Interview with Robert Schwentke about THE CAPTAIN

Kyle Cubr: Before you started this project, how familiar were you with Willi Herold’s story, and what drove you to make a film about him?

Robert Schwenkte: There are only two films in Germany that deal with the past, the Third Reich and World War II, through the point of view of the perpetrators. Germany stands pretty alone in that. Every other nation that was involved in World War II has conducted some kind of investigation cinematically as to the dynamics of the system and the people who were on the wrong side of the ethical question. I wanted to make a film that would be from the point of view of the perpetrator with a different set of questions from the audience that would be about the dynamic structure of national socialism. I looked for stories, found several, finally zeroed in on the Herold story because I felt that it allowed me to have all the levels and layers of the system represented—from the ordinary solider, to the judicial system, and to the generals all the way up, then I went and researched it. There’s one place in Germany, the archive of Budenberg, where the last surviving file is archived. [That’s where] all the core transcripts, diaries, letters form people who survived the camp or where at the camp when he was there [are kept]. I very intensely studied that file. The film is based entirely on that file, even down to some of the dialogue. For example, when the generals say, "Well this man is a good man. He’s the kind of guy we need in these times." […] That’s a verbatim transcription of what was said. I shortened it, I contracted it, but that was true. I also realized I didn’t know enough about the time, so I embarked on a ten-year historical research mission. I tried to educate myself on psychology. Like everyone that’s human, I ask myself “Why does this guy do these things?” I found out for myself that all answers I could find were simplistic or reductive. What I also realized was that I wanted for the audience to arrive at their own interpretation of that question and find their own answer. I decided to leave a blank with this character. Everyone else you get why they do what they do, but with him I left it blank. I didn’t want to categorize him as a sadist or in clinical terms or define him psychologically because I think that would have distanced the audience from what I wanted them to do which is find the answer to that question for themselves.

KC: I like that approach. Did he do it out of self-preservation? Did he do it out of a desire for power? Was he steamrolled by the circumstances he got caught up in? It’s hard to tell.

RS: It is hard to tell. My hope is that each person can find for themselves an answer that satisfies and jives with their worldview. Maybe the person next to them comes to a different set of answers and maybe when they start talking, a discourse follows. What’s interesting is that a lot of people balk at that blank spot, that void. They feel that it’s a mistake rather than a conscious, deliberate refusal to do it. Because people want to be told. They’re not used to leaning forward anymore and to project themselves into what they see. They just want me to tell them the riddles answer and I don’t want to do that. […] My best cinematic and reading experiences are when I had to lean forward and invest myself into them.

KC: The choice to shoot in black and white creates an interesting juxtaposition with Willi’s character. Does he see the world in black and white? Does he have any empathy in him? Near the end, you break that up with a singular color shot of the camp in modern times. What were you hoping to achieve with shooting the film in black and white.

RS: I wanted to make it palatable and watchable to be honest. I knew that it was going to be a movie that contained a lot of violence. I didn’t want to give people too much reason to run out of the theatre. I wanted them to watch it until the end. At the same time, if you don’t show any horror and if you don’t show any violence, you’re betraying the victims. That was the fine line. Black and white in the ’50s wouldn’t have done this. Black and white now, because it’s so seldomly seen, creates that distancing effect which helps the movie.

KC: This is your first German film in nearly fifteen years. What brought you away from the Hollywood system?

RS: Really, the story. I never wanted to make films in Hollywood. That was never my goal. I kind of ended up doing it because I was having a hard time getting my third film in Germany financed and I needed to work. I had studied in LA and my wife is American, but that was never my sole interest. I knew I wanted to make this film, but it took me a while to figure out how to make it. It was almost like how a sculptor looks at a block of marble. You start to chip away, rest the tools for a while then go back. It was that process to figure out how to make this film. I knew what I didn’t want to do, but after a certain while, you have to commit to something. You can’t just make a film out of negation. 

KC: Did you enjoy the creative liberties being able to write it yourself?

RS: Oh yeah. Of course a movie like this could never have been made in the Hollywood system because it breaks too many conventions. The Hollywood system is based on creating a product that sells. Most decisions are made on that goal, to sell it to as many people as you can. With this film, the decisions we were able to make were solely based on the question of what is best for the story and what is best for this film. We knew this was going to be a confrontational, provocative film where selling it to as many people as possible wasn’t the primary goal. 

KC: Let’s talk about shot composition in the film. There’s a lot of leftward movement in the film, almost exclusively, until the end when Willi is on the run when he finally starts to move towards the right side of the frame. These distances he travels are usually done as long shots except when it becomes more claustrophobic with closeups when in the camp. How did you approach your shot composition?

RS: I generally don’t start with the composition. I generally start with what I want to say with the shot. From there, I try to find the best possible placement for the camera. It’s all very practical and pragmatic for me. I know in advance at what point in the narrative I want to have the audience inside of [the action] and at what point outside of it. For example, […] just by virtue of the choices he makes, the audience would start to feel the distance from Willi Herold. If you don’t mimic that with the camera, it might feel like you’re oblivious to the point where the action is creating a chasm between the character and the audience. A lot of it is very instinctual. I’ve made my movies with the same [Director of Photography Florian Ballhaus]. We never talk about shots. We always talk about theme, character, and what we want to achieve in the scene as we work it out. 

KC: A lot of this film revolves around the dangers of groupthink and blindly following the leader. Do you feel that there are any parallels between that era and today’s political climate?

RS: I think sadly that the film has gained over the past four years some relevance to that respect. We are faced again with a whole slew of barbarians all over the world who are hollowing out the democratic form because they ignore its norms. You can’t have a form without a norm. They pay lip service to democratic processes and flaunt them at every turn. […] I’m as liberal as you can get. Democracy is not a privilege, it’s a right. It’s being subverted and we need to fight for it. [We need to] call the opposing forces by their true names and not mess around. 

I SURVIVED CINEPOCALYPSE by John Dickson

Our brave contributor John Dickson tackled the Music Box Theatre’s Cinepocalypse film festival, which took place June 21-28. Here is his daily dossier of the experience.—Ed.

Thursday, June 21st: After much mental prep, fighting off the deterrence of sitting through a walloping 30+ movies, in one week, I arrived at the majestic Music Box Theater. Tonight would be just a dip into what I could expect over the next week: hard-edged genre cinema, laced occasionally with elements of lightweight comedy, sometimes brutal violence, but always with a winking dose of pure unadulterated kitsch and a fistful of beer.

The line was long as I awaited the night’s premiere of THE DOMESTICS, an American horror/survival film by Mike P. Nelson. As I got to my seat and prepped for the lights to dim, I realized that Cinepocalypse was underway and there was no turning back (I mean there was, but you get it).

THE DOMESTICS finds itself somewhere in the gaps between George Miller’s MAD MAX and Wes Craven’s THE HILLS HAVE EYES. The plot concerns a future where the government releases a chemical agent that destroys half the world’s population; many of those that are left split up into nomadic gangs of cannibals, and the others just wish to be left alone to survive without harming anyone else. One couple (Kate Bosworth and Tyler Hoechlin) do what they can to make it home through the swathes of cannibal gangs, often resorting to similar violence as perpetrated by the nomads. So yes, the HILLS HAVE EYES vibe is strong, but the movie is surprisingly lean, with subtle punctures of black humor to keep it from falling into pure bleakness, and some pretty basic political commentary that just barely elected groans from the audience. The director, a relative first-timer, does what he can with pretty-straight forward material, and certainly shows signs of being able to deliver something even better in his coming years. If anything, it was a pleasure to see the original Orion logo flash on screen before the credits.

