Leo Di Caprio and Kate Winslet Step Down that Revolutionary Road

Feature Story by Brad Balfour

At a recent press conference in New York preceding its premiere, the essential members of the Revolutionary Road cast (Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Michael Shannon and Kathy Bates) and director Sam Mendes (American Beauty) answered questions before a small room of journalists. Of course, the big news--that the film re-unites actors DiCaprio and Winslet, who first made their mark in Titanic as a couple madly in love--drove the interest in this film about the disquieting side of the 1950s corporate society. It also drove the nomination of the film and some of its cast for the 2009 Golden Globes (Winslet won for Best Actress) foreshadowing the upcoming Oscar nominations.

In Titanic, these two came together against the odds of diverging social backgrounds and relationships and with the backdrop of the tragedy about to occur. Audiences were stirred by the burgeoning love affair between them.

The opposite happens in Revolutionary Road. Audiences see the destruction of a relationship never really fated to be, somewhat thrown together by expectations they have for each other but are never realized. In fact, the two don't really share much or see eye-to-eye about their goals and life in general.

Based on the late Richard Yates '60s novel (of the same name) which described the unfulfilled, alienated life of the '50s (and led to the rebellion of the '60s), Winslet plays actress wanna-be April, who meets the diffident but charming Frank Wheeler at a party. They share their dreams of an individualistic life. Ultimately, though, unrequited dreams and emotional frustration beset their relationship as they start to have a family. Wheeler sets aside his vague goals and falls into the same man-in-the-grey-flannel-suit salesman's life his father had. April feels the anomie of life lacking personal accomplishment. They became further estranged, leading to damaged lives and a tragic ending.

Q: This is obviously a movie about a troubled marriage. Would you say it's because of a failure to communicate?

KW: It's a combination of different things. It's an inability to communicate, or certainly more to do with the fact that they have forgotten to communicate with each other for some time. It's only when April turns around to him and says, "We can't go on pretending that this is the life we wanted," that they are both then truly forced to question exactly that.

For April, it's very clear that this isn't the life she expected for herself, and Frank is then forced to question that too. And it's at that point that they realize maybe they aren't the people they were when they first met. They want different things from life. April, ultimately, is so determined to find happiness, to feel something again other than what she has, that she's prepared to risk anything in order to get that—which to me is a very heroic act, and not a cowardly one.

LD: And my character, on the other hand, is very un-heroic and cowardly [laughs], which is the truth. Ultimately, he's a product of his environment. He doesn't have the courage to manifest any tangible change in his life. On the one hand, April is wanting to risk everything for a new opportunity, or to pursue the dreams that she once had of what she wanted her life to be, Ultimately, my character is my father's son—I want to conform to my environment. Is it about two people that don't communicate enough? I don't think that's the truth.

It's about two people that are being forced apart, but are desperately trying to salvage their marriage and stay together. I think they are trains on different courses. Ultimately, the facade of what Paris represented, the ideals of what Paris was to them, was an opportunity that could or could not have resulted in something positive or tangible. But I think they were being forced apart by different intentions for what they wanted their lives to be.

KW: Also, I think, for April, Paris represents, possibility, hope, and change. The notion that she might be forced to live a life without possibility is ultimately the kiss of death.

Q: Having worked together before on Titanic, were there any surprises was this time around?

LD: Well, Kate and I have remained close friends for many years. Since Titanic, I think we've been both actively looking for the right project to do. This wasn't at all treading on similar territory. We knew that that is a complete set-up for disaster, having done Titanic. We knew we needed to try something completely unique, it was just about finding that project.

And this was something that Kate was shepherding for many years, and putting the pieces together, and I felt very fortunate to be chosen for it. As far as how Kate's changed or not changed, I think that she's always had that pursuit of excellence within the characters she plays. She's got an unbelievable work ethic that she's retained ever since I knew her in her early 20s. She cares about the movie being great, and the other actors involved, and everything.

That's all still there [plus], the fact that Sam was attached to this, the fact that this was a great piece of material, and such a departure from what we'd done before.

What has changed is we don't approach the filmmaking experience quite the way we did in our early 20's. We don't look at the director or the producers involved as parental figures, which I feel we did in our teenage years—we were constantly looking for that guidance. We come into movies now as kind of equal pieces to the puzzle, and bring our own ideas for what the movie should be and, for lack of a better term, we're more like "adults"—whatever that word means.

KW: Any major surprises? I think he's nicer than he was (if that's possible). He's funnier than he was (even if that's possible); and he's a better actor than he was (if that ever was possible). And quite honestly, playing Frank and April Wheeler, there was a surprise every day.

