Home » cinema siren

Tagged cinema siren


The Glorious Labor of LOVING VINCENT; film review and interview with the co-directors


Loving Vincent is the first fully oil painted feature film.  The brainchild of two filmmakers who have worked in animation, special effects, and live action, the film breaks new ground, while being visually stunning and driving a story about the last few weeks in the life an artist who died penniless but is now one of the most famous in history. All the characters in the film are performed by real actors, either on special sets or in front of green screens, and their work is combined with computer animation and painted animation. There are over sixty-five thousand frames in the film, and at the end of each shot, they were left with the painting of the last frame of the shot.  There are eight hundred and ninety-eight shots in the film.

Clearly Loving Vincent is a labor of love for co-directors Dorota Kobiela and Hugh Welchman, both of whom are award-winning animators. They, like so many animators before them, are reaching, experimenting, and creating something more for the art form.  To do it with the story and art of one of the most famous and misunderstood artists in history made perfect sense to them.

The story takes place in France, in the summer of 1891.  A character names Armand Roulin (Douglas Booth) is given a letter by his father Joseph (Chris O’Dowd) to deliver to Theo, Vincent Van Gogh’s brother. When he discovers Theo died shortly after Vincent, he becomes curious about the artist’s suicide and embarks on a search as to why the artist, who was just on the cusp of success, would commit suicide. He travels to the village of Auvers-sur-Oise, the location where Vincent passed, to meet Doctor Gachet (Jerome Flynn) who cared for him in his last days.

Many people don’t know that Vincent survived the bullet wound he sustained to his abdomen in the fields where the shot took place, only to die several weeks later from a tortuously painful infection. This film considers what may have taken place on the day he was shot, and the subsequent time he spent suffering to his death.  The characters portrayed in the film are all those found in paintings by the artist.  This film weaves the story around the paintings and the figures who were part of Van Gogh’s life.

The plot is definitely the weak spot in this glorious film, but it isn’t really the point, I suppose.  It is just the anchor for the stunning artistry represented onscreen.

There are two art styles used in the film.  One is very much like rotoscope, where the actors are filmed and the paintings are created directly from their actions, making the scenes like very close to real life.  These are created in black and white, and are not directly designed to look like Van Gogh paintings.  The other style is taken from Van Gogh’s style, to the degree that a number of his paintings are re-created as part of the film. The rest of those sequences are done in the Van Gogh style, while revealing the plot.  It’s a colossal undertaking that required 125 professional painters who worked in several countries, and had to be trained how to create these frames through a slow process of changing their paintings shot by shot.

If only for curiosity’s sake, if not for the gorgeous end result, those who love animation should seek out Loving Vincent.  It’s a testament to the fact that animators continue, after all these years, to continue to experiment and expand the art of animation.  Equal parts cinematic drug trip and visual artistry, Loving Vincent represents a landmark in the genre.



The Glorious Labor of LOVING VINCENT: An Interview with filmmakers Dorota Kobiela and Hugh Welchman.

Cinema Siren spoke to the directors about their experience creating the film, which has already won the audience award at the Annecy Film Festival and Best Animated Film at the Shanghai International Film Festival.  They discuss how they are premiering the film in a number of museums around the world, selling the original art used in the film, and the Painting Animation Work Stations (PAWS) they designed for the project.Leslie Combemale: Can you describe a little of how you designed PAWS?

Hugh Welchman: Basically the idea is to have the painting animators concentrate on painting and nothing else. Not to worry about lights, computers, and only focus on their own painting.  So we bolted everything to the floor, put it out their sightline so they could just walk in, sit down, and start painting.  We wanted to give them as much references as possible, so the way that we created reference was different for each shot, pretty much it was either CG animation reference material or it was live action combined with matte paintings, or it was blank space they had to fill in, based on Vincent’s paintings. sometimes they just had a blank for the sky and they had to animate the sky, so one end of the spectrum was the black and white footage which was pretty much live action realistic footage, although always made up of matte paintings and materials with the effects done, so we didn’t have to do fancy effects so that was more rotoscope.  The other end of the spectrum was the painting transitions where there was just one or two frames and the animators had to paint between them but all of the Van Gogh material essentially they have a live action reference but then they have to paint it as a Van Gogh painting and they had to animate each brushstroke, frame by frame.  The thicker the brushstrokes the more precisely they had to animate them.  In the black and white it’s more like animating on glass, you could smooth the paint around the canvas, whereas with the very definite brushstrokes you actually had to move very deliberately frame by frame by frame, like stop-motion.


LC: Not like an in-betweener in 2D animation, though…

Dorota Kobiela: No, because with an in-betweener you’ve got a keyframe and another keyframe and you go from one to the other, knowing what’s coming.  In this, the artist is doing all on one canvas and doing the keyframes and the art in-between.

HW: What we had for them was outlined reference, so that they could project it on the canvas and use it as a starting point, but it had none of the detail on there.

LC: So that’s more like an illustrator would work. So many different disciplines mixed together!

DK: Yes!

HW: In terms of our background, we’ve done CG animation, for example, our last film was purely pencil drawing animation, and then the other film she did before that was actually painting animation in 3D.  My last film was stop-motion, and we’ve both done visual effects, so we used and combined all of that in Loving Vincent, and the thing with Van Gogh’s paintings is they’re all different and some of them abide by the laws of physics, and some of them don’t.  Some of them he used a wide or a long lens, and some of them were more like a set, so we took them one by one, those we used.  With the portraits it’s pretty straightforward, in terms of shooting the portraits and then they have to be basically repainted in the Van Gogh style, and the big challenge was obviously not to lose the performance of the actors. One of the things that you very often get with rotoscoping technique is that you lose the performance you get a layer between you and the actor. On thing we did was we paid a lot of attention to the eyes. That’s the thing that animation can often fail at in creating realistic performances, so hopefully we found a way past that.

LC: How did you choose the artists you worked with?

DK: We received around 5000 applications. We first went through their portfolios, and based on that, we would invite artists to do a test, and this took around 3 days, which included painting in the Van Gogh style. Based on that test, they would go to another training.

HW: From 5000 applications, we invited 500 people to do a 3 day audition, of those we selected 113 for training, and pretty much all of those went on to do at least one shot in the film, with 125 painters, although a lot of those came on towards the end.

DK: The main crew was around 55 painters.

HW: A lot of the time we had around 20 painters, that was our core group.

LC: Dorota, you started out thinking you were going to paint the whole thing, did you paint any of the it?

DK: I painted one shot. The boy throwing the stone. It has a kind of shaky camera portrait. I picked it because I thought it was just the beginning for me, and I wanted a challenge and to do something I hadn’t done before, and to train on it.  I thought after that one i’d do a lot more fun ones with color, and then it didn’t happen!  I mean, it was 4 hours per frame, and I could only start in the evenings after going through a day of directing so that would be after 6pm and then i’d have to work till 2pm and then start over at 8am, so you know, I didn’t think it would be wise!

LC: You can’t really tell where art ends and animation begins.  When I read someone’s review, who clearly doesn’t know much about the history of animation, they said what a labor of love and how extraordinarily work intensive it must have been.  The whole span of the history of animation is filled with work intensive projects!  Even just the example of the Queen in Snow White and the amount of airbrush and hand-inking on each cel…

DK: Exactly!

DK: I realize that we’ve been told we are crazy for how involved this project was, and so i’m glad you brought that up.   

HW: Snow White is a great one to bring up, because there were far more cels used for that film than paintings or frames used for our film.  Of course on Snow White they had drawings, and concept art, and cels, and on our film we had paintings that we change and destroy as we go along.

DK: Each painting is used for one shot, and there are around 900 shots in the movie, and each painting ends up as the last part of the shot. Sometimes the painting remained intact through the whole shot, sometimes we would scrape off the paint completely. Like with the moving camera shots… the first in the movie, you have Starry Night, then it moves to another image, and that shot was 10 seconds and painted over 7 months, put together with a number of painters who had different specialties.  One was great with stars, another was best with tiny details of landscapes.  It’s 12 frames per second, so it can take between 30 minutes for the easiest for up to 8 hours. Sometimes we would just scrape everything off and start again just to make sure and compare and get each image just right so they worked together.

LC: How is it photographed, from above?

DK: We had a camera mounted behind the painter, and they just would need to click. They could also see how they were doing and get a preview and see how it looked. They could export their image immediately, so I could look and check every frame, not in every single case, but for a long time we had an every frame approval system. They would have to check with the supervisor.  And all the artists are getting paid per frame so waiting was an issue in terms of budget.

HW: The whole schedule and budget was based on timing, so we had to get fast approval. Also we had people in different parts of the world all working at the same time.

LC: How did financing come about for the film?

HW: It was very difficult.  Every time we showed the film we had made to explain what the feature would look like, we would be asked to give examples of other films done in the same way.  We said the fun thing about this is it’s something new, and people will like it because it hadn’t been done before. At that point they disappeared! We thought the hardest part would be to hand-paint the film or to train the artists who are used to being individuals and working in their own studios, and putting them all next to each other and that was the easy part.  The hard part was the financing.

LC: Dorota, you are quite open about your own depression, that you’ve had it your whole life, can you talk about that and your connection to Van Gogh and what depression means to art.

DK: I guess I always made the connection, and even wrote my thesis about it at university, how art and depression effect each other.  I thought it was very interesting so many writers, philosophers, and painters had it, and specifically Van Gogh. I have always been curious about the passion and vulnerability of artists makes them more sensitive or maybe it’s the other way around, the illness opens up a part of you that allows you to see things in a different way and offers a unique insight.  I don’t know which comes first. I was very interested in Van Gogh’s letters. I strongly believe that he was very intense and just worked too much, he was painting two paintings a day and writing all night. Writing 820 letters.

