Iranian-born Actress Shohreh Aghdashloo Speaks Loudly and Passionately About The Stoning of Soraya M.

Exclusive Interview by Brad Balfour

Rarely has a film's release dovetailed with an earth-shattering event so that, by its very existence, it CAN contribute to radically altering world affairs. The Stoning of Soraya M. is such a film--especially since it highlights the plight of the women of Iran. It tells the tale of Soraya Marnò, who refuses to divorce her abusive husband, a former criminal, so he falsely accuses of her of adultery which leads to her execution by stoning. In revolutionary Iran, women have few rights and the religion is manipulated by those claiming correct religious practice.

Though set in 1986 Iran, Soraya's plight and that of her one defender, her aunt, Zahra--played by Oscar nominee Shohreh Aghdashloo--is similar to that of the formerly liberated Iranian women, who, chafing under the current regime's oppression, have been at the forefront of the protests happening now since the Presidential election was stolen by conservative incumbent MaMoud Amadinajad.

Jackbooted by the Islamic laws put into place after the Ayatollah Khomeini's "revolution" deposed one dictatorship and imposed another in 1979, women lost many of their their rights, and abuses--including the stoning depicted here in great detail--began.

Based on Freidoune Sahebjam's 1994 novel of the same name, Soraya's death was documented by a journalist (played by Jim Caviezel in the film) whose car breaks down in a remote village. He hears the story through Zahra, who desperately relays it to him in the hope that he'll get the word out about what happened in her town.

That he did. The book was a big success when published, and now it's a film. Director Cyrus Nowrasteh struggled for years to get it made, so he hopes it will stir a groundswell of reaction for the women struggling in Iran. Of course, securing Aghdashloo as its star, an Iranian actress of such reknown--she went from starring in acclaimed Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami's early features to a supporting actress Oscar nom for House of Sand and Fog (with turns in such films as The Nativity Story or X-Men: The Last Stand and TV series as 24 or Grey's Anatomy)--was crucial to making it as powerful as it is. And in her husky, accent-inflected voice, the 50-something Aghdashloo shared similar feelings as well in this exclusive interview.

Q: Did you read the book the film is based on?

SA: No, I had no idea about the book. But I had seen a real [stoning] on tape.

Q: You saw a real stoning [gasps]?

SA: It was horrible! Those who say that the stoning in this film is graphic should see the real one. This is a mild watery version of the stoning.

Q: Where did this happen?

SA: It was smuggled out of Iran during the mid-'80s by some opposition. [It] was copied a thousand times and spread amongst the people who were involved with the Iranian film and show business industry in US.

Thank God he told me not watch it during the evening. I took my daughter to school, put my husband to work, and at 11 am I put it on. It took an hour and a half for them to die [gasps]...

Q: An hour and a half?

SA: An hour and a half! I was sitting at the edge of my chair. Now my audience is telling me they sit at the edge of their chair--they never get to relax. I tell them, "Believe me, I sat like that for an hour and a half" and when it was finished I was almost paralyzed. I could not believe my eyes.

There was no way this was [fabricated]. It was a real one. The one I saw involved two young men who were being stoned for being homosexuals, one was 18, the other 19. This is like 20 years ago.

Q: After watching that actual footage, did it influence you as being the storyteller of this film? How did that affect you in regards to how you portrayed your character?

SA: Basically, Cyrus trusted me, because he was born here in the U.S. and got to Iran only for a few years when he was a child. So he did not really have any recollection—none whatsoever. He also told me to come up with ideas and then we’ll discuss them together. I just kept playing for him and maybe we talked a few times over the character. But basically he trusted me all the way through.

As an actor, especially a method actor, I needed to imagine her physicality, how she looked. So I started with my nanny, Maryam, and the green scarf she wore. She used to put one of her ears out like it was a hairstyle, wearing it with those coin earrings which has a picture on them.

So I thought, "Okay, okay, okay, I’m going to dedicate this to Maryam. I’m going to think about her, the way she walks and talks. She was a villager and took really good care of me." She was a kind yet strong woman. She came all the way from the village, and started working in Tehran and had six kids.

Then, while doing research on the physicality, I saw this brilliant picture on the first page of New York Times--we’re subscribers though we live on the West Coast. I saw this Iraqi woman standing with her hands clutched into each other, like this, and she was looking far into the distance.

There was a younger girl, seven or eight years, next to her with a fire going on behind her back. Her face is bruised, and she is, of course, dirty with the mud and everything on her face and clothes. But still, you could see the strength in her eyes. The way she was looking far in the distance was like, "I am determined to win this war." I thought, "This is it." So I tore it out, took it with me to Jordan, and put it on the mirror until the film was finished.

Then I had to think about different ways that woman wear the chador [full veil], and I had no idea because my family didn’t wear a chador in Iran. I only got to wear it twice with my grandmother, going to the mosque.

So I was renting Iranian films that were made in post-revolutionary Iran, and started going through them and seeing, "Ooh! That’s great!" It all came to me, how they act with the chador.

Honestly, I discovered the chador in United States. There’s thousands of ways of working with this--how to open it to a person you have an intimate relationship with, and how to close it to strangers.


Q:Did you stay on top of the struggles in Iran when you went into exile?

SA: I did all the time, yes.

Q:So you stay in touch with your fellow exiles or filmmakers because you’re so involved aesthetically? How do they survive in Iran?

SA: Well, people do find their own ways of living—either behind closed doors, or in the dungeons, or try to keep a low-key position in society. Some came out and worked, such as Kiarostami, I guess.

I once asked an Iranian poet living in Colorado, "How are you doing? Are you still writing that beautiful poetry?" And he goes, "No, I’m afraid not, I haven’t worked for a year now." I said "Why not?" And he said, "Because I am a poet when I’m in my own country. When I see Damavand mountain in front of me, when I see all those hot springs in Iran. I guess I get my sources from what’s in Iran."

I asked a painter, "How come you lived in Iran and never left?—because he speaks English and French fluently. And he said, "Shohreh, I’m a painter. I get my sources from rich colors, and the carpets, and the rich foods in our nature. I can’t do the same thing in Switzerland."

Q: Are you a Muslim?

SA: I was born into a Muslim family, but never practiced.

Q: We Americans have a very limited, if not distorted and superficial, view of what the Muslim world is like. If I asked someone on the street what is a Shiite and Sunni, few would know. The Shiite tradition is vastly different from the Sunni tradition.

SA: It goes beyond that. For rural societies in the Muslim world, it’s more details, of course, not just what's on the surface of it. [Stonings like this] do not happen in the big cities. It happens in the rural societies, where people who’ve hi-jacked Islam are manipulating people through Islamic law, claims that stoning is Islamic law—which is not, really.

Stoning is not in Qur'an, it’s not even in the Hadith--stories that were told in the time of Muhammad or after him that [can carry the weight of law]. It’s categorized under superstitions and traditions. But there are a few, especially in the rural areas, that don’t know this.

Q:The same thing is happening in Pakistan and other Muslim countries--of stonings not really sanctioned by law.

SA: Exactly.

Q:When you were in Jordan shooting, did you talk to the villagers that were there?

SA: Oh. I was all the time with the villagers.

Q:What did they think about this story?

SA: First of all, when I’m working on a natural scene, I try to mingle and get involved with the scene. So when I got in, I started talking to a man and a woman. She was wearing a chador, but her face was out, and she was this close to hitting the man. I told my friends, "This is my character in this village."

So I went to her and I said "Madame, what is your name?" She said, "Jamila." And I said, "Jamila, my name is Shohreh and I want to be your friend." So every day she used to do my braid. I would literally sit on her lap and she would do it.

Our hair person, said, "Why don’t you let me do it?" I said, "You don’t understand. This way I am making this bond with this woman. It’s necessary for me to feel like being one of them when portraying my character, and plus from that, I’m learning so much from them." I learned how to smoke from Jamila. Believe it or not, I smoked.

Q: You’ve never smoked [laughs]?

SA: Oh yes, I did, but not a chain smoker. Still, I had no idea how a village woman would smoke, because I smoke like a European. That’s totally different, how they put their cigarettes between their fingers—that's how they smoke.

I learned a lot from them, and they were so gracious and kind. They kept asking me, "What’s the story? What’s the story?" I couldn’t tell them, of course, but they were putting bits and pieces together.

Q: Even though there are people wearing chadors there, Jordan is still a fairly modern Muslim state without this repression. What did they say or think? Did they get an idea of what the movie was about? And did you get their reaction to the idea of stoning people?

SA: First of all, they were very cooperative. They were extras in the film. They loved doing it. They kept asking about the story, and I kept telling them different things. I didn’t want to tell them what the core of the ideas was, not until the stoning scene started. And when it started--Jamila kept asking me, "Is she innocent?"

I kept telling her, "Jamila, it is irrelevant whether she’s innocent or not, this thing shouldn’t happen. Her husband shouldn’t hit her." Because I go and get into the middle of the fight and save [Soraya] when Ali is beating her up in the street, Jamila and all the woman friends were around acting like the people of the village. They couldn’t help themselves, they applauded, "Bauurra! Baurra!" The director goes, "God no! You’re not supposed to show any kind of reaction. Don’t applaud--this is not theater. It’s for real."

