Carell and Fey Find Excitement in Date Night

What do you get when you combine the two hottest actors working on the two funniest sitcoms on television? You hope for the answer to that question to be more than a reluctant shrug, but here we are. Combining Steve Carell and Tina Fey should make for a hilarious and fun adventure, but the material in Date Night simply isn't there and doesn't accommodate their talents.

Carell and Fey play Phil and Claire Foster, a married couple who go about their humdrum lives repeating the same menial tasks daily. They spend their days at work and come home to two young children who occupy their lives at night. Their sex life is basically non-existent, though they try to keep things fresh by having a date night every so often. After they learn that their two best friends are going to get a divorce, they decide to make their next date night extra special and travel to New York for an evening at a fancy restaurant. However, they didn't call in a reservation beforehand and their chances of getting a table are slim. Fortunately for them, a couple by the name of Triplehorn hasn't shown up for their reservations, so the Fosters pretend to be them and take their table. What happens next is less fortunate. Two thugs show up claiming that they have stolen a prized possession from them and want it back. It's a case of mistaken identity and the Foster's find themselves in more trouble than they could imagine.

The premise of a couple seeking excitement only to run into more excitement than they bargained for is nothing new in the world of cinema. In fact, it's been played out by this point. Date Night is merely another blip on the radar of the tired subgenre, featuring mediocre writing and a ridiculous plot that nobody could take seriously. But the dream pair-up of Carell and Fey, two of the funniest people working in Hollywood today, do more than enough to salvage it. This movie works because of them. Without them, it fails.

Their chemistry together--romantic and comedic--is second to none. Their witty banter back and forth is a blast to listen to and they are capable of taking jokes that really aren't that funny and making them so. Considering how hilarious their two shows, The Office and 30 Rock, are, it's shocking how long it took someone to realize how perfect they would be together on the big screen.

Still, this movie is merely tolerable, far from what a movie starring the two should be. Where's the heart? Where's the emotion? Date Night tries to include some, but the outlandish situations the two find themselves in don't lend well to emotion. When you have Carell climbing onto the front of a speeding car and diving into another one, you start to get too far away from reality and the heartfelt conversations start to feel kind of pointless.

What else is there to say, really? Humor is subjective and opinions on the movie will surely be split. I'm not even completely sure how I feel about it. It's one of those rare films that I walked out of and didn't feel like discussing or analyzing. I only wanted to get home so I could write this and get it out of my mind. I'll revisit it one day just to spend more time with the charismatic actors, but the mediocrity of the movie may make it a long before that happens.

Date Night receives 2.5/5

The Runaways a Familiar Biopic

If you've ever seen a biopic about a musician, you know what to expect from The Runaways. Chronicling the rise and fall of the titular band, the film, like so many others, is a conventional biopic, down to the letter, but it's done well and the central performance from a rapidly growing Dakota Fanning keeps it fresh.

Many know of Joan Jett and the Blackhearts, the punk rock band responsible for classics like "Bad Reputation" and "I Love Rock 'N Roll," but few know of Jett's first band that shot her to stardom, The Runaways. Popular overseas, but lacking in appeal here in the states, her band fell into the pitfalls many rock bands do: sex, drugs and rock 'n roll (not necessarily in that order). Kristen Stewart plays Jett who dreams of forming an all girl rock band. One day she meets record producer Kim Fowley, played by Michael Shannon, who loves the idea and helps her. For her, it's all about the music, but to him, it's the sex appeal. He claims that men don't want to see women playing guitar. They want to see them work their assets, so on his quest to find a good frontman (woman?), he stumbles upon Cherie Currie, played by Fanning. After playing a few low key shows, they land a record deal, but their excessive personalities soon lead to their downfall.

I'm a huge fan of Joan Jett. I love her music. I love her look. I love her don't-give-a-crap attitude. I've even seen her in concert. She may be over 50, but she can still rock a nightclub out of its senses. I walked into The Runaways expecting to learn more about her, including her career with the Blackhearts, but much to my surprise, the film is centered largely around Cherie. If I had done my research prior to my viewing, I would have known it is based off of Cherie's memoirs titled "Neon Angel: A Memoir of a Runaway," so it instead explores her life and while it may not necessarily be the Joan Jett biopic I was hoping for, Cherie's life intertwines with hers and the accompanying story is interesting, if not familiar.

But familiarity is not the movie's problem. It may be derivative of other musician biopics, but that's simply the life these people lead. What really prevents it from reaching the status of recent biopics like Ray or Walk the Line is its over-the-top feeling. At times, the whole movie feels a little excessive, but nothing matches Shannon's terrible performance as the eccentric record producer. His exaggerated personification of this man brings the film to a hault. Every scene he is in, every line of dialogue he utters, every movement of his body reeks of bad acting. While I suppose we are to assume he is hopped up on drugs in every scene, the film never shows him taking any and regardless of whether or not the actual person acted this way, dramatically the character doesn't work and needed to be toned down.

The other performances, however, are fantastic, including Kristen Stewart, who gets a lot of flack for looking like she doesn't care in those silly Twilight films. She still looks like that here, but the difference is she's not supposed to care. She's rebellious. A rock 'n roll punk. Anti-establishment. Stewart's poor acting abilities actually benefited her in this role and she ably supported Fanning's wonderful grown-up performance, which was the crutch of the movie.