HW: Surviving letters.  Maybe way more existed.  We don’t know.

LC: I am particularly interested in the fact that, as a woman in animation, you have chosen to do something that’s never been done before, that required an immense amount of work, and a great deal of passion, that you put your whole heart into, that is so personal.

HW: 75% of our painters were women. I have always tried to have women directors and heads of departments, but in Loving Vincent, it was a lovely surprise for us to have such a high percentage of women.  In this case, it was purely because of skill and ability that it turned out that way.

DK: This project required a lot of patience, and the women seemed to have that.

LC: Well, of course most of the ink and paint department at Disney was made up of women and in addition to skill, there was a great deal of patience required for that.

HW: I think the men found it to be too hard.

DK: For the women it was fun because they were challenging each other.

HW: They all wanted to be the best in the studio and became very competitive. In Poland our painters were divided equally between men and women, but in Greece, all our painters were women.

LC: Talk to me about how you are selling the paintings used to make the film. It’s a great way to get back some of the budget before you’ve even released the movie…and you’re also having an exhibit of the art?

HW: We have around a thousand paintings, from the film itself and also design paintings, because we spent six months doing design paintings before we started, re-imagining Vincent’s work.  People were taking a full day or even a week to do those. One particular painting took a month! Of the thousand, a hundred and fifty we used for the financing of the film. Sometimes with the financiers and the actors, art was part of the deal. Each of the main actors got a painting of themselves and it was part of their contract.  A hundred more we sold to the public along the way. We put them on our website and they would sell quite quickly..and we have an exhibition opening at the Noordbrabants Museum in Holland on October 13th which will have one hundred nineteen paintings of our favorite paintings from the film. That runs till the 28th of January. We’d like to license that exhibition to America after it closes there. We are doing smaller exhibits elsewhere, including the Kroller-Muller, which has the second largest collection of Van Gogh collection in the world. In the film, we reimagined twelve paintings of theirs, so we are doing a collaboration with them and it will tour around Europe and Asia and then it will go into the Kroller-Muller Museum, which is great for us, next year, for about three months. All of the art will be sold at some point, all of it will go for sale, but much of it will be in exhibits first.  Of course they won’t all be very expensive, there are some of them that are less.  For example, when the film fades to black, we painted that, and now we have these canvases that are black and some are really nice because they have thick paint.  They won’t be much, but a fan will want them, I hope!

All the money made from selling the art goes into recouping the film, because we have an investors pool and a talent pool for painters, we have a talent pool for actors, and for Dorota and I as directors.  Still, we only really make any money if people go and see the film.

LC: You have lots of great premieres planned!

DK: Yes, we have a premiere with the National Gallery in London and the Musee D’Orsay in Paris. We are doing many of our national premieres in museums. With the National, it’s going to be broadcast in over 200 cinemas. We are doing an introduction that’s a walk through the National Gallery going to all the Van Gogh paintings and talking about them, which is about five or ten minutes, then we show the film, and then after the film we have a Q&A with all of the actors. For the Musee D’Orsay it is going to be in the big hall.  The Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam has a great space in their new building where we’ll have an event.

LC: So you got Clint Mansell as the scoring artist for the movie. What a coup, and he adds a lot to the film!

DK: He was involved in the film without even knowing about it.  I would write the script listening to his scores, like The Fountain, Moon, and Black Swan.  I wanted him, I built the story in my head with his music, so I really wanted him to be a part of it. To me this was important.

LC: He is also very outspoken about depression and is a strong advocate as an artist who has it.  I would imagine he’d be all over this project.

DK: The truth is his music for me represents what I was looking for absolutely perfectly for the movie.

HW: He said no five times.  He wasn’t taking on any new projects. We first approached him in 2012 and each time he said no.  I told Dorota it was time we started discussing other people or adding more than just one person to her list. She said she really wanted him, so we asked again and he said he’d meet us in person to say he wouldn’t be doing the project. We met him in person.

DK: His agent called and said he would be in London the next day so we jumped on a plane so we could talk to him in person. We met with him and showed him a few shots we had from the film. Not even painted, but live action. Three hours later he invited us out to dinner, and then he said yes.

HW: There is an absolutely wonderful quote from him on the record that Dorota designed of the score.  It says, “I’m not sure…..came into focus”

LC: As a woman in animation how do you feel you informed the film?

DK: To be honest what I’m really proud of and what I’m always getting a hard time for is how sensitive I am. How much pain and hardship I have to go through to deal with certain things. So many people say “Come on! Deal with it! Stop being so emotional!” It’s a part of me as a director, being empathetic and sensitive. I just think this is a part of me that needs to be that way. I am not going to be one of those directors, or women in business for that matter, who think they need to act like what some men are like on-set, shouting and cursing at people, because it’s not my nature. I think that my emotional, sensitive nature is really good for communicating with people.  One time on the set, my male co-worker said something me, because he’d done lots of movies before. This was in Poland, and in Poland, there are so many men working in movies. There are no women apart from makeup and costume. The men dominate the production and are very aggressive. Very different than the UK.  Anyway, he said, “You’re doing this all wrong. You have to shout at them, otherwise they won’t respect you.” I just don’t want to be respected by trying to be something I’m not.  I am sensitive, but also my approach was to be really really prepared.  That has always worked for me before and it worked on this.

LC: What is your next project?

DK: Well, this movie has been such a learning curve for us.  But now we have some amazing painters and we want to do it again and continue to expand the style. We are a little bit obsessed with horror films, and we want to do a painted horror movie.

HW: The thing about animation horror films is they are either funny or scary, but we think in our style we can do both.

LC: Well, good luck with that, it sounds great.  Good luck also with Loving Vincent.  It’s a beautiful movie and I hope you have great success with it!

DK: Thank you so much.

*You may have noticed there are far more A grades on my site.  I have slowly transitioned to interviewing almost exclusively people from films that I find very impressive.  Also, I’m here to “guide film lovers through a sea of celluloid”…in a sea of releases, I’m working to focus more on films I think are worthy of your time.  There will of course still be the occasional mediocre film represented here, but for the most part, I want to guide you all towards films that are worth getting up out and away from your chair/bed/computer.


Women Rocking Hollywood SDCC 2017 panel with Cinema Siren ROCKED HARD!


Women Rocking Hollywood 2017 was Victoria MahoneyAurora GuerreroTina MabryRosemary RodriguezAngela RobinsonGina Prince-Bythewood, and Kirsten Schaffer. All Hollywood Powerhouses!  Such graciousness and talent. It’s incredible to me that at SDCC, in an environment full of famous people and A-listers, I would not trade for anyone within a 5 mile radius, the female directors I spent a day with and featured on the 2nd annual panel of Women Rocking Hollywood. I also can’t imagine most male directors working today being so complimentary and supportive of each other.  In fact, Victoria Mahoney said “When one of us rises, we all rise.”  That sentiment was reaffirmed and embodied repeatedly by all the panelists.  It was an honor to highlight their work and the importance of changing the status quo in Hollywood.

If we have more talented women being hired across all the genres of film and television, we will get more diverse art on screens both large and small.

We had a full house, in fact, we had many people outside who couldn’t get in to the panel.  We hope to have a larger room next year, and will also be posting the panel on YouTube and Amazon for those who want to hear the inspiring, positive, and very articulate commentary from these women.

Women Rocking Hollywood was covered by some great outlets both before and after the convention.

The point of this panel and why I wanted to have it at San Diego Comic-Con, the mecca of all things pop culture, is that SDCC is for the fans. It gets fans of all genres and all subjects excited about what’s coming, celebrates what they love, and allows contact with the filmmakers and stars they love.  I believe fans can and will have a huge impact on moving us toward a 50/50 balance of women directors, writers, and artists below the line.  Fans can force Hollywood and the extended film industry to consider the Bechtel Test and how women are represented. They can do it by voting with they pocketbooks and by word of mouth.  SO…follow these women on twitter, see their shows, (like Queen Sugar, which has ALL female directors), support Women in Film:LA, which is doing amazing work towards changing the industry, go out to see new movies created by women at the theater, and promote their projects.  For myself, I take it far enough that I don’t see movies without female representation in the crew, unless the film offers some other aspect of diversity, although interestingly, diversity and acceptance/hiring of women for the crew often goes hand in hand (but not always)…

DO I SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD? Well, something more important is broken, and we have to fix it. We can do it together.  We don’t have to support crappy untalented directors, either.  Every woman on my panel is exceptional and is well-regarded by critics and film academics, and that is just a small sample of the great talent out there.

