Power Brokers and the Glass Ceiling

We live in interesting and changing times.  The role of women in filmmaking is making major leaps forward and I, for one, am intrigued with the challenge.  I like to think of myself as the Alan Alda of the indy film reviewing world.  I like the idea of women taking charge in the film industry.  They’re great managers and when you have to work with a team you need a good manager.  Producers and Directors have to be able to communicate with large numbers of people.  Women have been perfecting that role for millennia.  The gender role is that of mother, housekeeper and boss of the proverbial nest.  Throw a guy into the job of keeping up with 2 to 8 kids, coordinating school and hired help and balancing the household checkbook.  It’ll drive one to drink.  I tried it once and gave it up---or, rather gave the big job back to my wife.  Now don’t get me wrong.  I like blockbusters.  Some of my favorites are Braveheart (despite Mel’s recent rants) Gladiator and Robin Hood (despite Russell’s recent rage induced actions) and the first Alien.  American film is born out of violence and sex.  The Great Train Robbery is the perfect case study.  A helpless ‘victimized’ woman is tied to the tracks of an oncoming train.  If the hero rescues her it is implied that her gratitude will be so great she’ll let him all up into her grill.  If he fails in his mission she will be violently dismembered.  But what if the same film had been made by a woman?  Ida Lupino?  Or Jane Campion? And played by Marlene Deitrich or Bette Davis? What if Angelina Jolie or Jodie Foster played the part?  How would the character use her own intelligence and problem solving skills to free herself?  How would the frame be composed and what interesting things would we discover? I find that an interesting choice and the Europeans, particularly the French, have explored this idea of women as heroin (albeit in a more subtle form) rather than victim for some time now. Look at the films of Catherine Deneuve and Isabella Huppert.  By the way, Angelina opens in a new film called Salt later this year and I look forward to seeing her play an action figure and carrying the story.  Another fantastic development is the historic win of Kathryn Bigelow, the first woman to win a Best Director Oscar for The Hurt Locker.  It’s about damn time.  The studio system has been a male dominated business since the beginning.  Men make movies men want to see.  It’s quite rare to find a male director willing to make a chick flick ‘just because’.  But if the demographic says there will be money made then they’ll do it.  I find it interesting that a glass ceiling has been in place for a particular gender.  Exceptional story-telling is genderless. Exceptional talent is genderless.  If the person can convey an engaging and insightful and, yes---emotional response from an audience, what difference does it make.  We are in the midst of a heightened ‘henny penny syndrome’ to coin a phrase from aquarium age by Ralfee Finn.  With the fall of the real estate market, the financial institutions, the health care system, our increasingly inept education system, the ongoing war and the ecological disaster of the gulf, people feel like the sky is falling.  And rightly so.  The daily stress of navigating our own private lives with the world about to implode does not make for a relaxing and enjoyable existence at the moment. Add to that the distractions of being connected via blackberry, FB, email and you tube and we are quite an isolated society.  Our interactions come from the internet and not so much face to face encounters anymore. We as sentient beings seek comfort.  And one of those ways is to be entertained by a good yarn.  We can step out of our mundane existence and identify with heroes and the hero’s journey.  Some like the tried and true formulaic tales because they know what the end brings.  And to the studios it brings revenue.  However, formula grows stale and the curious and adventuresome will give their time and money to an original and creative expression.  That is the difference between art and commerce.  The world is unpredictable.  Throw children into the mix and you have to be flexible and alert.  That’s where I know women excel.  Another film about to open that, honestly, I wasn’t sure I would like is The Children Are All Right by Lisa Cholodenko.  I like her work.  High Art was an interesting perspective on the human condition.  It revived Ally Sheedy’s career and made Patricia Clarkson the toast of the town.  Laurel Canyon made Frances McDormand a tour de Force.  And now we have a film about a same sex marriage and their kids but ultimately it is about family and not about gender.  It is universal and appealing to anyone who has ever dealt with family issues.  As the paradigm of distribution and technology shifts I am willing to bet that more movies will be made and received with glowing reviews by women in the industry.  As a nation and a global community the continuing trend of making socially conscious films is only a reflection of the current mindset of the audiences out there and a reaction to the more self-absorbed Hollywood movies of the recent past.  In today’s culture to be famous is to be infamous.  It requires no talent whatsoever, just a publicist and bad behavior.  Corruption is uncovered at every turn with the bright light of truth and people wanting to believe in integrity and ethics.  What do we teach our children to affect change?  Mom and dad both work and they share the household responsibilities.  No one wears the pants in the house.  That will go the way of the horse and buggy.  And truthfully that has been the great illusion for many hundreds of years. Women throughout history have not had a voice until the last fifty years.

