You may not know Al Sapienza by name but you surely know his face. Probably best known as Mikey Palmice on “The Sopranos,” Sapienza has appeared in over 200 films and television programs. On the big screen he’s been seen in films like “Pretty Woman,” “Free Willy 2” and “Lethal Weapon 4” while on television he’s co-starred on such programs as “Law and Order,” “NYPD Blue” and “Blue Bloods.” He has also appeared in both the 1998 and 2014 versions of “Godzilla” This week Mr. Sapienza can be seen alongside Liam Neeson in “Taken 3.” To help promote this appearance Mr. Sapienza took time out to talk to me about what he does and why he does it.

Al Sapienza: Where are you calling from?
Mike Smith: Kansas City.
AS: Kansas City? I love Kansas City. I played the Uptown Theater there. I had some great times in Kansas City.

MS: You wouldn’t want to be here today…it’s three below zero! So what attracted you to do “Taken 3?”
AS: I’m one of those actors who loves to work. I love to work. And I don’t look at work as “work.” I honestly don’t. When I’m working I’m not working. I’m working when I’m not working! It’s fun being creative…being around creative people. Even though I’ve been an actor for 30 years I’m also a fan. I love it. I love movies…I love TV…I love the theater. Before I went on the audition I watched the original “Taken.” To be honest I hadn’t seen it but since I had the audition for “Taken 3” I watched it and I really liked it. Then I watched “Taken 2.” I’m a tremendous fan of Liam Neeson. I think he’s incredible in everything he does. He throws himself into every part he does. And now I finally have the chance to work with him. And it turns out that he’s just a real regular and good guy. Plus it’s a big movie…it’s a big franchise with a big following.

MS: You’ve appeared in other sequels. Is it difficult going into a project like that…one that might have an already established cast and crew?
AS: It’s funny. It’s all the same. If you’re acting correctly…if your just totally in the moment…if you’ve created this fake reality in your imagination and in your mind and just be real yourself…on the acting standpoint it doesn’t matter if it’s a sequel or a one shot deal. You shoot to do a great job all the time. And to me, that’s what is cool about acting!

MS: You’ve done a lot of both film and television. Do you have a preference?
AS: Good question. The only difference to me is that it’s a longer process on a film. You have more time to be creative…they have more time to shoot. Sometimes for a movie that’s an hour and a half you shoot for seven weeks where on a television show that’s an hour long you shoot for eight days. TV really gets your adrenaline going…it really makes you feel good about yourself. When you get to the set and six in the morning you better know your lines…and everybody else’s lines. TV is really more demanding, because you have to be ready to just knock it out where on a film you have more time. What I’m really excited about is cable television. I think that the movies are moving towards being corporate franchises…Batman, Spider-man, Transformers. They keep trying to do this multi-million dollar franchises with all of the marketing and promotions. I think cable television is going to continue to be cutting edge.

MS: Speaking of multi-million dollar movies, you have the rare distinction of having appeared in both 1998’s “Godzilla” as well as this past year’s version. Do you have a favorite?
AS: That’s a tough one. The director of this past “Godzilla” (Gareth Edwards) had done a great film called “Monsters.” He did it on an incredibly small budget, doing all of the special effects himself on his laptop. I really enjoyed working with him, he was such a special guy. I also enjoyed the earlier one, working with Roland Emerich and Dean Devlin. But I think I enjoy Gareth’s film better because I think he tried to be more like the old, classic films…more about science and science fiction.

MS: Normally I’d ask what your next project would be, but if the Internet Movie Data Base is to be believed you have no less than 22 projects between now and next year. So I guess I’ll ask what you do in your spare time?
AS: (laughs) Spare time? I’m an actor, I don’t need spare time. I like to play football on Saturday mornings. There is a long running game played in New York that has been going on since 1964. They play every week, be it snow or rain. As for what is next, I’m very excited about a mini-series running now called “Ascension,” which will be shown on the SyFy Channel. It’s a very, very interesting show with a very, very interesting concept. That’s what I’m really excited about at the moment.

Peter and Michael Spierig, also know as The Spierig Brothers, are known for directing horror/sci-fi genre films like “Undead” and “Daybreakers”. Their most recent film, “Predestination”, based on the science fiction short story “—All You Zombies—” by Robert A. Heinlein stars Ethan Hawke and Sarah Snook (also interviewed here). Media Mikes had a chance to chat with the directing duo about their latest film and what we can expect.

Eric Schmitt: What was it you felt about the Robert A. Heinlein story “-All You Zombies-” would translate well into a film?
Peter Spierig: I’ve read the short story several times, read it first many years ago, and it stuck with me. I’ve never read a time travel story quite like that. You have to remember that it was written in 1958, so it’s still very original and different. Michael read it too and he had the same reaction.
Michael Spierig: My first reaction was “I don’t get it.” I read it again, still didn’t get it. Then I read it again and said “there it is, I get it!” [Laughter] What we loved about it is that it’s a completely original and new spin on the time travel story. It’s old and in the grand scheme of things it would make for a really good mind bender with heart and soul in it. We liked the idea of doing a genre that’s been done before and putting a different spin on it.

ES: With Daybreakers, you took the vampire genre and made it grandiose as far as how widespread it was. A very “maximum” take on vampirism. Then you go to Time Travel and it seems like a very minimalist approach to the subject. Was that by design?
MS: Yes! (Laughs) Peter and I wanted to test ourselves and see if we could do a more low tech approach to science fiction. The assumption today is that science fiction is all robots and space ships, and we kind of liked the idea of trying to tell a more intimate story of fate and identity without having to make it so grandiose. We really wanted to do an actor’s piece. We said when we first started that we wanted to dumb down the special effects where when people see it, they don’t even know there are special effects. A transgender character in a time travel movie seemed so out there, I think it’s so interesting, that it didn’t warrant massive battle sequences. It was a story about a person looking for their identity, and we just loved that. It was a bit of an experiment for us to do this, a more intimate film.

ES: Did you feel that there would be certain challenges in explaining the story’s revelations without the audience feeling rushed?
PS & MS: YES!!!
PS: It’s a very tricky thing; as a filmmaker, there’s no revelations for you when you’re cutting the film because you know it so intimately. So to place the beats in the film, it’s very tricky. So that’s where you rely on showing other people and testing. Do people get enough information at this point? Do we need to add more? What we discovered was that some people get it, some were ahead of the story, others don’t get it at all. I guess there’s a nice balance in the middle, but it’s very tricky to find that (middle). We hope that there are people who don’t get it, who are intrigued enough to go back and watch it again.
MS: I like how there will be people who are ahead of the game, ahead of the story. So we threw in a few jokes to kind of say “Okay, those of you who are ahead of us, here you go!” (This response had to be heavily edited to keep from spoiling some of the film’s reveals!)

ES: There’s definitely a point in the film having to do with the bar, where a light just goes on in your head and you have a complete “Oh shit!” moment. Even with Sarah, it took me a little while to realize that this man, well, it really isn’t a man. How did you go about casting Sarah for the role of John?
MS: We went back and forth on whether we should even attempt it – one actor playing both parts. We talked about casting two separate people, and got very serious about it. But then we thought “God, it would be so good if we could pull off an actor playing both of these roles. It would make the characters more interesting and I think you would care about the characters more.” We started auditioning people, and we saw every actress in Australia. People started touting this actress called Sarah Snook. She had done that Ryan Kwanten film “Not Suitable for Children,” so we had known of her. She came in and auditioned and really just blew us away. We did several auditions with her, actually; an initial audition, one in make-up, a test shot of her acting both female and male. This is also when we rely on our FX artist, Steven Boyle, who’s been with us since we did short films. I showed Steve Sarah’s audition videos and asked him “Can we really do this? Can we turn her into a man? Can we pull this off?” Steve looked at us and said “Yes I can do it. I promise we can do it.”
PS: With that being said, we wanted it to be a blend of male and female. We didn’t want it to be to masculine so you couldn’t see the feminine side. It’s a delicate balance, because if we put Sarah under a tremendous amount of make-up, it would have either looked silly or taken away from the performance.

ES: Did anyone mention on set that when she was made up as John that she looked like a young Leonardo DiCaprio?
MS & PS: Oh Yeah! Everyone!
PS: We all said it! It’s Leonardo DiCaprio and Jodie Foster’s love child. We also got a lot of Edward Furlong as well.

ES: Since you guys have worked with Ethan in the past, was he immediately at forefront of your minds when casting for Predestination?
PS: We didn’t really have an actor in mind until we finished the script. When we finished we said “You know who would like this material? Ethan.” It’s along the lines of what his genre tastes are, so we sent it to him. I think within one or two days, he said “Just tell me where and when – I’m in.”
MS: The thing he also asked us was what part he was playing. We told that we were still trying to figure that out and we’d get back to him.
PS: The amazing thing about Ethan is that he’s brave in a sense that he completely trusted us with the casting. He didn’t know who Sarah was initially, but he had faith that we were making the right decision. He’s fearless and he likes taking risks. We’ll forever be indebted to him for having the courage to say “Yes” to us.

