Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
First, in response to a question posed by one of our reviewers of this film last week:
Moriarty,
Five-year reader who has never had a reason to write in or to post a talk-back. In fact I couldn't figure out how to do a post in the discussion on THE DANCER UPSTAIRS, so am sending this via old-fashioned e-mail.
I saw this movie at the Washington, D.C. International Film Festival last week, and Malkovich himself was in attendance. He had a very interesting explanation for why English was used in the film, even though most of the cast members are native Spanish-speakers, and the film is set in a likely Spanish-speaking country.
The major source of funding for the film was a company (whose name I can't remember) which in turn was using financing from Telefonica, the Spanish global telecoms operator. The terms of this financing stipulated that the subject matter for any project had to be Spanish in nature, but that the language used had to be English. Malkovich said the bottom line was that if he didn't shoot the film in English, he would not have had the money to make it.
Hope this helps with the understanding of the "artistic" rationale behind the choice of language!
Amit Malhotra
For those of you who didn’t read the earlier review, here’s another reaction to the movie:
Hey Moriarty, yesterday (Wednesday) I was invited to a special screening of The Dancer Upstairs, directed by John Malkovich and starring Javier Bardem. The screening took place at the Varsity, in Toronto.
Seeing as how just a couple of days ago another person reviewed this film, I'm not going to dwelve into the plot all that much.
The film is set in an un-named capital in South America, but any person who knows anything about Latin American history knows that it is Peru. It was actually filmed in Ecuador, Portugal and Madrid, by DP Jose Luis Alcaine.
The cast was very impressive, too. Javier Bardem's eyes and facial expressions play an important part in this film. I still think that Benicio Del Toro's performance in Traffic is the one to beat, but this one comes pretty close.
Laura Morante really surprised me in this film. First off, you would have never guessed that she was an Italian, her accent completely disappears and another one comes to life. Her last scene is really breathtaking.
Juan Diego Botto basically is the comic relief in this film. He is Javier's partner in solving the case.
Abel Folk looked like Danny Masterson in this film. Seriously, he looked like Steven Hyde on That 70's Show. And that scene were he's dancing to the Arabian music is damn creepy. Nice song, though.
I really have to say that this was a very ambitious film for Malkovich to direct. But when you see some of the scenes though, you realize he did his homework. I for one, am eagerly awaiting his next film.
The soundtrack for this film was amazing. Beside that Arabic song that I mentioned, there is also a very, very good cover of All Along The Watchtower by Yul Anderson, plus a very moving tribute to Nina Simone by way of Who Knows Where The Time Goes. Lets not forget the original score by Alberto Iglesias and Pedro Malgheas. Simply amazing. Someone release this soundtrack ASAP.
Okay, let's see. The Man Without A Past, Stevie, The Good Thief, Nowhere In Africa, Irreversible, and City Of God. Those are the best films that I have seen so far this year. You can now add The Dancer Upstairs to that list.
Just call me Del Toro's Eyes Speaking.
Now, finally, the meat and potatoes of today’s piece... Mr. Beaks managed to sit down with John Malkovich, and here’s the result:
Though I generally make a point to avoid roundtable interviews (a format comprised of anywhere from three to ten reporters jockeying to ask questions, that, invariably, courts rudeness) at all costs, when the opportunity to chat with John Malkovich came up, I couldn’t say no. Infamously press shy, and (as someone had the cojones to ask him in the following interview) allegedly temperamental, Malkovich is nonetheless fascinating when given the space to chat at length about whatever is on his mind. He’s an absolute original, and, without employing an ounce of hyperbole, one of the best actors of his generation, which was proven on the stages of the Steppenwolf Theater in Chicago, and the Circle Repertory Theater in New York City before he ever deigned to set foot in front of the movie cameras. His official screen debut came in 1984 as the blind Mr. Will in Robert Benton’s PLACES IN THE HEART, for which Malkovich earned a Best Supporting Actor nomination. Since then, he’s established himself as a virtuoso performer capable of bringing depth and complexity to both meaty leading roles and the tiniest of character turns. His “Basie” in Spielberg’s EMPIRE OF THE SUN is a sublime tangle of compassion and opportunism, while his many-monikered psychopath from IN THE LINE OF FIRE ranks as a superlative example of screen villainy.
Lately, though, Malkovich has become something of a pop-cultural punch line thanks to Jonze & Kaufman’s BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, which, while establishing him as bizarro Hollywood royalty, has inflated his off-screen celebrity (even thought the Malkovich of that film probably has little to do with the real-life Malkovich) to the point where it threatens to overwhelm his on-screen persona. Perhaps it was a wise choice for the idiosyncratic actor to seek refuge behind the camera, something he’s been trying to do for nearly a decade with an adaptation of Nicholas Shakespeare’s THE DANCER UPSTAIRS, which was completed over a year ago and is finally getting released by Fox Searchlight. A suspenseful political thriller that draws its inspiration from the Shining Path guerillas of Peru (who remain active in the country to this day), Malkovich has turned Shakespeare’s novel into an absorbing character study of detective Agustin Rejas (the excellent Javier Bardem) as he pursues the rebel leader “Ezequiel”. In marked contrast with the more garish performances with which the actor has been closely associated of late, THE DANCER UPSTAIRS is all subtle, slow-burning mood, from the evocative use of the late Nina Simone over the opening credits to the use of Yul Anderson’s spare interpretation of “All Along the Watchtower” that accompanies the film’s mournful final moments. Though a tad meandering at 128 minutes, Malkovich wisely uses every digression as a means to heighten the vague sense of danger as Rejas closes in on Ezequiel. It’s a thoughtful work from a uniquely intelligent artist, who remains increasingly difficult to pin down.