I’ve had the opportunity to look at some of the assembly of A Rogue in Londinium and I find it fascinating that the director, Elizabeth Hamilton, has put the lead women in a place of power within a Victorian context.  I keep wondering if Richard really is the killer or not and that is one of the threads of the film.  The theme is Redemption.  Can a killer be redeemed?  If he is, indeed, the killer?  In reality we will never know who Jack the Ripper was.  We know what kind of man Richard is in the beginning and he is completely transformed by the woman he loves by the end.  And Victoria is transformed by the act of love and loving despite the dangers and complexities she encounters. They both take a risk and shed their old selves to become renewed and redeemed together.  Again a universal theme of going down into the underworld to slay the demons and rise from the ashes like the phoenix.  There is violence and a little gore, provocative situations, sexual suggestiveness and very brief nudity.  Nothing that hasn’t already been seen on HBO or Showtime.  It had a very intense effect on me and it is because I wasn’t able to ‘see’ everything.  I had to participate with the storyteller to fill in the places that aren’t overt. And that made me ‘feel’ on a very deep level.  There is a scene that takes place at a celebratory dinner where the characters are all speculating about the perpetrator.  Charles clarifies Prince Edward Victor’s prior statement:  “I think what he is trying to say is that women operate under the influence of emotion whereas men operate under the influence of Intellect.”  A very Victorian sentiment.  When Richard is asked of his opinion he says: “I think to make a gross generalization about literally half the population is to do them a great disservice.”  I must concur.  I know plenty of men that operate from emotion and it usually ends up in a pissing contest or a bar brawl.  And I also know plenty of women that operate from intellect.  Some of my ex’s were too detached and steely to heat up the pleasure dome.  When it comes right down to it, balance is the key in art, in love, in business, in life.  So sayeth the maestro of Willyburg.