This was followed by a screening of BILL & TED’S AWESOME ADVENTURE, which came with complimentary beverages to help fuel a drinking game the Music Box employees put on for everyone. I missed this but from what I heard, it was a necessary follow-up to the brutality brought on by THE DOMESTICS.

Friday, June 22nd:

I arrive in the afternoon, ready to imbibe the horrific delights of what was to come.

First was THE RANGER, an ode to the classic 80’s slasher flick (you’re going to see that phrase a lot, forewarning). This one involves a group of goofy “punk rock” kids who, after killing a cop, run off to a secluded cabin in the woods to indulge in a psychedelic drug called Echo, play their dang rock music, and even spray paint some trees. As luck would have it, there’s a killer park ranger looming about, who dispatches the little punks with bear traps and axes. The film’s director, Jenn Wexler, certainly understands the tropes of the slasher movies she so clearly loves, but struggles to pass that love off as anything worthy of a good movie. The film has a very brisk pace but is extremely unsure of what it wants to be, with its mortal terror and comedic edges coming into confrontation with each other. At only 77 minutes, its brevity was certainly something to cherish.

Next up was THE DEVIL’S DOORWAY, a movie I was more than curious to catch, given that this is the first film completed by a woman, Aislinn Clarke, in the entirety of Northern Ireland’s cinematic history. Make no mistake, this is definitely a grab bag of modern horror tropes (creepy nuns, demonic children’s laughter, found-footage stylings, etc.) but what is refreshing about it all, is that it works. It concerns an Irish convent for wayward women that suddenly has a bunch of supernatural goings-on, and some Vatican-certified priests show up to investigate. Next to M. Night Shyamalan’s THE VISIT, this is one of the better found-footage horror flicks I’ve seen in a minute. It is nothing new, but what it works with, in terms of atmosphere mostly, turns out to be surprisingly effective.

After a little break, in which I peeped the pop-up shop Vintage Grindhouse, displaying its merchandise in the back courtyard of the theater, I was prepared to turn back for the last movie of my night, HOVER. The latest from SyFy Films, is certainly nothing more than just that—a silly VOD entry from, yeah, SyFy Films. It’s about a host of killer drones that fly around dispatching the survivors in a post-apocalyptic world who are struggling to get by (shocking). However, as silly and groan-worthy it may be, the cinematography was surprisingly better than average, and the film’s electronic score hovers (yes) just above boring and derivative, so it actually anchors the movie in an interesting way.

Saturday, June 23rd: 

I made my way back to the Music Box, this time armed with a bevy of granola bars, ready to take on a slate of films I was very much looking forward to. 

The day started with TALES FROM THE CRYPT: DEMON KNIGHT, a movie I was eager to revisit, since as a child watching it late at night on HBO, scared the living shit out of me (plus it was directed by the great Ernest R. Dickerson, more on him coming up). I was very curious if DEMON KNIGHT held up in the terror-department. To my surprise, it didn’t exactly, but what I did discover was that it actually held up as very enjoyable entertainment. It starts off with a wonderful gag involving the infamous Crypt-Keeper and John Larroquette, so I knew this wouldn’t be an awful time; and it isn’t. William Sadler plays a relic-guardian, hunted by the demonic Billy Zane, who is presumably the Devil. Sadler eventually holes up in a barely-functioning hotel, with a cast of characters doing everything they can to ward off the demonic army and the devilish, wisecracking Zane, from coming inside and killing all of them in order to retrieve the ancient relic. Jada Pinkett-Smith eventually shifts into the film’s main hero, and despite being fairly stage-bound, the film does have an enjoyably spooky atmosphere, in the vein of an old dark house horror movie.

Up next, the anticipated new flick from the currently on-fire Blumhouse Productions, BOOGEYMAN POP. Coming off their success with the Oscar-winning GET OUT, along with the incredibly underrated SPLIT, it seems Blumhouse couldn’t be more primed for further achievements (especially with the highly-anticipated HALLOWEEN reboot coming out later this year). BOOGEYMAN POP continues the streak of 1980’s-inspired horror movies, albeit this time in the model of those beloved anthology collections, such as TRILOGY OF TERROR and the original TALES FROM THE CRYPT. BOOGEMAN POP has lots of visual flair, so it’s a shame I felt underwhelmed overall; yet there’s enough here that I was genuinely intrigued by what it had to offer. It goes for the stylings of something more modern, like Nicolas Winding Refn’s THE NEON DEMON, but without the core of intrigue that grounded that highly underrated flick, from a somewhat highly overrated filmmaker.

Ending the long day was a movie that I felt extremely guilty of being curious about. This one needs no introduction: it’s the latest entry in the incredibly long-running PUPPET MASTER series. A quick Google search told me this seems to be either the 11th or 12th in the franchise, but who really cares at this point. I saw them on the then-Sci-Fi Channel, and even tried to rent them from the local video store, despite my parents’ objections. Lightly steeped in the grindhouse theater-trappings of the late 1970s, the new film’s plot certainly bares major semblance to those halcyon days of horror. PUPPET MASTER: THE LITTLEST REICH begins with a nod to the third film in the series, bringing the puppets’ origins back to Nazi-Germany, where they are used to murder anyone deemed enemies of the Reich (with the always captivating Udo Kier in tow). Flash-forward to the modern day, and the puppets are on display at a festival celebrating the anniversary of their creator’s infamous murders (because of course they would celebrate that). What follows has Blade and Tunneler killing off a fresh slew of victims, the horrendous twist being that they’re targeted to kill anyone non-Aryan, along with members of the LGBTQ community. The movie, while not being stellar, has caught a lot of heat for this. I think what makes it so shocking and brave, is that it positions the evil right back into the heart of what we recognize as evil in this day and age. Like the horror films of the 1970’s, it taps into the anxieties and fears that permeate amongst its audience, and does so very effectively (at least in regards to the backlash against it). Not only does it actually deliver “real horror” in terms of actually stoking its audience, it comes with a score by the legendary Fabio Frizzi (ZOMBIE, CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD, THE PSYCHIC) and with a script by the writer of BRAWL IN CELL BLOCK 99 and BONE TOMAHAWK. Not too bad for a series that has limped along with direct-to-video releases for several decades.

Sunday, June 24th:

I’m pretty weary at this point from yesterday, but I’m back. Thankfully the childhood nostalgia (which I normally detest) can coast me through the morning.

Sunday morning begins with WOLFMAN’S GOT NARDS, a documentary about the beloved VHS-staple, 1987’s THE MONSTER SQUAD, which was basically THE GOONIES, but somehow involving the stable of Universal monsters (Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster, the Mummy, the Wolf-Man, the Gill-Man). The documentary is directed by Andre Gower, who played Sean in the original film. It’s a lightweight documentary that revels in the fandom behind the cult classic, even as it questions whether the movie was ever really a “cult” film at all. It doesn’t delve too far beyond celebrating the phenomenon it caused, but given that the MONSTER SQUAD’s initially poor box office returns nearly sank it’s director’s career, one wonders whether there may have been a better topic to explore somewhere inside all the hullabaloo. But then, THE MONSTER SQUAD’s influence on a generation of youngsters is very much responsible for many of the newer movies being shown at Cinepocalypse.

