list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Metropolitan on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Metropolitan/22496/default.aspx Title: Metropolitan
Year: 1990
Director: Whit Stillman
Plot: The debut film from writer-director Whit Stillman etches a sophisticated comic portrait of New York debutante society at the twilight of the 1980s. Set during the Christmas season, the film is told from the vantage point of Tom Townsend (Edward Clements), a self-professed proletarian radical who stumbles into the social sphere of a group of well-off Upper East Side twentysomethings calling themselves the SFRP (or Sally Fowler Rat Pack, named in honor of a frequent party hostess). The group includes Nick (Christopher Eigeman), an acidic misanthrope; sweet-natured Jane Austen acolyte Audrey (Carolyn Farina); Charlie (Taylor Nichols), a tongue-tied bumbler secretly in love with Audrey; and femme fatale Cynthia (Isabel Gillies). Quickly, Tom, who comes from much more humble beginnings, finds himself caught in the middle of the group. Audrey even develops a crush on him, but Tom is still reeling from a broken relationship with renowned man-eater Serena (Elizabeth Thompson), a peripheral member of the SFRP. It all leads to a romantic climax at the Southampton vacation home of Nick's womanizing arch-enemy Rick von Sloneker (Will Kempe). ~ Jason Ankeny, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 30
Number of Lists: 13
Number of blog posts: 8
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 03:50:45 GMTMetropolitan1990Whit StillmanThe debut film from writer-director <a href="/players/P___112822/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Whit Stillman</a> etches a sophisticated comic portrait of New York debutante society at the twilight of the 1980s. Set during the Christmas season, the film is told from the vantage point of Tom Townsend (Edward Clements), a self-professed proletarian radical who stumbles into the social sphere of a group of well-off Upper East Side twentysomethings calling themselves the SFRP (or Sally Fowler Rat Pack, named in honor of a frequent party hostess). The group includes Nick (<a href="/players/P____21371/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Christopher Eigeman</a>), an acidic misanthrope; sweet-natured Jane Austen acolyte Audrey (<a href="/players/P____22683/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Carolyn Farina</a>); Charlie (<a href="/players/P___129079/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Taylor Nichols</a>), a tongue-tied bumbler secretly in love with Audrey; and femme fatale Cynthia (Isabel Gillies). Quickly, Tom, who comes from much more humble beginnings, finds himself caught in the middle of the group. Audrey even develops a crush on him, but Tom is still reeling from a broken relationship with renowned man-eater Serena (Elizabeth Thompson), a peripheral member of the SFRP. It all leads to a romantic climax at the Southampton vacation home of Nick's womanizing arch-enemy Rick von Sloneker (Will Kempe). ~ Jason Ankeny, All Movie Guide30Tag Target (>10)1383http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t73138ugxi3.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Metropolitan/22496/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/20/41149.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/20/2009 4:01:19 PM
Body: In honor of the 75th anniversary of the New York Film Critics Circle, this year’s New Directors/New Films festival will devote a week of matinees to previous NYFCC Best Director winners, selected and presented by current members of the critics group. The can’t-miss of the lineup looks to be the infamously contrarian Armond White’s presentation of Whit Stillman’s Metropolitan, which takes place on April 1. The other critics are David Fear, Marshall Fine, Lisa Schwarzbaum and Peter Travers; the other films are Half Nelson, Big Night, Frozen River and In the Company of Men. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:01:19 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/20/2009 4:01:19 PMIn honor of the 75th anniversary of the New York Film Critics Circle, this year’s New Directors/New Films festival will devote a week of matinees to previous NYFCC Best Director winners, selected and presented by current members of the critics group. The can’t-miss of the lineup looks to be the infamously contrarian Armond White’s presentation of Whit Stillman’s Metropolitan, which takes place on April 1. The other critics are David Fear, Marshall Fine, Lisa Schwarzbaum and Peter Travers; the other films are Half Nelson, Big Night, Frozen River and In the Company of Men. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2009/3/20/41148.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 3/20/2009 3:01:03 PM
Body: In honor of the 75th anniversary of the New York Film Critics Circle, this year’s New Directors/New Films festival will devote a week of matinees to previous NYFCC Best Director winners, selected and presented by current members of the critics group. The can’t-miss of the lineup looks to be the infamously contrarian Armond White’s presentation of Whit Stillman’s Metropolitan, which takes place on April 1. The other critics are David Fear, Marshall Fine, Lisa Schwarzbaum and Peter Travers; the other films are Half Nelson, Big Night, Frozen River and In the Company of Men. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:01:03 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog3/20/2009 3:01:03 PMIn honor of the 75th anniversary of the New York Film Critics Circle, this year’s New Directors/New Films festival will devote a week of matinees to previous NYFCC Best Director winners, selected and presented by current members of the critics group. The can’t-miss of the lineup looks to be the infamously contrarian Armond White’s presentation of Whit Stillman’s Metropolitan, which takes place on April 1. The other critics are David Fear, Marshall Fine, Lisa Schwarzbaum and Peter Travers; the other films are Half Nelson, Big Night, Frozen River and In the Company of Men. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/davidmm/archive/2008/8/14/33990.aspx Post By: davidmm
Post To: davidmm Blog
Post Date: 8/14/2008 2:03:15 AM
Body: I have not seen nor ever heard of this movie, but I plan on watching it and here is why: I don't get it. It appears and feels to me that this movie by it's very name has a big socio-economic disconnect for me. It would be like watching a hour or so long movie of a exclusive rich clique and their inside jokes and gabbing bull session. Besides I'm 26 and was not of an age that could entertain nor digest this film. But like I said I want to watch it and then see how my current pre-conceptions change or otherwise.
]]>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:03:15 GMTdavidmmdavidmm Blog8/14/2008 2:03:15 AMI have not seen nor ever heard of this movie, but I plan on watching it and here is why: I don't get it. It appears and feels to me that this movie by it's very name has a big socio-economic disconnect for me. It would be like watching a hour or so long movie of a exclusive rich clique and their inside jokes and gabbing bull session. Besides I'm 26 and was not of an age that could entertain nor digest this film. But like I said I want to watch it and then see how my current pre-conceptions change or otherwise. http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/8/13/33987.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 8/13/2008 11:01:26 PM
Body: In the liner notes to the Criterion edition of writer/director Whit Stillman’s debut film, Metropolitan, cultural critic/historian Luc Sante notes that the picture, “which looked like a perverse bit of daring in 1990, today seems like an artifact from an earlier century.” Sante is likely referring to the debutante culture in which the film is set, but the story of how the movie itself not only found an audience but rose to classic teen movie status among a certain class seems equally antiquated in this age of indie film Chicken Littles. Made for a reported $250,000, starring a full cast of young unknowns, and consisting primarily of one long scene after another of rich kids sitting in a palatial Upper East Side apartment discussing Jane Austen, Charles Fourier, their mostly unfashionable morals and fears of failure, all the while dressed in evening clothes, Metropolitan played in theaters for seven months, eventually grossing $3 million and earning Stilman an Oscar nomination (he lost to the screenwriter of Ghost). But if Metropolitan traveled a commercial road that seems nearly unnavigable today, the film itself has perhaps never been as in tune with popular culture. From Best Week Ever pundits to big-traffic bloggers, it’s become the standard mode of digesting the world around us to stand outside of it, employing caustic, self-deprecating humor as a defensive mechanism. It’s like we’re all Chris Eigeman characters from a Whit Stillman film––except, in some cases, stripped of the anxieties of old-money entitlement. With Metropolitan premiering tonight on Hulu, I chatted with Whit about his films, the state of the indie film industry, his alleged political agenda, the state of the Last Days of Disco DVD, the project he’s getting ready to shoot, and why it’s taken ten years for him to make a fourth film. —— Karina: I want to get the inevitable elephant out of the room, which is of course the “What have you been doing for 10 years?” question. The most recent stories that I can find about projects that you have in the works were the Jamaica project, and then Little Green Men [based on the novel by Christopher Buckley]. Are either of those still happening? Whit: Yes, they’re both happening, and I’ve been writing on both. And that’s what I’ve been doing: I’ve been writing scripts. And so, in addition to those scripts, I’ve written a number of other things. But, I think, the one that is set to go, as soon as the financing falls into place, is the Jamaica project, which is now called Dancing Mood. The characters are black Jamaicans in Kingston in the early ’60s. Karina: Your previous films were so autobiographical. Is this one, in any sense? Whit: I take the Fifth Amendment. I think, when I write things, usually there’s some autobiographical stuff that comes out, but in each case, it’s pretty fictional, too. Karina: I actually watched Metropolitan last night, and of course, it starts with the “Not so long ago” title. But, I read something saying that it has to take place in the mid-to-late ’60s because the sexual revolution would have come along and swept away deb culture and the moralities and the formalities that are associated with it. But, I always thought it took place a little bit later. Whit: We couldn’t really do period. And the idea was, pretty much, to stick with what we said in the movie, which was “Not so long ago.” And anyone can interpret that as they want it. And my own experience is I snuck into a couple of parties with my sisters at the end of the ’60s, and I became a convert to it. So, I kept going in the ’70s. So, my memories were from that period: the end of the ’60s and the ’70s. But, I couldn’t do it in period, and I didn’t really want to. And one thing I found is that people assume it was from their period. So, I heard of someone from the ’50s, it would dip right in the ’50s. It was sort of either before or after the Hippie-drug era, because things looked very different then, with their very long hair. So, we were shooting it in ‘88, ‘89. And we tried to, as much as we could, not put in new things. And we got kind of lucky because a lot of the things we photographed had been around in the ’60s and ’70s, and then disappeared, like the Bacharach studio, like the old Scribner’s Bookstore - I think it was actually a Brentano’s when we shot it, but then it became, I think, a Sephora or something like that. And so, there were a lot of sort of New York landmarks we were able to memorialize before they disappeared. I think, there is sort of an emotional realism and human realism that’s very important, but the small things about like what year car is in the shot, I don’t really care about. Karina: Right. The thing I read that placed it in the 60s was a long consideration of Metropolitan and Last Days of Disco, saying that as a filmmaker, it’s your mission to telegraph a conservative agenda. Whit: Oh, no. Karina: [laughs] You can correct me if I’m wrong on this, but people have suggested that all of Chris Eigeman’s characters are basically alter egos for you. But even if he’s sort of espousing what would be considered traditional conservative morals or politics, he also gets deflated in a lot of ways. So, I would never see it as a pure, moral agenda or argument. But, I don’t know…do you feel uncomfortable with the suggestion that it is? Whit: I feel very uncomfortable, because I really resent reviews that try to force you to take a stand one way or another. I really resent that kind of filmmaking. I want people to be able to come with their own point of view and leave with their own point of view. And I’d hope it’ll be open enough so that they’ll have an experience while they’re there, and I really don’t want to stack the deck in one way or another. And I don’t feel closer to the Nick character at all in Metropolitan, I would identify much more with Taylor Nichols, the Charlie character or the Tom Townsend character. That was much more autobiographical. The Nick character was sort of the funny guy in the room, who would influence us and we’d laugh and be amazed by him, but he wouldn’t be me. As soon as you write characters, something must be coming out there, and then your life sort of follows the pattern of the character you wrote, and it all goes back and forth. But, I felt closer to those other two characters. Karina: Are you still living in Paris? Whit: I’ve shifted a bit to Madrid. I had a period when I really didn’t know where I was living because it was so divided between Paris, London, Madrid, and the States, and then with the trips to Jamaica. So, I really felt completely “not living anywhere, living everywhere.” And I think, I’ll be in Madrid through the end of the year, and then I hope we’ll be doing the Jamaican film. Karina: I wonder how involved you are in some of these issues that are going on with American independent film right now - the fact that all of the indie arms are kind of closing down, and all of the debates about the future of financing and distribution. Do you pay attention to this stuff? Whit: I really do pay attention to it, because I’m in the thick of it and I feel I’m suffering from it a bit, because I don’t really understand why the Jamaican film didn’t get financing three years ago. I mean, I’m happy with the changes to the script I’ve made, but I think we could have made a very good film and a popular film with the script we had two years ago. It’s a very strange situation. And I didn’t understand it all, because the other films did pretty well, and this one, I think, will do much better, and I just think it’s a huge business opportunity for the person who does it. Karina: Were you in a situation where you had money set up and then it disappeared? Whit: No, not really. I don’t have a producing partner. And recently, I’ve had the good fortune to sign up with Jeremy Thomas, the British producer, to