Written by Paul Stathakis  |  April 11, 2012

The Butler Brothers (Jason and Brett) are two of Canada’s hardest working independent filmmakers. Always crude, creative, and upbeat, they are at it again. This time they’ve traded in their beer bottles for colourful masks as they’re writing and directing a mini-series about atypical superheroes entitled “The Undrawn.” But in order for their much-anticipated project to actually be greenlit, they need your help. They released the following statement on their website:

With just a little time to go our Kickstarter campaign for The Undrawn is rapidly nearing the finish line! We have raised a lot of our funding goal, which is terrific, but we still have a long way to go to reach it! With Kickstarter you have to REACH your FUNDRAISING GOAL or you get NOTHING. It may seem like a lot of money to raise but so did $12,000 at the beginning of this campaign! For those that have backed us already (thank you!) if you could spread the word DIRECTLY to your friends and colleagues it could go along way in bridging the gap. A couple of bucks and a couple of shares is all it takes – we all remember that shampoo commercial about “telling two friends”, it’s time to wash your hair! BE A HERO and DONATE NOW!  For those of you that haven’t backed The Undrawn yet, the TIME IS NOW! We are passionate about this project – so much so we put together 7 character teasers and a “superteaser” to give you a taste of our “Undrawniverse”. Be a part of something uncompromised, uncensored and unbelievably awesome! Without an audience there isn’t a show, be that audience! So check out our Kickstarter campaign, ENJOY the VIDEOS and support the independent arts – we’ll make sure you’re glad you did!  Now go tell two friends!!

Help the Butler Brothers reach their goal. They need you, your word of mouth or a generous donation. Their superheroes are ready to take center stage but only if they can raise enough money to actually have a stage.

_____________________________________________________________

For more information please visit Substance Production, the Butler Brothers’ main website, at: http://www.subprod.com/

Review by Paul Stathakis  |  March 5, 2012

‘But where is the humor?’

According to Lionsgate, “One for the Money” is a comedy. But did they ever make a mistake in marketing it as so. I say this because “One for the Money” is a train wreck of a comedy, a witless film with enough robotically-delivered dialogue to make your head spin, and it fails miserably as a comedic feature because it is, unless I missed something, completely devoid of humour. The worst part is that I’m not even mildly exaggerating. Any time you find yourself having more fun pointing out all the cliches in a film rather than following it, it’s a clear sign of a sure misfire. That’s the kind of experience you get watching this abysmal picture. Unless of course a grandmother accidentally opening fire on a cooked turkey is your idea of a fun time at the movies.

Katherine Heigl, usually charming but not here, stars as Stephanie Plum, a newly-divorced and unemployed woman who accepts a job at her cousin’s bail-bond business. Her first assignment: to find wanted local cop Joe Morelli who we quickly find out was once romantically linked to Plum. Naturally, there has to be a connection between the man and the woman or we wouldn’t have a love story to cling to. A reward of 50,000 dollars is enough to motivate Plum to catch and bring Morelli in alive. What follows is a silly hour and a half of cat-in-tongue dialogue, sexual innuendoes, and at least one scene with Heigl wrapped in a towel.

The writers also do their best to incorporate some action but even those scenes come across as ridiculous. At one point, Heigl visits a mixed martial arts training gym to get some leads. Soon after she finds herself trapped inside an octagon ring with a short-fused fighter who taunts her as she interrogates him. She manages to escape in what is easily the year’s most useless and random action scene.Who saves her? You guessed it, the very same man she’s pursuing. She points a gun at him moments after he saves her but he is able to snatch the weapon from her after he convinces her to lower it. Then she asks him for information. She says, “I gave you my gun, give me something.” Morelli approaches her and flirts, “Oh, I’ll give you something.” Right, we get it. By the end we know they’ll be together though we can’t possibly believe for one moment that these two individuals are right for each other.