Back to Ernest Dickerson, and his 1992 film JUICE. This might be the single most impressive reappraisal I came across at the festival. I was impressed with how highly stylized the film was (especially in relation to DEMON KNIGHT). Of course then, you’re reminded that Dickerson was the cinematographer for Spike Lee’s first six films, and shot many of the early episodes of The Wire for HBO, to which JUICE shares many striking visual similarities. It’s not even the shaky camera (which feels apt here, when it normally never does these days) but rather the constantly lurking camera, peering out from corners and behind walls, which gives the film an ominous quality of surveillance. One would be tempted to compare it to the visual aspects of giallo in its heyday, except here the looming feeling of always being watched is attached to young black men, instead of young white women, placing them constantly under suspecting scrutiny. It’s uneasy, but not in a queasy way; it’s more claustrophobic and probing, even though I would not describe the film that way, which actually has a wonderful way of using every corner of its screen. With its incredibly thrilling rooftop climax, JUICE stands as tall as it did 16 years ago.

So the 80’s slasher movie nostalgia train just keeps on rolling. It’s a wonder that this subgenre still holds fascination at all, but I guess these producers know what people want. Coming hot on the heels of the Netflix show Stranger Things is SUMMER OF ’84. It’s been called the “grisly brother” of the hit show, and it certainly has many similarities, as it involves a group of misfits kids in the 1980s trying to solve what might be the murders of a serial killer. In an era where all we seem to have are films that dip into the movies of the past, this one interestingly dips its little feet into Joe Dante’s classic THE ‘BURBS. It also owes a lot to another 80’s big boy, FRIGHT NIGHT, in that one of the kids believes his neighbor is the serial killer. So…yep, it’s R-rated Stranger Things. I’m ready to go home now.

Monday, June 25th:

I’m weary, but thankfully I can sleep in and exercise, in prep for the evening. Despite being a devout movie-lover, it can be really difficult to subject yourself to the screen so much day after day. I feel a bit like my eyes may burn through the back of my skull, but I remain undeterred in my devotion to this cine-sadism (or is it cine-masochism?).

Thankfully, tonight is a light one, and it concerns what I take to be the first canon film (yes, canon ya nerds) entry in the bloated Marvel Cinematic Universe, HOWARD THE DUCK. Howard appeared with Spider-Man and Doctor Strange in his own Marvel Comics series in the 1970s and 80s (he also briefly appeared in GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOLS. 1 and 2). In 1986, George Lucas thought it would be in his best interest to step down from directing, and to just produce a movie adaptation of Howard’s adventures. Honestly as a kid, I thought Howard was great. Seeing it now, I feel less warmly about it, but I have to give credit to its silliness. This was a much-needed centering for the festival, to step it back a little bit and delight in it’s cartoonish brevity.

Howard was followed by the overseas box-office smash from Indonesia, SATAN’S SLAVES. A remake of an earlier, 1980’s Indonesian film (that took major cues from PHANTASM), SLAVES became the bright spot of the festival for me. While not perfect, the film is loaded with ideas that make themselves abundantly clear in its very well done pacing and atmosphere. The plot is about a mother who dies from a disease, only to return from the grave to come after her children. This movie broke box-office records in Indonesia and has been distributed all over the world as a result. What makes the film so effective is how well it separates its scares from the gooey melodrama in between. It doesn’t try to go for the jugular at every single damn moment, which makes it a very welcome genre entry in the festival. When this one gets a wider distribution in Chicago, make an effort to see it; it is genuinely creepy as hell.

Tuesday, June 26th: 

Since it is not in the sprit of Cine-File to publish overly-negative reviews, I’m going to make this day brief.

I saw two movies: LUCIFERINA and THE RUSSIAN BRIDE. The former involves a girl who I guess was impregnated by Satan and as a result, has turned her little sister into a pot-smoking goth. The latter movie, involves a woman who flees Russia with her young daughter, to marry Corbin Bernsen, who snorts mad amounts of cocaine and just wants to terrorize his new bride and stepdaughter. While in the lobby of the Music Box, trying to regain brain cells, I overheard some people claim THE RUSSIAN BRIDE had elements of Polanski. So in retort, to a claim which made me tense up more than the actual film, if you want modern Polanski-imitation, seek out Gore Verbinski’s A CURE FOR WELLNESS; significantly less ye-snorting, but with a much more expertly-constructed visual scheme.

It’s raining like crazy now, and I need to protect my laptop as I run for the bus, but I am now trapped under the awning of Captain Nemo’s Seafood Restaurant, as I wait for the rain to end.

Wednesday, June 27th:

THE APPEARANCE kicks off this evening at Cinepocalypse and I’m already nervous, because I’ve heard it resembles Game of Thrones, a series in which, every time I’ve turned it on, someone is being sexually-assaulted, so I’ve never really pursued it (yeah I know, there’s more to it than that but I don’t really give a shit about dragons and snow people.) This one concerns a knight who believes in science (hell yeah) and discovers there is some witchcraft going on at this monastery nearby. Can you guess what happens next? I don’t know if it’s just my mind that is fading after all these movies, but I didn’t entirely dislike it.

The Wachowskis were up next, presenting their debut film, BOUND. Re-visiting this one really provided me with the courage to make it through the rest of the fest. Gina Gershon and Jennifer Tilly remain absolutely excellent, and seeing this one again, I was more attuned to how skillfully the movie was put together, overblowing its stereotypes in a manner not entirely unlike the master himself, Brian De Palma. And when one considers what this film meant for the LGBTQ community in 1996, the movie remains incredibly relevant in our current dark age. In all honesty, it really just made me want to rewatch all of the Wachowski movies, even SPEED RACER.

Thursday, June 28th:

Well, I made it, to the very last day. And only one of my eyes is twitching.

I knew I only had it in me for two movies (had to consider my health at this point) but they were both a terrific way to cap it all off.

First up, THE BRINK. This is the debut film by Jonathan Li, and as loony as it was, I had the best time with it. The plot involves a doesn’t-play-by-the-rules Hong Kong police officer who is in hot pursuit of a gang of gold-smugglers/off-shore fishermen. He locates their whereabouts—on a floating casino in international waters, where they are holding his kidnapped partner. As with the best Hong Kong action cinema, the visuals are over the top (I don’t know if I’ve seen one where a typhoon functions as a major set piece, but I dug it). The camerawork is sleek as hell, with moody color swathes smudging over the city scenes, with crisp icy-darkness serving as the main palette when the film goes out to sea (in more ways than one). I will certainly be looking forward to more of what this filmmaker can do.

Here we are: the end. I’m not sure if there was a better way to cap it off than with KILLER KLOWNS FROM OUTER SPACE. At this point, I was becoming increasingly numb, and found it best to hide out in the back of the theater in a dark ball cap, and promptly run to my car as soon as it was over. I was hungry and getting grumpy, but I needed to see this one again. Goofy hardly covers KLOWNS, but this one is super enjoyable. Aliens from outer space, who look like grotesque clowns, come to Earth and want to embalm people in cotton-candy webs so that they can suck out their blood later. As a kid, the balance between the film’s humor and violence became a kind of cartoonish-horror that I actually found pretty disturbing; in parts of the film, I still felt that way. The always-great John Vernon, upon encountering one of the ghoulish clowns, has his back and spine penetrated by one of the monsters, who proceeds to use Vernon like a puppet to scare some people. Of course Vernon plays the bad cop character, but I still found that scene to be extremely disturbing and creepy. The film’s creators, the Chiodo Brothers, were in attendance, with one of them dressed up in one of the original Klown costumes.

I wish I could’ve stayed around, in retrospect, but I felt my mind caving in, so I decided to book it immediately and go home to meditate/stare at my bedroom wall. 