ES: One of the things I noticed watching the film was that Ethan and Sarah had a very “organic” relationship in the bar scenes. From your perspectives, how did that develop over the course of filming?
MS: We had a lot of rehearsal time with them talking about the scenes. Our rehearsal time is not primarily about lines, it’s about why the scene has to exist in the movie. They spent a lot of time together working on their (respective) character’s mannerisms and that sort of thing. Sarah and Ethan are both incredibly intelligent, and I think they connected on that level. They’re both really smart actors and they ask the right questions. They wanted their collaboration to be very much intertwined.
PS: We spent a lot of time on the bar dialogue. There isn’t a single line that isn’t essential to the movie. Some of the lines have double meanings, even the joke that Ethan tells is critical to the film. We’re huge fans of the Science Fiction genre, so we really wanted to do this film with meaning.

Related Content

• Dean Cain talks about new film “Vendetta” and “Supergirl” TV series
• Christopher Bessette talks about his film “Trade of Innocents”
• Rick Yune talks about new film “The Man With the Iron Fists”
• Ronny Cox revisits “Deliverance” and playing the villain in “Robocop” & “Total Recall”
• Briana Evigan talks about “The Devil’s Carnival” and “Stash House”

Australian actress Sarah Snook starred in the horror film “Jessabelle” last year and stole the attention of Hollywood due to her performance. Her latest film “Predestination”, co-starring Ethan Hawke, features her in a major breakout role. If you get a chance you must see this film, which hits theaters on January 9th. Media Mikes had a chance to chat with Sarah to discuss the film and her transformation

Eric Schmitt: What interested you in the role in Predestination to begin with?
Sarah Snook: The main thing was really the challenge of acting as such an amazing character. You don’t really ever get to act as a man, if you’re a woman.

ES: What preparation went into playing the role of John?
SS: In the physical, I did some training to bulk up my muscular frame. It helped to get into a very masculine feel, testosterone driven. Everyday I would go to one of those “Pumping Iron” gyms, so I’d be surrounded by those testy (testosterone filled) men, and I’d be like “Yeah, brother! We’re one in the same!” Otherwise, I did a lot of research into transgender and how people adapt to that sort of lifestyle change.

ES: What about your voice? You went from a southern belle in “Jessabelle” to almost a city guy in John, how did you train for the voice acting?
SS: The did help a little by distending my voice in editing. I kinda wanted to look at movies like “Barfly” to study those types of down and out characters, get a gravely tone. It definitely helped with the pitch bending, though. It gave my voice my color. The difference between those two characters (Jessabelle and John) is really the fun part for me.

ES: It honestly took me a few minutes to even realize that it was you playing John. When I saw it, I was like “Whoa!”. How long did the make up take to transform you?
SS: It was a 3 hour make up job. It was mostly very fine, thin pieces – three or four layers to define my chin, stubble, a broken nose and earlobes. The earlobes were strange at first, but it lengthened my face.

ES: Did anyone mention to you, when you did go through the transformation, that you resembled a young Leonardo DiCaprio?
SS: (Laughs) Yeah, they did! It was also a random group of characters. “Hey, you look like-”.

ES: Did they take you off set to see how you would blend in as a man?
SS: (Laughs) No. No, I was too shy. There was one instance that was great – I was walking with the make-up artist to the set and I was walking ahead of the artist by maybe a meter or so. This group of girls walk past us and they looked about 18 or 19, three girls. They walked past us and giggled at the make-up artist “Oh my god – he’s so hot!” Then one of the girls said “Wait, who’s that other hot guy?!” (Laughs)

ES: That must have been very flattering!
SS: (Laughs) I don’t know about hot! I didn’t think I was necessarily a hot guy!

ES: The bar scenes with you and Ethan seemed very “organic”. How did you and Ethan develop such a natural looking relationship in front of the camera?
SS: We did rehearsal all through production, the two of us with Peter and Michael (Spierig). And also we started working on the weekends, Sundays we would get in the same room and make sure we were on the same page with our characters. With the bar scene, we did that in the 2nd or 3rd week of shooting. So by then, we had developed a pretty good relationship. The best part about the bar scene is that they shot it in one big sequence, which allowed Peter and Michael to just cut it up in the editing room. The whole thing was one scene – the bar, the pool table and the booth.

ES: How do you think the story will translate to audiences? Do you feel that audiences will see Predestination as a “complete” movie, and that they’ll be able to digest the content?
SS: I think overall, the story for me is what was great. It’s a very compelling script and a very compelling idea. It’s something that people can have a debate or dialogue about. All the questions that would come up about the characters and the storyline – audiences can actually engage it.

For me, as well as many across the United States, October is a very special month. Traditionally, this is the time of year where the leaves on the trees die, landscapes become awash with gray and brown, and nature’s dying elements suddenly spring to life. It is also the time of year where millions upon millions flock to the haunted house attractions scattered across the country, seeking their fix for scares, creeps and downright nasty set-pieces. The film “The Houses October Built” chronicles one group’s journey across the United States in search of the greatest haunt in America, found footage style. Unfortunately, they find that not all participants are eager to be part of their documentary, and the trip of a lifetime turns into the stuff that nightmares are made of. I had the opportunity to speak with Writer/ Director/ Co-Star Bobby Roe and Writer/ Star Zack Andrews about the origins of the film and what they felt sets their found footage film apart from all the others.

Eric Schmitt: The Houses October Built is a Media Mikes favorite of 2014; brilliantly done and really innovative. What was the driving force behind making the film in the first place?
Zack Andrews: We wanted to do a found footage film about the haunts across America, but we were weary at first because the genre has become so watered down. We wanted to do it a different way – A first person view of haunted houses, which is something people hadn’t touched on yet.
Bobby Roe: We found that approximately 30 million people per year visit haunted houses in the United States and felt that if we could hit the right audience, especially in the Mid-West and South, where we all grew up, we could do something original. These are all real actors and real places in the haunts. It’s very organic.

ES: So all of the interviews and haunt scenes in the film were legit?
ZA: Yes, all interviews conducted and haunts were legit.
BR: We wanted to use real places and people, give credit to the craft. Think about it- we had every filmmaker’s dream; We got to shoot on million dollar sets for free! We used all of the real actors from the haunts, all of the real sets – it’s a realism that you can’t fake.

ES: What do you feel will attract people to your film, say over the next found footage film that they lay eyes on?
ZA: People are intrigued by the haunted house aspect and we really looked to appeal to the Halloween world. We’re hoping that audiences find it very intense, because it does take you on a ride. It’s a ride that’s a dream for a lot of people, to be able to road trip and visit all of these different haunts.
BR: And we tried to show different ways in how the haunts were done, like the Zombie Paintball. That was incredible!
ZA: That was a lot of fun! I’ve never seen anything like it before.
BR: Exactly! We’d never seen anything like it and to experience it, man it was great! After we ran the shoot with the regular actors, we had the entire crew go through it just so they could experience it.

ES: Did you receive any resistance from the haunts while you were shooting?
ZA: Not at all – the haunts were one big supportive family.
BR: And it was essentially a free commercial for them.

ES: So which one (of the haunts) was the most effective, in your opinion?
ZA: Each haunt really had something super effective, something that was its own specialty. Ever haunt we visited had something that would stick out. We’d visit a haunt and two weeks later still be talking about that one thing. Like there was one haunt that had a white-out room. We’ve all experienced a completely black room, but this room was completely white, filled with smoke and had one flood light. All of a sudden you would see this white mask appear from no where. It was intense.
BR: This one haunt had a kid, maybe 12-13 years old. He was the best scare actor we had ever seen. He never came out of character and it was amazing. We talked to the owner of the haunt and found out that when he had joined he was failing school, came from a really bad background. After a few weeks of working at the haunt, the kid had completely turned it around. The haunt, this family, gave him purpose. His teachers even called the owners of the haunt to tell them what a positive impact it obviously had on him. The haunt family created a sense of pride in him.

As a fan of the film, it was really great to hear the level of passion that Bobby and Zack had to express about the filmmaking process and the haunts themselves. For many of us, they most certainly lived the dream – traveling the country and visiting the best haunted houses around, all while filming a horror movie. Although the majority of people who read this article and/or see The Houses October Built will never be presented with the opportunity to make such a film, we can still engage these haunts across the U.S. and experience first hand what this group documented. We can see, hear and feel first hand what the masters of this craft have to offer, all the while knowing that the terror that grips our senses is authentic, much like the footage in The Houses October Built.

