httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiZ-e0k50yc
Tag: Christopher Nolan
-
Defending Robin
Batman scribe Jeph Loeb (“The Long Halloween, “Dark Victory”) has jumped into the recent Robin debate, defending the character’s potential in Christopher Nolan’s current trilogy.Hunter Stephenson at /film points us to this MTV story, which offers the following from Loeb:
Take the time to tell the story properly…There is a story of Dick Grayson and how he becomes Robin that is extremely moving and very helpful. …[Grayson/Robin] doesn’t understand why it is that he needs to do this and Bruce doesn’t understand why he’s doing it either because he’s not a parent. He doesn’t know how to be a parent…together, they make each other better people…that for me would be the next step.
Stephenson also mentions that the recent Star Pulse item quoting Christian Bale’s dismissal of the character may have been misattributed, indicating that the actor once noted one of his favorite Bat-stories was the very Robin-heavy “Dark Victory.” I never commented on the dismissal, because it frankly didn’t sound like something he would have said.
Anyway, you’ve all heard my side of this debate. I think there is plenty of room to do this story maturely and powerfully, and unless the filmmakers prefer to lock in to what could be a very straight-line, three-film arch, a saga more epic than most could imagine is there for the taking. And Loeb seems to understand that it would need to be something for the long haul, not a quick fix:
I wouldn’t let him become Robin until the third act, if that. I think that’s the other problem when you tell that story is that there’s this rush to put him in a costume by the end of the first 20 minutes and in that case I think it’s a disaster…
Read more of the Loeb interview here.
-
EW ‘Dark Knight’ cover story
Benjamin Svetkey has cranked out a thoughtful, compelling cover story study of Heath Ledger’s performance in “The Dark Knight” for next week’s Entertainment Weekly.The piece, titled “Tragedy and Triumph,” concerns itself with how Ledger’s death has affected expectation and perception in the lead-up to the film’s release in a little more than a week. It’s tightly written, one of the better features out there on the film.
There are money quotes all over the place and plenty of insight from Svetkey’s early set visit woven in here and there.
However, there is a stupid, pointless graph at the top of the fourth page that is ridden with a few spoilers. It’s totally unnecessary and evidence of a journalist strutting, if you ask me. But the rest: top notch.
On the casting of the Joker, here’s what Svetkey cranked out:
With Bale contractually locked in for two more Bat movies, and Nolan on board for at least one more, the only thing needed was an actor to play the bad guy. There certainly wasn’t a shortage of options. Robin Williams, Sean Penn, and even Mark Hamill were rumored to be on Nolan’s short list (at least Hamill had practice, having voiced the Joker in various superhero cartoons). What nobody knew at the time, though, was just how short the director’s list was. ”Heath was the only one on it,” Nolan insists. “I knew he was it from the start.”
And an interesting segment on the makeup of the character:
Ledger also gave plenty of thought to the makeup that would be splattered across his face throughout the film. ”He started applying the makeup himself — just to see what it would look like if he put it on with his own hands,” Nolan says. ”We talked about how streaking the paint could get across the idea of corruption, of decay.”
Check out the rest here. But be wary of that first graph on the last page. You can skip it totally and the article reads just fine.
And finally, here’s a glimpse of Ledger’s work in the film:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4FZdsIDsKE
-
‘Dark Knight’ interviews with cast and crew
Warner Bros. publicity has made the round table interviews from last weekend’s “Dark Knight” junket available. There’s a lot of good, in-depth stuff from Christopher Nolan, Christian Bale, Aaron Eckhart and the rest.
There is, however, a big hole in everything, because you can’t help but wish Heath Ledger was there to discuss his approach to a character that seems to be an award-worthy swan song.
Keep in mind that these are junketers…so sometimes you get a few doosey questions (usually the first person out of the gate). But everyone weathers the storm well enough. Pay attention to the end of the Bale file; he talks briefly about Michael Mann’s upcoming “Public Enemies” and McG’s “Terminator Salvation.”
There is also a slight spoiler around the 11:00 mark of the Aaron Eckhart interview, however, one that you might want to skip. It isn’t specific, but it’s enough information that could be irritating to know before seeing the film. Enjoy.
Christopher Nolan (writer/director):
[audio:Nolan-TDKjunket.mp3]
Download
Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne/Batman):
[audio:Bale-TDKjunket.mp3]
Download
Aaron Eckhart (Harvey Dent/Two-Face):
[audio:Eckhart-TDKjunket.mp3]
DownloadMore after the jump, including Gary Oldman, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Jonathan Nolan!
