I don't really care how much the latest superhero film took at the box office, although I'd probably know if you asked me. When I watch a film the main thing I am looking for is a good story. I like it when I look up at the big screen and can see a part of me staring back at me. More than anything, I am still looking for Jimmy Stewart and Jack Lemmon and Billy Wilder in every film I see.
This is possibly the best work I've seen him do. He always annoys me, but in this, he's perfect -- extremely relatable and exactly like the friend you'd expect to be around in this situation. The 'break-up' scene is his masterpiece -- a brilliant moment of righteous, comedic, brilliance. He totally got this character right -- perfect casting, perfectly performed.
ANNA KENDRICK
I never liked her before. Couldn't see the fuss when I saw 'Up In The Air'. But here, she nailed it. It didn't feel like she was playing a character -- she just was the character. A nervous newbie therapist, struggling with herself and her unexpected feelings for a patient. Wow, she was so subtle and funny. It was a hard film for Joseph Gordon-Levitt, because he's the one with cancer, and his role was pretty bland and passive -- but it worked, it was what the story needed -- and it made Kendrick shine.
PHILLIP BAKER-HALL
He's 80 already. Wow. But then again, he has been around forever. You can't train someone to be like him -- he just has it. That thing. The presence. It's partly experience, but mostly; it's just who and what he is. You wanna talk to him, wanna hear his advice, wanna be on his good side. He lights up the scenes in "50/50". How often are there interesting roles for 80 year olds? Nearly never. He makes this small role both funny and profound. A complete joy to watch. A quiet master.
JOSEPH GORDON-LEVITT & ANJELICA HUSTON
Both of these actors have done better work elsewhere. It was hard for Joseph because he was in a pretty helpless position, getting pulled around, put in machines, stuck in beds; that's cancer. That's what it does.
But there's one scene between them, the Mother and Son, which is really touching. He's asking her how she's doing. It's the most simple of things -- but something he'd been neglecting to do because he was so caught up in his own thing and tired of his Mother trying to take care of him every single second. And she reveals that she's been going to a support group for parents whose kids have cancer. She struggles to get those words out of her mouth, and her vulnerability is so touching. For the entire film he's been pushing her away because she's too controlling, and at the end - we see, she's just like everyone else, struggling and in need of support.
Geoff wrote the film 'Going The Distance'. Here is his response to my article "The Moment You Connect"
Shit yeah! Really glad you had such a reaction to the movie. Though it it worries me; as one of only 6 people to see and enjoy the movie, your enthusiasm is probably indicative of a dangerous mental ailment. Sucks.
Anyway, the scene in question happened much like you said. We originally had an entirely different (though thematically similar) montage sequence written, but in the midst of shooting, the director (Nanette Burstein) decided she wanted to mix it up a bit and apply techniques from her documentary roots. So she took a handheld and a very small crew out with Justin and Drew in various NYC locales and just kind of let them go. Since they were dating at the time (or had dated until then, can't really remember) they had an awesome rapport and their real personalities mirror the characters' so well that they just fell into conversations that fit perfectly within the film. I agree it's a little jarring for a moment, but it's also one of my favorite sequences in the whole movie because it sort of slam-dunked one of the main things I thought was most important with the story: keeping it real.
Again, super stoked you enjoyed and that it meant something to you. These kind of responses to the movie make my giddy to the point that a little pee comes out.
November 19th-December 19th 2011 is Rom-Com Season at Kid In The Front Row. To love a romantic comedy, there has to be a moment when you really connect. And do you connect because it's a great film? Because they used the right lighting? Maybe. But probably not. I like the film 'Going The Distance'. Why? I guess because it's about people of my kind of age and mentality, and it has good dialogue and a good level of authenticity. But then, that's true of many films.
But 'Going The Distance' really hit me, at a very specific moment, twenty-two minutes into the film.
First of all, there was some movie carry-over ("Movie Carry-Over": When you project a quality into a film based on a previous film you've seen [and yes, this is a made up KidInTheFrontRowIsm]). The carry-over is from 'Adventureland'. As any of you who are regulars will know, 'Adventureland' is one of my all time favorite films, and I watch it on a near weekly basis. I just can't get enough of it.
The carry-over is caused by the song "Just Like Heaven" by The Cure. It's used in 'Adventureland' and it's used in "Going The Distance". I love how it's joyously used in 'Adventureland', and that energy is similar in this film. Also, the second the song hits in, there's a wonderful establishing shot of Manhattan, my favorite place in the world. So we have NEW YORK and ADVENTURELAND and JUST LIKE HEAVEN; and I just connect, because they're three things that are extremely personal and wonderful to me. The scene that follows is an unusual one, because it's so raw. Most of the film is shot in quite a standard way; but the scene with 'Just Like Heaven' in the background is extremely raw -- the camerawork is handheld and jerky; in fact, one of the shots is so bad it's unbelievable they kept it in. But more unbelievable than that, is how perfectly it worked. Drew Barrymore and Justin Long rocked the scene. They were so real; really connecting and just having fun. Drew's big booming laugh is the most honest thing you've ever seen.
