Justin Gaston is not OVER MILEY CYRUS!

Friday, July 30, 2010

Interview: Discussing "Inception" Theories With Cillian Murphy

There’s a lot going on in Christopher Nolan’s (wonderful) Inception. One of those things: Cillian Murphy’s Robert Fischer. If you’ve seen the film by now then you already know how truly sympathetic Robert Fischer is. In fact, he’s arguably more sympathetic than the main character, Cobb. Cobb’s problems come from his own undoing while Fischer’s come from his father. Ironically, Fischer and Cobb are extremely similar. They are both looking for catharsis and to let go of someone from the past. The closings to the arcs are parallels. They both, arguably, go through the same change.

Fischer raises a big ethical question that really isn’t delved into the film all too much: isn’t Cobb going to ruin a man’s life to save his own? His whole team seems cool with that, oddly. But then again, Cobb is never truly played as a “likable” type of guy. He’s selfish in more ways than one. Fischer is the one that comes out looking good through this whole ordeal, not Cobb.

I got plenty of time to speak to Mr. Murphy recently about this as well as throwing possible theories his way.
(Note: This interview is filled with spoilers (for Inception and Sunshine (but mostly just Inception)))

To start off, when you got the script were you surprised that Fischer wasn’t the typical, slimy boss’s son?

Yeah. First of all, when I got the script it took me several readings to wrangle it into any type of discernible shape. I was wondering if I was intellectually up to this. You know, Chris is such a great writer that I suppose Robert is in the vernacular of a heist movie as the mark. That role wouldn’t generally offer as much complexity as I think that this one does. So, yes, I was surprised. There was some meat on the bone to get sucked into it. I think in terms of the character, obviously Cobb’s emotional journey is primary, but the emotional arc of Fischer is sort of the secondary kind of narrative.

Do you see Cobb and Fischer as parallel characters? In terms of their arcs, they go through a similar type of catharsis.

Yeah, I think certainly when we spoke about it during rehearsal it became clear that for this to matter Robert really had to go through something. Even though it’s all a con and a setup, it really needed to matter. So yeah, I guess there is some type of crossover.

Since Fischer does become so sympathetic did you ever think he could possibly make Cobb and his team look bad? They’re going to ruin his business and possibly damage his future.

Perhaps. I think what’s great about this script and the film is that it doesn’t adhere to the traditional type of “good guy vs. bad guy” thing. Everybody has got a link and a chain to their character. Leo’s character is a criminal and my character is a rich kid who has feelings of misery. He’s got an emotional depth to him. I think, because of that, it’s okay because every character has a bit of ambiguity to them.

Even though Fischer is going to lose everything he has, wouldn’t you say what he gains at the end is more important?

Sure, even though it’s phony [Laughs]. That’s the wonderful thing, again, that you’re very curious to follow these characters after the fact to see how this whole adventure will affect their lives. It would be very interesting to see what Fischer is doing and whether it improves his life or if it makes him a better person. It’d be interesting to see.

Do you consider what he gets in the end as something phony? Or do you consider the change he goes through as something real?

I think, yeah. It’s definitely a real change, I would imagine. We’re talking literally, but because they go so deep into his sub-conscious right down to the most fundamental thing driving him as a human being, and to alter that is definitely going to affect him profoundly.

Are you surprised that Chris keeps making you play characters with terrible childhoods?

[Laughs] I think it’s more surprising he keeps asking me to put a bag over my head in every film. That seems to be the pattern. I actually didn’t think of that, but I assume you’re referring to Crane?

It seemed to be implied in Batman Begins he had a bad childhood.

Yeah, we did talk about that when we were coming up with the character of Crane. He probably suffered terribly at the hands of bullies because he was very physically inadequate. We didn’t go into it at any great depth, but I think the thing with Fischer is that his father-son relationship is obviously a very complicated one. It’s made more complicated by the fact that his father is such a huge influential person. I’m the father of two sons myself and have a relationship with my own father and it’s very curious to explore that.

How I tried to play him was as a spoiled kid. A kid who’s got everything he wants materially, but all he wants really is the attention of his father. That’s where we began with the character. I don’t think he has anything else in common though with Jonathan Crane [Laughs].

