The film features Elizabeth Olsen as Martha (or is it Marcy May?), a young woman who is taken in by her sister Lucy (Sarah Paulson) and her husband (Hugh Dancy) after calling them desperately from a pay phone two years after breaking contact with them. That is all we really know. Apart from the set-up, it is unclear how much of the film is true and how much is imagined by the protagonist. If taken at face value, Martha had become a part of the Meyer “family”, a mysterious cult lead by Patrick (John Hawkes). After living with them on a remote farm in the Catskills for over a year, she becomes disillusioned and flees. The story is told through flashbacks (or are they dreams?) as Martha struggled to re-assimilate into ordinary life.

The film is unique in how very unspecific it is. The story unfolds without commentary. We see her become a part of the cult. We see life in the cult. These scenes are interspersed between the present in which we see her psychological distress. The interplay of these sequences are magnificent and do not draw attention to themselves. Sometimes we are left guessing as to where we are until we see a character we recognize. The impressive sound design plays a huge part in tying these disparate images together into thematically-linked material.

The film is limited to Martha’s limited memory and mind. There is no moral stance taken on cults or how they operate. We see one from the inside but this look is in no way exhaustive. Rather than hear about how cults are bad, we see the effect they can have on a person. However, at the same time we do not know for sure whether Martha was ever in a cult or if she is just psychologically unstable. The movie plays with how much it can tell its audience, and what it finds is that less is truly more.

Given such little information, we constantly stretch our minds in trying to fit the pieces together. The film’s narrative makes sense, and so it is tempting to take it at face value. The film works in this way but is far more interesting when taking perception into account.

The film’s protagonist Martha is distressed and every aspect of the production contributes to this general sense of unease that pervades the film. The visuals are shaky and hard to pin down; the setting is oddly lonely and scary; the performances are subtle and moving; the sound design is effective and somewhat noticeable. This feeling of unease and uncertainty is the core of the film.

All of this makes the movie a very subjective undertaking. The film is told from the perspective of its main character and we are not given more information than she has. She struggles in discerning what is reality and what is imagined and in turn so do we. This subjectivity and openness with its main character makes the film unique. Every audience has heard this story before, but certainly not in such a personal way.

It is clear from the beginning that Martha is distressed, however we never are given a scientific reason as to why. Instead, we walk in her shoes. By the end of the film, while we still cannot offer a definitive answer, we are as psychologically unstable as she is. One night, Martha is lying in bed having trouble sleeping when she hears a noise and looks outside. We frantically scan the dark surroundings and find nothing. During a long take we expect to be scared by something jumping out at us. The writer refuses to fall into this cliché temptation. Instead we are left hanging, more terrified.

The final shot is extremely ambitious and serves as a barometer to show you how well the film works. When the film cut to credits I was extremely disappointed. However, any other ending for this film would have diluted its effect. The final shot poses a question that we are not given the answer to. In doing so, the filmmakers have illustrated how well they have recreated Martha’s paranoid point-of-view in the viewer’s mind. This relies not only on conventions of thriller storytelling but also on the entire film which leads up to this sequence. I will not go on more about that final scene for fear of ruining it for you, but look closely and it will tell you a lot about what the film did for you.

Martha Marcy May Marlene tells an engaging story that blends reality and fantasy but more impressively creates not only a mood but also an entire point-of-view. At the end of the film, the audience realizes that, like Martha, we cannot tell the difference between reality and fiction anymore.

As the plot goes, Stephen Myers (Ryan Gosling) is an up-and-coming political strategist. Along with Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), he is leading Mike Morris’ (George Clooney) campaign for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. They hit road blocks involving a Times reporter (Marisa Tomei), their political competition (Paul Giamatti), an undecided influential senator (Jeffrey Wright), and Stephen’s love interest (Evan Rachel Wood). The first half of the film is an uninteresting catalog of the tough problems facing a campaign. All of this is rather mundane, but handled well. We learn who the major players are and get a feel for their characters relatively quickly. This serves as a decently entertaining political drama but nothing that stands out. Around the midpoint of the film, the story kicks in. This is when interesting things begin to happen as alliances shift, friends betray friends, and the story swerves into many unpredictable directions. This second half is gripping, and much more enjoyable than its build-up. By this point, we know who all the characters are and generally can feel for all of them. The audience is invested in the story and their fates, which, in a rare example in contemporary American cinema, is actually hard to see coming.

Taken as a whole, The Ides of March is a gripping political drama grounded in reality but also far enough removed to be enjoyable. Clooney plays the ideal Democratic candidate, and his character has little depth for a good reason. He is a stand-in for any number of successful candidates. Of course, Clooney has the presence needed to portray America’s ideal president. Throughout the course of the film, he is seen speaking at events and this is, of course, an opportunity for Clooney to espouse his liberal principles. This fills in his character and doesn’t feel hokey, but that’s coming from someone who would vote for this candidate. I’m sure the right will feel differently. The real thrust of the film isn’t for one side of the aisle or the other. The movie has a realistic, if somewhat depressing, view on the political system. You can feel that Clooney, like most of us, is fed up with the petty game politics (I would say ‘has become’ but ‘has always been’ is probably more accurate). The movie focuses less on the candidate and his views and more on the corruption of a young idealist (Gosling). This doesn’t play out as cliché as it sounds, thankfully. The complex web that is formed by the characters’ conflicting interests is deftly, and accurately from what I can tell, portrayed in the film. It is when these stock characters begin to break the molds they come in that the plot picks up and provides for a gripping second half.

The moral dilemma presented by the film is ultimately left unanswered. Sure, we see what the protagonist (antihero, perhaps?) chooses in the long run, but we aren’t made to judge one way or the other. The question is: do you do the right thing and lose or play dirty and win? This seems like a simply question for the high-horse moralists among us, but if it is for the greater good, isn’t it better to have the better candidate win? Do the ends justify the means? These are dangerous questions to ask ourselves, and society has clearly chosen a winner.

Overall, The Ides of March is a mainstream political drama that is well-written, expertly directed, and gorgeously shot. The film breaks out of its somewhat mundane introduction and turns out to be a gripping drama. Clooney continues to show his skill not only with his presence but more interestingly his direction, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti do what they do best, and Ryan Gosling continues to grow as a leading man. Definitely worth a look, and prime Oscar material for the Academy to fall back on.

Moneyball, based on the book by Michael Lewis, focuses on Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) as he leads the Oakland A’s during the 2002 season. The movie follows Beane personally as he leads the team and utilizes statistical analysis of the game introduced by Peter Brand (Jonah Hill, portraying the real-life Paul DePodesta) and based on the work of Bill James.

It is always tricky dealing with films based on true stories. One major pitfall one can run into is becoming too feel-good and cliché (like another movie based on a Michael Lewis book). Another is dealing with the fact that many viewers will know what happens throughout the course of the story. Moneyball manages to deftly avoid both of these major issues by focusing on making an engaging drama. The characters are complex, the dialogue is smart, and the film has a good visual style to carry it through the story.

Moneyball is a very well-crafted film. The script is very tight and provides great characters with intelligent dialogue. You can definitely see the contribution Aaron Sorkin made to the film in its similarities to his most recent writing project, The Social Network. There are serious themes of family, loyalty, and legacy as well as very comedic bits. The screenplay is very focused on the characters and the drama in the front office rather than on the field. There is very little gameplay actually featured in the film compared to other sports films. This is essential to the film working so well – it has its priorities set. Moneyball is an engaging film not because of the thrilling action on the baseball diamond (although there are such sequences, and they are fantastic) but because it of its rich characters and the situations we see them go through.

The film has the story to make for an engaging drama, and the performances carry it to another level. Brad Pitt continues to show himself as one of the best actors working today. He fulfills the role of the traditional Hollywood leading man. Like few others, he is a movie star that has the acting chops to back it up. His role in this film could have easily been a flat, uninteresting character but thanks to both the screenplay and Pitt’s performance, he is a complex character who we can relate to and root for. But Brad Pitt giving a great performance is no surprise. On the other hand, Jonah Hill shows his versatility for the first time, playing a shy young statistics guru. His character’s relationship with Brad Pitt forms one of the most important parts of the story. Philip Seymour Hoffman once again gives an incredible performance and shows how he cannot be typecast. All-in-all, baseball fans will adore the film no matter what, but the story is engaging for even the casual viewer.