In conclusion to this dossier of the second annual Cinepocalypse, I am so glad something like this exists. Not everything may be great (I will certainly stress that) but genre cinema needs its home, and when you see something outstanding in this corner of moviedom that too often slips through the cracks or that gets dismissed sight-unseen by the “high-brow” critics, you begin to realize, through all the fatigue, this is what being a cinema-lover is all about.

 

Interview with SAVAGE YOUTH director Michael Curtis Johnson

Michael Glover Smith: SAVAGE YOUTH is based on the true story of a crime that occurred in your hometown of Joliet. How did you conduct your research and to what extent did you feel a moral obligation to tell the story authentically?

Michael Curtis Johnson: I attended funerals of the victims and the trials of the convicted. I did an exhaustive amount of creative research, but a journalistic approach didn't really appeal to me. I didn't reach out to anyone directly involved. I was more interested in how they portrayed themselves through social media and how they were perceived by the public to see if we could find something real beneath their social personas. I wanted to explore how we all play characters in our own lives. It was important for us to tell the story morally, but I don't think that means staying completely true to the events as they unfolded. I didn't want the victims or the convicted to be defined by a single day in their lives. That's not fair, even if it's factual. SAVAGE YOUTH isn't a docudrama; it's a melodrama. I thought about the work of S.E. Hinton a lot while developing it. No one would argue that her work is realism, but it feels true to me. Like Hinton, I believe youth can be savage, but it can also have moments of tenderness and grace.

MGS: You shot SAVAGE YOUTH before the last Presidential election although it wasn't released until after Trump took office. The film deals with race and class divisions in a way that makes it feel like a commentary on Trump's America. Have you thought about how the film would've resonated differently had the election gone the other way?

MCJ: The most redeemable true crime stories to me aren't about politics, they're about people. They might seem seedy and unsavory, but they can tell you so much about the human experience. I certainly didn't want to make an overt political statement. Of course we were exploring certain themes, but we were doing it through character. Having said that, I know the way I view the film now is different than when we were making it. I spent the first half of my life in the Rust Belt and the second half in Los Angeles. When I'd leave my coastal utopia to come home, I felt a palpable tension. I always knew I wanted to make a film about that feeling. I actually tried to make a film exploring similar themes with the same title back in 2010 that never came to fruition. I also didn't know how worn out the word "savage" would be now back then. While there's no direct correlation whatsoever, the actual crime that inspired the film was committed just days before Obama was sworn in for his second term and the hope honeymoon was over. At the time, I felt something festering that really informed my approach, but I didn't intellectually, or even consciously, understand it. I was in Poland of all places the month before Trump was elected screening a rough cut of SAVAGE YOUTH when someone asked me what I thought might happen if Trump won the election. I completely dismissed the idea of Trump ever winning. Even after shooting the film, I still hadn't looked at it through a political lens. I'm still in a bubble in some ways. I still see the characters in our film as real kids and not concepts. 

MGS: One of the most impressive aspects of the film is how all of the characters are equally sympathetic even when they're at odds with each other or behaving in reprehensible ways. Was it important for you that viewers connect with all of the characters and was that a difficult balancing act to pull off?

MCJ: I don't like bad guys vs. good guys. Heroes and villains are creatures of plot and I'm more a fan of story. I'll be the first to admit that I'm always telling stories that have been told before and showing character archetypes that we're familiar with, but I don't label any character and usually let the characters guide me as opposed to directing them towards specific plot points. I feel like when you do that you don't have to choose sides and the audience doesn't need to pick a tribe either. I just aim for empathy.

MGS: The lead actors are all phenomenal. The chemistry between them is crucial in a story like this where deep friendships and romance are being depicted. What was the process of auditioning and rehearsing with these actors like?

MCJ: One of our producers (Charlene Lee) was also one of our casting directors. She found actors that were not only talented, but were brave enough to sign on for difficult material. We didn't have any rehearsals. Everyone in the film is playing a role. None of them are just playing themselves. They're young, but they're pros. The acting process is a complete mystery to me. I like to watch performances unfold and react. The actors made the chemistry themselves. Grace (Victoria Cox) had this way of adapting her performance for whoever she was working with that really mirrored the empathetic but impressionable character she plays on screen. Before we got on set, I saw Tequan Richmond as this classic Cary Grant sort of actor and Will Brittain as a Marlon Brando method-type. But when they got into the scenes together, they'd adjust to each other and collaborate. They'd dance. Their respective processes were invisible. Mitchell Edwards has such a stoic star presence about him but can still portray such warmth. Sasha Feldman, Chloe Levine and J. Michael Trautmann are possessed. I don't know how the characters they create come out of them. Performance is magic and I don't want to see behind the curtain. My other producing partner (Michael Peluso) made it a priority (even more than I did) to shoot SAVAGE YOUTH in Joliet. In the end, being there had an alchemic effect on the cast that I never could have imagined. 

MGS: I loved the way you used the audio of Walt Whitman reading his own poetry over the beginning and end of the film. What was the logic behind that decision?

MCJ: No logic. It wasn't conceived until the editing process. Originally the sequences were written as character voice-overs. We could never get the voice-overs to work. The characters just seemed too self-aware to me. I wish I could have pulled off that David Gordon Green GEORGE WASHINGTON or Terrance Malick BADLANDS thing but I'm not that good. I don't know if I'd call Whitman hip hop, but there is something that's so visceral about his words that you don't even need to understand them to feel what he's saying. We tried to do that with some of the rap sequences and some of the more theatrical dialogue passages. The characters might as well be rapping in tongues, but I hope the audience still feels for them. 

Michael Curtis Johnson will be present for a Q&A following the Chicago Premiere of SAVAGE YOUTH at the Chicago Underground Film Festival on Saturday, June 9th at 8:45pm at the Logan Theater. 

Cine-File Contributors' 2017 End-of-Year Lists

Edo Choi
2017 was awful, but the movies were good.
1. ZAMA (Martel)
2. PHANTOM THREAD (PTA)
3. ELOHIM / ABATON / CODA / ODE (Dorsky)
4. WONDERSTRUCK (Haynes)
5. VISAGES, VILLAGES (Varda)
6. THE FOUR SISTERS (Lanzmann)
7. DUNKIRK (Nolan)
8. THE FLORIDA PROJECT (Baker)
9. The Deuce, S1 (Simon, Pelecanos, Price, et. al.)
10. WESTERN (Grisebach)
11. Mindhunter, S1 (Fincher, Penhall, et. al.)
12. UN BEAU SOLEIL INTÉRIEUR (Denis)
13. ISMAEL'S GHOSTS (Desplechin)
14. LAST FLAG FLYING (Linklater)
15. ON THE BEACH AT NIGHT ALONE (Hong)
16. LOGAN LUCKY (Soderbergh)
17. THE POST (Spielberg)
18. WONDER WHEEL (Allen)
19. LOVER FOR A DAY (Garrel)
20. Top of the Lake: China Girl (Campion, Kleiman)
21. THE MEYEROWITZ STORIES (NEW AND SELECTED) (Baumbach)
22. OKJA (Bong)

Runners Up:
LADY BIRD (Gerwig)
Twin Peaks: The Return (Lynch)
GOOD TIME (Safdie Bros.)
WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES (Reeves)
MUDBOUND (Rees)

Edo Choi is a film programmer and projectionist. He currently holds positions as both associate programmer and projection manager for the Maysles Documentary Center. He also works as a projectionist at the Alamo Drafthouse in Brooklyn.