do the Jamaican film, to do Dancing Mood. The Recorded Picture Company has been a prodigious producer. And so I have the advantage now of working with a really good company. My feeling about the independent business is, for one thing, it’s cyclical. And we’re at the low end of the cycle, but I think it’ll go back up. And I think it’s actually very good to launch a project at the low end of the cycle, if you can launch it. And I think that, often, when things are bad, the way I like to look at it to make it seem better is that bad situations are just business opportunities. And there’s just a huge opportunity now to make good independent films and have them successfully released, ultimately, because there’s no easy money now, and everyone, I think, is going to be in a much tighter, more serious game. And I think that the person or the company that steps up to finance our film is going to do very well with it. And I think, the other films were kind of anti-popular in their subject matter. It was off-footing to people. Karina: That was actually something I wanted to ask you about, because Metropolitan came out of the same early-’90s, film festival world as the Kevin Smiths and the Quentin Tarantinos, who were so much more obviously talking about the kinds of people who consume disposable pop culture. Do you ever sort of feel like you got maybe a short shrift, in terms of what kind or size of audience you were able to reach, because you weren’t necessarily talking about a popular audience? Whit: Well, I don’t feel that competitively with other people. But, I’m aware of the fact that, sociologically, the subject matter of our films were unpopular, or anti-popular. And so, to attract a big audience to a sympathetic film about debutantes or a sympathetic film about yuppies being obnoxious Americans in Barcelona or about people getting into discos, there’d be a lot of resistance to identification with those characters. They’re not underdog characters, particularly. In Metropolitan, there was an underdog character, in Tom Townsend, that I think made it accessible to people, initially. And in certain ways, once they got into the cinemas, they’d stay if they came. But then, he really wasn’t the hero in his point of view and what he does. And so, I think that there’s a commercial challenge for those three films. And that’s why I’m a bit frustrated now that the Jamaican film hasn’t immediately attracted financing, because I think this is my chance to make a film about people who really are sympathetic, and sympathetic every which way. But, because you’re doing something that’s a different subject matter, people think, “Oh, why are you doing this different subject matter?” But, I think, what’s important is what is sort of within the character, what’s in their hearts, and the treatment of the film, the approach to the material. And I think, when people talk about a lot of films, they focus too much on what the subject of the film is. And I’m interested sort of in the journeys of young people, what groups of young people can do and how they resolve their problems in their lives, wherever they are. And I often get the question: “Well, have you lived in Jamaica that much?” And I haven’t lived in Jamaica that much, but I’ve spent much more time in Jamaica than I did in debutante parties. And I had a huge advantage. I mean, it was very hard to get Metropolitan distributed. It was just nothing but rejection. And as I think about “the market will speak” or something like that, 50 years ago, the only way someone like Preston Sturges got a chance to make films was there was a good film executive at Paramount, Bill LeBaron, who was a former writer-playwright and very sensitive guy, who gave him his chance, and he was able to make those films. If there hadn’t been a William LeBaron, we probably wouldn’t have seen any Preston Sturges films. And my experience was the same. Metropolitan wouldn’t have seen the light of day if it hadn’t been for maybe five people. And if each one of those five people hadn’t contributed, it never would have been seen anywhere. Karina: From my point of view, it seems like there still is the possibility for the right person to support the right independent artist and have a film get seen. But, I mean, that level of success that you reached, with spending so little money on the film and then getting the Oscar nomination, is something that most filmmakers who are making their first film today just can’t even hope for. Whit: Oh, gosh. I hope they could still hope for that. It is exciting, these breakout films. I remember being in Spain when Clerks came out there. There was just so much interest in talking about it. There was a period when low-budget, independent American films were getting wonderful reception abroad. I think that would continue or come back. I felt very much in the path of other people. In those days, you had the Samuel Goldwyn Company as an active player. I hope they come back because there are not that many companies who are good at putting across small comedies. We really need these players. So, for us, with Metropolitan, Sara Richter and Bob Shaye at New Line were really important. As much as they are inactive, that hurts people in our situation. But, I think, Sara is continuing and Bob is going back. Karina: I was reading the diary that you wrote for Slate when Last Days of Disco came out… Whit: [laughs] That is some real digging. Karina: Well, there is a lot of interesting stuff in it. But, you said something about how you were getting kicked out of your apartment and that the only things that you owned were the films’ negatives and copyrights, except you weren’t so sure that Warner Bros agreed with you on that. Whit: Yeah. Karina: Does that have anything to do with why there is no Last Days of Disco DVD in print? Whit: Yes. Last Days of Disco - there should be a Criterion edition. But, that contract has not been - I think Criterion is negotiating with one of the studios to bring it out. But, those negotiations are taking a very long time. It is available in a cheap edition if people can play Region Two. It’s great what you can find on the Internet––here is a DVD review out of England of the French edition of Last Days of Disco. But, you can only find it if you go to Amazon.fr and put in the French title, which is Les Derniers Jours du Disco. If you put in “The Last Days of Disco” at Amazon.fr, they just give you the US edition with the US price, which is astronomical. If you get the French edition, it essentially is the film. You can just turn off the French subtitles––unless you want to watch the French dubbed version. I think, it is $20 or something. Karina: Well, that is good news. Are the music rights one of the issues there? Whit: No, there are no rights at all. It is just that the film was owned. Castle Rock was then having the film financed by PolyGram and Warner and either PolyGram would take international or North America. Warner would take the other one. In our case, Warner took international and PolyGram took domestic. So, it went out through Gramercy. Then, when PolyGram went down, the rights… It was issued by PolyGram video right away. Then, they had some problem with their licenses. It was going from laserdisc to DVD. It came out on DVD, I guess in a small edition in ‘99 I believe, through PolyGram Video. A studio has the rights now, I think it is Universal. But, maybe it has been shifted over to MGM or something or Sony. So, it has been in an enormous film library, where they have tons of films to exploit. It has not been a priority perhaps because it’s a split rights thing, where it is not all their money. So, now theoretically Criterion is trying to license it and it will come out on a good Criterion edition. Karina: Well, that will be really exciting for all of us who have been looking forward to that for a while. It seems like it’s the one of your films that people haven’t seen as much. Whit: Yeah. It was very tough, the way it was released. We were very fortunate in our releases with Metropolitan and Barcelona. And we were very unlucky with the timing of Last Days of Disco in the States. It just came out at the worst imaginable time. Karina: Because of the 54 movie? Whit: Well, it’s because of the 54 movie in the sense that there was a feeling of rushing it out. I think Russell Schwartz at Gramercy had a better idea of bringing it out in early May. I thought certain work needed to be done to set the stage. So, I pushed for a delay of two or three weeks. It was just a disaster. I shouldn’t have done that. We just were run over by… Normally, if you are an independent film coming out against be big studio blockbusters, you are the ‘good’ kind of programming. Normally, [your competition] are just sort of stupid action movies or ’shoot-them-ups’ or whatever. But, in our case, the big summer movies were also critical favorites and Oscar favorites. So, we came out against Truman Show, Saving Private Ryan, The independent films were also very strong - The Opposite of Sex, Henry Fool. There were just so many things just at the same time. Even the Soderbergh film, I think, it was Out of Sight? Karina: Yeah. Whit: Everything that came out was not only a good film, but a critical favorite. I don’t think Gramercy had a lot of money then. They were essentially closing down. We just got run over. I mean, it initially did well. We had great weekends in the cities. But, we were steamrolled. Karina: Were there higher expectations because of the higher profile actors? Whit: I don’t know. I guess so. Karina: Because it’s not like it completely bombed. Whit: No. I know a lot of people think it was a big success. People who were just in cities thought it was successful in its release, too. I could see what a difference it makes when you get lucky with your release pattern. I mean, when you compare it with Barcelona and Metropolitan, Metropolitan came out the first weekend in August. It was just a wonderful time to come out. We got a lot of good attention. Barcelona was the last weekend in July. So, that had always been a great time for us. I think, the fact that Castle Rock really wanted to beat 54 out, pushed us earlier and then right into the maelstrom. Karina: How much of contemporary independent film do you see? Are you going to festivals? Whit: I don’t know how much I see. I try to see things that I think won’t shock or depressed me. I’m very pleased with some of the stuff I catch. I really like, when I get back to the States, being able to see things on the movie channels and catch up with stuff from the last five or 10 years. Karina: Have you seeing anything lately that you think was really great? Whit: I think, I definitely have, but as soon as I am in the throes of writing a script, I don’t go out to movies that much. Karina: So, I imagine that you are not seeing summer blockbusters either. Whit: No. I mean, we have a really good cinema here in Millerton, New York. Often going to the cinema has been a good part of summer. Some of the films I know are probably pretty good. and I think I will catch up with them one way or another. The other ones are just so off-putting. Seeing the trailers puts me off many more films than makes me want to see, seeing their trailers. I’m not sure if they are just badly cut or if the films are worth avoiding. I like a lot of things. I liked Sex in the City. Is it Sex in the City or Sex and the City? I think it is Sex and the City. I thought that was a pretty good job for what they had to do. It was better than I expected. I enjoyed it. And that was shot by the cinematographer who did our films, John Thomas. Karina: As far as catching up with films later, it leads to the question of putting the movie on Hulu. Are you in the practice of watching movies on the Web or looking at YouTube or anything? Whit: I look at YouTube and short things that people send me. I haven’t looked at anything really long form. I think, I caught up with some TV shows that people had bought from iTunes, TV shows that I wanted to catch up with. Karina: What do you think about the idea of showing films online, especially with your film going into that realm right now? Do you think it is an ideal situation? Whit: Well, I much prefer it being done legally than illegally. And I think, it’s good that things be made easily available for people legally so there is less temptation for it all to be illegal. I like suiting people’s schedules and their convenience as much as possible. I like all the old windows too, all the pattern of distribution. I hope that is conserved because I like being in theaters and being available on DVD and pay-TV and basic TV and different forms. So, I like all that. Sometimes the best way to catch a film is just to tune in without being aware of what is on, to a commercial-free movie channel and have a movie on, maybe something that you had written off or didn’t think that you would have liked and enjoying it. And if you don’t catch the beginning when you first see it, being able to go back and see the beginning the next time it’s on. I love being taken unawares by a good film. Karina: Yeah, that’s actually probably how I first watched your first two films, is catching them on IFC and then waiting for them to come on again so I could see the part that I had missed. Whit: It couldn’t have been IFC. It must have been one of the Sundance or the Showtime channels. We had an odd situation because one of the people who made Metropolitan possible was Lindsay Law when he was buying for American Playhouse. I had been very disappointed he hadn’t bought one of my Spanish American independent films. He walked out of that screening without liking it. But, he came to a screening of Metropolitan when we were in pretty desperate straits. He really liked it and he bought it. He allowed us to take the deposit money out of escrow to pay DuArt Laboratories. So, thanks to that money, we were able to take it to Sundance. Then, we had a very quick window on PBS. A lot of people saw it on PBS. That was great because I guess we were able to have a video release. We were in cinemas for a long time. I think that one of the reasons why we were able to get a nomination without a campaign for it was that in those days you could run for a long time on screen. We were on screen in New York for seven months, which is fantastic. Karina: Yeah, and very unlikely now. Whit: Yeah. So, yes, I would like a new way for people to see things easily. But, I hope the old ways will continue too. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 03:01:26 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog8/13/2008 11:01:26 PM In the liner notes to the Criterion edition of writer/director Whit Stillman’s debut film, Metropolitan, cultural critic/historian Luc Sante notes that the picture, “which looked like a perverse bit of daring in 1990, today seems like an artifact from an earlier century.” Sante is likely referring to the debutante culture in which the film is set, but the story of how the movie itself not only found an audience but rose to classic teen movie status among a certain class seems equally antiquated in this age of indie film Chicken Littles. Made for a reported $250,000, starring a full cast of young unknowns, and consisting primarily of one long scene after another of rich kids sitting in a palatial Upper East Side apartment discussing Jane Austen, Charles Fourier, their mostly unfashionable morals and fears of failure, all the while dressed in evening clothes, Metropolitan played in theaters for seven months, eventually grossing $3 million and earning Stilman an Oscar nomination (he lost to the screenwriter of Ghost). But if Metropolitan traveled a commercial road that seems nearly unnavigable today, the film itself has perhaps never been as in tune with popular culture. From Best Week Ever pundits to big-traffic bloggers, it’s become the standard mode of digesting the world around us to stand outside of it, employing caustic, self-deprecating humor as a defensive mechanism. It’s like we’re all Chris Eigeman characters from a Whit Stillman film––except, in some cases, stripped of the anxieties of old-money entitlement. With Metropolitan premiering tonight on Hulu, I chatted with Whit about his films, the state of the indie film industry, his alleged political agenda, the state of the Last Days of Disco DVD, the project he’s getting ready to shoot, and why it’s taken ten years for him to make a fourth film. —— Karina: I want to get the inevitable elephant out of the room, which is of course the “What have you been doing for 10 years?” question. The most recent stories that I can find about projects that you have in the works were the Jamaica project, and then Little Green Men [based on the novel by Christopher Buckley]. Are either of those still happening? Whit: Yes, they’re both happening, and I’ve been writing on both. And that’s what I’ve been doing: I’ve been writing scripts. And so, in addition to those scripts, I’ve written a number of other things. But, I think, the one that is set to go, as soon as the financing falls into place, is the Jamaica project, which is now called Dancing Mood. The characters are black Jamaicans in Kingston in the early ’60s. Karina: Your previous films were so autobiographical. Is this one, in any sense? Whit: I take the Fifth Amendment. I think, when I write things, usually there’s some autobiographical stuff that comes out, but in each case, it’s pretty fictional, too. Karina: I actually watched Metropolitan last night, and of course, it starts with the “Not so long ago” title. But, I read something saying that it has to take place in the mid-to-late ’60s because the sexual revolution would have come along and swept away deb culture and the moralities and the formalities that are associated with it. But, I always thought it took place a little bit later. Whit: We couldn’t really do period. And the idea was, pretty much, to stick with what we said in the movie, which was “Not so long ago.” And anyone can interpret that as they want it. And my own experience is I snuck into a couple of parties with my sisters at the end of the ’60s, and I became a convert to it. So, I kept going in the ’70s. So, my memories were from that period: the end of the ’60s and the ’70s. But, I couldn’t do it in period, and I didn’t really want to. And one thing I found is that people assume it was from their period. So, I heard of someone from the ’50s, it would dip right in the ’50s. It was sort of either before or after the Hippie-drug era, because things looked very different then, with their very long hair. So, we were shooting it in ‘88, ‘89. And we tried to, as much as we could, not put in new things. And we got kind of lucky because a lot of the things we photographed had been around in the ’60s and ’70s, and then disappeared, like the Bacharach studio, like the old Scribner’s Bookstore - I think it was actually a Brentano’s when we shot it, but then it became, I think, a Sephora or something like that. And so, there were a lot of sort of New York landmarks we were able to memorialize before they disappeared. I think, there is sort of an emotional realism and human realism that’s very important, but the small things about like what year car is in the shot, I don’t really care about. Karina: Right. The thing I read that placed it in the 60s was a long consideration of Metropolitan and Last Days of Disco, saying that as a filmmaker, it’s your mission to telegraph a conservative agenda. Whit: Oh, no. Karina: [laughs] You can correct me if I’m wrong on this, but people have suggested that all of Chris Eigeman’s characters are basically alter egos for you. But even if he’s sort of espousing what would be considered traditional conservative morals or politics, he also gets deflated in a lot of ways. So, I would never see it as a pure, moral agenda or argument. But, I don’t know…do you feel uncomfortable with the suggestion that it is? Whit: I feel very uncomfortable, because I really resent reviews that try to force you to take a stand one way or another. I really resent that kind of filmmaking. I want people to be able to come with their own point of view and leave with their own point of view. And I’d hope it’ll be open enough so that they’ll have an experience while they’re there, and I really don’t want to stack the deck in one way or another. And I don’t feel closer to the Nick character at all in Metropolitan, I would identify much more with Taylor Nichols, the Charlie character or the Tom Townsend character. That was much more autobiographical. The Nick character was sort of the funny guy in the room, who would influence us and we’d laugh and be amazed by him, but he wouldn’t be me. As soon as you write characters, something must be coming out there, and then your life sort of follows the pattern of the character you wrote, and it all goes back and forth. But, I felt closer to those other two characters. Karina: Are you still living in Paris? Whit: I’ve shifted a bit to Madrid. I had a period when I really didn’t know where I was living because it was so divided between Paris, London, Madrid, and the States, and then with the trips to Jamaica. So, I really felt completely “not living anywhere, living everywhere.” And I think, I’ll be in Madrid through the end of the year, and then I hope we’ll be doing the Jamaican film. Karina: I wonder how involved you are in some of these issues that are going on with American independent film right now - the fact that all of the indie arms are kind of closing down, and all of the debates about the future of financing and distribution. Do you pay attention to this stuff? Whit: I really do pay attention to it, because I’m in the thick of it and I feel I’m suffering from it a bit, because I don’t really understand why the Jamaican film didn’t get financing three years ago. I mean, I’m happy with the changes to the script I’ve made, but I think we could have made a very good film and a popular film with the script we had two years ago. It’s a very strange situation. And I didn’t understand it all, because the other films did pretty well, and this one, I think, will do much better, and I just think it’s a huge business opportunity for the person who does it. Karina: Were you in a situation where you had money set up and then it disappeared? Whit: No, not really. I don’t have a producing partner. And recently, I’ve had the good fortune to sign up with Jeremy Thomas, the British producer, to do the Jamaican film, to do Dancing Mood. The Recorded Picture Company has been a prodigious producer. And so I have the advantage now of working with a really good company. My feeling about the independent business is, for one thing, it’s cyclical. And we’re at the low end of the cycle, but I think it’ll go back up. And I think it’s actually very good to launch a project at the low end of the cycle, if you can launch it. And I think that, often, when things are bad, the way I like to look at it to make it seem better is that bad situations are just business opportunities. And there’s just a huge opportunity now to make good independent films and have them successfully released, ultimately, because there’s no easy money now, and everyone, I think, is going to be in a much tighter, more serious game. And I think that the person or the company that steps up to finance our film is going to do very well with it. And I think, the other films were kind of anti-popular in their subject matter. It was off-footing to people. Karina: That was actually something I wanted to ask you about, because Metropolitan came out of the same early-’90s, film festival world as the Kevin Smiths and the Quentin Tarantinos, who were so much more obviously talking about the kinds of people who consume disposable pop culture. Do you ever sort of feel like you got maybe a short shrift, in terms of what kind or size of audience you were able to reach, because you weren’t necessarily talking about a popular audience? Whit: Well, I don’t feel that competitively with other people. But, I’m aware of the fact that, sociologically, the subject matter of our films were unpopular, or anti-popular. And so, to attract a big audience to a sympathetic film about debutantes or a sympathetic film about yuppies being obnoxious Americans in Barcelona or about people getting into discos, there’d be a lot of resistance to identification with those characters. They’re not underdog characters, particularly. In Metropolitan, there was an underdog character, in Tom Townsend, that I think made it accessible to people, initially. And in certain ways, once they got into the cinemas, they’d stay if they came. But then, he really wasn’t the hero in his point of view and what he does. And so, I think that there’s a commercial challenge for those three films. And that’s why I’m a bit frustrated now that the Jamaican film hasn’t immediately attracted financing, because I think this is my chance to make a film about people who really are sympathetic, and sympathetic every which way. But, because you’re doing something that’s a different subject matter, people think, “Oh, why are you doing this different subject matter?” But, I think, what’s important is what is sort of within the character, what’s in their hearts, and the treatment of the film, the approach to the material. And I think, when people talk about a lot of films, they focus too much on what the subject of the film is. And I’m interested sort of in the journeys of young people, what groups of young people can do and how they resolve their problems in their lives, wherever they are. And I often get the question: “Well, have you lived in Jamaica that much?” And I haven’t lived in Jamaica that much, but I’ve spent much more time in Jamaica than I did in debutante parties. And I had a huge advantage. I mean, it was very hard to get Metropolitan distributed. It was just nothing but rejection. And as I think about “the market will speak” or something like that, 50 years ago, the only way someone like Preston Sturges got a chance to make films was there was a good film executive at Paramount, Bill LeBaron, who was a former writer-playwright and very sensitive guy, who gave him his chance, and he was able to make those films. If there hadn’t been a William LeBaron, we probably wouldn’t have seen any Preston Sturges films. And my experience was the same. Metropolitan wouldn’t have seen the light of day if it hadn’t been for maybe five people. And if each one of those five people hadn’t contributed, it never would have been seen anywhere. Karina: From my point of view, it seems like there still is the possibility for the right person to support the right independent artist and have a film get seen. But, I mean, that level of success that you reached, with spending so little money on the film and then getting the Oscar nomination, is something that most filmmakers who are making their first film today just can’t even hope for. Whit: Oh, gosh. I hope they could still hope for that. It is exciting, these breakout films. I remember being in Spain when Clerks came out there. There was just so much interest in talking about it. There was a period when low-budget, independent American films were getting wonderful reception abroad. I think that would continue or come back. I felt very much in the path of other people. In those days, you had the Samuel Goldwyn Company as an active player. I hope they come back because there are not that many companies who are good at putting across small comedies. We really need these players. So, for us, with Metropolitan, Sara Richter and Bob Shaye at New Line were really important. As much as they are inactive, that hurts people in our situation. But, I think, Sara is continuing and Bob is going back. Karina: I was reading the diary that you wrote for Slate when Last Days of Disco came out… Whit: [laughs] That is some real digging. Karina: Well, there is a lot of interesting stuff in it. But, you said something about how you were getting kicked out of your apartment and that the only things that you owned were the films’ negatives and copyrights, except you weren’t so sure that Warner Bros agreed with you on that. Whit: Yeah. Karina: Does that have anything to do with why there is no Last Days of Disco DVD in print? Whit: Yes. Last Days of Disco - there should be a Criterion edition. But, that contract has not been - I think Criterion is negotiating with one of the studios to bring it out. But, those negotiations are taking a very long time. It is available in a cheap edition if people can play Region Two. It’s great what you can find on the Internet––here is a DVD review out of England of the French edition of Last Days of Disco. But, you can only find it if you go to Amazon.fr and put in the French title, which is Les Derniers Jours du Disco. If you put in “The Last Days of Disco” at Amazon.fr, they just give you the US edition with the US price, which is astronomical. If you get the French edition, it essentially is the film. You can just turn off the French subtitles––unless you want to watch the French dubbed version. I think, it is $20 or something. Karina: Well, that is good news. Are the music rights one of the issues there? Whit: No, there are no rights at all. It is just that the film was owned. Castle Rock was then having the film financed by PolyGram and Warner and either PolyGram would take international or North America. Warner would take the other one. In our case, Warner took international and PolyGram took domestic. So, it went out through Gramercy. Then, when PolyGram went down, the rights… It was issued by PolyGram video right away. Then, they had some problem with their licenses. It was going from laserdisc to DVD. It came out on DVD, I guess in a small edition in ‘99 I believe, through PolyGram Video. A studio has the rights now, I think it is Universal. But, maybe it has been shifted over to MGM or something or Sony. So, it has been in an enormous film library, where they have tons of films to exploit. It has not been a priority perhaps because it’s a split rights thing, where it is not all their money. So, now theoretically Criterion is trying to license it and it will come out on a good Criterion edition. Karina: Well, that will be really exciting for all of us who have been looking forward to that for a while. It seems like it’s the one of your films that people haven’t seen as much. Whit: Yeah. It was very tough, the way it was released. We were very fortunate in our releases with Metropolitan and Barcelona. And we were very unlucky with the timing of Last Days of Disco in the States. It just came out at the worst imaginable time. Karina: Because of the 54 movie? Whit: Well, it’s because of the 54 movie in the sense that there was a feeling