On top of all of this, director Bennett Miller, in his second feature-length narrative, shows an eye for precise composition and color interaction. The visuals in the film are not anything incredibly revolutionary, but the film looks pristine and carries the right atmosphere to serve the story. Another impressive aspect of this film is its scope. It introduces the audience to a complex web of statistics used to analyze baseball, tells the story of the Oakland A’s 2002 season, follows Billy Beane from his early career to his work as A’s GM, and begs the question as to whether the game is better or worse in the modern world. There are a few jumps that seem arbitrary but overall the film keeps its focus and seems to do all of these equally well.

Moneyball was an extremely difficult book to turn into film, but the writing team as well as the director have managed to craft an engaging sports drama devoid of clichés. The drama is rich, the characters and performances complex, and overall Moneyball is the first great baseball movie in a long, long time.

The plot of Drive is a simple heist-gone-bad story. Ryan Gosling’s unnamed main character, a stunt car driver and mechanic by day, a getaway driver by night. Driven by love, he gets in too deep and finds himself hunted by the mob. However, the film is more concerned with mood than story. Scenes of seedy hotel rooms, Los Angeles at night, driving around the city, a pizza shop, a car repair lot, and cheap apartments all exhibit an atmosphere that is unmistakable. It is this feeling, this mood, that holds the film together and provides the epic backdrop against which the principal players can develop as well as become a part of.

Style is everything in this film. Heavily influenced by film noir, Drive is very dark. Soft, bright lights cast shadows everywhere, and The Driver lives in these shadows. The cinematography is beautiful and shot composition pitch-perfect throughout. The color palette utilized by the director of photography is monochromatic, simple, and elegant. The colors also shift about two thirds of the way through the film to signify a significant change in our main character’s point of view. In addition to the wonderful visuals, the sound is equally as impressive. The film features very little dialogue and close to no external sounds. Sound effects and the soundtrack dominate throughout. The electronic soundtrack contributes to the dreamy atmosphere of the film and give it a modern vibe.

We experience the film completely through the eyes of The Driver. There is very little character development in the traditional sense in this cerebral film. When you think about it, the main character is the one we know the least about. He is disconnected from the world around him. Nothing moves him. Even the distinction between being a Hollywood stunt driver and a getaway driver for criminals is non-existent in his mind. He simply drives. As a stoic, silent time, The Driver hardly speaks making Ryan Gosling’s incredible performance rest solely on his body language, his expressions, and, most of all, his deep eyes.

Drive is a deeply psychological film. Its central focus is the journey of its main character. Throughout the course of the film, The Driver changes to respond to his circumstances and, in turn, becomes a more rounded individual. The movie shares similar ideas with Scorsese’s Taxi Driver although the ultimate results of each character’s journey is very different. The entire film, in fact, is heavily influenced by a variety of different films. Visually, Drive is a rare brilliant example of neo-noir. The chase sequences and main character are clearly influenced by Bullitt. While the visuals seem to belong in a bygone era, the soundtrack is decidedly modern. This marriage of film noir looks and electronic sounds provides for an interesting and fresh new feel.

Promoted as an action film, audiences will be very surprised by this film. In a way, the movie is a typical car chase heist film, but only on the surface. The pacing is slow and deliberate without losing the excitement of its action pieces. However, the film is focused on its ideas and their presentation, not necessarily the entertainment of a mass crowd. Still, the movie is an exciting one that still makes you think. Many people will be puzzled, and hopefully intrigued, but what they see on screen. To have a film so deeply rooted in European art house fare to go into wide release domestically is astounding.

It is this marriage of the art house and multiplex is what makes this film so interesting. Drive is a thoughtful, atmospheric meditation on one enigmatic character which also provides action for a mass audience. This isn’t to say that the Nicolas Winding Refn compromises his artistic vision at all.

Drive is a fascinating character study of The Driver, a character which undermines the classic example of heroic stoicism. The Driver isn’t romanticized, but shown to be an almost pitiful figure. Detached from the world, he is unable to make lasting relationships. The film’s themes and images stay with you after you leave the theater, proving its effectiveness not only as an entertaining film that is fun to watch but also as a thoughtful meditation of the nature of heroism and connection.

The film begins as one woman (Gwyneth Paltrow) becomes sick while on a business trip in Hong Kong, comes home to her family in Minneapolis, and very shortly thereafter, dies. Her husband’s (Matt Damon) grief is intense and would have provided ample material for an emotional human drama. However, that is not what this film is about. The film turns its focus quickly to Dr. Ellis Cheever (Laurence Fishburne), head of the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta. His team of scientists (which includes Jennifer Ehle, Demetri Martin, Kate Winslet, Demetri Martin, and others) are in hot pursuit of this deadly virus. They collaborate with various other organizations including the World Health Organization and one of its experts (Marion Cotillard) who is researching the origin of the disease in Hong Kong. Meanwhile, an alternative journalist (Jude Law) is fighting the establishment and their ideas about the cure for the disease. Various other characters also have their own parts to play in this truly ensemble film. It is with great deftness that Soderbergh manages to tell a coherent story through these disparate narratives which rarely interact with each other directly.

The film is told from many different perspectives – from the cold, austere administrators to the firebrand reporter to the innocent mother to the distraught family man to the frustrated teen girl to the hotshot young doctor (the list goes on and on) – and, in a way, is told from every perspective at once. In this way, the camera becomes a sort-of higher being observing humanity in this crisis. The solidity of the camerawork and the precise composition of every shot give a distant quality to the film, as does the detached electronic score. The film itself is indifferent to its action.

This film does not fall into the trap of being cliche. The film is not about how society crumbles during disaster (although it does disintegrate). It is also not about the greed and corruption of pharmaceutical companies (although they are greedy and corrupt). It is not about the heroic doctor who finds the cure (which may or may not happen in the course of the film). All of these things are shown equally. This god-like point-of-view could have completely ruined an emotional drama but that is not what this film is trying to be. Contagion sets out to the tell the story of the outbreak of an extremely deadly virus from all angles, and succeeds in that aim. Simply put, this film is the most realistic you will see about such an event.

This angle gives the film the feel of a documentary. It is as if Soderbergh has made a documentary of an event that has not happened yet. There’s good, there’s bad, and there’s in-between. The film is flat in a good way. There is so much information to parse, and not much to go off of in order to come to any concrete conclusions.

The technical aspects of the film all work for the story. Each storyline has its own feel, which is largely due to the brilliant cinematography. The direction is great as Soderbergh manages to extract exquisite performances all around. The plot is extremely tight, as is the editing. Contagion is extremely economical at 106 minutes for such a sweeping story.

Contagion is a thriller, drama, political call-to-action, mystery, and science-fiction film not rolled into one, but intercut with each other. Each storyline could serve as its own simple movie, but instead bounce off of one another to synthesize a whole. A whole which is deep, interesting, scary, and utterly entertaining.

7 out of 10

Shall we begin?!

Kaylee (Pretentious Film Majors; WKDU Philadelphia 91.7 FM): Yeah. Well, my first question isn’t a big, opening fanfare question, but were you influenced by any other sci-fi films when it came to writing and directing Another Earth?

Yes, a lot of sci-fi films. I’m a big fan of the thinking man’s sci-fi but I guess even more specifically there are these metaphysical films by a director Krzysztof Kieślowski. He made this movie The Double Life of Veronique which had a pretty profound effect on me. It’s this story about a girl who has a Doppelgänger and a duplicate soul. I think there’s this primal yearning that we have to not be alone in the world and yet we do see the world through a singular prospective, through our own eyeballs. It’s a fantasy to have a connected soul and we wanted to take that idea and extrapolate it so that everyone in the world could experience that – all 6.3 billion of us are duplicated so you could sit down with yourself and confront yourself.

Joe (Drexel Student Newspaper): It wasn’t what I expected and the way you handled the story – a lot of handheld camera and the colors were really bleak and dark. I was just wondering what your thoughts were behind a lot of those type shots.