Why Heigl accepted to be in this film besides the promise of a paycheck is puzzling. In previous films like “Knocked Up” (2007) and “The Ugly Truth” (2009), Heigl proved she could charming and funny. Her role in “One for the Money” is so insipid and tedious that one might easily forget that, as an actress, she’s actually quite capable of revealing such qualities on the big screen.

Written by Paul Stathakis  |  February 27, 2012

Some notes on yesterday’s Oscars ceremony (for complete list of winners, please scroll down):

- Ceremony score: A+. It was classy, sharp, and all about Old Hollywood. Billy Crystal made things fun and “The Artist” received all the awards it deserved!

- ‎“The Artist” won 5 Academy Awards last night including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor! I won’t hide it: I was really rooting for “The Artist” this year, especially Jean Dujardin.

- Billy Crystal’s score as host of the Oscars: A+. He was calm, cool, funny, animated, and everyone seemed to enjoy seeing him on stage again. He involved the stars, he sang, and he prepared a nice introduction too.

- Best Oscar moments: there were a few. For starters, Billy Crystal opening the ceremony in classic Broadway fashion. He sang a song which subsequently presented the 9 nominated films. He also brought back the mind-reading skit where he reads the thoughts of certain actors. Pretty funny. Emma Stone and Ben Stiller’s little skit was simply hilarious. Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis showing up on stage with cymbals was a hilarious moment. I was in tears when Galifianakis dropped his cymbals, twice. 82-year-old Christopher Plummer, who is Canadian, winning for Best Supporting Actor for his work in “Beginners” was a touching moment. With this win, Plummer not only won his first Oscar but entered the Oscar’s history book as the oldest actor to win an Academy Award. And then came three of the best wins: Jean Dujardin winning the Oscar for Best Actor, Michel Hazanavicius winning for Best Director, and “The Artist” winning for Best Picture.

- My Oscar predictions score: 8/9. I called Best Actress in Viola Davis’ favor for her performance in “The Help” but Meryl Streep instead won for her performance as former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in “The Iron Lady.”

Complete list of winners:

BEST PICTURE

““The Artist”

BEST DIRECTOR

Michel Hazanavicius, “The Artist”

BEST ACTOR

Jean Dujardin, “The Artist”

BEST ACTRESS

Meryl Streep, “The Iron Lady”

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Octavia Spencer, “The Help”

ANIMATED FILM

““Rango”

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

““A Separation”, Iran

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash, “The Descendants”

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

““Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen

DOCUMENTARY

““Undefeated”

ORIGINAL SCORE

Ludovic Bource, “The Artist”

ORIGINAL SONG

““Man or Muppet” from “The Muppets,” music and lyrics by Bret McKenzie

ART DIRECTION

Dante Ferretti and Francesca Lo Schiavo, “Hugo”

CINEMATOGRAPHY

Robert Richardson, “Hugo”

COSTUME DESIGN

Mark Bridges, “The Artist”

FILM EDITING

Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”

MAKEUP

Mark Coulier and J. Roy Helland, “The Iron Lady”

VISUAL EFFECTS

Rob Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossman and Alex Henning, “Hugo”

SOUND EDITING

Philip Stockton and Eugene Gearty, “Hugo”

SOUND MIXING

Tom Fleischman and John Midgley, “Hugo”

DOCUMENTARY SHORT FEATURE

““Saving Face”

Written by Paul Stathakis  |  February 26, 2012

The 84th Academy Awards will air live tonight on ABC at 7pm Eastern/5pm Pacific. The ever-talented Billy Crystal will be returning as host and this will mark his ninth appearance as Oscar MC. The race this year is quite tight, particularly in the Best Actor category where George Clooney and Jean Dujardin are the clear front-runners. At this year’s Golden Globes, Clooney won for Best Actor in a dramatic role while Dujardin took home the award for Best Actor in a Comedy/Musical. The Best Actress category and Best Picture category are just as close and unpredictable this year. Can Viola Davis win against Meryl Streep who, with her nominated performance in “The Iron Lady”, now totals 17 Oscar nominations. Streep won the Golden Globe for Best Actress but will she win the Oscar too? At this year’s Golden Globes, two films won for Best Picture but in two different categories: “The Descendants” won Best Motion Picture Drama while “The Artist” won for Best Motion Picture Comedy/Musical. The Best Director prize at the Globes surprisingly went to Martin Scorsese for “Hugo” but many felt Michel Hazanavicius’ work was overlooked. So the big question now is, will Hazanavicius win tonight for Best Director?