I so much loved playing some of the difficult scenes with Leo, knowing that, because of the trust we have as two people who have known each other for so long, there were no boundaries. That was a real gift to have as two actors playing these parts. I was able to do off-camera dialogue for him, and had to stop myself from crying because I was seeing someone for whom I have so much respect doing things as an actor that I've never seen him do before; [I got to watch him] morphing his face into positions that I've never seen him morph his face into before, as an actor or as a person. There were moments like that pretty much every single day.

Q: Was there one scene that stood out as the most exciting or most rewarding for the two of you?

LD: The most rewarding? What was interesting about the way Sam set this whole film in motion was [that] he really attacked it like he would a theater production. He realized it was an ensemble piece that depended so much on the actors, and listened to all of our different ideas endlessly in the rehearsal process.

Then what we got to do was sort of live this tiny microcosm of a life in a four-month period in almost real time. It was bizarre because we shot the beginning sequences at the beginning, and there was so much unsaid throughout the first two-thirds of the film, so much pent-up within these characters, that when the kettle sort of explodes at the end of the movie, all that stuff felt ultra-realistic because we were confined to this tiny suburban house for months at a time. And there was so much that our characters had wanted desperately to say to each other.

When those scenes finally happened, that was something I was really looking forward to because I just felt there's such a comfort level we have just being friends and knowing that we have the best intentions for each other, like she said. So we can be brutally honest and savage to each other onscreen, and we trust each other in that regard. So that was the stuff I was looking most forward to, and it was ultimately fun.

KW: For me, one of the most memorable scenes that we shot together was the breakfast scene at the end of the film. I remember reading it on the page and thinking, "How the hell are we gonna get through this? How on earth are we gonna do this?" And everything about that scene took me by surprise from the way that it was lit in that incredibly stark, beautiful, naked way; from the way that Sam really steered us through the very difficult emotions. Rhythmically, the scene is very delicate.

I remember feeling very strongly that Leo and I were very much in Sam's hands when we were shooting that scene, because it was so difficult for us to have a kind of sixth sense of what we needed it to be. All we knew was that we had to be very honest about every word we were saying, and we just had to trust in Sam so completely, because emotionally it was just very difficult to get through.

Q: Was your character a heroic figure?

KW: I feel that April is a heroine. I didn't feel she was a coward, neither did I feel she was suicidal, and I certainly didn't think she was bipolar. But I do believe that this was a woman that was taken to an emotional brink in her pursuit of happiness, and I think it literally sent her mad, I really do. And in giving herself an abortion, I don't think that she was intending to kill herself, but she knew that it was a very big risk, and there's something incredibly courageous and stoic about that. And it's a fine line, you know? It's very difficult to translate those two things simultaneously.

Q: And Leo, your character is such a tragic figure. Do you think he ever recovers?

LD: Where do I begin? I think what's interesting about the novel and the way Yates writes all these characters is that the sympathy shifts constantly throughout the course of the book. Where you think Frank is sort of despicable for cheating on his wife at the beginning of the film, at the end of the film you realize that he's the one trying to salvage the relationship. I just loved playing a character that just slightly fell short of his ambitions. I thought it was a compelling thing to do. He just did not have the courage at the end of the day to follow through with the life he wanted. He would be happier conforming to his existence.

Q: Do you think the '50s were as much a character in this film?

LD: At first, having read the novel and the script, I thought the '50s was a huge component. This was the era of prescription medication, and we're moving to Levittown and the suburbs. Trying to have that symbolic American family existence drove a lot of people nuts. But I thought as much as that was a product of the movie, once we did the film, a lot of that stripped away and became the backdrop to the emotional drama of these characters’ lives unraveling.

Q: What did you think about the plight of oppressed women in the days of Revolutionary Road?

KW: We should also share this question with Kathy. But one of the things that was so touching to me and moving to me about April Wheeler was that this was a woman who seemed to me, like so many women of that time, whose interior world was so much bigger than her exterior world. I'm very different to her, and I had to find a way of understanding her and loving her, which I did and which I do, but it was not always easy. She's a very complex and complicated woman who has no emotional outlets.

I'm lucky. I get to express my passions and the spirited side of myself, and the strong-willed side of myself through the jobs that I do. I was so moved by April's lack of emotional outlet, and it was just crushing to me, and it was very difficult to play. Frank and April do see themselves as being slightly more glamorous than everybody around them. In many ways, I think that that's the one thing, actually, that's kept April going, living this life that she's really unhappy living. She's somehow managed convinced herself that everything's okay because they're not like the Campbells [their friends], they're not like the Givings [their neighbors], they're just a little bit better than everybody else.