It's a Brave New iWorld

First I need to apologize for being absent for about a month now.  Pressing work assignments and family stuff have kept me busy.  And the editing-slash-assembly of all the footage has been keeping the editor(s) of Londinium quite busy as of late.  As the months have passed I have been keeping my eye on what is being made and distributed and I find that there is a niche audience for this kind of film.  Certain periods in history seems to move in cycles corresponding with the public’s psyche.  For a while there was a huge Austrailian and New Zealand invasion with the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  Then there was a big Mexican influence in cinema with Pan’s Labyrinth and Y tu Mama Tambien.  Every decade or so there seems to be a resurgence of Holocaust/World War II films.  This year and last seems like the Victorian Era proves prominent in cinema and DVD.  Films like Bright Star by Jane Campion, The Young Victoria produced by Scorcese, Sweeney Todd and Alice in Wonderland both by Tim Burton, Sherlock Holmes by Guy Ritchie and Cheri by Stephen Frears. Some being quite successful and others relegated to critical success with limited theatre runs and small box office.  Merchant and Ivory have molded their careers around Henry James’ novels and that time period.  It appeals to a certain type of moviegoer and not to everyone.  However, it seems that most directors take on at least one Victorian project just for the hell of it or maybe because there is a built in audience for these kinds of films.   Years ago (and I risk sounding like an old man) but the best place to see these lush period films with their lavish sets and brilliant costumes was on the big screen.  It still is the best place to see these movies and other period films only because seeing it big becomes the experience as if submerged in the time.  Dolby surround sound designed so that you’re hearing what you might hear while standing on that battlefield or dancing in that huge ballroom.  But the paradigm of delivery is shifting and with technology advancing at such a rapid rate it makes me wonder how these beautiful little gems will get to their respective audiences.  DVD is fine and with huge plasma screen TVs in some homes it tries to imitate the movie theatre experience.  But the option to ‘pause’ to go and get snacks or run to the bathroom or answer a phone call or text all thru a film renders the experience quite different.  And because we as a culture have become so distracted by all the little things in life it unfairly translates to the movie watching experience. While no one pauses the film in a theatre, people do get up and down and answer phone calls text constantly with little screens shining brightly in the dark and talk loudly as if they are in their own living rooms.  Being a cinephile it ruins my experience so I pick and choose exactly what I want to see on the big screen and where. That aside, my concern for this film is how it will run the obstacle course of getting from obscurity to the public.  The festival circuit is the tried and true way of trying to get juice behind a project.  But because there is a glut of content the competition is fierce.  Nowadays it seems that a publicist is a necessity in order to grab the attention of programmers and festival directors.  And you can’t just hire any publicist.  You have to do due diligence and really find the right fit for your film.  A little publicity including interviews in some of the trades is always helpful and that gets the ball rolling.  I feel confident that A Rogue in Londinium will find its way into a good festival and get some traction from there.  There are many ways that this particular film has veered off the tried and true path of movie making.  The way the filmmakers produced it and the surprise that will be the marketing hook will take it further than most.  Enough said on that.  Festivals aside the other concern is distribution.  It seems that the way of the future is VOD.  Video on Demand.  That is the last link on the road to delivery.  Hopefully if you’ve made a film and you’ve tended to it and loved it and marketed it well thru the festival circuit you may get a theatrical release.  Theatrical releases (with the exception of blockbusters and sci-fi) these days are primarily for critical acclaim, as the box office is usually paltry.  The other gamut to run with a project is approaching HBO, Showtime, STARZ and some of the other cable networks like IFC Channel and Sundance Channel for a limited release there.  The deliverables for cable, though, can be daunting.  And as my neighbors have informed me a lot of people are ditching cable.  The monthly cost of having access to these stations is just way too expensive in these lean times.  So people are turning to their computers and watching things on Hulu or Vimeo or downloads from HBO or Showtime.  The screens are getting smaller, too, as one can download just about anything from iTunes and watch it on your itouch, ipad or iphone.  If Apple has their way the entire culture of television will be downloaded as VOD from a mac computer (or iThing) to a large cinema-screen monitor (like a tv) and viewed that way.  Television sets will be a thing of the past like the Edsel.  I would not be at all surprised to find Apple/Google creating its own studio to deliver content to the iMasses.  I even heard the rumor that the new iPhone will have iMovie on it so that video recorded can also be edited right there in your hands anywhere and uploaded to share (via iFlip/iShare or You Tube, of course).  Bollywood has taken the challenge of creating an entire feature film using cell phones as the cameras.  (certainly recording audio separately).  I have watched scenes of the Londinium movie that have been stored on the director’s iTouch and while it is fun to hold the gizmo and experience the film that way, I wonder how that small screen effects some of the wonderful acting and how it is perceived.  Our eyes and brains are naturally inclined to see another at the actual size it appears.  That is where the emotions register and the nuances of thought can be sensed.  Magnify that and it becomes drama our ancient predecessor to religion and ritual.  It’s in our genes.  We want to feel.  Even when we don’t, we really do because it shakes us up and makes us sift through our own experiences or lack thereof.   In this new iWorld the DVD will be a thing of the past.  Blockbuster, Hollywood Video and even the mom and pops are going under.  Netflix began with DVD but it is steadily shifting to VOD.  The producer’s first film, My Brother’s War is on VOD with Netflix (as well as DVD for now).  With production tools so affordable anyone can make a movie in this age of Aquarius.  It will be up to the talent, i.e. writers, directors and actors to rise above the rest and shine.  That is why I have such confidence in this big little film.  It will certainly be interesting to see how talent navigates this new digital age and how the unions deal with the onslaught of new media.

A few people who have their fingers on the pulse of this ever changing landscape are Stacey Parks with her Film Specific site: filmspecific.com.  She was sending podcasts out to her fans on facebook during the Cannes Film Festival.  Interesting little tidbits for filmmakers and anyone interested in new trends developing in acquisitions.  The other trailblazer is Peter Broderick, president of Next Wave and independent consultant on the changing paradigm of production and delivery.  Anyone can be a filmmaker but not everyone can be an artist.  