Fischer’s arc reminds me of Citizen Kane a bit.

Wow.

I mean in a sense, even at the end when he holds the windmill and that’s very Citizen Kane-like.

Yeah. Yeah. I can see that. I’ll let you draw comparisons [Laughs].

Character wise, there’s some similarities.

Sure. I can see that. Again, I think it’s kind of a universal story that one about father’s attention, not getting it, being crippled inside, and all of that stuff.

What do you think of Fischer’s name? Bare with me for a second, but shortened it’s Bobby Fischer and Adriane’s totem is a chess piece. Did you notice that?

[Laughs] I didn’t, to be completely honest with you. You know what’s fascinating? As the film has come out and as people have been seeing it they’re taking it to the heart and some are seeing it several times. I have had so many different theories thrown at me, and so many different positions and it’s fascinating.

You know, Chris really doesn’t go into the symbolism of things when he’s directing you and when he’s talking about the script he talks about the emotion of the character and where you are in the scene. I think that all the other stuff… Cobb is obviously the same name as the main character from his first movie The Following, but if you look at that film there’s a scene where they break into an apartment and there’s a big batman logo there. That was clearly an accident and accidents happen often. It was years before he even made that film. His films do sort of self-reference themselves and that’s interesting. But that’s a longwinded way of saying ‘no’ [Laughs].

[Laughs] So, it’s just a coincidence?

I would imagine so. Again, I did ask Chris about the name of the character and he did kind of illuminate me. It’s not a big deal for him that symbolism and he doesn’t go into it. That’s what’s great about his films is that there’s so much there for the audience to read into in anyway they want.

Speaking of reading into things, what’s your interpretation of the ending?

[Laughs] I have been asked this again and I am going to remain on-the-fence firmly. You know, I never asked Chris and I don’t want to know from him. I think it’s much more exciting not knowing. I’m sure certain people will have definitive opinions on it, but for me, I much prefer not to know. I’ve seen the movie three times now and I feel differently about it each time. So, that’s all I’m saying.

Let me ask you this then, do you think whether or not it’s a dream for Cobb even matters? He still gets the catharsis he needs.

That’s an interesting question. You know, my character goes through a catharsis all be it through a dream from a huge setup. I don’t know, I find the thing about dreaming is that you tend to work stuff out as kind of a repair of the psyche. Sometimes, you go to bed having a lot on your mind and then when you have these dreams you can sort of wake up feeling better about things. So, it’s an interesting question. It’s an interesting question, but again, I’m going to leave it ambiguous.

I will say though, no matter if it’s a dream or not it’s still a happy ending for Cobb.

I think so. I think so.

Did you ever ask Chris how he came up with the ending and that final shot?

No, man, I really believe in not knowing the magic of these things. I don’t know if the top happened to spin like that on that day or if it was something he had right from the beginning. It’s sort of a masterful end to the movie. On the three occasions I’ve seen the movie when that scene comes up there’s a collective gasp in the theater. For that to happen after watching the film and that shows how involved the audience is and that’s amazing. Also, every time I watch it affects me physically. My whole body tenses up. It’s not just from the agony of watching myself up on screen, but it’s from the actual experience of the film. It’s just such a tense experience. You find that you’re sitting in a really uncomfortable experience and you’re clenching a lot [Laughs].

I know how said you don’t like to ask about the intentions behind certain things, but do you and Chris ever talk about the themes he keeps revisiting? Most of his protagonists deal heavily with the ideas of control and obsession.

Yeah, I know that. Again, I haven’t. That’s something more of journalist, critics, or cinephiles tend to be interested about. I just think that they’re themes he’s interested in and there’s a lot of scope for drama in those themes. I think you can see that in his films they do investigate similar sort of areas. They’re all very, very different.

You mentioned before how there is no clear villain or hero, similar to a few of Nolan’s films, but do you see Cobb as sort of his own antagonist? He is a part of his own undoing, in a way.

Yeah, he is. That’s a very interesting take on it. He’s kind of like a guy; he’s an addict. He’s addicted to this alternate reality and his problems are his own fault, in a way.

I love that scene where Cobb goes into that basement and sees all those unsettling people dreaming. He’s just like them.