She goes to Frank, "We can't go on pretending that this was the life we wanted," and in many ways she's incredibly brave, even to be able to admit that to herself. So many women were coasting along and living this lie because they simply had no other option. As Leo said, prescription medication and sneaking beverages midday all began during that time.

Q: Leo, you've done a lot of big movies with many famous directors including Martin Scorsese four times. What did Sam Mendes bring to the table as a director?

LD: He knows how to work with actors, that's simply it. He's kind of masterful at that. And he realized very early on that we'd all have questions about our characters, and the true intent of our characters, and he let us unleash a lot of that.

We got to express all our doubts and disbeliefs about what our characters’ intentions were, and what we felt. He listened to a lot of that and asked us these very penetrating questions. Sometimes it's jarring, when you're in the middle of doing a scene and he says, "What do you think your character's really doing this for?"

You have to stop and say, "Actually, I didn't think of that. I have to admit you're right. I should have an answer for that, but I don't. Let me think of that answer." That ability to question his actors in a very gentle way. It gives you all that subtext that you need. I could go on and on about it, but I think you get the picture.

Q: Kate, with this and The Reader, you are competing against yourself in various awards races--especially since the Oscar noms are upcoming. How do you feel about that?

KW: I'll answer the last part of your question first. I feel very proud of both of these films, and proud to be a part of them. Quite honestly, I don't know how categorizing of actors even happens. I really truly don't. It certainly has nothing to do with me. It's incredible to be talked about in that way, and I can only hope that I can live up the expectation. I hope the work speaks for itself. It's my job to make myself available to support both these films equally.

Director Danny Boyle Wins With "Slumdog Millionaire"

Feature Interview by Brad Balfour

British director Danny Boyle is one of those filmmakers (much like iconic director Martin Scorsese) who makes movies that generate a buzz—just because his name is attached to it—regardless of its stellar cast. Ever since the 52-year-old Boyle made "Trainspotting," a story of a group of shambling Scottish drug addicts, his kinetic, crazy-quilt visual style combined with an ever-twisting storyline has a defined a sort of contemporary filmcraft. That approach was employed with subsequent films like his hyper zombie thriller, "28 Days Later," the sweet-hearted "Millions" and the dark apocalyptic sci-fi tale, "Sunshine."

Now with "Slumdog Millionaire," Boyle has not only has applied his signature visual and storytelling attack to a classic rags-to-riches teen tale but has located it in one of the most crazy-qulit locations of all time, the Indian mega-city of Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay). And at a time when grappling with the clash between local culture and the new globalism is a necessity, a film like "Slumdog Millionaire" comes in handy as an aid to understanding a 21st century world.

With the help of a full Indian crew, Boyle tells the tale of slumdog teen Jamal Malik (Dev Patel) who becomes a contestant on the Hindi version of "Who Wants to be A Millionaire?"—something he does in an effort to find his true love, Latika, who is both a high class whore and an ardent fan of the show. With Oscar-talk buzzing in the background (the film won the People's Choice award at this year's Toronto Film Festival), Boyle talked with a small set of writers in anticipation of the film's release.

Q: As a stranger to India, how was it making a film that's a portrait of this incredible country?

DB: You obviously feel a lot of responsibility. You worry about yourself as a westerner. I didn’t want to make a film where westerners go around India, or anything like that. But still, you are a westerner.

I just wanted to make it distinctively and subjectively as possible, so you felt like you were looking at it from the inside. One of the dangers of India is that it has that "wow" factor where you go, “Look at that!”

It feels like you’re using it as some kind of thing to just stare at, and they hate that. We did these film tests at the beginning, and it was a bit like that. There’s a danger with cameramen. For a cameraman to shoot in India is a dream come true.

Photographically, it’s the place for coffee table books. So it is a danger for cinematographers, because they go, “Wow! The colors!” I didn’t want that. I wanted to be hurtled into it.

I love action movies, even the bad ones, because there’s something about why films are called "motion pictures." It’s where it all began when our ancestors sat there and saw motion, moving. And I really believe that about films. There’s a kineticism about them that’s wonderful; they shouldn’t always be a reflective medium. It doesn’t suit reflection.

I remember meeting [actor] Tim Robbins. I was trying to get him to play this part in a film. It was a really good part but he said he wouldn't do it. I said, “I can’t understand why you won’t do it.”

He said, “Because he dies at the end.” I said, “What?” He said, “Nobody remembers anyone who has died.” And it’s true.

You just move forward; it’s all about forward motion. And I tried to bring that to it, really. Bombay feels like it’s living in fast-forward anyway.

Q: So then how did you, Danny Boyle, come to do "Slumdog Millionaire?"

DB: They sent a script. The agent said it’s a film about "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" And I said, “What?!”

