ReportWire

Tag: James Vanderbilt

  • James Vanderbilt on How Russell Crowe and Michael Shannon Nailed That ‘Nuremberg’ Courtroom Showdown

    [ad_1]

    James Vanderbilt is offering insight into how he shot the courtroom showdown in his latest film, Nuremberg.

    The filmmaker, best known for writing David Fincher’s Zodiac, has come to San Sebastian Film Festival to present his two-and-a-half-hour World War II flick, following the cat-and-mouse game between Russell Crowe‘s Nazi chief Hermann Goring and Rami Malek‘s American psychologist Douglas Kelley as the U.S., U.K., France and Soviet Union prepared to put dozens of Hitler’s men on trial in 1945 and 1946.

    At the movie’s press conference on Thursday, Vanderbilt (also writer on The Amazing Spider-Man and Independence Day: Resurgence) discussed filming the courtroom showdown in the feature’s final act between U.S. prosecutor Robert Jackson (Michael Shannon) and Crowe as the charming, cunning Goring, whom the allies were concerned could evade justice.

    Vanderbilt explained that a producer had laid out the three-day shoot, spanning 20 pages of dialogue, for the verbal dual between the two actors. “I said, Michael Shannon and Russell Crowe won’t want to do that,” Vanderbilt began. “They’re going to want to do it in one day. And she said, ‘It’s 20 pages of dialogue. That’s a terrible idea.’ So I went to both of them and I said, ‘You know, we’re supposed to shoot this over three days. They’re both like, ‘No. We’re going to do this in one. What are you talking about?’”

    The director had four cameras positioned across the room, though his job was made more difficult by staying faithful to historical accuracy. “Usually, you have the lawyers that will walk around, but the way that courtroom is set up, the prosecutor never moves. It’s just shot, shot, shot, shot, shot. We set up, and we were doing 25-minute takes with no cuts,” he continued, “and they were word-perfect every time because we took all the real transcripts.”

    “After the first take, the entire courtroom of extras applauded Michael and Russell,” said Vanderbilt. “Just watching those two gentlemen put on a masterclass… I’ve never shot a 25-minute take in a movie in my life. I don’t think I ever will again.” He added: “That, I think, was one of the most amazing [experiences].”

    Vanderbilt was also probed on the film’s eerie reflection of current-day politics, especially in his native U.S., where the threat of authoritarianism has never loomed so large. “I started working on [this] 13 years ago, and I thought it was just an incredible story… this idea of a psychiatric [doctor] in World War II who gets the opportunity to [examine] what the nature of evil is, I felt that it was such a fascinating thing to try and capture… It is relevant now, and I think unfortunately, it’ll be relevant in the future, but it’s just such an incredible story that takes place at such an incredible time.”

    Naturally, Vanderbilt was asked about Crowe’s preparation for stepping into the role of Hitler’s right-hand man, and lauded the actor’s skill. “Russell Crowe — he is one of the biggest reasons this movie exists today,” said Vanderbilt, explaining how Crowe stayed with the film through the rocky seas of acquiring and losing funding over the years. “We talked a lot about it. He said to me, ‘Look, it’s not a great mental space to live in for me.’”

    But Crowe “fully committed and invested in” Nuremberg, said the director, “and did an incredible amount of research. He traveled around Germany to the different places in [Goring’s] childhood. He really put himself in depth to it. And I’m just eternally grateful for the commitment he put into this film and the work he did because he’s Russell forever. He doesn’t necessarily need to do that anymore, but he was as hungry as an actor as I’ve ever seen anyone, and that was a true gift.”

    Among other films, Vanderbilt also described enjoying seeing Malek’s “inquisitiveness and magnetism” that he “doesn’t always get to use in films.” He said: “He’s never the hero.” Shannon, he continued, “is an actor’s actor.”

    Nuremberg‘s supporting cast includes Leo Woodall, John Slattery, Mark O’Brien, Colin Hanks, Richard E. Grant and Wrenn Schmidt. The film premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in September and hits theaters Nov. 7.

    The San Sebastian International Film Festival 2025 runs Sept. 19-27.