Here are my Oscar predictions for the main categories:

Best Actor:

• Demián Bichir in “A Better Life”
• George Clooney in “The Descendants”
• Gary Oldman in “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”
• Jean Dujardin in “The Artist”
• Brad Pitt in “Moneyball”

Best Actress:

• Glenn Close in “Albert Nobbs”
• Meryl Streep in “The Iron Lady”
• Viola Davis in “The Help”
• Rooney Mara in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”
• Michelle Williams in “My Week with Marilyn”

Best Supporting Actor:

Best Supporting Actress:

• Bérénice Bejo in “The Artist”
• Jessica Chastain in “The Help”
• Octavia Spencer in “The Help”
• Melissa McCarthy in “Bridesmaids”
• Janet McTeer in “Albert Nobbs”

Best Director:

• Michel Hazanavicius “The Artist”
• Alexander Payne “The Descendants”
• Martin Scorsese “Hugo”
• Woody Allen “Midnight in Paris”
• Terrence Malick “The Tree of Life”

Best Picture:

• “War Horse”
• “The Artist”
• “Moneyball”
• “The Descendants”
• “The Tree of Life”
• “Midnight in Paris”
• “The Help”
• “Hugo”
• “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close”

Best Original Screenplay:

• “The Artist”
• “Bridesmaids”
• “Midnight in Paris”
• “Margin Call”
• “A Separation”

Best Foreign Film:

• “Bullhead”
• “Footnote”
• “In Darkness”
• “Monsieur Lazhar”
• “A Separation”

Best Animated Feature:

• “A Cat in Paris”
• “Chico and Rita”
• “Rango”
• “Kung Fu Panda 2″
• “Puss in Boots”

Inter­view by Paul Stathakis  |  February 24, 2012

This week it’s critic versus critic as Paulzeye interviews distinguished film critic Nell Minow. Many of Minow’s essays, reviews, and interviews have appeared in major newspapers and media outlets including Yahoo, The Chicago Sun-Times, The Chicago Tribune, USA Today, The New York Times, The Kansas City Star, and the The Wall Street Journal.  In addition to writing, Minow also reviews movies every week on radio stations across the United States and in Canada.  She is a member of the Online Film Critics Society, the Broadcast Film Critics Association, the Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association, and the Association of Women Film Journalists.

Whenever she’s not writing about film, chances are she’s appearing on a television station to comment on the financial markets. According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission website Minow, “has written more than 200 articles about corporate governance as well as chapters in treatises on executive compensation, annual shareholder meetings, and in the books Law Stories, The Dance of Change, The Financial Services Revolution, Leadership and Governance from the Inside Out, and How to Run a Company. She is co-author with  Robert A. G. Monks of three books, Power and Accountability, The Textbook Corporate Governance, and  Watching the Watchers: Corporate Governance for the 21st Century.”

It doesn’t end there. For five years, Minow also acted as a professor at the George Mason University in Washington, D.C., where she taught corporate governance to MBA students.

Minow, a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School, remains an active film critic. Her reviews, as well as a comprehensive archive of her reviews, can be found at a site named Beliefnet. Whether Minow’s busy being a mom or busy being the Movie Mom, one thing is certain: she encompasses all the qualities and virtues of the hard-working 21st Century woman. And her commentary is a reflection of her own persona: honest, sharp, to the point, and always very insightful.

__________________________

Paulzeye: You’ve enjoyed a long career critiquing films. What inspired you to become a film critic?