-
Revamping Superman for 2011?
Two posts at /film and Obssessed with Film have me spinning my wheels this morning, wondering just who in the heck has approached comic scribe Mark Millar to revamp Superman for the screen in three years.The whole story started with a Daily Record interview that quoted Millar as saying he “always wanted to reinvent Superman for the 21st century.” He then went on to reveal that he had his “director and producer set up” and that there was even a target year in mind: 2011.
This, of course, sent the Web geek community into a bit of a tizzy. In response, Millar (creator of “Wanted” and author of “Superman: Red Son”) had this to say:
PS: That Superman news is interesting, isn’t it? In the interests of clarity (because I’m sure this will be picked up somewhere) a very well known American action director heard about my love of Superman, approached my (sic) and asked me to team up with he and his producer to make a pitch for this. We’ve been talking for several weeks now and, if this is going to happen, we’ll know by Christmas. He has huge pull at WB so fingers crossed. But this is nothing more than a huge US name pulling me into his fold and making me part of a package.
The first name that leaps to my mind is Wolfgang Petersen, but he’s obviously German. However, you may recall Petersen was signed on to direct a Superman vs. Batman film for Warner Bros. way back in 2002. That was, of course, way before Christopher Nolan unleashed his reboot of the Batman franchise on the marketplace. Peterson might be construed as having “huge pull at WB” since he releases most of his films through the studio and has managed a few considerable hits there (“The Perfect Storm, “Troy”) despite the occasional clunker (“Poseidon”).
The filmmaker was also quoted as recently as two years ago — during the build-up to Bryan Singer’s “Superman Returns” — expressing an interest in pitting the two superheroes on the screen together. Sure seems like a possibility to me.
Who else could Millar be hinting at? The Wachowski Brothers have sure made a bundle of money for the studio in recent years. “Watchmen” helmer Zack Snyder has also been welcomed with open arms in Burbank after delivering big on “300,” and he seems just the sort of person who’d be interested in reimagining the Superman character for a new franchse.Francis Lawrence? “Constantine” didn’t really find its footing, but “I Am Legend” (thanks to Will Smith, of course) made a killing worldwide.
McG? The “Charlie’s Angels” films made bank at Sony, but he still convinced Warners to hand him the key to a massive franchise in the form of “Terminator Salvation.” He’s also been here before and, according to rumor at the time, had one hell of a mind to revamp the franchise with casting speculation such as Beyoncé Knowles and Johnny Depp floating about.
And surely Tim Burton — a WB staple through the years with “huge pull” indeed — isn’t treading these waters yet again. Or is he? He certainly had a unique vision of the character once upon a time.
Thoughts? As long as it isn’t Brett Ratner, I’m happy.
-
The Robin debate
(I’m going to geek out quite a bit here, so bear with me.)
Erik Davis at Cinematical points us today to what I would consider a rather ill-advised rant from Sturdy of JoBlo against the idea of introducing the character of Dick Grayson (a.k.a. Robin) into the Christopher Nolan Batman franchise.
Now, I would like to be measured here, because this is an argument far too easily given to hyperbole regarding what Robin is and what he means to the Batman mythos, to say nothing of what his existence means in the scope of a relationship with Bruce Wayne.
I think an introduction is possible, if not valuable, to the franchise Nolan has crafted thus far.
If there is one argument from Sturdy on which I side, it is that Robin has never worked on film or television. Burt Ward’s incarnation in the 1960s television show worked for what the series was going for, but not for what the character was, while the Joel Schumacher films depicted a character far too old and leaning much too heavily on the “young, dumb and full of cum” credo that must have been difficult to resist.
I do, however, think the notion that Robin has never worked in comics can only come from a reader never truly engaged in what DC writers have done with the character over the years. Indeed, many story lines failed because it is a dynamic that is difficult to grasp and control (not to mention dense with a three character history), but the proof of Grayson’s worth came with his own evolution into an adult less convinced but more understanding of his role as a vigilante than Bruce Wayne could ever be.
-
Nolan wanted the Joker ex nihilo
Batman-on-Film.com’s Bill Ramey is probably the biggest Batman fan this side of…well, me. He made the trip from Texas to Los Angeles over the weekend to see “The Dark Knight” and participate in the film’s junket, scoring a nicely in-depth interview with director Christopher Nolan.
