ScreenCrave.com » Roland Emmerich

Anonymous: Movie Review

Mali Elfman — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:23:15 +0000

Despite the Roland Emmerich glitz and glamour that has absolutely nothing to do with Shakespeare and the overt repetition of names like Marlowe and Jonson (remember, they wrote plays too!), Anonymous is a success and Emmerich, though some may question with such a topic and tease for a few of the EXTREME wide shots, has managed to capture what truly matters about Shakespeare, the written word.

The Plot:

The film explains one of the many theories about who actually penned Shakespeares writings, playing with the idea that it may not have been Shakespeare himself.

The Players:

Directed by: Roland Emmerich
Written By: John Orloff
Cast: Rhys Ifans (Earl of Oxford), Vanessa Redgrave (Older Queen Elizabeth I), Sebastian Armesto (Ben Jonson), Rafe Spall (William Shakespeare), David Thewlis (William Cecil), Edward Hogg (Robert Cecil), Xavier Samuel (Earl of Southampton), Sam Reid (Earl of Essex), Jamie Campbell Bower (Young Earl of Oxford), Joely Richardson (Young Queen Elizabeth I)

The Good:

The Heart: Despite it’s grand, Hollywood look, the film never forgets what it’s there to do, tell a story about what Shakespeare — the name, the plays, the legacy and most importantly the words. His words surpassed him in his own life and have continued to live on in ways “Anonymous” never could have imagined. The movie shows both that it is the written word, not the hand that wrote them that’s so important and apparently, that writing is one of the most painful career choices a man can make, but must me done! The fact that his words have been remembered, adored, used to torture almost every high school student at some point, and loved for centuries, shows us how great the “man” was, but the film shows us the price he (may have) paid to do so.
The Prologue and Epilogue: Emmerich begins by taking us behind the curtain and into a tale, and he, much like Shakespeare sets his stage for the drama he will soon lay upon his stage. It’s a aesthetically and metaphorically beautiful opening, wonderfully delivered by Derek Jacobi.
Rhys Ifans: A personal favorite, his mannerisms and subtly gave the film the depth and honesty that made the film work. Through the chaos of his character, he helps tie up the film and truly capture the heart of the character, the film, and strike meaning of what it really means to be a tortured writer.
Vanessa Redgrave/Joely Richardson: Both played Queen Elizabeth I at different ages. Often watching two actors play one character can be problematic because the character is split between two perspectives. Not only did they both give wonderfully dynamic performances but they also tied together their roles seamlessly. Both were a pleasure to watch on screen whenever they arrived.

The So-So:

Play on Reality: The way that some things come together, were quite convenient, but hey, the whole story is a fictitious conspiracy theory, so when all the right or wrong things happen at the perfect time, it’s somewhat easy to forgive… but not overlook.

The Bad:

Accents: Some of the accents, and overtly deep voices felt too performance-y, like someone trying to put on a big Shakespeare play instead of allowing the people to speak the spoken word.
The Time Changes: We jump back and forth between two different time periods through the film (not including the opening and closing) and at times it got a touch confusing as to what time period we were in. Normally when a film does this, their is a visual cue or a character that we follow. In this film, sometimes we would jump through time following smaller players and it was hard to remember what era was on screen until a Queen finally walked in. It’s something that’s not impossible to figure out, but does leave you always asking, which therefore makes you less engaged.

Overall:

So yes, this was a big-budget Shakespeare film, made for almost anyone to be able to understand (with some extra touches for the Shakespearan’s), but at the heart of it, one can’t deny it’s message, and the greatness that is Shakespeare. And for those who complain about the over-done fight scenes, sex scenes, nearly over dramatic acting, and extreme CGI, just remember, if given the opportunity, Shakespeare would have done and did do the same — he was just a little ways away from green screens and crowd duplication, but he would have! And with public schools dwindling in funds, maybe this is good chance for a bit of a history/lit lesson!

Rating: 7.75

Anonymous is in theaters October 14th.

Photo Gallery:

Interview: Director Roland Emmerich for Anonymous

Mali Elfman — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:30:57 +0000

The man behind the CGI curtain, reveals a new side to his filmmaking — director Roland Emmerich, known for his amazing special effects, is soon to be thought of for his heart and knowledge of Shakespeare. Anonymous, his up and coming film is a sexy way of giving people a possible history lesson, that somehow manages to also hold a great deal of meaning.

He took his time making this film, earning his stripes as a director over the past decades with numerous big budget hits. This is a risky film in a number of ways, one that I’m sure needed convincing, but something that Emmerich has quite obviously wanted to make for some time and believed in. He was right to take his time, because in doing so he was able to make this film in the right way, get the right script, with the right cast, be in a position to make bold calls and have people listen, and in the end, he was able to deliver the right message.