Nell Minow: I have always loved movies.  And I love thinking about them and writing about them.  When I was a teenager, Roger Ebert became the movie critic for my local newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times, and that inspired me to start writing reviews for the newspaper at my high school and later my college paper.  I studied film history and criticism in college and read as much as I could about movies.  In those days, it was a real challenge to track down classic old movies I wanted to see.  I went to art-house theatres and public library showings, set my alarm to get up in the middle of the night to watch old movies on television, and took classes at the Art Institute of Chicago and the American Film Institute in Washington, D.C.

After college, I went to law school.  I wrote about movies and television from time to time, but did not start reviewing movies again until 1995, when I created the Movie Mom website.  In those days, there were thousands, not millions, of websites, most of them created by college students.  There was not one corporation or publication on the Web.  So, mine was one of the first sites to have movie reviews, and five years later, when the Internet had really grown, Yahoo invited me to be their movie critic.

Paulzeye: As a teenager, I recall reading several of your reviews on Yahoo. How did you acquire the nickname of “Movie Mom”?

Nell Minow: When I started writing reviews, I wanted to differentiate myself from other critics.  As the mother of young children, I knew how difficult it was to get reliable guidance on the content of films, and I thought I could combine two things I was interested in, movies and parenting.

Paulzeye: Your latest reviews, film essays, and interviews now appear on the site Beliefnet. There, readers can also access your vast review database. Talk to us a little about the site.

Nell Minow:  I love being on Beliefnet, which has a lot of wonderful content about faith, inspiration, and values.  We welcome people of all faiths and those who are seeking, questioning, in search of a supportive community, or just curious.

Paulzeye:  Most film critics use a four-star rating system but you’ve always scored your films using a school-like letter-based grading system. Why is that?

Review by Paul Stathakis  |  February 4, 2012

‘Not enough to drive audiences to the edge’

Nick Cassidy (Sam Worthington) spent two years in prison for a crime he claims he never committed. He executes a plan which allows to successfully escape from prison and a month later we find him standing on a ledge of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City. This is his attempt to set the record straight and to prove that he’s innocent.  Cassidy has only one demand. No, he doesn’t want money or a chopper. Cassidy’s only request is to speak with negotiator Lydia Mercer (Elizabeth Banks).  The cops have thirty minutes to bring her in or else, as Cassidy says to an agent, he’ll jump. But if you know the formula well enough, then you can expect that the protagonist won’t jump just yet. At least not within the first ten minutes of the film. But that’s the kind of thrills that “Man on a Ledge” trots along with.

Mercer arrives on the scene in time to chat with Cassidy from the hotel room window. She wants to know, as we  the audience do too, what exactly Cassidy aims to gain by standing on a ledge. He tells her, “Today’s the day, that everything changes one way or another.” As the story advances, we learn that there is a sub-plot. Cassidy’s idea to stand on a ledge and attract such a great deal of attention is all part of a larger scheme. This becomes clear to Mercer when she sees Cassidy communicating with someone through a cleverly concealed earpiece. Who Cassidy is communicating with and why are two things I will not reveal because the trailer keeps that plot hushhush. But if you happen to enjoy rational/realistic thrillers, you’ll most likely find yourself debating the issue of plausibility once the film’s over.

When it comes to direction, “Man on a Ledge” is visually arresting. Whenever we have a bird’s eye glimpse of the ledge, we get that feeling of vertigo. Cassidy is, after all, on the 21st floor. So naturally, we don’t have a hard time understanding how one wrong step could lead to his demise. Of course, if that’s not enough,  you have a crowd of onlookers chanting and pleading for Cassidy to “get over with it already and jump.” One onlooker even flashes a sign that reads, “Jump into my arms.” The film has good timing in terms of pacing in due part beause of the editing. We spend just the right amount of time on the ledge, inside the hotel, inside an office, inside a vault, in an elevator shaft, on the rooftop, and on the street.