The following is a transcript of the roundtable in which I participated with five or six other journalists. The questions aren’t always the sharpest, but Malkovich makes up for any dullness with thoughtful answers, and, occasionally, a mighty sharp wit. I still feel sorry for the college reporter who asked the BEING JOHN MALKOVICH question. In any event, enjoy!
Q: I know that you have directed theater. Coming into this as your first film as a director, I’m wondering, technically speaking, what did you draw from your theater experience, and how much did you draw from your on-camera film experience?
A: Well, I didn’t much draw on theater experience because I’m not sure how applicable it is. I mean, I think it’s more applicable in the sense of, if you’re a musician, you might play three or four instruments; you might not necessarily play just one. I think theater is such a different form, even working with actors in theater is so completely different because in theater you are trying to sort of describe and define the playing field so that they know what is a goal, what is out of bounds, what is forward motion, what is backward motion, what are the rules, etc., so that they can recreate that role every night. But in movies that doesn’t really matter at all. You just need generally a few good seconds. So the whole work is different. But when I started in the cinema, I really always worked with technicians all the time since the first film, and that’s really what I always focus on in cinema.
Q: Your directorial style seems to be a little bit more kind to actors. You seem to give them a lot more time to emote than other directors. Is this missing from movies in general?
A: I don’t go to see a lot of movies, so I couldn’t comment, but I would assume there is a lot missing from movies in general; although, specifically, there are some very good movies out there. I think… I have very good actors in this movie. People will enjoy watching them, so you leave the camera on them. I suppose if they were very bad actors, I would have done it differently, but they’re not.
Q: Speaking of which, Javier has that kind of underlying heat where he can just look at the camera and just stare at it, and emote all sort of emotions. Was that you directing him, or did you just see that in him and say, “Do it.”
A: I’ve seen many, many films Javier has done in Spain. He’s always fantastic at whatever he does, but Javier is on one hand a really terrific, very accomplished, very, very technically gifted and aware – a very skilled performer. On the other hand, he’s a big movie star. He really wouldn’t even need to be very good because he has that kind of—
Q: The look?
A: Look? Well, yeah, he does have a fantastic sort of poetic face, but, no, just the presence, that sort of movie star presence, *also* on top of being really terrific. Very few people like Javier can you just put the camera on for three or four minutes and not move it. And, really, he gets away with it.
Q: I was wondering if you’d talk about your reasons for casting actors from so many different regions. It seemed like a sort of multi-cultural cast.
A: It seemed to me one had two decisions to make at the beginning. One decision at the beginning is will the film be in English, or will the film be in Spanish; that was the first decision. This film was funded by a Spanish company, but only under the condition that it was filmed in English. That’s where the funding from this particular company came from, to do something with the Spanish theme or topic, or crew and actors, but in English. So that decision was sort of made, and then the second part of that is… it seemed strange to me somehow to do this film, say, with American accents, or with English accents. I’m not sure what that would have aided. I liked the idea that, at the time that I chose all of these people, they weren’t really known in the states, which was obviously part of the intended audience. And even though Laura is incredibly well-respected in Italy, she’s not so much known in other places. Even though Luis Miguel Cintra is sort of by any accounts the most respected actor in Portugal, he’s not even really very much known in Spain, and certainly not in Italy or France. Javier wasn’t known outside of Spain at that time. I liked the way they sound. I think they’re terrific actors, and I think it only aids, it never detracts.
Q: You seem to do a lot of things independently starting from Steppenwolf to this movie.
A: Not to mention dressing myself in the morning. Occasionally, I even go to the bathroom.
Q: Is that the only way to get things done in the art?
A: Is that the only way to get things done? No. It depends on who you are. You know, there’s a system here. It works very well if you’re in that system. I’m not really in that system, but it works very well if you’re in it. The French have a system that works very well if you’re in that system. You know, I’m not in very many systems. So, I don’t really have a choice but to do it.
Q: Can you tell me about BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. I’ve seen the movie a couple of times, and I still don’t understand it. (This was not me! Honest!)
A: If I were you, I wouldn’t keep watching it. You could hurt yourself.
Q: I just wanted to know why was it BEING JOHN MALKOVICH?
A: Why are you torturing yourself? Why ask?
Q: Are you flattered by it at all?
A: I would hardly imagine the purpose of it was to flatter me. It seemed to me something darker. Um, flattered? No. I think his intention seemed to me to say something about the nature of celebrity, the fascination with celebrity. It seemed to me it could’ve been anyone, but (Charlie Kaufman) didn’t think that. But you’d have to ask him why he picked on me. I mean, I *am* irritated.