Here was the panel description:

Women Rocking HollywoodWomen Directors Changing the Face of Film and Television Wonder Woman broke all records in Hollywood for a film helmed by a female directors.  Now What? While there’s still a long way to go to equal the number of women behind the camera with women, who make up 51% of the population, shows like Jessica Jones, Queen Sugar, and The Leftovers are making a huge difference by committing to the inclusion of female directors. This 2nd annual panel at SDCC focuses on the incredibly talented, successful women expanding opportunities for women in film who have made noise and winning awards with their work on both the big and small screens. Scheduled to appear: Kirsten Schaffer (exec director, Women in Film: LA) Tina Mabry (writer/producer/director: Queen of the South, director: Dear White People) Rosemary Rodriguez (writer/director: Silver Skies, director: Jessica Jones, The Walking Dead) Victoria Mahoney (director: Queen Sugar, Gypsy, American Crime) Aurora Guerrero (writer/director: Mosquita y Mari, director: Queen Sugar) Angela Robinson (writer/director: Professor Marston and the Wonder Women, True Blood) and Gina Prince-Bythewood (writer/director: Love & Basketball, Beyond the Lights), the first woman of color hired to helm a superhero film for the upcoming Silver & Black.. Moderated by Leslie Combemale (Cinema Siren)

Here are some of the great articles written about it:


SDCC Unofficial Blog “Spotlight on Behind-the-Scenes panels”

Nerdist “Guide to Best San Diego Comic-Con Panels”

LA Times “Must-see Panels at SDCC”

Huffington Post “Highlights you may have Overlooked”

The Week “Comic-Con 2017 Top Shows and Films taking part”

Fox5 “What Not to Miss Saturday”

Glaad “Guide to LGBTQ-inclusive programming at Comic-Con”

Nerdophiles “Ladies Love Comic-Con”

Post-con so far:

Good.is “Women had their Best Showing Ever at this year’s Comic-Con” (shared over 800 times and counting)

LA Times “Gina Prince-Bythewood Discusses Landing the Spider-Man Spinoff”

Huffington Post “Highlights Beyond the Highlights”

The Game of Nerds “Women Rocking Hollywood: SDCC puts female directors front and center”

Paste “Gina Prince-Bythewood is One of the Women Rocking Hollywood”

YES IT WAS A SUCCESS, BUT…women in film have a mountain ahead of them to climb, whether they are directors, or below-the-line crew.  Just look at this video, which gives just a tiny look into the experiences they routinely go through:

If you want to see all the “Flip the Script” shorts, go here.

They need fans and film lovers to act as support sherpas on their way up the Everest that is patriarchal Hollywood. It’s up to all of us to help them in all the ways we can by following them on twitter, supporting their films, and loudly echoing each other to become one the voice for equality.

We will be back next year, and will cover women-centric and female written and directed projects throughout the year, both on Cinema Siren and WomenRockingHollywood.com.

Read us, and also other great sites supporting women like Women in Film: LA, and Women and Hollywood.

We’ll write more about the experience when we post the video of the panel!!


“Maudie” film review and interview with director Aisling Walsh


If you are Canadian, and you love art, you’ve heard of Maude Lewis.  If you love a story of determination, creativity, and fearlessness, you’ll love “Maudie”, the story of her artistic life that has been brought to the big screen.  Helmed by longtime director Aisling Walsh, and starring Sally Hawkins and Ethan Hawke as Maud and Everett Lewis, the film follows the adult experiences and partnership of the folk artist with the recluse who would become her husband and life partner.

Maude Lewis was a self-taught artist that lived through her childhood disfigured, and with an increasingly challenging case of juvenile arthritis.  She lived with her family through her twenties, painting every day, but was when her parents both passed away, she was sent to live with her aunt.  A yearning for independence led her to answer an ad for a housekeeper. Everett Lewis wanted someone to care for his 10 x 12 foot house, which had neither running water nor electricity, and Maude wanted a sense of belonging and an independence.  They married in 1938, and constructed a simple life together where Maude painted every day, and Everett kept house and haggled with tourists and collectors over the price of the originals he sold for her.

Maude had a unique vision where she expressed the joy of simple pleasures and daily life.  Over her lifetime, she painted their little house, inside and out, and now that house installed as part of the Maude Lewis exhibit in The Art Gallery of Nova Scotia.

The film, as directed by Walsh, captures the harshness of the environment in which these beautiful, joyful paintings were created, as well as the challenges Maude faced from her physical ailments and from the people around her.  It is a slow, lyrical film, more a study in Maudie’s determination and force of will to find joy in every day, and in what is in front of her.  The film, in that way, becomes a reminder for us to do so, as well, especially those of us not facing the physical and financial challenges she had.

Hawkins and Hawke, both award-winning actors, turn in great performances, but is is Hawkins as Maude who will be hard to overlook at Oscar season this year.  While she is not mimicking the real-life artist, she captures her stubborn optimism and no-nonsense attitude in a way that is inspiring.  Never one to play for sympathy, she gives Maude a level of dignity that few other actors could have achieved. Watching old films of the real Maude Lewis, one is struck by how similarly the actress and artist walk and speak, and it is clear Maude found happiness in that little house, just painting every day, a cigarette in one hand, and paintbrush in the other.

There are so few female artists represented on film, and so few naive artists who are revealed to the large art world, it is lovely thing to have this cinematic testament to one of Canada’s greats.  If it leads to more interest in and acceptance of the creativity that surrounds us, it is a film that has done a service to us all.  It’s unlikely to be a huge, runaway hit that requires theaters from miles around to add showings as happened in Nova Scotia, but it could certainly make a dent in the specialty box office yearly totals.


An Exclusive interview with director Aisling Walsh:

Cinema Siren:  Maudie brings to a wider audience an understanding of this artist that is so important to Canada. This movie is not just as a love story between these two people, and a story about art and creativity but also a love story about Canadians. She is really joyful in her surroundings and her circumstances in just this tiny little house with no heat and yet she was a happy person making do. She was in pain and she’s just made. I feel like Canadians are a little bit like that. They’re pretty easygoing…

Aisling Walsh: They really are. it’s interesting because you know the designer and myself, we’re both Irish and we’re fairly feisty. I feel in your history if you’ve sort of fought for the freedom of a country, it’s very different than if you have been given it, or if you have it, or if you’re there and I suppose a lot of people in Canada going back a couple hundred years, they came from Scotland or Ireland or Europe, but hadn’t fought for it. Then you have the weather, which is a huge factor. People have to get along, you know. They have to help each other survive, and they have to dig each other out of snow. The thing that’s amazing about them is they respond to weather like I’ve never had to do my life. They go through feet of snow to go do whatever they have to do. That’s such a part of their lives. Like putting a log on the fire and getting up at six o’clock in the morning, right, because they’ve got to keep this fire going. It’s so much a part of their lives, and they spend many hours in their homes during the winter, because it’s too cold to go out. I come from a climate where there’s not a day you couldn’t even consider going out. It makes them learn to be very contented in a way. They’ve got to live in their own surroundings, and they’ve got to live with other people, and you know they live in that kind of small society. How did two people live in a 12×12 foot shack for 35 years, not accepted in society, they have to live their lives themselves.  and yet she was very content you know.

CS: And speaks it through her work, you can really see her contentment though her work. With some naive artists you see the darkness and some of the struggle in the work. With her there’s a purity, not just of the subject matter, but of the perspective and the color she chooses. I think that’s what separates her from other naïve artists of the same area or style.

AW: Her work is very uplifting and there isn’t darkness in it, no. And she doesn’t go to those dark places you know, her paintings are often described as having no shadows, there’s no darkness. It’s children going to school, kids skiing down hills, the oxen, the cats… I think that’s how she saw the world, she saw the positivity and the kind of beauty in it you know.

CS: I read love Andrew Wyeth and were inspired by him in the work of this particular film. Not so light, that one.

AW: I’m not saying his work is simple in any way, but there is a beautiful vision of landscape in his work. He also uses great texture…. We used a quilt but actually for the bedroom, it is patchwork quilt on the bed and it’s light and dark.  His light and darkness I really like too, and also he paints in all the seasons. His composition is much darker than her world, but it was a real help to have a reference to start from.  The other reference for me was Dorothea Lange, a photographer whose work I love, because you can see the texture, and you can see the filth of the dirt, and the worn clothes… just such beautiful portraits of people.

You see in the film actually, there’s a lovely photograph of a couple, they have a knapsack one of the guys walking past a sign.  I used that in the film. They’re just good references to start from, and Maude’s work, it’s much more uplifting than that, but I needed to start in a place where for me made sense. We didn’t experience the depression quite like they did in America or Canada. I mean you think of American in the 20th century, I’m not saying everywhere was wealthy but there was this huge vast wealth, as well as in Canada, and suddenly it was gone. Lange’s photographs really depict that incredibly well. They are amazing portraits of people and you can see finery, you can see fine people that are obviously quite well off, in their little trucks probably driving across California or wherever they’re going. And they’ve gone from being rich to just trying to keep alive.

CS: I know there are paintings she altered slightly but painted again and again.  You can’t go 365 days a year for many years without repeating images.  I love the cat paintings, but I think i’ve seen a number of them…

AW: She had a cat called Fluffy. You see her as a child and the cat was called Fluffy and I think that’s why I like them, it’s related back to that, it’s her childhood. She painted a white cat quite a bit that I think is really more emotional… I would say that’s fluffy. So for me I prefer the cats to the oxen. The oxen are kind of different, they are more landscape…The cats somehow for me relate to her much more and the flowers and the birds too, all of that.

CS: I was struck, when I watched footage of the real Maudie, how spot-on Sally was in her portrayal.

AW:  Yeah, in just little things like the silhouette. There’s a photograph of Maude and she’s quite bent over, she’s at the door, and Everett is outside, standing with logs. She got that, Sally got that. We got it, and not that that’s important, but somehow she can go there. We have no photographs of her as a young woman, the photographs of her are in the last of the three years of her life. So it’s exciting to journey back to the beginning, and how she got there. Nobody knows what the first thing she painted on the wall was, we had to work that out. That was the kind of fun part about it. It’s with her finger because she had no brushes, and it’s one very simple tree and you can see it around the side of the house. There are things that she discovered along the filming, and then she just became it.

We were very detailed, both Sally and I, like, how did she walk in the beginning, how does that develop as an older woman? I think she really achieved that, and then with little things like as an older woman, she always wore those aprons… so we had an apron made. People had their clothes for twenty years and thirty years then. And then she had a lovely brooch, we found one online and used that but those little things were important for me and for Sally.

CS: What was one thing someone told you about Maude in all the interviews you did that surprised or moved you?