Related Content

• Video Interview with Akihiro Kitamura
• Interview with Page Kennedy
• Interview with Chaske Spencer
• Interview with LaMonte Edwards
• Kevin Kline and Israel Horovitz discuss new film “My Old Lady”

Photo Credit: Yolanda Perez

The youngest of four children in an acting family from Long Island, New York, nine-year old Nicolette Pierini was destined to follow in her elder siblings’ footsteps. She began her career as a performer in commercials and short films, including Fool’s Day, All That Remains, Keeper, Poetry Man, and Transitions. However, Pierini received her first big break when she booked the role of “Flora O’Neil” opposite veteran actors Morgan Freeman and Virginia Madsen in the Rob Reiner-directed drama THE MAGIC OF BELLE ISLE. Also, she most recently, appeared as “Lola” in the feature film TIO PAPI, directed by Fro Rojas.

This week she will appear as Mia opposite Quvenzhané Wallis in the new film adaptation of the popular Broadway musical, “Annie.” While taking a break from a busy day in New York, young Nicolette took time out to talk to me about the film.

Mike Smith: Can you tell us about Mia, your character in “Annie”?
Nicolette Pierini: She is the youngest of the foster children. She’s very young and she loves Annie. She has a very big heart.

MS: How did you get the role?
NP: I had to go to various auditions. One for acting. One for singing and acting. And then one for dancing and singing and acting.

MS: Had you had a lot of musical training before you auditioned?
NP: I went to dance lessons so I had a little bit of experience. I could tap and I could ballet, so I did have a little dance training. And I’d done a lot of singing. I love singing. It’s really fun.

MS: What kind of music do you like?
NP: Any kind really. I love the music…I love the emotions behind a song. I like how a song is put together. I’ve actually written some songs myself.

MS: Do you think as you get older you’ll try to pursue a musical career as well?
NP: (considering the question) Yeah…YEAH!

MS: What else are you working on?
NP: Right now I’m just going on auditions and I’ll see what comes. Hopefully something that’s right for me.

Nicolette loves to hear from her fans. You can drop her a note at the following social media sites:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Nicolette-Pierini-Fan-Page/225583847456286
Twitter: @Npierini0

What do you do when, in a span of two years, you direct some of the best episodic television as well as one of the most popular television movies of all time? If you’re Randal Kleiser, you graduate to features, where you’re first film, “Grease,” remains, almost four decades later, the highest grossing movie musical of all time. Not a bad start!

Born in Philadelphia, Kleiser headed west to study his chosen craft at the University of Southern California. It was there he met a fellow student named George Lucas. He graduated USC in 1968 and, on the basis of his impressive Master’s thesis film, “Peege,” began his career. After directing episodes of such popular television shows as “Marcus Welby, M.D.,” “The Rookies” and “Family,” he graduated to made-for-television films. His first, “Dawn: Portrait of a Teenage Runaway,” starred former “Brady Bunch” star Eve Plumb as a girl who, feeling her home life is tough, runs away to the big city where she’s soon selling her body. While this is almost happenstance on today’s television it was quite a shocker in 1976. His second film-for-television starred up and coming “Welcome Back, Kotter” star John Travolta as “The Boy in the Plastic Bubble.” Based on a true story, the film earned three Emmy nominations, winning one. It also became a favorite of fans, thanks to Travolta’s performance and Paul Williams’ song, “What Would They Say,” which Travolta sang. Travolta and Kleiser would reunite the next year when the young star appeared opposite Olivia Newton-John in the musical smash “Grease.”

Kleiser, a director with an eye for young talent, followed up with “The Blue Lagoon,” starring Brooke Shields. He then featured Peter Gallagher and Daryl Hannah in “Summer Lovers” (which Kleiser also wrote) and then teamed up Jamie Lee Curtis and Patrick Swayze in “Grandview U.S.A.” Other films include “Big Top Pee Wee,” “Flight of the Navigator” and “Honey, I Blew Up the Kid.” In 1996 Kleiser wrote and directed “It’s My Party,” one of the first major films to address the issue of AIDS (though, in “The Boy in the Plastic Bubble,” Travolta’s character, Tod, was born with a deficient immune system, which is not unlike being born with AIDS). “It’s My Party” tells the story of Nick (Eric Roberts), whose most recent blood test reveals that he is HIV positive. Nick decides to go out on his own terms and throws himself a “going away” party.

This year, Kleiser turned to the stage, where his first production, “The Penis Chronicles,” currently plays four times weekly at the Coastal Playhouse, in West Hollywood, California through January 11, 2015. Mr. Kleiser took time out from his schedule to speak with me about working on the stage, the continued magic of “Grease” and a project near and dear to his heart: “The Nina Foch Project.”

Mike Smith: You’re about to finish your first foray onto the stage. How did you get involved with “The Penis Chronicles?”
Randal Kleiser: Tom Yewell was my assistant on “White Fang” and “Honey, I Blew Up the Kid”. He then became my director of development at Disney Studios. After that he moved back East for several years. Last year his friend Greg O’Connor sent me his play, “The Penis Chronicles” and I read it expecting to just give him my comments. I was extremely impressed and immediately wanted to help launch it.

MS: As someone who had worked primarily in television and film, does the role of the director change when it’s live theatre?
RK: The biggest difference is that the control is in the hands of the actors, rather than the director. I’m used to being able to fine tune movie performances, doing multiple takes until we achieve each moment perfectly. There is an excitement about live theater that I haven’t experienced in my movie career. You never know what’s going to happen. Last week we had a power outage during the play and used iPhone flashlight apps to light the actor.

MS: You were able to fund the initial 8-week run of the show through Indigogo. Any thoughts of extending the run?
RK: We are pleased to announce that we are extending until at least January 11th. After that, we aren’t sure. It depends on the public continuing to show up.

MS: What can you tell us about your upcoming film, “B.F.F.?”
RK: That is a project written and directed by young filmmaker Greg Carter. I’m overseeing it in an executive producer capacity.

MS: You went from directing one of the most popular television films of all time (“The Boy in the Plastic Bubble”) to helming the most popular movie musical as a first time feature film director. Why do you think “Grease” continues to find fans after all these years?
RK: I get asked that a lot. It must have been the perfect storm of cast chemistry, a hit Broadway play, the new music, and characters that everyone could identify with.

MS: It’s been almost 20 years since “It’s My Party” was released. These days in Hollywood it’s almost common-place to have major studios producing projects like “Angels in America” and “The Normal Heart.” How hard was it to get “It’s My Party” made?
RK: I wrote it while under a deal at Disney. They were not jumping at making it. Duh. Luckily, John Calley had just taken over United Artists and I went over to see him. I showed him pictures from the actual party that the script was based on and he greenlit the project that day.
I couldn’t have been more thrilled.

MS: Tell us a little about the “Nina Foch Project” and her influence on your career?
RK: Nina Foch was a vital presence in the entertainment industry, at home onstage, on screen, and in the classroom. Her acting career spanned seven decades, including starring roles on the Broadway stage and numerous television appearances from the golden era of live television drama through the most popular series and sitcoms of recent years. She was best known for her performances in classic films, such as “An American in Paris,” “Spartacus,” and “The Ten Commandments.” Her role as Erica Martin in “Executive Suite,” directed by Robert Wise, garnered her an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actress in 1955. Nina joined the USC School of Cinematic Arts where she taught for many years, offering the Advanced Seminar in Directing Actors for Film. She worked with – and inspired – many of today’s most successful actors, singers, directors, screenwriters, and producers. After studying with her, I hired her on several occasions to guide me in breaking down scripts I was about to shoot. She would drill me on each moment, each line, each piece of punctuation so that I was ready to shoot only what was necessary to forward the story and ready for any possible question from the actors. My classmate George Lucas put up some funds to shoot a whole semester of her class before her death in 2008. She instilled in me the same thing that motivated her: a desire to transfer the fascination. The Nina Foch Course for Filmmakers and Actors is available in DVD and online form at www.ninafochproject.com.

MS: What, if anything, do you have planned next?
RK: I have four films ready to go and am looking to complete funding on them. All my director friends are in the same boat. We have to become entrepreneurs and do our own projects, rather than wait for the studios to change from only doing sequels, comics and remakes.

Parker Sawyers is co-starring in the upcoming film “Monsters: Dark Continent”, which is a follow-up to the 2010 film “Monsters”. Parker also appeared this year in the film “Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit”. Media Mikes had a chance to chat about “Monsters: Dark Continent” with him and what we can expect.

Mike Gencarelli: How did you get involved with “Monsters: Dark Continent”?
Parker Sawyers: I’ve been acting for nearly three years now and try to hit every meeting I am lucky enough to get. I see it as practice. So, “Monsters: Dark Continent” was another meeting to me. Interestingly, I had a short film to shoot 15 minutes after my meeting time and I was so worried about missing the call time, I don’t really remember what I said or did in the room. Whatever it was worked, thankfully.