The Last Hurrah

Alas, it is the last day of production and I have pulled out my black suit.  My son wanders in as I iron my shirt and tie and asks me with eyes as big as saucers “Dad?  Who died?”.  The only time he has ever seen me dressed in my Sunday best is when we’ve had to go to funerals.  Huge crocodile tears start streaming down his face.  I want to cry and laugh at the same time.  “No one’s died, buddy.”  I say calmly. 

“Don’t go easy on me, dad.  I can take it.”  He wipes his tears and pulls a chair up next to the ironing board to hear the full tale of some distant relative’s demise.  “Seriously, son.  No one has died.  I’m wearing this monkey suit as a kind of joke.”  I explain. 

“That’s a shitty joke, dad.”  He says and I warn him not to use that language…or at least don’t slip and say that word in front of your mother.  “It’s like…I’m playing Gomez for a skit.”  I try to explain.

“I heard The Addam’s Family sucks.  Except for Bebe Neuwirth.”  He says.  The kid is still in his single digits.  And I feel like I’m talking to Ben Brantly of the New York Times. “Jeez, who told you that and HOW do you know who Bebe Neuwirth is?” He shrugs his shoulders non-chalant and wanders off in search of a nutter butter. For the record I have never seen The Addams Family on Broadway and neither has my son so his review should be regarded as null and void.  Meanwhile, I get all gussied up and make my way over to the Londinium Brooklyn brownstone.  I think the producers should make a brass historic plaque and affix it to the front of the building because no one and I mean NO ONE will believe they shot at least fifteen different sets (if not more) in the rooms of the parlor floor.  Just the feat itself deserves a plaque.  I arrive in the afternoon and Thom asks me if I’m on detail for the president.  “The only thing missing is the curly wire from your ear.”  Ed says.

“It’s not called a curly wire, Ed.” Thom chastises.  To which I reply, “Look Felix and Oscar I get the meaning.  Details---details…”

“It’s called an earpiece.” Thom explains.

“What? I’m sorry I can’t hear you.”  Ed says.  The cigarettes emerge from Thom’s pocket as his teeth begin to gnash.

“I’m sorry.  Did you say you wanted a sandwich?” Ed says grinning. 

“Yeah, some meat between two slices.” And he flips Ed the bird. 

“It’s the last day, guys!  Play nice.” I say.

They both reply in perfect unison, “Go F*** yourself.”  We all laugh.

“I come in reverence to the gallant end of an amazingly entertaining film shoot.”  I expound. “Between potato salad and cigarettes – accompanied by stomping out to the stoop, I have never laughed so hard in my life.  I have never been informed of so many ‘acting techniques’ in one project that I had to look them all up to find out their roots. I have never wondered in complete and utter awe of how you guys pulled this period film out of a hat with a five-dollar bill.  It is truly magic.” I continue.  Then I am ushered to the backyard where the sun is now setting and I find the incomparably evil and creepy Stewart Walker as Jules ‘collecting’ images and the stunning and beguiling Elisa Gierasch, playing ‘Gert’, one of the prostitutes that Richard had been with only moments earlier.  She is about to proposition him.  And just like in some movie theatres where the audience is quite audible I want to yell, “Don’t talk to him---you’ll be sorry.  Don’t do it---he’s dangerous!!”  It is a lovely September evening with a cool breeze to drive away the midday heat.  The actors hit their marks and I watch with the same vague voyeuristic feeling as she strikes a deal, money is exchanged and she begins to unbutton him.  I feel so dirty.  Then a glint of light hits for a split second on a metallic object and I can only assume with the help of my imagination that the killer’s knife has been exposed.  I think I know who dunnit!  The scene is covered and we move inside.  Elisa is laid out on the old farm table in the kitchen ready for her special effects make-up.  Patrick and Thom begin the hour or so process of creating what looks like a knife gash from the belly to the throat.  Pretty gruesome and accurate if you look at the actual crime scene photos of Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes.  I ask the director about the accuracy of the murders since there are six victims in the Londinium story.