So they were really cooperative, very nice people. But the moment we started digging the hole, they all gathered together, looked at the hole and Jamila came to me and said, "Are you Shiite?" I said yes. She said "Oh. Alas."

They were crying. And the scene of stoning, Jamila and her friends--I was crying because I was supposed to, and I couldn’t help myself because I was thinking of the real thing. But they were crying. Never did they ever witness anything like this before.

Q:Not in Jordan?

SA: Not in Jordan. Never. I was so afraid that we might [ruin] their kids by doing this, in that village—you know, teaching them how to throw the stones. I was really afraid about that, really afraid. But then they’re such civilized people, and they were all very, very, very upset and devastated about the film.

Q:What are your expectations with this film coming out?

SA: The film speaks brilliantly for itself. What I’m desperately looking forward to is that people who watch it, who would see it, will do something about it.

They won’t just have to cry in their privacy. They can go to the site, stoning.com, and leave remarks there. When millions of people have read the site, then together we might be able to do something.

Q: When you refer to the situation in Iran, how does this film play a part in the debate and in the broader Middle Eastern discussion?

SA: It’s amazing how timely this film is. It’s not only timeless, but also timely. Of course, shedding light on injustices such as this one would help a lot for the people hearing about what’s happening in Iran.

And it’s not only happening in Iran, it’s happening in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia and more. So, being at the same time as this election and all these demonstrations in Iran, it’s just amazing, and again, it’s like a miracle.

I have to admit that from the moment Cyrus called to the moment we went to Jordan to shoot didn’t take more than a month and a half, then a month and a half of shooting, a couple of months in post. In less than a year, we were in Toronto Film Festival, where we managed to become a runner up to Slumdog Millionaire.

In fact, last year at this time, we were filming in Jordan. so it’s just amazing how timely it is and the effect it's going to have in opening people's eyes to what’s going on behind the curtain, especially in rural societies in the Islamic world. It also gives a portrait of these voiceless women who do not have even their own basic nights.

Q: Can you go back and visit Iran?

SA: I have not been back to Iran in the last 30 years since I left.

Q: Given that they’ve jailed people who came here with legitimate reasons I would be hesitant...

SA: I would love to visit Iran, but when Iran is free.

Q: Is that why you left?

SA: Yes, I was already on my way. I was an actress. I started when I was 18 years old with a stage actor first and then [director Abbas] Kiarostami changed my [future]. He came to see one of the plays [I was in] and said, "You are going to be in my film." It was his first feature--[The Report].

He taught me so much. First and foremost, the most important thing he taught me was not to act. Because I was coming from stage and I intend to act, he said, "You know what, just deliver the words." I still remember that.

Q: How much has Iran has changed over the course of the 30 years when you working with [esteemed Iranian director] Abbas Kiarostami?

SA: Actually, The Report was 34 years ago. The reason I left was the rumor that the Islamic Republic was going to take over and Ayatollah was coming to Iran via Air France. Being familiar with Islam from my grandmother--who was a pious woman, but not a fanatic by any means--I knew with its doctrine, there was no place [for me] in that society.

That’s why I jumped in my car in February 28th, 1979, and drove to Europe 31 days later. But yes, it has changed a lot, to the degree that nowadays we’re hearing words on the streets of Iran that you have not heard [in a very long time]. Not for the last 30 years. We’re hearing words such as transparency, law, accountability which is very healthy, very promising and very exciting.

Q: Moving here in the '80s to work in the US, it must have been a challenge as a middle-eastern actress to land a role here; is it changing a bit now but back then it must have been tough--how did you manage?

SA: In fact, when I got to the US, a friend of mine said, "You’ve got to work. I have to introduce to an agent." I went to meet with the agent, a very nice guy. He said, "Shorheh, you’re sort of over-qualified."

I can understand what he was trying to say. "You can get work, but it's going to be limited." With this accent and jet black hair, what are you talking about... Of course! I know that!

Then he sent me to different auditions and I realized that this was all extra work, like daily work and I called him and said, "Let’s not ruin our relationship over these petty audtions."

At that time I was doing theater with my current husband, playwright Houshang Touzie. He writes, directs, and produces contemporary Iranian plays. If I want to compare him to anybody in States, I would definitely say Neil Simon. Yeah, comedy.

We were doing so well with our first play, we bought our first house through it, so I thought, "Why am I wasting my time?" I called and said "Let’s forget about it."

It was 15 years later that casting director Deborah Aquila called and said, "Can I talk to Shoria Adhdashi?" and I said "Wow! That’s sounds a lot like my name but it’s not my name. Where on earth did you get this name?" She said, "Whatever your name is, I would you like to come down and sort it out."

I said, "Where to?" And she said, "Dreamworks." I said, "Regarding what?" She said, House of Sand and Fog and I was speechless.

I had read the book and told my husband, two years prior to this call, that if one day they make a film out of this book and do not give me this role, it would be really unfair of them. There’s no democracy in this country! He said ‘What does it have to do with democracy? You’re such a political animal.” [laughs]

Q: So it is liberating for you as a woman to be the one to speak this voice--to play this woman now.

SA: Absolutely. It was definitely liberating to me as an actor, as a feminist, as an activist, as someone who really cares about what’s going on in that country.

But to clear the air here, nothing like that happened when I was a child. Never, ever…

Master Director Tony Scott Gives One Helluva Ride With The Taking of Pelham 123

Feature Q&A by Brad Balfour

It seems everyday, some controversy about the subway makes it in the papers, whether it's about good new leadership or bad old leadership; whether it's about the list of best trains or worst trains or about the rates going up. But of all the events kicking up subway-related scuttlebutt, the recent release of a re-invented The Taking of Pelham 123 stirred the least ire and gave a lot of rears in the seatsquite a ride as Denzel Washington's Walter Garber--a tainted MTA executive--is forced to negotiate over the lives of a subway car full of hostages with John Travolta's Ryder, a hard-assed ex-con determined to score big time.

In covering this film, a bunch of journos who got to speak with veteran British director Tony Scott--he has made many movies including Top Gun, True Romance, Crimson Tide, The Fan, Enemy of the State, Man on Fire and Domino--also got an adventure of their own. Like experiencing an episode of Hidden New York, we got to check out parts of the unused downtown subway system that only a very few employees, other journalists and Scott's own researchers know about. So in the course of seeing the film we got to see a part of New York that this film helps to expose [see accompanying photos]. But in the course of viewing the pix, read the following interview as well.

Q: We did a tour of the subways, and it was so dusty and moldy down, I can’t imagine spending months filming down there.

TS: I loved it down there. But I’m from the northeast of England, which is depressed mining and shipbuilding, so I grew up in this.

Q: We rode on a #6 train; did you take here? [laughs]

TS: No. I went to 42nd Street to check a print. I didn’t take the train. Does Mayor Bloomberg still take the train or not?

Q: I understand he actually takes a car to an express train that come to City Hall.

TS: That’s what motivated us to put James Gandolifini on the train. That was the story. Research always drives my movies.

Q: You did a lot of research for the film?

TS: What always 'leads me in terms of my movies are characters, so for 20 years now, I have a family--which I call my "extended family"--and I send them out and say, “Here’s the script, go into the real world, cast these people in the real world, and find me role models for my writers.”

So they go out in the real world and there’s this guy called "Don"--he got his start working in the D.A.'s office--[so for] Man on Fire, he spent six months in Mexico City and found real bodyguards, a real mother, and a real kid. Then I reverse-engineer.

I don’t change the structure of the script, but I use my research. That’s always been my mantra, and that’s what gets me excited, because I get to educate and entertain myself in terms of worlds I could never normally touch, other than the fact that I’m a director. And I get paid well to do this, so it’s fun!

Q: So what attracted you to the original film; why did you think it was ripe for a remake?

TS: I don’t regard it as a remake. I don’t regard it as a reinvention. My memory of the original was Walter Matthau, with his laconic New York sense of humor, his pants at half-mast--he was brilliant. It was really a very simplistic story: a million dollars for hostages in a subway, and it was a hip location.

Our story is motivated by John’s character, who’s a real guy, and his character is motivated by this real guy who just got out of jail before we started prepping the movie. He wanted to take revenge and humiliate the state of New York like he had been humiliated, because he worked for the city, and he lost his life for 12 years. So, he became the role model for John’s character. You think about that, and it’s a very different motivation--revenge and humiliation.

But listen, I love the original. I could only watch 10 minutes of it and then I had to stop, because I wanted to leave that as a separate movie, and not make this a reinvention or a remake.

Q: How extensive was the shooting in the NYC subway system?

TS: It was all done here. We did everything in New York. For the first time, I think, they gave us the opportunity to use real toys and real trains in the subway. What we shot in the motorman’s booth with John Travolta was on stage, but everything else is real.

With the other movies, where you see them on subways, they make them build sets, and it’s very hard to catch the real feel; you always sense there’s something not quite right, or something wrong. For instance, Money Train was mostly done on stage in L.A. This was all done here with full-on cooperation. I think they gave me full-on cooperation because the original was one of New York’s favorite movies.

Q: What was it like shooting in the MTA's control room? They don’t let anyone in there at all.