Yeah, I wanted to approach it, in a sense, verité, and employ the syntax of realism which is a little documentary style, shaky Dogme 95 kind-of camerawork and combine that with the aesthetic choices and the tone, which really derives from Rhoda’s POV. In the first 10 minutes of the film the music is very pulsating and it is the only time you see red in the film – her red dress. (there’s the red robot and the red sweater later) But there’s all this youth and vitality which exists in the beginning and then there’s this car crash which is from a birds’ eye, which is almost the perspective of the other earth so it’d be the reverse shot of the tiny blue dot in the sky. Then for the rest of the film the shots are wider and we sense the loneliness of her character. It’s bleaker colors – blues and grays – and as the two characters begin to blossom it starts to warm up, towards the end. So like the tonal choices are two-fold: one for realism and one for the POV of Rhoda.

Billy Soistmann (Cinedork.com): You wrote, directed, shot, and edited the film so could you talk about what it was like to be so involved and also, given a larger budget, would you continue to do all of them or what would you like?

I mean, yeah, I did all those things out of necessity for a project this small. It was very guerrilla and no-budget when we started. For me it feels like a continuous artistic brushstroke and even on bigger movies when all those things operate smoothly they’re all in sync. I’m very hands-on and I like to get all up in there. I like to touch the camera and I like all the different aspects of it the pacing and the rhythm that’s created through editing, the seeking out the authenticity and dialing forward or backward the performance based on where we are in the story and then the shooting which is just the ability to capture spontaneity if you need to to compose things in a way. I have like a perspective OCD almost, I need things to fall under a certain composition. Anyways, I like getting my hands dirty and getting up in there and probably on every project from now until forever I’ll at least be up in there and probably work with great collaborators.

Irv Slifkin (MovieFanFare and TCM): Just quickly to pick up on that what was the shooting schedule and what kind of cameras did you use?

Basically we started with myself and Brit. We wrote the script and then me, her, her sister, and a friend of ours who had a Sony EX-3 shot for about 8 days at my mom’s house which was Rhoda’s house. And we came up with the aesthetic tone, we shot a bunch of scenes from the film and basically my approach was, you know, most people think about it like dominoes. In a production you’ll set up all the dominoes: the script, the producers, the money, the cast, all the things in line, and then you push the dominoes and watch them go and you get out a final film at the end. For me, we had like two or three dominoes and I was just like ‘Push the first one.’ and hope that we could run fast enough to insert the rest of the dominoes by the time we get there. We shot half the movie without William Mapother, the male lead in the film, even cast. We shot a chunk of 8 days then producers got involved and gave us a micro-budget, enough money to keep going. We had a casting director and a family so we shot those things out in the middle of the summer. So we shot over the course of a year in chunks 10 days here, 15 days here, 15 days there – probably about 50 days in total.

Irv Slifkin: But over a period of a year, you said.

Over the period of a year, yeah. So you see all the seasons in the film too.

Kaylee: What was it like directing Brit after having closely collaborated on the story and all the film in general?

She is so gifted and before we were on set we just had writer’s hats on. We’d throw around ideas and we’d work out the rubix cube, the story, and how to intertwine and weave together this like macro/science/spectacle backdrop with this micro/tender-but-complex human drama. We would work out all the details of that and that was an exhilarating process but then when we started production it was like, ok, the writer’s hats come off then I’m the director and she’s an actor. What was great about her was that she did 6 months of homework on the character so she knew Rhoda so deeply and so profoundly and it’s interesting, if you were to ask her what Rhoda did on her 7th birthday, even though it’s not in the film, she will know precisely – that’s how deeply she goes into building the histories of the character. She brought so much to the table and it was just a pleasure. So much of the film, there’s about 20 minutes and there’s no dialogue – it just reads on her face and she carries every little beat in the scene and you so precisely get it from just a look or a glance.

Joe: Getting back to you guys, when you guys set out to write it did you have the idea first of the sci-fi with another mirror earth or…

…or the drama? We started with the bigger concept. We started with the idea of what it would be like to meet yourself. I did a video art piece where I sat down and had a conversation with myself, I used this split screen thing. Then we came up with the idea of the duplicate earth so that everyone would have that experience. We thought how weird would that be if everyone on the planet could meet themselves – it would be so strange. And then after we had devised that larger concept it was like “Who needs to meet themselves the most? What story should we tell?” Because we could tell the narcissist making out with himself or like a love story with a person who is the same person or people who are fighting or – all of these different stories can evolve out of 6.3 billion stories, really. So we said what about someone who needs to forgive themselves – someone who’s done something really bad and is seeking redemption but can only find it within. It was the larger idea and then the smaller one.

Billy Soistmann: With the special effects, because you had this larger story with the other earth but you wanted to keep it down to earth one, I guess…

Down to earth one, exactly.

Billy Soistmann: How did you achieve those effect and how did you make it subtle enough where it wasn’t attention-grabbing but then also actually having impact?

Right, well I wanted it to feel sort-of like the moon in some ways. I was inspired by the moon landing. If Hollywood had approached this film it would be a 100 million dollar film with rockets blasting and Neil Armstrong and all right up in there but the everyman the everywoman really experienced that by watching it on television. There are stories of people who’d watch the landing and they would walk out on their front porches at night and just stare up at the moon and even though they couldn’t see the craft or anything like that they felt connected to this experience. So we took a cue right out of that and wanted to tell the story of the everyman and the everywoman – two people who know they have to keep going about their lives but with this as the backdrop, to let them reflect on the meaning of their lives. So I based it off the moon and wanted it to be this spectacle in the sky that was very far away but allowed us to, through this exterior world, imagine her interior world. And I like it handheld because it makes it feel even more real. Like you might leave the theater and [looks in the sky] like “Woah is it up there?!”

Irv Slifkin: I didn’t stay for the Q&A because I was afraid the Parking Authority would do something nasty to me because they’re animals in this city but anyway they even have thier own reality show that’s how popular they are. There were two questions I heard asked both from the person I was with and other people around me about the film. One involved, and I can’t remember his name, the janitor who blinded himself and why did he do that. That was the first thing. And the other thing was there was much debate about the last scene in the movie where she sees the image of herself. I’ve been wondering if you’ve been getting feedback about those two things and, in fact, if the ending is open for interpretation or do you have a definitive answer?

Interesting question. First with Kumar’s character Purdeep. He’s sort of a mirror to Rhoda. Instead of going too deeply into what he did we just wanted to suggest that he had some sort of similar tragedy that happened in his life that burdened him with guilt and so they connected as two souls that were dealing with that and understood each other’s language. The bleaching of the eyes and of the ears was a literal eradication of the senses. As we started to learn more and more, as the movie progressed, that there was another version of us he couldn’t deal with that. The last thing in the world he wants to do is confront himself so he eliminates the senses that will even allow that to be possible.

Irv Slifkin: What does she write on his hand? because the camera angle switches and I though “you bastard”

Yeah it switches. Actually someone always asks that question and I throw it back to the audience and someone always knows the answer. It’s a fun sort-of give-and-take but if you watch carefully you can see it says “Forgive.”

Irv Slifkin: I thought it was Forget.

Yeah, I did that on purpose. I cut it right after the G and with the other angle if you watch carefully you can see it say “Forgive.”  As for the ending, there is a definitive idea that we’ve come up with as writers. I don’t like to say what it is because it has kind-of wild interpretations and I don’t want to steal that experience away from an audience by saying definitively what it is but it is in the texts of the film enough to understand what that final moment is.

Irv Slifkin: But people do respond that way with different interpretations..

With different interpretations which is really exciting because I like that idea and I feel like it’s one of those things I don’t want to spoil. I want it to be private before people come in but our idea and some people definitely know about it The notion is, If you notice in that final moment as she turns we never cut to a reaction shot of her – we just stay on that moment. I know that if I held it one second longer it would’ve lost something and if I held it one second shorter it would’ve lost something. It was the precise time I felt and this is just where you start breathing the flow or the feeling of the film and I think that that moment is really special and more going through here [heart] than going through here [brain] and so the interpretations are fun and varied but if it goes through here [heart] and I hope that happens. Like a certain sort of breathless feeling.

Irv Slifkin: It worked, I think.

Oh thanks, thanks guys.

Kaylee: Did you ever worry about the audience’s suspension of disbelief? Last night at the Q&A you had a bunch of scientists, physicists, and astrophysicists in the audience. Did you ever sort of hold your breath like, “I hop you buy into this.” I think the film demonstrates it very well and it seems very plausible in the film but did you ever worry while you were writing like “No one’s ever gonna buy this.”?