of rushing it out. I think Russell Schwartz at Gramercy had a better idea of bringing it out in early May. I thought certain work needed to be done to set the stage. So, I pushed for a delay of two or three weeks. It was just a disaster. I shouldn’t have done that. We just were run over by… Normally, if you are an independent film coming out against be big studio blockbusters, you are the ‘good’ kind of programming. Normally, [your competition] are just sort of stupid action movies or ’shoot-them-ups’ or whatever. But, in our case, the big summer movies were also critical favorites and Oscar favorites. So, we came out against Truman Show, Saving Private Ryan, The independent films were also very strong - The Opposite of Sex, Henry Fool. There were just so many things just at the same time. Even the Soderbergh film, I think, it was Out of Sight? Karina: Yeah. Whit: Everything that came out was not only a good film, but a critical favorite. I don’t think Gramercy had a lot of money then. They were essentially closing down. We just got run over. I mean, it initially did well. We had great weekends in the cities. But, we were steamrolled. Karina: Were there higher expectations because of the higher profile actors? Whit: I don’t know. I guess so. Karina: Because it’s not like it completely bombed. Whit: No. I know a lot of people think it was a big success. People who were just in cities thought it was successful in its release, too. I could see what a difference it makes when you get lucky with your release pattern. I mean, when you compare it with Barcelona and Metropolitan, Metropolitan came out the first weekend in August. It was just a wonderful time to come out. We got a lot of good attention. Barcelona was the last weekend in July. So, that had always been a great time for us. I think, the fact that Castle Rock really wanted to beat 54 out, pushed us earlier and then right into the maelstrom. Karina: How much of contemporary independent film do you see? Are you going to festivals? Whit: I don’t know how much I see. I try to see things that I think won’t shock or depressed me. I’m very pleased with some of the stuff I catch. I really like, when I get back to the States, being able to see things on the movie channels and catch up with stuff from the last five or 10 years. Karina: Have you seeing anything lately that you think was really great? Whit: I think, I definitely have, but as soon as I am in the throes of writing a script, I don’t go out to movies that much. Karina: So, I imagine that you are not seeing summer blockbusters either. Whit: No. I mean, we have a really good cinema here in Millerton, New York. Often going to the cinema has been a good part of summer. Some of the films I know are probably pretty good. and I think I will catch up with them one way or another. The other ones are just so off-putting. Seeing the trailers puts me off many more films than makes me want to see, seeing their trailers. I’m not sure if they are just badly cut or if the films are worth avoiding. I like a lot of things. I liked Sex in the City. Is it Sex in the City or Sex and the City? I think it is Sex and the City. I thought that was a pretty good job for what they had to do. It was better than I expected. I enjoyed it. And that was shot by the cinematographer who did our films, John Thomas. Karina: As far as catching up with films later, it leads to the question of putting the movie on Hulu. Are you in the practice of watching movies on the Web or looking at YouTube or anything? Whit: I look at YouTube and short things that people send me. I haven’t looked at anything really long form. I think, I caught up with some TV shows that people had bought from iTunes, TV shows that I wanted to catch up with. Karina: What do you think about the idea of showing films online, especially with your film going into that realm right now? Do you think it is an ideal situation? Whit: Well, I much prefer it being done legally than illegally. And I think, it’s good that things be made easily available for people legally so there is less temptation for it all to be illegal. I like suiting people’s schedules and their convenience as much as possible. I like all the old windows too, all the pattern of distribution. I hope that is conserved because I like being in theaters and being available on DVD and pay-TV and basic TV and different forms. So, I like all that. Sometimes the best way to catch a film is just to tune in without being aware of what is on, to a commercial-free movie channel and have a movie on, maybe something that you had written off or didn’t think that you would have liked and enjoying it. And if you don’t catch the beginning when you first see it, being able to go back and see the beginning the next time it’s on. I love being taken unawares by a good film. Karina: Yeah, that’s actually probably how I first watched your first two films, is catching them on IFC and then waiting for them to come on again so I could see the part that I had missed. Whit: It couldn’t have been IFC. It must have been one of the Sundance or the Showtime channels. We had an odd situation because one of the people who made Metropolitan possible was Lindsay Law when he was buying for American Playhouse. I had been very disappointed he hadn’t bought one of my Spanish American independent films. He walked out of that screening without liking it. But, he came to a screening of Metropolitan when we were in pretty desperate straits. He really liked it and he bought it. He allowed us to take the deposit money out of escrow to pay DuArt Laboratories. So, thanks to that money, we were able to take it to Sundance. Then, we had a very quick window on PBS. A lot of people saw it on PBS. That was great because I guess we were able to have a video release. We were in cinemas for a long time. I think that one of the reasons why we were able to get a nomination without a campaign for it was that in those days you could run for a long time on screen. We were on screen in New York for seven months, which is fantastic. Karina: Yeah, and very unlikely now. Whit: Yeah. So, yes, I would like a new way for people to see things easily. But, I hope the old ways will continue too. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/8/13/33986.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/13/2008 11:01:17 PM
Body: In the liner notes to the Criterion edition of writer/director Whit Stillman’s debut film, Metropolitan, cultural critic/historian Luc Sante notes that the picture, “which looked like a perverse bit of daring in 1990, today seems like an artifact from an earlier century.” Sante is likely referring to the debutante culture in which the film is set, but the story of how the movie itself not only found an audience but rose to classic teen movie status among a certain class seems equally antiquated in this age of indie film Chicken Littles. Made for a reported $250,000, starring a full cast of young unknowns, and consisting primarily of one long scene after another of rich kids sitting in a palatial Upper East Side apartment discussing Jane Austen, Charles Fourier, their mostly unfashionable morals and fears of failure, all the while dressed in evening clothes, Metropolitan played in theaters for seven months, eventually grossing $3 million and earning Stilman an Oscar nomination (he lost to the screenwriter of Ghost). But if Metropolitan traveled a commercial road that seems nearly unnavigable today, the film itself has perhaps never been as in tune with popular culture. From Best Week Ever pundits to big-traffic bloggers, it’s become the standard mode of digesting the world around us to stand outside of it, employing caustic, self-deprecating humor as a defensive mechanism. It’s like we’re all Chris Eigeman characters from a Whit Stillman film––except, in some cases, stripped of the anxieties of old-money entitlement. With Metropolitan premiering tonight on Hulu, I chatted with Whit about his films, the state of the indie film industry, his alleged political agenda, the state of the Last Days of Disco DVD, the project he’s getting ready to shoot, and why it’s taken ten years for him to make a fourth film. —— Karina: I want to get the inevitable elephant out of the room, which is of course the “What have you been doing for 10 years?” question. The most recent stories that I can find about projects that you have in the works were the Jamaica project, and then Little Green Men [based on the novel by Christopher Buckley]. Are either of those still happening? Whit: Yes, they’re both happening, and I’ve been writing on both. And that’s what I’ve been doing: I’ve been writing scripts. And so, in addition to those scripts, I’ve written a number of other things. But, I think, the one that is set to go, as soon as the financing falls into place, is the Jamaica project, which is now called Dancing Mood. The characters are black Jamaicans in Kingston in the early ’60s. Karina: Your previous films were so autobiographical. Is this one, in any sense? Whit: I take the Fifth Amendment. I think, when I write things, usually there’s some autobiographical stuff that comes out, but in each case, it’s pretty fictional, too. Karina: I actually watched Metropolitan last night, and of course, it starts with the “Not so long ago” title. But, I read something saying that it has to take place in the mid-to-late ’60s because the sexual revolution would have come along and swept away deb culture and the moralities and the formalities that are associated with it. But, I always thought it took place a little bit later. Whit: We couldn’t really do period. And the idea was, pretty much, to stick with what we said in the movie, which was “Not so long ago.” And anyone can interpret that as they want it. And my own experience is I snuck into a couple of parties with my sisters at the end of the ’60s, and I became a convert to it. So, I kept going in the ’70s. So, my memories were from that period: the end of the ’60s and the ’70s. But, I couldn’t do it in period, and I didn’t really want to. And one thing I found is that people assume it was from their period. So, I heard of someone from the ’50s, it would dip right in the ’50s. It was sort of either before or after the Hippie-drug era, because things looked very different then, with their very long hair. So, we were shooting it in ‘88, ‘89. And we tried to, as much as we could, not put in new things. And we got kind of lucky because a lot of the things we photographed had been around in the ’60s and ’70s, and then disappeared, like the Bacharach studio, like the old Scribner’s Bookstore - I think it was actually a Brentano’s when we shot it, but then it became, I think, a Sephora or something like that. And so, there were a lot of sort of New York landmarks we were able to memorialize before they disappeared. I think, there is sort of an emotional realism and human realism that’s very important, but the small things about like what year car is in the shot, I don’t really care about. Karina: Right. The thing I read that placed it in the 60s was a long consideration of Metropolitan and Last Days of Disco, saying that as a filmmaker, it’s your mission to telegraph a conservative agenda. Whit: Oh, no. Karina: [laughs] You can correct me if I’m wrong on this, but people have suggested that all of Chris Eigeman’s characters are basically alter egos for you. But even if he’s sort of espousing what would be considered traditional conservative morals or politics, he also gets deflated in a lot of ways. So, I would never see it as a pure, moral agenda or argument. But, I don’t know…do you feel uncomfortable with the suggestion that it is? Whit: I feel very uncomfortable, because I really resent reviews that try to force you to take a stand one way or another. I really resent that kind of filmmaking. I want people to be able to come with their own point of view and leave with their own point of view. And I’d hope it’ll be open enough so that they’ll have an experience while they’re there, and I really don’t want to stack the deck in one way or another. And I don’t feel closer to the Nick character at all in Metropolitan, I would identify much more with Taylor Nichols, the Charlie character or the Tom Townsend character. That was much more autobiographical. The Nick character was sort of the funny guy in the room, who would influence us and we’d laugh and be amazed by him, but he wouldn’t be me. As soon as you write characters, something must be coming out there, and then your life sort of follows the pattern of the character you wrote, and it all goes back and forth. But, I felt closer to those other two characters. Karina: Are you still living in Paris? Whit: I’ve shifted a bit to Madrid. I had a period when I really didn’t know where I was living because it was so divided between Paris, London, Madrid, and the States, and then with the trips to Jamaica. So, I really felt completely “not living anywhere, living everywhere.” And I think, I’ll be in Madrid through the end of the year, and then I hope we’ll be doing the Jamaican film. Karina: I wonder how involved you are in some of these issues that are going on with American independent film right now - the fact that all of the indie arms are kind of closing down, and all of the debates about the future of financing and distribution. Do you pay attention to this stuff? Whit: I really do pay attention to it, because I’m in the thick of it and I feel I’m suffering from it a bit, because I don’t really understand why the Jamaican film didn’t get financing three years ago. I mean, I’m happy with the changes to the script I’ve made, but I think we could have made a very good film and a popular film with the script we had two years ago. It’s a very strange situation. And I didn’t understand it all, because the other films did pretty well, and this one, I think, will do much better, and I just think it’s a huge business opportunity for the person who does it. Karina: Were you in a situation where you had money set up and then it disappeared? Whit: No, not really. I don’t have a producing partner. And recently, I’ve had the good fortune to sign up with Jeremy Thomas, the British producer, to do the Jamaican film, to do Dancing Mood. The Recorded Picture Company has been a prodigious producer. And so I have the advantage now of working with a really good company. My feeling about the independent business is, for one thing, it’s cyclical. And we’re at the low end of the cycle, but I think it’ll go back up. And I think it’s actually very good to launch a project at the low end of the cycle, if you can launch it. And I think that, often, when things are bad, the way I like to look at it to make it seem better is that bad situations are just business opportunities. And there’s just a huge opportunity now to make good independent films and have them successfully released, ultimately, because there’s no easy money now, and everyone, I think, is going to be in a much tighter, more serious game. And I think that the person or the company that steps up to finance our film is going to do very well with it. And I think, the other films were kind of anti-popular in their subject matter. It was off-footing to people. Karina: That was actually something I wanted to ask you about, because Metropolitan came out of the same early-’90s, film festival world as the Kevin Smiths and the Quentin