TS: They let me in and it’s like NASA. I can’t tell you where it is, otherwise I’ll have to kill you! It was difficult for us to get in there because of the security--somebody could get in there and target the subways.

But the real MTA is like a NASA [control room]. I went on a Sunday morning, and [there were] a hundred people there. It’s the size of a football field--three stories high--and you could hear a pin drop. Everybody’s on headsets, in suits, so I just took it right from that; that’s what we did in our movie.

When you look at the original film, I saw the original offices--which were just offices, really--and they had taken a regular building and just constructed it for Walter Matthau and the MTA with the graphics on the board.

I had never shot on a subway before… Actually, I did. The other time I shot on one was on my first film The Hunger. I shot very briefly with David Bowie on a subway. It was a nightmare. We couldn’t move anywhere with David Bowie there because he was "David Bowie," so in the end I gave up. I stopped trying to attempt to shoot the subway because all the freaks came out.

But I think everybody’s familiar with what a subway looks and feels like because of television. I’ve given the feeling that the subway’s just different from what they’ve experienced before, and I’ve made New York a very strong character in the movie. I keep saying, “New York’s a bad guy,” because in John’s character's terms, New York is the guy who took away his life for 12 years.

Q: Speaking of The Hunger, did you know that David Bowie's son, Duncan Jones, had his film, Moon, released the same time as yours?

TS: Shit! I saw Duncan the other day in L.A. I forgot he was David's son!

Q: This is the fourth or fifth time you’ve worked with Denzel Washington…

TS: I’m about to do five, I hope. I shouldn’t have said that!

Q: So what’s it like working with someone you’ve worked with so often? Do you guys have a shorthand and does it make the day go by easier?

TS: No! Our days are always hard. There is a shorthand, but there’s a terrible, old-fashioned word called respect. I respect his process and he respects mine, and both of us are insecure in that we’re always examining and making what we do better, and my goal every day is to try and think, “How do I see these characters in a different way?”

And I’m always motivated by the characters, and it’s the same with Denzel. I mean you look at the four movies I’ve done with him, he’s always reached back inside himself and taken different aspects of his personality, from: Crimson Tide, Man on Fire, Déjà Vu and Pelham, he’s always given me a different Denzel.

That’s what I do with all my actors. I tell them, “There’s an aspect of you inside him, and I’ve got this guy over here, and he fits that aspect of your personality.”

With Denzel, he’s always delivered. He’s one of those actors who can do nothing and communicate everything, and that comes from doing your homework. If you feel comfortable about yourself, you don’t have to give. You can just let the camera sit and do nothing--and I rarely do, as the camera’s always [moving].

Q: Is the camera flying around because you’re antsy on the set, or you’re specifically trying to do something?

TS: I’ve got A.D.D….

Q: Take this example--Gandolfini comes out of the subway after he first hears about the hijacking and he’s talking to his assistant. You do three or four swoops in a row.

TS: It’s about energy and it’s about momentum, and I think the movie’s very exciting, and it’s not one individual thing. The true excitement comes from the actors--that gives you the true drama--and whatever I can do with the camera, that’s icing on the cake. I wanted the movie to grab you. I use four cameras and I maybe do three takes--so the actors love it.

I had one camera which is just a steady cam doing a 360, and three others on long lenses buried behind cars or trash cans, so I got my coverage at the same time. I created movement with my cameras to create momentum when I needed it. In the MTA room when we’re introducing Denzel, the cameras are moving slowly or not at all. In New York, it was frenetic, and I stole from Koyaanisqatsi--that time-lapse movie.

I wanted New York to be the bad guy with this frenetic anger, and I crossed that with the quiet interior. But as the film progressed and the tension increased, [Gandolfini’s] whirlwinding. Maybe I move it more than I should, but that’s the nature of the way I am.

One of the big challenges for this movie, and one of the reasons it’s sort of perverse why I took it on is in the original, it’s really about two guys on the telephone for two-thirds of the movie, and I said, “Damn! This is going to be hard trying to keep it tense!” I was always seeing that tension, and Brian gave me the tension on the pages, and the actors gave me the tension in terms of their interplay.

Q: You also have a strong working relationship with James Gandolfini; he played such a mean bastard in True Romance and in Crimson Tide, but here he's sort of a bumbling mayor. Did he get any tips from Mayors Bloomberg or Guiliani?

TS: No, he didn't. The person we were looking at was Steve's dad, Steve Tisch, who was a construction billionaire. That was our biggest point of reference. Gandolfini was such a mean bastard in True Romance, but he is so unique because he's got this sweetness, he's got this big heart, and he's dangerous. So he bounces between both sides.

In True Romance, what he did with Patricia [beating the shit out of her], it broke his heart to have to punch her. But you really felt it. And it's the same with John Travolta. John's such a great bad guy in this movie because you look in his eyes and you know he's got the biggest heart. But he plays the other side. In his soul, he's just the sweetest man.

Jim's the same. They come out of a similar mold. Tony Soprano's fantastic. But it was great that he pulled off the mayor, and got away from Tony. He's charming and he's funny, and he's got these edges.

Q: Travolta’s performance is completely over-the-top. How much of that came from him, and did you ever think you could interchange Denzel’s and Travolta’s characters?

TS: No way. They’re total opposites. Denzel said, “Let me play the bad guy!”--he always wants to play the bad guy--“I’ve had enough of playing cops and good guys, let me play the bad guy!” But with John, that’s so much of the research I gave to John--that’s more in terms of the backstory, but the personality is John. I give my actors a stack of tapes and research of the actual guys and I always look back at my real characters.

John’s character’s look came from a hitman for The Craze, and another guy who just got out of jail had a Chicano mustache and shaved head--and John’s never shaved his head before. And it’s not about being hip, it’s about his commitment to the character. He lost a lot of weight, he shaved his head--he made a full-on commitment to building the character.

Q: Did you and John talk about how "big" he was going to go with this role?

TS: When I saw "we talked," I sit with these [actors] and we go to motels/hotels, and depending on how tough the characters are--and how clandestine I’ve got to be--I take the meeting, I transcribe them, and in those transcriptions are ideas or direct words out of their mouths.

Brian Helgeland, who’s my partner-in-crime--the writer--he and I did Man on Fire together, and he loves this process of reaching in and touching the real world. Because for a writer, it’s so abstract to want to conjure up things, whereas if you can actually give them things, you can say, “Here’s a cigar. Examine that cigar, instead of thinking of examining a cigar.”

Q: Since you’ve done four movies with Denzel does one of you decide, “Okay, I’d like to do a movie with Denzel,” or is it the other way around? Did it feel like Ridley was playing with your toys when he did American Gangster with Denzel?

TS: I got jealous. I was like a jilted lover! All you do is you read the script and I sent ‘Don’ out--who’s my ‘extended family’--and I sent Don out into the real world to give me ideas, and I said, “It’s Denzel.” Denzel said, “I don’t want to play another cop or FBI agent,” but I said, “We’ve got a great guy! And the guy in my mind who’s a role model is named ‘Ike’, and he’s an Albanian, 65-year-old retired MTA worker.” He’s the guy I stole from in terms of the ‘guy next door’, and the personality traits.

Q: How do you work with your brother Ridley?

TS: If Ridley and I worked together on the set we’d kill each other. But we’ve been in business for 45 years together, and when business is good in blood there’s nothing better, but rarely it’s good. So we’re right arm/left arm. And we’ve developed these companies now--our commercial production company RSA, and we’ve got Scott Free Productions. He’s great. He’s the nuts-and-bolts up at the front, and I’m the day-to-day.

Q: When Ridley was shooting American Gangster, he said that when you're shooting the city is impossible to control. Did you have that same experience?

TS: I got lucky. Shooting in the Waldorf Astoria was hard, because that sequence, they'd only let me shoot six guns at a time, and each gun could only have six rounds in it. I had to shoot all that shootout, and they wouldn't let me use automatic guns, because you know they're scared in the city. Imagine staying at The Waldorf Sunday morning, and hearing all that gunfire.

I had a good experience here. I had a few fingers thrown at me from cars going by. But other than that, it was good. And the Manhattan Bridge, that was hard, with the helicopters and the trains and the cars. We did it on Sunday, and I was respectful of the times. I didn't run over.

I had to cobble all that together to make it look like—I stole from Bonnie and Clyde, And I actually stole it from The Wild Bunch.

Q: Speaking of style, you’re known for a distinctive editing technique with freeze-frames, jumbled chronologies, slo-mo, etc.--Domino was an extreme example.

TS: If you look at Domino, everything is driven by research. I hung out with these bounty hunters who were all coked up all the time--they’re all on speed or meth--and the movie was a product of my research. My editor is ‘Skip’, and he’s been with me, and he started cutting all my trailers, and he cuts the signature sequences in my movies as well. And editor Chris Lebenzon started with me on Top Gun.

But everything in the way I shoot the movie is dictated by the world when I touch it, so we had ride-alongs with bounty hunters who were [sniffing like crazy] in the back, and it’s a product of that. But I think I was wrong. I didn’t let the movie breathe enough. Richard Kelly wrote a great script--and I got overcome by the insanity of the world I was touching. I think I fucked up on that one.