For sure. I mean it’s one of those things that is difficult because you’re ultimately using science as metaphor. You do want it to work in some ways but if you ask an astrophysicist straight-up “Would it work like this?” the answer is no. However, we tried to create rules that we followed. Ideally, I can only hope that the audience recognizes that it’s only for metaphor and let it wash over you in a way. There’s also a few scenes in the script that dealt with the gravitational fluctuations that happened because of the proximity of the two earths and I actually shot one of those scenes but it came it out so hokey that it just didn’t work. I was like I’d rather eliminate this and trust the audience. But it is a tricky balance because you want to you don’t want the authenticity to be lost. You hope the audience almost sees it as a parable and can forgive the little strange details such as the tides not moving right where they should.

Kaylee: So it’s on purpose that as the film progresses it moves closer?

Absolutely, absolutely. If I were to draw it out – everyone who worked on the film had this explanation of how it works: We’re in an ellipse around the sun and we’re here and the other earth is here and the other earth is exactly on the other side of the sun and there’s an alignment of the planets which is going to occur that is going to pull earth 2 out from behind the sun and shifts it’s orbit so its ellipse is like this and our ellipse is like this so we’re kinda like two ellipses and what happens they get closer and there are four points during the year where we’re close enough to travel but there’s no risk of collision. And there’s a little snippet of that in a radio broadcast but it’s very in the background. That’s sort of the idea

Joe: Were you into astronomy or physics before the film or did you have to get into it for your idea?

No, I already was a lay person who was interested. I loved Carl Sagan, I love Isaac Asimov, there’s this Dr. Richard Berendzen who’s this astrophysicist who has this book called Human Kind and the Cosmos. I forget the exact title. Pulp Physics is the American title but the British title is a bit cooler. Anyway, he narrates this book about the cosmos with his own voice and I listened to the audiobook. I would like blast it in my car before doing this film. And I was thinking about space and the cosmos and how it’s weird because scientists and artists are sort-of doing the same thing but with a different technique. Scientists are using mathematics and numbers trying to answer the question, “Why are we here?” and artists, through emotion and juxtaposition and combination of imagery and all this are trying to answer this same question of “Why are we here? What does this all mean?” It’s just interesting how like they’re different yet very similar.

Billy Soistmann: Going back to talking about Purdeep’s character. We see the instance where he makes himself deaf with the bleach but hadn’t he made himself blind earlier? What was the significance of that and was it in relation to the other earth?

I think it was more in relation to his own reflectoin and we try and show that in the film – we try and show that in a subtle way with Rhoda. There’s this scene it’s kinda based on. I take my references from all kinds of different places. It’s kinda like Ratatouille meets The Double Life of Veronique. You know the scene like where the rat wants to go into the kitchen and he gets inside and he’s like, “Oh shit, what am I doing here?!” and then he wants to get out and he’s scrambling around to get out and then he gets to the window to get out and he smells the thing and wants to come back in. It’s like a total story structural reversal – really tight storytelling. We do a similar moment with Rhoda where she comes to apologize and then she tells him that she’s there to clean the house and he invites her in but once she’s inside she’s like, “Oh wait a second. I don’t think it’s safe in here. I should get out, I don’t want to be in here.” and she tries to surreptitiously make her way out just like Ratatouille and she finally gets to the side door and in this moment (this is where The Double Life of Veronique part comes in) she gets to the door and she catches her image in the reflection in the glass door and it becomes almost like this choice. She can I can either face this woman by herself out there or she can turn around and try and make this man’s life better. And in that moment all by herself – this is all very subtle filmmaking stuff – she turns and then reenters the house. I think Purdeep had a similar feeling which is, “I can’t face myself even in the reflection.” and so he eradicated that sense. Then as we discover that there’s actually another you that can actually talk to you, communicate with you, he took it a step further. It’s weird – you make these things and there’s layers upon layers upon layers of meaning. There’s the basic through-line that you hope is conveyed, there’s the emotion that you hope is crossed over but if you peel all the layers you’ll see it’s interesting all the details that went into making this. The score for example is it’s so intricately designed with the sounds for each character and the melodies for each character and how when the characters come together and make love for the first time the cello that represents Rhoda and the piano that represents Jon come together for the first time and there’s a discordance in their melodies but it works. It’s so cool that upon multiple viewings there’s lots to mine there I hope.

Scott Mendelson: What’s like the process like where you co-write and co-produce a film? I never understood that with films where two people write it – how do their ideas come together?

It’s very organic, I guess that’s the best way to describe it. We get together in a room and throw around ideas. Once we had the basic concept of the other earth and meeting oneself it was basically, “This is our canvas. What should we do?” and then we’d throw ideas at the wall and whatever stuck stayed and we could vet things together like “What if she does this?” “Oh that’s not gonna work.” “What if she does this?” It’s very egalitarian and very brainstormy. Some days one person breaks up and has more energy and better ideas and the other day someone comes to the office and has better ideas and more creativity. We challenge each other and it’s very collaborative. It’s hard, though. We’d both write extensive back-stories – who they are before the first frame shows up and we would both write a version for each character and then we’d show them to each other and we’d read each other’s and be like, “Oh I like that element. I like this element, what if we combine them?” So it’s very organic, it’s not very defined.

Irv Slifkin: It seemed like the lead actor’s appearance kept changing throughout the film and I didn’t know if that was how you lit him or your angles but he seemed older at first, the accident, and then the last time you see him he seems a lot younger.

Yeah, that’s totally intentional. There’s a few different ways we did that. Through lighting and we also did it through costuming…

Irv Slifkin: his nose?

A little bit, yes, there was a little bit of makeup used on his nose. It’s funny you noticed that, I forgot about that. Also you’ll notice he does sort-of have this older, and especially after the accident when she comes to meet him he’s wearing this skull cap and is down-and-out and his clothes are stained. And the color choices – there are more blues but as there relationship begins to evolve his shirts become brighter colored, collared shirts, you know, tucked in. You can see that he is wanting to present himself over the course of their relationship. It’s tricky with all these things because you can’t do anything too heavy-handed otherwise it becomes so blatant. So it has to be very gradual movement but it all sort-of follows the structure and the story. It’s interesting, it’s cool that you noticed it. And then by the end his spirits have been lifted, he’s wearing these warm colors and things are warm. They both brought each other out of this darkness and yet it’s only beautiful if there’s no acknowledgment of the past. I’s beautiful in isolation in the present but all secrets have expiration dates and it’s going to come to light. That’s where the..

Irv Slifkin: There’s one shot and I think it’s when I guess it’s the last scene before you see him on the TV screen. It really jarred me because I wasn’t even sure it was the same person and I was like “Who else would it be in that house?” but he seemed so much younger and more vitality – it was just jarring.

Yeah, definitely. And it’s a performance thing too. What I loved about William is that he did this movie called In the Bedroom where he has this brilliant performance – super intense. He plays the ex-boyfriend and a volatility that’s really intense. As Ethan in Lost he has this very sort of intimidating energy as one of the Others and you kinda get freaked out by him and I wanted to…

Kaylee: He’s terriyfing

Yeah, he’s terrifying, and I wanted to harness that energy that he had but I also saw that he had this lightness and this warmth underneath that’s rarely depicted in films that he plays – he usually plays that kind of stock character. Why he was attracted to the part was that he kinda started from a place with that energy and that volatility and that ability of him to just snap her neck is a realdanger in the subtext and in the vibe of him. But as the movie goes on that shell cracks and this lightness starts to sine through and I really wanted to harness that in the storytelling.

Kaylee: Music plays a big part in this movie. John is a composer, things like that. What was is like to collaborate with the people, Fall on Your Sword, who did the score and where did you get the idea for the scene where John plays the saw, which is one of my favorite scenes in the movie.