Roland Emmerich film in terms of look and scale, but with an extraordinary amount of heart, how do you start with all this?

Roland Emmerich: You start with a great script. We worked very hard on the script for 3-4 years and there were many, many tries and many, many revisions, until we came to this script. And then you try to find the best possible actors and I was very fortunate, that everyone was in agreement that it should be an all English cast. It was very nice to be very free with everything from casting who was best for these characters.

It certainly seems like you have a cast of all “first choices”!

RE: Yes, though it’s also about schedules. Most of these actors they work out of the theater, so you have to figure out how to manage all that.

Well Vanessa Redgrave is a legend and rightfully so, and both her and her younger counterpart Joely Richardson were just amazing. How did you work that parallel?

RE: They’re both amazing actors and that’s what counts in this kind fo story. Especially Vanessa, she has to be convinced of what she plays. She’s not only acting she has to understand and be able to breath what the script says which is quite challenging because this film is a very extreme view and she wanted to have an even more extreme point of view, she believed very much in it.

That must be such a joy to work with, and great actors can make anything real, even green screen!

RE: Yes, everyone asks me, “is it hard to shoot in front of green screen” and I always say “not at all” good actors make you forget that there is even a green screen there!

Where did the inspiration for the prologue come from?

RE: For the longest time it was not there. We would send out send the script out for people to read it, we always gave them 1-2 pages of facts about William Shakespeare of Stratford, and at one point this is not going to fly. It was important that people got this piece of paper because if they didn’t, they were always asking “What is true? What is not true? I didn’t even know that there was a problem!” I knew that we had to do something and I was editing in England, and I was walking in my house in Knightsbridge to Soho where our editing room was, and where the theater district also is, and I was walking past these theaters and then one day it suddenly hit me — open in the theater! Pretend this is all a theater play! It’s a very Shakespearen device to have a prologue, which he did for his plays, so it was a very appropriate device to have.

There are a number of theories behind Shakespeare’s plays, how did you settle on this theory?

RE: Well the script, which inspired me, but now, after about 10 years of reading about it all, I would say that Oxford is the most likely. He was a theater man himself, an actor, he was a collaborator, he was all these thing, and did many of the things Shakespeare must have done. And there are a lot of things in his life that just match the plays. But Stratfordians don’t want to see that, “why a noble man”? And I would say, wasn’t Shakespeare the biggest snob of them all? He wrote only about kings and queens, even his comedies mostly took place in a court setting. It’s not the point of view of a commoner. Walt Whitman said that, all of Shakespeare’s works are from the point of view of an Aristocrat.

This is definitely a sexy, history lesson for people to get at the theaters!

RE: Exactly! I just hope that the people have an open mind about these things because it gives you a different version of William Shakespeare and a different version of the way that his plays were performed and written. For me, the theme that “the pen is mightier than the sword” is for me, the most important message of all. I think in general for our day and time, people are battling with that. And all the politics, everyone always thinks that politicians are benign, they can’t be benign otherwise they wouldn’t be successful, it was important for politicians especially in that time to be working with every possible tool.

See Emmerich’s film, Anonymous in theaters starting October 28th!

Roland Emmerich’s Anonymous Trailer

Damon Houx — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:53:04 +0000

Roland Emmerich is famous for destroying things. In Independence Day he blew up the White House, in Godzilla, he flattened New York, and in 2012, he pretty much wrecked the entire planet. What’s left? Well, the Anonymous trailer suggests his next target is William Shakespeare. Or perhaps this is a new direction for the auteur. Anonymous opens September 30, and now there’s a trailer. Take a look…

The film stars Rhys Ifans, David Thewlis, Vannesa Redgrave, Derek Jacobi and Joely Richardson, so this is probably the classiest film the director’s ever made. And he has no thumb prints on the script, so it’s hard to know what to make of the film as of yet. They are selling the scope. Ifans stars as the man who would be Shakespeare in a political thriller. It is unknown if the great Radiohead cue will make it into the movie, but it’s a nice bit of scoring for the trailer.

But with a September 30 release date, it doesn’t seem geared toward award season. Perhaps this was Emmerich’s attempt at doing something like The Da Vinci Code. If it works, maybe we might see Emmerich up for Oscar gold in 2012. For many that would seem like the Mayan Apocalypse.Well know more come September.

Do you want to see Roland Emmerich’s take on Shakespeare?