Q: You mentioned Top Gun, and in considering its enduring legacy, a lot of people have satirized the homoerotic elements of it. Was that apparent while you were filming?

TS: No it wasn’t. Not at all. But Quentin [Tarantino] did that little cameo in that movie Sleep With Me, and it was brilliant. He sent it to me and said, “Watch this, and don’t take offense!”

I had just done The Hunger, and Hollywood’s always trying to find the new kid on the block, and nobody’s seen a foot of film. I was actually developing Man on Fire 25 years ago, and they saw a cut of The Hunger and all of a sudden my parking spot at Warner Brothers was painted out!

It took me four more years to get another movie, which was Top Gun. Producer Don Simpson saw ["The Hunger"] while channel-surfing at 3 a.m.--I think he was high. And he actually saw a Saab commercial that I shot of a jet racing a car, then saw The Hunger. He and Jerry [Bruckheimer] called me. Hollywood just hated that movie. They called it, “Esoteric, artsy-fartsy,” and now we’re going to do a sequel to The Hunger. I’m not directing it, but we’re doing it.

Q: This is somewhat of a remake, but how would you feel if someone redid, say, Top Gun?

TS: I’d hate it. No, that was sort of a knee-jerk reaction [laughs].

I'm controlling ["The Hunger 2"], and it's gone to the next level. It's not a re-invention nor a re-interpretation. It ends up actually in Sao Paolo. It starts in New York and ends up in Sao Paolo. It's a very different movie, but it springboards off the original. We're writing it right now, we've got a great writer.

Actually The Hunger was a direct steal from a movie called Performance. It is a brilliant movie. The Hunger was a total knockoff of Performance. After I finished it, I called Nick [Roeg, the director] and told him.

[The sequel] is not a re-invention or a re-interpretation. It ends up actually in Sao Paolo. It starts in New York and ends up in Sao Paolo. It's a very different movie, but it springboards off the original. We've got a great writer and we're writing it right now.

Doc Director Megan Mylan Brings Smile Pinki To The World

Exclusive Interview by Brad Balfour

The story behind the making of this year's winner of the Oscar for Best Documentary Short-- Smile Pinki --is something of a fairy tale equal to the story within the film. Pinki is a five-year-old girl with a cleft lip/palate from a tiny village in the Mirzapur District, India. It's a desperately poor place where no one even realizes a simple operation can repair her disfigurement. Then, a worker from the Smile Train organization, who travels throughout India finding kids in need of this operation, gets Pinki to the hospital in Varanasi where she has the free surgery and discovers her smile.

A decade ago, former Computer Associates CEO Charles Wang and former Schell/Mullaney Advertising CEO Brian Mullaney created Smile Train, the world's largest cleft lip and palate repair organization, which became a new model for the way that clefts are treated on a global scale. After they had director Megan Mylan create a 40-minute short documenting Pinki's story, the film itself surprised everyone with its Academy Award win.

Said Mullaney, "Of the 1,200+ hospitals in 76 of the world's poorest countries that Smile Train works in, this [one in the film] is the busiest! They do more than 3,300 surgeries a year and is run by a saint of a surgeon. We knew that with this volume we would have a great chance of casting a couple of great kids--and it worked."

So, with the Best Feature Oscar going to Slumdog Millionaire this short enjoyed the resonate effect of being part of a very South Asian, very international year for filmmaking in the public mind. Now that HBO has started broadcasting the short--and making it available through its many distribution channels--Smile Pinki continues to make people believe in this fairy tale, and, hopefully others as well.

Q: How did you come together with the Smile Train people?

MM: They came to me.

Q: How did they see your movies?

MM: I think Brian Mullaney and the other founders thought they had a great story they thought would make a great documentary, so they went looking for someone, “who do we want to tell the story?” and they really loved [my previous film] Lost Boys of Sudan. So my first reaction, honestly, was “thanks, but no thanks, I come up with my own story ideas,” and I just thought, “well I don't do PSAs.” But then they were a little persistent, and I think part of your job is to be open, as is yours, right? You've got to be open to what people are trying to tell you.

Q: I had a friend who had a cleft palate as a kid.

MM: That's one of the things; clefts weren't on my radar, besides ads you see in the Sunday paper. I thought of it as something cosmetic. But once they sent me some stuff and I started realizing how common it is, how devastating it is beyond its speech and ability to eat, and the tremendous social ostracism. And then, how totally curable it is.

Q: That's what's great about the organization, is that they've found something where they could have a huge impact, with something that had a clear and unmistakable goal and resolution.

MM: Exactly.

Q: So rather than try to cure all the world's ills with some kind of large organization, they figured this out.

MM: Oh I can explain it. The other key piece for me about their strategy is that they support local doctors. It's wonderful when Americans choose to go abroad, and we should all give our time, but that's not the way you solve problems. You've got to empower the local people. If all of that had not been in place, I probably still would have done it, but the organization intrigued me.

Q: And it was a chance to go to India.



MM: Exactly. I thought it was a good story. It has the natural structure to it, so as a storyteller I thought, “this is a good story.” And they had the funding in place, which seriously, that's the worst part of my job. If I never did that ever again, great.

To some degree having to convince people your idea is a good idea is a good filter for people not going off and making every story under the sun, but it's thankless. That's probably the piece the Oscar helped with the most; not convincing people to fund me, but when I open rejection letters or I get a rejection email, I can say to myself, “Okay there was a moment where people said yes.” Because it's constant, it's constant.

Q: And you've been making films before this.

MM: I've been making independent documentaries for about 15 years and this is my third or fourth that I've directed, depending on how you count my first film which didn't get much of an audience. This is actually the first short I've done and it's a 40-minute one. The other two were features and one is still in production. But Lost Boys of Sudan... Jon Shenk and I co-directed that.

Q: I loved that movie.

MM: Oh good; I did too. It was such a life experience. Jon actually was one of my DPs on this film, who I had co-directed with.

Q: How do doc directors separate yourself from the subjects you cover? With Lost Boys... you built relationships that you don't suddenly turn off. And with Smile Pinki, how do you divorce yourself from these little kids?

MM: I don't try to separate myself. It is an odd relationship you have because in some ways it's very much a friendship, especially with the kinds of films I make. If I have a strategy, it's [shooting] vérité so it's finding people who are going through these life-transforming moments.

Q: And you're dealing with younger people.

MM: Exactly. So you're with these people at these transformative moments in their lives and I'm just very clear that I'm a human being first and a filmmaker second. I don't think that those [two things] have to be in conflict. I don't need to film every single moment and I try and be really clear with my subject that if they say stop, I stop.

If you give people that [control] and they actually believe you, they can test you out once or twice and if you really don't film, then it just becomes where they trust you and you're along for the ride and part of the experience.

We always felt with Lost Boys..., those guys were going through such an intense experience, and part of it was having these two filmmakers along for the ride. They didn't know any different that you could come to a new country and not have a filmmaker as part of that experience. And I think, to some degree with Pinki, that might have been [the case] too.

Q: And these kids like Pinki are younger too.

MM: Yeah, she's much younger. Actually, in a lot of ways, even though [the Lost Boys] were Sudanese refugees who spent their whole childhood in a refugee camp, those guys were much more savvy about the ways of the world. Though they had gone through such hardship and experienced genocide as six year olds, they had BBC radio and knew what airplanes were and all of that.

Pinki's village is really the most isolated thing I've ever been in touch with. neither she nor her father had ever been to town. She had never left that village and he had never been to that city, which, by car was only two hours away, and by their transport, only a few hours away, and here he is, a 27 year old man. And with her mother, one of the really challenging things was communication with them. The language level was tricky.

Q: What dialect did they speak?

MM: They speak Bhojpuri, which is a dialect of Hindi. So my field producer, who's from Delhi didn't even speak it, so we had to work through these layers. She would talk to the social worker--there are very few people who speak both English and Bhojpuri; there are a lot of people who speak Hindi and Bhojpuri, or Hindi and English, but not the whole chain, so you had to go through this.

Actually Dr. Subodh, the surgeon, is one of the few; he grew up in Banaras, but was sort of busy. Yet, often, he'd be translating for us at the same time he was doing the surgery and everything.

Q: It's a good thing that the surgery is relatively basic.

MM: And he does it all the time. So the communication with her family--to try and get that level of trust and explain to them what my mission as a filmmaker was, what my motivation in telling their story was--they had no concept even of what a movie was. Her mother could not wrap her head around the idea that I was a foreigner.

She said to my field producer--who can sort of understand Hindi, “there are people who speak Hindi and that's not what I speak, but I understand,” and then she pointed at me and was like, “why is she talking like that?”

We finally realized that she didn't have the concept of a foreigner, that there's a world out there. So how do you find common ground with that? That was a big challenge.

Q: How did people there deal with someone with a cleft palate? How many people in that village had a cleft palate? Was she the only one?

MM: She was the only one. Her village is probably only 75 people; it is quite small. I think that especially with the film, it seems like every other child has a cleft, but it is very common in India because there's so much malnutrition and poverty; the poorer the country the higher the incidence.

Q: Do they have any idea what causes it?