Totally. Yeah, it’s fascinating that idea.

I saw someone ask you in an interview if you see the dreams as a metaphor for acting, do you remember that?

I don’t…

I was going to say, and many have said this, but it’s kind of a metaphor for filmmaking itself.

I think so. I think the filmmaking one is probably more accurate. I don’t think it’s specifically about acting, but there’s a lot that’s like allegories for filmmaking. The way they’re creating sets of infinite possibilities and letting your imagination create a world of all these things. You do that when you dream and you do that as a filmmaker as well.

Even the ensemble itself could be tied to filmmaking. Cobb is obviously the director and Saito is the money guy.

[Laughs] Yeah, well then what would Fischer be I wonder?

He’s the audience.

Aha, what would Adriane be then?

She would be the production designer.

[Laughs] Cool. That’s cool. I like that. I’d go with that one, definitely.

What’s this process of talking about the film been like for you? I mean, I’m obviously giving you my interpretations and I’m sure you’ve already heard countless others so far.

Oh, I love it. To be honest, it’s just gotten more and more. I’ve had my friends call or text me who’ve gone to see the movie two or three times and have all these theories about it. I just think it’s brilliant. This has been said many, many times, but given the current climate I’d say people were starving for something stimulating cerebrally and viscerally. I think this really shows that you don’t have to do everything in 3D. It’s not essential and I really like Chris’s attitude to that as well. He just does it the way he wants to and he feels that the audience will appreciate it for that.

The film also works so well because you could enjoy it as totally different things. You can enjoy it as a thought provoking experience or even just as a summer action movie.

Totally.

You’ve watched it different ways, though?

You know, I’ve seen the film three times and have had different experiences. For me, just watching the other performances was fantastic. That’s the beauty of being in an ensemble is that there’s so much stuff you’re not in and you can relax and watch them do their brilliant work. And then [the second time], it was really piecing together the rules of the arena. The last time, I just watched it completely for the ride and experience it without questioning it too much.

It’s easy to do that too. The story is actually pretty simplified where you can sort of relax without thinking about every single detail.

I don’t think so either. For me, for the first two viewing experiences it was sort of me trying to figure out who’s dream we’re in and who exactly was the architect, who was the subject, and whose projections were whose. A lot of the film I have to be mildly bewildered.


Have you ever had this type of experience with any other films? Where people constantly come up to you with interpretations or where you keep forming your own?

No, I don’t. This is has been kind of unique in that way. Every film is different and every film people respond to differently. Sometimes they don’t respond at all [Laughs]. This is certainly unique. As we all traveled around from London to Paris and to LA we were all kind of amazed by the level of passion about it. People were really excited about it and there were some really profound and deep questions being asked and that’s not common. It has been a very unique experience.

There are a few scenes of yours I want ask specifically about your approach to. First, the scene in the bar where Fischer realizes he’s in a dream. You easily could’ve acted hysterical during that moment, but you act really restrained where you could still feel his confusion and that he was scared.

It’s funny that you should bring up that moment because that was my first scene in the movie [Laughs]. I sort of walked up having to act opposite of Leonardo DiCaprio on a set that turns [Laughs]. A lot of that fear is probably for real. In all seriousness, it’s just Chris. It’s how Chris can direct actors and how he knows the level of actors. If you look at most of his films everything is kind of underplayed and there’s very little hysteria in his films. That’s the sort of performance he likes. Even in the Batman movies, well the Joker is a different type of animal entirely, but you know what I mean? It’s all based in reality. I think Chris’s thing is to generally just go through the truth and honesty of it.

That’s also probably why the dream sequences work so well. He bases them in a reality rather than going crazy with them.

Yeah absolutely. In that scene for example how I perceive that I’m dreaming is done so subtlety like the water in the glass and the room tilting like that. It’s beautifully done.

When you get to the third dream level, in the snowy mountains, Fischer easily could’ve gone all, “I got this,” but you still played onto his hesitation. How’d you approach that? Keeping him still slightly hesitant?

At that stage he kind of feels like he’s been accepted to the team. I was very keen on that so I said to Chris, “He’s gotta have a gun. He would’ve graduated to having a gun,” because at this point he thinks he’s in Tom Berenger’s character’s dream. That’s another part of the con so now I feel like I’ve graduated to the team by being in Browning’s sub-conscious. Again, it’s just another part of the con. I enjoy that sequence because he feels as if he’s accepted.