AW: I think one of the saddest things was a guy who remembered her… well two things, he remembered her as an older woman walking home and kids still throwing stones at her, and her standing at Christmas time in Digby in the cold, trying to sell her pictures. But then there were people who remember this remarkable spirit.  That she was a wonderful woman when you got to know her. There is a lovely letter that this gentleman showed me that she wrote. She’s wrote a lot of letters, like the Nixon paintings for example. She sent him a note that said “I’m so happy you like painting, I didn’t have very much in stock and so I thought this one might be kind of quite perfect for you, hope you enjoy.”  She wasn’t as isolated maybe as we imagine.

AW: Guy Godfree, the DOP and John Hand, the production designer and I all worked in the same room together. What I usually do anyway is try to work in the same room that the designer is working in.  But it was great to see how attached we all got to Maude and who she was. Arguing…Everybody kind of fights for Maude. It’s amazing how people get so passionate about a project they’re working on. I’d worked with John quite a bit but Guy was the new kid on the block and it was important for me, very important that they get on.

When Sally had to catch the chicken, in that scene it was John, the production designer, that showed her how to do it, because he is from the countryside. So it was everybody working together as well, nobody was precious about “oh, that’s my bit” and “I want to do that bit”. All of those things matter in a film like this.


CINEMA SIREN INTERVIEW: Director of Megan Leavey Gabriela Cowperthwaite talks about female directors, female soldiers, the freedom of documentaries, and the gift of animal loyalty.


CINEMA SIREN INTERVIEW: Director of Megan Leavey Gabriela Cowperthwaite talks about female directors, female soldiers,  the freedom of documentaries, and the gift of animal loyalty.

Coming this weekend is a film based on the real-life experience of a female marine and her canine companion. Review is HERE.  I spoke to director Gabriela Cowperthwaite about her experience:

Leslie Combemale for Cinema Siren: Kate Mara recommended you to direct this film.  Would moving to narrative feature films been a natural progression for you, or is documentary work always going to be your focus, with occasional features?

Gabriela Cowperthwaite: I thought of myself as a documentary filmmaker forever, and as a result of Blackfish, I got interest for me to work in features. It was agent-driven. My agent and manager came forward and asked if I would be interested in doing features.  I said, “Yes! of course!”  I love movies, it wasn’t something I had ever thought of but it was brought to me and I thought it sounded amazing. I started getting scripts, and became attached to another film and then this script arrived via Kate and she said she would love to recommend me to the producers, and I loved it and it all went super fast.  We were on a plane.  They were green-lit, they were ready to go, they just needed a director. It was very very quick.

CS: You directing this story seems perfect, since not only had you directed Blackfish, but you’d also worked as an embedded filmmaker with the military in several countries at war.  Having had those experience, what surprised you in making the film?

GC: I tell people i wanted all my previous worlds to inform this one, so it was almost more in technique.  What I love in documentary and what I’ve always loved is was not knowing what was going to happen.  You show up with your camera and everything, you can plan and hope it will go a certain way, but it just never does. You just have to be so spry and so ready to recalibrate at a moment’s notice.  The adrenaline that comes with that is a rush, but also when that thing happens it feels amazing. IT feels like a piece of magic. Going into narrative, I was like “how am going to find those moments?” I found myself engineering moments of spontaneity and letting actors ad lib and saying “forget about the lines, let’s just be”…that was an interesting challenge for the actors but they’re so good at a number of things and they were excited to have that freedom and be able to go off script so I think it worked.  It definitely came from my documentary.

CS: Are there examples of some of the ad libs that led to something inventive?

GC: One thing very much was Common.  Gunny Martin.  His humor.  Totally deadpan but it’s totally him. A lot of that isn’t scripted. Discovering that he, this larger than life, musician Oscar winning human is actually hilarious. He really was having fun with it.

CS: I know he had done a lot of research about the way people become marines and how it influences their personality…

GC: exactly. Gunnary sergeants aren’t just going to drill into you. It’s not going to be serious discipline and being dressed down. Or yelling at people. In that kind of position you have to find ways to inspire people. For him it was humor and messing with people. But it came from him! It came from the research but he thought, “I can mess with these guys…”

CS: Working with dogs and having them be so much a part of the story had to be interesting.  You are so much an activist and so concerned about the safety of the animals. I know there are explosions and stuff and rightly lots of fans who love animals are concerned about them.  Can you talk about that?

“The dog rules.  Dog is number one on set.  They don’t choose to be there. You’ve got to know that and make sure you make them comfortable in every way you possibly can.”

GC: A lot of the explosions are enhanced by sound design so it doesn’t scare the dogs. That’s all post production for safety.  There are loud noises on set, that’s for sure. What it would mostly be is loud noises would happen, the moment they heard them the first time, the second time, they weren’t startled as much. For me it was most important to do as few takes as possible with them. There are a number of dogs, so you never use one dog more than you need to or more than you should. But for me it was like, and everyone agreed with me on this, Kate, me, the producers, the trainers, they all knew he’s going to deliver. He’s the one you don’t need worry about. Kate is an animal person, she read him and they became buddies and bonded—professional actors that became friends…she knew what to do with him, he knew what to do to deliver, so it was just a matter of us being together and on top of it all. Are we rolling at the time? There’s no time to adjust the light. This is happening right now, and we’re not going to make him keep doing it. We’ve got to remember that. I gave a big pep talk about that even before we started shooting. The dog rules.  Dog is number one on set.  They don’t choose to be there. You’ve got to know that and make sure you make them comfortable in every way you possibly can.

CS: What about this particular story really hooked you? What made you so passionate about wanting to do it?

GC: I would say it was a full blown character and such a unique opportunity that you think you’ve heard before, a war story about someone being transformed by being at war and coming home. It was done through two completely unique agents, two completely unique access points.  A female, a marine, we don’t hear about women in war very often and certainly not in movies, and a canine.  It’s like a brothers-in-arms story, but there’s not a brother anywhere in sight.  She felt fresh to me and cool and someone I could know. I liked that there were female writers behind it so she had some comebacks and things to say, and an authentic perspective.  She was someone who you could tell was written by a woman. and honestly it was greenlit.  What I’ve come to learn is with a documentary, I just get up and go.  I find a story and grab a few shooters and we go do it. That is an amazing freedom that comes with documentaries.  In the narrative feature world, you are asking permission to tell stories a million times over. It’s this dance you’re doing, it’s so strange and so new. You’re pitching it, you’re like but I know how to do this and this is how I’m going to go about it.  It’s strange because to you it has been taken for granted that you just get up and go out and make a movie. When you find one that’s ready to push the go button, you’re finally let’s go!  Really having it be “go time” was a huge factor.

CS: as someone who has focused on documentaries, and as a woman, do you think it IS the freedom, and the fact that you don’t need permission, something we often struggle with as women, is the reason there are so many women in the field?

GC: I think for sure we can’t underscore enough that you don’t have to have permission, you just go do it. I think that we are adept at paying attention to things that other people overlook. We aren’t going always for or driven to the shiny thing, the big thing, the thing that makes all the money.  The obvious thing…we are driven to give a platform to someone that nobody’s paid attention to, an issue that nobody seems to care about, like unsung heroes.  I do think women search for nuance and subtlety and we find beauty in those things.  There are certainly men in documentaries that do that, and spectacularly well. We in the narrative world, I think we are still fighting this belief that we female directors are this big risk.

CS: Wonder Woman is helping to change that, I hope.

GC: It’s a huge deal, and it’s Patty Jenkins, and I will say this. She’s a phenomenal filmmaker and someone I’ve been aware of since Monster. If she was allowed not only to be the director of this film, but be listened to, and if her aesthetic and her work onscreen, and her creative mind they hired and checked off that box that they got a female film director…when they checked that box are you taking her creative mind with you? if that’s the case, if they have, it is gonna slay. If it doesn’t slay, it isn’t a Patty Jenkins issue. I’m going on record saying that.  If they let her do her thing, it’s going to be amazing.

CS: What is next for you?   

GC: I want to always do narrative and always do documentary. It would be amazing to play in both sandboxes. It’s just story-dependent.  I have to love that story and feel like I’m the agent for it.  Is a documentary the way in, or is narrative the way? It’s totally story-dependent.  The next thing shifts all the time. Yes, there are piles of scripts I see, but they aren’t necessarily what i’m being considered for, but stories I’d go to the mat for. That’s the different between being a “FANCY” narrative director, and a new narrative director.

CS: What are you hoping people are going to get out of this movie?

“We say “thank you for your service”, but what does that mean?”

GC: You know, a few things. I do think it’s a love story, a relationship story.  The themes are loyalty and friendship and what having a bond means and how it changes you. I hope at some level people get that and are inspired by that. Those are the themes in real life that transform people every day. I also hope a couple of things: the third act was really important to me, her coming home and what it means to come home, and this was a very specific of that. Maybe if we can crack open what it means to come home through, that would be great.  We say “thank you for your service”, but what does that mean? We say that, I think of that all the time. I have no idea what the veterans coming home have experienced or the depth of their service. I don’t know what they experienced.

CS: with animals used in combat, you take that a step further, because they can’t tell you.

GC: That’s right. You say thank you for you service and I want people to think about what service means. People come home and there are many times when they come home broken. How do we equip ourselves to help them get what they need? In Megan’s case, it was to partner her back with her dog.  In their case, neither of them were whole without each other, and both were healed by being together. Hopefully it gives us a peek into how we can do that for everyone, and how to feel compassion for them.

Animals and dogs are loyal and companions and I know that stuff in a general way, but when I learned about the canine unit, and I learned about the extent to which they sacrificed for hundreds of years by our human sides during wars fighting along side us and they don’t choose it the way we do. Showing them the respect and appreciation for what they have done, through their loyalty, is the least we can do for them.