MM: They don't know exactly; Brian [Mullaney] can tell you more, but they know that it's linked with to prenatal nutrition and health of the mother. The less wealthy the mother, the higher the incidence. It's sort of woven in there, and there's a genetic component too.

There's estimated to be a million children in India with clefts, but there are over a billion people in India, so it's still a bit of a needle in a haystack to find these kids. The poorer the mother the more likely and they are very isolated. That's one of the things I like the best, is when there's that big coming-together registration day and these kids are like-- and you can just see in their eyes--“I'm not the only one.”

They had never seen anyone who looked like them. All around the world, I've come to learn, there are different superstitions about this [condition] and very much so in India. It's the eclipse or that the mother was cutting vegetables and you're not supposed to do that and the gods have punished you. So this child is born as a punishment to their family and village. That's how they're seen.

Q: Is there anywhere that thinks highly of them?

MM: Not that I've seen. Wouldn't that be great?

Q: Well I've read, that with one group certain cleft children are viewed as a pariah and with other communities they are viewed as a blessing--there were different kinds of cultural responses to this particular condition.

MM: One of the things I hope comes through in the film, and I feel like you see really clearly, is that Pinki's family really prized her. She was very much a loved child even though she had to deal with this ostracism and ridicule from the village and the other kids.

Q: Even though it's a 40-minute long film, how long did you work? How deep in can you get when making a 40 minute movie of a specific organization and act; it must arouse your curiosity so much that you want to cover all of India.

MM: There are endless stories in India, of course. That town where we were filming in, Banaras, is one of the holiest cities in the Hindu religion, so I went into it very similarly as to other things. With Smile Pinki as I did with Lost Boys--as I have with all films I've worked on for other people--it's sort of a gut, organic feeling for what's the story, who's the person going through this intense thing; it's character-driven, I get as close to them as possible for the big moments.

With Smile Pinki the length and the structure was very natural; the journey story. Lost... was a journey story too, but it was about life here and at what point do you say, "Okay... enough." The hard thing with Lost Boys, was to know when to stop, because their lives are still going on, we could have just kept going and going and going.


Q: You had to find a moment.

MM: That we could feel there was a point where they plateaued is sort of a negative, but the transitions and the big steps forward got smaller and smaller [as we went along].

Q: Was Pinki easier in that way; dd you decide on Pinki because she had the perfect name for it?

MM: Isn't it a great name? The funny thing is Pinki doesn't mean “pink” in Hindi, you know.

Q: Did you give her pink clothes after the film?

MM: Well Sheila [Nevins--president of HBO's documentary division] gave her a bunch of pink clothes when she came to visit; all sorts of adorable pink stuff and I brought her back clothes and stuff.

Q: They were here in New York?

MM: Yeah, they were, it was great. They came for the Oscars.

Q: Did they go to the Oscars--Pinki and her family?

MM: Yeah, it was pretty crazy, I can show you some pictures.

Q: Did you videotape all of that? Come on, you must have documented it.

MM: No...

Q: Are you nuts?

MM: I know. We photographed a lot, but we didn't videotape. I wanted to go through the experience. I know, I know, I'm not a real documentary filmmaker.

Q: The DVD extras!

MM: We have a little bit, and they got a hero's welcome when they went back home. They met with the Prime Minister and all that stuff. It was pretty crazy.

Q: Isn't it weird to have it happen in the same year as Slumdog Millionaire?

MM: Oh, it was very much India's year and I think we benefited a great deal. The film's a huge deal in India, which is bizarre for a short documentary to be like this--every time they would mention Slumdog they'd mention Smile Pinki too. And the day after the Prime Minister congratulated the filmmakers of Slumdog Millionaire they did so with Smile Pinki like in the same breath.

Q: Did you meet the Indian Prime Minister?

MM: Well I haven't gone back , but they did. Pinki, her father and Dr. Subodh--who all came to the Oscars--all met the prime minister and the president. And Pinki, there's these mega Bollywood stars who have signed on now to be part of Smile Train. There's a scholarship for her.

Q: You heard about the Slumdog kids.

MM: Yeah, and she's had just the opposite experience. From what I've read, and I don't know anything first-hand, it sounds like Danny Boyle and those folks tried to do the right thing too. Like we [Americans] can't wrap our head around honor killing or anything like that so you have to try to get into that reality. Not that any poor family wants sell their child, that's a horrible thing, but you have to see it in their reality, not ours, right?

Q: [Having filmmakers come there] must be like having aliens from another planet drop into the middle of their society.

MM: I know, I know. And those kids [from Slumdog] were for sure more savvy than Pinki. Her coming here was just... First I thought, “Oh this is sort of icky. America's weird enough, and you're going to bring her for the Oscars?”

Q: She has no idea! She's never seen a movie. But by now she's seen movies...

MM: Well, no, still, they've only seen the movie that they're in.

Q: Did you guys take them out to some of the parties?

MM: Oh yeah, we actually went to a Slumdog Millionaire party the night before because they were staying at the same Four Seasons.

Q: They must have appreciated the level of stars they were meeting.

MM: Well no, see that's the thing, which is great. I got a translator just for Pinki and her dad, because Dr. Sabodh can speak English and everything, so the translator told me that they met the guy who was the host of Who Wants to be a Millionaire?--Anil Kapoor. He's a huge huge deal, right?

Q: He's like a Robert DeNiro or something.

MM: Right, and so then right after they met, [the translator] turned to Pinki's dad and said, “Did you know who that is?” and he said, “No, but I know that I'm meeting very many important people in America.” He had no clue who the guy was.

Q: Do they have electricity?

MM: No, but some nice concrete things have happened for them. The district government has made Pinki's village a model village, and so new housing's gone in with corrugated roofs that can withstand the monsoon, and electrified water pumps, and the roads have been reworked.

So here's this child who was this ostracized scar on the village and now there's a lot of talk about her being blessed and bringing all this good fortune to the village, and it's great. There's been a ton of press coverage in India about her and the whole Oscar thing, and I saw this interview with her mom, the same mom who couldn't wrap her head around me being a foreigner, she said “We've already got our gift, it's not about the prize and America. All of these people who are now celebrating my daughter's success are the same ones who were ridiculing us.” And I was like, "You're a good mom!"

Oscar-winning Actress Geena Davis Reappears and Makes Accidents Happen

Feature Interview By Brad Balfour

Every film festival yields an unexpected treat and this year's Tribeca Film Festival is no exception. With the premiere of Accidents Happen, the 51 year old actor Geena Davis steps into the spotlight again, this time by doing a quirky little indie--the feature directorial debut of composer and short filmmaker Andrew Lancaster--shot in Australia but set in the 1980s Connecticut.

For this Oscar winner, her startling and starring reappearance makes for a snappy and sharp-witted comeback. At a time when dysfunctional moms seem to dominate the news and daily talk shows, Davis plays a flippant Gloria Conway, the maternal head of a decidely distraught suburban family traumatized by a fatal auto accident in which one of the kids is killed and another is brain damaged.

Though partially responsible, 15-year-old Billy (Harrison Gilbertson) has become the de facto glue that barely holds together his bitter mom, distant brother (Harry Cook), and disaffected, disenfranchised dad (Joel Tobeck). When Billy starts to act out his anguish, things change for him and his family in this visually provocative, wry drama. Having been once married to such A-type arch personalities as actor Jeff Goldblum and director Renny Harlin.

With a career that has had her playing the first female president, Mackenzie Allen in Commander in Chief (a short-lived but critically appreciated television series) as well as a feminist culture hero in Thelma and Louise, the still svelte six-footer has established her range and smarts. Once she had been tapped to be in Tootsie, she soon proved her versatility and has done over-wrought adventure films (Cutthroat Island), crime-noir (The Long Kiss Goodnight), comic-drama (A League of Their Own), arch sci-fi (David Cronenberg's The Fly remake) a Tim Burton film (Beetle Juice) and won an Oscar for The Accidental Tourist.

Q: You went to Australia to essentially make an American film.

GD: Well, it struck me as odd, definitely. It was like, "Why aren't we shooting this in Connecticut?" But it actually turned out great. We wouldn't have had these incredible actors, and it was fun. I love Sydney. I love Australia. I always say that if I had to move I would move to Sydney. I loved it there.

Q: What kinds of adventures did you have there?

GD: Well, some run-ins with emus [Australian Ostrich-like birds] and there were some koala [bears] that were jumping out of the trees at me. We went to play bingo in Maroubra [a beach-side suburb of Sydney].

Q: Bingo?

GD: Bingo. We went to the bingo hall and there was a bingo parlor near where Sarah lives. It's this little kind of crummy building and in the basement. We went, and it was all old people. Instead of chips they had these stamp things, like you stamp a little dot.

Q: Did you play for money?

GD: Yeah. And we won. I got a $20 voucher. It was fantastic.

Q: Did you eat any weird foods while in Australia?

GD: Foods? No. I have to say that for someone coming from and living in L.A., Sydney [offers] the least culture shock you could possibly encounter in going to a foreign country. It's like L.A. only a little askew. They drive on the other side of the road, but you don't have to figure out, like, "How do I take the subway..." or "What's the money?"

Q: Did you have any Australian wine while you were there?