Tarantinos, who were so much more obviously talking about the kinds of people who consume disposable pop culture. Do you ever sort of feel like you got maybe a short shrift, in terms of what kind or size of audience you were able to reach, because you weren’t necessarily talking about a popular audience? Whit: Well, I don’t feel that competitively with other people. But, I’m aware of the fact that, sociologically, the subject matter of our films were unpopular, or anti-popular. And so, to attract a big audience to a sympathetic film about debutantes or a sympathetic film about yuppies being obnoxious Americans in Barcelona or about people getting into discos, there’d be a lot of resistance to identification with those characters. They’re not underdog characters, particularly. In Metropolitan, there was an underdog character, in Tom Townsend, that I think made it accessible to people, initially. And in certain ways, once they got into the cinemas, they’d stay if they came. But then, he really wasn’t the hero in his point of view and what he does. And so, I think that there’s a commercial challenge for those three films. And that’s why I’m a bit frustrated now that the Jamaican film hasn’t immediately attracted financing, because I think this is my chance to make a film about people who really are sympathetic, and sympathetic every which way. But, because you’re doing something that’s a different subject matter, people think, “Oh, why are you doing this different subject matter?” But, I think, what’s important is what is sort of within the character, what’s in their hearts, and the treatment of the film, the approach to the material. And I think, when people talk about a lot of films, they focus too much on what the subject of the film is. And I’m interested sort of in the journeys of young people, what groups of young people can do and how they resolve their problems in their lives, wherever they are. And I often get the question: “Well, have you lived in Jamaica that much?” And I haven’t lived in Jamaica that much, but I’ve spent much more time in Jamaica than I did in debutante parties. And I had a huge advantage. I mean, it was very hard to get Metropolitan distributed. It was just nothing but rejection. And as I think about “the market will speak” or something like that, 50 years ago, the only way someone like Preston Sturges got a chance to make films was there was a good film executive at Paramount, Bill LeBaron, who was a former writer-playwright and very sensitive guy, who gave him his chance, and he was able to make those films. If there hadn’t been a William LeBaron, we probably wouldn’t have seen any Preston Sturges films. And my experience was the same. Metropolitan wouldn’t have seen the light of day if it hadn’t been for maybe five people. And if each one of those five people hadn’t contributed, it never would have been seen anywhere. Karina: From my point of view, it seems like there still is the possibility for the right person to support the right independent artist and have a film get seen. But, I mean, that level of success that you reached, with spending so little money on the film and then getting the Oscar nomination, is something that most filmmakers who are making their first film today just can’t even hope for. Whit: Oh, gosh. I hope they could still hope for that. It is exciting, these breakout films. I remember being in Spain when Clerks came out there. There was just so much interest in talking about it. There was a period when low-budget, independent American films were getting wonderful reception abroad. I think that would continue or come back. I felt very much in the path of other people. In those days, you had the Samuel Goldwyn Company as an active player. I hope they come back because there are not that many companies who are good at putting across small comedies. We really need these players. So, for us, with Metropolitan, Sara Richter and Bob Shaye at New Line were really important. As much as they are inactive, that hurts people in our situation. But, I think, Sara is continuing and Bob is going back. Karina: I was reading the diary that you wrote for Slate when Last Days of Disco came out… Whit: [laughs] That is some real digging. Karina: Well, there is a lot of interesting stuff in it. But, you said something about how you were getting kicked out of your apartment and that the only things that you owned were the films’ negatives and copyrights, except you weren’t so sure that Warner Bros agreed with you on that. Whit: Yeah. Karina: Does that have anything to do with why there is no Last Days of Disco DVD in print? Whit: Yes. Last Days of Disco - there should be a Criterion edition. But, that contract has not been - I think Criterion is negotiating with one of the studios to bring it out. But, those negotiations are taking a very long time. It is available in a cheap edition if people can play Region Two. It’s great what you can find on the Internet––here is a DVD review out of England of the French edition of Last Days of Disco. But, you can only find it if you go to Amazon.fr and put in the French title, which is Les Derniers Jours du Disco. If you put in “The Last Days of Disco” at Amazon.fr, they just give you the US edition with the US price, which is astronomical. If you get the French edition, it essentially is the film. You can just turn off the French subtitles––unless you want to watch the French dubbed version. I think, it is $20 or something. Karina: Well, that is good news. Are the music rights one of the issues there? Whit: No, there are no rights at all. It is just that the film was owned. Castle Rock was then having the film financed by PolyGram and Warner and either PolyGram would take international or North America. Warner would take the other one. In our case, Warner took international and PolyGram took domestic. So, it went out through Gramercy. Then, when PolyGram went down, the rights… It was issued by PolyGram video right away. Then, they had some problem with their licenses. It was going from laserdisc to DVD. It came out on DVD, I guess in a small edition in ‘99 I believe, through PolyGram Video. A studio has the rights now, I think it is Universal. But, maybe it has been shifted over to MGM or something or Sony. So, it has been in an enormous film library, where they have tons of films to exploit. It has not been a priority perhaps because it’s a split rights thing, where it is not all their money. So, now theoretically Criterion is trying to license it and it will come out on a good Criterion edition. Karina: Well, that will be really exciting for all of us who have been looking forward to that for a while. It seems like it’s the one of your films that people haven’t seen as much. Whit: Yeah. It was very tough, the way it was released. We were very fortunate in our releases with Metropolitan and Barcelona. And we were very unlucky with the timing of Last Days of Disco in the States. It just came out at the worst imaginable time. Karina: Because of the 54 movie? Whit: Well, it’s because of the 54 movie in the sense that there was a feeling of rushing it out. I think Russell Schwartz at Gramercy had a better idea of bringing it out in early May. I thought certain work needed to be done to set the stage. So, I pushed for a delay of two or three weeks. It was just a disaster. I shouldn’t have done that. We just were run over by… Normally, if you are an independent film coming out against be big studio blockbusters, you are the ‘good’ kind of programming. Normally, [your competition] are just sort of stupid action movies or ’shoot-them-ups’ or whatever. But, in our case, the big summer movies were also critical favorites and Oscar favorites. So, we came out against Truman Show, Saving Private Ryan, The independent films were also very strong - The Opposite of Sex, Henry Fool. There were just so many things just at the same time. Even the Soderbergh film, I think, it was Out of Sight? Karina: Yeah. Whit: Everything that came out was not only a good film, but a critical favorite. I don’t think Gramercy had a lot of money then. They were essentially closing down. We just got run over. I mean, it initially did well. We had great weekends in the cities. But, we were steamrolled. Karina: Were there higher expectations because of the higher profile actors? Whit: I don’t know. I guess so. Karina: Because it’s not like it completely bombed. Whit: No. I know a lot of people think it was a big success. People who were just in cities thought it was successful in its release, too. I could see what a difference it makes when you get lucky with your release pattern. I mean, when you compare it with Barcelona and Metropolitan, Metropolitan came out the first weekend in August. It was just a wonderful time to come out. We got a lot of good attention. Barcelona was the last weekend in July. So, that had always been a great time for us. I think, the fact that Castle Rock really wanted to beat 54 out, pushed us earlier and then right into the maelstrom. Karina: How much of contemporary independent film do you see? Are you going to festivals? Whit: I don’t know how much I see. I try to see things that I think won’t shock or depressed me. I’m very pleased with some of the stuff I catch. I really like, when I get back to the States, being able to see things on the movie channels and catch up with stuff from the last five or 10 years. Karina: Have you seeing anything lately that you think was really great? Whit: I think, I definitely have, but as soon as I am in the throes of writing a script, I don’t go out to movies that much. Karina: So, I imagine that you are not seeing summer blockbusters either. Whit: No. I mean, we have a really good cinema here in Millerton, New York. Often going to the cinema has been a good part of summer. Some of the films I know are probably pretty good. and I think I will catch up with them one way or another. The other ones are just so off-putting. Seeing the trailers puts me off many more films than makes me want to see, seeing their trailers. I’m not sure if they are just badly cut or if the films are worth avoiding. I like a lot of things. I liked Sex in the City. Is it Sex in the City or Sex and the City? I think it is Sex and the City. I thought that was a pretty good job for what they had to do. It was better than I expected. I enjoyed it. And that was shot by the cinematographer who did our films, John Thomas. Karina: As far as catching up with films later, it leads to the question of putting the movie on Hulu. Are you in the practice of watching movies on the Web or looking at YouTube or anything? Whit: I look at YouTube and short things that people send me. I haven’t looked at anything really long form. I think, I caught up with some TV shows that people had bought from iTunes, TV shows that I wanted to catch up with. Karina: What do you think about the idea of showing films online, especially with your film going into that realm right now? Do you think it is an ideal situation? Whit: Well, I much prefer it being done legally than illegally. And I think, it’s good that things be made easily available for people legally so there is less temptation for it all to be illegal. I like suiting people’s schedules and their convenience as much as possible. I like all the old windows too, all the pattern of distribution. I hope that is conserved because I like being in theaters and being available on DVD and pay-TV and basic TV and different forms. So, I like all that. Sometimes the best way to catch a film is just to tune in without being aware of what is on, to a commercial-free movie channel and have a movie on, maybe something that you had written off or didn’t think that you would have liked and enjoying it. And if you don’t catch the beginning when you first see it, being able to go back and see the beginning the next time it’s on. I love being taken unawares by a good film. Karina: Yeah, that’s actually probably how I first watched your first two films, is catching them on IFC and then waiting for them to come on again so I could see the part that I had missed. Whit: It couldn’t have been IFC. It must have been one of the Sundance or the Showtime channels. We had an odd situation because one of the people who made Metropolitan possible was Lindsay Law when he was buying for American Playhouse. I had been very disappointed he hadn’t bought one of my Spanish American independent films. He walked out of that screening without liking it. But, he came to a screening of Metropolitan when we were in pretty desperate straits. He really liked it and he bought it. He allowed us to take the deposit money out of escrow to pay DuArt Laboratories. So, thanks to that money, we were able to take it to Sundance. Then, we had a very quick window on PBS. A lot of people saw it on PBS. That was great because I guess we were able to have a video release. We were in cinemas for a long time. I think that one of the reasons why we were able to get a nomination without a campaign for it was that in those days you could run for a long time on screen. We were on screen in New York for seven months, which is fantastic. Karina: Yeah, and very unlikely now. Whit: Yeah. So, yes, I would like a new way for people to see things easily. But, I hope the old ways will continue too. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 03:01:17 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com8/13/2008 11:01:17 PM In the liner notes to the Criterion edition of writer/director Whit Stillman’s debut film, Metropolitan, cultural critic/historian Luc Sante notes that the picture, “which looked like a perverse bit of daring in 1990, today seems like an artifact from an earlier century.” Sante is likely referring to the debutante culture in which the film is set, but the story of how the movie itself not only found an audience but rose to classic teen movie status among a certain class seems equally antiquated in this age of indie film Chicken Littles. Made for a reported $250,000, starring a full cast of young unknowns, and consisting primarily of one long scene after another of rich kids sitting in a palatial Upper East Side apartment discussing Jane Austen, Charles Fourier, their mostly unfashionable morals and fears of failure, all the while dressed in evening clothes, Metropolitan played in theaters for seven months, eventually grossing $3 million and earning Stilman an Oscar nomination (he lost to the screenwriter of Ghost). But if Metropolitan traveled a commercial road that seems nearly unnavigable today, the film itself has perhaps never been as in tune with popular culture. From Best Week Ever pundits to big-traffic bloggers, it’s become the standard mode of digesting the world around us to stand outside of it, employing caustic, self-deprecating humor as a defensive mechanism. It’s like we’re all Chris Eigeman characters from a Whit Stillman film––except, in some cases, stripped of the anxieties of old-money entitlement. With Metropolitan premiering tonight on Hulu, I chatted with Whit about his films, the state of the indie film industry, his alleged political agenda, the state of the Last Days of Disco DVD, the project he’s getting ready to shoot, and why it’s taken ten years for him to make a fourth film. —— Karina: I want to get the inevitable elephant out of the room, which is of course the “What have you been doing for 10 years?” question. The most recent stories that I can find about projects that you have in the works were the Jamaica project, and then Little Green Men [based on the novel by Christopher Buckley]. Are either of those still happening? Whit: Yes, they’re both happening, and I’ve been writing on both. And that’s what I’ve been doing: I’ve been writing scripts. And so, in addition to those scripts, I’ve written a number of other things. But, I think, the one that is set to go, as soon as the financing falls into place, is the Jamaica project, which is now called Dancing Mood. The characters are black Jamaicans in Kingston in the early ’60s. Karina: Your previous films were so autobiographical. Is this one, in any sense? Whit: I take the Fifth Amendment. I think, when I write things, usually there’s some autobiographical stuff that comes out, but in each case, it’s pretty fictional, too. Karina: I actually watched Metropolitan last night, and of course, it starts with the “Not so long ago” title. But, I read something saying that it has to take place in the mid-to-late ’60s because the sexual revolution would have come along and swept away deb culture and the moralities and the formalities that are associated with it. But, I always thought it took place a little bit later. Whit: We couldn’t really do period. And the idea was, pretty much, to stick with what we said in the movie, which was “Not so long ago.” And anyone can interpret that as they want it. And my own experience is I snuck into a couple of parties with my sisters at the end of the ’60s, and I became a convert to it. So, I kept going in the ’70s. So, my memories were from that period: the end of the ’60s and the ’70s. But, I couldn’t do it in period, and I didn’t really want to. And one thing I found is that people assume it was from their period. So, I heard of someone from the ’50s, it would dip right in the ’50s. It was sort of either before or after the Hippie-drug era, because things looked very different then, with their very long hair. So, we were shooting it in ‘88, ‘89. And we tried to, as much as we could, not put in new things. And we got kind of lucky because a lot of the things we photographed had been around in the ’60s and ’70s, and then disappeared, like the Bacharach studio, like the old Scribner’s Bookstore - I think it was actually a Brentano’s when we shot it, but then it became, I think, a Sephora or something like that. And so, there were a lot of sort of New York landmarks we were able to memorialize before they disappeared. I think, there is sort of an emotional realism and human realism that’s very important, but the small things about like what year car is in the shot, I don’t really care about. Karina: Right. The thing I read that placed it in the 60s was a long consideration of Metropolitan and Last Days of Disco, saying that as a filmmaker, it’s your mission to telegraph a conservative agenda. Whit: Oh, no. Karina: [laughs] You can correct me if I’m wrong on this, but people have suggested that all of Chris Eigeman’s characters are basically alter egos for you. But even if he’s sort of espousing what would be considered traditional conservative morals or politics, he also gets deflated in a lot of ways. So, I would never see it as a pure, moral agenda or argument. But, I don’t know…do you feel uncomfortable with the suggestion that it is? Whit: I feel very uncomfortable, because I really resent reviews that try to force you to take a stand one way or another. I really resent that kind of filmmaking. I want people to be able to come with their own point of view and leave with their own point of view. And I’d hope it’ll be open enough so that they’ll have an experience while they’re there, and I really don’t want to stack the deck in one way or another. And I don’t feel closer to the Nick character at all in Metropolitan, I would identify much more with Taylor Nichols, the Charlie character or the Tom Townsend character. That was much more autobiographical. The Nick character was sort of the funny guy in the room, who would influence us and we’d laugh and be amazed by him, but he wouldn’t be me. As soon as you write characters, something must be coming out there, and then your life sort of follows the pattern of the character you wrote, and it all goes back and forth. But, I felt closer to those other two characters. Karina: Are you still living in Paris? Whit: I’ve shifted a bit to Madrid. I had a period when I really didn’t know where I was living because it was so divided between Paris, London, Madrid, and the States, and then with the trips to Jamaica. So, I really felt completely “not living anywhere, living everywhere.” And I think, I’ll be in Madrid through the end of the year, and then I hope we’ll be doing the Jamaican film. Karina: I wonder how involved you are in some of these issues that are going on with American independent film right now - the fact that all of the indie arms are kind of closing down, and all of the debates about the future of financing and distribution. Do you pay attention to this stuff? Whit: I really do pay attention to it, because I’m in the thick of it and I feel I’m suffering from it a bit, because I don’t really understand why the Jamaican film didn’t get financing three years ago. I mean, I’m happy with the changes to the script I’ve made, but I think we could have made a very good film and a popular film with the script we had two years ago. It’s a very strange situation. And I didn’t understand it all, because the other films did pretty well, and this one, I think, will do much better, and I just think it’s a huge business opportunity for the person who does it. Karina: Were you in a situation where you had money set up and then it disappeared? Whit: No, not really. I don’t have a producing partner. And recently, I’ve had the good fortune to sign up with Jeremy Thomas, the British producer, to do the Jamaican film, to do Dancing Mood. The Recorded Picture Company has been a prodigious producer. And so I have the advantage now of working with a really good company. My feeling about the independent business is, for one thing, it’s cyclical. And we’re at the low end of the cycle, but I think it’ll go back up. And I think it’s actually very good to launch a project at the low end of the cycle, if you can launch it. And I think that, often, when things are bad, the way I like to look at it to make it seem better is that bad situations are just business opportunities. And there’s just a huge opportunity now to make good independent films and have them successfully released, ultimately, because there’s no easy money now, and everyone, I think, is going to be in a much tighter, more serious game. And I think that the person or the company that steps up to finance our film is going to do very well with it. And I think, the other films were kind of anti-popular in their subject matter. It was off-footing to people. Karina: That was actually something I wanted to ask you about, because Metropolitan came out of the same early-’90s, film festival world as the Kevin Smiths and the Quentin Tarantinos, who were so much more obviously talking about the kinds of people who consume disposable pop culture. Do you ever sort of feel like you got maybe a short shrift, in terms of what kind or size of audience you were able to reach, because you weren’t necessarily talking about a popular audience? Whit: Well, I don’t feel that competitively with other people. But, I’m aware of the fact that, sociologically, the subject matter of our films were unpopular, or anti-popular. And so, to attract a big audience to a sympathetic film about debutantes or a sympathetic film about yuppies being obnoxious Americans in Barcelona or about people getting into discos, there’d be a lot of resistance to identification with those characters. They’re not underdog characters, particularly. In Metropolitan, there was an underdog character, in Tom Townsend, that I think made it accessible to people, initially. And in certain ways, once they got into the cinemas, they’d stay if they came. But then, he really wasn’t the hero in his point of view and what he does. And so, I think that there’s a commercial challenge for those three films. And that’s why I’m a bit frustrated now that the Jamaican film hasn’t immediately attracted financing, because I think this is my chance to make a film about people who really are sympathetic, and sympathetic every which way. But, because you’re doing something that’s a different subject matter, people think, “Oh, why are you doing this different subject matter?” But, I think, what’s important is what is sort of within the character, what’s in their hearts, and the treatment of the film, the approach to the material. And I think, when people talk about a lot of films, they focus too much on what the subject of the film is. And I’m interested sort of in the journeys of young people, what groups of young people can do and how they resolve their problems in their lives, wherever they are. And I often get the question: “Well, have you lived in Jamaica that much?” And I haven’t lived in Jamaica that much, but I’ve spent much more time in Jamaica than I did in debutante parties. And I had a huge advantage. I mean, it was very hard to get Metropolitan distributed. It was just nothing but rejection. And as I think about “the market will speak” or something like that, 50 years ago, the only way someone like Preston Sturges got a chance to make films was there was a good film executive at Paramount, Bill LeBaron, who was a former writer-playwright and very sensitive guy, who gave him his chance, and he was able to make those films. If there hadn’t been a William LeBaron, we probably wouldn’t have seen any Preston Sturges films. And my experience was the same. Metropolitan wouldn’t have seen the light of day if it hadn’t been for maybe five people. And if each one of those five people hadn’t contributed, it never would have been seen anywhere. Karina: From my point of view, it seems like there still is the possibility for the right person to support the right independent artist and have a film get seen. But, I mean, that level of success that you reached, with spending so little money on the film and then getting the Oscar nomination, is something that most filmmakers who are making their first film today just can’t even hope for. Whit: Oh, gosh. I hope they could still hope for that. It is exciting, these breakout films. I remember being in Spain when Clerks came out there. There was just so much interest in talking about it. There was a period when low-budget, independent American films were getting wonderful reception abroad. I think that would continue or come back. I felt very much in the path of other people. In those days, you had the Samuel Goldwyn Company as an active player. I hope they come back because there are not that many companies who are good at putting across small comedies. We really need these players. So, for us, with Metropolitan, Sara Richter and Bob Shaye at New Line were really important. As much as they are inactive, that hurts people in our situation. But, I think, Sara is continuing and Bob is going back. Karina: I was reading the diary that you wrote for Slate when Last Days of Disco came out… Whit: [laughs] That is some real digging. Karina: Well, there is a lot of interesting stuff in it. But, you said something about how you were getting kicked out of your apartment and that the only things that you owned were the films’ negatives and copyrights, except you weren’t so sure that Warner Bros agreed with you on that. Whit: Yeah. Karina: Does that have anything to do with why there is no Last Days of Disco DVD in print? Whit: Yes. Last Days of Disco - there should be a Criterion edition. But, that contract has not been - I think Criterion is negotiating with one of the studios to bring it out. But, those negotiations are taking a very long time. It is available in a cheap edition if people can play Region Two. It’s great what you can find on the Internet––here is a DVD review out of England of the French edition of Last Days of Disco. But, you can only find it if you go to Amazon.fr and put in the French title, which is Les Derniers Jours du Disco. If you put in “The Last Days of Disco” at Amazon.fr, they just give you the US edition with the US price, which is astronomical. If you get the French edition, it essentially is the film. You can just turn off the French subtitles––unless you want to watch the French dubbed version. I think, it is $20 or something. Karina: Well, that is good news. Are the music rights one of the issues there? Whit: No, there are no rights at all. It is just that the film was owned. Castle Rock was then having the film financed by PolyGram and Warner and either PolyGram would take international or North America. Warner would take the other one. In our case, Warner took international and PolyGram took domestic. So, it went out through Gramercy. Then, when PolyGram went down, the rights… It was issued by PolyGram video right away. Then, they had some problem with their licenses. It was going from laserdisc to DVD. It came out on DVD, I guess in a small edition in ‘99 I believe, through PolyGram Video. A studio has the rights now, I think it is Universal. But, maybe it has been shifted over to MGM or something or Sony. So, it has been in an enormous film library, where they have tons of films to exploit. It has not been a priority perhaps because it’s a split rights thing, where it is not all their money. So, now theoretically Criterion is trying to license it and it will come out on a good Criterion edition. Karina: Well, that will be really exciting for all of us who have been looking forward to that for a while. It seems like it’s the one of your films that people haven’t seen as much. Whit: Yeah. It was very tough, the way it was released. We were very fortunate in our releases with Metropolitan and Barcelona. And we were very unlucky with the timing of Last Days of Disco in the States. It just came out at the worst imaginable time. Karina: Because of the 54 movie? Whit: Well, it’s because of the 54 movie in the sense that there was a feeling of rushing it out. I think Russell Schwartz at Gramercy had a better idea of bringing it out in early May. I thought certain work needed to be done to set the stage. So, I pushed for a delay of two or three weeks. It was just a disaster. I shouldn’t have done that. We just were run over by… Normally, if you are an independent film coming out against be big studio blockbusters, you are the ‘good’ kind of programming. Normally, [your competition] are just sort of stupid action movies or ’shoot-them-ups’ or whatever. But, in our case, the big summer movies were also critical favorites and Oscar favorites. So, we came out against Truman Show, Saving Private Ryan, The independent films were also very strong - The Opposite of Sex, Henry Fool. There were just so many things just at the same time. Even the Soderbergh film, I think, it was Out of Sight? Karina: Yeah. Whit: Everything that came out was not only a good film, but a critical favorite. I don’t think Gramercy had a lot of money then. They were essentially closing down. We just got run over. I mean, it initially did well. We had great weekends in the cities. But, we were steamrolled. Karina: Were there higher expectations because