Emily Eddy
Emily's fav 2017 experimental film, video & new media works in no particular order:
INCENSE, SWEATERS & ICE (Martine Syms, digital) 
DISLOCATION BLUES (Sky Hopinka, digital)
TONSLER PARK (Kevin Jerome Everson, 16mm) 
STRANGELY ORDINARY THIS DEVOTION (Dani Restack & Sheila Wilson, digital) 
IT'S IN THE GAME '17 OR MIRROR GAG FOR VITRINE AND PROJECTION (Sondra Perry, digital)
++ WE WILL LOVE YOU FOREVER (Evan Meaney, virtual reality)
ONWARD LOSSLESS FOLLOWS (Michael Robinson, digital)
SEMEN IS THE PISS OF DREAMS (Steve Reinke, digital)
FEVER FREAKS (Frédéric Moffet, digital)
FILTER (Jaako Pallasvuo, digital) 

Harrison Sherrod
10 things I watched & enjoyed from the past year, give or take a couple months. 
1. HYPERNORMALISATION, Adam Curtis
2. PERSONAL SHOPPER, Olivier Assayas
3. THE SQUARE, Ruben Östlund
4. GOOD TIME, Benny and Joshua Safdie
5. MINDHUNTER, David Fincher et al. 
6. THE ORNITHOLOGIST, João Pedro Rodriguez
7. THE VILLIANESS, Jung Byung-gil
8. RISK, Laura Poitras
9. FACTORY OF THTE SUN, Hito Steyerl
10. TESSERACT, Charles Atlas et al.

John Dickson
1. LET THE SUNSHINE IN (Claire Denis)
2. Twin Peaks: The Return (David Lynch)
3. ON THE BEACH AT NIGHT ALONE (Hong Sang-soo)
4. GOOD TIME (Josh & Ben Safdie)
5. DAWSON CITY: FROZEN TIME (Bill Morrison)
6.  NOCTURAMA (Bertrand Bonello)
7. RAISING CAIN: DIRECTOR'S CUT (Brian DePalma)
8. DAGUERREOTYPE/BEFORE WE VANISH (Kiyoshi Kurosawa)
9. THE LOST CITY OF Z (James Gray)
10. SPLIT (M. Night Shyamalan)

JB Mabe
1 (tie). MOUNTAIN CASTLE MOUNTAIN FLOWER PLASTIC (Annapurna Kumar,
2017, Digital)
1 (tie). BAD MAMA, WHO CARES (Brigid McCaffrey, 2016, 35mm)
3. SIXTY SIX (Lewis Klahr, 2002-15, Digital)
4. HEALING IN MY HOUSE (Jacolby Satterwhite, 2016, digital)
5. OUR OWN PRIVATE UNIVERSE (Ben Balcolm, 2016, digital)
6. SHAPE OF A SURFACE (Nazlı Dinçel, 2017, 16mm)
7. THE OTHER SIDE OF HOPE (Aki Kaurismäki, 2017, digital)
8. THE BODY HEALS (Annelise Ogaard, 2016, digital)
9. NORMAN: THE MODERATE RISE AND TRAGIC FALL OF A NEW YORK FIXER
(Joseph Cedar, 2017, digital)
10. GET OUT (Jordan Peele, 2017, digital)
11. TEHRAN-GELES (Arash Nassiri, 2014, digital)
12. STONES FOR THUNDER (Kera MacKenzie & Andrew Mausert-Mooney, 2018, digital)
13. MISSING IN-BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL PROPER (Olivia Ciummo, 2017, digital)

Julian Antos
These are new films I watched and enjoyed in 2017. To my mind it was a good year for the kind of commercial cinema I enjoy. There were a handful of other new movies I saw in 2017 and did NOT enjoy. I see no need to mention them here. I was disappointed that there was no new Chipmunks movie this year. These titles are listed in alphabetical order. Thanks for reading.

20TH CENTURY WOMEN (Mike Mills, 2016, A24) DCP @ Tower Theatre, Sacramento - Screen 1
CASTING JONBENET (Kitty Green, 2017, Netflix) DCP @ Jesse Auditorium, True/False Film Festival
THE CINEMA TRAVELERS (Shirley Abraham, Amit Madheshiya, 2016) DCP @ Vilas Hall, Wisconsin Film Festival
DUNKIRK (Chris Nolan, 2017, Warner Brothers) 70mm @ Music Box Theatre, Screen 1
THE FLORIDA PROJECT (Sean Baker, 2017) DCP @ AMC River East 21, Screen 18
GOOD TIME (Benny Safdie, Josh Safdie, 2017, A24) DCP @ AMC River East, Screen 13
LADY BIRD (Greta Gerwig, 2017, A24) DCP @ AMC Dine in Theaters, Screen 9
THE LOST CITY OF Z (James Gray, 2016, Bleecker Street Media/Amazon Studios) 35mm @ Music Box Theatre - Screen 1
PATERSON (Jim Jarmusch, 2016, Amazon Studios) DCP @ Landmark Century, Screen 1
PETER AND THE FARM (Tony Stone, 2016, Cinema Conservancy) DCP @ Gene Siskel Film Center - Screen 2
SILENCE (Martin Scorsese, 2016, Paramount Pictures) DCP @ Music Box - Screen 1 Song to Song (Terrence Malick, 2017, Broad Green Pictures) DCP @ Landmark Century - Screen 5
SULLY (Clint Eastwood, 2016, Warner Brothers) 35mm at Market Square, Madison, WI - Screen 1
TONI ERDMANN (Maren Ade, 2016, Sony Pictures Classics) DCP @ Music Box - Screen 1
WONDER WOMAN (Patty Jenkins, 2017, Warner Brothers) 70mm @ Gateway Film Center, Columbus OH

K.A. Westphal
1. PERSONAL SHOPPER (Olivier Assayas, France) / A GHOST STORY (David Lowery, US)
2. BLADE RUNNER 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, US)
3. LADY BIRD (Greta Gerwig, US) / COLUMBUS (Kogonada, US) / PRINCESS CYD (Stephen Cone, US)
4. FACES PLACES (Agnes Varda & J.R., France)
5. THE FLORIDA PROJECT (Sean Baker, US)
6. VALENTINE (Paul Thomas Anderson, US)
7. NORMAN: THE MODERATE RISE AND TRAGIC FALL OF A NEW YORK FIXER (Joseph Cedar, US/Israel)
8. LOGAN LUCKY (Steven Soderbergh, US)9. DAWSON CITY: FROZEN TIME (Bill Morrison, US) / WONDERSTRUCK (Todd Haynes, US)
10. IN TRANSIT (Albert Maysles, et al., US) / WHOSE STREETS? (Sabaah Folayan & Damon Davis, US)

Honorable Mention: THE LOST CITY OF Z (James Gray, US), WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES (Matt Reeves, US), DUNKIRK (Christopher Nolan, US/UK), THE MEYEROWITZ STORIES (NEW AND SELECTED) (Noah Baumbach, US), WHOSE STREETS? (Sabaah Folayan & Damon Davis, US)

Best 2016 Film That Opened in Chicago in 2017: TONI ERDMANN (Maren Ade, Germany)

Yet To See: PHANTOM THEAD, THE POST, THE SQUARE, THE OTHER SIDE OF HOPE, BPM, EX LIBRIS, SHAPE OF WATER, LOVING VINCENT, COCO, JANE, CALL ME BY YOUR NAME, THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING, MISSOURI

Best Actress
1. Haley Lu Richardson, COLUMBUS
2. Kristen Stewart, PERSONAL SHOPPER
3. Saoirse Ronan, LADY BIRD

