where he filmed scenes for seven different movies, all just one block from the top end of the Angels Flight funicular railway. This charming neighborhood was completely obliterated during the 1960s urban redevelopment movement, and is now populated with glass office towers. The section of Third Street on Bunker Hill was situated above the Third Street Tunnel. Since through traffic could use the tunnel instead, it was convenient to shut down Third Street above the tunnel for filming chases and stunts.
Did many appear in films by other performers as well? You compare Lloyd’s use of the boat in Coney Island to Keaton’s — how did that reflect their different styles and approaches?
Los Angeles and especially Hollywood were still relatively small cities at the time Harold Lloyd began his film career in 1915. Because at the time there were only a limited number of commercial districts, residential neighborhoods, train stations, public parks, and so forth to choose from, it was common for the great silent comedians to cross paths when filming, almost by necessity.
Chaplin and Keaton filmed frequently in the Skid Row and Chinatown parts of town, while Lloyd filmed extensively in the bustling financial and business districts of downtown Los Angeles. This makes sense, as Lloyd played more of a middle-class Everyman character.
Was there one location that was especially tough to track down? How did you finally find it?
I visited New York 25 years ago, but did not travel there to research the book. I was able to confirm dozens of vintage New York City locations appearing in Harold Lloyd’s 1928 feature Speedy by using the Internet to cross-check vintage maps and archival photos with contemporary views on Google Street View. But some street scenes eluded me until I realized they were not filmed in New York at all, but were filmed on Flower Street in downtown Los Angeles instead. Speedy has several sequences where the film jumps back and forth between scenes filmed in the two cities. We’re not supposed to notice this. To me it makes me appreciate the skill of Lloyd and his talented crew even more.
Do you have a favorite Lloyd film or stunt? Who was his best co-star?
It would be difficult for anyone to surpass Harold hanging from the hands of a skyscraper clock in Safety Last! (1923). That sequence was filmed using a special set built on the roof of a tall building. Yet in a continuous shot from an earlier film, Ask Father (1919), Harold actually climbs the first three floors of the former International Bank Building in downtown Los Angeles.
Which buildings in his films still exist for people to visit (or to show up in current films and television) today?
Harold used eight different buildings in the Historic Core of downtown Los Angeles to film his various stunt climbing movies, seven of which are still standing. But the greatest number of surviving building locations, by far, stands along Rampart Boulevard between 3rd Street and 6th Street in Los Angeles, where Lloyd filmed several elaborate stunt/chase sequences appearing in For Heaven’s Sake (1926). The street is lined with two dozen or more apartment blocks all built between 1924-1924, and which are nearly all still standing.
Phyllis Naylor Talks About Alice
Posted on June 11, 2011 at 8:00 am
There’s a great interview in the Washington Post with local author Phyllis Reynolds Naylor about the forthcoming final installment to her popular Alice series of novels, 
I tell them to think about the time when they were most happy, sad or embarrassed and then write a few sentences about those feelings. Then start changing things like the main character, the location or even the ending to make the story fun and exciting. Then you have started with something personal, and it really grew with the help of your imagination!
I’m a big fan of the movie based on her book, “Alice Upside Down,” with Luke Perry, Lucas Grabeel, Alyson Stoner, and Penny Marshall.
Naylor wrote her own piece in the Post a few years ago about Alice and the letters from fans. I liked what she had to say about how important it was to her that her parents read aloud.
My parents, they read aloud to us until we were 14 and 15. It was the late Depression, and we really didn’t have much of anything. But we did have books. They read with great drama. I think Dad read almost all of Mark Twain’s books aloud to us. He imitated all the voices, and I just loved it. And I must have thought, “If it’s so much fun listening to books, it must be even more fun writing books.” And it is.
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.
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.