    [ad_2]

    Lily Ford

    Source link

  • Murder Mystery 2 Will Murder Your Mind

    Murder Mystery 2 Will Murder Your Mind

    [ad_1]

    It’s the usual “rule” that a sequel is required to be spectacularly inferior to its original. But Murder Mystery 2 seemed to take that unspoken edict way too much into consideration during the “writing” of the script. Then again, was it really “written”? For there are far too many moments throughout the “narrative” when one tends to wonder if the script was “generated” by ChatGPT…but that might actually be insulting to ChatGPT. However, no, the film is attributed to Vanderbilt family progeny James Vanderbilt, who once again recently made a name for himself separate from New York wealth by co-writing the scripts for Scream (2022) and Scream VI. Both being far cries from the timbre of Murder Mystery (which he also wrote), and even further still from Murder Mystery 2, which manages to prove that most sequels exist solely to rest on the laurels of their original films.

    As such, there is little need to “try.” Everyone here is clearly involved for the paycheck. Hence, a total lack of cohesion and plausibility to anything about this narrative, which begins in Nick (Adam Sandler) and Audrey Spitz’s (Jennifer Anistone) apartment after an overly heavy-handed recap about what happened in the first installment, in addition to telling us what the duo is up to now: sinking all of their savings into a fledgling detective business still coasting off the reputation of their one big case from 2019. Resultantly, they get stuck with less “glamorous” jobs that require using Audrey as bait to lure potentially philandering husbands into being photographed with her. This, of course, glossing over the fact that cheating is no longer the scandal that it once was (even to vanilla straights) and that someone like Audrey isn’t exactly the average man’s “first choice” for an affair. A fact made clear by the husband in question, “Silverfox” (Tony Goldwyn), walking into his living room to find the Spitzes telling “Mrs. Silverfox” (Annie Mumolo) that he has been “stepping out,” only for Silverfox to rebuff this claim by announcing that he’s been going out alone to plan a surprise anniversary party and that Audrey was the one hitting on him. The former excuse makes no sense whatsoever (why go to a bar by yourself to plan a surprise party?), but it’s just the tip of the iceberg apropos of nonsensical goings-on, with the assumption perhaps being that “movies like these” aren’t about making sense, they’re about “having fun.” But a movie is a movie regardless of genre, and should still adhere to certain, let us say, “tenets.”

    Murder Mystery 2 feels little obligation to do any such thing, starting with Vikram “The Maharajah” Govindan (Adeel Akhtar) calling up Nick while riding a jet ski (because rich people are just so craaaaazzzzzyyy like that) to invite him to his wedding. This invitation, naturally, is timed to coincide with their squabbles about work, including Nick’s argument with Audrey regarding their marketing approach (Nick nominates the “disruptive marketing” style of having floss business cards [“First Floss, Then Spitz”], while Audrey thinks it’s ridiculous). What it all boils down to for Nick is: “Do you know any couples who also work together that actually get along?” Audrey replies (with one of the few comedy gold lines of the movie), “Billie Eilish and Finneas.” A riff on the duo’s incestuous dynamic, Nick has to remind, “They’re brother and sister.” Luckily for both, the argument is interrupted by this call. The one that ultimately leads to being a showcase for Hawaii, as Vik’s “private island” is actually Lanikuhonua Lagoon in Oahu (something Mike White should have thought about for season one of The White Lotus). Either way, it’s where his wedding to Claudette (Mélanie Laurent, who is acting in a role and movie that’s way beneath her) takes place.

    This location, however, becomes overwrought, especially since the movie’s marketing is contingent upon the alleged bulk of it occurring in Paris (thus the maddening tagline: “Deux or Die”). But no, it takes us almost thirty-six minutes to leave the island, well above the standard “end of act one” practice. And, being that Murder Mystery 2 clocks in at approximately one hour and thirty minutes (which still feels too long), it was theoretically all set up to follow a very conventional three-act structure that manages to get biffed in manifold ways by the end. Manifest in a never-ending denouement that keeps piling on non sequitur “conclusions” for the sake of it. Seemingly under the pretense of being “comical.” But just because one piles on a slew of random occurrences doesn’t make the outcome automatically funny, so much as a poor writing choice. Or, to quote Connor Miller (Mark Strong, also out of place in this movie), “There really is no end to your bad decision-making, is there?”

