IN THIS ISSUE

FRONT PAGE:
Interview with
FINAL CUT
director

Omar Naïm

IRS COLUMNS:

Amélie Franks's
Retro Hell

Marc Olmsted's
Astro Hell

Richard Modiano's
Politics are Hell

REVIEWS:

Books
Fiction

Non-Fiction

Poetry

Sights & Sounds

CD Reviews

FEATURES &
PICKS :

Sight

OUTFOXED

Sound

In Memory
of Warren
Zevon

Word

Celebrating
"Pranks!"

EDITORIAL:

- Editor's Rant
- Write Us
- Letters
- Bios
- Subscribe
- Submit

PAST INTERVIEWS:

 

Archive
Watch for our newly
remodeled
Archive Section.  
Coming Soon!

...Really

FRONT PAGE

 

EDITING YOUR LIFE
Omar Naïm's fascinating first film ponders life as filmstock and the slippery slope of memory.

Everyone does it. We rewrite our personal histories so that we are better, faster, stronger, and more worthy of love. We rewrite with hindsight or with deliberate intent, either way it’s denying the truth about our lives, but is it good or bad? Then there’s the very rich who can pay people to write their memoirs, or if you’re the president you can just hire a spin doctor and hold a press conference.

With the help of producer Nick Wechsler (Drugstore Cowboy, Requium for a Dream), cinematographer Tak Fujimoto (The Sixth Sense, Silence of the Lambs) and Dede Allen (Addams Family, Wonder Boys), Omar Naïm has taken the basic inclination of people to rewrite their personal histories, put a science fiction spin on it and loaded the cast with actors like Robin Williams and Mira Sorvino. The result, The Final Cut, hits theaters on October 15th and is more than your average mystery/science-fiction/love story. Similar to A Clockwork Orange and A Boy and His Dog, The Final Cut is about more than technology, it is about people and their struggle to stay human despite technology.

 

CA: How did you come up with the idea for the film?

ON: I was editing this documentary for school, spending 9 months editing this thing. Everybody has this idea of documentaries as having this illusion of objectivity, and everybody who makes a documentary realizes this one day: that I’m as manipulative as fiction. That realization coupled with thinking about memory and how our society chooses to preserve its past. This sort of mass obsession, our narcissistic tendencies, nostalgia, the way we’re all marinating in the past.

CA: You’re from Lebanon, is that true in your culture?

ON: Oh yes, more even because there was this 17-year civil war and my generation is constantly told, “oh the Lebanon you never knew was the greatest place ever.” So there’s this idealization of a past that we never really experienced. There’s this constant attack for our generation to go back to that even though we never knew it. Plus I think that the way we put our lives together in our minds is the closest thing to making a movie most people have. We arrange our memories and take out the things we want to forget and put in things that never happened. We’re in the shot in our memory. We make a movie out of it. I thought that the correlation between memory and how we put it together was an interesting idea for a movie and it turns out that science fiction was the way to go with that.

CA: I thought it was a great idea when I heard about it because if you think of memory as the thing that happened two seconds ago, film is a memory enhancer because it’s ticking along and becoming a memory as we watch it.

ON: That’s really interesting, film is, on a physical level, a memory.

CA: When did you start writing the movie?

ON: January 2001 or was it January 2000? I can’t remember anymore…

CA: Well there you go.

ON: I was working as a co-cinematographer on a very low budget film because I wanted the experience as a director, to get behind the camera and get to know all that stuff. While I was working there the idea dawned upon me and I thought about it for many, many months. I started writing in Feb 2001, finished it that summer and this Lebanese friend of mine said that it was really good and I should submit it to the Equinox project, which is modeled on the Sundance workshop, only in France. I was accepted, and to me it was ridiculous in a fun sort of way, it was like Hogworts for filmmakers. They fly you to this castle in France, the French do everything excessively and beautifully, so they fly these 10 filmmakers to a chateau in the south of France and you talk and workshop everyday. I was the only one there who didn’t have a producer or an agent. The other filmmakers really liked the material. One in particular, knew I wanted to direct it and he got it to Nick Weschler, who is now the producer of the film, interested. Equinox helped open all the doors, I got really, really lucky. And Nick having the guts to hear my pitch for it and believe in my vision for the film was also lucky.