GD: Oh, yeah, I love Australian wine, actually.

Q: The culinary scenes in the film were fun--especially that mysterious mixture. What were you actually eating?

GD: It was like canned stew. It was fine and tasted good.

Q: Were you the only American in the cast?

GD: Yeah.

Q: Did these old cars bring back any memories for you?

GD: Oh, yeah. The prop guys were keen on teaching me to drive the car that I drove. I was like, "Are you kidding? This is what my parents had. I've driven this kind of car a couple of times."

Q: How was it working with all those young Australian actors?

GD: All these guys are so sweet, like the sweetest guys on earth. When we first met, one of the very first things that we did was to have a read-through around the table. I was sitting next to Harry [Gilbertson] and there's a word that's not in the movie anymore, a profoundly vulgar word that he had to say. We get to that scene and it's coming up, and he says the line and says the word sort of quietly and goes, [whispering] "Sorry." I think he might've even gone, "Sorry, Mrs. Davis."

Q: How did they feel about meeting you?

GD: Later they told me that they were so nervous about meeting me. I thought, "Oh, I really should've been like, 'It's Mrs. Davis, please...' just to torture them a little bit [laughs]. But they were nervous enough.

Q: You didn't call them on their American accents and make sure they were good? Did they keep you fooled?

GD: They were good, very good. They did a great job, really.

Q: How did the role you played personally resonate with you?

GD: I always feel like when I play a character, you just have to find that part of yourself instead of imposing something from the outside. So I had to find a part of me that could relate to feeling helpless and lost, but try to cover for it and try to rise above it and put up a shield. I think it's something that people can easily do to a lesser degree. I think it's just how big the circumstances are, how much you're forced by self-preservation in that particular way—denial and blocking and blaming other people.

Q: How was your character's guilt different from the other character's guilt?

GD: I think she feels horribly, horribly guilty about it. Her way of surviving was partly to put it on her husband, and try to force others to carry the burden and develop this sort of defense mechanism of outrageous language and vulgarity and brash personality as a way to keep people away. Also, it's from facing her own pain.

Q: Why is she guilty?

GD: Well, I [won't] tell you in specifics [or it might ruin the movie], but I think that in general, any mother—if anything happens to their kid, it doesn't matter what the circumstance was—you would always feel like, "If I hadn't let them be there, if I hadn't..." There's nothing worse than having your child die. I think it's that.

I imagined that she was going over that situation—that I was needling everybody and was yelling at the kids and so they fought. I didn't tell him enough to slow down, and all of those things that just probably wrack your life forever.

Q: Was this film specifically designed for you?

GD: No, not specifically.

Q: You've done television, big studio films, and now independent films. How do those experiences contrast--for a while you were in the television arena and now doing this opens must open up a whole range of new opportunities...

GD: Well, I hadn't avoided independent films. It just somehow never happened. I never got offered a part in an independent film that I wanted to do. So it's not like you made it sound, that I'm now in my independent film phase [laughs]. I don't know what'll happen. I would be happy to do more.

Q: How different was this experience from working in television?

GD: I don't find any of them that different. This was actually a lot like TV in that you shoot so much faster, so many more pages a day than a pricey film. But I like all mediums. I don't really do plays, but as far as TV and films and everything, I like them all. It's really just what the part is. I didn't notice…it didn't have pop-outs, my trailer. It's true. I did notice that [laughs]. But what I'm saying is that it was very similar.

Q: How has your training as an athlete shaped your training as an actor?

GD: It had a more personal impact on me, a more real-life impact than acting, because I'd been so un-athletic, and was sure that I was uncoordinated until I got cast in A League of Their Own and had to learn [how to play] baseball. The coaches were like, "You're picking this up fairly fast." I was like, "I have untapped athletic ability!"

Then I did some action movies. That spurred me to take up archery, and I became a sort of fanatic about that [to the point where she became a women's Olympic archery team finalist in 1999 but failed to qualify]. So it changed my feeling about my body and my physical abilities a great deal. What I didn't realize until later is that competing in tournaments was so satisfying.

But I think it's because it's the exact opposite of having a movie review, which is utterly subjective. It doesn't matter what you wore to the tournament. It's the points—did you hit the bull's-eye or not—and that's very satisfying. You can look at it and count instead of wondering.

Q: Do you still do it?

GD: I haven't lately because of the kids. I've been busy, but it's not age dependent so I think I can take it up again at another time.

Q: Since you've never done that before, what would bring you to the stage?

GD: I don't know, maybe a big musical.

Q: What's next for you?

GD: I don't know yet.

Q: You don't have anything coming up?

GD: Listen, I've never known what I'm going to do next when I finish one thing. I don't know how people do that. I'm always like, "Sharon Stone has four movies." She's got this in the can and then this… But that's never ever happened for me. I never know. I guess I just take a long time.

Q: I'd like to see you kick ass one more time, so do another action film.

GD: Believe me, I would love to.

Q: What's been the best accident that's ever happened to you and why? You met your husband in an interesting way--is that true?

GD: Oh, that's true. That's probably the biggest accident that happened. I met my husband because my dog bit him on the ass. I said, "Hey, who's that? Bite him." No.

The only reason that I met him and spoke to him was because he wanted to tell me that my dog had bit him. I left it at a friend's house, and he was a mutual friend who walked in to say hi to his friend and there [the dog] was. She had decided to guard the house, and chased him out over the fence.

Q: Did he need stitches?

GD: No.

Q: Was it a pit bull?

GD: No, an Irish Water Spaniel. Very sweet and soft, but she got possessive about the house.

Q: How are they now, your husband and the dog?

GD: Well, she fell in love with him [Dr. Reza Jarrahy with whom she has three kids]. She just absolutely fell in love with him.

Q: It's kind of like The Accidental Tourist.

GD: There's a doggish thing going on there... Yeah.

Actor Natalie Portman Launches Into The Making of Web Portal Makingof.com

Feature Interview By Brad Balfour

Oscar-nominated actress Natalie Portman joined her business partner and film developer/new media entrepreneur Christine Aylward to discuss the launch of their new website, www.makingof.com, at a special event in the Filmmaker's Lounge during the 2009 Tribeca Film Festival. As they explained, the site is meant to be a gathering place and resource for filmmakers and fans of filmmakers alike. Their web project hopes to transform the way people view, enjoy, and participate in the filmmaking process.

The Israeli-born Portman, of course, is the actor who received international attention when she landed the role of Queen/Senator Amidala for Star Wars Episodes I, II, and III. This helped her get parts in Anywhere But Here and Where the Heart Is but she really came into her own with films like Garden State, V For Vendetta (where she shaved her head) and The Other Boleyn Girl. When she played the ex-girlfriend in Darjeeling Limited she did an accompanying 13-minute short, Hotel Chevalier for director Wes Anderson and offered her sexiest performance yet.

As an accomplished actress, she has performed in such established plays as Anton Chekhov's The Seagull and The Diary of Anne Frank, and garnered her Supporting Actress Oscar nom for Closer in 2004.

She also graduated from Harvard University where she studied psychology. Later on she directed her first short, has actively supported various humanitarian and animal rights causes, and has been romantically linked with various actors or musicians such as neo-hippie Devendra Banhart. She is also an entrepreneur having started an aborted vegan shoe line (its partner company dissolved through this econ crisis) who is now launching this media company with Aylward as CEO. The two had met on a film set and came up with the idea of a behind-the-scenes, insiders-look web portal off-the-cuff during a dinner.

The following interview was drawn from the Q & A session after they announced the launch before a small group of film professionals; it is boiled down to Portman's remarks and her response to several of my own questions as well.

Q: Why did you two start this website?

NP: Christine [Aylward] and I have been friends for a few years now and we were talking one night. I said, "I wonder why there isn't a website that sort of encapsulates the experience of visiting a friend on a film set?" Because every time a friend of mine came to visit I was reminded about how exciting a place it is to work and was reminded about how little we all know when you're just a movie-goer of all the different aspects that go into making a film.

The site is supposed to encapsulate that experience and give access to people who don't have a friend that they can go visit on a film set. So they can say, "How did they do that?"

There are jobs that exist on films sets which people don't even know about. We can give an insight into that and offer that experience for the serious burgeoning filmmaker. There's this whole generation now of people who are making their own movies with youtube and similar sites. I'm sure that they want expert advice or the opportunity to see how it looks up close. So that's the goal of the site, to extend that access to everyone.

Q: You've worked on small indie films and very large studio films. How do you compare those experiences; the good things, the bad things, and being behind the scenes?

NP: The thing that unites all film experience is that it really is a team. It's a collaboration between so many people. There's actually this [David] Mamet line that [I think] Mike [Nichols] always quotes. So I'm going to quote the quote. "Film is a collaborative process. Bend over" [laughs].

It really is a collaborative process though and there are so many people who contribute in ways that are not highlighted. It's a really exciting opportunity to get to focus on those people. Also, [film-making] is such an insider industry. So many people learn to do what they do because their parents do it. You see on film sets a lot of time that the camera operator is the father of the focus puller and the makeup artist is the mother of the hair stylist. It's very much like that. It's really a family business and that makes it even more exciting to open that access because that's how people get access.