    Incidentally, Jennifer Aniston recently remarked of her golden ticket to being an icon, Friends, “There’s a whole generation of people, kids, who are now going back to episodes of Friends and find them offensive.” To be real, there were many people who didn’t find Friends funny when it was actually on the air either, but anyway… The point is that perhaps with this mentality in mind, Aniston is glomming onto projects that are the “lowest common denominator” of comedy for a reason. And yes, like Sandler, she’s long been known to do that (see: Horrible Bosses, Wanderlust, We’re the Millers, Mother’s Day, et al.), but, speaking to her own comment, it’s as though these lowest common denominator comedies have gotten even lower as a result of what she mentioned about the risk of offending people. Nonetheless, there was plenty of room left to ream the French as the “unexpected” villain of the story remarked of his plan to blow up the Eiffel Tower: “There’s only one thing I hate more than witnesses, and that’s the French.”

    The French, to be sure, are among the few “sects,” for Americans in particular, that remain “fair game” for evisceration on the “comedy” front. This also extends to fellow Europeans the Italians, who are generally mocked at every turn for their supposed manner and supposed accent (which Americans still portray as having a superfluous “a” inserted in between every word, as in: “It’s-a me, Mario”). With this in mind, Aniston lamented that it’s “really hard for comedians, because the beauty of comedy is that we make fun of ourselves, make fun of life.” But no, most of the making fun of in the U.S. that went on in the past was never self-directed. It was never about the sham of American life or the uncouthness of Americans, so much as a bid to help solidify the othering of those who were marginalized already (on Friends, that was done amply to the LGBTQIA+ community). This is the real reason white comedians are “on edge” about comedy “changing”—i.e., becoming less bigoted. This despite Aniston saying that presenting bigotry in comedy is ultimately a way to “joke about a bigot and have a laugh.” In one sense, yes. In another, such thinking underestimates how fucking literal people are, and that they might use such “comedy” to justify their own legitimate bigotry. So now we’re saddled with “straightforward” (read: stupid) comedy such as Murder Mystery 2, which somehow manages to be so bad that it insults its predecessor.

    But lack of laughs or decent Parisian representation (that’s kind of Netflix’s thing now, what with Emily in Paris as one of its “tent-pole” shows) won’t stop this gravy train from being a success as Aniston insists, “Everybody needs funny! The world needs humor! [though that’s not what Murder Mystery 2 is]. We can’t take ourselves too seriously. Especially in the United States. Everyone is far too divided.” Alas, the division in this scenario will stem from those with a brain trying to watch a laughless (and sexless, for that matter) “romp” wherein “style” outweighs all trace of substance and those whose brains have been murdered already as this movie seeks to be an amalgam of everything from Legally Blonde (with the perm “revelation” being likenable to the henna one in Murder Mystery 2) to Shotgun Wedding to Glass Onion. Doing its best, as it were, to tick everyone’s box, thereby ticking no one’s.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • New York Comes Across As Generically As Woodsboro in Scream VI

    New York Comes Across As Generically As Woodsboro in Scream VI

    [ad_1]

    For all the promotional hype surrounding the latest installment in the Scream franchise (officially poking fun at itself for having become that) and how it takes place in New York, there is surprisingly little riffing on that fact. Indeed, if one had anticipated that New York might be the “fifth character” (à la Sex and the City) among the self-described “Core Four” in Scream VI (stylized so that the Roman numeral serves as the “M” in the title), they would be sorely mistaken.