New Photos and Synopsis for Roland Emmerich’s Anonymous

Mali Elfman — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 19:39:45 +0000

Sony just released a number of new pictures and synopsis’ for their upcoming films, but the one that caught my eye is Roland Emmerich‘s Anonymous. You have Emmerich, the man known for destroying the world in a variety of end of the world scenarios in 2012, The Day After Tomorrow and others, taking on a drama that challenges one of the most famous authors of all time, William Shakespeare. Taking on Shakespeare in any way, whether it be about him or his work itself, is always a touchy subject because everyone has such high expectations for anything associated with his name and immediately questions name of anyone who attempts to tackle his work.

Sometimes the filmmakers try to be overly clever or seem to not understand the text itself. Other times you get something great like Shakespeare in Love or Baz Luhrmann‘s Romeo and Juliet. It’s a bit of a crap shoot and one that only the brave should tackle. Luckily for Emmerich, bravery seems to be something he’s quite comfortable with.

Anonymous is a film (with a great title I might add) that takes place in the Elizabethan era and asks the timeless question, who is the true writer of Shakespeare’s works? We have no real idea of the tone of the film, but we do know he cast a number of real actors such as Rhys Ifans and Vanessa Redgrave instead of A-list celebrities, so it should be a given that he’s going for a “real” film and not something sensational. And for those actors to sign on one could guess that the script must have been meaty enough to capture their attention (though The Tempest captured Helen Mirren and I have no idea why that is).

It seems as Emmerich will be going for a rather interesting, new-wave, high-brow film. Is he capable of such a feat? Well the story seems to be there…

Official Synopsis:

Set in the political snake-pit of Elizabethan England, Anonymous speculates on an issue that has for centuries intrigued academics and brilliant minds ranging from Mark Twain and Charles Dickens to Henry James and Sigmund Freud, namely: who was the author of the plays credited to William Shakespeare? Experts have debated, books have been written, and scholars have devoted their lives to protecting or debunking theories surrounding the authorship of the most renowned works in English literature. Anonymous poses one possible answer, focusing on a time when cloak-and-dagger political intrigue, illicit romances in the Royal Court, and the schemes of greedy nobles hungry for the power of the throne were exposed in the most unlikely of places: the London stage.

Though there does seem to be a lot of eye-liner…

Authentic or just wrong? I’m doing to go with, possibly cool and authentic? Yeah. I am!

Are you interested in the film? Do you think Emmerich can tackle Shakespeare, or more to the point, drama?

Roland Emmerich Adapting Foundation Trilogy in 3D Motion Capture

Krystal Clark — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:52:29 +0000

2012 director Roland Emmerich has revealed that his next project will be more epic than anything he’s done in the past, which is a tall order considering he’s directed films like Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow. Over at MTV they’ve shed some light on Emmerich’s adaptation of the sci-fi book trilogy by Isaac Asimov entitled, the Foundation series.

Emmerich must have been bitten by the James Cameron Avatar bug because he’s revealed that he wants to produce the film using 3D and motion capture technology. The Foundation series covers over 500 years and includes a total of seven books, three of which are included in “the trilogy.” All the books deal with mathematics, psychohistory, and alternate universes, with the first installment being published in 1951.

On paper, the story is very hard to describe so the thought of it being adapted into a feature film does raise a few questions. Emmerich seems to be aware of this and wants to incorporate as much as he can visually that’s represented in the book. Cue the motion capture! He also knows that when you make a movie in 3D, you get more money, which means you can do a lot more with the material you’re working with.

“Probably now all big movies have to be 3-D,” he said. “It’s not only the effect of 3-D, ['Avatar' has] just shown that if you do a movie in 3-D, you can ask for more money and that’s the trick. I think now everybody who does bigger movies has to shoot them in 3-D. I think there’s no way around it. I was on the set of ‘Avatar’ and I saw how it worked and I really thought, ‘That’s the ultimate way of making movies.’ “

This doesn’t exactly give us a description of what he plans on doing with the film’s story, but we do see that he’s adamant about making it a visual feast. But do you really think that Emmerich can pull a James Cameron with this series? It sounds kind of far-fetched.

What do you think about Emmerich taking on the Foundation Series? Do you think he’ll do a good job?

Movie Releases: 2012, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Pirate Radio…

Kara — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:36:19 +0000

We have quite the coverage this week. We literally have interviews and reviews for every movie coming out from Roland Emmerich’s 2012 to Women in Trouble. Then there is the more family friendly, but still fun for the adults, Fantastic Mr. Fox by Wes Anderson. Pirate Radio is the a comedy with an all-star cast about the radio stations in the 60′s that set up shop off the British coast. There are quite a couple of indie movies coming out this week, but they’re definitely worth checking to see if they are playing near you.