of the higher profile actors? Whit: I don’t know. I guess so. Karina: Because it’s not like it completely bombed. Whit: No. I know a lot of people think it was a big success. People who were just in cities thought it was successful in its release, too. I could see what a difference it makes when you get lucky with your release pattern. I mean, when you compare it with Barcelona and Metropolitan, Metropolitan came out the first weekend in August. It was just a wonderful time to come out. We got a lot of good attention. Barcelona was the last weekend in July. So, that had always been a great time for us. I think, the fact that Castle Rock really wanted to beat 54 out, pushed us earlier and then right into the maelstrom. Karina: How much of contemporary independent film do you see? Are you going to festivals? Whit: I don’t know how much I see. I try to see things that I think won’t shock or depressed me. I’m very pleased with some of the stuff I catch. I really like, when I get back to the States, being able to see things on the movie channels and catch up with stuff from the last five or 10 years. Karina: Have you seeing anything lately that you think was really great? Whit: I think, I definitely have, but as soon as I am in the throes of writing a script, I don’t go out to movies that much. Karina: So, I imagine that you are not seeing summer blockbusters either. Whit: No. I mean, we have a really good cinema here in Millerton, New York. Often going to the cinema has been a good part of summer. Some of the films I know are probably pretty good. and I think I will catch up with them one way or another. The other ones are just so off-putting. Seeing the trailers puts me off many more films than makes me want to see, seeing their trailers. I’m not sure if they are just badly cut or if the films are worth avoiding. I like a lot of things. I liked Sex in the City. Is it Sex in the City or Sex and the City? I think it is Sex and the City. I thought that was a pretty good job for what they had to do. It was better than I expected. I enjoyed it. And that was shot by the cinematographer who did our films, John Thomas. Karina: As far as catching up with films later, it leads to the question of putting the movie on Hulu. Are you in the practice of watching movies on the Web or looking at YouTube or anything? Whit: I look at YouTube and short things that people send me. I haven’t looked at anything really long form. I think, I caught up with some TV shows that people had bought from iTunes, TV shows that I wanted to catch up with. Karina: What do you think about the idea of showing films online, especially with your film going into that realm right now? Do you think it is an ideal situation? Whit: Well, I much prefer it being done legally than illegally. And I think, it’s good that things be made easily available for people legally so there is less temptation for it all to be illegal. I like suiting people’s schedules and their convenience as much as possible. I like all the old windows too, all the pattern of distribution. I hope that is conserved because I like being in theaters and being available on DVD and pay-TV and basic TV and different forms. So, I like all that. Sometimes the best way to catch a film is just to tune in without being aware of what is on, to a commercial-free movie channel and have a movie on, maybe something that you had written off or didn’t think that you would have liked and enjoying it. And if you don’t catch the beginning when you first see it, being able to go back and see the beginning the next time it’s on. I love being taken unawares by a good film. Karina: Yeah, that’s actually probably how I first watched your first two films, is catching them on IFC and then waiting for them to come on again so I could see the part that I had missed. Whit: It couldn’t have been IFC. It must have been one of the Sundance or the Showtime channels. We had an odd situation because one of the people who made Metropolitan possible was Lindsay Law when he was buying for American Playhouse. I had been very disappointed he hadn’t bought one of my Spanish American independent films. He walked out of that screening without liking it. But, he came to a screening of Metropolitan when we were in pretty desperate straits. He really liked it and he bought it. He allowed us to take the deposit money out of escrow to pay DuArt Laboratories. So, thanks to that money, we were able to take it to Sundance. Then, we had a very quick window on PBS. A lot of people saw it on PBS. That was great because I guess we were able to have a video release. We were in cinemas for a long time. I think that one of the reasons why we were able to get a nomination without a campaign for it was that in those days you could run for a long time on screen. We were on screen in New York for seven months, which is fantastic. Karina: Yeah, and very unlikely now. Whit: Yeah. So, yes, I would like a new way for people to see things easily. But, I hope the old ways will continue too. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/12/28766.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/12/2008 10:43:21 PM
Body: If F. Scott Fitzgerald was a filmmaker instead of a novelist, and had he been a chronicler of the Me Decade instead of the Jazz Age, he probably would have made a movie like Metropolitan. Like Fitzgerald's best work, it is a clever depiction of a social class that are not often written about in American art, and is accessible to everyone. That introduction might lead you to conclude that this is a film about poor migrant workers or homosexuals or other disenfranchised groups. But Metropolitan is about people who aren't disenfranchised at all- the young, white rich (although they call themselves bougiouse). When the rich are featured in movies at all they are usually portrayed as having empty lives of excess (La Dolce Vita) or happy, full lives of excess (every romantic comedy ever made). In this movie they are shown as being just like everyone else, accept with a lot more life security. In a way, some of them don't like that. Charlie (Taylor Nicholas), the group intellectual, thinks that they are doomed, because none of them will achieve anything great enough to warrant all of the breaks they've been given. Most of the group is probably in college, although the movie never mentions that. In fact, the movie focuses solely on their social interactions. Only one parent is ever shown, despite the fact they all live at home (which is apparently socially acceptable if you have money- but then what isn't?). The group calls itself The Rat Pack and like to go to society balls and soirees together, then returning home and talking some more. Basically, they have the same social interactions that I have, but dressed in formal clothes. No one in the group drinks excessively, not because they don't enjoy it, but because they are afraid of losing their composure. Metropolitan has only a threadbare story, mostly involving whether Tom Townsend (Edward Clements) will get back together with his old girlfriend (Elizabeth Thompson) who is now dating a notoriously cruel jerk (Will Kempe). Mostly the characters just talk to each other, about everything. The biggest difference between this group and the people I know is that they have to always pretend that they are 100% at all times. Best friends never breakdown to each other because they just can't- everything has to be surrounded by a degree of intellectual detachment, and oddly enough, I think that's a good thing. Often when someone really likes a movie, it says more about them then it does the movie. I liked these people a lot. This is the sort of life style that I want to live- long nights of glamour and wit, in comfortable surroundings. All that was missing was a cat. I don't know if the average viewer will find this film as magical as I did, but this is an excellent film- wonderfully evocative, tremendously acted, with people you will really care about. Like Slackers and sex, lies, and videotape, this was one of the first big movies of the modern independent film movement and one of the least typical. It's look at the upper classes not political but anthropological. It's not a screed against old money as much as it's a look into a lifestyle that's like our own, but more secure and better looking. Metropolitan (1990)
]]>Tue, 13 May 2008 02:43:21 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/12/2008 10:43:21 PMIf F. Scott Fitzgerald was a filmmaker instead of a novelist, and had he been a chronicler of the Me Decade instead of the Jazz Age, he probably would have made a movie like Metropolitan. Like Fitzgerald's best work, it is a clever depiction of a social class that are not often written about in American art, and is accessible to everyone. That introduction might lead you to conclude that this is a film about poor migrant workers or homosexuals or other disenfranchised groups. But Metropolitan is about people who aren't disenfranchised at all- the young, white rich (although they call themselves bougiouse). When the rich are featured in movies at all they are usually portrayed as having empty lives of excess (La Dolce Vita) or happy, full lives of excess (every romantic comedy ever made). In this movie they are shown as being just like everyone else, accept with a lot more life security. In a way, some of them don't like that. Charlie (Taylor Nicholas), the group intellectual, thinks that they are doomed, because none of them will achieve anything great enough to warrant all of the breaks they've been given. Most of the group is probably in college, although the movie never mentions that. In fact, the movie focuses solely on their social interactions. Only one parent is ever shown, despite the fact they all live at home (which is apparently socially acceptable if you have money- but then what isn't?). The group calls itself The Rat Pack and like to go to society balls and soirees together, then returning home and talking some more. Basically, they have the same social interactions that I have, but dressed in formal clothes. No one in the group drinks excessively, not because they don't enjoy it, but because they are afraid of losing their composure. Metropolitan has only a threadbare story, mostly involving whether Tom Townsend (Edward Clements) will get back together with his old girlfriend (Elizabeth Thompson) who is now dating a notoriously cruel jerk (Will Kempe). Mostly the characters just talk to each other, about everything. The biggest difference between this group and the people I know is that they have to always pretend that they are 100% at all times. Best friends never breakdown to each other because they just can't- everything has to be surrounded by a degree of intellectual detachment, and oddly enough, I think that's a good thing. Often when someone really likes a movie, it says more about them then it does the movie. I liked these people a lot. This is the sort of life style that I want to live- long nights of glamour and wit, in comfortable surroundings. All that was missing was a cat. I don't know if the average viewer will find this film as magical as I did, but this is an excellent film- wonderfully evocative, tremendously acted, with people you will really care about. Like Slackers and sex, lies, and videotape, this was one of the first big movies of the modern independent film movement and one of the least typical. It's look at the upper classes not political but anthropological. It's not a screed against old money as much as it's a look into a lifestyle that's like our own, but more secure and better looking. Metropolitan (1990) http://www.spout.com/blogs/shaunhuston/archive/2007/7/15/14722.aspx Post By: ShaunHuston
Post To: ShaunHuston filmblog
Post Date: 7/15/2007 3:49:34 PM
Body: Anne-Marie and I started our At-Home Film Festival this past week with Metropolitan (1990). I'm going to adjust the "One thing ..." format for movies from our home library, and write about the reasons I'm glad we have these films on DVD rather than one thing that makes them good, wonderful, fun, etc. So, here goes ...One reason two reasons why I'm glad we have Metropolitan in our collection is are Christopher Eigeman and Taylor Nichols. Both have a real facility with Whit Stillman's arch, formal, and, probably, overly literate dialogue. However, they each handle it in very different ways. The words just roll off of Eigeman's tongue, while Nichols is so earnest that he sells it even if it never quite sounds "natural." It isn't hard to understand why Stillman wanted them both in Barcelona (1994) and Eigeman in The Last Days of Disco (1998) (and, yes, Nichols shows up here, too, but only in a cameo as Charlie from Metropolitan). Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs
]]>Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:49:34 GMTShaunHustonShaunHuston filmblog7/15/2007 3:49:34 PMAnne-Marie and I started our At-Home Film Festival this past week with Metropolitan (1990). I'm going to adjust the "One thing ..." format for movies from our home library, and write about the reasons I'm glad we have these films on DVD rather than one thing that makes them good, wonderful, fun, etc. So, here goes ...One reason two reasons why I'm glad we have Metropolitan in our collection is are Christopher Eigeman and Taylor Nichols. Both have a real facility with Whit Stillman's arch, formal, and, probably, overly literate dialogue. However, they each handle it in very different ways. The words just roll off of Eigeman's tongue, while Nichols is so earnest that he sells it even if it never quite sounds "natural." It isn't hard to understand why Stillman wanted them both in Barcelona (1994) and Eigeman in The Last Days of Disco (1998) (and, yes, Nichols shows up here, too, but only in a cameo as Charlie from Metropolitan). Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs http://www.spout.com/blogs/bonnieblue/archive/2007/4/18/7214.aspx Post By: bonnieblue
Post To: bonnieblue Blog
Post Date: 4/18/2007 12:16:13 AM
Body: I absolutely love this movie!! People either love this movie, or just don't get it. Talk about a perfect script!! Perfect casting, beautiful sets. And chocked full of quotes. "Tom, Audrey....cha cha cha". "She went to one of those horsey-girls schools....she'd never shower, only putting on more and more makeup...she'd be silent for days, then talk insessantly about Paul McCartney." "The SFRP...." I think Whit Stillman is a genius, and this is by far his greatest work. But I would stand in line for days to say anything he wrote or directed. GREAT FILM. GOTTA SEE IT
]]>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 04:16:13 GMTbonniebluebonnieblue Blog4/18/2007 12:16:13 AMI absolutely love this movie!! People either love this movie, or just don&#39;t get it. Talk about a perfect script!! Perfect casting, beautiful sets. And chocked full of quotes. &quot;Tom, Audrey....cha cha cha&quot;. &quot;She went to one of those horsey-girls schools....she&#39;d never shower, only putting on more and more makeup...she&#39;d be silent for days, then talk insessantly about Paul McCartney.&quot; &quot;The SFRP....&quot; I think Whit Stillman is a genius, and this is by far his greatest work. But I would stand in line for days to say anything he wrote or directed. GREAT FILM. GOTTA SEE IT http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 979