What about the final moment with Fischer’s father? You gotta be careful in scenes like that because you can easily slip into over-sentimentality.

Again, I’ll refer this to Chris because he’s such a brilliant director of actors. I was very lucky to have Pete Postlethwaite as my dad. When you’re working with an actor of that caliber it really just raises your game and you really feel the moment between you. I was lucky to work with him, because I’ve loved his work for many years and I think he gave us the most heartbreaking onscreen ever in In The Name of the Father. It was just really working on hard with him and Chris just doing his thing. Doing his genius filmmaker thing [Laughs].

You can’t say that about most filmmakers I’d imagine.

Nope, not really. Not really.

My final question, about a year ago I talked to Rose Byrne, who’s extremely nice.

She’s brilliant.

But I regret not asking her about the final act of Sunshine. There’s a bit of a split about it, do you know what I’m referring to?

Whew.

And just to clarify, I think it’s a great film.

I’m very proud of that movie too. I never had a problem with the third act of the movie. I think it’s amazing that they fly into the sun [Laughs].

It’s a beautiful moment.

Yeah, I find it very moving. Myself and Rose spent a lot of time on top of a bomb. It was great to work with her because she’s a brilliant actress. I also thought Mark Strong was amazing in that as well. He had fun with a lot of hours in the makeup chair.

I think that movie works so well because Boyle really got what made those films like Solaris and 2001: A Space Odyssey great.

Yeah, again, I feel privileged to work with Danny a couple of times as well. You just have to learn from these guys. They’re amazing. When you have a director that has such a confident vision like both of those guys all you have to do is show up and say the words in the right order.

So you’re still learning with every project?

You got to, man. I know it’s a cliché, but it’s the truth. It’s about moving forward. We’re talking about Inception and it’s so exciting, but I finished that movie a year ago. You got to keep moving forward. I feel like I have a lot more to prove to myself as an actor.

Inception is now in theaters.


SOURCE

Spiderman October Issue features Gay Couple on Cover!!

INFO ABOUT COMIC:

COVER BY: DAVID LAFUENTE GARCIA
WRITER: BRIAN MICHAEL BENDIS
PENCILS: SARA PICHELLI
INKS: SARA PICHELLI
COLORED BY: JAYPO LLC
LETTERED BY: NEUROTIC CARTOONIST, INC

THE STORY:
Poor Peter Parker. All his friends hate him, his girlfriend has stopped speaking to him and to top it off, the whole world despises Spider-Man. What’s a dude to do?? How about save the world and maybe meet the new love of his life? Fan-favorite BRIAN MICHAEL BENDIS (NEW AVENGERS) and rising Ultimate sensation, SARA PICHELLI (RUNAWAYS) bring you a new and exciting Spider-Man story you don’t want to miss!!

IN STORES: October 27, 2010

Someone on Vampire Diaries is gay!!

The Vampire Diaries producer Kevin Williamson wants to have a gay character on his show. It probably won't be Jeremy, Bonnie, Caroline, Matt or Jenna. And it couldn't be Stefan, Elena or Damon, even though that would be a really big twist, because it would kind of end that whole love triangle thing.

So Williamson thinks he'll have to bring in a new character to make a gay storyline work.

"It's one of those things that needs to feel organic and seamless," Williamson told a group of reporters on July 28 in Beverly Hills, Calif., where he was at The CW's party for the Television Critics Association press tour. "I don't want it to be a character that comes in and is a one off. I want someone to come in and have a reason and a purpose and really push that story forward the way I want to do it, and they're so important to the story that without them the show won't happen. That's what I want."

Gay teens are an important issue to Williamson outside of show business. He supports GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. "I'm sitting in the wings waiting," he said. "I'm waiting, which character can be gay? Which character won't? Where will it fit in? How can I get the gay character in? I don't want to sound like I'm a militant about it, like THERE MUST BE A GAY CHARACTER even though I am. It's not just that, it's also diversity. I always feel like I don't have enough diversity on my show and that is one of the things I'm very conscientious of, and not just gay characters. Any diversity. In anything, I want everyone represented. I want everybody on the show."