“Well, you know, Jack wasn’t the only killer in the slums of the East End of London.  There were several copycat killers that weren’t mentioned or purposefully hidden to avoid chaos and panic in the streets.”  She says. “London was extremely polarized at the time with the influx of immigrants crammed into a very small space.  They were agonizingly poor.  In 1888 alone approximately 1600 people died just in those ten blocks radius.  Disease, addiction. malnutrition, poor health and hygiene, stresses of daily survival, the elements and violence all worked against the poor.  Thousands made their beds nightly in the local cemeteries because they could not afford a place to sleep indoors.” She explains.  “Not that different from the very poor areas of India.  And yet there is no middle class.  You were either desperately poor or of the gentry.  You can still find that disparity today in developing countries.”

“So Gert might be the only actual ‘victim’ of the ripper in this story.” I ask.

“She might.  No one knows who the killer was and though five murders are attributed to him he may have killed many, many more.  We have no way of knowing.” She says. “The police and Scotland Yard were in the infancy of forensic work.  They did not think of sharing information with other police departments like we do today.  That is why he was so successful as a killer.”  She says.

“I think he was successful only because the media realized the murders sold papers.” I say.

“Absolutely.” She concurs.  “There were probably several dozen of his kind all around London with some overlap.  As I said, if you look at the records there was violence occurring every day.  Murders happening every night perpetrated by individuals who could no longer cope with the atrocities of poverty and what that brings.”

“Well put.” I say.

“Nice suit.” She says and she walks away to prepare for the next set-up.  I step out onto the back deck.  The yard is lit up with an entire Arri light kit.  Elisa is sprawled out on the paving stones.  Thom and the director try to make sure she is not exposed before the camera roles.  Pat dips his hand into a bucket of ‘I-don’t-know-what’.  He pulls out bloody entrails and sausage casings or something and places them on the special effects make-up down the center of Elisa’s chest and abdomen.  She is a bloody hot mess.  It is so gory I feel the urge to puke.  Thankfully I am well aware that the whole thing is fake.  On three of  five of Jack’s victims he cut them from stem to stern.  That is from the uterus up to the throat.  He then pulled out their intestines and cut out a few sweet meats for souvenirs.  In the infamous ‘From Hell’ letter, the only authentic note from the murderer, he sent part of a human kidney along with it to the chief of police.  The prior victim was missing her kidney.  As the jib moves slowly up and over to reveal the truly heinous crime I feel a martini coming on.  CUT!  And THAT’S A WRAP!  Thom announces.  That vague martini feeling is morphing into a bender.  Huzzah!

Lunching with Sweeney Todd

Only twelve hours have passed since yesterday’s shoot and I arrive to the Brooklyn brownstone in Fort Greene to find the kitchen transformed into a French café.  I pass the set builders and art directors as they sleepily grab a cup o' jo and head to their respective hacienda’s for a few hours of much needed sleep.  The scenes scheduled for today are between Charles Thornton played wonderfully by Keith Herron and Vincent Morris portrayed with gentle aplomb by Jerry Marsini.  Mr. Morris is a business associate of Mr. Thornton.  In the first scene Charles tells Vincent that he has been appointed to the royal treasury by Queen Victoria. Hmmmm. He tells his business partner before he tells his wife.  Here is an interesting insight into the marriage between Charles and Victoria and the partnership between Charles and Vincent.  All along I have witnessed that the marriage is an arrangement with no sexual component whatsoever.  Devotion? Yes.  Platonic love?  Certainly.  Protection?  You bet.  Charles seems to be in a monogamous relationship with his business partner.  Victoria not only accepts the love affair between the two men but willingly plays the beard so that Charles can be fulfilled without the threat of scandal.  What does she get out of the union?  She can freely devote herself to reform, travel and charity without the trappings of marriage and that includes companionship, sex and children.  Everyone wins in this complex arrangement until Richard enters the scene and something within Victoria is awakened. 