MG: Were you familiar with the original film prior?
PS: In preparation for the meeting for Monsters: Dark Continent, I watched the original film, Gareth Edwards’ “Monsters”. I was pleasantly surprised as I watched the two central characters develop a relationship amidst such dire conditions. To me, the original film was about humanity and how even in the face of extreme adversity or in their case an alien invasion we would still find love, fight for one another, and even bicker. Perhaps we’re not much more than that.

MG: Give us some background on your character Shaun Williams?
PS: Shaun is a kid from Detroit. I see him as a multi-talented, cool kid who never got “that break”. He is a sportsman, clever and chilled. Though I now live in London, I’m originally from Indianapolis, Indiana, just a few hours away from Detroit. To play a guy from the Midwest with heaps of heart and a laid back attitude was exciting and refreshing. I think the Midwesterners who watch the film will relate to Shaun and his friends; the hustle, the hunger, the decency, the loyalty.

MG: Tell us about where the film was shot and what was the most challenging aspect?
PS: We shot the film in Amman, Jordan and Detroit, Michigan. The people in Amman are some of the most hospitable and warmest people I’ve ever met. It was my second time being there, the first time was to film “Zero Dark Thirty”. I’m itching to return for a vacation. As for a challenge, I’d say the amount of work that needed to be completed by the end of each day, to stay on schedule. But, we worked hard and Tom Green, the director, never made any of us feel rushed. But, of course, we can read a call sheet and we knew we had a limited amount of time. Ultimately, we made it work. Detroit was cool. Talk about smiling through adversity, the people were wonderfully American and hardworking.

MG: How was it going from low-budget indie to big budget action, “Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit”?
PS: All jobs are the same to me. Whether it’s working with an Oscar winning director or an up and coming talent like Tom Green, I put forth the same amount of effort. I must say though, the Monsters cast was and still is like a family. We stay in touch, attend each other’s birthdays, and cheerlead whenever possible. I’d never had that experience before.

MG: What else do you have on the cards for 2014?
PS: I’m off to Bulgaria in March to film James McTiegue’s spy thriller, “Survivor”. It’s an amazing script and I’m fortunate to be part of the project. Other than that, it’s pilot season, so non-stop meetings as far as the eye can see!

Rick & Morty, Adult Swim’s hilarious sci-fi animated comedy from Justin Roiland & Dan Harmon (“Community”) released its first season on Blu-ray and DVD last month. To celebrate this release, the creators joined actors Chris Parnell (“Saturday Night Live”) and Sarah Chalke (“Scrubs”) at New York Comic Con where they sat down with the press just prior to taking the stage for their panel.

Rick & Morty follows Rick (Roiland), a belching, misanthropic mad scientist who’s moved into his daughter Beth’s (Chalke) family home, much to the dismay of her husband Jerry (Parnell). Rick drags his poor grandson Morty (also Roiland) off on outrageous science adventures that include other planets, other dimensions and on occasion inside a human body.

What about the show do you think speaks to the audience?

Justin Roiland: I think it’s a bunch of things. It’s the sum of all these parts, like Harmon’s ability to tap into a sort of the more emotional core component. Making characters really relatable and real. And then me, my sort of crazy, insane retro scripting and I don’t know. It’s very strange. It’s a weird sort of perfect storm of creative, I don’t know—

Dan Harmon: The carefree vibe. Like you…it’s nice to feel like you’re watching something that kind of doesn’t care if you’re watching.

Roiland: Yeah, yeah.

Harmon: So it’s kind of that energy that a new project has an opportunity to have that’s just like ‘alright let’s just—’

Roiland: And maintaining that is tricky. You know we’re trying to continue to maintain that. I mean I love stuff where at the end of the episode, Rick’s like [dropping into the scientist’s voice] ‘Member back in the first act of the episode when you did this?!’ It’s like you know, fuck it. It’s a TV show. We all know what we’re watching. We’re watching a TV show. I just love that kind of stuff. Just not giving a shit. The end of MeeSeeks is a great example you know where he’s just like…’Hey!’—he’s waving at the camera— ‘Alright! See you guys next week! Fuck!’ You know, whatever, like ‘I don’t give a fuck is my new catchphrase!’ All that shit. I don’t know I think that just lends a very loose kind of…it just let’s everyone who’s watching go like—Well then there’s the people who go ‘Does Rick know he’s on a TV show? Is this like some sort of master plan?’ But no, it’s just us having fun and being loose and allowing ourselves to do that kind of stuff. And who knows, I don’t know if that’s the secret ingredient. I think there’s a lot of things that added together make the show really connect with people.

One standout character of the first season was Mr. Meeseeks, a loud blue guy that exists solely to complete one task set by the human who summons him into creation. He spends most of the episode trying to teach Jerry a better golf game. The cast even brought a lifesize Meeseeks along with them to NYCC!

What was the origin of Mr. Meeseeks? 

Roiland: Uh, we were breaking a story, Harmon was on tour for Harmontown, he was out of the room and I remember like we had some story…I don’t remember what the fuck the story was, but I was just like this fuckin’ sucks and I was like ‘We gotta have fun with this! And [dropping a Mr MeeSeeks-like squawk] I’M MR. MEESEEKS! I’M MR. MEESEEKS!’ and I just started doing that. [Series writer Ryan] Ridley got all mad at me and I was like ‘I’M MR MEESEEKS LOOK AT ME!’ And then I don’t know if it was until [Harmon] came back—I think we came up with like the conceit of the Meeseeks but then Harmon came back and really helped us fine tune the story with Jerry and the golfing and all that stuff kind of was after [Dan] got back because I remember [him] being in the room and the whole like wiggle at the end. When [Jerry] finally lands the putt and they all disappear. But it was really just like out of my frustration of us really banging our heads against the wall of the other story that was just lame and we couldn’t get it…And Ridley was all pissed. But then he kind of came around. But then there’s a lot of stuff in that episode…that’s verbatim, like ‘I’m Mr Boobybuyer—I’ll buy your boobies!’ that’s all Ridley kind of angrily pitching ‘OH WHY DON’T WE JUST, I’M MR BOOBYBUYER!?…I’M THIRSTY SLIPPERY STAIR, BLAHBLAH’ And I’m just like ‘That’s perfect! Type it up!’…Now I’ve found that when Ridley gets upset and angrily pitches things spitefully, I’m like ‘Pay attention, guys…this could be good to put in the show.”

What would you make your own personal Meeseeks do for you?

Sarah Chalke: Your own wish granting Meeseeks…

Chris Parnell: Wow. I guess to make me a lot of money, maybe you know?

Chalke: Yeah

Parnell: Just a lot of money.

Chalke: Then you don’t work and the Meeseeks goes out to work for you

Parnell: Well I still probably want to work because it comes with a certain sense of self-worth…you know…but yeah to have a lot of money. I’d buy a nicer house and put my kid through college. What would your Meeseeks do?

Chalke: Probably a lot of neck massages. They’d take over the barista duties of the household. Which are about 13 to 14 a day, so it’s a heavy job. So, barista Meeseeks.

My personal favorite episode, Rixty Minutes, had Rick showing the family a remote control that not only flipped channels, but show programming from entirely alternate universes, many of which were ab-libbed voice work by Roiland.

Lauren Damon: Were there any additional alternate universe scenes in Rixty Minutes that were cut?

Roiland: The production plan for that episode is so different from the normal production pipeline because we’ll write and the break the—I guess you could call it the B-Story, the A-Story, whatever the narrative is—and then we try to keep that relatively tight and small. A third of the overall episode run length and then all the sketches are just experimental. It’s just like, I’ll go in the booth and just riff and improv shit. Harmon will be on the other side…But yeah, it’s weird, it’s a huge strain on the team, you know.

Harmon: Was there ones that we cut?

Roiland: We cut a Seinfeld one. It was just like Seinfeld—Unrelated Seinfeld and he’s like [twisted Jerry Seinfeld whine] ‘What’s the deaaaaaaaal with Chinese BONES….Whhhhhhy do they taste so goooooood?’

Harmon: Yeah, it was a universe where all of Seinfeld observations were just totally unrelatable.

Roiland: Like ‘What’s the deal with HUGE cocks? WHY do they taste so good in my mouth?!’ And then Rick’s like ‘Jeez, uhhh, Seinfeld’s really—’

Harmon: ‘This universe’s Seinfeld, his observations aren’t really resonant…’

Roiland: But then the audience is just exploding in laughter [Morty’s voice] ‘Oh, boy they really like it though!’ But that got cut…we might have put that on the DVD as a cut, deleted scene. That pitch was probably better than what—if it’s on the DVD you’ll be like okay, I see why they cut this. A lot more got cut for this new one, I really cast a wide net. And our poor storyboard guys boarded way more than they needed to board. But anyways…

If you could travel to any of the Rick & Morty worlds, where would you go?