It's not like people come out of film school and get hired on movies. A lot of times the access is who you know and you learn by doing. You learn by being on the job. The goal of this, and obviously it's a work in progress and we'll be amending as necessary, as we go on, but the hope is to really let people learn by doing, learn by experiencing firsthand. 

Q: So the site is for people who want to learn what a grip is and for people who want hear expert advice from director Ron Howard?

NP: Yeah. It should be, like, [for] the kid who asks, "How did they do that explosion in the Bond movie?" to the person who's says, "What lens was he using when he got that very specific shot?" or whatever. The goal is to have that range.

Q: You've talked about the Vault section of the site; you'll be able to watch whole movies or just clips of things?

NP: It will have the making of related things with movies that are already past being in theaters. So we're hopefully getting archival things. That's what we want for the future on the site.

Q: Did you do some of the interviews yourself that we see?

NP: I did one interview that I think is going to be up. I didn't want it to be, like, the "me" site. I really want it to be about filmmaking. So I didn't want to be all over it, but I did one interview.

Q: Did you learn anything that you didn't know before from watching some of the other interviews?

NP: Absolutely. The interview I actually did was with [director] Jim Sheridan who I worked with recently and it was so exciting to get to ask him questions. It's so formal to ask those questions with someone that you know and to have that opportunity was really incredible.

One thing he said that was really helpful to me was about the sort of impossibility of screenwriting because how do you describe the look on the child's face that has just learned that his mother died, when you open the door and reveal his face. How do you put that in there. He said that's the problem because it's such a visual medium and to really write something that describes what you're going to see is impossible and that's half the impossibility of getting anything made.

There have been so many things from different interviews, but it's nice to get insight from really disparate points of view that a lot of times you don't get to hear. It gives people ideas, too, about the opportunities that they could have on films, what are the many aspects that go into it and what's the process behind the many aspects.

Q: Do you see the site as connecting, say, a hairdresser with a production company or things like that?

NP: In terms of connecting people, I think one of the future goals for our interviews will be to have filmmakers interviewing other filmmakers so that they're asking the exact questions. If you're a costume designer what would you ask a legendary costume designer? If you're a casting director what would ask of…. So in that we connect those people and have interviews in that way too.

Q: And what do you have planned for the future--an international version?

NP: As I said, this is a "work in progress." We just launched this [on April 23rd, 2009] and we're very excited. There are so many opportunities, and yes, definitely [we are planning that]. That's such a great opportunity that the internet has brought us. One of the things that I always bemoan in the United States is how little access we have to so many great films from the rest of the world. In cities like London and Paris, I think you get a lot more exposure to that stuff. So it would be really exciting to use this as a tool for that, but not yet.

Q: Will you be capturing content from the post-production process as well?

NP: That'll be in the "Filming Now" section.

Q: In your message to consumers what are the key differences that they'll find on your site than they might not find on a DVD that they've purchased which includes sections about the making of a film?

NP: It's like [we are going to be] a centralized resource. So if you're a big Michel Gondry fan, our hope for the future is that it's not just Eternal Sunshine, but you click on it and you'll get his commentary on all of his movies or, if you like him, then here's other directors like him, or also people who you don't normally see interviewed on DVD stuff like editors, cinematographers and design people.

So you get insight into different aspects of the film and also, if you're into one of those other areas, you can again, like, see the archived [stuff]. Lets say there's one costume designer that you love or you just want to see all costume designers or you want to see all action movies; the goal is that it'll be a centralized resource with archived materials that the serious student can go to. Obviously we're building [it now].

Q: And specific to that person--like specific to Michel Gondry and not just specific to the film?

NP: Right, or it could be specific to the film. It could be specific to the person. It could be specific to a department. It's organized in that way that you wouldn't get just from a DVD, one alone. This is great. I love it. It's almost like a brainstorming session. There are so many ideas.

Q: What have you learned about the internet that you didn't know before?

NP: Wow. It's a huge process and I've learned a lot from watching Christine lead the way of creating the business and building a website. It never even occurred to me, all of the elements that go into it. That could be a whole other MakingOf. It's incredible. I didn't realize everything that goes into it and it's been very impressive to witness and learn about.

Q: One exciting thing about the site is that it encompasses the whole business of film, from accounting to acting.

NP: This is really where we will expand and that's the goal. I think it was one of the Naked Gun movies in the credits, I remember seeing this as a little kid, that said 'what the hell is a dolly grip?" You watch the credits and if you don't know--if you haven't been on a film set--you're like, "What? What does that even mean?" So, yes, most people would be like, "Why does a film need an accountant?"

Q: And, if they're not an actor or director, still be inspired.

NP: Exactly. The goal is really to give an impression of [what] everyone does. We don't have a specific thing [in mind].

Q: What are you hoping that people will say about the site after hearing about it now?

NP: Again, the goal is to give the user the experience of being a part of the process. I think you should feel that. [As for] the end goal, as I've said, we're a work-in-progress and just starting out, but our goal is to have everyone feel like they're a part of the crew and that they know the elements that go into the filmmaking process so that they can experience it in a very personal way. That's our goal.

Israeli Director Eran Riklis Offers A Humanizing View of Palestinians in Lemon Tree

Exclusive Interview by Brad Balfour

When veteran Israeli director Eran Riklis made The Syrian Bride several years ago--a film focused almost entirely on the Druze community in Israel, with a few minor Jewish characters--he had joined the burgeoning community of Israeli filmmakers whose work is both markedly Israeli but also tinged with an international or European feel. Though clearly situated in their country of origin, their films are made for audiences who don't look at cinema so much as propaganda but as a force for critical thinking. In his latest movie (a Berlin Film Fest Audience Award winner), Lemon Tree, Riklis provides, if not a critical voice, then an empathetic one--one that often gets overlooked when the political discourse gets overheated.

Now that Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made, for him, something of an about-face--offering a truncated version of the two-state solution to the Palestinians--the release of a film that presents a humanizing, sympathetic view of Palestinians, resonates in a more powerful way than ever before.

Based on a true story, widow Salma (the great Hiam Abbass) defends her lemon tree field when a new Israeli Defense Minister moves next door to her and threatens to have her grove torn down. Living there for decades on the green line--the border between Israel and the West Bank--Salma has endured tragedy and loneliness when the Minister moves into his house opposite her comforting trees.

His Israeli security team declares her grove a threat to the his safety and orders it uprooted. In horror and defiance, Salma enlists an initially reluctant young Palestinian lawyer, Ziad Daud (Ali Suliman), to fight for her fruit-bearing foliage--and they go all the way to the Israeli Supreme Court. In addition, despite differences and borders, Salma and the Defense minister's wife Mira--trapped in her new home and unhappy life--develop an invisible bond. Along the way, forbidden ties also grow between Salma and Ziad at great risk to them both. This legal and personal journey throws Salma into the dark, complex, and sometimes funny, tumult of the struggle between Israelis and Palestinians.

Q; In both this and The Syrian Bride, you not only challenge certain preconceptions of Israelis, but you also challenge preconceptions of Palestinian or Arabic scenarios; you really like to get yourself into trouble.

ER: I change my address every [film]… And my name [laughs].

Q; You’re of Ashkenazi [European Jewish] descent but Israeli-born?

ER: I’m Israeli-born. But I’m no martyr, not at all—though I fear nothing. In the end, it’s only a film, for chrissake! I mean, I know you can be burned for it, but…

Q; Your co-writer Suha Arraf, the writer on The Syrian Bride, is Palestinian, right?

ER: From Israel.

Q: It would be interesting to sit in on your writing sessions.

ER: That’s funny, because we both believe there are no taboos. You can touch anything. When people come to me and say that wouldn’t happen in a certain society, obviously I check it, because if there’s a degree of truth that this or that would never happen, fine. But even then, you can always be controversial.

And it’s funny, because when I look at both films, I don’t see anything controversial about them. But obviously it’s all in the eye of the beholder. As far as it being legitimate for me, as an Israeli, to go into the Palestinian society, I have the right as a filmmaker, as long as I respect the truth and am honest about it. Truth and honesty are probably a guiding light for me, and if I use them correctly, these words, then I’m fine.

Q; You worked with Suha on The Syrian Bride--was there a difference this time around or did she take a similar approach?

ER: We got to know each other much better. Basically we had a very good relationship during The Syrian Bride and we developed it in Lemon Tree. Now there’s a kind of mutual understanding. Of course, I’m the director, so I can always take care of the material any way I want. But when you’re co-writing, it’s a matter of chemistry. It gets better with age—that’s the only answer I can give.

Q; Some directors like to work with the same people. How did you and Hiam—who also had a big part in The Syrian Bride--shape the characters to make sure there wasn't a trace of one slipping over to the other?

ER: The definition of the character in Lemon Tree is totally different from that in Syrian Bride. First of all, the Salma character carries this film on her shoulders, so it was really a wider spectrum of emotions and psychological depth [for Hiam to handle]. Beyond that, the challenge for both her and me was to really overcome the stereotype of a Palestinian peasant, a simple woman, a poor woman struggling against a system—and as I speak, I think “Oh my God, that sounds terrible.”

