Academy-Award
nominated actresses Catherine Keener ("Being John Malkovich") and
Brenda Blethyn ("Secrets & Lies") star in Nicole Holofcener's follow-up
feature to her critically acclaimed debut "Walking and Talking."
A finely observed comedy, LOVELY & AMAZING is an intimate family
portrait of four hapless but resilient women and the bittersweet
lessons they learn in keeping up with the hectic demands of their
individual neuroses.
Jane Marks (Blethyn) is the matriarch of a confused trio of daughters
that seems to have nothing in common, except for a peculiar sort
of idealism -- a heady brew of vanity, insecurity and humor. Former
homecoming queen Michelle (Keener), the eldest daughter, is in a
loveless marriage with a spouse who does not appreciate her decidedly
obscure artistic endeavors. Younger sister Elizabeth (Emily Mortimer),
an insecure actress whose career is beginning to take off, compulsively
takes home stray dogs, saving them whether or not they need to be
saved.
Only
the youngest sister, Annie, an adopted African American eight-year
old, seems to stand a chance at rising above the family's legacy.
But on the threshold of what promises to be a confusing adolescence,
Annie has developed a preoccupation with her appearance -- natural
enough for a pre-teen-- but given her adoptive family's history,
quite possibly a hint of what's to come.
Each
of the women seeks redemption in her own haphazard way, but whatever
salvation they find is illusory and shortlived.
Q
& A WITH NICOLE HOLOFCENER
Was
there a specific inspiration for the film and the themes you explore
in it?
I
was inspired to write about how children-- biological or not-- inherit
their parent's qualities and how they deal with and internalize
them. Can they transcend their parent's legacy or should they simply
surrender to it? I happen to think a combination of both is probably
the most ideal, and I think that's what the characters in this film
strive to do.
I
was also inspired by women's obsession with weight and appearance
and how much emotional energy that actually takes up in our lives;
how intelligent women with full lives will focus on these things
even as they acknowledge how unimportant they are.
I
have also always been fascinated by "families" and what that means
and how we make the most out of what we've got. Our siblings might
be nuts, our mothers might drive us crazy, but we love them nonetheless
and would do anything for them. And just because we're all grown
up doesn't mean we behave accordingly. The character of Michelle
has a true sibling rivalry with Annie, even though she's about thirty
years older.
Your
debut,"Walking and Talking," took five years to make. How long did
it take to get this one off the ground and how was the process different
this time around?
Thankfully,
this movie only took a couple of years to get going, although it
still wasn't easy. When I showed the script to Ted Hope and Anthony
Bregman at Good Machine, they responded to it immediately and unlike
with "Walking and Talking," they had very little notes. It didn't
go through a million rewrites - we started sending the script out
right away. Blow Up Pictures became interested, offered us a budget
to shoot it on digital video and from that point, Eric d'Arbeloff
came on as producer. He pulled together a great crew and got the
movie actually going.
How
did the cast come together?
I
had written the part of Michelle for Catherine, and Brenda Blethyn
was my first choice for Jane. We hadn't met but she liked the script
and agreed to do it. I can't tell you how happy I was when she said
yes. I had no idea how I was going to find an Elizabeth. I had auditioned
a lot of great actors but didn't feel like I found the right person
yet and I asked Brenda, kind of in passing, if she could recommend
someone. She had just worked with Emily Mortimer in a movie and
suggested her. Emily came to audition and I instantly fell in love
with her. But here I was with two Brits who were supposed to play
an American mother and daughter. It was kind of terrifying going
ahead with them but they were so right for the roles. They worked
with a voice coach and got the American accent down perfectly.
I
had always thought that Dermot Mulroney would make a perfect Kevin
- he's got a great sense of humor and is clearly gorgeous enough.
I asked him a million years ago if he'd do the part and he wouldn't
commit. Finally, he did, and I was thrilled.