Chalke: Uhhh, planet Squanch

Parnell: That’s a good answer. Pluto. I wouldn’t mind going to Pluto. That’s one that comes up this season. Jerry goes to Pluto.

Do you ever have to ask the writers what the hell is going on when the shows really offbeat?

Chalke: I mean every time you read the script, it’s one of the funnest jobs for that reason. Like you get the script and you’re so psyched to see where it goes and I laugh out loud when I’m reading it so the jokes are crazy. That’s the fun part of it, you get to see all these different ways a character can go. Like we go to a different dimension in the second season. They have us go to other planets as well, so that was cool and different and I got to be…like our characters but in a different dimension. I don’t know if I’m allowed to say what so for that you got to try totally different voices. I was like a Warrior who talked like this [Deep roaring] ‘JERRY!’

How much is ad-libbed for you guys?

Chalke: Most is the scripts. I mean the scripts are genius, mostly it’s the script. But if something happens or comes up and I ad libbed that Beth was a burper like her father, so we throw some burps in there. One of my few talents is burping on cue.

Are you ever surprised by how much vitriol Justin can get in just saying “Jerry”?

Parnell: [laughs] Uh, no. But it’s fun, it’s fun to hear it. I mean—I don’t know if he does Rick and Morty at the same time, I kind of think he does, I mean I’ve seen him do it. In person. But it’s just, you know, it’s amazing to watch. And then also they get so many great guest voices, you know? Sometimes you can kind of pick out who it is…

Season one set up so many crazy things, are we going to follow up with them in season 2? Like the League of Ricks? And that evil morty? Does the continuity exist?

Roiland: It’s sprinkled throughout the season.

Harmon: A little goes a long way. I mean it’s like I have a lot—I come to the table with a lot of gun-shyness from Community because I feel like Community’s fanbase became so rewardable and was so thankful for continuity in the show and I never like to do inside stuff. Meaning that you would have to have seen something previous in order to get it, I always try to painstakingly avoid doing that but I felt like over five years, Community—because of the intense relationship the fans had with the show—it actually got branded as being more ‘inside’ than I ever strove for it to be. And so now I’m in the writer’s room in this new show and  we got Mr. Meeseeks, we got the Council of Ricks, we got a billion things that we just shot out you know and so the question ultimately becomes do we revisit that stuff? I tend to be the guy that says no, not yet. Just let’s show some restraint and then we’ll be rewarded for it later. And not that Justin’s like ‘NO let’s do everything again’ but he’s a little less convinced that it would destroy the show than I am. Somewhere in between there what happens is little sprinkles here and there.

Roiland: Yeah, we don’t want to jump the shark, so to speak, too quickly in the show in terms of giving away too much of Rick’s backstory and going back to all the things we’ve kind of established in season one—

Harmon: I will say we spent a great deal of time in the writer’s room this year revisiting a major thing from season one and ultimately it was all wasted time. I mean it might be spoilers for season three for me to talk about what we were doing…but I will say it was like four or five weeks of us talking about ‘Okay, the finale’s gonna be when we do this…’ and we ended up going this isn’t working. It’s sort of like the second Dungeons of Dragons episode of Community was cursed from the beginning because it’s like to decide that you’re just going to do something again, you better really have your shit together…Ultimately stories tell themselves. It’s already hard to do that. But if they’re fighting you because you decided that you know what a story is better than the story knows, than you’re really screwing yourself.

Did any of you have an older relative like Rick making a bad influence on your lives?

Roiland: Not a huge bad influence. Maybe a little bit. I think I’m a lot like him and I’m gonna die at a young age like he did…

Harmon: I had a great grandpa who died a hermit. He lost all his money in the stock market and then he made it all back but he never trusted banks after that. So he lived in a corrugated tin hut out in some land in Wisconsin. He was rich again but it was all cash under his mattress! And he was a theology major and like he was the only other Harmon who went to college I think.

Roiland: [Rick voice] ‘DAN! DAN! C’mere I got cash under my mattress!!’

Harmon: But I never got to meet him, he was my great grandpa. The first time I saw him was in a coffin. I think Rick is just a symbol of all our mental illnesses.

Roiland: Rick’s a weird combination of me and Dan. Depending on what episode you’re watching, it’s more Dan or more me.

Rick & Morty is out on Blu-ray & DVD and you can check out their full NYCC panel at Adult Swim’s YouTube page.

Steven Quale is best known for directing “Final Destination 5”. He was also second unit director with James Cameron on “Avatar” and “Titanic”. His latest film is the tornado action film “Into the Storm”. Steven Quale took out some time to chat about the film and the challenges he faced.

What interested you in this story and joining as Director?
Steven Quale: What attracted me to “Into the Storm” is being able to take the audience right into the center of a tornado. To experience what it is like to see and hear the unimaginable power that a tornado can unleash. I also wanted to explore how different people react to such an extreme event.

What is it like directing actors with the added distraction of extreme weather elements?
SQ: It was a real challenge to get a performance with all the distracting noises of the wind machines and rain towers. The loud noise of the equipment made communication very difficult and I had to rely on hand signals. One advantage to all the wind and rain is that it gave the actors something real to play against when shooting with green screens.

How is “Into the Storm” different from previous tornado movies?
SQ: “Into the Storm” benefits from the advances in visual effects over the years so the tornados look much more realistic. It also differs from other tornado movies in that we are not just following storm-chasers – we have a diverse group of unrelated people who are thrust together during the adversity of the storm and we get to experience how each of the different people react under the pressure of the storm.

You have an extensive background in visual effects. Tell us about what went into making this film look and feel real.
SQ: The most important thing to make this film look real was weeks and weeks of extensive research. I studied every single video of any severe weather and tornado footage I could find. Every major type of tornado was based on actual footage of real tornados. In addition to the visuals I insisted on having the sound feel as real as possible and that is where academy award winning sound supervisor Par Hallberg shined with his amazing soundscape. You really feel like you are in a tornado with the rumbling sound.

Did the film require practical effects in addition to visual effects?
SQ: The films visual effects work so effective because they are a mix of practical physical effects such as wind machines and rain towers combined with the digital tornados and debris. For the last half of the film, almost every shot required rain and wind machines. We dropped a real truck in close proximity with Richard Armitage.

What special features can we expect to see on the Blu-ray / DVD?
SQ: The Blu-ray/DVD for “Into the Storm” will have several behind the scenes features showing how we were able to realistically recreate the weather conditions of a tornado. It also has a segment where world famous storm chaser Reed Timmer explains all of the types of tornados in or film and how they compare to the real ones that he has chased.

Related Content

• Interview with SUPERCON director Zak Knutson
• TFF: Keegan-Michael Key on “Keanu” and the Upcoming “Don’t Think Twice”
• Bob Gale reflects on working with Robert Zemeckis on the “Back to the Future” series
• Parker Sawyers talks about role in “Monsters: Dark Continent”
• Eduardo Sánchez talks about his kick-ass Bigfoot film “Exists”

In The Theory of Everything, filmmakers were faced with the daunting task of bringing to the screen the true story of iconic astrophysicist Stephen Hawking. Rather than focusing upon his much documented scientific accomplishments however, James Marsh’s film took the unique route of delving into his personal story, specifically into the relationship with Hawking’s first wife, Jane. I was able to sit down with the people behind this touching film during a recent New York press day including actors Eddie Redmayne (who plays Hawking), Felicity Jones (Jane), director James Marsh and writer, Anthony McCarten.

The first step in bringing The Hawking’s story to the screen was taken by writer Anthony McCarten, who like many people first encountered Stephen’s work in 1988 with his book, A Brief History of Time. “I think maybe ten million people bought the book and we all realized this was an extraordinary person” McCarten said, “Not only for the profundity of his ideas but just the nature of the man. This person with this compromised body, almost unable to use a single voluntary muscle. Able only to speak with a computer and yet telling us how the universe began, the nature of time itself…I thought somebody’s going to do an extraordinary movie about this guy at some point, never thinking I’d have any role in it.”

In 2004 however, McCarten came upon Jane Wilde Hawking’s autobiography, Traveling to Infinity—My Life with Stephen, and was inspired by a new perspective on Stephen Hawking’s life. “I don’t know what page it was I reached” he said of Jane’s work, “but it was something to do with the unorthodox love story that was unfolding in this book and I thought if you matched that to an already extraordinary story of Stephen, oh my god, you could do something quite unprecedented here.” McCarten took this inspiration all the way to Jane’s doorstep in Cambridge to offer his services in adapting her story to the screen.  It began the years of work McCarten was to undertake on this screenplay. On working with Jane, McCarten added: “I will always be grateful for the fact that she didn’t turn this nutcase away and she let me come in, made a sandwich for me. We had a little glass of sherry and I presented this triple helix of a movie which is a love story but it’s also a horror story—of the physical decline of Stephen—and finally, it’s a story of physics. And she went as far as to say ‘look, I’ll let you write the script, but no promises’. And so I wrote the script and she liked it, she was reassured, she thought I might have the requisite sensitivity to deal with a delicate story like this. And so she let out a little bit more rope. Never giving me the option to her work, but ‘you can go a little further, let’s see what you do with the next step’. And that went on for eight years. Little more rope, going back to her. We became friends. Her book went out of print and I got it republished so I supported her too.”