Working with Fall on Your Sword was amazing. They were recommended through the executive producer Tyler Brodie who co-founded a record label called DFA. They have LCD sound system and hot shit and all these really cool bands and he was like “Dude you should listen to this band and see if their interested. I’ve been getting music from them for years now.” I heard a piece Fall on Your Sword did for an art installation and I loved it because it had that organic, electronic-but-human and very textured vibe to it and it felt like the perfect match. So we met and we were totally in sync – they loved the movie and I loved their work. We had a good 4 or 5 months, which is a nice chunk of time, to work on the score. I gave them a lot of freedom. We worked out some of the details and the sounds and things and they would present stuff and then I sort of let them run loose and go to the deep, deep levels that their music will take them and it was amazing. As for the saw, I was in the subway in New York City one day and there was a woman playing the saw and I just listened to it for a while. It was so haunting and beautiful, like an angel dying or crying out.It was so mesmerizing. I got her phone number and information. In the film John is a composer and his passion is music and Brit is someone who’s passion is the stars and as they kind-of come out of their darkness their passions get reignited. When she tells the cosmonaut speech he’s looking at this woman like, “Look at all this passion and brightness. Who is this person who’s cleaning my house?” The same with him with the saw, which was also sort-of a hap tip to old school sci fi with the theremin…

Kaylee: I was gonna say, it’s one of those instruments used in old like UFO movies.

Yeah, and the saw is a modern twist on that. It’s an acknowledgement of that and then at the same time I liked the idea that it’s an aggressive instrument. It is a saw so you could saw somebody’s head off. It is dangerous and represents the passion that’s beautiful but also danger. All these reasons combined. So that woman, she trained William how to play the saw and it was pretty cool. It was one of the funniest sessions. He had no idea what he was doing [laughing] and then he got it down and he hit every single note of the song, it was cool.

Joe: A lot of the scenes it was uncomfortable watching, it was just so tense and I was wondering as a writer, director, and you cut the movie too, where do you build that tension? I’m just thinking, “If the shot were a different way would it be as tense? If one word were off would it be?” It was just so building I mean from you know they’re gonna get in a car accident the first shot of the movie and until the end it’s just tense it’s so…

Right and then whether that’s gonna come up. If it’s working right you’re building the tension. You make a movie three times – once in the writing, once in the shooting, and once in the editing – and if it’s working right in the script stage there is a sort-of magic the performance is imbued with. That those words with the reality of it and to shoot it in a certain way. Longer takes help add suspense. Hitchcock and Truffaut had this big debate over surprise versus suspense. One was arguing that one was better but I thought they’re not mutually exclusive. Like the car crash shot is single take starting in the window and rising up. That single take adds to the suspense as well as the fact that you know that it’s. You kinda cringe because you know it’s coming but even when it comes it still feels like a surprise. In a way it achieves both and that’s why a lot of filmmakers use the long take as a way to build tension. For example, in Children of Men it’s used so brilliantly…

Joe: …the whole movie…

[laughs] Yeah, the whole movie. And I think that’s one of the ways every different department can contribute to the building of suspense – whether it’s the photography, the editing, the directing, the performances, or script and so if everything is working on the right cylinders. However there are also moments where the tension needs a little bit of levity. That’s why we have the Wii boxing, which is this moment where we have this break. It’s like a tea kettle boiling and boiling and boiling – you want to let out just a little bit of the vapors and put it back on so you can build toward the climax.

Billy Soistmann: So I guess talking about the car crash, people would know it’s coming and that would add to the suspense. I guess the only way they would know it was coming is from reading about the film or seeing the trailer. So you would rather they know it was coming ahead of time or…

No, no, not necessarily. I think what’s one of the things that’s so powerful about montage and about storytelling through cinema in the first place is that it speaks directly to our intuitions and I think even if someone has never read anything about a car crash when you see this girl driving in a car and you see the family in the car you start to, you start to put those images together – ok something’s coming. Even if your logical brain is not saying it, your gut is telling you that and so therefore you like clench up for a second like, “oh no.” The shot that goes to the family the first time is a long, slow, gentle crane shot and the conversation in the car is very light – the kid asks what rhymes with this and they say “What are you going to name the robot?” and it’s like oh and you can feel it, “Oh fuck.. oh fuck.. No.” It’s too light and the music is light and then it goes to that above shot and in that way there is suspense. The pov of the other earth shot and when it comes like [bam] like the camera doesn’t rest, it goes through the movement of the shot which is nice. Cool guys, anything else?

Kaylee: I’m sure you’ll get this from everyone you talk to but what would you say to yourself? Would you go to Earth 2?

You know, I would definitley go to Earth 2 for sure because I’d just be curious. [pause] What I would say to myself? Funny, I have been asked that a lot and I haven’t come up with a good answer yet.

Kaylee: Well I guess the point is does anybody have a good answer?

You know I think I would want to observe a bit and then like I’d probably play him in tennis and see if he could beat me. No, but I’d probably ask him if he’s doing anything meaningful and if he made a movie I’d be like “I’ll check it out and you should check out mine.”

Irv Slifkin: Im sure you made the rounds in film festivals and then Fox picked it up, I mean it’s gotta be a dream come true. What has happened to you since Fox has picked it up? Are you working on new projects?

I’ve written a couple of projects – there’s two scripts I have written. It’s been a whirlwind since it released at Sundance and was really well-received and Fox bought it on the second day which was insane. They’ve been so great like everyone’s been saying. Fox Searchlight has such a good reputation among filmmakers and being very director-friendly, auteur-driven and you realize like why Danny Boyle, Aronofsky and all these great filmmakers wanna go there and I feel so humbled to be among that crew and to see how they how they so deserve that reputation They really are so inclusive – they said to me, “You don’t have to change a single frame of the film.” It wasn’t one of those “Let’s re-cut this.” They really believed in it and they’ve kept me involved in all the marketing. I designed the poster which, it’s rare they’ll even let people do that. And they’ve just been wonderful, like really supportive. Yeah, and so and then I’m working on a project all about reincarnation.

Everyone: Thank you

Thank you, and it’s all about sptreading the word. If you guys liked it it’s so helpful for us – the little engine that could – but I appreciate this, thank you guys for coming.

Everyone: Thanks. Thank you!

I hope you enjoyed this in-depth discussion, I know I certainly did. Check back in the next couple of days for an interview with Brit Marling, star and co-writer of the film, as well as the group who did the incredible music. Our review hits this Friday when Another Earth opens at the Ritz East.

At the center of Tabloid is Joyce McKinney, who in 2008 paid $150,000 to have her dog Booger cloned by doctors in South Korea. Coincidentally (or not), 31 years earlier she was the central figure in the “Manacled Mormon” story of 1977. While we will never know what truly happened, the story goes that Joyce, after falling in love with Kirk Anderson, a devout Mormon, traveled from San Francisco to England where she kidnapped Kirk and took him to a cottage in Devon where she tied him to a bed and had sex with him.

The film is put together excellently. Told entirely through interviews with several key players in the tale, this documentary eschews any criticisms of “talking heads” by holding your attention throughout. The characters’ voices are heard as we see them being interviewed as well as elegant title clippings and images, all of which fit the newspaper theme of the film. The movie flows beautifully, moving effortlessly from one section of the story to another.

This is one of the funniest documentaries I’ve ever seen. The comedy comes from not only the stranger-than-fiction story but from the interesting people themselves. Unlike most comedy TV programs or movies in which the characters are unusually witty, the film is genuinely funny and makes you laugh simply from the situations and characters presented. In a Q&A after a screening of the film at DOC NYC 2010, Joyce McKinney herself appeared to the audience and criticized people for laughing at what is a harrowing tale from her point of view. This brings up interesting questions about voyeurism through the media, a main theme of the film.

Of course, the star of the film is Ms. McKinney herself. Although much older today, Joyce McKinney retains a certain Southern charm. Her way of speaking instantly pulls you in and she comes off very sympathetic and honest in the film. I do not think her version of the story is exactly what happened all those years ago, but her intentions were pure. She is a genuine human being who fell in love with a man who did not return that love, for one reason or another.

Tabloid, first-and-foremost, is a love story. It is the story of how one woman traversed an ocean and went half way around the globe to find her man. Her story from then on did not go according to plan, but that is what makes it interesting. According to the director, the film begins with Joyce searching for love and ends with her pregnant. You’ll have to see the film to understand what he means, but this is a really interesting way of looking at it.

It is the attention to detail and the deep questioning that makes this film more than great entertainment. The film raises intellectual questions about the ethics of journalism. The movie not only presents the story but also details how the story was originally covered, specifically in The Daily Mirror and The Express. The two journalists interviewed seem proud of their work but it the ethics involved are definitely a gray area. The film doesn’t explicitly mention this, but it is definitely a subtext that pervades the movie. The audience is faced with a challenge to draw their own lines between what is okay in investigating a story and what is an invasion of privacy. In fact, all journalistic exploration is put into question. When is it right to write about others and their actions?