CA: Since the film is set in an undetermined time in the future, what kind of music did you use for the score and any songs?

ON: The music was a lot of fun to think about, because it’s not a futuristic film. It doesn’t take place in a specific time. We didn’t want any music that would sort of puncture that so a lot of the music is a very rich score, but there are a few songs in the film. I wanted the composer to write them in different styles. He wrote one song, which we described as we wanted a Sonic Youth sort of song, so there’s this aggressive song in there. Then he wrote this Sarah Vaughn sort of 40s style song. So there are two songs written by Brian Tyler. He’d done a couple of films for Lion’s Gate, he did Frailty and I loved the film and the score, but I was expecting to meet someone who was like 60 and he’s 30, but he has a great deal of maturity and is very cinematic. He loved the story and in a way a film about memory is a film about music. Other than smell, and short of smell-o-vision, and we’re not going to go there, it’s not that kind of science fiction, music triggers our memories more than anything else. So the music was something we really spent a lot of time on.

CA: It sounds like you had a lot of control over the process once it was picked up.

ON: I did. I was very lucky there too, partially because I wrote it, but also because I attracted a really wonderful cast.

CA: Speaking of which, how did you get that cast?

ON: You know I always hear, “you know Robin’s on a serious streak recently,” but he’s always done serious stuff since 1982. He’s a great serious actor and he really loved the script. I got signed to CAA out of Equinox, so we share an agency. My agent who was there was willing to take a chance on me. I hadn’t thought about Robin for the part, and actors were turning down the script because it was so dark and they felt a first time director was too much of a risk. So I spent Christmas with my family in France, and I swear this is true, my father got up one morning and said, son, I had a dream that Robin Williams was going to be in your film and not only that, you’re going to really get along with him. I’m like OK, and then I read the script and I thought it was a really good idea, but that he’d never be interested. It goes to show that if your parents have clairvoyant tendencies, trust them.

CA: It seems like France was very important for the project.

ON: Yes, France is very important, France and dreams. So we sent it to Robin and he really liked it. When we met and he really responded to the themes and the character.

CA: How was the directing process for you considering the scale of the cast, the budget and the weight of being a first time director.
ON: Significantly harder, and very scary, I sort of knew that going in. I told myself, I have to make sure I don’t freak out here. The lead up to the first day was almost unbearable, but once it got started I got down to the business of making the film. I had been living with it so long that I could answer questions about the story and characters easily. It was the most addictive process in the world. As soon as I was done, I thought, oh my god, I have to make another one, this was so much fun.

CA: It’s like your own world.

ON: It has that side, but it’s also like, wow, there are so many talented people adding to my ideas that are better than my ideas. That’s so important, as a writer to hold on to the core of the story, but as a director to be open to what’s the best idea around. And you have to create and environment where people can suggest those ideas without thinking that they are stepping on your toes, or without them actually stepping on your toes. The actors contributed some wonderful ideas. The cinematographer contributed some wonderful ideas too.

CA: Who was your cinematographer?

ON: I got Tak Fujimoto (Manchurian Candidate; The Sixth Sense; Philadelphia; Gladiator; Silence of the Lambs), a wonderful guy. I learned so much from him. What I did with the crew is that, because I had had this idea in my head for two years, I made a list of who I would like to work with and Tak was at the top of my list. I told my producer and he said, let’s try it. There’s nothing wrong with trying. So I sent it to Tak thinking I’d get a polite refusal, but he actually met with me. It turns out he passes on a lot of stuff because it doesn’t appeal to him. But he liked the material, the direction, he liked the fact that it wasn’t really a science fiction film, because it’s not it’s more of a drama, it’s a metaphorical film. Like a Clockwork Orange is technically a science fiction film, but it’s really about society and the direction we’re going in and so is this film. It’s mostly about our own experience of our own lives.

CA: Who was your film editor?

ON: Dede Allen (Wonder Boys; Addams Family; Breakfast Club; Dog Day Afternoon; Bonnie & Clyde). And a relative newcomer named Robert Brakey (assistant editor on: Frailty; Mulan; Dazed and Confused). I wanted Dede over any other editor, because I find that no matter what the film is about, her focus is the performances more than anything else. I find the danger with a lot of films, especially science fiction films, is missing the performances.