Megan Leavey: A true-life story of love and heroism brought to film, directed by a woman


A powerful love story opens Friday, but it’s not a traditional romance or the usual Rom-Com fare. It’s the story of the love between a woman and her dog.  To be more specific, it’s the story of two war heroes who find the kind of love with each other that saves them both.  Megan Leavey is directed by Gabriela Cowperthwaite, who helmed the great, award-winning documentary Blackfish, which changed policy at Sea World and helped the plight of killer whales in captivity.  The film stars Kate Mara in the real-life female war hero Leavy, a marine corporal deployed in Iraq, who, with the help of her military combat dog Rex, completed over 100 missions until an IED explosion injured them both and caused them physical and emotional trauma that put them in jeopardy. They are separated when Leavey comes back stateside to recuperate, and Leavey has to find advocates in the government and in the military who will be willing to let her adopt Rex, like her, is a true hero, but has been classified as “unadoptable”.   

Kate Mara, as physically diminutive as she is, still has believability as a committed soldier, who, at a time when women weren’t in the frontlines, was actually in front of all the other soldiers, because she was with the K9 unit.

Co-starring in Megan Leavey are some strong, award-winning character actors. Edie Falco plays Leavey’s mother, and being an animal lover she was quick to sign on to the film.  It turned out she had a tie to the real-life hero. Only later did she discover that Megan Leavey’s father, who had been a Teamster, had driven her during her tenure on The Sopranos.  Bradley Whitford plays her father, and he is never in a film or tv show he doesn’t elevate with his presence. Common, who is becoming known increasingly as an actor as well as Oscar-winning musician, plays Sergeant Martin, who helps with Leavey’s training in the K9 unit.  In the press notes, it mentions Common used a pair of Marine consultants so he could really capture the sergeant who oversees the K9 training at Camp Pendleton without turning him into the expected stereotypical taskmaster.  He does bring the character more dimension and interest.

Ultimately, Megan Leavey just does a good job portraying of the kind of relationship all animal lovers will understand by getting out of the way and letting the story of the bravery of both the woman and the dog reveal itself.  It also shows the power of animals to heal us from even the worst traumas.  There is a great deal of documentation on the influence of animal therapy on veterans with PTSD.  Megan Leavey really brings that message home in an inspiring and cathartic way.



Film Review: You’re A Wonder, Wonder Woman


I just got back from seeing Wonder Woman, a movie that for me was by far the most anticipated of the year.  It isn’t because there aren’t some wonderful, highbrow, meaningful stories being released at Oscar season in October and November.  It’s because Wonder Woman is only the 4th live-action film with a budget of $100 million dollars ever directed by a woman.  I really wanted it to be exceptional.  I wanted it to be one of the best superhero movies I’d seen.  Thank Themyscira and all the goddesses, it is.  It’s fun, entertaining, and full of the sort of womanly power, strength, grace, and value we rarely see, especially in a superhero movie.

Directed by Patty Jenkins, who helmed the film for which Charlize Theron won the Best Actress Oscar, MonsterWonder Woman is in safe and skilled hands.  It is also in the hands of the first female director of a DC or Marvel feature film, and DC should be absolutely thrilled with the results, and with the exceptional buzz and positive reception it has gotten around the world.  Twitter and Facebook are filled with posts of little girls and little boys in costumes, striking the cross-fisted pose.  Patty comes by directing a story of military bravery with a strong female character, however based in comic book fantasy, honestly.  As you’ll see in the credits, she dedicates the film to her father William T. Jenkins, an Air Force pilot who won a Silver Star in Vietnam, and she grew up with a mother who was an environmental scientist.

Wonder Woman is essentially a mix of origin and fresh-off-the-island stories.  The action begins on the hidden island of Themyscira, where a world of Amazonian warrior women live and train to be ever stronger in battle.  From a young age, Diana (Gal Gadot) daughter of Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen), is taken under the wing of consummate fighter Antiope (Robin Wright). It appears time passes far more slowly for this society, which is entirely devoid of the male sex, at least as inhabitants.  When pilot and spy Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) crashes in the sea below the cliffs of her island home, Diana saves him, only to learn, along with the rest of the Amazons, that the outside world is in conflict, fighting “the war to end all wars”.  Diana determines to go with Steve to try to make a difference, and stop the war.  She believes the violence is, in part, the doing of Aries, the God of War, and she knows if she finds him and kills him, all will be right again. Ass-kicking, great one-liners, and dialogue in which a female character does not always defer to men, and their leadership or wants, ensue.

If the two-hour-and-twenty-one minute running time flies by as if transported in an invisible jet, the parties truly responsible are Gadot and Pine, who have great chemistry both individually and as a screen couple. There is, in Gadot, an innocence and genuine optimism that harkens back to the Christopher Reeves era Superman movies of Richard Donner. Indeed director Patty Jenkins says his work was a major influence for the feel of Wonder Woman, and for Diana’s lack of cynicism and fearless bravery.  Gadot is a genuine star, much like Reeves was, and the camera not only loves her, but she seems to strip herself of all pretense for it, which is in perfect service of her believability as the character.  Pine is essentially playing what every actress who loves old Hollywood would recognize as the wise-cracking dame.  He is Jean Arthur in Howard Hawks’ Only Angels Have Wings.  Bless him, how can we not love his Steve Trevor, a WWI pilot who falls for a woman of substance and power? How can we equally not fall for Pine, with his pithy delivery, and a cynicism and world-weariness that crumbles before our eyes? He can be the Lois Lane to my Superman any day.

My screening partner and gal pal said she felt she was watching something very familiar and recognizable, but something she’d never seen before onscreen.  A perfect example of that is the consistent positioning of Diana as Wonder Woman at the front of every battle scene. She is the undisputed leader. In real life, there are women who lead in nearly every aspect of life, we just seldom see it unqualified on film. Also refreshing, is Diana’s reaction whenever Steve does something generally thought of as gentlemanly, like holding a door, or giving her his coat.  She sees his actions as being from one human to another, not what is expected from man to woman, and in a perfect world, this is as it should be. There is no sexual barter on Themyscira.  On the other hand, as a spy, Marvel’s Black Widow has been trained to use her sexuality as part of her bag of tricks.  Those tricks are entirely unnecessary for an ageless Amazonian warrior.

Of course some might argue there have been other strong female characters in Marvel movies.  What about Scarlet Witch and Black Widow? They are a part of a larger group run by men, and secondary, co-starring roles. When you give us Captain Marvel, directed by a woman, we’ll celebrate.  For that matter, give us a male-led superhero movie directed by a woman.  We want that, too.  Hopefully, box office success will result in an expansion of the Wonder Woman franchise, which can lead us to better circumstances for all women in film.

There are some nitpicks.  The last quarter of the movie flags a bit, and veers into the usual big blockbuster battle territory.  The film music should have utilized more of the guitar riff we’ve come to adore from the trailers, instead of some protracted periods with the more predictable orchestral passages used in the score.  That’s it, though.  It’s otherwise a 2 hour-plus delight.

On my way home from the screening, there was an old radio show from 1944 called The Judy Canova Show playing in my car.  She closed her show, as she always did, with the song “Goodnight, Soldier”, reminding people as she tirelessly did off the air, to buy U.S. War Bonds.  Her last words on this show were “Remember! Get into the war with your hands, as well as your heart”.  Wonder Woman was there in 1944, too.  Her first comic book cover was in January, 1942. 

She’s still fighting, only now she fights for women’s equality in Hollywood.  Kudos for all those involved at DC and Warner Bros. in making this woman-helmed and woman-led film so very entertaining, and for getting into the war for gender equality in Hollywood with their hands as well as their hearts.


In area theaters. For why you should see this film this weekend, read this article.


SEEING WONDER WOMAN? See it Early and Support Women in Film!


How excited are you about seeing a Hollywood film featuring the most popular and beloved female superhero? Maybe you think you’ll go soonish, or certainly, of course, see it while it’s in theaters.  Have you bought your tickets yet?  What are you waiting for, an invitation from Diana herself?  Let me suggest you go as soon as possible. Here’s why:

As you may know, Wonder Woman is directed by Patty Jenkins.  She is going to be only the 4th woman to be hired to helm a live action. film with a budget over 100 million dollars.  The 4th woman if you only count live action, or if you count animation features as well, the 6th.   That number is out of 361.  There have been 361 movies made with budgets over 100 million, and Wonder Woman will be the only the 6th movie ever with that big a budget to be helmed by a woman.

I’ll give you a moment to let that sink in.

Ok, why will going to see Wonder Woman early help?  Money talks in Hollywood, as with any money-making business. If lots of people go to early screenings and the movie breaks a number of box office records, it offers further proof that hiring female directors is as smart and financially sound a choice as hiring another male for the next movie with a big budget.

It might surprise you to know that the movie-going public, much like the general makeup of the population, is 51% female.  Women don’t avoid movies, and they certainly don’t avoid them if they have a female lead character. Unfortunately, in the US, they do have to contend with the fact that way less than half of the films released by studios in this country pass the Bechtel Test, meaning fewer than 50% have two named female characters that speak to each other and about a subject other than men.  Obviously since Wonder Woman partly takes place on an island entirely inhabited by women, this film will pass the Bechtel Test with flying colors!