My agent wants me to do American films. He’s always trying to get me to do a film here, but I never do. And then I saw screenwriter Simon [Beaufoy]’s name on it. I’d never met him, but I thought, "I'd better read at least five pages of it. "

As soon as I read 10 pages of it… You know when you’re going to do something. I doesn’t always happen, but sometimes you just know. And you shouldn’t wait until you get to the end, because when you get to the end all the realities of filmmaking kick in: how will we cast? Will we be able to raise enough money? Who will distribute it? All that.

Q: Your films are known for their kinetic charge, for the frenetic editing and the wonderful shots that you get. When you read the script, did that start bubbling up right away? Is that what you see? Do you have a vision?

DB: It’s very difficult to describe; it sort of vibrates. There’s a great screenwriter named David Benioff—I read this screenplay he wrote the other day; it’s excellent. A piece of skilled screenwriting, and yet you don’t feel that vibration yourself, personally about doing it. And probably, the stuff you do is probably not technically as good as this screenplay. But for some reason it vibrates.

I remember with "Trainspotting," when I read the book [by Irvine Welsh]—I can virtually quote it verbatim—I remember reading that first page and thinking: "we’re going to make this." And that’s just one page. I remember thinking that. You have these instincts. I remember meeting Freida [Pinto, who play the adult version of Jamal's love, Latika] for this and thinking, "I bet that’s her."

You don’t get that for everybody or everything, but when you do get it, it comes naturally. It just pops. You should always follow that instinct because there’s something there you don’t really understand fully, and that’s a good thing. ‘Cause you’ll find out about it when you’re making it. It’s funny like that; I can’t explain it anymore than that—that’s the truth. It’s not more complex than that, or more cunning than that or anything.

Q: I was amazed to see how you applied your style to this film. At first I didn’t see how it made sense; then it did. When did you know you could apply the Danny Boyle style to this movie? How did you figure out how it worked?

DB: A lot of it’s the script. Beaufoy did an amazing job. The book is rigid. The book is like 12 chapters, 14 chapters, and each chapter is a question and answer—and it’s like a series of short stories. It would never have worked as a film like that. What Simon did was this very clever thing where he fed the material in early, so sometimes you got the answers way before even the question was asked. Sometimes you didn’t; you had to wait. And it makes you feel very intelligent—it made me feel intelligent, and I always love that [laughs].

You feel it, and you start to see it. We went as soon as we were there and walked through areas of Bombay. There’s nothing to look at, really. There’s no architecture, just people. And you’ve got to like people, and I do like people a lot. If you like that, you’ve got plenty of them. A billion people live there, and that enough for a plant, never mind quite a small country, really. That’s where you get your energy from.

Q: You had the great makings of a documentary with the wild scenarios and experiences that came from this.

DB: There’s a guy who shot the whole time, and they say it’s very good. I haven’t seen it yet, but they’re getting it ready for the DVD. There are so many stories, and yet what matters, more than anything, is your attitude. You have to go in with the right attitude. You can’t control it.

Directors are really about control, and that’s one of the things you try to do all of the time: control experience, capture it. And you can’t do that there. It’s like trying to stop the sea; forget it. You’ve just got to plunge in and go with it. And it’s a lot of risk taking. You’re not certain that you’ve got stuff—you have to wait till you get back. Actually, you’ve got a much greater result than you thought you had.

Q: Co-director Loveleen—what was that about?

DB: She was the casting director, Loveleen Tandan, who did an amazing job. It was quite a big cast, and I didn’t know anybody, virtually no one. And I realized that I needed her on the set. She wants to be a director as well, and she can do it, you can tell. It wasn’t just for the kids—who only spoke Hindi—it was for everything, really. And I could test things against her, culturally, and stuff like that. When I knew I wanted to make a mistake, do something incorrect, because you do do that—films have their own logic which isn’t applicable to the country necessarily. Then I sent her off to do the second unit.

The second unit had been shooting very badly, and then I realized, I should send her out with it… As soon as I sent her out with it, the stuff that came back was like fantastic. So we called her "co-director" because she deserves it. [She] and the first assistant director, this guy called Raj Acharya, and the guy that did the live sound, Resul Pookutty—they were very special for the film.

Q: What did you do to balance the grim moments with the happier parts?

DB: It’s very difficult to answer that question because you don’t think about things like that till you talk to journalists. Then journalists come up with things like that; then they come up with things that connect films. But you don’t think like that when you’re making them. Well, I don’t anyway. I don’t think, “This bit’s so tough. How’s it ever going to fit with the happier here.” You try to make each bit as intense an experience as possible. And if they don’t go together, you’ll probably never see the film.