Check out all the movies hitting theaters this week with reviews and interviews…

2012 | ScreenCrave Review | Press Conference | Reviews | Tickets and Showtimes
Fantastic Mr. Fox [Limited] | ScreenCrave Review | Reviews | Tickets an Showtimes
Pirate Radio | ScreenCrave Review | Nick Frost Interview | Talulah Riley Interview | Tom Sturridge Interview | Reviews | Tickets and Showtimes
The Messenger [Limited] | ScreenCrave Review | Oren Moverman Interview | Ben Foster Interview | Reviews | Tickets and Showtimes
Dare [Limited] | Adam Salky and David Brind Interview | ScreenCrave Review | Reviews | Tickets and Showtimes
Women in Trouble [Limited] | ScreenCrave Review| Reviews | Tickets and Showtimes

Watch the trailers below…

2012

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Pirate Radio

The Messenger

Dare

Women in Trouble

Independence Day Sequel Split in Two?

Krystal Clark — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:50:19 +0000

Roland Emmerich‘s been out and about promoting his latest disaster movie, 2012 and has started throwing out a few hints regarding the king of all disaster movies, Independence Day. A few weeks ago, rumors of a second film were all over the net after the director confirmed that he wasn’t opposed to making a follow up to the film. Now, we’ve learned that we might get two sequels as opposed to one.

Independence Day hit theaters 13 years ago in 1996 and broke all kinds of box office records. It also solidified Will Smith as a household name, which earned him the moniker “Mr. Fourth of July.” Emmerich recently discussed his plans for the follow up to the film, which he reveals may be a two-parter.

“What we want to do in the next – it’s actually two movies – we want to do a bigger arc,” he explained. “‘Independence Day’ was always like the king who leads his troops into battle against an evil force, and that stays like that.”

If that didn’t blow your mind how about the title he has in store for the films, ID4-ever possibly Part I and Part II, yes people he went there. He also went on to say that a script hasn’t been written up, but he’s certain that it will incorporate Smith’s character from the original.

“There’s an idea,” he said – but he did say that when they move forward Will Smith will most certainly be involved. “The idea is just to continue the story and actually I don’t know how many years ago this was—twelve, thirteen, fourteen years ago—and just continue where it ended.”

Could anything good really come of this? We’ve seen sequels produced several decades after their predecessors to mixed reviews (Indiana Jones), so do we really want to damage the badass legacy that the original Independence Day left us? That was an ensemble action movie that delivered on multiple levels.

The biggest deciding factor here may have to do with whether or not 2012 performs well at the box office. If Emmerich wants to secure the financing for a film of this stature he’s going to have to prove to the studio that he can earn them a profit.

What do you think about Emmerich’s vision for an ID4 sequel?

Source: MTV

2012: Movie Review

Mali Elfman — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:59:17 +0000

Roland Emmerich destroys the world again and this time, there’s no place to hide! If you believe the Mayans than the end of the world is less than 3 years away. Doesn’t that sound like something that should be exploited in theaters? If you’re a fan of these types of movies, than chances are, you know Roland and you exactly what you’re paying to see when you walk into that theater. The film is a triumph for its genre and will not disappoint those looking for to see some major destruction.

The Players:

Director: Roland Emmerich
Writers: Roland Emmerich and Harald Kloser
Starring: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, Woody Harrelson, Danny Glover, Oliver Platt

The Plot:

2012 comes and the world comes to an end. Simple and sweet. The whole added thing of a few lucky ones who get to go on an arch (made by the Chinese) to survive is also there, but we know why you’re all really going… the giant waves!

The Good:

Action: When the world first starts falling apart the action is so intense and tangible that you’ll literally feel like you can put your hands in the air and go for a ride with the air (and lava) blowing through your hair. If there is one thing that Roland knows how to do it’s send nature after humans, and he does so well.
The Topic of Religion: As much as this is a fun film, it isn’t afraid to poke fun at the government and religion on it’s way to mass destruction. The Queen, the Pope, our Governator, none are spared.
Detail of Mega-Sets: From the tiny men dangling from huge buildings to the huge cracks in the asphalt, nothing in this film was left behind, everything was thought about and well executed. The special effects team on this film were (as expected) absolutely amazing.
Unsympathetic: No one is safe in Roland’s world and he makes no apologies when he kills of characters you’re almost sure will make it to the end. Of course if you’re religious, you’re dead.

The Bad:

[Note: Anything that I didn't like only pertains to this movie if you're judging it in terms of a "normal film." This is not a film, it's an action pack thrill RIDE. Don't start picking at it because you want everything to be based in facts. This is not an educational film, there are no "facts" in Roland land, just enjoy the waves!]