Best Actor
1. Richard Gere, NORMAN: THE MODERATE RISE AND TRAGIC FALL OF A NEW YORK FIXER
2. Adam Sandler, THE MEYEROWITZ STORIES (NEW AND SELECTED)
3. John Cho, COLUMBUS

Best Supporting Actress
1. Michelle Pfeiffer, MOTHER!
2. Ana de Armas, Robin Wright, Sylvia Hoeks, Carla Juri, BLADE RUNNER 2049
3. Charlotte Gainsbourg, NORMAN: THE MODERATE RISE AND TRAGIC FALL OF A NEW YORK FIXER

Best Supporting Actor
1. Lil Rel Howery, GET OUT
2. Robert Pattinson, THE LOST CITY OF Z
3. Daniel Craig, LOGAN LUCKY

Best Films I Saw for the First Time in 2017
ANNE OF THE INDIES (Jacques Tourneur, 1951, US) ^
FOX AND HIS FRIENDS (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1975, West Germany)
GIRLFRIENDS (Claudia Weill, 1978, US)
L'IMPORTANT C'EST D'AIMER (Andrzej Zulawski, 1975, France)
PUNKING OUT (Maggi Carson, Juliusz Kossakowski, and Fredric A. Shore, 1979, US) ^
LE ROI DES ALUNES (Marie-Louise Iribe, 1930, France)
SEVENTEEN (Joel DeMott & Jeff Kreines, 1983, US)
TERJE VIGEN (Victor Sjöström, 1917, Sweden)
WORKING GIRLS (Dorothy Arzner, 1931, US) ^
Films by Nazlı Dinçel: REFRAME (2009, US), LEAFLESS (2011, US), HER SILENT SEAMING (2014, US), SOLITARY ACTS #4 (2016, US)
^ Presented by Chicago Film Society

Kyle Cubr
1. LADY BIRD
2. THE SHAPE OF WATER
3. PHANTOM THREAD
4. RAW
5. GET OUT
6. DUNKIRK
7. A GHOST STORY
8. THE FLORIDA PROJECT
9. THE BEGUILED
10. TRAIN TO BUSAN

Max Frank
MAX’S LIST OF INCONCEIVABLE MOMENTS IN MOVIE CULTURE  GOOD AND MOSTLY BAD, IN THE 2017
1. Selena Gomez poses for a picture on Josh Safdie’s lap
2. Errol Morris Tweets about a “Nathan For You” Episode
3. Max Sits Next to Olivia Wilde and Jaso Sudeikas In an Empty Metrograph Showing a James Gray Movie, Makes a Bad Joke To Olivia about His Pink Vitamin Water (She Laughs)
4. Max Spills His Reese’s Pieces In the James Gray Movie
5. Nancy Meyers’ Daughter Directs a Movie about Nancy Meyers Movies
6. Reese Witherspoon Stars in Nancy Meyers’ Daughter’s Movie About Nancy Meyers Movies
7. Tiffany Hadish’s Grapefruit Monologue In “Girls Trip”
8. Tiffany Hadish’s Story About Kidnapping Will and Jada Smith to go on a Swamp Tour (on Kimmel)
9. David Fincher Proves We’re All Still Perverts
10. Whenever I Finally Get to See Phantom Thread on 70mm Because My Family Decided on The Last Jedi for Jewish Christmas

Runners Up:
1. Ben Shapiro Vs. Rosie O’Donnell Celebrity Death Match
2. Selena Gomez Has 131 Million Followers And Follows 316 People; One of Those People Is Buddy Durress
3. Mark Kermode’s Geostorm Review
4. Mark Kermode’s Rough Night Review
5. Deciding What To Laugh At When Multiple Jokes Happen At The Same Time in LEGO Batman
6. Max Telling a Bad Joke to Josh from “Drake and Josh” in a Vietnamese Sandwich Place (He Laughed)
7. Trump’s Loose Dentures Come Undone During Jerusalem Announcement
8. Mel Gibson Is Back In Movies As Though He Didn’t Say All Those Antisemitic Things
9. Mel Gibson Helps Expand the “Mommies and Daddies” Universe
10. A Scene I Won’t Spoil In “Father Figures,” Which Is Maybe My Favorite Installment in the “Mommies and Daddies” Universe

Michael W. Phillips, Jr. 
The top 11 things I saw in 2017, from someone who never sees new movies anymore, and containing too many movies I either programmed or was paid to show publicly, and including some shorts so Patrick doesn't crab at me.
1. GET CARTER (Mike Hodges, 1971)
2. NAT TURNER: A TROUBLESOME PROPERTY (Charles Burnett, 2002)
3. HUMAN REMAINS (Jay Rosenblatt, 1998)
4. THE NEWTON BOYS (Richard Linklater, 1998)
5. THE BLACK TOWER (John Smith, 1987)
6. HAPPINESS (Alexander Medvedkin, 1935)
7. THE QUEEN (Frank Simon, 1968)
8. JUPITER ASCENDING (Wachowskis, 2015)
9. THE BLACK WOMAN (Stan Lathan, 1970)
10. WICKED CITY (Yoshiaki Kawajiri, 1987)
11. Coney Island Amateur Psychoanalytic Society's dream films (CIAPS, various years)

Michael Smith
My 10 favorite films to receive their Chicago premieres in 2017.
10. FELICITE (Gomis, Senegal/Democratic Republic of Congo) - Facets
9. THE OTHER SIDE OF HOPE (Kaurismaki, Finland) - Chicago International Film Festival
8. LET THE SUNSHINE IN (Denis, France) - Chicago International Film Festival
7. ON THE BEACH AT NIGHT ALONE (Hong, S. Korea) - Chicago International Film Festival
6. GOOD TIME (Safdie/Safdie, USA) - AMC River East / Webster Place
5. NOCTURAMA (Bonello, France) - Facets
4. TONI ERDMANN (Ade, Germany) - Music Box
3. FACES PLACES (Varda/J.R., France) - Music Box
2. HAPPY HOUR (Hamaguchi, Japan) - Siskel Center
1. TWIN PEAKS (Lynch, USA) - Cable T.V. / Music Box

Rob Christopher
Ten favorite films I watched for the first time in 2017.
CEMETERY OF SPLENDOR
I AM NOT YOUR NEGRO
I CALLED HIM MORGAN
LO AND BEHOLD
MOONLIGHT
THE MURDER OF FRED HAMPTON
NOCTURNAL ANIMALS
THE SHAPE OF WATER
20TH CENTURY WOMEN
TWIN PEAKS: THE RETURN

Scott Pfeiffer
1. FACES PLACES: At age 88 at the time this film was made, Agnes Varda's body may be winding down, but her curiosity about other people remains undimmed. Of this "buddy/road trip comedy," which she made with street artist JR, 33, I wrote, "I love this sportive, altogether magical film—it's light and simple and funny, and all the more profound for it." What's it about? History and memory. The power of imagination. Lost loves. Creativity and travel and solidarity. In other words, those things most fragile, and most precious. 

2. COLUMBUS: Years ago, the wise film critic James Monaco wrote, "Ideas and character, people and intelligence, are the life of any good movie." No film embodied that notion better this year than Kogonada's debut feature.

3. THE OTHER SIDE OF HOPE: The mise en scène itself is droll in Aki Kaurismaki's ultra-dry Finnish comedy. It centers around a taciturn and tough, but goodhearted, restaurateur (Sakari Kuosmanen) and a Syrian refugee seeking asylum in Finland (the exquisitely deadpan Sherwan Haji). Reviewing it when it played at the Chicago International Film Festival, I found it "a wonderfully wry treatment of a cruel, sad reality" and said that "the two cagey leads are my favorite movie characters in a good long while." Make that of the year.