Felicity Jones described her research into playing Jane as a “ a full frontal attack on understanding who this woman was” and also took the time to meet with her. “As soon as I met [Jane],” the actress said, “my job became so much easier. She is such an extraordinary woman. And there was something about her instantly that I loved, that she had this combination of something very ladylike—very sort of fifties ideal of what a woman is, she has this way of presenting herself that’s almost quite queenly. The way she moves, the voice she uses. So I worked with a dialect coach, a music and a movement coach to get the physical properties, so to speak, of who this woman was. But at the same time there’s a really core strength to her. There’s a formidable determination to her. And I loved this contrast between this very ladylike exterior but with this toughness underneath.”

Jane also helped Jones with very tangible research for her time with Stephen, Jones remembered “after talking with each other and she showed me photographs of her and Stephen when they first met, she really was very just open, and brought down clothes that she’d loved wearing when they were meeting. And I remember I’d been just talking to Jane for a few hours and then Eddie [Redmayne] came around and I answered the door in Jane’s coat. Already there was an empathy between us. So I think what was important to Jane was to show the less glamorous sides of Stephen Hawking’s life. That their fame is one thing, but there was a whole support structure that was very intricate and complicated. And I was always just a champion of that story for her.”

Beyond the emotional drama of the Hawking’s life, Eddie Redmayne was tasked with the difficult challenge of portraying Stephen’s physical decline after being diagnosed with motor-neuron disease at a very young age. On researching the role, Redmayne said “I went to an ALS clinic in London called The Queens Square Neurology Clinic for every week or two for four months. And with the specialists there… was introduced to people and families suffering from ALS and was invited to some of their homes. So trying to get a real sense of what the disease was but also the emotional ramifications of it on families. Also specifically taking photos of Stephen when he was younger. Because there’s no documentary material really before the eighties. It was trying to work what his specific physical decline had been. So by showing the specialist, she would see photos of…Stephen holding Jane’s hand and go ‘Ok, so by the way he’s holding the hand, you can see his hands have gone by this year…’ So then trying, then with the choreographer, trying to find a way of putting that into my body.”

I asked Eddie what specific changes he made in his performance of the young Hawking pre- and post-diagnosis. “What was interesting was where the disease starts,” Here, the actor got up to offer a physical demonstration, “Like the problem with ALS is often people are diagnosed because you fall. Like and because you’ve got foot drop which often is the first thing to go and your knee compensates by [Redmayne moves his knee forward without his foot landing] you don’t even realize your foot’s gone—so if your foot’s stopped working, your knee will just walk a bit higher and you won’t even realize your foot’s gone. And it’s only when you’re running one day that you’ll catch it and fall. But then you’ll go to ER and most doctor’s will go ‘Oh, you’ve bruised you up…off you go again!’ It takes a really astute doctor to know wait, let me just check you know what’s going on. And so the problem with it, one of the problems with ALS, is no one knows when it starts. So it was a choice I had to make in the film which was I think he has it at the beginning of the film. Like it’s already manifest in him. So things like, I don’t know if you saw, when I was dancing with Jane, that’s the hands had gone. The feet you know, are slightly…so those I tried to introduce that beforehand so there’s a slight feeling in his head throughout those early part that something is slightly awry. But it manifests itself also in a kind of you know that…scientist sort of not uber-dextrous thing. But I wanted to make it sort of more specific to that. But after the diagnosis, he did go into a kind of melancholia, and listen to a lot of Wagner…but I was trying for him even then to be finding the positive. Attempting to anyway. Until Jane comes in and really bolsters him.”

In the advanced stages of Hawking’s disease, and therefore further into the film, only the facial muscles remain for voluntary motion, which required even more concentration from the actor. He discussed his preparation as “A lot of sitting in front of the mirror with an iPad with Stephen on documentaries trying to recreate basically…But the reality is, what I find the sort of irony, all the complication is that everything about film acting is you know, the camera’s here [Eddie frames his face], and you kind of do less…And what’s weird is the bit where he moves the least, is that it was the most physically exhausting and energized. Because it’s not just that you’re sitting there doing nothing. Actually these muscles [again framing his face]…you know you’re [monitoring] your breath, the pace at which you blink happens, how quickly your eyes…so actually it was at the end of those scenes that you come out exhausted. And the interesting thing was trying to take all of the energy of all the usual palette of colors—as human beings—and trying to channel those into those few muscles that you can use. Because when you meet Stephen, even though he can move very little, he has the most expressive and charismatic face I’ve ever met. And that was something that was important to attempt.”

Director James Marsh spoke about how he came to cast Redmayne in the Hawking role: “Eddie was the first person I met. Eddie had just a given physical resemblance to Stephen, he’s the same kind of body shape when Stephen was a young man, same kind of coloring. And that’s not why I cast him, but it was helpful to say well, that’s one thing. Eddie’s a brilliant actor and I think the film proves that. And as a film actor, this is the first time I think he’s really been able to soar and be given the material that can show what he can do. So I met him. He was the first actor and only actor I met, actually. I didn’t meet any other actors. I’d talked with other actors. Once I met Eddie, I knew I wanted him to do it. So it proved…you know I think it was a great choice.” He further praised the young actor for the dedication he showed in portraying Hawking’s physical hardships, adding “Eddie had done so much preparation, it was so internalized, these different stages of disability that he’d mastered by the time that we got to film that I never ever had to wait or give him more time. That was extraordinary that he could do that and that didn’t slow us down. It was just amazing that he just had this available. And he would switch from one to the other and there it was. Incredible, really.”

Of course, bringing the true story of two living people to the screen, we all wondered whether the Hawkings had in fact screened the film or participated at all in the production. As it turns out, Marsh said “on the second day Stephen Hawking and Jane came to set which raises the stakes…even further.” Redmayne recalled the dramatic entrance Hawking made on his visit: “when he came on set which was on about day two, it was a big fireworks part, a big May Ball. And there was this moment—the producers…could afford like three gos at the fireworks so everyone was a bit tense like oh, we gotta get it right. Then on cue, he arrived, his sort of famous silohuette with his nurses. And then uplit by his computer screen. So literally he has this sort of spotlight and on cue the fireworks went off and it was like the greatest entrance!”

While Redmayne only saw Stephen on his way into a screening of the finished project, writer McCarten got the full range of the real people’s reactions: “[Jane] said she was floating on air. Stephen, when the lights came up and nurse wiped a tear from his cheek, and he said ‘Broadly true.’ And Lucy, the daughter when she saw it—and she had like fifty kleenexes lying beside her—said ‘That was my life.’ So I’m confident that it was emotionally authentic. It’s not exactly the way they lived it but we captured…something of how it felt to live that life.”

The Theory of Everything is currently in limited release.

Kal Penn is known best for his roles in the “Harold and Kumar” film series and TV with “How I Met Your Mother” and “House”. He recently took a break from acting to take a job as the Associate Director in the White House Office of Public Engagement working with President Obama. His latest film “Bhopal: A Prayer for Rain”, which is a fictional adaptation of the Union Carbide chemical spill disaster of 1984 was made back in 2009 and finally getting a release on November 7th. Kal recently took some time to chat with Media Mikes to discuss his film and what we can expect.

Mike Gencarelli: What was it about “Bhopal: A Prayer for Rain” that made you returning to acting?
Kal Penn: I had a hard time trying to describe the film, while I was shooting it. Friends of mine asked me why I wanted to do this movie and I said that I felt that the script was very powerful. I knew that when I read the script it really appealed to me and it was like nothing I had worked on before. It was a fictional adaptation of something that had actually happened. I sat down with the director and asked him why he wanted to make it? He grew up not too far from where the disaster actually took place. There have been some documentaries about it and some articles and books but no one has ever done a feature length fictional adaption about it. At the time we made it, it was 25 years after the disaster. Plus the fact that Martin Sheen was doing it. So selfishly as an actor I couldn’t say no.

MG: With your position at the White House, when did you do this film?
KP: I took a sabbatical from acting from 2009 to 2011 and had the chance to work in the White House. I knew that I was going to leave during that second year to come back to acting. This movie actually split that time. It was shot in 2009 and it was the last thing I worked on before I went off to the White House. After I came back to acting, I did the last season of “How I Met Your Mother” and I got a call about “Bhopal” and was told that that it was still wrapping up post production. They said that there was a lot of special effects in the last 15 minutes of the film and that I was going to be needed to come in and do some ADR, as they worked on their final edits. As of about six months ago, we knew that there was going to be a release date and they secured distribution.