Though the kinetic editing is suitable and the performances, convincing and good, all of this poses a problem as the film seems to favour style over substance. Here we have characters who, despite their deepest sincerities, we just don’t care about as much as we should. We don’t know enough about them to cheer them on. We know about their motives but their plan seems a little hazy. Suffice it to say that the characters are underdeveloped. Some of the dialogue is also problematic and  unfitting. At one point one character says, “You need to take it down a notch.” Coming from a six-grader, we would easily accept that kind of talk. But coming from someone who’s supposed to be working against time and under great pressure, it’s just plain silly. I suspect that moments such as these were included to elicit a few laughs from audience members but it’s hard to even lightly chuckle when lines are delivered this forcibly.

Perhaps I’m being tough on this film. There are those who will argue that this is merely a “popcorn movie”, a film whose sole reason for existing is to mindlessly entertain — nothing more, nothing less. Escapist films certainly have their place in cinema. “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” is an example of such a film, one that we willingly go along with it because we know that Tom Cruise and his team are experienced professionals who live dangerously for a living. When Danny Ocean prepared for a big heist with his team in “Ocean’s Eleven”,  their planning seemed convincing enough that we willingly went along with it. It was fun to be in on the plan with them.  The characters in “Man on a Ledge” don’t seem to have that kind of experience or backbone and because they don’t share all the witty details of their plan with us, we don’t end up really buying into it. In fact, we only learn about their plan as its carried out. Naturally, the film needs a villainous character and Ed Harris occupies that role. Harris is a veteran actor whose intensity on screen always reminds us of his range as a dramatic actor. This is the same man who in 2000 not only brilliantly portrayed American painter Jackson Pollock but directed the picture as well. Here, all he is an angry businessman, cocky, greedy, and mean. But even that feels forced.

Popcorn or not, audiences deserve at least some plausibility somewhere in between the start and the finish. Even the most die-hard fans of the action genre might wonder how a man is able to fall from a tall building, land on a huge inflatable mattress, then get up as though nothing ever happened and, wait for it, run perfectly normal to catch up to a bad guy. Yeah, sure.  How about that car chase in “Man on a Ledge”?  It ends with a collision between a Jeep and a fast-moving  train. The Jeep is virtually demolished but somehow the driver is able to walk away from the crash unscathed. Consider one more moment at the start of the film where Elizabeth Banks’ character arrives at the Roosevelt. We know that she is not a rookie when it comes to situations like these. There is a back-story to her character. We learn about a tragic incident which occurred at a bridge a year prior where she was not able to convince a “jumper” to not jump. The incident still haunts her. She explains to a cop that she can’t help but replay the images of the tragedy in her mind and that she still has troubles sleeping at night because of it. Yet she can permit Cassidy to dramatically countdown to two before sticking her head out of the window to announce her presence. Small detail, perhaps, but not cop-like one bit.

In 2011, we were taken on a classified mission which was impossible to forget because it was incredibly entertaining. We spent midnights in the Paris of the 1920s. We watched a baseball team try to beat the odds. We rooted for a boy and his special horse. We were carried into the lonely universe of a soft-spoken getaway driver. We watched, painfully, as a young man coped with a baffling disease. We were reminded of that crazy little thing called love as a middle-aged man took notes from a young handsome mentor. We were introduced to a bureau unlike any other, unafraid to make special adjustments when necessary. There was a group of funny bridesmaids who proved that they could be as funny as a group of hungover ushers. We also got a lesson in politics when we were taken behind-the-scenes of a president campaign to see how messy things can get. And, finally, we were charmed by a little silent picture that, ironically enough, spoke to us more than any other “talkie” this year. These are the films that marked 2011. These are the ones you’ll want to see if you like your movies the way I like them. Enjoy.

1. The Artist
(Dir. Michel Hazanavicius, PG-13, 100 min)

2. Drive
(Dir. Nico­las Wind­ing Refn, R, 100 min.)

3. Moneyball
(Dir. Ben­nett Miller, PG-13, 133 min.)

4. War Horse
(Dir. Steven Spiel­berg, PG-13, 146 min.)

5. Midnight in Paris
(Dir. Woody Allen, PG-13, 94 min.)

6. The Adjustment Bureau
(Dir. George Nolfi, PG-13, 106 min.)

 7. The Ides of March
(Dir. George Clooney, R, 101 min.)

8. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
(Dir. Brad Bird, PG-13, 133 min.)