CA: Did the editors have any commentary on the subject matter?

ON: The editors loved that it was about editors. After we built the guillotine I made up a diagram and they sat down and figured out how it would work and then sat with Robin and showed him how to work like and editor and look convincing. That was a lot of fun. There are no movies about film editors. Part of the fun was creating an editor subculture of people who edit lives as a kind of director slash editor. CA: The Robin Williams character is a cutter who uses the information from the Zoe chip to make movies for the persons funeral that remake their lives in a better light for everyone to remember them by. Am I getting this right?

ON: The Zoe chip is like a big POV shot of your life. It has no feelings or judgment, and it’s mostly for the wealthy. These cutters sit down and make films of your life to change the way people remember you. That’s really the purpose of these films: to worship ourselves. I find going to the movie theater in our society is almost a religious activity: you sit down, it’s quiet, the lights go down…It’s very similar. The memorial film, which is called a “re-memory”, is shown in a theater. I like the way it ties in our movie going with our funerary rituals and it becomes a kind of new religion to us. Alan is the man he is because of an awful tragedy that happened in his childhood. While he’s working on his latest project he discovers something that he never realized before about his life that he has to pursue.

CA: A shared memory?

ON: No, it’s some other guy’s life. I love the idea that something that happened in this stranger’s life that was meaningless to him is, to Alan, a revelation. And it starts a mystery that needs to be solved about who he is and why he is what he is. For me that is the question, philosophically anyway. I mean we are who we are because of how we perceive ourselves, but the way we perceive ourselves is quite possibly based on false information our mind has told us. It’s kind of creepy when you think about the fact that everything is up for grabs that way.

CA: How did you decide on the design of the world of the movie.

ON: I had a fantastic production designer named James Chinlund who did Requiem For A Dream and Auto Focus and he always wanted to do science fiction but never had a chance to do it and he loved the script. We talked about what a society that worships the past would look like. We wanted to stay away from the clichés of the genre. In the film Alan works on an editing system, called the guillotine, that’s a combination of old and new editing tables. We decided that all the computer casings would be made out of wood to create a warm feeling. You look at it and you think, my god, why aren’t computers really made this way? The world has to have a very warm cozy feel. I wanted the film to look like a memory. It’s going to be confusing to a hell of a lot of people who are walking into the theater expecting to see a lot of lasers and futuristic cars. The costumes use a lot of 40s style clothing and the cars are all European from the 60s and 70s. But the wooden computers, I hope they catch on. I feel for the people who built them and they had to be functioning wooden laptops.

CA: Tell me about the Mira Sorvino character.

ON: She’s a bookdealer and a woman that Alan has been seeing for a few weeks. She’s a character that believes in the older values and it’s not a coincidence that she’s a book dealer. She is simultaneously curious and very suspicious about these Zoe films. She says, I prefer to remember people the way I remember them and not the way I’ve been told to remember them. She’s the moral side of the film or the side of the film that’s not greeting the technology with open arms because she feels that there’s something wrong with it. She’s attracted to Alan because he’s a very talented and interesting guy with a real sweet side. Their story is kind of him trying to emerge from his neurosis.

CA: And the James Clavezael character?

ON: Jim plays an ex-cutter who came to a moral awakening and quit. Now he is part of a group of people who are ideologically opposed to the technology and want to expose it for the mass lying machine that it is.

CA: It seems like it could be an OK technology.

ON: That’s in the film. It’s not preachy on either end. I made the film to be an open dialogue for the audience. Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes not. I mean it’s OK if someone wants to remember their loved one a certain way, but what about when it gets to a bigger level which is what we have now with our administration. What happens when you’re fed a particular picture that’s not in the real picture and people start to believe that that is the truth?

CA: History is written by the winner…

ON: Exactly, it’s something I feel very strongly about, and so do the characters in the film, they defend their views very strongly. The distortion of personal history is the distortion of history.

CA: It’s the distortion of personal history on a public front.