    To be blunt, the only time we really get a “taste of NYC” is during the clips deliberately accented in the trailer. Apart from those (featuring the requisite “bodega” and “subway” scenes), the closest we get to a sense of place is when Samara Weaving steps in for Drew Barrymore’s (as Casey Becker) memorable opening sequence from the original. Weaving plays Laura Crane, a woman waiting for an app-culled date at some “trendy” bar on “Hudson Street” (not really though—for even that is faked in Montreal). As the two go back and forth about how, essentially, they still feel too “uncool” for New York and places like said bar, they both state that they’ve only been in town for a matter of months. In addition, Laura makes mention of being a Film Studies professor specializing in the slasher genre. Clearly, things really have gotten too niche in our post-post-post-post-post-post-modern world. Particularly in academia (already poked fun of saliently in White Noise). After getting her to believe he’s hopelessly lost and can’t find the restaurant, soon enough, Laura’s “date” is able to lure her outside and into an alley. Of course, it’s not really Laura’s date, and it’s not even really New York either—what with so many locations filmed in Montreal.

    This includes one of the other “indelible” New York moments when Samantha “Sam” Carpenter (Melissa Barrera) and Tara Carpenter (Jenna Ortega) find themselves cornered in a bodega with the latest Ghostface. Called “Abe’s Snake Bodega” (the dead giveaway of it not being “Real New York” is that it feels the need to add “Bodega” into its name at all), the scene was shot in Montreal’s Notre-Dame-de-Grâce neighborhood. As were many others doubling as “the greatest city in the world.” Which, as usual, has shown itself to be highly recreatable in [insert other major city here]. And, contrary to popular belief, it’s not because it’s so “indelible” and “unique,” but because it has mutated into its own worst fear: the average metropolis. Something that other major cities haven’t fallen prey to quite so easily. Even San Francisco, for all the talk of the “tech bros” coming in and changing the face of the landscape with their presence, has not succumbed so effortlessly to a generic makeover as New York, particularly Manhattan and most of North Brooklyn (spreading with more and more ease to South Brooklyn and beyond).

    The vast majority of these two particular “sects” of New York have been overrun with corporate takeovers touting (unspokenly) how great it is not only to sell the city back to itself at an even higher price, but also how “necessary” it is to present the city with an array of new job opportunities for its burgeoning young workforce (emphasis on the word “young,” because that’s the demographic most willing to bend over for low-wage employment). Sam is ostensibly one of those youths, as Tara is certain to call her out for having two shitty jobs and no other real reason for being in town apart from monitoring her sister with stalker-like precision.

    To this point, Tara unwittingly brings up a larger issue about New York: that no one would ever go there without an “ambition.” That to go there “just to be there” is not only unheard of, but rather unhinged (perhaps part of the reason it’s so easy to paint Sam that way). Even as a “la-di-da” artist, it’s unfathomable to arrive in town without some cold, hard “goals.” For, unlike other cities that serve as “artistic havens,” New York isn’t solely about “being an artist” for the mere sake of it. More than any other “bohemia” hotspot, it is a place where you’re not only “supposed to” monetize your art, but where you have to if you want to actually survive without being ejected. And who could possibly want to be exiled from such a “fun” place? Where all worth and value is placed on the money you make (this capitalistic reality being on steroids compared to most other cities). In the alternate version of Scream VI that makes better use of its setting, Ghostface isn’t just out for some petty revenge on any of the remaining characters involved in the “legacy murders.” He’s also got personal beef against all of the pretentious, pseudo-influential fucks roaming the streets trying to “hustle” their so-called talents. Call him Patrick Bateman, but less arbitrary/prone to killing the poorest of the poor (a.k.a. the homeless). This making the randomness of the kills far more rife.

    Alas, some would say Kevin Williamson’s original version was never about such a message—with the core of it cutting to what Randy (Jamie Kennedy) said in the 1996 movie: “It’s the millennium. Motives are incidental.” This adding to the “fear factor” of the slasher behind the mask being anyone, at anytime. And yet, “motives” have remained decidedly not incidental for being in New York. In fact, they’ve remained steadfastly the same: you go there to “become” someone. To “make it.” Rarely, if ever, is being there about “disappearing,” as the Carpenter sisters want to do. For, despite the presence of the huddled masses, NYC is among the most visible places a person could “escape to.” Even so, its “singular” visibility (largely contributed to by everyone taking a picture of themselves on every corner where you could potentially be in the background) doesn’t mean it hasn’t long been recreatable in other locations.