But with Hiam and the way we approached the writing, we said "OK, she is a peasant, she’s not educated. But she has this inner energy which keeps her alive all these years as a widow, which keeps her open to the option of having a second love in her life, however controversial, and she has this strength to actually go all the way to the Supreme Court." So already we’re talking about a different perception of a Palestinian woman.

I guess what Hiam brings to that is the fact that on one hand, she was born in a small village in Israel and grew up there; on the other hand, she's spent 22 years now in France, so she’s actually Parisian [as much as she's a Palestinian]. She’s a very European, sophisticated lady. I think that kind of tension and that kind of balance creates a different kind of character and solves the problem in a way. I never had an issue of, “Is this close to what she did in The Syrian Bride or not?”

Q; You hear about the Palestinians' feelings of futility. Yet Salma resolves to fight this in the court, where it would seem impossible to win. You had to make that work and make it plausible that she would go so far as to believe she could go forward. You talk about fighting the system and taking it to the court, and having to make it seem convincing.

ER: Because we’re all sophisticated and naïve at the same time; that applies to Salma as well. Basically, on one hand, at night when she sits in bed on her own and she says, “Why am I doing this?” the answer is probably, “I’m stupid.” On the other hand, “Maybe I’m not. Maybe there is a chance.” And I think you always have to have this notion that things could be different. Maybe for you it’s like the lottery in a way. Maybe I’ll win, even though the chances are…

When you think about the Israeli legal system, it’s not obvious that they’re going to come up with this decision. You never know, because it is a legal system that works. So, of course, like any legal system anywhere in the world—nobody can convince me otherwise—it’s always affected by politicians, politics, the mood in the street, the security situation, all that. And yet, there’s always a judge who would say “I don’t care. This woman has her rights, I’m going to grant her her rights.”

It’s a little bit like Ziad’s decision in a way, which obviously is not very good for Salma. And yet the trees are still rooted in the ground, so there is something symbolically which gives a kind of future for her, and for her trees.

Q: In this country, widows are free to have another relationship again and even marry. Even though the Palestinians are supposed to be secular—it was hard for her to consider marrying again.

ER: It’s not about religion. She can get married, it’s not an official issue. The thing is that the family of the dead husband would expect to take care of that. It’s almost like, you can marry again, but you you have to marry one of the brothers, or somebody close to the family or a friend of the family. Certainly you can't go and marry a younger guy and he's much younger than her.

In the script, Ziad was described as in his early 40s, which was not that controversial. Then when I met Ali in the audition--I already knew him because he had a small role in The Syrian Bride—he was so charming, that I said “OK! He’s the guy. But how do I justify this relationship?” I had huge fights with Suha, because she said it would never work in a Palestinian society. I said “Give me a break! It works everywhere!”

You know, societies are societies, but things that happen behind closed doors—you never know. And I thought it added a great layer of tension, because of the fact is she’s under scrutiny all the time anyway. She’s under a microscope all the time and here is this young guy—on one hand, he’s the only one helping her. He’s the only one doing something for her for no money, or for minimal money. And on the other hand, he is really a kind of no-go in a way, and yet she fights for him. But also, to a certain degree, it’s a doomed love affair anyway, so the chances of it really happening are probably slim.

Q: The movie is not a comedy, but you show these humorous sides. Of course, the defense minister is one of the characters you’re really parodying… Did you have certain people in mind that you were referencing?

ER: The current prime minister was a good model for me. And Ehud Barak, who is now defense minister [and was a Prime Minister], was a good model [as well]. All these generals are good example, in terms of, they’re always pompous and with “Security Security” [on their minds]. But they can joke around, have kids, are married, and are also people.

I really tried to treat the minister like I treated all the other characters, and in that sense, I love him. He’s intelligent, but he’s also insensitive—who isn’t?

Q; He was the perfect parody of an Israeli politician.

ER: I think so. Yet, when you see him at the end of the film sitting there on his own in his empty house, you feel for him. Basically, he blew it. He could have just opened his eyes a little bit and changed this whole story, just like that. Like his wife says, he says, “What do you want from me? I can’t change history.” But in fact, he could have! At least, in this particular case.

Q; The Syrian Bride really isn’t so much about a place. This movie is all about a place. Was that an additional challenge--to getting locations visually--or could you have found this in any number of places?

ER: No. In fact, it was very tricky. Getting the lighting right, and the trees right, and the lemons right, it’s like a nightmare. Even the two houses at the grove were shot in two different places. We had to be very clever about [it]. You see Salma walk out of her house, and then a month later, I was shooting her arriving at the minister’s house, so it was quite tricky film-wise. But I think it looks really good in that sense.

Q; So why did you decide on a lemon grove rather than what would immediately be assumed, some kind of olive grove.

ER: That’s the answer. When I thought about olive trees, I said "No. I cannot see olive trees." The lemons have everything for me. They're fresh, sweet and sour, they have all the elements that you want. Visually they're beautiful. And I felt using olive trees was just overused symbolism that you can’t get away with.

Q; Was there any symbolism intended—the lemons for Palestinians, [olives] for Jews...

ER: Not really. It’s corny, because the first thing I wrote was Lemon Tree and I quoted the song, you know, the American song...

Q; I couldn’t get the damn song out of my head!

ER: It’s funny, because most people in Israel don’t know the song. But for me, [those were] the first lines I wrote. “Lemon tree… lemon tree so pretty.” So, I just found it a little fresher than any other symbol you could use. Certainly olive trees are really overused—you see them on the news all the time.

Q; Didn’t you want to make an Arabic/Middle Eastern version of that song...?

ER: There it was in the opening titles!

Q; In writing a screenplay, are you thinking about the music?

ER: Well, like a lot of filmmakers I’m a frustrated musician. Seriously. I wanted to be a musician. I learned a lot of instruments… I don’t play anything now. My son is a jazz pianist who’s actually studying here in New York at the New School.

At least, when you think of classical music, making a film is a little bit like composing a classical piece of music. And certainly the performance of a film is almost like the performance of a symphonic orchestra, in terms of all the elements coming together to crystallize into one beautiful thing.

But it’s not something I follow. It’s just intuitively—it happens because I connect well with music. I love music. And it’s true that when I look at all my films, there was always some kind of musical link. In most of them, at least.

Q; Is this simply a David & Goliath story--"Salma's last person who would challenge the system... Can she succeed?" If you ultimately had to sum up this film, how would you do it?

ER: It's a Mediterranean Erin Brockovich. I guess David and Goliath is probably a good example too. Even though I really don’t care for the headlines, I want to go beyond them. It’s really about the small details that make up this very simple story. Because in the end it’s a very simple story. It’s lemons, two women, and a problem.

Q; You also humanize the perceptions. Usually it's the Palestinians are "this" and the Jews are "that," but in one way or another you humanize everybody.

ER: For me, everybody has his moment of grace. You can be the security guy who has nothing on his mind but security, but in the end—the guy that lets them through at the roadblock [past] the security services, he’s also the kind of guy who could have said, “Forget about it.” But he said, “Go ahead.” So I think nobody is really evil in my films.

Q; The relationship between the defense minister's wife Mira [Rona Lipaz-Michael] and Salma shows there's that sort of an invisible connection. In the context of Israeli-Palestinian issues, are you presenting this as a metaphor of a relationship that doesn’t succeed even though they have a certain invisible bond if only they'd listened to each other... Do you find the conflict between Palestine and Israel, that they just need to listen to each other?

ER: It’s all about listening. It’s all about calming down for a minute and listening to each other and respecting each other on one hand. On the other hand, I think what I show in the film is more or less reality.

Mira represents a lot of Israelis, who do listen to the other side--yet there’s a limit to how far you can go. It’s always, "OK, I can respect you," but will they ever be friends? Not really. Is Mira really going to change in the sense that she’s going to go now and demonstrate every week? Not really. But the fact that she develops an awareness of the other side, of the enemy, and also has a self-awareness, I’m satisfied with that.

The same thing happens with Salma—suddenly, the other side is not this huge threatening machine that’s coming to take her lemons. There’s also somebody else there looking at her and feeling compassionate about her, and I’m sure Salma will be different…

When you look at the final image of Salma at the end of the film--when she’s looking at the wall—Salma has a small smile there, which is almost like saying "OK, I can accept this, I’m going to keep fighting, and my life is not devastated."

I think that’s part of a sense of growing, growing, in terms of, you know, there’s always a new day. It’s almost like with Gone With The Wind... “Tomorrow’s a new day,” or whatever the quote is. In that sense, I tried to keep an optimistic feel to the whole thing, because otherwise, why go on?

Q; How do audiences react to your films?

ER: I’m an audience guy. Seriously. I make films for an audience. I’m not about festivals and I’m not about media, really. No, the biggest enjoyment is to see a full house and have people excited about your film. In that sense, I think I have an American way of thinking. I put story and emotion first as well, and only then, politics.

I really don’t care about the politics as much, because I think in the end, whether it’s an arthouse or popular movie, audiences wants to have the same kind of feeling. They want to care about the characters. For me, that’s the most important thing.

Q; Do you ever want to have another lemon in your life after this?

ER: Yeah, I don’t mind lemons. They’re a fine food.