Melodrama: As to be expected, but yes it’s there. Sometimes you’ll be yelling at the screen saying “I don’t care if you all die, lets get to the next way of killing everyone!”
Length: It’s a loong wild ride and chances are that by the end of it, your ass will be numb. It could have 20 minutes cut out of it and we’d all be fine with it.
Same Tricks: He does repeat some of the same tricks within the movie. Three times in a row, a plane has the exact same issues taking off. Once or twice would be okay, but three times?

Overall:

There is nothing really new in the film, but it knows what it is and is honest about it.

Rating: 8/10

Photo Gallery:

Trailer:

2012 Press Conference: Emmerich, Cusack, Peet, Ejiofor

Mali Elfman — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:54:03 +0000

2012 crashes into theaters this weekend with all the destruction you could possibly hope for. A few weeks ago in Wyoming not far from the highly explosive Yellowstone National Park, we got to talk to director Roland Emmerich, John Cusack, Amanda Peet, and Chiwetel Ejiofor on their thoughts about big budget action films, the myths behind 2012, and how Roland decides which monuments to destroy and which to leave alone.

If you’re too lazy to read the edited version of the press conference below, you can listen to full press conference here (you might want to skip to about 4 minutes in, there’s a lot of babbling until about 3:10 after Amanda Peet comes in):

What are your personal thoughts of what will happen in 2012?

Roland Emmerich: It is peculiar how 2012 is this date that there are a lot of ideas about it, and we chose the destructive one. I think destruction works better in the movie. The preparations, well, I will go ski. It is December 21st, which is skiing season. I will chose the highest mountain there is. If the world ends, you know, what can I do? If not, I will ski down.

John Cusack: I will try to get on Roland’s trip to be on that mountain.

Amanda Peet: Yeah, can I come?

John Cusack: Do you know the book, The Return of Queztacoatl? That book, I think, is a little more in line with what I think will happen; a shift in consciousness. That seemed to be more of what I think will happen rather than an actual end of days.

Chiwetel Ejiofor: I don’t ski, so I can’t join them. Unfortunately. Besides, I think avalanches are something to worry about, so I’ll just spend it kind of quietly with family and friends and hope for the best. I don’t have a real opinion about 2012. I think it is, like John said, a shift in consciousness. It feels like things are converging and that something has to change, and maybe it will center around that time.

Amanda Peet: I am kind of a hypochondriac, and I worry about a lot of things, so I’m really going try to not worry about it too much.

How much scientific research was done for this script?

Emmerich: From the beginning, there was the Earth’s crust displacement theory, which we found was a theory that was big enough, in a way, to cause all this flooding. That was the main reason why I chose this one. Before we started writing the script, we actually met with a professor of science at USC, in Los Angeles, and asked him how it could all unfold. He told us first that he doesn’t believe in the displacement theory. We asked him if he could give us some insight, and he said the only way this could work is if a molecule mutated into another kind of particle. He said from that moment, all bets are off. No scientist would say that this could not happen because this has never happened before. That was the concept we chose. I also believe that there has some sort of feeling of believability in the movie.

In earlier versions of the script, did you ever have a stronger focus on the cosmology or was that already figured out and get to the disasters?

Emmerich: We discussed that too. We said we wanted a little bit of that at the beginning. First of all, there are so many theories and so many different ways to do it. We just felt it has to be over relatively fast. At the end, it is not only a story about 2012, but it is a modern retelling of Noah’s Ark.

Do you think of this film as a sort of cautionary tale?

Emmerich: I don’t think the film is to warn about anything, so it is not a cautionary tale. It is a cautionary tale in a way, maybe in a way of if this is going to happen, what is important in life and what is savable, and how should we save things. For me, I am always a little suspicious of governments, so it is also an expression of that. Then I always think movies have to be fun. If a movie is not fun, I don’t want to do it.

Cusack: I think it also taps into the paranoia around the world.

Ejiofor: People tend to in tragedies. Obviously, in the tragedies we see in the world now. People tend to find great unity in that. I think that is one of the things this story talks about. I think you have to have a lot of optimism in humanity and people. I think that is part of this story and what it is getting at. There is an inherent good and these things bring them out sometimes.

For the actors, was this the most physical movie you have ever done, and what was it like working in front of a green screen?