Things are changing very slowly around the world for women behind the camera, but they are changing.  Just this year at the Cannes Film Festival, Sophia Coppola won Best Director for her remake of 1971’s The Beguiled.  She is only the second woman to ever win Best Director, with Russian auteur Yuliya Solntseva being the first for The Story of Flaming Years all the way back in 1961. This puts Cannes, the festival who turned away women in flat heels in 2015, ahead of the Oscars, which has only bestowed one woman, Kathryn Bigelow, the honor.  Lina Wertmuller for Seven Beauties, Jane Campion for The Piano, and Sofia Coppola for Lost in Translation are the only other female directors ever nominated in the entire history of the Academy Awards.  Hurrah for Cannes!  The Academy has a lot of work to do, especially given recent snubs including Ava DuVernay and her glorious movie Selma, Jennifer Kent, the writer/director of genre-buster The Babadook, and Maren Ade and her very strange, yet delightful dramedy Toni Erdmann.

It may seem like this sort of campaign, the desire for a female-helmed superhero movie to do well at the box office, is trivial in comparison with heavier subjects like world health concerns for women.  The fact is that directors are able to bring attention to subjects and issues with smaller, Indie films, when they can make big, high-profile money-making movies as well.  Even Steven Spielberg will tell you, clout and box office success as a director get many a passion project made.  Female directors have important stories to tell that can change public perception about any number of subjects. For example, no one would have ever known the real-life story of brilliant female chess player from the Ugandan slums, Phiona Mutesi, had it not been for Mira Nair’s film, Queen of Katwe.

Numbers matter. They open up opportunities for women in front of and behind the camera, in the writer’s room and editing bays, and for any number of other positions ‘below the line’, like production design, art direction, and sound design. Gratefully for the fans and filmmakers of Wonder Woman, the film has gotten nearly universal praise by top film critics around the world.

So… you and your friends can be some of the first to talk about the beauty, grace, courage, and strength of the beloved superhero.  At the same time, you’ll be adding strength to the numbers of current and future women in film. You just have to buy a ticket, put on your Wonder Woman converse shoes, and head out to the closest multiplex. See you there!


The Wedding Plan Review: The little Hebrew-language Rom-Com that could


You may not imagine that you’d be hankering to see a romantic comedy in Hebrew this weekend.  I’m here to tell you, this new indie, directed by Israeli-American director Rama Burshtein, and starring luminous stage actress Noa Koler as well as Israeli heartthrobs Amos Tamam and Oz Zehavi, will win you completely, and put a smile on your face that will stay stuck that way for hours.

32 year old Michal (Noa Koler) is an Orthodox Jewish woman who wants to find someone to share her life with, and wants the comfort and acceptance that comes with married life.  That’s not to say she isn’t entirely her own woman that dances to the beat of her own drum.  She has created a career of running a mobile petting zoo, which includes a snake and other creatures that would send most other supposedly feminine women screaming.  She has strong opinions and readily shows the depth of her feelings. When her fiancé, the man she thought would be her life partner, unexpectedly calls off the engagement only a month before the wedding, she is crushed.  Being of strong stock, she picks herself up and determines she’ll find Mr. Right in time to go ahead with the nuptials. She trusts god to find her the perfect match, with barely a month to spare.

This movie is a great example of what the future of Rom-Coms can deliver, embracing all the genre’s positivity and romance, but adding the twists, darkness, and raw emotion that gives it both staying power and immediate relevance.  Director Burshtein knows how to write the sort of determination-led magical thinking with which character Michal has approached her life and her future, which is no easy task.  It could have easily seemed hokey or entirely unbelievable, but because this is about her trust in god, it becomes like a fairy tale, the ending for which the entire audience is kept captive and hoping.

For her part, Koler is not only perfectly cast, but entirely believable, which is essential to the film working.  International audiences agree with me, since she won Best Actress at the Awards of the Israeli Film Academy, the Israeli version of the Oscars.  Watch her as she goes on blind date after blind date, awkward yet steadfast in her belief she is doing the right thing, all the while feeling a little insane. It will induce chair-squirming empathy, and no doubt some recognition of past experiences.  Her chemistry with Zehavi, who plays Yos, a famous pop star who takes a shine to her, and Tamam, as Shimi, the handsome owner of the wedding venue, is off the charts.  The way these actors bring their characters to life makes even the surprise ending make sense.

One of the most interesting aspects of seeing The Wedding Plan is the way it represents the culture of Orthodox Judaism so that those who know little about it are enlightened. I knew very little, but loved learning from the portrayals how powerful and independent women can be, even though the pressure to get married is so strong. There are also concrete bits of culture represented like, excuse my ignorance, that Orthodox Jewish women who are married must cover their hair.  (see married Rama Burshtein’s IMDB for lovely pictures of her in head wraps)  Burshtein, herself someone who became Orthodox after being raised in a secular family, has as a writer/director dedicated herself to promoting film as a tool of self-expression in the Orthodox community. She did so with her first narrative feature in 2012, Fill the Void, which won a total of seven awards from the Israeli Film Academy.

The Wedding Plan is in a larger number of arthouse theaters than is usually the case for foreign language films released in the US, but that doesn’t mean you should tarry in finding a screening near you.  Independent films survive and thrive on early word of mouth and ticket sales.  For the sake of all of us who like romantic, positive examples of cinema, go see it opening weekend.


In area theaters now.


WAKEFIELD Review and Exclusive Interview with director Robin Swicord


This weekend the new independent film Wakefield opens, starring the unstoppable acting juggernaut, Bryan Cranston. It is a performance where he spends most of the movie by himself, and yet it’s tense, exciting, and represents the sort of character arc that keeps audiences connected and engaged.  Writer/director Robin Swicord is best known for adapting literary works for the screen, including The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (for which she was nominated for an Oscar) as well as Memoirs of a Geisha, Matilda, and Little Women.  She wrote and stepped into directing The Jane Austen Book Club.  Wakefield she adapted from a short story by E.L. Doctorow, who wrote Billy Bathgate and Ragtime. While the script is tight, it’s absolutely the Bryan Cranston show, which is as it should be.

Howard Wakefield is coming home from work in the city for what looks to be the thousandth time, his face haggard as he stares blankly out of the train. When there’s a power failure, he has to walk the rest of the way home, and getting there, he winds up in the attic across from his house.  He spends some time staring out the window, watching his family from the dark confines of the cluttered out-of-the-way spot, and decides to stay there for a while, ignoring concerned calls from his wife Diane (Jennifer Garner).  He falls asleep, and then is afraid to walk in without a good explanation for Diane, with whom he had just fought, and he’s been having rougher and rougher patches. As he makes himself as comfortable as possible, hours turn into days, the days into weeks, and the weeks into months.  What he does up in the attic, how his identity crumbles, and his understanding of himself, those he loves, and the world changes, is the meat of the movie.

Cranston alternately grumbles, mumbles, analyzes, and philosophizes as he watches his family and inner circle react to his disappearance.  He undergoes a transformation both inside and out, and the audience is witness to it all.  There are few actors who could have pulled the role off, especially given Howard Wakefield starts out, at best, misanthropic.   He cackles as he plumbs the dark depths of his intellect for insults about his extended family.  Through the proceedings, Cranston is called upon to show minute incremental changes through his intonation, facial tics, and body language, instead of through any obvious dialogue.  It may seem lunacy for the character to intentionally put himself from is own world, when it is only steps away. The story, however, makes sense, in that it’s certainly possible someone could be seduced into watching the world from the outside and find themselves trapped between wanting to disappear from their life and finding the courage to change it, even knowing they are inadvertently hurting the ones they love.

Jennifer Garner shows up in a way that goes beyond the occasional flashback or display of her experience as Howard is watching through binoculars from across the street.  She must do much with little, and portrays a character, though well fleshed out by the script, as someone with more dimensionality than you’d expect, given how little dialogue she has to represent herself.

The real reason so see Wakefield is the tour-de-force performance Bryan Cranston brings to it. He travels through the spectrum of emotions, and essentially empties himself out to rebuilds himself in under two hours, and he is almost entire alone in doing so.  By the time you reach the ambiguous ending, you may or may not love Howard Wakefield, but you can’t help but be in his corner.  Where are his crazy choices leading? Wherever, you will want to be with him to find out.


An Exclusive Interview with Director Robin Swicord

LC: Let’s talk about Bryan Cranston because I know he was your number one choice and it’s so wonderful that you would up having him because who could’ve done it the way he did?  He finds either sympathy or draws recognition from his audiences, which I think is his best quality. What sort of specific additions did Bryan add to it that you noticed enhancing the character development? Were they all physical or did he sometimes improvise words?

Robin: I know, no kidding. I can’t imagine another actor could have done what he did. I think that we were open to every kind of play on this. This is one of the unique opportunities that you get when you have a man alone in a room and he’s talking aloud and he’s behaving. Is that I can give him the script and he can do all of that and then he can do whatever he wants to besides. And in the editing room I can decide what I’m going to use of that depending on pace and tone and so forth. So I welcomed it all, I welcomed it from the very start in our first conversation and then when we went through the script moment by moment and line by line and beat by beat. We talked through everything in a long process that went over a couple of weeks, many hours a day, and during that time he would sometimes make suggestions that were really wonderful, you know. Some of them I would say, “we don’t have time for that, let’s slow the moment down,” but I didn’t necessarily say that to him. I just would kind of file that in my – I wrote down everything and I would kind of file these little notes – knowing that when we got to the stage things could be different. And they were, you know. Once you step on the stage and you’re in character and you’re wearing your beard and you’ve got on your distressed clothing, the impulse you had in talking through the script might be very different on this day. So allowing him to have the freedom to play and to not be constrained was part of our deal, it’s part of why I chose him and I think part of why he chose me.

LC: There aren’t a lot of locations, and that can sometimes be quite claustrophobic for a filmmaker, but it really doesn’t feel that way in watching the film.