MG: Tell us about your character Motwani and how you prepared?
KP: I did a bunch of research and read up a lot on the disaster. I spoke with the writer to find out what percentage of the character was fictionalized and adapted and what was real. My character as it turned out was one of the aspects that was largely fictionalized. The way that Ravi (Kumar) wrote the character was a lot broader. So my first question to him was that should I call the journalist that my character was loosely based on and try and talk to him. He told me “No, I want your character to be much broader from the start of the film”. He is this sort of larger than life gossip columnist that no one in town trusts because he keeps writing nonsense because it will sell newspapers. But over the course of the film, he is trying to warn the town of an impending gas leak in this factory and of course, nobody believes him. I thought it was a really layered role and a very well-developed character. So I mostly relied on the writer a lot instead of the historical context.

MG: What was it like shooting on location in India?
KP: It was awesome. I had only shot in India once before and that was for “The Namesake”. This movie we shot in Hyderabad and Mumbai. It is very different to shoot there. Kind of the biggest shocker for me was that actors would work on a couple of movies at the same time. They are shooting Monday and Tuesday on one movie and a second one on Thursday. It is a bit chaotic but in a really cool different way. It was a good learning experience. It also makes it a more dynamic environment when shooting on location.

MG: Do you think/hope that the film will bring more awareness to the event?
KP: My biggest hope going into the movie, even before we shot it, was that we do justice to the events that happened. It is an incredibly complex series of events and there are still people alive today that are living with the effects of what happened. Neither Union Carbide nor Dow Chemical ever actually apologized for what happened. It is also still not cleaned up in fact and the factory is still lying there empty. So if a fictional adaptation can get the conversation started and maybe even helps these people, then yeah I think that is great. But even beyond that, we did a screening in New York and it was interesting to hear people leave the screening that didn’t know that this was based on a true story. It really sparked some great conversations.

MG: You have done a mix of film and TV within genres of comedy and drama; do you have a personal preference?
KP: I love doing both. I hope that I am lucky enough to continue doing both. My fans have been really kind to me and I love them for it. To be able to go and do a stoner movie and then turn around and play a doctor is awesome. That is what I love about being an actor, I really enjoy playing all different kinds of characters. If I can continue to do that then I will be one happy person.

MG: Do you think we will ever see the return of Harold and Kumar?
KP: I would be happy to do as many as they will let me do. I would do “Harold and Kumar 58” when I am 102 years old [laughs]. Kumar is so much cooler than I will ever be in real life.

It’s the classic story of being in the right place at the right time. Newly moved to California in 1961, Tippi Hedren appeared in a television commercial that caught the eye of one of the most acclaimed filmmakers in history: Alfred Hitchcock. “Hitch” tracked Ms. Hedren down and cast her as Melanie Daniels in his classic film “The Birds.” She worked with him again alongside Sean Connery in “Marnie.” More than five decades later she continues to work, both on screen and in her continuing fight to stop the breeding of big cats through her THE ROAR FOUNDATION. And talent runs in the family. Her daughter, Melanie Griffith, is an Oscar-nominated actress and her granddaughter, Dakota Johnson, will star in the highly anticipated film version of “50 Shades of Grey.”

As she prepared for her upcoming appearance in Omaha this week at a charity screening of “The Birds” Ms. Hedren took some time to speak with me about the event and her foundation.

Mike Smith: You’re originally from Minnesota. Will this be your first visit to Nebraska?
Tippi Hedren: Not at all. I’ve been there before and I’m looking forward to returning and taking part in the festivities.

MS: How did you get the name “Tippi?”
TH: My father gave it to me. My baptismal name is Nathalie Kay Hedren and that was quite much for a little tiny girl. My father, who was of Swedish descent, started calling me “Touksa,” which is a Swedish term of endearment apparently. It went from Touksa to Tippi. And that’s the story!

MS: What do you think it is about “The Birds” that makes it a “must see” film more than 50 years after it was released?
TH: That movie has a life of its own! But when you do a Hitchcock film you know it’s going to be good but this has just been outrageous. One decade after the other. People like to be afraid and when you can be made afraid of something that you see every day that makes it even better.

MS: As with a lot of the screenings in Omaha, the artist Nicolosi has designed a special United States Post Office envelope to commemorate the event. Have you seen it yet?
TH: No, I haven’t.
MS: It’s a beautiful piece of work. I know you’re going to like it.
TH: I can’t wait to see it.

MS: Your daughter, Melanie, is a movie star in her own right and your granddaughter is about to star in what will surely be one of the most popular films of 2015. Have you ever felt the need, or have they ever asked you, for any advice on how to deal with Hollywood?
TH: Not really. I’ve never felt the need to talk with them. As a family we certainly respect each other’s talent but we’ve never given each other advice.

MS: “The Birds” was your film debut. Do you approach a film role the same today as you did back then?
TH: No. You have to understand that “The Birds” was a unique experience. For someone who had always wanted to be an actress, this was like Cinderella. I was chosen for the part because of a commercial I had done. I had been a model for the Ford Agency in New York City in the 1950s but the 1960s brought along the television and, of course, the television commercial. Commercials were financially lucrative, so much so that I was able to take three months off and travel around the world. Apparently Mr. Hitchcock became interested in me after seeing me in a commercial for a product called Sego, which was a diet drink. It was a commercial with a story line, not just a product plug. He asked Universal to find the girl in the commercial. Lo and behold, I had just moved back to California with Melanie and…
MS: Wow! Perfect timing.
TH: Perfect.

MS: Tell a little about your work with big cats.
TH: I’ve been rescuing big cats…lions and tigers…since 1972. This has become a major, major part of my life. I feel very strongly that these animals should not be bred and born in the United States to be sold as a pet or for financial gain. I’m very busy trying to get my second federal bill passed to stop the breeding. It’s titled the “Big Cats and Public Safety Protection Act” and I hope your readers will look it up and write to their senators and congressmen to stop the breeding.

For more information on how to support Miss Hedren’s bill, go to https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1998

Kevin Greutert is the director of the films “Saw VI”, Saw 3D: The Final Chapter” as well on editor on the entire “Saw” franchise. His latest film is called “Jessabelle” and is a ghost story set in Louisiana. Media Mikes had a chance to chat with Kevin about the film and what we can expect.

Mike Gencarelli: How was it going from directing “Saw 3D” to a film like “Jessabelle”?
Kevin Greutert: I was very eager to step away from the “Saw” franchise. I loved doing those movies but I wanted to get on with something different and really work with characters that are more developed and have more dramatic texture going on. When this script crossed my desk, I was super excited. It felt like a real breath of fresh air. We made it for a lot less money and a lot less time than most of the “Saw” movies. So in that regard, there was some different challenges as well. There are times when you what to put a camera or lights somewhere but it just isn’t possible. But It was absolutely worth it since the story is so good and the actors and crew were such a pleasure to work with. They made it so easy.

MG: Did you enjoy working in a more slow burn type of horror?
KG: The “Saw” movies were so energy fueled. I love making movies that are as physically engaging as possible. You say slow burn but I hope it isn’t too slow [laughs]. I have been told that this movie has a really amazing pace to it. It is not a movie that is throwing stuff at the screen the entire time. I think the most fun scenes in the film are the really quiet scenes that rely on the tiniest sound to trigger a scare or you see a shadow move in the background. To get to play with that kind of aspect instead of arms getting chopped off felt great and it felt really great on the set. There were no sets for this film, it was all shot in an isolated plantation. You can hear the night birds and there were alligators everywhere. So it was great to do a quiet ghost story.

MG: Like with the “Saw” franchise, you also edited “Jessabelle”; tell us about that aspect?
KG: It is interesting, I enjoy editing a lot but there are challenges to doing both. Directing a film is like climbing Mount Everest. It is really hard and takes all of your resources. By the time you finish, you really just want to go to the Caribbean and spent a month decompressing. By editing the film myself as well, I am climbing Everest and once I reach base camp, I have to turn around and do it again. It is that hard. There is no time to waste and you need to get right back into it. If there is any problem with the footage, it is on you. If I am editing someone else’s film and if something didn’t come out right or they failed to shoot a scene or get a shot, I can say “Man, those guys screwed up” [laughs]. That being said, I still felt pretty good when we got this film in the can. There were no reshoots needed or anything. So the hardest part of editing this film was actually all the stuff that I had to leave on the cutting room floor. Sarah Snook does every take different and they were all great. I am only person in the world who will see how these scenes could have been. These are tough decisions to see something so good and not be able to use it because something else was slightly more appropriate. That is a challenge but it is still very exciting as a filmmaker.