Here’s the money quote, describing Nolan’s philosophy on whether to include much in the way of an origin story for Heath Ledger’s Joker character:
I felt very strongly that when you take these extraordinary characters — in the movies, I’m talking very much about the movies here. But you take these extraordinary characters and the more you find out about them — where they came from and all — the less interesting they become. And that’s very true to me of say Hannibal Lectre (sic) or Darth Vader. You know when we first saw them onscreen, they were fully formed and an absolute. Unlike Batman — who I wanted very much to explore his origin and where he came from — with heroes it’s just different. But with villains, it’s the opposite. So with The Joker, I wanted present him as an absolute, an agent of chaos and anarchy.
Read the rest here. They do love the Batman-on-Film Web site (11 years running) at Warners and on the Bat crew, I can tell you that.
-
Just do it
Many thanks to reader Mr. Gittes (perhaps as much a Bat-fiend as yours truly), who pointed me to this Wired story detailing director Christopher Nolan’s torrid love affair with all things practical in the world of action cinema.Much has been said and written of Nolan’s preference for saving the CGI drama for your mama and having the cojones to go out and actually do the stunts, prepare the gasp-inducing set-pieces and thereby root the new Batman franchise in the reality it deserves and, in a sense, begs for.
There are so many quotable lines in Scott Brown’s incredibly thorough piece that I find myself anxiously picking and choosing. But I suppose it’s worth it to start with the basic leader:
While today’s action heroes routinely come dressed in shades of the giddy synthetic (à la Spider-Man and Iron Man), movie fans have gorged on digital eye candy — and, perhaps fearing retinal diabetes, now they’re cutting back (Speed Racer, anyone?). Still, gritty naturalism is no small leap for the spandex genre. It’s a mood more identified with art noir and the prestige pic, the kind of cinema built to attract Oscars, not mass audiences…
…Nolan has a cogent Theory of Applied Batmatics: Insist on reality — no effects, no tricks — up to the point where insisting on reality becomes unrealistic. Then, in postproduction, make what is necessarily unreal as real as possible. “Anything you notice as technology reminds you that you’re in a movie theater,” Nolan explains. “Even if you’re trying to portray something fantastical and otherworldly, it’s always about trying to achieve invisible manipulation.” Especially, he adds, with Batman, “the most real of all the superheroes, who has no superpowers.”
Then perhaps segue into the most refreshing news yet (news to me, anyway), regarding ADR on the film:
Nolan would rather fix it while everyone’s still on the set. He hates to loop. “I just think separating the voice from the face and the body is very tricky,” he explains. It is, after all, blatantly unreal.
So did the director get everything he needed from Ledger before his death? He says yes: Ledger nailed it in principal photography. Thomas adds, “Everything you see onscreen is his performance.” (In other words, there’ll be no clunky digital resurrection, aural or visual, no morbid echoes of Oliver Reed’s posthumous performance in Gladiator.) Besides, Nolan doesn’t believe in bringing an actor back six months later and expecting him to re-create the nuances of a character, any more than he believes a computer can re-create the quality of human camera work on its own.
But I can’t resist offering up the line Mr. Gittes chose, the line that’ll force the hairs on any fanboy’s neck to stand at attention:
He was moving on. But there was one small problem with leaving Batman behind: He knew how he wanted it all to end. He had something Godfather-ish in mind, a saga of dark doubles and transfiguration — big, dense, and novelistic.
It’s quite an absorbing piece, with more than its fair share of tech-talk, from the realities of shooting with giant IMAX cameras to descriptions of filming Christian Bale actually standing on top of the Sears Tower.
Check it out. You know you want to.
-
Will there be any other format worth watching this thing in?
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6bCIMccbwQ
-
REVIEW: “The Incredible Hulk” (***1/2)
When Ang Lee set out to direct the first feature film adaptation of Marvel’s Incredible Hulk property five years ago, some things were…different.Lee was coming off of the major awards success of “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” which led audiences – many of them skeptics – to ponder what he might be able to accomplish with the psychology of another action-oriented effort.
However, Marvel had its hands tied. Unlike Detective Comics properties, which fall under Time Warner ownership and therefore receive continual distribution out of Warner Bros. Pictures, Marvel was still at the whims of studio discretion, its properties scattered to the winds despite having the consistency of an Ari Arad behind the scenes.