Tabloid, while a traditional documentary in construction, is as entertaining as any great narrative comedy but also explores important themes related to modern journalism and true love.

7 out of 10

Michael Rapaport, who has made a name for himself acting in films and on television, makes his directorial film debut with this project. Beats, Rhymes & Life tracks the arc of A Tribe Called Quest from its founding in the late 80’s, its ascent to the pinnacle of rap in the 90’s and then its rapid descent and breakup. Rapaport not only tells the story of the band and shows footage from their first performance together in 10 years but also analyzes their legacy in modern music.

The film is a work of love from its director and his love for his subjects comes through very clearly. Fans of the group will no doubt appreciate the movie for its depth and the level of care taken to craft the film into a thoughtful reflection on the group. Despite this, I did not feel lost at any point during the film, which is impressive considering I had never heard of A Tribe Called Quest prior to seeing the film. This accessibility is one of the movie’s strong points.

On the technical side, Beats, Rhymes & Life is what what we have come to expect from documentaries in the digital age: interviews, hand-held camerawork, concert footage. In too many places, however, the shots are shaky and difficult to see due to over- or underexposure. At times the film’s spontaneity distracts from the story itself.

The music featured in the film is excellent, especially if you are a fan of A Tribe Called Quest. Hip-hop fans will love the nostalgia of all the 90s rap classics however even newcomers to the genre like myself will appreciate the music as well.

Beats, Rhymes & Life is a well-crafted film that tells an in-depth story about a musical group while remaining very accessible. The storytelling is extremely well-done, if not technically perfect, and will engage you in its interesting subject.

6 out of 10

So what I was saying is that I read his [Unknown Interviewer #1’s] article who said I pitched the idea of doing the documentary to Tracy Edkins who was probably smart not to indulge that idea because I probably wouldn’t have been ready to do it at the time.

How long ago was that?

Like 11 or 12 years ago on Gamble and Huff.

Okay.

And I had read a article he [Unknown Interviewer #1] wrote about Gamble and Huff today and one of the things he mentions is there’s no Scorsese documentary. Now I would say I’m not Scorsese but I was curious about Gamble and Huff and their story. And it was this same curiosity that I had about A Tribe Called Quest.

Sure.

It was the exact same kind of thing. You think about it and you want to do it and you know you have some access and you ask. Now obviously I didn’t pull that off but just to jump into whatever you guys want to talk about, that curiosity about A Tribe Called Quest was the same thing. It was just funny that you mentioned that specific thing in the article which I liked. When I was in the car Gamble and Huff is so Philadelphia and for me I’ve always loved this city. I got introduced to Philadelphia when I was 7. I saw Rocky and that movie completely changed my life. That was the first movie that ever made an impression on me so I love this city and always had an affinity for it. I fell in the love with the Sixers because of Dr. J and the Broad Street Bullies because of Bobby Clark but Rocky was – I always say that’s my favorite movie of all time, the impression it made on me and these images of Philadelphia going through my head.

Mind if I ask just to start what then, coming up as a beat boy coming up in the hip-hop world, what was a New Yorker’s impression of the Philly hip-hop scene?

The first impression of Philadelphia hip-hop was in I’m pretty sure it was the summer of either 85 or 86 you have to check the date. Just like in the Tribe movie, I was listening to either DJ Red Alert or Mr. Magic and there was alive show (which was rare) of DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince and he had this beatboxer named… the fuck is his name? But the impression was… first of all the way should I call him The Fresh Prince or should I call him Will Smith at this point?

He was the prince then.

The way The Fresh Prince spoke he had no accent. He almost he spoke like… he sounded like a white dude. You know what I mean? And he’s beat boxing he was rhyming; they were rhyming really fast and they had this crazy show that you couldn’t see you were just hearing. It was a live telecast from Union Square which is a big club or something and they had this beatboxer Ready Rock C and he was doing these crazy beats and Jazzy Jeff was like… and the DJ at that time was so important – it was so much a part of the group which has now become extinct. So that was the first impression of Philly hip-hop because they were representing West Philly but the way he spoke didn’t sound like a rapper. It almost sounded like a white dude but he was flowing and they had this crazy DJ and this really way ahead of its time beatboxer. That was my first impression of Philadelphia hip-hop.

Cool. Do you mind if I get some pictures during this?

No, do what you want to.

You did a great job of capturing the individual personalities of the members…

Thank you.

…and interpersonal dynamics of the members. What came as the biggest surprise to you?

The biggest surprise to me that I learned about them or the biggest surprise in making the movie?

Both.

Okay, the biggest surprise that I learned about them. I mean, I was unaware of the depths of what Phife was going through health-wise. I’m a fan, obviously, and I’m also a fan who kind of had the inside scoop because I know Q-Tip. But I didn’t know Phife so that was the biggest surprise and just the deterioration that his body had gone through from the diabetes and obviously the happenstance of starting to do this movie before he was given his kidney transplant. If you met Phife he’s very open now and probably doing this movie has helped him be more candid about it – I’m not patting myself on the back but he’s had to talk about it so much. He’s a low-key guy so I didn’t expect him to talk to me about that. The first time he told me about the whole run of what he’s suffered with the diabetes for the last 8 or 10 years was on-camera in the movie and it’s in the actual film. So that was my biggest surprise.

You had no foreknowledge of that?

I knew that the diabetes was a problem I just didn’t know the details. We toned it down in the movie because it was like “Damn.” I mean he comes off sympathetic when he talks about his diabetes but we had to bring it down because it was like “Holy shit.” and it’s kinda like “Holy shit.” in the movie but when he walks you through all that he’s been through you’re like, “Holy shit!” We don’t show it in the film but he has these scars and catheters. He was fucked up and when you’re shooting a documentary and you don’t really know what to expect – and I did not expect that – and he’s talking to you and it’s coming from someone that obviously I have a lot of respect for but his personality and his disposition – he’s a little guy and his voice it’s very – he has a childlike quality about him because he’s got a high-pitched voice and he’s little so when he’s talking about this and he’s like, “I’ve been through a lot of shit.” it’s breathtaking. We had a 30 minute section when we were editing – the diabetes section as we called it. It was 30 minutes walking us through it and you’re like, “Holy fuck, man. Jesus Christ.” That was the biggest surprise and the interpersonal nature of the film was my biggest surprise as opposed to that and the guys being so open in front of the camera when I started shooting about it.

I have a question. Since I started my magazine I’ve had a lot of conversations with a lot of interesting people – people who I may have thought untouchable at the time. What was it like meeting, hanging out with, and documenting these childhood music heroes of yours and has it changed your perception of A Tribe Called Quest?

Well meeting and hanging out with them and documenting them as musicians was exciting. I would be a little bit tongue-tied in regards to the musicality of who they are – talking about this song and talking about that song. I never expected them to be superheroes outside of A Tribe Called Quest. As performers, DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince, Big Daddy King, Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five, Eric B. and Rakim – they’re like fuckin’ comic book characters. You know Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five or The Sugarhill gang could be a comic book. Q-Tip the abstract poetic and Phife Dog the Five-foot Assassin – they’re larger than life. So as musicians I had adoration for them but as people I didn’t expect that. I’ve been around celebrity a lot so I know there’s a difference but certainly when they were talking about the music and Q-Tip started articulating – you know the scene in the movie where he breaks down the Can I Kick it Beat (which wasn’t planned, asked for, or contrived) it was one of those emotional moments when Phife was talking about the diabetes when he just does it for a filmmaker and as a fan you’re just like, “Holy shit.” And the scene in the movie is really great because Q-Tip talking about music he does it in such a passionate, easy-going way – the same way Phife talks about sports. The dichotomy of their interests and their passions and just the way they even do it. Q-tip is more laid back and those are their personalities, those are the things that made Tribe great. I didn’t judge them as people. I’m not in any position to judge anybody. I’ve had my own share of dysfunctional relationships, including with the group, so this is par for the course in my life. I knew that and I treated the scenes of the history of the group – the magic of the records – differently, they’re shot differently. The animation cuts off at a certain point in the film because in my opinion the magic was depleting and when it gets more into the interpersonal shit it’s more cinema verité as opposed the other stuff. The animation, the pictures are moving, it’s this magical time because me and my editor and the producers were talking about sprinkle magic. That’s why I really wanted James Black to do it because I wanted the magic of the nostalgia of the first time I heard Fresh Prince on the radio, the first time I heard Run DMC on the radio and recording the tape in that nostalgic, magical time.