Jeanne
McCarthy, the casting director, brought in Jake Gyllenhaal. He came
in with this big pouf of hair and his big blue eyes and really understood
the script and I was sold. He was sexy but awkward - the perfect
combination for the role of Jordan. He had to be young and gawky
enough so that we feel the affair is weird and uncomfortable, yet
he had to be just manly enough so it would be believable.
How
do you like to direct your actors? What are some of your methods?
The
finished film is very much like the script. A few lines were changed
but generally it's the same, certainly in spirit. With "Walking
and Talking," we changed a lot more as we were filming, and I wouldn't
wish that kind of stress on anyone. This script held together a
lot better and thankfully needed a lot less fixing.
With
this film, you need to maintain your skill at sculpting really great
moments - as a writer with your dialogue and as a director with
your actors - such that people often think that your movies are
largely improvisational. How much of this film is on the page and
how do you work with your actors on capturing these intimate moments?
I'm
generally very open to improvisation but not while the camera is
rolling. We'll improvise in rehearsal and if something great comes
from that, I'll incorporate it into the script. Rehearsal for this
film was minimal. We got together a few times, read all the scenes,
discussed them, blocked them out a bit. It was really just a chance
for all of us to get comfortable with each other. But if something
sounded weird or just didn't work, we would talk about it and figure
out a better way to say it. The actors were so funny and smart,
and if they had a suggestion about something, I would usually use
it.
People
really respond to your rather unconventional narrative style - your
character-driven approach. As a writer and a filmmaker, this is
a choice you continue to make - could you tell us a little about
this decision?
If
I were to come up with some perfect structure that involved a more
traditional plot, I would use it. This style is just what comes
naturally to me. I love ensembles and they seem to just structure
themselves. When I was writing this, I let the characters tell me
what to do next. I don't mean this in some airy-fairy way, just
literally. What would be fun to see happen to them? What would make
their world really fall apart? Everything came together very intuitively
and it even had the right page length when I was finished. It all
just came together.
Who
made Michelle's artwork? Did you have an idea of what it would look
like when you were writing the script or did that happen when you
were preparing for the shoot?
Michelle's
artwork was inspired by a friend of mine. She makes little chairs
from twigs with tiny birds and eggs. They were amazing, but we didn't
have enough of them to use in the film. So in the end, the production
designer, Devorah Herbert, stayed up a couple of nights and made
some of her own - one more extraordinary than the next. It was hard
to choose which ones would end up on screen.
When
I was a teenager, I painted pictures and wrote poetry on them and
would go around to stores to try to sell them. They were the corniest
things on earth but they sold. I had them in three or four stores.
I remember the feeling so well of laying out my wares for some mean
salesgirl. I guess that's what inspired that part of the character.
How
did shooting on digital compare to shooting on film? Did shooting
on digital make the process more intimate or was it essentially
the same?
We
opted to go with 24-frame high-definition video because the tests
that we did looked really beautiful, and frankly, the most like
film. Shooting on digital video was essentially the same as shooting
on film, for me. It took just as much time to light and the crew
was enormous. I remember when one of my producers told me the crew
would be skeletal because it was video. I was thrilled. Then I looked
at our first call sheet and it read: Lunch for 60. It just seemed
to grow. And we needed every single person who showed up. I didn't
"relax" (if that's even possible on a shoot) because it wasn't film
- I didn't do more takes or rehearse more on the set. Basically,
the day is only so long and the pressure to make the day is the
same. If I wasn't getting what I needed, I would keep going. If
I got it, I would move on. I didn't do more takes because it was
"only on video" - and if I was shooting on film and wasn't getting
what I needed, I wouldn't stop because film is expensive. So, basically,
except for the fact that we didn't have to check the gate, it was
pretty much the same.
You
recently directed an episode of "Sex & The City" -- did that experience
have any impact on your work?
All
practice is good, especially when the material is as good as "Sex
& The City."
|
