Z
MCN Blogs

By DP30 david@thehotbuttonl.com

DP/30: Cloud Atlas, screenwriter/directors Lana Wachowski, Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski

7 Responses to “DP/30: Cloud Atlas, screenwriter/directors Lana Wachowski, Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski”

  1. berg says:

    at the 17 minutes mark (approx) the interview soars to new heights

  2. Heisenberg says:

    Damn, aside from Tom Tykwer desperately trying to get out of there at the 30 minute mark, and their publicist throwing out a bit of a burn towards DP at the very end, it was a great interview. Loved the epic rants on the philosophical nature of “Revolutions,” as well as Andy Wachowski’s understandable annoyance with film junkets.

  3. djiggs says:

    Amazing interview…I wish I had the chance to catch the late screening with Q&A at Fantastic Fest…Profound love/respect/admiration to the Wachowskis, Tykwer, and you David. Cornel West was not joshing when he said Lana was laser smart. What a wonderful soul.

  4. Danny says:

    Inspiring trio. Artistically and personally.

  5. Captain_Celluloid says:

    Yeah, AMAZING interview.

    Three totally different totally interesting
    personas. Well wrangled, David.

    All were impressively articulate and comfortably erudite
    without being pretentious . . . . loved the ONE BROW FILM
    line . . . . as Hollywood has forgotten how to make
    smart and adult large scale films . . . . which is sadly ironic
    considering how well Hollywood did with that type of film in the 70’s . . . . .

    I am now totally prepared to like the CLOUD ATLAS . . . . I am also now totally and pleasantly surprised by how comfortable we’ve all gotten with Lana NEE Larry . . . I know I have.

    I may still have trouble with pronoun selection but Lana is a totally interesting — and forgive me for framing it this way — “non-freakish” person . . . .
    as is Andy . . . . and I am really glad they’ve decided to start talking about their work. I guess we can at least partially thank Tom Tykwer

  6. sanj says:

    Andy Wachowski is funny….get him back …let him go off topic about movies.

  7. Rashad says:

    I really wish someone would get the Wachowskis for an hour, and have them talk about their 10 favorite movies. Would love to hear their thoughts.

    And I love Revolutions as well.

Leave a Reply

DP/30

Quote Unquotesee all »

“The core fear is what can happen to you, personally. Your body. That’s what horror films deal with, precisely. We are a very thin skin wrapped around a pumping heart and guts. At any given moment it can come down to that, be it diseases, or somebody’s assault, or war, or a car wreck. You could be reduced to the simple laws of physics and your body’s vulnerability. The edged weapon is the penultimate weapon to disclose that reality to you.”
~ Wes Craven, 1996, promoting Scream

MAMET
Well, that, to me, is always the trick of dramaturgy; theoretically, perfectly, what one wants to do is put the protagonist and the audience in exactly the same position. The main question in drama, the way I was taught, is always what does the protagonist want. That’s what drama is. It comes down to that. It’s not about theme, it’s not about ideas, it’s not about setting, but what the protagonist wants. What gives rise to the drama, what is the precipitating event, and how, at the end of the play, do we see that event culminated? Do we see the protagonist’s wishes fulfilled or absolutely frustrated? That’s the structure of drama. You break it down into three acts.

INTERVIEWER
Does this explain why your plays have so little exposition?

MAMET
Yes. People only speak to get something. If I say, Let me tell you a few things about myself, already your defenses go up; you go, Look, I wonder what he wants from me, because no one ever speaks except to obtain an objective. That’s the only reason anyone ever opens their mouth, onstage or offstage. They may use a language that seems revealing, but if so, it’s just coincidence, because what they’re trying to do is accomplish an objective… The question is where does the dramatist have to lead you? Answer: the place where he or she thinks the audience needs to be led. But what does the character think? Does the character need to convey that information? If the answer is no, then you’d better cut it out, because you aren’t putting the audience in the same position with the protagonist. You’re saying, in effect, Let’s stop the play. That’s what the narration is doing—stopping the play… It’s action, as Aristotle said. That’s all that it is—exactly what the person does. It’s not what they “think,” because we don’t know what they think. It’s not what they say. It’s what they do, what they’re physically trying to accomplish on the stage. Which is exactly the same way we understand a person’s character in life—not by what they say, but by what they do. Say someone came up to you and said, I’m glad to be your neighbor because I’m a very honest man. That’s my character. I’m honest, I like to do things, I’m forthright, I like to be clear about everything, I like to be concise. Well, you really don’t know anything about that guy’s character. Or the person is onstage, and the playwright has him or her make those same claims in several subtle or not-so-subtle ways, the audience will say, Oh yes, I understand their character now; now I understand that they are a character. But in fact you don’t understand anything. You just understand that they’re jabbering to try to convince you of something.
~ David Mamet

Z Z