HeyUGuys - UK Movie / Film Blog for News / Reviews / Interviews » Victoria Russo

Exclusive – Director Marc Weitz on Stanislavsky

Victoria Russo — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:29:10 +0000

Today, on the 5^th of January 147 years ago Constantin Stanislavsky was born. Stanislavsky’s revolutionary method of acting influenced the process of acting arguably more than anyone else in the twentieth century and to celebrate his birthday we asked our friend NY based director and teacher Marc Weitz about his view on acting techniques invented by Stanislavsky.

Constantin Stanislavsky was born into a wealthy Russian family in Moscow, and as a teenager joined a theatrical group organized by his parents and very soon became a central figure and started directing plays. In 1898 Stanislavsky together with his partner Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko opened the Moscow Art Theatre which became famous around the world – Anton Chekhov wrote the play “The Seagull” especially for this theatre.

It was while working in this theatre Stanislavsky came up with basic principles of acting which contributed to his system. The core principle of this system lies in the importance of “emotional memory” and Stanislavsky taught actors to bring their own memories and emotions into playing characters. The director stressed that actors main responsibility was to be believed rather then understood – his famous remark “I don’t believe” is still used in acting society in Russia.

In order to understand how Stanislavsky method is used in modern theatre and cinema we talked to Marc Weitz, a NY based director and teacher ( http://marcstuartweitz.com/).

- Marc, How did you encounter the Stanislavsky system?

Well, the Stanislavsky System is a really broad concept, and what we use in the U.S. some people call the Americanization of the Stanislavsky System. That has to do with how the books and method were translated and brought over to America over a period of many years. But it’s really become over here the default way of training actors, whether the teachers or actors even know the history of what they’re using or not! I first encountered it in my very first acting class in university, although I don’t know if it was ever explained to me that it was based in Stanislavsky’s techniques, as such.

- Did you learn the Stanislavsky system though acting or from literature?

Both. Of course one must practice the techniques “out loud,” so to speak, but books upon books have been written explaining the history and philosophy of it.

- Do you think this system is very complex and unsuitable for cinema?

What an interesting question! It is often stated that the Method, a particular refinement of the Stanislavsky System most closely identified With Lee Strasberg, is ONLY suited to the cinema, and not particularly well suited for the stage. But Stanislavsky was originally developing his method for the stage, so it really is designed to get to the Truth of the performance no matter what medium the actor is working in.

Interestingly, at this point in my career as a director and teacher, I am much more interested in combining Stanislavsky’s insights with other more physical or ritualistic forms of theater, that work externally. That is, here in America, where we are most frequently concerned with generating an inside emotional state that produces an external result, I am more interested in combining this with methods which construct an external physical state, and then seeing how that affects the internal emotional life of the actor. Some artists want to focus on one or the other. I want to focus on both!

Our thanks to Marc for his insight and for his time.

Review: Did You Hear About the Morgans?

Victoria Russo — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 14:08:17 +0000

It’s nice to see a romantic comedy full of clichés with a predictable end for a change! In the current times of economic instability – there are more and more films with no happy endings. “Did you hear about the Morgans?” is not like that – it’s so predictable that you feel like you may have seen ten times before! And you’re probably right as writer/director Marc Lawrence has previously written /directed films like “Two Weeks Notice”, “Music and Lyrics” and “Miss Congeniality”.

Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker are Paul and Meryl Morgan – a highly successful but estranged Manhattan couple who are relocated under the FBI’s witness relocation program to a small town in Wyoming after witnessing a murder by a professional killer. In Wyoming, the couple are taken in by married U.S. Marshals Clay and Emma Wheeler (played by Sam Elliot and Mary Steenburgen) who totally steal the show with their natural charm and down-to-earth humour.

Sarah Jessica Parker and Hugh Grant play characters that they have played hundreds of times before. It’s like pop-corn – almost the same everywhere and every time – so your expectations are never let down: several funny jokes, some romance under the stars, horses and cows, assistants with Blackberries, Central park trees and lights of the city.

Hugh Grant plays the same guy he played in previous Marc Lawrence’s movies (“Two Weeks Notice” and “Music and Lyrics”). It’s actually striking how nothing has changed in his performance. I highly suspect that he wears the same suit – it goes very well with his particular facial expression of boredom and charm.

As for the main female part in Marc Lawrence’s films – in previous movies it was either charming Drew Barrymore or naturally funny Sandra Bullock (who has been busy filming “The Proposal” and “All about Steve”). In “Morgans” it’s Sarah Jessica Parker who we last saw in “Sex and the City” except now she is not in the city and there is no sex! Here she is Paul Morgan’s estranged wife whom he tries to win back – not quite sure why – she is a workaholic, hysteric, and doesn’t really love him or maybe she does according to the script but not on screen.

Again, it’s like pop-corn – it’s easy to chew, pretty much the same in the world – so you know what you are getting. Morgan’s promises you easy two hours and delivers it. (Although not if you have recently seen a bunch of great films – it’ll be as hard as eating pop-corn right after a delicious steak).

Mr Lawrence is re-using the same recipe he used in his films before – only now trying to make it more serious and it doesn’t work. Seriousness only dried pop-corn. It takes a long while for chemistry between Morgans to achieve a believable status and when it does – it’s too late and we see final credits.

If you decide to go and watch this movie, just relax and enjoy….. and don’t forget your pop-corn!!

