MCN Blogs

By DP30 david@thehotbuttonl.com

DP/30: Hanna, actor Saoirse Ronan

7 Responses to “DP/30: Hanna, actor Saoirse Ronan”

  1. sanj says:

    Saoirse Ronan – Lunch With David Interview


    Unscripted: Saoirse Ronan, Rachel Weisz and Susan Sarandon


  2. Tuck Pendelton says:

    SWOOON… damn i’m in love with this one.

  3. LexG says:

    I’d ask Tuck if he’s aware she’s under 18, but that’s a fact apparently lost on Ebert in his riotous review of Weir’s “The Way Back,” wherein he asks why the middle-aged cast didn’t try to hook up with the “cute girl,” meaning SR… who was like 15 when she shot that movie.

    Classic Ebert gaffe.

  4. anghus says:

    atonement is still want one of those movies i go back to because it’s so wonderfully bleak. One of the saddest movies i’ve ever seen. Such great, haunting performances by all involved.

  5. sanj says:

    right at 16 minutes…things got real and she talked about
    comedies . thats where you could have pulled out an ipad / notebook and just showed her the trailer for Sandler pictures + some older movies from Will Farrell …
    20 minutes surfing the net finding cool movie stuff to talk about and at the end you could have sung a Lady Gaga song together. that would have been awesome .

  6. Vin says:

    you’re a great interviewer, I’m amazed by how you make them feel at ease. They are always on defense, it’s hard to reach in but you always manage to do it.
    Vin B.

  7. Olli says:

    You folks at DP/30:

    you are f….g great inverviewers. The best interviews you can get – you actually really listen to the interviewees and ask actually interesting and
    profound questions. Perfect. Go on with that.

Leave a Reply


Quote Unquotesee all »

“We now have a situation where audiences very often prefer commercial trash to Bergman’s Persona or Bresson’s L’Argent. Professionals find themselves shrugging, and predicting that serious, significant works will have no success with the general public. What is the explanation? Decline of taste or impoverishment of repertoire? Neither and both. It is simply that cinema now exists, and is evolving, under new conditions. That total, enthralling impression which once overwhelmed the audiences of the 1930s was explained by the universal delight of those who were witnessing and rejoicing over the birth of a new art form, which furthermore had recently acquired sound. By the very fact of its existence this new art, which displayed a new kind of wholeness, a new kind of image, and revealed hitherto unexplored areas of reality, could not but astound its audiences and turn them into passionate enthusiasts.

Less than twenty years now separate us from the twenty-first century. In the course of its existence, through its peaks and troughs, cinema has travelled a long and tortuous path. The relationship that has grown up between artistic films and the commercial cinema is not an easy one, and the gulf between the two becomes wider every day. Nonetheless, films are being made all the time that are undoubtedly landmarks in the history of cinema. Audiences have become more discerning in their attitude to films. Cinema as such long ago ceased to amaze them as a new and original phenomenon; and at the same time it is expected to answer a far wider range of individual needs. Audiences have developed their likes and dislikes. That means that the filmmaker in turn has an audience that is constant, his own circle. Divergence of taste on the part of audiences can be extreme, and this is in no way regrettable or alarming; the fact that people have their own aesthetic criteria indicates a growth of self-awareness.

Directors are going deeper into the areas which concern them. There are faithful audiences and favorite directors, so that there is no question of thinking in terms of unqualified success with the public—that is, if one is talking about cinema not as commercial entertainment but as art. Indeed, mass popularity suggests what is known as mass culture, and not art.”
~ Andrei Tarkovsky, “Sculpting In Time”

“People seem to be watching [fewer] movies, which I think is a mistake on people’s parts, and they seem to be making more of them, which I think is okay. Some of these movies are very good. When you look at the quality of Sundance movies right now, they are a lot better than they were when I was a kid. I do think that there have been improvements artistically, but it’s tough. We’ve got a system that’s built for less movies in terms of how many curatorial standard-bearers we have in the states. It’s time for us to expand our ideas of where we find our great films in America, but that said, it’s a real hustle. I’m so happy that Factory 25 exists. If it didn’t exist, there would be so many movies that wouldn’t ever get distributed because Matt Grady is the only person who has seen the commercial potential in them. He’s preserving a very special moment in independent film history that the commercial system is not going to be preserving. He’s figuring out how to make enough money on it to save these films and get them onto people’s shelves.”
~ Homemakers‘ Colin Healey On Indie Distribution