Cusack: Yeah, this was pretty action packed for sure. It wasn’t any different than a lot of films, in a way, because of the production design. Usually, you have the entire set built, and then in back of the set would be a green screen. There was a massive production design team working on the set. When we were on the mountain at the end, there would be a huge glacier field and there would be blue screens in the background, so we were always acting with regular sets; it was the backgrounds that were being digitally enhanced…Yeah, a lot of running, jumping, and tumbling. You got to stay stretched out or you could pull a hamstring, for sure.

Ejiofor: I got off pretty lightly being in the government. Yeah, I had a couple of days of fun work, but that was it. I was slightly envious not to be able to work on the shaky floor. It looked pretty cool.

John, what was the hardest thing for you to do in this movie?

Cusack: I thought it was pretty fun actually. It was a great group of people, the story was great, and the studio was great. Roland has done this so many times before. What would be a crushing technical process for other directors, he seems to do very effortlessly, so he just focuses on the characters. I got to work with Amanda again. It was a great part. It was kind of a good gig all the way around.

Amanda, can you talk about you saw your character’s relationship with John’s character when you read the script?

Peet: John’s character was my true love and I was really hurt by different things. I kind of chose a different path. That’s the end of the story. I think that’s how I saw it and obviously.

Chiwetel, how much did you learn from the experience of making Endgame? And what is the importance of helping young filmmakers?

Ejiofor: I had a really interesting time on that project. I didn’t know anything about the talks at all. I knew that Thabo Mbeki had been exiled to London…I knew that they were being hunted down by the secret police in South Africa, but I didn’t know that William Young had organized these talks between the Africans. When I read the script and got involved in the project, I was really amazed by how quiet the story was, how accurate the film is, and how much those talks did progress the movement for the release of Nelson Mandela. I think it is an amazing period of history and a real indication that these negotiated talks can really bring extraordinary results.

Roland, you tend to add in a lot of humor with the disaster films, and this film had a lot of funny dialogue. Did you intentionally try to insert the funny dialogue to offset the catastrophic events?

Emmerich: Yeah, it was a little like that in a way. I had this discussion with, Harold, my co-writer. We kind of asked ourselves what the tone of the movie should be. I always believe that when such an extreme thing happens, and it is about survival, you have to give the people release. If they cannot laugh once in a while, they will not enjoy the movie. We went for the tone of Independence Day, which is similar. For The Day After Tomorrow, I didn’t want to do that because I thought with the theme of the movie, and what I wanted to tell, it was too serious.

Do you like to choose which places you will destroy in your films?

Emmerich: Well, it is not like I walk around and I think, “Well I could destroy this or I can destroy that.” It is like a world tour, “Why did you destroy our city?” It is just the fact that it has to come out of the story. Jackson Curtis lives in LA, and I live in LA. You know, everyone in LA constantly talks about when California will sink into the ocean, and then we just decided to do that. It was like a starting point. Yellowstone Park was kind of intricate in the story too. Yes, we knew in the beginning that we wanted to have certain events and then we kind of followed that. Then sometimes it is born from something quite interesting. For example, at one point, we discussed some part you could not save. For example, the Sistine Chapel and the famous painting where God and Adam touch fingers. I said, “Oh great, we have to show how this gets destroyed.” Then we said, “Well we are already there, why don’t we have the church fall on people’s heads?” I am against organized religion so that is how we thought of it.

Cusack: You have to be careful if you are standing outside the church.

Emmerich: The message is never pray in front of a big church. Pray by yourself. Then there is this funny thing, where we had one angle where you see the Pope in the background, and these shots were done in England by the same guys who did Angels & Demons. They conveniently left out the Pope, and I said, “We have to see a little bit of him. He is the Chairman after all.”

What about the JFK Aircraft carrier destroying the White House?

Emmerich: Again, Harold said, “If you don’t destroy the White House, you will be asked about that.” I said, “ I cannot destroy the White House again.” He said, “Well, just do it in a different way.” At that time, I was reading a lot about the Kennedys. As a kid, maybe about twelve and a half, I visited these old war ships in the Chesapeake Bay and they had just inaugurated JFK there. I was really excited as a kid. It was about a wave, and then you know JFK comes back to the White House. I thought it was kind of clever. I told Harold, “Let’s go for it!”

Roland, you previously mentioned that you are against organized religion and we see these Christian monuments destroyed. Why not do something really controversial and do another Islamic site?

Emmerich: I wanted to do that, but my co-writer, Harold, said, “I will not want to have a target on my head because of a movie.” He was right. In the Western world, we have to think about it.

Did you have any visual references of the destruction to know how to react properly?

Peet: Tommy.

Emmerich: It was a Scottish accent.

Peet: Do it John, come on.

Cusack: It was a mascot for me. Does Scottish accent. He is screaming. He is the most fantastic guy in the world.