He's used TV to support gay issues before. On Williamson's last teen drama, Dawson's Creek, Jack (Kerr Smith) came out in the second season. That also makes it tougher for Vampire Diaries because he doesn't want to repeat himself. "I don't want to do a coming out story. I did it on Dawson's Creek. As much as I'd like to do [a gay story], I want it to be fresh and I'd want to do it in a new way. I don't know what that way is. We've seen it. We've seen it on countless shows. I've done my coming out story and I was very proud of it and I don't know what it would be."

It's not going to be the werewolf either. That would be so obvious. Tyler Lockwood is going to wolf out this year, but don't read any more into that. "I kept joking with Michael Trevino going, 'Well, the werewolf's going to come out. He's going to come out of the closet.' And Michael Trevino said, 'Really? That's a tired allegory I just want to point out.' And he's right. It is. So I go, 'No, we're not doing that.' The werewolf story is an allegory on its own for any coming out story. It's a universal coming out story."


Williamson also won't force a character to be gay when they need to be something else for the show. He's writing a few guest star parts now that won't work as gay characters. "There's plenty of characters coming but the couple of regular characters that we're bringing in are female, so I guess they could be lesbians but we're bringing them in for love interests. Once the wheels are in motion, it's hard just to add something simply because you want to do it."

But he really wants to—and not just Williamson. All of the Vampire Diaries want to have a gay character. "You do know my writing staff is just a mixture of gay or gay friendly. We all just sit around and talk about Glee and why don't we have a gay character. All we do is talk about it and we're trying to figure it out. And I've done it. I want to do something new. Teenagers is my big deal, GLSEN. They're my passion. It's something I'm passionate about. I've just got to figure out how to do it. How do I do it and be original. I want it to be a good story. As soon as we can, we will. Also I think when we bring in more characters, if it fits the story, we'll do it."

The Vampire Diaries returns Sept. 9 on The CW.

Joss Whedon explains why he chose Jeremy Renner and Mark Ruffalo

Monday, July 26, 2010

Sure the big Marvel announcement came yesterday at the Marvel Studios panel, but we just can’t stop obsessing about Joss Whedon and the fact that he has assembled such a mind-blowingly amazing cast for “The Avengers.”

When we caught up with the man of the week/hour/con, we asked Whedon why his two newest additions: Jeremy Renner and Mark Ruffalo are perfect for Hawkeye and Hulk, respectively.

Movie Trailers - Movies Blog

“The thing about Hawkeye, he’s got his bows and arrows, you need somebody who’s very very down to earth, who’s very grounded, and who’s going to be the kind of guy who, you see him, and you understand why he likes to be far away from things and then shoot at them,” Whedon said, adding that without the right actor in the role things could get “very silly” if handled incorrectly. “[With] Jeremy, he just has a lovely quality.”

With regard to Ruffalo, Whedon says the celebrated actor was his “first and only choice for Bruce Banner.”

“I’m stunned that we landed that, just stunned," he said. "He has what I remember loving about the show, that quality of, you just look at him and you go through it with him, he invites you in in a way that [no] other performer has since Bill Bixby. He is a guy who’s been beaten up by life, but not defined by that. That’s what I want from Bruce Banner, is a guy who’s still getting it done, even though he has his problem.”

Ryan Reynolds: Give me more superhero movies!

With upcoming turns in 'Green Lantern' and 'Deadpool,' Reynolds doesn't think he's latched on to too many comic book properties just yet.

Many aspiring actors work through their entire careers without ever once diving into the superhero pool — which is why it's particularly unusual that actor Ryan Reynolds is playing superheroes in two upcoming films.

Movie Trailers - Movies Blog

Reynolds is currently in the midst of wrapping up filming on "Green Lantern," director Martin Campbell's adaptation of the beloved DC Comics icon. But despite his upcoming appearance as the brave star-spanning Hal Jordan, Reynolds is equally well known for his brief but memorable turn as mutant mercenary Wade Wilson in "X-Men Origins: Wolverine." Little more than a cameo, Reynolds' work as Wade is set to expand in a planned "Deadpool" spin-off film from 20th Century Fox.