With that being said do you feel you have a better understanding of why this band broke up now that you know them as people?

Yes. I really feel I have a better understanding of why the group broke up. My question when I started the movie, and what spurred this movie on, was, “Will A Tribe Called Quest make more music and why did they break up in the first place?” And so I feel like I have a better understanding of why they broke up. Particularly, Q-Tip and Phife have know each other since they were 2 or 3 years old and it’s no crime to want to do a solo album, it’s no crime to not want to do this anymore, it’s no crime for Lebron James to want to leave Cleveland: it’s the way you do it. I think that Tribe outgrew each other. I think that Q-Tip is an artist who is continuing that instinct to push forward and not go backwards. I think that the relationships that they had as friends changed drastically during the successful run of A Tribe Called Quest and their relationship as friends changed which had nothing to do with what was going on in the group. What was going on in the group was symmetry – it was fucking perfection – but they were having problems from the beginning and I don’t go into every single detail of when it started because that’s not what I wanted to do and I don’t think in 94 or 95 minutes whatever it turned out to be you can go into every single detail. You want to try and give an overview and impression and a vibe of what happened. I just happened to start filming them when, as Phife says, when they went back on tour he says it best, “Rock the Bells was kind of like the straw that broke the camel’s back for the second time.” They have an intense relationship. They have that like brotherly relationship and almost a sibling rivalry. They’re like brothers with a sibling rivalry. I’ve been doing press for a month and that’s the first time I’ve said that. I’m so sick of repeating myself that when I come up with something new to say I’m like, “I gotta mark that down so I can run with that for the next week.”

Piggybacking off of that, I saw them in 2008 on the Rock the Bells tour in Maryland. I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit more on the experience of being on tour with them because one of the most shocking moments was when Plug One and Plug Two say, “I hope that it’s over.”

Yup. Yup.

That kind-of hit me so hard. I couldn’t believe they would say something like that.

I know.

So could you elaborate a little bit more about that experience?

Well first of all about when Dave from De La Sould said that, that was always in every cut of the movie I ever had and my producer asked, “Why do you want this? What is the big thing? You can’t hear them and you have to have subtitles and…” You know I took liberties with certain things. I wanted the film to be for everybody: for the Tribe-centric fans there’s gonna be a shorthand with a couple of little things. Like when I watched the Metallica documentary I don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about. I have no clue. But I love the documentary. And there are certain things in there that are for the Metallica fans. You can’t spell everything out but I knew that if we established that De La obviously came up with them and if you really know the history they’re really close to them so him saying that – he’s saying that as a fan and a friend saying, “Yo, shut it down. Fuck. For yourselves.” Like, “Why keep going through this? I don’t want to be around this anymore.” Because De La was on that tour with them and they’re like, “Oh they’re fighting again.” “These guys almost got in a fistfight.” So they’re like, “Fuckin’ be done with that! If you can’t figure out a way to do it, don’t do it.” And that’s what he says.

Being on tour with them was incredible. Being on stage and shooting it but it’s just as incredible for me because the first stuff we shot was the Los Angeles Rock the Bells stuff. I was so excited at times that the camera was like this [shaking up and down] and the dailies were like [shaky] because I was so fucking excited and I would take the camera around and go “What the fuck is going on?” because I was just like, “I can’t believe this is actually happening.” But before the show, as soon as they were all in that back room together when Phife was wearing the Lakers stuff – whenever you want to reference what city Phife is in just look at his jersey.. You can tell their relationship it was intense – there was a vibe that was off. Now it’s not like they’re sitting there seething ready to beat each other up. I watched them on camera get along and gel but there’s a distance between Q-Tip and Phife and if you’re a fan of the group you know. It’s like Run DMC or like they say in one of the songs Laverne and Shirley, Richie and Chachi – Q-Tip and Phifer like they say in the song it musically it just was in sync but their friendship has changed over the years. Say you are sitting here and I don’t know you and let’s say these two people are arguing. For us it’s uncomfortable – like, “What the fuck?” or like “Yo, take it easy!” So if you’re in a room with people you admire and you’re watching the discomfort it’s hard to be around that and then when it started to get further along and Tip is saying these things and Phife is saying these things to me and I’m watching them articulate how frustrated they are with each other it’s hard to be around that because you’re like, “Well did you ever talk to him about it?” The only meddling I did in their business was on camera – I’d be like, “Have you ever spoken  to him about that?” and 9 out of 10 times when I asked that about specific things it was always, “Nope.” and I thought, “Oh shit, you guys never talk about that.” and one time when I was walking through the film with Q-Tip and Ali in my apartment they started having a conversation about the breakup and the scene in the movie which caused the breakup. They went on a sidebar because it was a heated thing with me and them – it was intense. You know, “He’s saying this.” and, “Why is Jarobi saying that?” and, “He wasn’t there.” and I’m like, “Yo, talk to him!” This is the spirit of A Tribe Called Quest – you said it. If he’s not telling you, call him up. I’m just doing this [motions toward the camera], don’t be fuckin’ angry at me!” but that conversation then went to Ali and Q-Tip and they’re right in front of me having a 15 min conversation about when they broke up in 1998 and then afterwards when they agree to disagree on what happened I said, “You guys never talk about this?” and they were like, “Nah.” and I was like, “You never talk about this stuff?” and they were like, “Nope.” and that kind of shit is what has make the group fall out of sync. And just to acknowledge it because you know it’s going to come up this discourse with Q-Tip not liking the movie and Phife liking the movie, Phife supporting the movie as well as Ali. And then eventually this last film festival in Los Angeles where we won the award all of them except Q-Tip being there. You know it’s not me. This perceived thing that I’m the bad guy – look at the nature of the group watch the movie. Of course there’s going to be a discourse. They don’t move as a group – they move as individuals under the auspices of A Tribe Called Quest. So you know, “Mike’s an asshole.” “Yeah I’m an asshole so are you.” But I had no agenda against A Tribe Called Quest. I made this movie for the sole reason of being a fan. I financed the movie – a lot of money. So all the things that happened and the end result of it has been fantastic but in the last 6 to 8 months we kept saying we should be documenting the documentary. It’s one of those situations because it’d probably be better than the fucking movie.

Now when you were filming the Rock the Bells…

How old are you?!

[laughs] 17. So when you were filming at Rock the Bells did you intend on making a bigger documentary about the group or were you intending on filming just the tour?

I was intending on filming the tour. My imagination of the film would be the first 45 minutes of the movie: the who, what, when, where, why and their influence. Growing up in New York, The Native Tongues, Run DMC living in their neighborhood and how much that inspired them, all the making-of stuff – more of a concert-based film on that on how they did it. I’m glad that that’s not the movie I made because we wouldn’t be sitting here doing a proper press junket for a movie that’s coming out from Sony Pictures Classics. I probably would’ve skated by on the strength of A Tribe Called Quest with a prestigious straight-to-DVD release no matter how well that film was made. You know Scorsese put out Shine a Light – now this is Scorsese on the Rolling Stones – you know how much business it did? Fucking nothing. Nothing. This is the Rolling Stones and America’s best director. Me and A Tribe Called Quest with a concert film and an overview of what they did would be, at best, a prestigious DVD release. So that’s just the nature of what people want to see. The film wouldn’t appeal to a broader audience than the people who bought those albums so it’s only right that this is the way it turned out. It’s only right that the movie is emotionally charged because the group and the music is emotionally charged. The reason why the group and their music is so timeless is there’s an emotional quality to it. Just like anything special it ignited an emotional reaction. Whether it’s Picasso or Tupac or Woody Allen or Allen Iverson – to me Allen Iverson playing when he was in his prime that was an indication of who he is as a person – someone who’ll play that hard. That’s an artistic expression the same way what Q-Tip and Phife did was an artistic expression. This movie is emotional, the process was emotional, the aftermath was emotional, the tweeting has been emotional, everything has been emotional but it’s only right because A Tribe Called Quest’s music was emotional.

You alluded to the fact that your relationship with the group became dysfunctional. Did that manifest in the movie and what was the closest you came to thinking they were gonna pull the plug?