Nothing could be said less of Lee as a filmmaker when the finished, disastrous product was unveiled. He took a gamble and hit craps…hard. And he bought back in two years later, bouncing back with a Best Director Oscar to show for it. But Marvel was left with a serious consideration that had likely lingered for many years: how to get a developmental handle on a catalogue of material that was bursting at the seams with cinematic potential.
The difference now is Marvel Studios, which saw its first production “Iron Man” held on high by critics and audiences alike just one month ago. It was a home run for an unexplored property on the big screen, but could it be duplicated? And via a franchise that wasn’t nearly far enough removed from it’s immediate past to be considered stale by any means?
Apparently so. Because Louis Leterrier’s “The Incredible Hulk” is not only likely to be the biggest, most exhausting (in all the good ways) film-going experience you’ll have this year, but it also holds the second turtle dove of a young studio’s seizure of what promises to be one of the greatest cinematic roll outs the genre has, or perhaps will ever see.
-
Could two potentially great film scores get the AMPAS shaft this year?
It’s a debate that never gets old regarding the music branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. When is it going to clean house regarding shady rules that seem to fly in the face of what the organization sets out to do each and every year: honor the best in cinematic achievement?The foreign film committee had a major shakeup last year, and promises of attention were made, but it’s high time the same happened with the musicians. One of the rules seems poised to become a serious talking point later this season, however.
Within Rule 16B of the Academy’s eligibility guidelines — launched into infamy last year when the caca hit the fan regarding Jonny Greenwood’s “There Will Be Blood” score — you’ll find the key language:
Only the principal composer(s) or songwriter(s) responsible for the conception and execution of the work as a whole shall be eligible for an award. This expressly excludes from eligibility…scores assembled from the music of more than one composer.
Specifically, it’s Rule 16B-5f. And it will likely affect two promising works of film music composition this year.
-
Uh…is it a cleansing by fire for Dent rather than acid?
A second look at “Iron Man” with the masses (indeed, the MASSES) last night afforded a look at the new trailer for “The Dark Knight” on the big screen, rather than dealing with that clumsy cell phone video that’s out there.Two things hit me when I was watching this:
1) Wally Pfister is all but guaranteed a second nomination for his work on the series. The opening hero shot, dizzyingly high above and looking down a Chicago skyscraper, has to be the coolest shot in the genre.
2) I think the brothers Nolan may have taken some liberties with the Two-Face origin.
The information has always been scattered out there that, in David Goyer and Christopher Nolan’s vision of a trilogy, the Joker would be the one responsible for the mangling of Harvey Dent’s face and, therefore, the impetus for the creation of Two-Face. (Aaron Eckhart plays Dent in the film. He was profiled in the LA Times this weekend).
I don’t know if this has panned out, but if it has, I am still not 100% comfortable with it. In the comics, of course, Dent is scarred when a mob boss tosses a vial of acid his way, most interestingly laid out by writer Jeph Loeb and artist Tim Sale in “The Long Halloween.” In that story, the boss is Sal Maroni (portrayed by Eric Roberts in “The Dark Knight,” by the way).
No, I’m not beholden to comic-to-screen loyalty every step of the way. “Batman Begins” was, after all, a brilliant mish-mash of a couple of comic sources, and we already know that Nolan and company are taking the mash-up approach to “The Dark Knight,” using a little of Batman #1, a little of “The Long Halloween,” this and that, this and that. Fair enough. But I’ve never been fully comfortable with one of the rogues gallery providing the genesis for another.
Watching the new trailer again last night, I noticed a brief shot of what looked to be Harvey held down, the left side of his face pressed against a floor covered in gasoline. It was quick, but I think I know what I saw.
-
A 3-hour ‘Dark Knight’
I, like virtually everyone else in the world, can’t wait to see Chris Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” this summer. In addition to being the following up to “Batman Begins,” everything about it so far looks riveting, Nolan has continued to prove himself and I fully expect Aaron Eckhart and Heath Ledger to hit their roles out of the park.
But Dark Horizons is today reporting that the film is going to come in and around the three hour mark. While I have the utmost faith in Nolan to entertain and make an all around great movie, this running time nevertheless gives me some concern. I like my superhero movies at the 110-120 minute mark.
Again, I’m not worried – I’m just hoping this is not a misstep.