The lighting is really flat, there's something really unprofessional about it; almost as if the director gave a camera to a production assistant and said "go shoot something". I'd love to know how they shot this scene. Because, actually, it's one of my favorite cinema moments. Funny how it goes, y'know? You can have the perfect things technically and have it mean nothing, or shoot something where the camera nearly falls over, and you hit movie magic. After that there's a pretty standard montage of time passing and the characters falling in love -- but armed with the song and the wonderful scene that came before; it really resonates.
That's how romantic comedies get you. They need that moment. The one where you think "YES. I get that. I feel that. That's my life." Without it, all you have is a Jennifer Lopez movie. But when it's done right, when a rom-com is honest; it connects in ways which nothing else in cinema can. This scene captures the very essence of what it is to have a New York moment; to connect with someone and be full of possibilities.
November 19th-December 19th 2011 is Rom-Com Season at Kid In The Front Row.
Once upon a time a king gave a feast
and there were all the most beautiful
princesses of the realm. Basta, one
of the guards, saw the king's
daughter: she was the loveliest of
all! And he immediately fell in love
with her. But what could a poor
soldier do compared with a king's
daughter?!...One day he managed
to meet her and told her he couldn't
live without her. The princess was so
struck by the depth of his feeling
that she said to the soldier 'If you
will wait a hundred days and a
hundred nights beneath my balcony,
then in the end I'll be yours.'
Christ, the soldier ran off there and
waited! One day, two days,
ten, twenty... every night she looked
out of her window, but he never
budged. Come rain, wind, snow, never
budged! The birds shat on him and the
bees ate him alive! After ninety
nights he was gaunt and pale and
tears streamed from his eyes but he
couldn't hold them back. He didn't
even have the strength to sleep any
more. The princess kept watch... and
on the ninety-ninth night, the
soldier got up, picked up his chair
and left!
This is the stuff that wrecks us, as human beings. We watch movies and we buy into the romance. Imagine what would happen if you waited outside a woman's house for a hundred days? Jeez, I get to her house ten minutes early and she'll read into it as me being 'too keen.'
Movies are insane.
We're all romantic, all of us. And we all want the big loves and gestures. It's just that we don't want them in real life, we just want them in the movies.
At some point, we buy into the nonsense. We act on it. The big gesture. It doesn't work! Some people say it does work, but then two years later they're staring at their lawyers, waiting for the divorce to be finalized.
So we play the game. The game of disinterest. The game of mild romance. We're a generation of mildly romantic people. We'll buy someone a pencil, as a gesture, and then immediately snap it in half just in case they think we're being 'too romantic'.
Your instinct is to give someone the world. You remember that feeling? You were seventeen and you gave someone a present that meant the world. They took the present but they let you go.
But we need it. We crave it. That's what makes the movies so enticing. 'Cinema Paradiso' is my favorite movie. I buy into the romance. But in the real world, you don't get an Ennio Morricone score and you don't get the girl chasing after you; you just get a text saying "Why the fuck did you stand under my balcony for a hundred days you freak!?"
WHAT ARE WE MEANT TO DO? How real are movies? How romantic is life? How real is real life? How romantic were people BEFORE movies? What are the boundaries? The cinema has forever fucked up everyone's chances of ever being happy.
My new theory: Anyone who is TRULY happy in a relationship doesn't love movies. And anyone who truly loves movies is alone, miserable, and about to watch a DVD. So for all of us who are alone and miserable, at least we are here together. And that, after all, is what love and togetherness are all about. Actually, that's too romantic, don't read into it! Don't stop reading my blog! It's not meaningful at all! I didn't mean to over-romanticize, I'm sorry!
I first discovered John O'Farrell in an airport. Well, I discovered one of his books. I genuinely did not want the flight to end because I was more engrossed in his writing than I had ever been before in pretty much anything.
From there on, I read everything of his I could get my hands on. Luckily, there was a lot of it out there, including his weekly Guardian column (which stopped in mid 2005). His books This Is Your Lifeand The Best A Man Can Get are two of the funniest books I've ever read. Period.
I've just discovered, through my remarkable research, and by that I mean Wikipedia, that you started out doing stand-up comedy. How was that experience, and what made you realise that it wasn't for you after-all?
I started at University where it wasn’t hard to stand out, and so moved to London with a sub-Young Ones type character that I did a few times. I won a talent competition at Jongleurs but then made the mistake of doing an entirely new set in front of 400 pissed estate agents and some embarrassed friends of mine who had come along to support me. I thought I’d take a short break from stand up and it’s now been 26 years. Who are your biggest influences? My influences are many and varied and probably range from my parents to the last person I was talking to. I was very struck by Jonathan Swift and George Orwell as a teenager and I suppose I should talk about great authors. But the truth is I was more obsessed with sitcoms and sketch shows as I was developing as a wannabee comedy writer, so Monty Python and Clement and La Frenais and Galton and Simpson were bigger influences than Dostoyevsky.