Given the two roles — polar opposite though they may be — one could make the assumption that Reynolds is getting a little bit greedy when it comes to the superhero genre. But when MTV News pointed out that notion to the actor at last week's Comic-Con in San Diego, Reynolds was quick to get on the defensive.

"First off, Deadpool is not a superhero and he would stab you in the thorax if he heard you say that," Reynolds said, adding with a laugh, "I don't think I've ever said anything geekier than that in my entire life."

Reynolds' second line of defense was a bit more practical. "I've only played Deadpool for four and a half minutes thus far," he said, acknowledging that the character's spin-off movie is currently in the planning stage. "When we're talking down the line and we're talking about the 'Deadpool' movie, at that point you can call me a greedy bastard."

For now, Reynolds is more than content playing the ace fighter pilot turned superhero in "Green Lantern" — and even off-camera, the actor is nothing short of a hero for his young fans, thanks to his decision to recite the "Green Lantern" oath for a young fan at Comic-Con.

Inception, effects-fests and the big-budget unreality curse

Are the massive sums doled out for blockbusters really creative boon for gifted directors such as Christopher Nolan?
It may be one of the summer's darker ironies that, as government ministers vie to find out quite how little can be spent on the nation's health and education, the film industry has reached the point in the year when it's filling our cinemas with movies made for the GDPs of small nations (or, these days, large ones).
Yes, it's the season of those mega-budget, hundred-million-dollar-plus behemoths which prove that, while it keeps getting harder to make films outside the studio system, those within it are are still being given gargantuan funds to boggle and amaze us (and keep us buying those 3D glasses).

And as with any unequal distribution of wealth, awkward questions follow – such as whether having huge sums at their fingertips is actually good for film-makers, or whether they're the right people to have it in the first place. The thing about the kind of grandiose spectacle the biggest budgets buy you is that, CGI or otherwise, it all starts to look the same.

Not literally, of course – even I can tell the difference between Narnia and Pandora. But the set-pieces of the most extravagant blockbusters always seem to share a certain sheeny sensibility so that, however expensive, they never look real. In such circumstances, true creativity is all too often sacrificed for size.

Predictably, I can't help thinking of Inception here – a film in which the $160m budget goes on a smorgasbord of ornate, effects-heavy money shots. Yet impressive as all the dreamscape malarkey is, I left Inception convinced that the best vehicle for Christopher Nolan's talents remains something like Memento – one simple great idea spun out into a terrific, taut, modern thriller. For all the recent hullaballoo, Nolan still feels like a lost maker of brilliant B-movies, with studio largesse inflating his "vision" beyond its natural limits – a phenomenon that has also afflicted Peter Jackson and Sam Raimi.

None of which is to deny the charm of sheer, vast, gleefully ridiculous spectacle, or to imply that anything made for pocket change is intrinsically wonderful; Lord knows I've seen enough films to disprove both sides of that equation. But it's also true that, once the budget starts to climb into nine figures, displaying it onscreen becomes a perversely dreary end in itself – so that rather than allowing a director to show the world the wonders inside his or her head, the game becomes to find ways of visibly splashing the cash just to heighten the sense of the movie as an event. (At this point, it seems apposite to mention that the most expensive film of all time is Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World's End.)

There are two connected problems here. One is the inevitable committee interference a giant budget brings with it, with the pressure of a carrying studio's entire future likely to stifle even the most gifted film-maker. Not that the most gifted film-makers are often involved here, which is the second problem. The industry's catch-22 is that there is a small army of directors whose wildly individual films mean they will never be trusted with a big budget despite them having exactly the kinds of imagination that deserve one.

After the demented swagger of Valhalla Rising, I'd certainly be intrigued (and shocked) to see Denmark's Nicolas Winding Refn making merry with Michael Bay-style sums. But for me, if there's one film-maker who should be granted at least one go with the serious money, it's David Cronenberg. Apart from the cracked brilliance of his work, it was his fine 1999 techno-drama Existenz that lodged persistently in my head throughout and after my viewing of Inception. I'd urge any Nolan fans to seek it out. And who knows – if enough of you do, he may get $160m to play with ...

Reference: guardian