Monday, January 3, 2011

THE ACTOR AS ARCHITECT OF A ROLE, NY TIMES


















.

By LARRY ROHTER

Published: December 29, 2010, NY TIMES

As a boy, from the age of about 9 until well into his teens, the actor Javier Bardem would often help his mother, Pilar, an actress well known in Spain, learn her roles. At their home in Madrid she would hand him a script and then read her lines out loud while he read all the others.

“I watched my mother act all my life, and yet I wasn’t attracted to acting as such,” he recalled recently. “What attracted me was my mother’s effort, her dedication, the seriousness of the work, the desire to do something. But what that something was didn’t matter to me. It could just as well have been painting or writing or even rugby.”

Nevertheless, at the age of 41, Mr. Bardem finds himself one of the world’s most admired actors, with one Academy Award to his name — for best supporting actor in Joel and Ethan Coen’s “No Country for Old Men” — and the possibility of another looming on the horizon. Leading directors regularly offer him juicy parts, and he has worked in widely varied roles with many of the most distinguished names in film, including Pedro Almodóvar, Woody Allen, Milos Forman and Terrence Malick.

“I think the best actors are those who are not only talented, but work harder than anybody else, and that’s Javy,” said the director and painter Julian Schnabel, who gave Mr. Bardem his breakout English-language role in “Before Night Falls” a decade ago. “That’s his barometer. He’s got a deep interior life going on, but he’s so immersed in the thing he does, with such concentration, with so many different buttons he can press, from humor to despair, that he becomes that, and it doesn’t even look like he is acting.”

But nothing, according to Mr. Bardem, has ever tested him — physically and mentally — or required greater effort and dedication more than “Biutiful,” a drama, directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu, which won Mr. Bardem the best actor award when it was first shown at Cannes last May and opened in New York and Los Angeles on Wednesday. “For me ‘Biutiful’ is going to represent a before and after,” he said in an interview last month in New York.

In “Biutiful,” set entirely in Barcelona, Mr. Bardem plays Uxbal, a petty criminal and doting father of two whose world, built around immigrant smuggling and the manufacture of fake luxury goods, begins to collapse when he learns he is seriously ill. Mr. González Iñárritu, whose previous films include “21 Grams” and “Babel,” said he wrote the part specifically for Mr. Bardem, the first time he had ever cast a role in advance.

“Physically Javier possesses an attraction that is tremendously magnetic and kinetic,” Mr. González Iñárritu said. “On the one hand, he has the primitive force of the minotaur, the strength of a bull crossed with a man, along with a face that contains the essence of the Mediterranean, that looks like it could be that of a Caesar on a Roman coin. But he also has the sensibility of a poet, an inner subtlety and emotional baggage, and it is those two sets of qualities that made him so particularly fitting to play this character.”

Mr. González Iñárritu shoots his films with scenes in chronological order, which is unusual in the movie business, and has been known to demand 50 or more takes from his actors. Mr. Bardem knew that going into “Biutiful” but still found the process unusually exhausting, and not just because he injured his back in a sequence that required him to lift another actor and was in pain throughout the second half of the five-month shoot.

Because the scenes were shot in the order in which they play and his character has to come to terms with the possibility of his own demise, Mr. Bardem said he had to “keep holding in the emotional intensity.” Or as Mr. González Iñárritu put it, “Javier had to find a balance while surrendering totally to a role that required him to be completely charged up while showing very little, and that, emotionally, is very arduous.”

Mr. Bardem often seems to be acting intuitively, especially in critically acclaimed films in which his characters face death, like “Biutiful,” “The Sea Inside” and “Before Night Falls.” But he describes his work as meticulously plotted in advance and in detail. Asked about a pair of especially moving moments in “Biutiful” in which his character, wrestling with mortality, does not speak at all, Mr. Bardem reached for a sheet of paper and proceeded to diagram the stages into which he had divided the two scenes.

“A character is like a building,” he explained. “I’ve never studied architecture, but I imagine that first you have to prepare the plans, lay down the base, a solid base that has to do with the character, and from there build it up. Once this is all clear, you can add the details: I want blue walls, I want wood floors, I want him to speak this way or move like that. But first you have to think.”

Another sign of the seriousness with which he approaches his craft is that, despite the growing acclaim for his body of work, he continues to study with an acting coach, Juan Carlos Corazza, an Argentine. They have worked together nearly 20 years, since the beginning of Mr. Bardem’s career. In a telephone interview from Madrid, where he lives, Mr. Corazza said that Mr. Bardem not only consults with him as he prepares for each role but also attends his classes and workshops, where he is sometimes matched with beginning actors.