    And sure, filming in more affordable environments meant to be New York is nothing new. In the 80s and 90s, Chicago easily doubled for “Gotham” (literally, in The Dark Knight’s case), even in a film like Escape From New York—with the city itself built right into the title. What’s more, look at what a series such as Friends did to recreate the town in a prophecy-like manner on a Burbank backlot. Friends, for as eye-rolled at as it is in the present, had a crystal ball-like use in foreseeing just how increasingly generic the city would become. This, in large part, thanks to stamping out all traces of the very populations that once made it unique with a little phenomenon called “eugenics of the poor.” And pretty much everyone is poor when they live in New York. The Carpenter sisters included. In effect, it has become easier and easier to bill the city as Anywhere, USA (or, in this instance, Anywhere, Canada) because it has lost all sense of the “personal touches” that once made it stand apart from garden-variety corporate infiltration.

    Even NYU has something of the “corporate effect” on the city it profits from. To that end, the university name “Blackmore” (where Tara attends)—actually Montreal’s McGill University—could very well be a dig at NYU needing to up its Black person “quota.” As for other set design details intended to “serve” New York, the use of a Chock Full o’Nuts ad at a reconstructed subway station reads, “Hipsters Like It. But Drink It Anyway.” This, of course, is meant to lend greater “authenticity” to an ersatz New York, despite the reality that “hipster” is a word that has been rendered so oversaturated that it has become meaningless and irrelevant…almost like New York itself. Another notable “subtlety” that actually has nothing to do with New York is a sign that reads, “Le Domas Financial Group.” This name being too much of a coincidence not to apply to the family moniker in Ready or Not, starring none other than the woman playing the first to be killed: Samara Weaving. But, more to the point, Scream (2022) and Scream VI’s co-directors, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett also directed Ready or Not. Just as the co-screenwriters of Scream (2022) and Scream VI, Guy Busick and James Vanderbilt, also co-wrote Ready or Not. And yes, James is a member of that illustriously moneyed New York family, the Vanderbilts (no wonder he wrote a script like Ready or Not). So perhaps the transition to NYC as the latest Scream location was his idea.

    Whoever determined the “change-up” environment, one must ask: what was really the purpose of setting Scream VI in New York? Especially if the movie wasn’t going to maximize the erstwhile “uniqueness” of the town to its utmost. After all, a subway scene can be done in any major city (even L.A.). The same goes for filming in darkened streets and alleys. Scream VI proved that much by shooting in Montreal. Where more indelible landmarks, like the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Chrysler Building, etc. (all ideal locations for a stabbing, by the way) can’t be so effortlessly remade “in a pinch” as subway stations and a bodega. To be fair, Scream VI offered a token scene of the Carpenter sisters briefly walking around in “Central Park.” After all, that’s where the movie poster embeds the image of Ghostface’s screaming visage with an overhead shot of the park’s greenery and repositioned lakes. Nonetheless, with a tagline like “New York. New Rules,” one might have been expecting slightly more dependency on the location.

    As only the third Scream movie to take place outside of Woodsboro (with Scream 2 set at the fictional Windsor College in Ohio and Scream 3 set in Los Angeles—used with far more panache and specificity, particularly with the rapey producer angle that eerily mirrored the likes of Harvey Weinstein), the pressure on Scream VI to “really do something” with such a divergent (and non-fictional) location was perhaps too great.

    Admittedly, however, Scream is never really about location. The fact that it began in an Anywhere, USA type of town was meant to highlight that—in addition to providing the chilling idea that “nowhere is safe” (something coronavirus has made good on repeatedly since 2020)—the biggest freaks can so often live outside of major metropolises. But, as for the concept of nowhere being safe, that’s something that’s long been alive and well in NYC—at a zenith in the 1970s, complete with a pamphlet warning tourists, “Welcome to Fear City.” Indeed, the reaper-esque image that appears on the cover of the pamphlet could easily pass for Ghostface himself (call it another botched chance to pay much of any real homage to the city in which Scream VI takes place). And, to be candid, the lily-livered snowflakes who turn out to be Ghostface in Scream VI would have no chance of not getting stabbed themselves in that era that can now be referred to as Pre-Generic New York.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link