Q: Do you have any theater projects coming up?
A: No, I just closed a play in Paris. I’m looking at a couple of things, but, no, nothing pressing.
Q: What was edited out of THE DANCER UPSTAIRS?
A: There was a lot edited out of THE DANCER UPSTAIRS, probably too much, but I had a two-hour contract, and there was a huge sort of meltdown about that throughout the course of the life of this film. Sometimes, I don’t really think I cut too much, but sometimes I do.
Q: Apparently this took a long time to get made because Javier was twenty-eight when he was approached to play the cop’s assistant.
A: Oh, he was younger than that. What is Javier now? Thirty-one?
Q: Thirty-four, he said.
A: Is he thirty-four now?
Q: Yeah, that’s what he said. I can’t imagine he’d make that up.
A: Well, Javier is…. you know, “Ladies and gentlemen, Javier Bardem.” God, I still thought Javier was only thirty-one, but maybe he is thirty-four. So, twenty-seven or –eight, I think, but it’s been a good six or seven years since I cast him. He was very young, and looked… well, you know, he’s always had that quality that doesn’t really have an age. And even when he was very young he didn’t have an age, but I certainly think it worked out best that the film fell apart the first time we were set to do it, and he got older.
Q: Who was the person that you had in mind for his part back then?
A: Oh, we had thought about several people for the other part, but no one was really interested. Javier I wanted for the part Juan Diego Botto played because he was so young, and, then, Javier said, “I would do that, and… I’d be happy to do it, but I’d like you to think of me for (the lead).” And it didn’t take me long to think about that.
Q: You told Psychology Today in 1994 that you do movies for cash.
A: Yeah, but consider the source. You have to ask yourself why was *I* in Psychology Today.
Q: I was wondering myself.
A: Certainly not for cash. No, I don’t know that I ever said that I did movies for cash. I doubt that would be fully accurate, but I might’ve said, “I’ve done some movies to make money.” And I’ve done a ton of films where they didn’t give me any cash, just enough to travel. But I am a professional actor. That’s how I make my living. You never ask bankers that question, do you? Or businessmen? Or most other people? I do it for all kinds of reasons. One of the reasons could be to make money.
Q: Could it also be so that you can do theater?
A: You know…. I’ve done (some) theater where I’ve probably averaged $70-a week. Movies pay somewhat more than that. But sometimes people quote those things, or quote those alleged things… that give the idea of someone who’s sort of completely cynical, and I’m someone who’s completely realistic at heart, rather than cynical.
Q: Are there any other projects out there that you might be drawn to direct?
A: I hope if there are I read Psychology Today.
Q: That’s where all the best short fiction is nowadays.
A: I hope I just keep reading it, and I’ll get over it. The impulse will pass. (Laughter.) No, I’m looking at a couple things, but I don’t know. I really don’t know.
Q: Would you like to work with Manoel de Oliveira again?
A: I just finished Manoel’s new film in November.
Q: How was working with Manoel, who’s in his nineties now? As a director is he still vigorous?
A: It’s frightening. It’s like someone who’s sold their soul to the devil.
Q: Why did you get Nicholas Shakespeare to write the screenplay? Was that about (maintaining) artistic integrity? (Don’t ask me.)
A: No… I mean, I don’t think the fact that Nicholas worked on the screenplay – and we worked on it together – was necessarily a guarantor of its artistic integrity. I think Nicholas is a really talented writer with a very open, curious, analytical mind. He was great fun to work with, and I would’ve hated to have done this novel and not have him. I can’t imagine that. But it wasn’t to assure anything, it was to use the talents that I knew he had.
Q: A lot of people when I first told them I was coming to this, they said, “You’re talking to John Malkovich, he’s really scary and really imposing.” Is your legend totally lame?
A: *That* sounds pretty lame. You know, there seems to be a sort of body of knowledge about me that is completely sort of like voodoo – a complete sort of legend that I have no idea from whence it came. I have no idea who makes this up. I think if you talk to most people on this, or on most things I do, they’d tell you a whole different story. But that always seems to follow me around. I’m not quite sure why, but, I mean, it’s okay.
Q: It’s infuriating.
A: No. No.
Q: Well, John Ford said, “Print the legend”.
A: Yeah, print the legend, but… I can’t control that. I can’t worry about that. I never read these things. I only hear things like that from journalists. I never hear it from people I work with. I don’t think I’ve ever worked with anybody who was afraid to ask me a question, who was afraid to state a conflicting opinion to mine. I’d be shocked and very saddened if that would happen. But that kind of legend is something else.
Faithfully submitted,
Mr. Beaks
For what it’s worth, I’m worried about Beaks. Here’s the e-mail he sent me with the interview:
Here it is.
Oh, and as an added bonus, please be sure to click through to the following link. We must do whatever we can to get out the vote.
CLICK HERE!!
Dear God, Beaks... what led to you clicking on that site once, much less sending me the link for it? Someone needs a vacation... and evidently, he needs a vacation to Thailand.
"Moriarty" out.