ON: Movies have distorted our view of what our lives should be like. It’s like we expect our lives to follow the three-act structure. Suddenly over a hundred years of movies there’s these expectations that have been created, but life is not like a movie. Alan thinks like a movie too, I think that’s an interesting conflict within the film.

CA: Are you happy with the end product?

ON: I’m really happy. I can’t wait until it comes out.

CA: Did you get all the scenes you wanted?

ON: We did have to cut some scenes. A big part of it for me was that we had a 35-day shoot, and it was important to get it in on time and on budget.

CA: What do you think of the concept of the director’s cut?

ON: I’m not a fan. They’re rarely as good as the original, especially if you’re going back and digitally fucking with it. We know who were talking about here. That’s a little distressing because films are so much a part of when they came out. I mean can you imagine a painter doing that?

 

 

Subscribe to theindependentreviewssite
Powered by groups.yahoo.com

 


THE FINAL CUT
Directed by Omar Naïm
Released by Lion's Gate Films
Opening in Theaters
October 15th

fc_poster

 

One of the most fascinating aspects of The Final Cut is that it is a personal dialogue between the director and himself about the captured image, both in his film and in his life.

For Naïm, though film is his chosen art medium, he has qualms about its pervasiveness in real life. “These ‘cutters’ sit down and make films of your life to change the way people remember you. That’s really the purpose of these Zöe films: to worship ourselves. I find going to the movie theater in our society is almost a religious activity: you sit down, it’s quiet, the lights go down, it’s very similar.

The memorial films in the movie, which are called Re-memories, are shown in a theater. I like the way it ties into the film, combining movie going with funerary rituals until it becomes a kind of new religion to the characters in the film.”

Fully supporting the technology is Alan (Williams), the best cutter in the business. He’s become an editing machine with no moral judgment of his own, a fault that Naïm can sees in moviegoers. “Movies have distorted our view of what our lives should be like. It’s like we expect our lives to follow the three-act structure.

Suddenly over a hundred years of movies there’s these expectations that have been created, but life is not like a movie. Alan thinks like a movie too, I think that’s an interesting conflict within the film.”

One day, however, a random memory from the Zöe film of his latest project stirs up a personal memory, which makes him realize he has become the machine he is due to one event in his childhood.

“ I love the idea that something that happened in this stranger’s life, that was meaningless to him is, to Alan, a revelation.” Naïm says, “And it starts a mystery that needs to be solved about who he is and why he is what he is. For me that is the question, philosophically anyway. I mean we are who we are because of how we perceive ourselves, but the way we perceive ourselves is quite possibly based on false information our mind has told us. It’s kind of creepy when you think about the fact that everything is up for grabs that way.”

In the middle of the argument you have the aptly named Delila (Sorvino). “She’s a woman that Alan has been seeing for a few weeks. She’s believes in the older values and it’s not a coincidence that she’s a book dealer. She is simultaneously curious and very suspicious about these Zöe films.

She says. ‘I prefer to remember people the way I remember them and not the way I’ve been told to remember them.’ She’s the moral side of the film or the side of the film that’s not greeting the technology with open arms because she feels that there’s something wrong with the concept.”

At the extreme end of the spectrum are the protesters against the Zöe technology led by Fletcher (Caviezel, fresh from The Passion of the Christ) an ex-cutter who quit the business because of a moral awakening. “Now he is part of a group of people who are ideologically opposed to the technology and want to expose it for the mass lying machine that it is.”

Aside from the star power, it’s produced by Nick Wechsler producer of: The 25th Hour; Quills; Requiem for A Dream; Drugstore Cowboy. You get the idea, this guy knows how to pick films.
It’s also not your “bling bling” Sci-Fi film. The genre is just a frame for personal experience. Like A Clockwork Orange or A Boy and His Dog, the focus is on people dealing with life in the future, not light sabers and spaceships.

Add to that cinematographer Tak Fujimoto (Manchurian Candidate, The Sixth Sense, Silence of the Lambs) and film editor Dede Allen (Wonder Boys, Addams Family, Dog Day Afternoon), both known for their attention to the players in the film rather than the backdrops, and you have the perfect combination of first time indy director-vision and old-school workmanship that could make The Final Cut one of September’s biggest little hits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Back To The Top