Q: There’s an intuitive sense of what’s balanced?

DB: Yeah, and I think a writer writes like that intuitively as well. You also, for me anyway, you love variation; and that suits India because there are such extremes. And I love that sense of hitting a different note in a film. That’s one of the reasons I love music in film because you can often have a tone of a film that’s just similar or too flat, and you can pop it with music. And it just suddenly feels like a different film. It’s one of the wonderful ways music works.

There’s lots of ways you can work on it, but without intellectualizing it. It’s weird doing these kinds of conversation because you become aware of things like that. I always worry about doing things like that because you can carry these conversations over the next film. But you don’t; you have a kind of amnesia. It’s weird—you also have amnesia about the realities of filmmaking, about how difficult it is sometimes. You never consider that. You think: that’s great! Let’s do this.

Q: You used M.I.A.'s song “Paper Planes” during that train sequence; it was heard everywhere this summer.

DB: I know. I came back from work one day, I’d been editing, and my daughter said, “You should see this trailer.” She’s 17—she spends most of her time on Japanese websites downloading illegal copies of "The Office." “You should see this,” she said. “It’s really good. It’s a really good use of ‘Paper Planes.’” I thought, oh no; but it’s a great trailer.

We’ve got a lovely remix of it, too. I met [singer M.I.A.], because originally she’s from London; she's Sri Lankan [by heritage]. She lives here [in New York City] now. I called her in to see the film, because I like the musicians to see the film. And she liked the film a lot. She's a very smart girl—she gave me a couple of really good notes, which you don’t get from people—really good notes. Then I phoned her up to do the rest of the music, and she’s a big fan of [soundtrack composer A. R.] Rahman’s. When she was a kid she worshipped him.

Q: Did you make changes based on her notes?

DB: Yes I did. We were chatting and she said, “Do you want me to say a couple of things?” because she was very complimentary. She said, “We don’t really know how he got on the show. How did he get on the actual show?” And I hadn’t really answered that question.

Often times you get very bad notes from people. Someone who sits there, who’s from another world completely—this hip-hop, cool New Yorker she is now—she’s really smart.

Q: Were there specific films—either Bollywood ones or just films about India—that you looked at before or during production?

DB: Not so much on this film. I don’t know why.

Q: Do you do it on other films?

DB: Yes, definitely. Usually, when we have these conversations, I’ll mention the kind of films.

Q: Did you do a lot of historical research?

DB: Yeah. The main book I read, the only book you need to read, is [Suketu Mehta's] "Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found." I read that all the time, and part of the time I thought I was adapting that, and not "Q and A" by Vikas Swarup, the book we were actually meant to be adapting.

I’m a bit worried about [author] Vikas Swarup seeing it. He’s seeing it soon. I’m a bit worried about a) him not liking it, b) him suing us [laughs]. So my main research was, I guess, that.

But when I got there, there were three films that I had never heard of that I did watch that did influence the film in some way. One’s called "Satya," and it’s as good a film I’ve seen. It stars and is written by our police constable, the guy who tortures [Jamal]. He’s called Saurabh Shukla. He’s an amazing writer, and a terrific character actor.

There’s another film called "Company," a film about gangsters in Bombay. And another film called "Black Friday" which is about bombings in Mumbai, made by a young guy called Anurag Kashyap, a fantastic film made with very little money, but is a really good film. They were like inspirations while we were making this film. It’s good to know that it’s not all Bollywood musicals. It’s not [only] the kind of standard stuff that they do.

Q: What was it about novice actor Dev Patel that made him Jamal?

DB: I met all these guys in Mumbai, and the casting was done in Mumbai. I met loads of them, and they're really talented young guys there. But if you want to get in the movies in Bollywood and you’re 18 or 20, you’ve got to be able to get a shirt off.

They stand under waterfalls in Switzerland and they do these song and dance moves, and they’ve got to be ripped. And they're all like beefcake, and you know when guys can’t put their arms down cause they have all this muscle mass? They're 18; they're only just beyond kids—and their heads are really small. They haven’t put any weight on their heads. So you’ve got these tiny little heads and big bodies; that was just wrong for the film.

Jamal's an underdog; he’s supposed to be a guy who apparently has nothing. So, my daughter said, “You should see this guy in 'Skins'.” It’s this [television] program we have in the UK; it’s quite a racy program. I watched it, and he played a fairly small comic part in it, but he was very good, I thought. He was great, very serious in the craft.

And he had that… well we didn’t always agree about stuff. We fought a couple of times, which is good, because, honestly, I have a bit of a reputation. And he was prepared to say, “No, I don’t think that’s right. I don’t think I should do it like that.”