9. Bridesmaids
(Dir. Paul Feig, R, 125 min.)

10. 50/50 (tie)
(Dir. Jonathan Levine, R, 100 min.)

10. Crazy, Stupid, Love. (tie)
(Dir. Glenn Ficarra, John Requa, PG-13, 118 min.)

_________________________

Honorable mentions: Horrible Bosses, Rango, Super 8, Limitless, The Trip, and Larry Crowne (this one’s a guilty pleasure, I enjoyed it, I thought it was good old-fashioned fun)

Biggest disappointments of the year: The Change-Up, Bad Teacher, Your Higness, Hall Pass, Trespass, No Strings Attached, The Green Lantern, Straw Dogs, Carnage, and Hugo (who would’ve ever thought that a Martin Scorsese picture would ever disappoint?)

Interview by Paul Stathakis  |  December 6, 2011

James Grady is an accomplished American author largely known for his novel “Six Days of the Condor.” He has also written several award-winning short stories and novels over the years, including two recent novellas titled “Condor.net” and “This Given Sky.”

Born in Shelby, Montana in 1949, Grady worked a variety of odd jobs, from hay bucker to gravedigger, before graduating from the University of Montana with a degree in journalism. In 1973, when Grady was only 24, Paramount Pictures acquired the rights to his book “Six Days of the Condor.” The studio then developed the novel into a major motion picture and called it “Three Days of the Condor” (released in 1975). It starred Robert Redford, Faye Dunaway, Cliff Robertson, and Max Von Sydow and was directed by Sydney Pollack.

A few weeks before the release of his latest novellas, Paulzeye invited Grady to do an candid interview and the author graciously accepted the invitation. What this intimate interview reveals is an author who is not a flash-in-the-pan writer in it for money or fame. He never brags about his successful career even though he was awarded France’s Grand Prix du Roman Noir, Italy’s Raymond Chandler Award, and Japan’s Baka-Misu literary prize — each top literary honors. Grady is modest and sincere. He doesn’t hide away from questions and his answers are as clear and poetic as any passage from one of his stirring novels. He’s an intellect — witty, expressive, and, more importantly, honest. After nearly five decades of writing, one thing remains certain: Grady hasn’t lost that burning passion for telling good stories.

___________________

Paulzeye: What motivated you to become a writer?

James Grady:  I was compelled, not motivated.  I started telling stories to my mother to write down before I was 5.  For me, writing’s always been like a cross between a heroin addiction and sex.  I feel like when I’m at my best, I serve some forces beyond me, take their dictation.

Paulzeye: Talk to us a little about your experience writing “Six Days of the Condor.” What inspired you to tell that story?

James Grady: Condor rode my drive to write and came from 3 main inspirations, all rooted in Washington, D.C.’s Nixon era.  I was an undergraduate college intern working for Montana Sen. Lee Metcalf, living on Capital Hill when it was then considered a “rough” neighborhood.  Every day I walked to and from work past a corner building with a plaque on the front for a group that sounded so bland it seemed phony (actually, the respectable American Historical Association).  From that screaming place where all my stories come shot two what-if’s, the best kind of inspirational question:  What if that place was a CIA front?   What if I came back from lunch and found everyone in my office murdered?  Then, the columnist Jack Anderson (who I later worked for) and his number one reporter Les Whitten wrote stories about the CIA and the heroin trade in Vietnam, inspired by research done by Beat poet Allen Ginsberg.  Two years later, when I was 23 and couldn’t resist writing a novel any longer, all that fused into SIX DAYS OF THE CONDOR.

Paulzeye: You were only 24 years old when Paramount Pictures acquired the rights to your novel. How did that happen?