“Part of the work in preparing for his roles is always at the table, where we analyze the script, each word and each phrase, to try to understand the mind of that other person,” he explained. But Mr. Corazza also has Mr. Bardem do exercises designed to “prepare the canvas for painting” by “identifying and stripping away the habits, clichés and artificial aspects between him and the character, so he has the courage to find a freedom in his character.”

In a sense Mr. Bardem seems almost to have been predestined for a life as an actor. In addition to his mother, both of his maternal grandparents also were prominent actors, and one of his uncles, Juan Antonio Bardem, was a distinguished screenwriter and director (and Spanish Communist Party leader), perhaps best known for the film “Death of a Cyclist”

But Mr. Bardem tried at first to resist being pulled into the family trade. He played rugby as a boy, relentlessly and passionately, which gave him the broken bones to show for it and instilled the sense of teamwork that directors uniformly praise. When it came time to choose a career, however, he initially decided to go to art school, intending to become a painter.

To earn money for his studies he did small acting jobs on the side, adopting his mother’s surname rather than that of his father, Encinas, as would have been more customary. But in his art classes he discovered that while he seemed to have talent, the only thing he wanted to draw was “faces, eyes, expressions and bodies,” not landscapes or abstract works.

He concluded that his primary interest really was how human beings express emotions. And at that point, around the age of 18, the Bardem family tradition, and all the years observing his mother, gave him something to draw on and inspire himself.

“I didn’t like having to read the other characters,” he recalled. “What fascinated me was listening to her. She’d have a great script with a monologue and would begin to speak and then stop and correct herself. She’d go back to the beginning, and that’s the way it was for the entire work. So after an hour or so of the technical aspects, the memorization, she would fly. She knew the text, she had control, the actress would appear, and off she would go.”

The lesson he drew from that experience, he said, was that “to get to the art, one must work very hard.” He added: “Art doesn’t exist just as talent. It exists as effort, work and judgment.”

In keeping with that philosophy, Mr. Bardem said, nowadays he chooses roles based not on their size or the chances for acclaim they might offer, but on the degree of the challenge they present. That’s the kind of thing that actors always say of course. But Mr. Bardem’s track record suggests he means it.

The director Fernando León de Aranoa, a friend of Mr. Bardem’s, recalled: “When we were getting ready for ‘Mondays in the Sun,’ ” a Spanish film about unemployed shipyard workers, “he had just been nominated for an Oscar for the first time, for ‘Before Night Falls,’ and every time his phone rang, it was with a proposal to be part of a production that, in terms of money and fame, was more important than mine. I thought it was logical that he would take one of those, but he said to me, ‘I really like this character’ and remained firm. That’s an honesty that I like.”

If anything, Mr. Bardem may be more focused than ever. In the past, he admitted, he played as hard as he worked. But his recent marriage to the actress Penélope Cruz, with whom he worked first on the 1992 hit “Jamón, Jamón” and most recently on Mr. Allen’s “Vicky Cristina Barcelona,” and the impending birth of their first child seem to have brought a stability and depth to his work and life.

“I think that professionally he is now in a place where he feels greater security and a larger sense of freedom to do less, and be more the character and not force things,” Mr. Corazza, his acting coach, said. “It’s a very rich time for him right now personally too, a moment in which he is enjoying love and its fruits and has reached a level of maturity in which he thinks less of himself and more of others.”

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

. . . to make the invisible visible.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king."

Saturday, December 11, 2010

MARK & JAY DUPLASS ON "CYRUS"


The Duplass brothers have taken a big step forward with Cyrus. Their previous films such as The Puffy Chair and Baghead were both very good, but Cyrus is great. One of those reasons: the awkwardness and realism. When you watch a Duplass film it couldn’t feel more close to real life. The jokes aren’t broad or too over-the-top, but grounded in a realm of uncomfortableness.

This isn’t a battle a la Step Brothers or Rushmore style, but something real. The Duplass brother’s shooting style is a contributing factor to that which is quite unorthodox compared to most filmmakers. They shoot in sequence, the camerawork is practically all handheld, and they hardly stick to the dialog on page. Their formula is different, but obviously works. Here’s what Jay Duplass had to say about all this:

So, how did you make sure not to make Step Brothers 2? It’s obviously not that at all.