When you get that, it’s good. If they just do what you tell them, it’s kind of one dimensional in a way. They’ve got to take it over themselves—that's a lead actor. He’s got that. He’s stubborn. That’s good; that’s what he had.

And Jamal’s like that: nothing’s going to stop him, whatever it is... That scene when he jumps in the shit, that’s his character. His dream is to have Bachan's autograph and nothing will stand in his way. He’s a bit like that.

Q: Was it important to have that connection between the three different actors [who play Jamal at the ages of 8, 12 and 18]?

DB: Yeah. It’s tricky because if you find one person, you might not find someone else that look like each other. Mostly you just hope the audience will just go with it. That they’ll just accept. It’s great to have some kind of connection between them. We had to all together in rehearsal—I tried to get them to copy each other’s mannerisms. I wanted it to feel coherent.

Q: How did you find the children in the movie; were they from the slums?

DB: The performances weren’t difficult because they’re all really good actors. The kids there love acting. They say, “Do you want the look? [laughs]" Once you get them to understand the world that they’re in, they're terrific. They don’t feel a separation between themselves, and film. It’s like here—film is a natural part of life. It is in India as well. Everybody’s been to the cinema, and all the time. Even seven year olds have seen lots of stuff. Finding them was really down to Loveleen [Tandan, the co-director in India].

Initially the film was written completely in English. When we got there, and saw the seven year olds who spoke English, it didn’t work because they’re not that deft with English at seven and eight. They get better when they get into their teens, and it wasn’t really working, so [Loveleen] said, “We should really do it in Hindi.”

I thought, what is Warner Brothers going to say? She translated it. She adapted it, because you can’t literally translate it. As soon as we did it, it suddenly came alive. It felt so real. So I rang Warner Brothers, and said, “We’re going to do the first bit in Hindi with English subtitles.”

Q: They dumped the movie.

DB: That was for different [reasons].

Q: So what happened with Warner Brothers?

DB: When they closed Warner Independent, we were just one of a number of films that [were in limbo]—we were shot; we were edited; we were very far down the line when we heard [about that]. And you just thought that’s going to be it. We won’t get theatrical release. In the melee, there are so many casualties in the process, we’ll wind up on DVD, especially because we don’t have a star in it. It’s got no platform, no profile, nothing. I remember thinking about what I learned in India, and I thought, "it’ll be okay. Just go with it, we’ll see."

And then things began to happen. We got to make shuffling noises at Telluride and Toronto [film festivals]. Suddenly the studio goes, "What? What was that shuffle noise?"

Then you get a couple of journalists sniffing around it. John Hall at the LA Times was sniffing around it. And that makes the studio go, "What? What?" And then, to give Warner credit, they showed it to Fox Searchlight, which they shouldn’t have done technically because if you’re going to show it, you should show it to all the buyers. But they showed it to him because they thought if anyone could release this film—a third of which is in Hindi [laughs]—it would be him. And he picked it up and ran with it, and here we are.

Q: What led you to put this Bollywood ending on it?

DB: If you’ve lived and worked there for eight months, if you live and work in Bombay, you can’t leave without a dance [laughs]. You can’t. It would be like making a film about America without a motorcar. You just can’t do it. It would be wrong. It would be so fake.

The key thing was whether we should put it inside the film linked to a question, or whether we put it at the end of the film, as it is. So we decided to put it at the end of the film to celebrate [Jamal and Latika’s] love. It’s not actually a sendup of Bollywood. It’s genuine, absolutely genuine. Their love of movies, and love of dancing, and their love of song is something to be absolutely celebrated, even though we may not be able to watch some of the films.

Q: Did you have any trouble with ratings [for "Slumdog Millionaire"] here?

DB: Yes, it’s an R. They said it was because of the intensity. There’s nothing we can do about it.

Q: Is there a message you want people to get out of this? I know after "Millions," kids were inspired to raise money to build wells in Africa. Is there something you want people to do after this or take inspiration from it?

DB: I think when you elect Barack Obama, the world’s going to become a bigger place again. That’s all you get from doing something like that. You’re not there to teach anybody anything; you’re there to learn about yourself. These people that live in slums are extraordinary—so generous, so resourceful. I want it so it will be something that they’ll like, really. I hope they get to see it on a pirate copy somewhere [laughs].

Q: Will we ever see your much-missed "Alien Love Triangle" come out?

DB: It’s sort of beginning to become a bit more visible. They showed it at this little cinema in Wales, in the UK—the smallest cinema in the UK—they have twelve seats. It was an old railway carriage, and this guy converted it thirty years ago into a cinema. He was retiring it, and closing it. He asked if we could show it as its final film, and they did. They showed it. Kenneth Branagh, who’s in it, went along—I was in India—to present the film. I think that’s a sign, that hopefully, it will appear somewhere soon.