Peet: You have a camera this close to you, and obviously you are looking at nothing. He would have to narrate, basically bit-by-bit, what tragic [event] we were responding to.

Emmerich: When it comes down to the scene, you want to do it in one take because you cannot ask the actors to do it in pieces. You have to figure out how to do it. Tommy came to me and said, “Okay, give me the key points.” Then we wrote them down and he was just reading them off a piece of paper with great emotion. Everyday he was as enthusiastic as it gets.

Peet: It was hard for us new people to know how to calibrate our responses to this incredible destruction.

Cusack: He had it all rigged out, almost like a video game. You wouldn’t really see it in all it’s detail, but you knew that you were going to be flying through these two buildings with a train going over your head, so you knew the sequence. The planes and the cars were all on hydraulics. When I come to pick them up, there is an entire city block with white picket fences and houses and the whole thing was on hydraulics. A whole city block with cars on it was pulsating, so it was like walking onto a pretty wild set. It wasn’t all green screen and imagination.

You tend to have a lot of melodramatic elements in your films, why do you add in these elements as opposed to just action?

Emmerich: When you tell stories about human beings, some people call it melodramatic. I call it heartfelt and true. I think when you make movies like this, you have to make people laugh, cry, and scared. I try to do that.

Check out the film in theaters November 13th!

Further Reading:

Roland Emmerich Drinking Game for 2012

Mali Elfman — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:53:00 +0000

This week in theaters, Roland Emmerich, the master of cinematic world-destruction will be releasing his latest film 2012 with Amanda Peet and John Cusack. The film feels like you’re on a roller-coaster ride with the world crashing down around you. The only way to make the movie even more fun is to add some booze! We all know that Emmerich likes to add a few jokes about religion and politics while coming up with the best damn way to kill everyone in the world, so why not cheers to another Emmerich masterpiece?

Without further ado, I introduce to you, The Roland Emmerich Drinking Game!

Drink Whenever You See:

A Giant Wave – Bigger the wave, bigger the chug!
A Political Figure Being Mocked
A Religious Icon Being Killed/Destroyed
A Plane take off, dip down, and then regain flight
A crack suddenly appears, opens up and tries to consume someone
You hear someone with a ridiculous over the top accent
You see a tiny little man in the background dangling off a building and then falling to his death

Bonus Shots: Drink every time you think Woody Harrelson shot his scenes high.

Follow these simple rules and I guarantee you’ll be shitfaced by the end of the film! Enjoy!

Note: This drinking game was made for 2012, but with a few minor adjustments you could also use it for The Day After Tomorrow or Independence Day. Just swap Woody for Jeff Goldblum and waves for explosions in Independence Day. And for The Day After Tomorrow, add in whenever you see someone breathing in and out fake movie breath.

Independence Day Sequel in the Works?

Krystal Clark — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:29:09 +0000

Roland Emmerich has been a busy man. With the upcoming release of 2012, and a Shakespeare project in the works, how will he find the time to make a sequel to Independence Day? The 1996 action blockbuster that broke records, and made Will Smith an international movie star may have more story to tell according to Latino Review.

Back in 2008, 20th Century Fox CEO Tom Rothman spoke with IESB about the status of an Independence Day sequel and this is what he had to say;

“We would love to do it, it’s really a matter of Roland, it’s up to Roland. He knows that we’d love to do it. I don’t think there is a script but there have been a lot of ideas, but the truth of the matter is he’s been making other films. He made Day After Tomorrow for us, big hit movie, he’s doing 2012 for Sony. But, any day that Roland wanted to do that, we would be very excited to do it because I think, yes, that story definitely can and should continue.”

So, the ball is in Emmerich’s court and last week the director finally spoke about a follow up to ID4.

Dean Devlin and I are still set to make a sequel likely because we’ve found some sort of idea and we approached FOX and FOX has not quite figured out how to incorporate Dean’s and my deal, and Will’s (Smith) deal. Will wants to do it in some sort of a package they can live with. So it’s just been in negations now since forever, and naturally FOX says “Why don’t you do it without Will Smith?” I said Will is essential for us, for this movie and actually for the audience too. And, so, it’s in limbo and lately the studios are fighting. Like gross players, and Will is a gross player and is probably the only gross player right now who’s worth his gross. So we’ll see what happens. I would love to do it.

He went on to say that there is an ID4 script floating around somewhere, but he can’t tell us squat about it. This is very odd considering when we spoke to him about his Shakespeare film, he sounded like he was pretty much done with the disaster genre. Stop it with the games Roland, you know you can’t stay away! On another note, are the executives over at Fox out of their minds? How can you do a sequel without Will Smith? This is the film that made him Mr. 4th of July! Isn’t Jeff Goldbum on CSI, Law and Order, NCIS or something like that now? They need someone who can put asses in the seats.