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:08:37 GMT6791154979Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/teenagers/MemberTagFilms.aspxteenagers
Number of films tagged: 3025

Number of people who tagged: 97

Number of times used: 398

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:43 GMT302597398Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comingofage/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomingofage
Number of films tagged: 1186

Number of people who tagged: 72

Number of times used: 219

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:51:56 GMT118672219Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/favorite/MemberTagFilms.aspxfavorite
Number of films tagged: 85

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:22:58 GMT8562127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/satire/MemberTagFilms.aspxsatire
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 55

Number of times used: 120

]]>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:27:25 GMT17055120Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/college/MemberTagFilms.aspxcollege
Number of films tagged: 854

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 187

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:40:05 GMT85448187Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/divorce/MemberTagFilms.aspxdivorce
Number of films tagged: 1042

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 121

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:35:44 GMT104245121Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dating/MemberTagFilms.aspxdating
Number of films tagged: 325

Number of people who tagged: 39

Number of times used: 87

]]>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:09:23 GMT3253987Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/boy/MemberTagFilms.aspxboy
Number of films tagged: 1318

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 60

]]>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:02:48 GMT13183660Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/new/MemberTagFilms.aspxnew
Number of films tagged: 31

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 32

]]>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:51:54 GMT313232Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/new-york/MemberTagFilms.aspxnew-york
Number of films tagged: 87

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 98

]]>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:25:46 GMT872698Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/society/MemberTagFilms.aspxsociety
Number of films tagged: 424

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 42

]]>Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:37:21 GMT4242342Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/witty/MemberTagFilms.aspxwitty
Number of films tagged: 30

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 32

]]>Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:46:30 GMT302232Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/intelligent/MemberTagFilms.aspxintelligent
Number of films tagged: 99

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 25

]]>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:04:07 GMT991925Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/criterion/MemberTagFilms.aspxcriterion
Number of films tagged: 396

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 407

]]>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:08:23 GMT39617407Tag