I want to talk about the possible scandal that could have taken place with these characters.  In 1895 Oscar Wilde was arrested and tried for sodomy and gross indecency.  Sodomy in Britain at the time was a felony crime and punishable offense earning years in confinement with hard labor.  Oscar Wilde was an aesthete, a celebrated playwright, a philosopher and poet who came from an upper class family, his father a surgeon and knighted by the crown.  The Importance of Being Earnest, The Picture of Dorian Gray and A Woman of No Importance are some if his best loved works.  Here is a man who is rich and famous even for his time.  He has friends in high places and yet the dark side of Victorian London remands Oscar Wilde to two years hard labor in Wandsworth prison. At about the same time Paul Verlain, a symbolist poet and writer was also tried for ‘buggery’ in France and imprisoned for two years hard labor.  The famed myth that Prince Albert Victor Duke of Clarence was the killer also includes the royal family covering up the fact that the prince had ‘unnatural affections’ for men.  He was implicated along with other aristocrats in the Cleveland Street Scandal---a homosexual brothel located in the bohemian section of London in which telegraph boys were paid by wealthy clients to engage in sexual activities.  Lord Arthur Somerset had a warrant out for his arrest by the Metropolitan police and his friend Prince Albert Victor insured his escape to France to avoid prosecution for sodomy. It was common at the time for aristocrats and society to ‘slum it’ in the east end of London during the Victorian era.  Charles and Vincent indulge in a little slumming as well.  Whitechapel was rife with prostitutes of both genders.  It was the perfect hunting ground for Jack the Ripper.  Slipping in and out of a densely populated area of immense poverty and anonymous people was easy and violent crime was common.  It was where the sex trade thrived. 

Through the course of the scene Vincent suggests that Charles have an heir.  A child would prove to a court of law that Charles was a dutiful and loving husband and Vincent could be the child’s ‘uncle’.  Such a shame that even today over a hundred years later some LGBT people feel compelled to hide their true selves for fear of job-loss, abuse and prejudice. 

It is during this scene that Charles agrees that an heir would make things ‘look’ better and that he is certainly willing, but Victoria is delicate and has been advised ‘not to conceive’.  When Vincent presses further Charles tells him that she could die from pregnancy.  This information sets up the risk that Victoria takes when she knowingly conceives with Richard.

We break for lunch and a costume change and skip to the end of the movie.  In one of the last scenes Charles meets with Vincent in the same genteel café.  Charles is obviously troubled over Victoria’s emotional state.  He blames Mr. Rhys to which Vincent offers to ‘do something about him’.  Vincent is problem solving as a partner might do.  Charles explains that he will have to take Victoria to New York.  Vincent assumes he will be going as well already planning where he will stay and how they will continue to carry on with their partnership.  Charles tells him he must go alone.  He must take care of his wife.  BOOM.  The equilibrium is thrown out of balance.  Vincent asks him point blank if Charles is leaving him.  The pain on Charles’ face is palpable.  He is between a rock and a hard place.  He is betrothed to two people at once and must make decisions based on priorities.  Society dictates ‘for better, for worse’ and Charles takes his vows seriously.  After all Victoria’s presence in his life has afforded him the freedom to find his true love.  Charles asks him to wait for his return when Victoria feels better, but Vincent is unsure if waiting will prove anything different.  Charles is devoted to his wife.  Vincent is not the center of Charles’ world as he once thought.  So Vincent decides to leave the relationship.  Watching Charles sacrifice his happiness for his duty and seeing the love of his life walk away is excruciating.  Played with subtlety and nuance the actors give the scene an agonizing touch.

During the scene there was an extra sitting at a table nearby.  He was directed to read or make notes in a notebook so that he blended in with the café patrons.  The actor took the direction and ran with it.  I’m not sure how much of him will be seen in the final edit but when the last take rolled and the director said that the scene was done our extra revealed what he had written:

 

Got to run to the store to pick up a few things:

·      knives

·      gloves

·      stain remover

·      flowers for my mother, Mrs. The Ripper

·      butterscotch drops for me

·      top hats

·      a new walking stick for dad, Ralph the Ripper

 

Things to do:

·      go on a bloody rampage

·      buy a new horse and carriage

·      clean scalpels

·      rejoin facebook

·      look into a new therapist

·      kill a few more women

·      have my cape altered and cleaned

·      Have lunch with Sweeny Todd

 

Thank you, Louie Vitiello.