Thank you, I appreciate that. That’s an important message for us to get out there. It is John and Jonah, but we don’t want people coming in expecting Step Brothers. The easy answer to that is: although we love those type of movies and laugh our asses off, those aren’t the type of films that we make. Ultimately, it’s a relationship movie first. It’s about characters and real people tying to accomplish real things. Secondarily, we want it to be as funny as it can be. We don’t really write jokes or ask our actors to be funny, but we actually go the opposite way. We try to make sure that they’re just playing their characters. It’s the situation that comes off funny.

When you pitched the film to Fox Searchlight with the script did you and Mark say, “All the dialogue you read in the script actually won’t be in the movie.”

Yeah, we told them exactly how we work. It’s interesting that, in the end, the movie is actually pretty similar to the script. It’s just the method of getting there is really different than how most people in Hollywood shoot. We just try to go off script so we can get that level of naturalism that we’re obsessed with.

What’s your process of writing dialogue? Do you guys focus less on that because of how off script you go?

Honestly, the way it goes down is that my brother and I get the story down pretty heavily. When it comes time to do the first draft we have everything set. We know what the story is, we know how it’s going to add up, and Mark literally spews the whole script out in a linear fashion without looking back in a matter of two or three days. The dialogue actually comes out of the mouth. When it’s on the page, it doesn’t look as pretty as a lot of scripts look. It looks messy and looks almost superfluous. We definitely have a process where we try and keep the piece of art out of the intellectual realm as much as possible. We try to keep it in the body and as a living, breathing thing.

And all the plot points stay the same?

Absolutely. The plot points are all the same, but except for a couple that are just from typical editorial choices. Sometimes you take out scenes to make the film move along a little bit quicker.

One scene I wanna ask about that I know was cut out was where you actually got to see Cyrus having a panic attack. Was that cut out because it could’ve made him too sympathetic?

There’s definitely some things we had to cut. We were writing a very specific tone and there were some things that Cyrus was doing where… At a certain point, if you’re really connecting with this kid and realize he’s just a kid scared of losing his mom you have to save that realization until the end. If you realize that earlier on it would make it harder to have a lot of fun with the competition between John and Cyrus.

The most interesting part about Cyrus’s relationship with Molly is the subtle creepiness to it. There’s something slightly inappropriate about it, but the film never condemns that.

For us, we don’t like to condemn anything or any of our characters. Ultimately, at the core of Cyrus- who’s probably the most extreme character we’ve ever created- he really is just a kid terrified of losing his mom. That’s really the only significant relationship he has in his life. That’s what drives him to this desperation.

How do you balance though making Cyrus sympathetic while also making him out as the menacing and manipulative kid that you do?

You know, I don’t know. It’s more of a sub-conscience process, but I’d say more than anything we start off with an impression and then flip it over on its head. Hopefully, by the end of the movie you really get who he is and why he’s doing what he’s doing. It’s important that you understand him.

Do you think John ever comes off creepy as well?

Yeah, John is going head-to-head with this kid and using everything in his arsenal to try to take him down. In our opinion, no one is innocent in these movies. There’s no right or wrong. Everyone has flaws. That’s how we experience the world and that’s how we see people. We don’t judge them for it, but what we will do is put them on film and laugh with them and even at them a little bit. Never in a mocking way, but just in the way you’d laugh at yourself for all the little weird things you do.

You don’t hide their warts at all. It’s pretty awkward when you see John following Molly home. He’s a really nice guy, but it’s still odd.

Yeah, he stalks her and he even admits it. She’s a little creeped out by it. At the same time, if the guy turns out just to be a genuine dude then it’s a little flattering. It’s flattering if someone like that is focusing all about you.

John is a good guy. There’s that one scene where he says, “I know I’m a good guy,” and that really plays into how self-aware your characters are, but that’s also a really sad moment as well.

I know (laughs). We just love that his character is one-hundred percent on-the-line and that’s one of the great things about John C. Reilly. He can achieve a level of vulnerability that not many people can.

Reilly put it best too that Cyrus isn’t only ruining his relationship with Molly, but also messing with his goal to have his life together by the time of the wedding.

I think that is definitely a sub-conscience aim that maybe even the character is not even aware of. His ex-wife is getting remarried and he just doesn’t want to be that person that all of his and her friends have come to see him as.

When you get to Cyrus’s redemption at the end, how do you make sure it’s not too triumphant? It’s great how you don’t disregard the fact he’s acted like a terrible person for most of the film.