MG: That tub scene is quite effective; tell us about shooting that?
KG: Yeah, the bathtub scene was a tough one. Basically, we had to figure out how to create the sensation that the tub was filling up with swampy, oily, disgusting water. We had to find a place to shoot it. We were in this abandoned three story mansion. The only room we could do it was on the second floor, so in the dining room underneath, we had to build a giant 4×4 super structure to keep the tub from failing through the floor. It was probably our biggest shoot day. We had to have condor cranes at the windows with different lights and rain effects. We had a hot filled with water ready to make sure the girls didn’t freeze to death. Then on the very last day of shooting I had wanted to get a few more shots in the bath tub, so we had to set it all back up again. I thank the crew because it was a tough thing to do.

MG: Did you ever feel limited by the PG-13 rating?
KG: I always wanted this movie to actually be PG-13. When you put an R rating on a horror movie, people have expectations that this movie is going to deliver gore and blood etc. This is a very scary movie but not scary because of violence. It is scary due to its psychological situations. With that said, when we did submit the film to the MPAA, we did get back an R rating several times and we had to make a few adjustments. But for most people, if you would see both versions side by you probably wouldn’t be able to notice anything major missing.

MG: I liked the locations which created a lot of atmosphere in the film; tell us about where it was shot?
KG: From the day that I first read the script to the day that we started shooting, it was not a long time. First order of business was to cast it and simultaneously with that was to find a place to shoot it. Originally we drove all over Louisiana trying to find the right place. We would up in North Carolina and thought it looked more like Louisiana than Louisiana [laughs]. We originally found a great house and shortly after we were told that this guy James Wan was using it for a film called “The Conjuring” [laughs]. James is good friend of mine though and we found another place and ended up working in the same town at the same time as them. In the plantation we found, no one has ever made a movie there before and no one had lived there for decades. The last inhabitant was an old schizophrenic man. The walls were completely covered with strange drawings. It felt like a true haunted house. When you see the film it looks like a very derelict building but we cleaned it up a lot [laughs]. It was really a great place. When they go through the swamps, it was all the real thing. We had alligators following us around. It was wonderful.

MG: What can you tell us about your next film, “Visions”?
KG: That film is also produced by Jason Blum. I am currently editing it. It is a wife that buys a winery to overcome a tragedy. Her husband is also trying to sustain an agricultural business during a drought and the wife is pregnant. She starts to experience some very mysterious hauntings in the house. I don’t want to say too much but it has one of the best third acts that I have ever seen. I read the script for the first time back in 2008 and called everyone to get this film made. It took a while but it is great and I can’t wait for it to be released.

Related Content

• Indie Film Director Patrick Rea Talks About “Arbor Demon”
• Gerrit Graham talks about roles in “Phantom of the Paradise” and “Used Cars”
• The Vicious Brothers and Brittany Allen discuss their new film “Extraterrestrial”
• Kristian Hanson talks about his new film “Sledge”
• Dolph Lundgren talks about new film “The Package”, TV series “Rescue 3” and “The Expendables 3”

Photo Credit: 2014 Stuck Film Group, LLC.

Malek Akkad is the son of Moustapha Akkad, who is know for producing all eight “Halloween” films in the original series up until his death in 2005. Malek took over the reign with the recent reboot of “Halloween” with Rob Zombie and is continuing his father’s legacy. Malek is making his directorial debut with the suspense thriller “Free Fall”, which stars Sarah Butler (“I Spit on Your Grave”) and Malcolm McDowell (“Rob Zombie’s Halloween”). Media Mikes had a chance to chat about the film with him, along with the recently released “Halloween: The Complete Collection” Blu-ray box set and the future of the franchise.

Mike Gencarelli: Tell us about what made you take the jump from producer to director with “Free Fall”?
Malek Akkad: My intended focus when I came out of film school was to do direct. I was doing a lot of music videos, commercials and trying to get up and running in that career. I was a production manager on a couple of shows. My path just took me more on the side of producing and then I started working with my father. In this business, you have to take it where it comes from. So I did spend a few years working in the producing gig, which I do love. My passion is just being in production in general. But I did want to get back into directing, so this was a good opportunity and we had some time between other projects. We came across this script and it felt like it would be a run ride to take.

MG: What made you decide to tackle a suspense thriller instead of horror?
MA: For one thing, I thought the horror genre would be the obvious route to go and I wanted to tackle something that would be outside of the realm that I was comfortable in. Plus I didn’t want to get pigeonholed as “the horror guy”. I found this script and thought the writer was able to really flip the head on a few genre key elements, which I liked. It was also a script that I was able to use some themes that I wanted to address. So it worked on a lot of levels.

MG: You know you seriously just took elevators to a whole new level here, right?
MA: Oh great, awesome! I am great to hear that. Every time I get into an elevator now, I am thinking that karma is going to get me [laughs].

MG: Was it always planned to reunite with “Halloween” star Malcolm McDowell?
MA: He was just perfect for this role. We had worked together twice before and he is just a joy to work with. He also fit the character perfectly actually, so it was an honor that he agreed to do this with me. It is also great to be able to work with actors that you are comfortable with. It was great to work with him once again.

MG: Let’s talks about the “Halloween: The Complete Collection”; how involved were you with this release?
MA: It was a hurdle of getting all the involved parties together. In this franchise, there has been so many different distribution companies and production entities. The first thing to tackle was getting everyone on the same page. Between Shout! Factory and Anchor Bay, they really did a great job in doing that. With the behind-the-scenes material, I think that Shout! Factory really did a great job in putting together a lot of new material. Then we had to go to Miramax and dig up the old elements for “Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers”. So I definitely had an involvement but most of the credit needs to go to Shout! Factory for putting together a great package that the fans have really been responding to.

MG: Why do you think the idea of Michael Myers is still so effective after all these years?
MA: There are so many answers to that. With horror genre, going back to the great Universal Monsters, is filled with just such hardcore fans. People just love to go in and have that controlled sense of fear. There is enough fear in the world that people can’t control. So if you can spend two hours and you know you are somewhat safe, I think that is something cathartic in that. I think all that feeds into what this franchise has become. Of course, it all goes back to the amazing classic from John Carpenter.

MG: Any progress updates for the next “Halloween” film in the franchise?
MA: Yeah, we are working on one right now. We are due a new draft any day now. We are working really hard to take it to the next level and keep the fans as happy as we can. I think we have a really fun pick and getting everyone involved and on the same page and behind one storyline takes longer than you would think. I think we have finally cracked something that we really liked and we are going to have some announcements very soon!

Photo by Dean Karr

Joseph Bishara is the amazing composer for horror films like “Insidious”, “The Conjuring” and most recently “Annabelle”. He is also probably the cause of a few of your nightmares since he played great characters like Lipstick-Face Demon in “Insidious” and Bathsheba in “The Conjuring”. Joseph took out some time to chat with Media Mikes again about his new film “Annabelle” and what we can expect.

Mike Gencarelli: From your role of Lipstick-Face Demon in “Insidious” to Bathsheba in “The Conjuring” to your latest role in “Annabelle”; what do you enjoy most about getting to play these roles?
Joseph Bishara: I like being able to look through the eyes of these characters, and getting to have a different perspective and take on the film. It’s seeing the scenes unfold from the inside. They were all very interesting characters to explore.

MG: We got to learn about your character in “Insidious” and “The Conjuring” but not much in “Annabelle”, give us some background on your role?
JB: It’s the demon that’s attached to the doll. When discussing the character with James (Wan), his take described it more specifically, as Lorraine Warren would explain as a “latching demonic”.

MG: Which of the three was the most challenging for you?
JB: I would have to say “The Conjuring” because it was the most time I was on set and also the longest to get into the makeup. “Insidious” was challenging also but it was different because it was more guerrilla filmmaking, where we had to make do with what we had to work with.

MG: How does it feel like to give a grown man nightmares with these roles?
JB: [laughs] That’s a good thing. I won’t apologize for anyone losing sleep, everyone needs to have nightmares.

MG: You not only have roles in the above-mentioned films but you also are the composer delivering spin-tingling scores; what do you enjoy most about working in this genre?
JB: It’s the genre that I feel most comfortable in, and with the directors that I have worked with I have been given a lot of freedom to take the scores in the directions I wanted. Horror is always a favorite of mine and I just really enjoy creating in that space.

MG: “Insidious” is easily one of the best horror scores in recent years; how do you approach a score when you are working with the film?
JB: When I start on a score, I just start hearing it in my head often from the moment it starts being discussed. I can’t really explain it but if the project is right, ideas will just come. It’s finding what the language is and isn’t, and then speaking it.

MG: What can we expect from you in terms of role and composer in “Insidious: Chapter 3″?
JB: I can’t say much just yet, but Leigh did an excellent job with it and brings a bit of a different flavor. Hopefully you’ll lose more sleep.

For more info, check out his official sites: www.jbishara.com and www.voidrecordings.com