You have, in the past, written weekly columns for The Independent and The Guardian - and I always found them hilarious, but thinking as a writer - I imagine it to be a huge pressure to be entertaining and funny, week in, week out. Did you feel that pressure? More so at the beginning of my stint - I remember thinking ‘Wow – this is like doing the topicals for Spitting Image; I am under orders to be funny within the next few hours.’ In fact I was writing a comment piece, and the greater pressure was deciding what I thought about a particular subject. Does religious freedom extend to ritual slaughter of animals for example – I dunno.
My experience with writing comedy is that there are some things I do that people really like, and respond to -- but when I become too aware of them they become a kind of schtick, they're cheating. Do you know what I mean? Even when I read some of the great comedy writers like Woody Allen -- sometimes I find the writing hysterical, other times I think "No, he's just playing with words and being lazy" - do you ever have this problem? I know what you mean, but the important thing is to surprise your audience by taking an unexpected turn. If your audience start to see the clockwork then you have been telling jokes in the same way for too long.
Are you a good judge of your own material? It’s not really for me to say, but I generally agree with the verdicts on Amazon about which are my best books and which are not so strong. I first read 'The Best A Man Can Get' on a flight to America, I guess this was like eight years ago. For the entire flight I could not stop laughing, to the point where it looked like I was having some kind of seizure. I bring this up now because, to be honest, it was a humiliating experience, especially for someone like me who is quite shy and likes to stay away from attention. My point is; you are responsible, and I am wondering if you can compensate me in some way or perhaps, at the very least, issue an apology? If you had been on a train people might have seen what you were laughing at and might have at least bought a copy. I won’t apologise because the alternative was looking at all the crap in the duty free brochure and that’s even more hilarious.
I've always wanted to see your books as movies, because they are so funny, but I guess that -- so much of what is humorous is what you're doing with the words. Do you find that difficult to translate to the screen? I'm thinking back to some of the situations in the books, and of course -- the situations would be funny on screen, but you'd lose some of the inner thoughts of the characters. I did actually write a screenplay for The Best a Man Can Get for Paramount, but the credit crunch came along at the same time that the studio head changed and they needed my script to put under his wobbly desk. I did the Robert McKee course in my twenties, so perhaps that gave me a screenwriter’s approach to story structure. I never saw it, but I see that 'May Contain Nuts' was made into a TV movie. Were you happy with it? It was adapted by my old writing partner Mark Burton who I think did a good job – although it did have to fit the shape of an ITV two parter.
How does the writing experience differ between fiction and non-fiction? Fiction is harder but more satisfying. Plus my non-fiction has tended to be very ‘British’, so you don’t get the bonus of gaining new readers abroad.
What is your writing habit? Do you have a schedule? A particular place you like to write? I keep office hours and like to work in the London Library in St James Sq if I can. When I work at home I always walk the dog first. I do my best stuff in the mornings, so if there are meetings or bits of filming being arranged I try to make sure they are towards the end of the day. Do you suffer from writers block? And if so, how do you kick it? I wrote my first history book because I didn’t have the right idea for a novel. But I am never unable to write anything. Just lower your standards and continue. You can always come back later and cut it all out. One of the things I talk about a lot on the site, is that to be a writer, or musician, or actor -- basically, any kind of artist, is that it's a long journey. That you don't start out great, and that talent is not enough. You have to put the hours in. I am a big believer in the 10,000 hours theory. Looking back at your career - I see a real sense of growth -- starting out with stand up, a few bits of radio and article writing; and then onwards to television, novels, and your political work. It looks to me like you got better and better, year by year, and I'm wondering if you see it in the same way? I’m not sure I got better and better but you do get more confident you can complete the task. I would never have imagined I could have finished a whole book, and yet now that bit doesn’t worry me. I do deliberately set myself new challenges though, writing a history book, or setting up a new comedy website or in the case of my new novel, writing a first person narrative in which the protagonist knows absolutely nothing about himself. You are very politically active. I myself tend to hide away from anything that smacks of politics. Luckily, I can read you, because comedy is pretty much the only way I can stomach politics. Am I the kind of person you are writing for? Actually I’m the kind of person I’m writing for – and then I just hope there are enough people who feel the same way. Have you had a lot of rejection as a writer? I had lots of stuff sent back from publishers or the BBC in my early 20s, but then when it took off, I went quite a long way fairly quickly, so I haven’t had to be too resilient. As a comedy writer doing lines for performers, most of the stuff wouldn’t make the final edit – but that was always part of the deal. So no, the rejection will come later, when people stop wanting to read the stuff… What else do you want to achieve in your career? I just want to keep writing funny books with something to say. Oh and maybe a play, and have a film, and bring down the government with one well-aimed joke – so nothing particularly ambitious.
John's new novel 'The Man Who Forgot His Wife' will be released released in March 2012.
and 
are two of the funniest books I've ever read. Period. 