Yeah, we don’t. Honestly, we don’t like to suggest anything specific like everything is going to be okay from this point on. We’re definitely walking a fine line with the tone of the movie to makes sure there’s a lot of interpretations. The ending of the movie is more of a product of what’s going on inside of each audience member. Things are left pretty vague. There’s definitely some satisfying moments, but who knows what will happen in the future.

Couldn’t you say though that Cyrus ends a little more upbeat than your previous films?

Definitely. I don’t know if it’s a product of the fact that this movie has an enormous amount of conflict in it. It was something where you needed to achieve a balance in terms of the overall piece of art. There’s definitely some hopefulness there that definitely hasn’t been present in some of our past films.

Was finding the right tone something you struck at during the editing process? Since you shot so much footage I’d imagine once you get to that stage you could, if you wanted to, make a completely different movie.

That’s exactly what it is. Although the plot would’ve been the same, but because we are ninety-percent in close-ups that tone and the mode of how these people are treating each-other rises to the surface a lot more than you see in most films. From our perspective, we feel like we could make different movies with that footage. Our edits take a long time and it’s usually about nine months of editing. It’s documentary feature edits. We probably recut every scene twenty times.

Did you ever end up with say, a broader cut? Something more over-the-top?

We never did, but we certainly could’ve ended up with a more balls-out comedy cut.

How do you make sure to keep it restrained in that realm? You could have easily gone too far with the conflict between John and Cyrus.

You know, we’re just following our instincts. Ultimately, we like relationship movies that are funny. We’re going for a documentary-like style with the realism. We really want people to feel like they’re in the room with these people. You know, it may or may not be happening, but it certainly feels like the argument I had with my girlfriend last week. That’s the type of stuff we’re obsessed with. It’s a lot of work for us to imagine the tone, but it’s easy for us since that is what we’re drawn to.

The documentary style definitely comes off with the handheld camerawork.

It’s really just a result that we shoot totally differently than most of Hollywood. Normally, Hollywood will bring actors to a mark and overall, it’s a machine type of production. We actually do something completely different. We set people loose in a room and we say, “Do what you want.” Go where you wanna go, say what you wanna say, and have the interaction you wanna have. You know what the script is about and you know the goals you have to achieve, but just run free. We come to that interaction as a documentary-like crew. The adjustments of the camera are really because of where the actors are going.

Cyrus is now in theaters.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king."

Friday, December 10, 2010

MERYL STREEP, GEORGE C. WOLFE, ET. ALL: IN & ON THE PROCESS


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king."

Monday, November 29, 2010

THIS SUNDAY - THE HOLIDAY BRUNCH

The Holiday Brunch!

It's the most wonderful time of the brunch. Once again the playwrights of Youngblood turn their jaundiced, eggnog-soaked eye to the holidays. Five brand new plays about family, togetherness, charity and good cheer!


ONCE THE HOLIDAYS ARE OVER AND
EVERYTHING SETTLES DOWN
by Meghan Deans
directed by Nelson Eusebio
with Devere Rogers and Patricia Randell*



THIS CHRISTMAS LAST
by Angela Hanks
directed by José Angel Santana*
with Shyko Amos* and Shawn Randall


THE KID WHO'S FRIENDS WITH THE FAMOUS TREE
a new musical by Eric March
directed by Carlos Armesto
with Jake Aron, Brian Hastert, Eugene Oh and Dan Ziskie*


AND RICHIE'S STILL AN ELF
by Christopher Sullivan
directed by Jamie Richards*
with Steven Boyer, Jackie Chung* and David Gelles*


AND THEY MADE LATKES
by Emily Chadick Weiss
directed by Colette Robert
with Britt Lower and Joe Petrilla





* member of Ensemble Studio Theatre

Five brand new plays, plus our fabulous BRUNCH BUFFET of pancakes, eggs, bacon, pastries and our fiscally irresponsible open bar - all for just $18! Special holiday beverages may be had!


Reservations are ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL!
just email here: boxoffice@ensemblestudiotheatre.org
or call (212) 247-4982 x105

Sunday, December 5, doors open at 12:30pm for the buffet (food goes fast so get there early!) show starts at 1pm.

PLEASE NOTE: We usually have a waiting list, so any reservation not picked up by 10 minutes before curtain time can NOT be guaranteed.

Ensemble Studio Theatre
2nd Floor
549 West 52nd Street (bet. 10/11)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king."

Thursday, November 25, 2010

THANK YOU BILL REILLY

THANK YOU BILL REILLY, AS BEST A FRIEND AS ANYONE COULD EVER HAVE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king."

Saturday, November 20, 2010

THE NEW BUSINESS OF ENTERTAINMENT



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king."