Review: Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel

Victoria Russo — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:12:42 +0000

Just two years after the release of the very successful first film, “Alvin and the Chipmunks” are coming back to cinemas. This Christmas they are not alone and are joined by their female counterparts, The Chipettes in “˜Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel’ which is released 21st December.

You might remember from the first film – the trio of chipmunks: Alvin (voiced by Justin Long), Simon (Matthew Gray Gubler) and Theodore (Jesse McCartney) became a famous musical band and won over a million hearts. After the Chipmunks’ concert and some fantastic pirouettes performed by Alvin, their producer and friend Dave Seville (Jason Lee, as funny as always) ends up in a hospital with severe injuries but before the sedatives starts working Dave makes arrangements for the Chipmunks to be taken care by Aunt Jackie (Kathryn Joosten from “Desperate Housewives”). However due to some more crazy action, Aunt Jackie also ends up in a hospital which leaves the trio in one house with Toby, Dave’s twenty-something immature nephew.

The central part of the film is about how Chipmunks get on at school and how they encounter difficulties studying together with the ‘evil’ human teenagers. If it weren’t for the perfectly computer-generated chipmunks ““ this would be another boring high-school romantic comedy, but here come the Chipettes ““ Brittany (Christina Applegate), Eleanor (Amy Poehler) and Jeanette (Anna Faris). Little girls want to become stars and wish to hang out with a cool trio of Chipmunks - who wouldn’t!? To achieve this they send themselves in a FedEx package to producer Ian Hawk (David Cross). Little did they know that Hawk is an evil man and probably the only person in the world who hates these cute animals. Unfortunately the Chipettes can not hang out with Alvin and Co because they are matched against each other in a musical contest. School principal (wonderfully played by Wendie Malick) is on the Chipmunks’ side but only friendship can help them to win and overcome all challenges.

The director, Betty Thomas feels very comfortable with the story, as it is not her first time directing a high-school comedy (“John Tucker Must Die”). She does a good job with incorporating CGI characters into live action. It is a funny entertaining film whether you are going to watch it with kids or not. “˜Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel’ is not a film that will change your perspective on life (at least I hope not), but it will certainly boost your mood: on my way out of the cinema I overheard some men, who came to cinema with their kids, rocking “Single Ladies” in high squeaky voices.

Glorious 39 – Taking Another Look

Victoria Russo — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:25:30 +0000

Stephen Poliakoff’s dark, labyrinthine account of England’s tumble into the Second World War was premiered at the London Film Festival this year and we were impressed by it.

As today sees the film’s release I wanted to take another look at this drama, to see if it lives up to its name.

Glorious 39 is not as glamorous as the marketing would have us believe. The posters suggest a costume drama about the brilliant and carefree life of British Aristocracy in the world of “Jeeves and Wooster”, with the faint whiff of a world war in the air. Instead, the new film by Stephen Poliakoff turns into an interesting and almost Hitchcockian conspiracy thriller.

“Almost” ““ because it seems that the director can not decide what type of film he is directing and keeps swinging between historic political drama and conspiracy thriller. As a result the film’s pace is very slow and does not deliver the crucial emotional epiphany to the audience when it is most desired.

As the name of the film suggests the story is set in the summer of 1939, in London and the peaceful countryside. The film is centered around the aristocratic Keyes family, who continue their luxurious lifestyle or parties and parliament despite Europe being at the edge of war with Hitler. The head of the family, Alexander (brilliantly played by Bill Nighy) is an influential MP and a great father to his three children: Ralph (Eddie Redmayne) who works at the Foreign Office and Celia (Juno Temple). The eldest adopted daughter, a young actress, Anne (Romola Garai) is in love with Foreign Office official Lawrence (Charlie Cox).

Anne’s lifestyle is all London-parties and countryside picnics and it is changed dramatically after one of her friends, a young MP (David Tennant) speaks out against British government and Hilter and shortly after that is found dead. Her suspicion and sense of dread is compounded by Anne’s discovery of hidden recordings with some secret Government information.

Anne’s journey of unveiling the truth lies not only in the political world of Britain ruled by Chamberlain’s government, but it also reveals great family drama, a tragedy of her personal fears. Romola Garai is brilliant in delivering her character’s fears, sense of betrayal, confusion and, finally, terror. She is supported by great performances of her screen siblings, Eddie Redmayne and Juno Temple, and the remarkable Julie Christie as Aunt Elizabeth.

Glorious 39 is the first film for Stephen Poliakoff after a 10-year break, during which he focused on TV dramas for BBC. That is probably the reason why film feels like it belongs to TV screen rather then cinema. The cinematography by Zac Nicholson is picturesque eye-candy, but it does not help in conveying the sense the horror of upcoming war and our heroine’s panic.

Stephen Poliakoff deliberately stayed away from the war footage and instead showed Britain as it was the edge of WWII. One of the surreal pictures shows scenes when people have to abandon their pets and take them to be “put down” to vets. The pictures of pets are almost horrific, as well as the condition of Anne, who discovers secrets that can totally ruin her whole concept of life.

However, despite brilliant performances and some surreal pictures, the film does not deliver the sense of horror. Poor editing and slow pace makes this film very hard to enjoy and follow the director’s vision. It seems the director wants to show too many interesting things that are hard to put into one film. In this case a longer frame of TV dramas feels like a better choice.

Glorious 39 is out today.