James Grady: Absurd as it seems, I’d sold the manuscript through the mail to W.W. Norton, who in turn contracted William Morris Agency to see three of their unknown first time authors to the movies (a bold and uncommon move, but also, back then, I had no agent).  Dino De Laurentiis told me he knew CONDOR was going to be a great movie after reading 4 pages.

Paulzeye: Were you involved in the process of adapting your book into the screenplay?

James Grady:  No, I was way too young, and such work is contracted.  I got lucky and CONDOR had two great screenwriters (David Rayfiel and Lorenzo Semple, Jr.).

Paulzeye: You told me that you had a chance to spend some time on the set of the film. What was that like?         

James Grady: Surreal.  I remember standing alone outside the front of the New York city building they’d “dressed” to be “my” CIA front building, staring at the plaque on the wall that made it look “real.”  I walked around in a daze.  Met Pollack, Redford, both of whom were gracious to me.  Pollack talked to me about how he set up a couple shots, and it was like going to grad school in hyperdrive.

Paulzeye: The ending of the film is significantly different from that of your book. The film took aim at politics– primarily the situation of oil and the Middle East. What did you think of the film’s ending then?

James Grady:  I thought the film was superb all the way through.  The oil crisis materialized after Paramount bought the book, and Pollack, Redford and the writers realized they could not ignore the history breaking around them.  One of the things I think they tried to do was capture a “behind the scenes” fictional “what if” movie about life in America right then, right there.  They succeeded.  First time I saw the movie was at a screening in D.C. arranged by Redford.  I had just started work as an investigative reporter for Jack Anderson’s column, and the idea that “my” character would take ‘my” story to the press…wow.

Paulzeye: Do you still share the same thoughts about it now as you did then?

James Grady:  Now I think the movie is even better than I thought it was back then.  Also, back then, the emotionally surreal impact of having all that happening to me at that age (when the movie came out, 25) distorted any sense I had of the quality of the film.  Still, I knew it was good.

Paulzeye: There are those who would argue that today’s political landscape strongly resembles that of the one seen in “Three Days of the Condor.” Do you agree with that sentiment?

James Grady: Politics is about making choices with what fate gives us.  That’s what Condor does, and that’s classic, so in that sense, the political landscape is the same.

Paulzeye: You’re working on a book right now which is a “Condor” re-imagining of sorts, titled “Condor.net.” What influenced you to revisit this character? And what is the book about?

James Grady: My “re-imagining” has become a novella that will be published as an e-book by Open Road Media and Mysterious Press in October, 2011.  I was driving to NYC from my home in Washington, saw the “empty scarred” skyline post-9/11…and I got mad.  Wondered:  How would I do Condor now?  Couldn’t stop, and out came the novella.

Paulzeye: Have we seen the last of Condor or is a third novel involving the Condor character a possibility?

James Grady: I don’t see me doing another Condor novel, though a professional live community theater in Montana wants me to write it as a stage play.  In my last novel MAD DOGS, I account for what happened to “that” Condor, so…

Paulzeye: You’ve remained active as a writer over the years. You’ve written several award winning short stories and novels and your latest work is a Noir novella set in Montana called “This Given Sky.” Talk to us about that project.

James Grady: My – I don’t know what to call it – let’s say “my crucible” as a writer has always been split between Washington, D.C., sort of the “we are the world” type fictional perspective and my “this is where I’m from” perspective of Montana, especially my small hometown that was a bizarre place to grow up.  Only in the last 10 years, after turning 50, have I been able to write true and well about my hometown of Shelby.  THIS GIVEN SKY poured out of me.  I had no idea what size it was going to be, where it was going.  I saw a man, 40-Something driving through the a full moon night coming home to Shelby where his whole life would be defined and everything was on the table, including murder.  And I had to know why, what, how.

Paulzeye: When we first spoke, you mentioned that your dad had once managed a movie theatre in Montana. You told me, being a youngster celluloid “got in your blood” because of your dad. And you added, “I still feel like something’s off if I don’t see at least one movie a week.” So I must ask, what are some of your favorite films and some of your earliest film memories?