There was no pulling the plug. The closest it came to pulling the plug was when people, I don’t want to say who because I don’t want to get myself in trouble but when A Tribe Called Quest and their camp threatened to fuckin’ put an injunction from me going to Sundance and I told them, “I am going. You can cease-and-desist the motherfucker, you can try to get us taken out of Sundance but I’m going to Sundance with a DVD and I’m showing this fucking movie.” I told them that and they said, “You’re gonna look crazy.” and I said, “You try it and we’ll see. Get a cease-and-desist, try to get us pulled out of the festival. I’m going to Sundance and I’m showing my fucking movie.” Because I believed in the movie, I thought the movie was honest, it was made out of honesty and when all this bullshit about the producers and the emails – I don’t give a fuck about any of that. People apologized, things were changed. There was an incident that happened. You know I kick you, I say sorry, you accept my apology after I say I’m really sorry. I can’t do anymore. The email shit, people do that all the time and it wasn’t me who did it so it was like. “You’re getting mad about someone you never even met.” The closest it came was that and I was like, “Go ahead and do that but I’m going to be at Sundance and if you think you look like an asshole in the movie just wait until what you look like when no one sees the movie – wait until that happens, wait until you do a cease-and-desist, when you do an injunction, when no one sees the movie, when you take your movie out of Sundance – then see what kind of hysteria you’re going to cause. People are going to think you’re burning buildings and looting. Because of all this shit that’s happened the only thing that’s positive that’s happened out of it is that while the movie speaks for itself it’s made people more curious about the movie because it’s like, “What happened with this thing?” You go in the theater thinking, “What’s is the big deal?” You look at the Metallica documentary and you look at the piss that’s on television and this is a dignified portrayal of the group. There’s a version of this movie that another filmmaker would’ve done with the material I had that wouldn’t have been as dignified. I can promise you that. There’s an undignified version of the movie that’s sitting in a hard drive in Los Angeles in a vault but they didn’t see that version. I didn’t even show them that.

As a followup, how did you think you’ve changed as an individual going through this process of making the film?

Well as an artist, as a filmmaker, I was forced by the nature of making the movie to go inside myself and find the trust and belief to actually execute all my ideas and trust the people around me to enable them to execute their ideas. Because of the nature of what’s happened I had to really look at myself and while you could sit here and philosophize and talk about independent filmmaking and I love John Cassavetes and we all put him on a pedestal as an independent filmmaker and the godfather of this and he was the really the one who put his money where his mouth was first. I had to look inside myself and say, “What am I doing?” You know I’m an actor who has some respect but I wanted to be a director. If I let this go away and I compromised this movie I’m not going to be able to look at myself in the mirror. Who’s going to take me seriously as a director, better yet how am I going take myself seriously? It gave me the confidence to believe in myself completely as an artist and as a filmmaker and I feel like, for me, creatively this was the emergence of me as an adult because the acting that I’ve done. In my 20s I was a child although you don’t know that and I’m 41 now and this helped me become a man-artist so that’s how it’s changed me.

As a filmmaker, what were your visual models for this? You mentioned Cassavetes as a godfather but what documentaries – what brand of filmmaking – encouraged you to make you want to do that?

I’ll tell you one of the things that I referenced: in the scene where Q-Tip and Phife are in the room – what I told my editor and he said, “What are you talking about?” I said, “You know in that movie Shadows by John Cassavetes?” He said, “Yeah.” I said, “I want the editing to feel like that.” and he said, “What the fuck are you talking about?” and I said, “I want it to be like the arguing in Shadows and I want it to feel like that.” I understand narrative filmmaking better than I understand documentary filmmaking because I’ve participated in that but the documentaries that I referenced and aspired to. Gimme Shelter is the pinnacle and I always gave the analogy of Tribe being like a rock group and the Stones because Mick Jagger is the eccentric front man who gets all the credit while Keith Richards is more like the second guy who everyone loves and gravitates towards but he’s like more accessible and you feel like you know him. And that was always the Q-Tip/Phife dynamic. Also, Charlie Watts in the back and he’s the quiet, stoic guy keeping the beat just like Ali Shaheed Muhammed is the quiet, stoic guy keeping the beat as the DJ. More inspiration came from The Last Waltz, there was a great Blondie documentary for the BBC, there’s a Ramones documentary At the End of the Century, obviously the Metallica documentary Some Kind of Monster, I’m Trying to Break Your Heart Wilco, I watch a lot of Maysles Brothers documentaries, I watch pretty much everything, there was a Who documentary, I watch documentaries about the Pixies, any music documentary. I was either inspired for in the beginning or during because while I was making the film you get frightened about how you are going to pull this off and you watch like, “Hey they did it. And they did it.” It was so overwhelming at times, mostly in the editing process. The hardest part technically of this film was the editing but those films were definitely a part of it. So I mean I watched a lot of them and I watched them over and over and over, sometimes just to feel like I wasn’t totally crazy.

Good?

That’s great. Thank you.

Thank you. Cool.

Hopefully this interview has show insight into the film and sparked your interest to see it. My review is coming Friday, so make sure to come back and let us know what you think.

Note: This is a review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. That is, the entire film, not just Part Two. It is much better when viewed as a whole, was produced with that in mind, and so I am taking both halves into account in this review.

At the end of Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince (the most recent installment of the series), Voldemort’s secret is revealed – he has managed to split his soul into seven pieces and hidden them in objects called “horcruxes.” In an ending wonderfully similar to the final moments of The Empire Strikes Back, Harry, Ron, and Hermione stand on the astronomy tower at Hogwarts contemplating what the future may hold in the last calm before the storm. An attack at the beginning of Deathly Hallows causes the trio to set off on their quest to destroy the remaining horcruxes. The first two acts of the film follow them on their quest as we trod through the wilderness and various locales with the trio on their search. Their quest eventually leads them back to Hogwarts, which serves as the backdrop for the grand final act of the series.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, clocking in at 4 hours 36 minutes, is one very long film. Considering the lengths of the books, it would’ve been tempting to make all the films this long in order to keep in all the details to appease fans. Thankfully, the filmmakers were prudent enough to tweak the stories in order to make compelling films. However, the length of this final chapter is entirely justified and is used very wisely. Given this extra room, the beginning can take its time, giving us a sense of how long and difficult this quest is. This adds wonderful character development, such as a scene with Harry and Hermione dancing in their tent. This sticks out as a sweet scene which adds to both of their characters that would have been excised in a shorter cut of the film. This also enables the movie to switch in tone for the Battle of Hogwarts, which is given the time it needs to be a fitting end to the series.

The early Harry Potter films were imbued with a sense of wonder that was somewhat replaced with more fantasy action as the films progressed. However, this film fills you with awe not only for the grand action sequences but also for seeing the magical world that has so carefully been crafted be used to its full potential. The third act of the film is one of the biggest, most entertaining fantasy action sequences in history. The score, cinematography, and special effects all work together to make this finale as epic as it needs to be. For most films, this grandiosity would feel out of place and over-the-top, but a grand finale like this is only befitting an epic tale like Harry Potter.

Again, the action only works so well because we are so invested in the story. The ensemble cast is brilliant here with virtually every character making an appearance in this final battle, however the focus remains on Harry, Ron, and Hermione. They hold the film up on their own this time and it is amazing to see how they have gone from little children to adults who can hold their own on screen. All three have some acting chops, but Emma Watson stands out as the most versatile of the protagonists.

Technically, Deathly Hallows is not as impressive as Half-blood Prince, which featured incredibly beautiful cinematography. In addition, it falls short of the taught script and direction that makes Prisoner of Azkaban remain the best Harry Potter film. Still, everything clicks – the script, the acting, the editing, the direction, the music all are in top form in this final outing.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows works on two levels. On the surface, one can sit back and enjoy the ride as a huge battle provides the best action and visual effects of this summer so far. However, the emotional impact of the movie is what sets it apart from the rest of the entertaining but tiresome summer blockbusters in recent memory.

After laying the groundwork in 6 films, the world of Harry Potter erupts in its full glory in this film. In a fitting end to the franchise, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows steps up the action and provides an epic finale while remaining true to the spirit of the magical series and providing closure for the three heroes we have come to love.

8 out of 10

By the way, the way to truly enjoy it is to watch Part One on Blu-ray at home, head to the theater during intermission, and see Part Two on the big screen.