4. THE SON OF JOSEPH: Anything with Mathieu Amalric stands a good chance of making any list of mine. When I think of this film, I want to use the word "refreshing." That's partly because of its theme of renewal, but also because I covered it in the Spring. (That's when it played at the Gene Siskel Center's European Union Film Festival, one of my favorites of the Chicago year.) In my writeup, I said "writer/director Eugène Green's stylized, deadpan satire, turns out to be a non-ironic Christian allegory about love and resistance. While it's rather unclassifiable, I laughed much harder here than at many so-called comedies.

5. I AM NOT YOUR NEGRO. Back in February, I wrote, "When [James] Baldwin speaks of the 'death of the heart,' of our privileged apathy, of an infantile America, an unthinking and cruel place, he could be speaking of the Trump era. He feared for the future of a country increasingly unable to distinguish between illusion, dream, and reality. 'Neither of us, truly, can live without the other,' he wrote. 'For, I have seen the devil...[I]t is that moment when no other human being is real for you, nor are you real for yourself.' Let this movie inspire today's young dissenters, and let James Baldwin be our model of oppositional, critical thinking as we raise our angry voices against Donald Trump and everything he stands for." That still feels right.

6. TWIN PEAKS: THE RETURN: Think of it as a TV movie or, per Violet Lucca, as being of a piece with the rest of his paintings, sculptures and "cross-media output." David Lynch's 18-hour work was laugh-out-loud funny and it was also, for great stretches, a beautiful experimental film. The "moving image work" that played most with the medium in 2017 was on TV! Lynch both subverted and gratified my generation's nostalgia, and played with the passage of 25 years in ways both poignant and unsettling. The opening credits showed the Snoqualmie Falls from a new angle, and the show went from there, making the familiar truly strange once again. There were so many moments I cherish, from Michael Cera's Wally Brando to Harry Dean Stanton crooning "Red River Valley." On a personal note: back in '90 or '91, I conducted a telephone interview with Duwayne Dunham, The Return's editor, for class. The assignment was to interview someone doing something we'd like to do in life. I couldn't get Lynch, my first choice, but Dunham'd directed a few episodes of the then-contemporary Twin Peaks and graciously agreed to talk to me. Kudos to my old friend on putting together The Return, a major accomplishment!

7. MUDBOUND: The life force runs through it. One of the finest ensemble casts of the year. This movie is so tactile it practically manifests the epigraph of the Hillary Jordan novel it adapts, from James Agee's Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, in which Agee despairs of the capacity of writing to render the immediacy of the sensory experience he wishes to convey. Instead, he says, he would give us photographs, then "fragments of cloth, bits of cotton, lumps of earth, records of speech, pieces of wood and iron, phials of odors, plates of food and of excrement...A piece of the body torn out by the roots might be more to the point.

8. PHANTOM THREAD: Speaking of playing with the medium: Paul Thomas Anderson's perverse, enchanted film did that at nearly every beat, all the while working within tradition—in his words, the Gothic romance with suspense, à la Rebecca. The movies features perhaps Daniel Day-Lewis's last word on screen acting, as a fastidious, elite dressmaker to royals and stars in '50s London. The world of couture is perhaps Anderson's most feminine milieu ever, although my father takes W Magazine, so who's to say? Phantom Thread is about the comic, sinister undercurrents of power dynamics in relationships, and the dark British sarcasm is, in its way, as witheringly funny as the violence of There Will Be Blood. Here the dressmaker's boxing partners are his lover (Vicky Krieps), an outsider because of her youth, nationality and class, and his icy sister and business partner (Lesley Manville), both stellar. It's their common ruthlessness that somehow unites these people. As usual, Anderson includes very strange shifts of tone and psychology, fascinatingly odd elisions. I can't decide if the metaphors at play here are profoundly deep, or if they stop at surfaces. Either way, what surfaces! At its best, this picture achieves the wistful, sumptuous grandeur of a Visconti, and his finale role allows Day-Lewis to range from stern patriarch to happy little baby.

9. THE SQUARE: A riotous study of absurdity, it seemed to resound with the themes of the year in ways large and small.

10. THE TRIP TO SPAIN. Another delightful entry in a series that's become one of the real pleasures of my filmgoing life. Come for the dueling impressions; stay for the poignancy of our middle-aged men of La Mancha, tilting away against the beat of the clock.

Interview with "Ida Lupino, Director" Author Therese Grisham

Michael Glover Smith: There were dozens of female directors working in the American film industry in the silent era. In the years immediately after World War II, there was only Ida Lupino. Why did Hollywood become more inhospitable to female filmmakers over time?

Therese Grisham: It happened at the end of the ‘20s and into the ‘30s. Part of that was the centralization of the movie industry (in Hollywood). Another part of it was unionization of work, the kind of strict categorization of work. Prior to that, men and women worked in all facets of filmmaking. We’re talking behind the camera: you weren’t just an “X,” you did various things. Once the jobs became categorized, that was no longer the case. And it seems inevitable at that point that the expendable people – we’re talking because it’s a patriarchal culture – would be women. So that (the silent era) was a real golden era: Lois Weber was a big production figure, as big and powerful as Cecil B. DeMille. She made so many films, and look at what has happened over time because of the erasure of women from Hollywood. Like Alice Guy Blache before her – who also owned her own production company, Solax, and made 600 films or something – there’s this whole rediscovery thing going on where these films have to be reclaimed, they have to be found, they have to be restored. That is far more typical now of women filmmakers historically than any men I can think of.

MGS: Lupino is not considered an “auteur” in a lot of critical circles to this day. Why do you think this is still the case?

TG: Look at what Martin Scorsese wrote about her in the ‘90s. He wrote her obituary (in the New York Times), and he had written about her before. He definitely considers her an auteur. But I think she was considered by some people to be kind of a hack. In many cases, that becomes just an excuse to dismiss a director. And also because of her acting career; that overshadowed her directing career. I think a lot of people didn’t take her seriously because of her acting career. This doesn’t have anything to do with people in the industry, by the way. This has to do with critics because she was taken seriously in the industry.

MGS: What do you consider the hallmarks of her work as a director in terms of form and content?

TG: In terms of content, I think she was abidingly interested in questions of gender in a way that perhaps feminists at the time didn’t really recognize because she’s very even-handed and non-judgmental about men. Which I find to be a beautiful aspect of her films. She has a way of being able to think herself into her male characters’ positions. She doesn’t vilify them. The only character she ever vilified in her films is the rapist in Outrage. It was reported by (co-writer/producer) Malvin Wald that she wouldn’t even look at (actor) Albert Mellen. He didn’t get a name. He was just “the rapist.” But otherwise she’s fair, non-judgmental and understands the predicament of men. The other thing is that she really focuses on the plight of women. That distinguishes her because while the “social problem film” was being made, it didn’t really focus on women. The predicament of women in the post-war period was of paramount importance to her and it gets carried over later into a film like The Trouble with Angels (1966). In terms of form, I think she’s consummate. Both in terms of what she managed to get from her actors – it was widely reported by people who worked for her that she was really great at drawing out the type of performance she wanted from the actors – but also, this is my predilection, I love her propensity to make the social problem film into noir. Particularly, the lighting, shadows and camera angles, that’s what I find so entrancing about her. That is a real strength.

MGS: My favorite section in the book is the one on “home noir” where you talk about the “submerged feminist energy” in film noir. How does Lupino’s work relate to this concept?