James Grady: One of my earliest film memories is a movie called THE LEGS DIAMOND STORY – I think that’s the title – starring Ray Danton.  Pure sexy noir.  I’d see four movies a week growing up, and am lucky now to live in a city with good theaters, including one that shows old movies.  Favorites?  Oh man:  THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, CASABLANCA, THE MALTESE FALCON, DR. STRANGELOVE, THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, THE SEARCHERS, BULLITT, BLADE RUNNER, THE MATRIX, BREWSTER MCCLOUD, MCCABE & MRS. MILLER, GODFATHER I & II, GOODFELLAS, THE BEST YEARS OF THEIR LIVES, BONNIE & CLYDE, PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE, THE 400 BLOWS, EVEN THE RAIN, BLUE VELVET, CHINATOWN – I have to stop now and that list is so incomplete.  And, of course, CONDOR.

Paulzeye: English author Brian Aldiss once claimed that, “There are two kinds of writer: those that make you think, and those that make you wonder.” Which of the two do you consider yourself to be?

James Grady:  When I’m at my best, I make you wonder:  emotion is stronger than intellect.

Paulzeye: Surely all writers must have limits in terms of their own writing or, for that matter, genre preferences. Taking that notion into consideration, what’s an example of a book you could never picture yourself writing? And why?

James Grady: It’s funny, before I turned 60, I would have said “anything like Updike” and now I have a story being published that someone at the magazine likened to Updike.  I’ve written horror for the first time this year, too.  Previously dabbled in science fiction and fantasy.  I think the one thing I”ll never write, however, is the “academic novel” – some sort of story in which the characters are not confronted with major challenges but instead pontificate on “relationship questions” while they are insulated by suburbia or tenure.

Paulzeye: Do you have any other projects in development as we speak?

James Grady: There are a few “Hollywood” projects percolating, but there’s always more bubbles that come out of that process than coffee, so I only have hope, not optimism.  What I’m most excited about is I’m in the middle of writing a Graham Greene like “spy” novel centered on Arab Spring but really encompassing everything from Americans in the streets of our own cities like New York and Washington to the politics of marriage – and all under the aim of violent guns.  My working title is THE AMERICAN AGENT.

Paulzeye: The Internet has become something of a necessity today. And as time goes by, more and more people are demanding/choosing “online delivery” of content, be it news, movies, music, and books. That said, what in your opinion does the future of the print industry look like?

James Grady: E-books are not the future, they’re our present.  I think for another decade, books will still be published in paper, though probably “print on demand” in stores and off our desktops, then after that, they’ll be curios and antiques and collectors items, coffee table art treasures.  That just is.  We as writers need to learn how to prevail in that reality.

Paulzeye: What advice would you offer to the many aspiring authors around the world who not only dream of becoming successful writers but being published as well?

James Grady: You wish it were all about the writing, but it’s not.  Success other than what you feel for having finished some work of writing is dependent on forces that are not fully about your writing.  Good writers get terrible breaks and vice-versa.  So while you need to pay attention to marketing and opportunities, that kind of hustle is the least of what your life should be about.  You’ve got to love what you’re writing.  Otherwise, why should anyone else even like it?  This is a never ending growth journey, and the day you stop getting better is the day you should stop, so keep fighting to be better.  Other than that, get used to living life in one of the loneliest endeavors in the universe.

Paulzeye: James, I want to thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to answer these questions today. It’s been a real pleasure and an honor.

James Grady: Thanks for asking, and for trying to keep the light shining on movies and fiction.  The stories we tell and choose to hear define who we are, and it’s important to cast a critical eye on all of that.

_____________________________________________________________

Note: For information about author James Grady, you can visit his personal site at http://www.jamesgrady.net  In addition, you can purchase Grady“s latest E-books online. They are available for download on iTunes, Amazon, B&N Nook, Google, and Kobo. Simply click on the following book title(s) to be taken directly to their download page: CONDOR.NET, SIX DAYS OF THE CONDOR, THIS GIVEN SKY, and THE NATURE OF THE GAME.