Robin: Right, well I would say that the attic set was pretty claustrophobic there was only five days of it. The rest of it was on location at the house or in Altadena or South Pasadena or even further afield when we did the nature preserve, so it’s deceptive, but there actually are quite a few stages, I mean location changes for this. I don’t think that we ever felt claustrophobic, I never did, and in fact we finished shooting in the attic and then we went sort of across the lot to shoot the New York scenes and the bar scene and then we were done. Except for one day we had to go to travel down to shoot all the train station stuff. And so basically those last three days were so jam packed there was no time for nostalgia, but while we were on the New York set and shooting the stuff in the past, I heard that they had dismantled the attic and I felt a tremendous pang that I didn’t get a chance to say goodbye.

LC: So when you only have 20 days to shoot,, it becomes quite a partnership, since apart from the other crew, it’s mostly you and Bryan… how many takes did you often do of the same scenes?

Robin: We didn’t do that many takes of the same scenes, although that depending on what it was. By budgeting stuff that you knew you were going to get very quickly, you could then buy time on the attic set for instance, to let him try stuff three or four different ways. And he tends to do that, he’s not a perfectionistic, he’s not “oh let me get that again because I said that word kind of wrong”… you know. If he wants to do another take, it’s because he has another idea. And so I tried to give him as much of that kind of time as I would but I always had my first AD to my left shoulder saying we need to be out of here in 45 minutes, then I would have to decide, right there on the spot how much time am I going to spend here or am I going to change camera lenses and do something different. So there was a lot of organization and there was a lot of minute-to-minute pressure and I tried not to pass that onto the actors and just let them feel that they had all the time in the world to do stuff.

LC: It really comes in handy that he’s done so much stage work because it translates to the speed of making decisions around who his is in character.

Robin: That’s right and he could be in the moment. If he was in character and in the moment he could just do what was his instinct. He could say the line and it would come out and it would have its meaning, emotional meaning and also literal meaning. And so knowing that he was well trained, that he had spent all this time in TV where you’re shooting eight pages a day, he was a seasoned actor, not a diva, it just meant we could ask the impossible of him and his attitude stayed great. And I would be thrilled to work with him in a situation where I wasn’t having to ask the impossible of him. But in this case his attitude was fantastic through every frame, he literally would do anything that we asked him to as long as it was telling the story.

LC: I see this character as starting out pretty unlikable and certainly self-destructive, so there’s quite an arc there. What kind of trial and error did you go through in making it work as you wanted to in terms of being both the writer and the director once it became something you were translating onto the screen? Was there something you really thought was going to work that you needed to nuance or shift in some way?

Robin: I had to work a lot with the voiceover. That was the part that changed the most for me. Both in terms of how much voiceover was in the film, and also which verb tense he was speaking in, and I had to for myself settle questions of: Who is he telling the story to? From which vantage point? From which point in time and why? And so I had to sort of wrap my brain around that both as a writer and then later as a director in the editing room and when I had Bryan in recording. I knew from the outset that I wanted to record the voiceover a number of times all the way through as one script so that at different points in time his understanding of his own character would shift and grow because that’s what happens with actors, they begin and they’re full of ideas that come out of rehearsal or out of a reading of the script. As they do the work, they begin to have other ideas because they’re alive, and in the moment, and creative. That’s what happens. So I wanted to be able to capture all of that and sort of memorialize all of that. So we did a voiceover before we started, we did some during production, we did one at the end of production. At one point, I called him and I gave him some new voiceover lines which he put on his phone and sent to me, and then we recorded it all again at the very end of post. So we had a lot of things we could choose from in order to create that voiceover. That was the thing that shifted the most for me.

In terms of going to the adaptation, I knew that you had to work on issues of alignment, because, as you say, he’s not a character that people fall in love with instantly. He’s doing and saying things that we might not do or say. But he’s also tremendously vulnerable, he’s emotional, he’s thinking thoughts that we’ve also had, he doesn’t want to go in the house because he fears that his wife will be angry, and they’ll re-engage in another fight. He doesn’t want that to happen. So that thing of evading conflict all of us have felt or done that. And so as long as he was doing things that an audience could say or feel, “I have felt that way, I might do that as well,” then we were creating alignment, and it didn’t matter whether you approved of him as a character or whether you would think that’s the guy you want to marry. If you could say, “I’ve been like that and I have felt like that,” then that was enough for me. And so we built on that and Bryan also built on that because as you’ve pointed out, he is a truth teller. He really… it’s authentic with him.

LC: To me it seems like he’s pretending to be someone and he turns into someone in the span of the film.

Robin: Right, he’s a man at the beginning who doesn’t understand and he’s actually dislocated from his true self.

Everything he is doing is really not the way he feels inside. That he’s taken on certain kinds of roles without being even remotely aware of it.

He begins to evolve. But first he has to go through kind of a feral animal stage, it’s almost like he has to go through the stages of being a human being again in order to grow up again into this person who I can’t say with any confidence really does know himself at the end. But at least he knows what he loves.

LC: I love that. I love the ambiguity, because you either leave the film being optimistic or cynical and it’s all in your own perspective. That is a way of hooking in the viewer in a way that would have been very difficult to do any other way than the arc of the story.

Robin: That’s right, it is meant to be a subjective film so that even the ending is subjective depending on how the audience feels that it ends.

LC: So often men inhabit women as directors just by the nature of there being so many more hired to direct than women, but not so often do women inhabit men – and I’m talking about the male gaze versus the female gaze. Do you think that the approach is as individual as the directors or is there some commonality to women writing and directing a film featuring a strong male lead? What’s your perspective on that?

Robin: I think that that is a brilliant question, I really do, and I feel that I’m going to come up short in giving you an answer because it’s such a big subject. I would have to really make a study of movies that are directed by women that are about men in order to even begin to understand that. I can tell you that from my personal answer is: I am not sure that a man would have made this movie. Because I am actually interested in the male gaze and the idea of men projecting onto women, and I don’t think that there are just a legion of men or male directors who share that same fascination. So I’ve come to it in a certain way and I’m not sure that another person would have.

I love so many different kinds of movies – I love movies about men, I love movies about women, I love movies about animals. I don’t necessarily think of myself as only coming from a place of being a female viewer or a female writer or a female director. I really am just a tremendous appreciator of art in general, and I come to film or books or poetry I’m engaging with, I come to that for personal reasons and not for reasons of gender. But inevitably, because we have different experiences, men and women, we are shaped by the culture that we live in. To see a movie about a man who initially is objectifying his wife, is going to have a different meaning for me because I have been objectified quite a bit in my life. Whereas man might say, “Oh here’s a man who’s objectifying his wife,” but his approach would feel completely different because he hasn’t had that experience. So the personal and the gender politics end up being entwined even though we would like to think that we can escape that.

LC: As a writer/director who really mentors female writers, I was looking at Hedgebrook and all of the work you’ve been doing, what are your thoughts on more women creating films where it does analyze men through male leads? Or should there be more of a focus to bring more women into leads, and women working with each other on screen and that sort of thing? How do you believe we have to proceed in order to change things?

Robin: I think that’s another great question. Personally, I just want to see more women writing and directing period. I honestly don’t care whether they give us female or male protagonists to study. I think that there’s no should involved. The only “should” should be that these obstacles need to be cleared from the path of the women who are creative and who want to be making films and have a gift to do that. And if we do that we can then over time begin to see, what is it that women want to say what is it that they want to explore? We don’t even know because there’s been so much pink and blue coding in Hollywood that the kinds of movies that I’ve been suggested to write are ones that my husband Nicholas Kazan, who’s also a screenwriter, would never have been offered because he’s male. Likewise he’s always being offered stuff that I would never be offered. There’s so much coding going on that we don’t even really know what is it that women have to say. We’re still in the stage of what is it that women are allowed to say.

LC: Right and that to me is the reason I’m so grateful about this movie because it does show that a woman can write a movie that stars a man, that’s about a man, that’s about a relationship, and about an emotional arc –

Robin: Well we can, we just have to raise the money ourselves.

LC: Well that’s so different in Europe, so many more women are making movies in England than they are in the United States. The rules and the laws are different there.

Robin: Right and those are businesses that are supported by the government. Like if we could apply for grants to the United States government and say we want to make Wakefield and that money were available to us as long as we had real movie stars in it then there would be no problem. If we lived in Denmark, half of all the movies financed by their government would be directed by women, that’s their law.

LC: Australia, too.

Robin: Yeah. So we just don’t live in that world. We live in a world that is supposedly dictated by a marketplace but this marketplace is run and conceived of and by people who have an unconscious bias against letting women in and so women have to come in the side door, through film independent and Sundance and through the way we put this together, it was going and finding independent financing from a group of Broadway angels. So there’s no such thing as getting a grant or one-stop shopping. Every single movie has to be scrounged together for different voices to enter the film business and that’s not to say that people shouldn’t – there’s a lot of artistic freedom in being able to do that, and I say more power to all of us who are doing that, but you know there’s no gender parity yet in the film world here because some people get to come in the front door and are given big budgets and can make movies under the umbrella of a studio and everybody else who’s representing a point of view that is considered to be new or different is having to put it together piece by piece.

LC: Can you talk a little bit more about the screenwriters’ lab that you have been involved with?

Robin: Hedgebrook is a wonderful women’s writing retreat that was started some-40 years ago by a woman named Nancy Nordhoff on Whidbey Island. She had a piece of property and she had a little bit of money, and she decided that she would build some cottages there, that she would invite women to come in and use that as a room of one’s own, a place to write. And she couldn’t take more than six people, but she was open to whoever showed up for that. And they created an enclave there in which you apply for a residency, and if you’re lucky you get one, and then for that period of time you’re allowed to write, or not, you can walk the property and think your thoughts or you can write in the privacy of your room. They provide the meals for you and in the evenings for about an hour there’s a kind of communal friendship between all the other people who are staying there at the same time.