TG: Oh man, I think her early films are largely home noir. I would say Hard, Fast and Beautiful, Outrage and The Bigamist are all different keys of home noir. You have this kind of retrograde or arrested home in Outrage that harks back to an earlier time when Victorian mores and Victorian patriarchy are in place. Even though that patriarchy is kind of softened externally, it’s still kind of there with this outrageous house, which on the outside looks almost like a California bungalow but on the inside is perfectly Victorian. And then, this is my speculation, (production designer) Harry Horner adds that horrible cage to the outside, you know that rose trellis that’s like a big claw over the house? Every image is of entrapment.

MGS: Like she’s a prisoner in her own home?

TG: And not only that but her mother is also a prisoner in this very unspoken way. And, in Hard, Fast and Beautiful, it’s really a modern counterpart of that where, even though that house is contemporary for that time, Millie and Florence’s encroachment into areas where they don’t belong is punished. Millie takes over the living room because she doesn’t have an office and she’s an ambitious woman. And Florence takes over the garage, which is the male domain, to practice tennis. Those elements make me laugh; the domestic space is so intrinsic and vital to her films.

MGS: One of my takeaways from this book is that she had to be shrewd in dealing with the men around her in the industry. She pretended to know less about cinematography than she did in order to get cooperation from her D.P.s but she also extended this attitude to studio execs and censors.

TG: She buttered them up and then she brought down the iron fist. She got her way. She was criticized for that, unfortunately, by some feminist critics who wanted to draw perhaps too close a parallel between her life and her work. I also think: what choice did she have? It was either do things the way she did them, which, as you say, was shrewd – buttering these people up and getting what she wanted – or not getting things done at all. What other thing would she have done? She couldn’t have hung out with ‘50s housewives, a bunch of women who were repressed and suppressed and boring and domestic. She wasn’t like that. Yet she paid a price because she was a powerful woman but she also played that domestic role with Howard Duff (her third husband and co-star in the sitcom Mr. Adams and Eve). You can see her, even in that role, the gender tension between her and Howard Duff, which is a lot of what the show is about, in a really dark I Love Lucy way. Her persona is so suppressed and yet she exceeds it but she shouldn’t. So that’s very painful because of when she was born. Things didn’t start being brought to light in any collective way until the early ‘60s with Second Wave Feminism and all that. I think a lot of feminist critics haven’t understand that and they’ve held her to account in a way that she shouldn’t be.

MGS: Which of Lupino’s films would you first recommend watching for someone unfamiliar with her work?

TG: It wouldn’t be The Hitch-Hiker. It’s a great film noir about masculinity but to me it seems like an anomaly in her work. There are no women in it even though it stems from men trying to hoodwink their wives and escape domesticity. I think I would choose Hard, Fast and Beautiful. The fact that it’s a film noir, the fact that it’s a really unusual melodrama – I mean, some people have called it a “maternal melodrama” in which the mother is vilified and I don’t agree at all. It gives perspective on those things. And there are some fantastic chiaroscuro shots – like the hotel room in Europe, (which externalizes) the chaos of Millie’s subconscious. It pretty much has it all.

Therese Grisham will sign copies of Ida Lupino, Director following a free screening of HARD, FAST AND BEAUTIFUL at Facets Multimedia on Monday night. More information can be found on the Facets website.

Interview with Terence Davies

Kyle Cubr: What was your relationship with Emily Dickinson, both her body of work and her personal life, before A Quiet Passion?

Terence Davies: I discovered her when I was eighteen. Claire Bloom was reading some of her poetry. “Because I Could Not Stop For Death” was the first poem I had heard, so I bought a little anthology and read them. It wasn’t until fifteen years ago that I started rereading her and then I started reading some biographies with extraordinary love and richness behind them. I thought I’d love to do a film about her, but it’s a chamber piece. You can have a chamber piece that can be symphonic in its own way. I thought it was an extraordinary achievement what she produced considering she was ill most of the time. 

KC: Do you have a favorite poem of hers?

TD: Yes, “Because I Could Not Stop For Death” I reason because its short and absolute. “This Is My Letter To The World” is the saddest. Those probably are my favorites, but I go back to a lot of her work.

KC: In the past decade, you’ve seen your output ramp up a bit, especially in the last two years with two films. What would you attribute your increase to?

TD: It was by sheer accident. It wasn’t planned I can assure you. SUNSET SONG, everything that could go wrong on a film, did go wrong, and it dragged on long after it should have finished. We kept on having to get extra bits of money for the post production. In the meantime, it dragged on for long that I wrote and directed the Emily Dickinson. But it was an absolutely sheer accident. 

KC: How do you feel about the difference between digital film production and shooting on celluloid? 

TD: [Digital] is as important as the coming of sound. Two, maybe three, years ago you couldn’t do the shots that you can get with digital today. It’s extraordinary. What these people can do digitally is breathtaking. When we were doing SUNSET SONG, the actors weren’t used to plowing with horses so we had a man on a tether leading. My team told me, “Don’t worry. We can take him out.” I wondered to myself how can you take a man out whose tethered to the horse? It was just brilliant. I don’t understand it at all but I think it’s fabulous.

KC: Do you have any projects you plan to shoot on film?

TD: No, it’ll all be digital from here on out. 

KC: What films or filmmakers have influenced you?

TD: Any American musical of the 50’s. I love American musicals. The oddest part is I find myself influenced by small films that aren’t particularly interesting in any large way but I still draw something from them. All influences kind of come out of you in a refracted form so I can’t say I’m influenced by “this” director or “that” movie. I just know that I’m influenced by the films that I’ve seen and that I love and still love. There are a few where I’ve thought oh I should have made that myself but it’s too late now.

KC: A Quiet Passion seems to hold no religious conviction. How would you say your religious upbringing and subsequent shift to atheism factor in?

TD: I think it’s not about religious conviction. Rather, it’s about something more important and that is the nature of the soul. One of her quests was if there’s no God, then what does the soul mean? She never comes down and says no there’s no God or yes there is. She always manages to imply that there might be a ‘Third Event’ as she calls it. That in itself is a kind of suffering because it calls into question how do you live your life. If there is just extinction, why should we be moral or ethical at all. But of course you have to be because life would be unbearable. Also, I think what heightens the sense of what the soul is and how do you guard it because she never received any recognition during her lifetime. It’s the same with the music of Anton Bruckner. They are the greatest cycle of symphonies for me and are deeply spiritual. He was a firm believer in Catholicism. He believed that there was a God and a heaven. There’s one point in the 9th Symphony, which was unfinished, that there’s a huge discordant climax. It’s massive. For a moment, he thinks, “Perhaps it’s a lie?” and then he says his goodbye to God. For her, I think it’s the same. There will come a point where we all have to face dying and how will we go about it shows our conscience. Her dying alleviated her suffering but I’m sure during her bought of lucidity that it must have crossed her mind. 

KC: What’s next for you? 

TD: Two things. I can’t believe it either. An American film called “Mother of Sorrows” which is being written by Richard McCann. Well, that part is already finished I should say. Now we’re raising money to cast it. The other is I’m writing a film about Siegfried Sassoon one of the greatest British war poets during World War I. He got along with Rupert Brooke (another English poet of the time) who ended up dying, but Siegfried survived. He was gay and married like a gay man did during those days. Then he converted to Catholicism of all things. I can’t believe it. It’s fascinating stuff though. 

Cine-File Blog Archives Coming Soon!

We'll be importing our blog posts from the Cine-File Archives shortly. Stay tuned!