Q: Is there anything else in the pipeline?

DB: Nothing at all. I tend to work on one thing only at a time. It drives my agent mad.

New Technology Product Go Round-November 08

Product News by Brad Balfour

One of the great things about covering entertainment, and film in particular, is the tech toys that come across my desk--or I should say, my virtual desk, via the internet and e mail. By the time I understand one set of ways to evaluate equipment, some thing new comes along that changes my valuations. So I am going to throw in some choice pocket-sized devices this time around.

Now take these cool little ear bud holders I have to play with. These wacky looking BudFits insure that your iPod and iPhone earbuds won't fall out during even the most demanding physical activities ( and we won't say what those could be!). They maximize your comfort by eliminating the need to wedge the funky earbuds in your ear canals. Let the music rock through extreme sports or intense workouts. Retailing for $8.99, they come in three Colors - Frosted Clear, Stealth Black, and Vanilla White.

Lest I forget any support products for Apple and its family, I made sure that I wrote about a cool product for the iTunes ecosystem—including PC, Mac and iPod® applications: The iWOW™ adaptor for iPod that SRS Labs, a leader in surround sound, audio, and voice technologies, has released. This is an accessory that attaches seamlessly to iPods, bringing this latest iWOW solution to these highly popular portable music and video devices.

The adaptor attaches to the iPod and delivers a thrilling and immersive music and video listening experience. Utilizing SRS audio solutions, this device restores the audio cues that are buried in the original source material so music and video files sound the way they were originally meant to be heard on your iPod—with remarkable depth and clarity. With a simple push of the button, users hear the amazing difference in music, videos and podcasts.

The immersive 3D audio, ultra-clear definition, and deep, rich bass will make users say “WOW!” after just one listen. SRS iWOW for iPod works with all iPods featuring a 30 pin connector, starting with the iPod classic, iPod nano 3G, and more.

Then there's this fine little device known as The magicJack. It's a PC accessory that enables you to make unlimited local and long-distance calls to the US and Canada for FREE from anywhere in the world. All you need is a broadband connection.

The magicJack is only $40 for the device and first year of service and $20 each year after. It's small (about the size of a matchbox), so very portable. Once plugged into the USB slot of the computer, you're ready to begin making calls within moments. Actual communication can be conducted by plugging a traditional hand-held phone into the free side of the magicJack (the most recognizable and familiar scenario) or by using any audio setting on the PC, such as a speaker and microphone, headset, etc. Now that's cool!—and I love how it defeats the corporate phone beast.

Israeli Film Overview—“Israel @ 60”—is Presented by Film Society From May 28 to June 5

Preview Story by Brad Balfour

With various celebrations underway for the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel, The Film Society of Lincoln Center will mark the occasion with a film series, "Israel @ 60," running from May 28 to June 5th, 2008, at the Walter Reade Theater.

Drawing on 15 films from the past decade of Israeli cinema, the program showcases some of Israel’s finest and most adventurous contemporary directors—including veteran Amos Gitai ("Disengagement), Oscar-nominee Joseph Cedar ("Campfire"), Giddi Dar ("Uzipishin"), controversial filmmakers Radu Mihaileanu ("Live and Become") and Keren Yedaya ("Or"), among others—and two of them—Gitai and David Ovek ("No. 17") will make appearances in New York as well.

Organized in collaboration with the Jewish Museum and Manhattan's Jewish Community Center (with a nod of thanks to the Consulate General of Israel, especially staffers Yoram Morad and Shani Hashaviah), "Israel @ 60" offers a unique overview of films emerging from and inspired by the Israeli experience—what Film Society Program Director Richard Peña calls, “the most remarkable decade yet for Israeli cinema.”

As programmed by Peña, the series is both a powerful reflection on the country’s history and a first-hand account of its ongoing conflicts. Said Peña, “Israeli films have confronted the complex and often painful issues that have shaped the nation’s first 60 years with sobering and, for some, upsetting candor.”

The series opens on the afternoon of Wednesday, May 28, with two looks at the country’s often explosive mix of cultures including the Sephardim and former Soviet Union immigrants: Dina Zvi-Riklis’s "Three Mothers" (at 2:00 p.m.) and Dover Koshashvili’s much-acclaimed "Late Marriage" (at 4:15 p.m.).

The most frequently examined subject—the relationship between Israel and Palestine—is highlighted in "Israel @ 60" through three films, "Avenge But One of My Two Eyes," "Checkpoint," and "The Inner Tour." These features address both the tumultuous history of the region and the current difficulties impeding reconciliation and resolution of the conflict.