It’s a very simple idea, it’s not different from other kind of writing places but what’s radical about it was that it is only for women and that half of the people that they invite are women of color. And so right away you’re encouraging diverse voices and I’m interested in encouraging diverse voices. So I was offered an opportunity to teach a master class there, which I enjoyed doing, but what I brought to them was an idea of doing a screenwriting lab, and I was able to through Humanitas, which is another organization that is interested in encouraging diverse voices, Humanitas gave them a grant. They put together a group of women writers called The Wolf Pack and they had financed this screenwriting project for the past three years. And we’ve grown enormously, we can still only take five or six people for one of these writing labs because that’s how many people the property can house, but we went from like 125 submissions the first year to 260 the second year and this year we expect there to be more. There’s a tremendous demand for mentorship and for getting your hands on the tools to become a better writer and that’s what this workshop offers.

For more information about Hedgebrook, go to http://www.hedgebrook.org/

Wakefield opens in area theaters this weekend around the country.  See it and support women in film.


Everything, Everything: Review and exclusive interview with director Stella Meghie


An indie film adaptation of Nicola Yoon’s vivid, enthusiastically received YA novel Everything, Everything is coming to theaters this weekend. Directed by Stella Meghie, who blazed onto the scene helming a screenplay she wrote with Jean of the Joneses, Everything, Everything is a both a coming of age romance, and a dark fairy tale superimposed onto real life circumstances. It’s also a charming, potent little film.

Maddie (Amandla Stenberg) is turning 18. Her birthday won’t be like what most young women her age experience. She won’t be going out. She hasn’t left her house since she was a baby. She has an immune disorder that makes her so allergic to the outside world, it will likely kill her if she breathes outside air. She does have reason to celebrate, with the appearance of a new next door neighbor named Ollie (Nick Robinson), who has a smile as bright as his outlook is cynical. Too bad her mother (Anika Noni Rose), a doctor who cares for her, doesn’t think interest in the boy next door is good for Maddie’s health.

You know you’ve wanted Amandla Stenberg, she who ripped your heart out playing Rue in The Hunger Games, to be in every movie, because she can rock just about anything. She’s been called “one of the most incendiary voices of her generation”. She’s a musician, an activist, a writer, and director, and she’s only 19 years old. She also has three more movies she’s starring in coming out soon. She brings an authenticity to the character of Maddie, exposing vulnerability, and a blend of innocence, strength, and kindness, that elevates the part of the plot some might shrug off as a teen crush. None of it. She and equally hot up-and-comer Robinson have the audience rooting for the success of their first love. It’s certainly complicated, since they can’t touch.
One of the best elements of them together is the fact that, though they represent an interracial couple, it’s never mentioned or even part of the equation. They’ve got other stuff with which to concern themselves. It would be nice if the real world, the whole real world, followed their lead.

Director Meghie uses fanciful elements to portray Maddie and Ollie’s text-heavy interactions, and Maddie’s dreams of a life that encompasses more than just a few rooms,, and clothes limited to cotton whites irradiated for germs. She also highlights the formidable talents of award-winning stage actress Noni Rose, who navigates a difficult role requiring nuance in both the delivery of dialogue, and subtle unspoken actions.

Ultimately, Everything, Everything is about going beyond ‘what is’, to find the larger truth about yourself and your place in the world. It’s also a cautionary tale about how fear can lead to the sort of big mistakes that can hurt those you love the most. It’s not a big movie, but it’s a good one. Stenberg and Robinson are so very winning, they are reason enough to take this story to heart. Based on their work, and the skill Meghie displays as director here, we can expect great things for them all in the future.



I spoke to director Stella Meghie, who is a woman of color releasing a mainstream film, (huzzah!) about her experience helming Everything, Everything:

Cinema Siren: I think the best aspect of this film is the consistency of tone. (apart from the chemistry of the leads and Amandla’s authenticity) Can you mention some concrete choices you used to find that balance of innocence and romance/sexiness that you nailed so it wasn’t sentimental or corny? Did you have scrap anything you had already filmed?

Stella: It definitely was a balance I constantly had to find. Somebody told me I rode the line of corny and won and i thought that was the most true statement ever. While I was reading Nicola’s book and the reason I was interested in it, is because i thought it did a kind of interesting tone to it. I saw the story as a kind of Grimm’s tale and i really wanted all the emotion and chemistry to be real but I also wanted a grounded story. I did see it as a dark fairy tale so tried to set the tone with that in mind, with the music and the production design, and make this feel more like a romantic tale than a romantic drama.

CS: Interesting take, a little bit like Rapunzel, but a bit flipped, in that she’s in a sort of tower but she rescues herself. And of course (he) says he’s not a prince so there’s even reference to that in the movie.

SM: And of course the author of the book was very inspired by The Little Prince. Actually I think the first time I met her she was wearing a Little Prince t-shirt. That’s definitely in the book. I hadn’t actually talked to her about my feelings about that kind of tone, and later after she’d seen it, she said that’s how she’d seen the book and that’s how the story was. I thought that was really interesting that we both connected with that. Maybe that’s why we connected so much when we first met. I tried to elevate it as much as possible in the production design and music—I think not everybody was totally onboard the whole time, especially when we started using our music. That was interesting working with Ludwig Goransson I kept referencing movies like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which is kind of more like a nightmare in the music having him help weave that tone together helped with a lot of the storybook notes he put into it.

CS: the score has a simplicity and sweetness to it. It, I think, lends a bit more of an indie feel to the movie, certainly not corny,

SM: Yeah he’s great and he just did more work for Childish Gambino so he’s the farthest producer away from corny. He’s much cooler than me, and it was interesting putting together the music in a balanced way and going as pop as Alessia Cara and as soulful as Alabama Shakes and just trying to get a modern feel.

CS: How did the cast come together? Did Nick Robinson and Amandla audition together, because I have heard you talk about their chemistry and you’re right, it makes the movie.

SM: NO they had not, I was definitely playing matchmaker! I met them both on the same day but separately. They were both actually going away on trips to Europe at the same time. I was not able to get them in the same room, but I joked they should meet in Venice and audition together! I met Amandla, we had a conversation, I really liked her as a person, and she ended up auditioning and she just really brought everything I wanted Maddie to be—she was innocent, inquisitive, but she could do the naivete and definitely had the whole package. Nick i’d seen in a few things, and was always impressed with him, and thought he could really be the next hot leading man. He’s definitely very thoughtful—I ran across town to meet him, and he very real. I could really see their two energies together. I just knew it would work. We cast them both and then they met for coffee. They told me they had hung out for three hours just chatting, and they sent me a picture of them together. I printed it out, and put it on my craft board, and said “YAY”!

CS: What I love about both of them is they are doing a lot more, as young people, than just acting. They both have very full lives, and are very passionate about all the other projects outside of Hollywood they are doing.

SM: Amandla everyone knows for her activism and her outspoken approach to what is important to her. She is passionate about all of it. Nick is the same. When you meet him, he’s just the most genuine, sweetest Portland boy you could ever meet. They aren’t really dazzled by Hollywood and the whole idea of fame and being personalities.

CS: Amandla seems built for the role, and Anika Noni Rose is great but has to play a very challenging character, I think. did you talk to her about how to nuance it?

SM: I think that was the most difficult character of the movie for sure. For me it was the character I was the most terrified about casting. Such a complex character means that when we get towards the end of the movie, if I didn’t get the right person, the movie falls apart! It’s not going to work! I really needed someone with real chops and i think that character i shifted from the book a little bit more than the other characters. I wanted her to be a little stronger, and Anika is always someone that’s on my mind that in the same breath can deliver strength and warmth, be able to handle a really hard shift. There were definitely scenes where she and Amandla had to go back and forth and figure out the right balance, or level of intensity. That was essential to get right.

CS: Are there any improvisations or accidents that wound up in the finished film?

SM: Definitely when they are driving in Hawaii, Amandla was playing music. I told her she could play music in the car and so she had a tape of a song and her and Nick were singing along to it. That wasn’t planned and it ended up in the film. She had put together a little Hawaii collection to drive to, and I remember saying, “don’t get too attached! don’t sing too much to it, we might not get the rights!” but we ended getting the rights and were able to keep it and I think it’s a really cool moment in the film.

CS: What would you say your aesthetic is as a director and how would you say you go about marrying it with this particular script?

SM: Overall I think my aesthetic is to make it pleasing to the eye. I’m very into interior design, fashion from my background and how I grew up, I’m always wanting it to have a certain level of polish. So then I look at the script and figure out what particularly speaks to that. For me when I was reading the script and I started closing in, I just started imagining this soft palette. And also i’ll just pull whatever I’m inspired by at the moment. This being a teen movie I was looking at a lot of Petra Collins photography because she captures youth, and it’s sometimes so pretty and so soft and i just wanted to have that pastel palette so I had just four colors that everybody had to play by and it was basically pastel purples and yellows, greens and blues. So we just tried to bring this soft quality to it all. Our production designer Charisse Cardenas was great, so was our costume designer Avery Plewes, and we just tried to create this consistency of color. At one point Charisse mentioned to me just how much green was in this movie and I just thought that’s one of the elements that consciously pulls the viewer from scene to scene to scene keeping things together. I did the same for my last movie, but the colors were much harsher and certainly more intense. I used red and gold and colors like that because the characters were much stronger and I wanted them to feel regal. They were not pastel people!

CS: Well, thanks so much and good luck with the movie!

SM: Thank you!