Do you want to see a sequel to Independence Day?

Roland Emmerich on His Shakespeare Film

Mali Elfman — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:28:07 +0000

After 2012 gets released, action-thriller director Roland Emmerich plans on trading in tidal waves and earthquakes for a more subtle and dramatic challenge, Shakespeare. Or rather a fictional story about the man who may have actually written Shakespeare’s plays.

You might see this as a huge jump for Emmerich, who won’t have the big budget and special effects that he’s used to for his next film, but there’s a connection between the two. So far, every feature we’ve seen from him has been a form of fiction based on realistic theories. He definitely has a passion for what MIGHT be true and likes to bring us the most dramatic version possible. It works with destroying the world, now let’s see if it works with 17th century playwrights.

The screenplay was written by John Orloff, who wrote A Mighty Heart and the TV series Band of Brothers so this film has the chance to be more than just a “thriller,” possibly even something with insight and depth. People like to question the reality around Shakespeare’s works, in the same way they’re curious about the theories behind 2012. In a way, Emmerich’s taking what he does best and putting an academic spin on it.

Are you going to have to scale back a bit for your Shakespeare project?

Emmerich: Yeah, you cannot do a Shakespeare project for that kind of money (laughs). I’ve actually had this project for 8 years. It’s always supposed to be my next movie, but this time I’m really going to do it because I’m already set to shoot on March 22 and I’m in the casting process right now, which for me is the most nerve racking because you have to make decisions. I start shooting, in 4-5 days, the first plates.

What’s it about?

Emmerich: It’s a story about how it came to be that William Shakespeare was not the author of [his] plays.

Marlowe?

Emmerich: No, not Marlowe, it’s [Edward] De Vere a playwright out of Oxford. It’s a little bit like a political thriller. It’s about who will succeed Elizabeth’s [reign] and the cause of that thriller is the Essex rebellion. You learn how it could have been that the plays were written by somebody else who never ever could stay clear [of trouble].

How accurate will it be in terms of the Elizabethan context?

Emmerich: Well, it has been very well researched. The writer is John Orloff, he has worked on the script for two years before I got involved and he did a really, really good job. I just discussed it with several actors who are very knowledgeable of the time and they were really pleased at how accurate it is. Naturally you always have real events sometimes and facts for the dramatic reasons, but it’s pretty well researched.

He later talked about how although people associate him with huge end of the world projects, 2012 will likely be his last film in the disaster genre, at least for a while. He said that they “had to convince him” to do this and it seemed as if he was more than ready to take on another type of movie.

Both Amanda Peet and John Cusack have nothing but good things to say about working with the director on the action packed scenes as well as the more intimate and dramatic ones.

Peet: It is really incredible how intimate he is able to be, and how gentle, and how he never loses his cool. I remember one particular scene with John with our kids… he just kept saying, you’re not getting it, this is about you and him and your relationship… He’s just incredibly smart and very intuitive about very subtle things. On this massive scale he becomes incredibly intimate and doesn’t stop shooting, even a small moment like that, until it has subtext, emotion, and something really authentic.

Cusack: I concur. I’ve worked on some movies on big scopes, it’s very rare to meet a director that can do both.

That being said, when asked if he would ever do another film like his former he said “never, say never.”

Do you think Roland Emmerich can pull off a Shakespearean period piece?

ScreenCrave.com » Roland Emmerich

Anonymous: Movie Review

The Plot:

The Players:

The Good:

The So-So:

The Bad:

Overall:

Rating: 7.75

Photo Gallery:

Related Posts

Interview: Director Roland Emmerich for Anonymous

Related Posts

Roland Emmerich’s Anonymous Trailer

Related Posts

New Photos and Synopsis for Roland Emmerich’s Anonymous

Related Posts

Roland Emmerich Adapting Foundation Trilogy in 3D Motion Capture

Related Posts

Movie Releases: 2012, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Pirate Radio…

Related Posts

Independence Day Sequel Split in Two?

Related Posts

2012: Movie Review

The Players:

The Plot:

The Good:

The Bad:

Overall:

Rating: 8/10

Photo Gallery:

Trailer:

Related Posts

2012 Press Conference: Emmerich, Cusack, Peet, Ejiofor

Related Posts

Roland Emmerich Drinking Game for 2012

Related Posts

Independence Day Sequel in the Works?

Related Posts

Roland Emmerich on His Shakespeare Film

Related Posts