Among the selections, Gitai’s latest film, 2007's "Disengagement," addresses the theme of national identity through the dramatic performance by lead actress Juliette Binoche, who plays a woman living in France brought together with her Israeli police officer brother and long-abandoned daughter after her father’s death.

Forecasting his Oscar-nominated success with last year's "Beaufort," director Cedar made his mark with 2004’s "Campfire." The film examines the life of a widow and her family within the controversial political atmosphere of Israel in the '80s, and now enjoys renewed attention by being part of this program.

The series also re-screens several much acclaimed Israeli films such as Dar’s surprise smash hit "Ushpizin," about an orthodox Jewish couple who grapples with a startling test of faith that confronts them during the Sukkot holiday. Winner of the Camera d'Or for best first feature at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival, Yedaya's "Or" is a riveting study of aging Tel Aviv prostitute Ruthie (Ronit Elkabetz) and her 18-year-old daughter Or (Dana Ivgy, who won the Israeli Oscar for Best Actress for her performance).
Filmmakers Anat Zuria and David Benchetrit capture other Israeli perspectives through non-fiction filmmaking. In "Purity: Breaking the Codes of Silence" Zuria offers a sensitive documentary examination of the laws and rituals that govern orthodox Jewish women’s lives. Benchetrit’s "Kaddim Wind: Moroccan Chronicles"—winner of the best documentary award at the 2002 Jerusalem Film Festival—provides a meticulous look at the obstacles immigrants to Israel face when coming from Muslim countries.

Among the other doc selections, two have had New York premieres at 2004 New Directors/New Films—"Checkpoint" and "No. 17." Filmed at various checkpoints from 2001 to 2003, Yoav Shamir's "Checkpoint" provides a powerful testament to the impasses that have been created for the Palestinians and is a chilling look at the destructive impact of the enforced boundaries on both societies.

Ofek's "No. 17" takes a look at the aftermath of one suicide bombing. After an attack outside Tel Aviv leaves 17 people dead, 16 victims are claimed and identified, yet weeks after the incident no one has come forward with information on the 17th body, a man mutilated beyond recognition. Ofek sets out to discover who he was and how he is identified and as a result creates a revealing, unsettling portrait of a society accustomed to living in the shadow of death.

Also included in the program is Mihaileanu's "Live and Become," the enormously popular Opening Night film of the 2006 New York Jewish Film Festival. This fiction feature opens in a Sudanese refugee camp in 1984, when an Ethiopian Christian mother urges her son to assume a Jewish identity in order to escape war and famine. As part of the Operation Moses airlift, Israeli adoptee Solomon/Shlomo begins a long and at times difficult process of find his place within Israeli society.

A series pass is available for Israel @ 60 which will admits one person to a total of five titles in the two series, May 16–27. They are $40; $30 for Film Society members, and available only at the Walter Reade Theater box office (cash only).

Single screening tickets for the series are $11; $7 for Film Society members, students and children (6-12, accompanied by an adult); and $8 for seniors (62+). They are available at both the Walter Reade Theater box office and online at www.filmlinc.com. A complete schedule and filmd escription can be found on the site as well.

Israel @ 60 Schedule at a Glance

Wednesday, May 28
2:00 pm Three Mothers, 106m
4:15 pm Late Marriage, 100m

Thursday, May 29
1:30 pm Live and Become, 140m
4:15 pm Campfire, 96m
6:20 pm Avenge But One of My Two Eyes, 104m
8:30 pm Three Mothers

Friday, May 30
2:00 pm Close to Home, 98m
4:10 pm Thirst, 110m
6:30 pm Disengagement, 116m
9:15 pm The Inner Tour, 94m

Saturday, May 31
2:00 pm Thirst
4:20 pm Live and Become
7:20 pm Campfire
9:20 pm Late Marriage

Sunday, June 1
12:00 pm The Inner Tour
2:00 pm Purity: Breaking the Codes of Silence, 65m
3:40 pm Close to Home
5:40 pm Ushpizin, 90m
7:30 pm Checkpoint, 80m
9:15 pm Disengagement

Monday, June 2
2:00 pm Avenge But One of My Two Eyes
4:15 pm Or (My Treasure), 100m
6:30 pm Kaddim Wind: Moroccan Chronicles, 255m

Wednesday, June 4
1:00 pm Ushpizin
2:50 pm Purity: Breaking the Codes of Silence
4:30 pm Or (My Treasure)
6:30 pm Live and Become
9:30 pm No. 17, 75m

Thursday, June 5
2:00 pm No. 17
3:45 pm Checkpoint