If I had to sum up The Runaways in one sentence, I would call it this: an understandably cognate, somewhat over-the-top biopic with a great soundtrack and mostly good peformances. It's little more than that. As far as these films go, I've seen better, but it's a solid movie that finally gives punk rock its dues. And as far as this head banger is concerned, that's a good thing.

The Runaways receives 3.5/5

Interview with Jeffrey Johnson, Star of Letters to God

Recently, I had the opportunity to talk with Letters to God star Jeffrey Johnson. Based on a true story, the film follows the life and death of a young boy battling with cancer who writes letters to God as his way of praying. Through his struggle, he unites the community and bonds with the local mailman, Brady, played by Johnson. As humble as can be, Johnson obliged me for as long as I needed and told me about his experience on the film. Letters to God opens today.

So Letters to God is based on a true story. How familiar were you with the real story before you received the script for the film?

Oh, I didn’t know anything about the real story. In fact, it’s funny, I knew so little about it that my manager called me up and said “Hey, listen I’m going to send you a script. I just wanted to make sure you’re cool doing a faith based movie.” What I heard was, “Hey I’m going to send you a script and I wanted to make sure you’re cool doing a space age movie.” I started reading it thinking it was going to be a science fiction thing and after a couple pages I thought, “Where are all the laser guns? Why aren’t we in space yet?” The story literally developed for me page after page so I knew nothing about it going into it.

So was it the fact that it was such an extraordinary true story that made you want to make it or were there other deciding factors?

Yes, it’s an extraordinary story, but I thought it was an extraordinary character too. I just really liked Brady. He’s a guy who’s done some pretty bad things in the past and you’d think by now he would have turned his act around and he hadn’t yet. That’s what was really interesting and it took meeting this inspirational, amazing child to really open his eyes to what life could really be about.

The writer of this movie, Patrick Doughtie, is actually the father of the real Tyler, right?

Yeah, this happened to his boy some years ago and it was this situation that he built the script around. My character didn’t actually exist. That’s something he just created as fiction, but there was very much his son Tyler who was writing letters to God as a way to pray and he more often than not wasn’t praying for himself. He was praying for his friends, his brothers, neighbors, just praying for everybody to give them strength.

I read that Patrick wrote himself out of the movie. As you mentioned, your character didn’t exist so he does fictionalize a little bit. How much does it deviate from the actual story? Do you know?

Well, like I said, my character’s relationship with Tyler is all fictional, but I think situation-wise there are a lot of things that were more or less the same. And I think certainly what the family was going through when they were dealing with the kid’s cancer, I think a lot of that hits pretty close to home.

So was it more or less the themes that were real rather than the dramatic moments?

No, I’m not sure about that. There were just some things he had created just to make it more of a movie like writing himself out and writing the postman in.

I know he also served as co-director. What was it like having him on set where he was basically watching you replay out the life and death of his kid?

It was incredible. It was unlike anything I had ever done before. There were so many times where he tried to put this experience out of his mind and all of a sudden for the sake of the film, he’s reliving these things over and over again. We had this one scene where Tyler’s at a soccer game and he has a seizure and we had to ask him, “What exactly happened? Did his head shake this way? Did he fall down that way?” He’s just reliving it and after a minute or so of doing it, the reality just sunk in and it just became such an emotional day for us all. I just have a lot of respect for him because he was willing to remind himself and explain all these things in this vivid detail. It was just a tremendous amount of bravery he brought to the set everyday and I really respect that.

I thought that was interesting too. I didn’t know he wrote it until after I watched it and I read through the Baptist Press that he actually struggled with his faith during the time that his kid was suffering. There's a scene where Tyler’s mother is questioning God and saying “I don’t agree with God’s plan.” Now, regardless of how strong a person’s convictions are, put in this situation, I imagine a lot of people would question their faith. Do you think that was him kind of speaking out and showing that he went through that moment in his life?

Obviously, I can’t speak for him, but I think you’re right on the money. I think there is a reason that those scenes ring so true to you and to the audience because they came from such a surreal place for him and I think people identify with that.

Well, I know you’ve also done a lot of work on television. I know this movie is kind of bittersweet. It’s not happy what happens to the kid, but at the same time it’s very uplifting. How different was the atmosphere on set for this as opposed to gritty crime dramas you’ve been on like CSI or Criminal Minds?

Well, films and TV share a similar style of acting, but on TV things are pretty rushed. It’s chop-chop, shoot and you don’t have as much time to really understand your character. So this movie was real to us during some of the emotional stuff and then when it was done, we all knew it was done and we could breathe a little bit easy. The first day of filming was this scene where my character had this breakdown in his apartment. That was a tough day to start a shoot. You know, welcome to day one.

Everyone I talk to seems to say the same thing, that they do the hardest scenes first, but I don’t know why.

I think people are just like “Let’s just go for it and get it out of the way so we don’t have to think about it too much.” Maybe they were saying, “Hey, maybe if he doesn’t get it on day one it will be a lot easier to fire him than it would be if we were a couple weeks into the shoot.” I hope that’s not the case, but you never know.

I have to ask you my stock question now. I ask everybody that has been on television and in movies this. Do you prefer the faster pace of television or the slower pace of film?

I think I prefer making movies because it’s really more like doing a play. You spend so much time with the character. They kind of keep you company, so every day you’re thinking, “What would he do? What would he listen to? What would he order for breakfast?” And I really like that whereas on TV you’re just in and out unless you’re a serious regular on a show and you don’t have much time to explore the character.

A few minutes ago you said your manager sent you the script and said “I hope you don’t mind doing a faith based movie.” Now, this movie comes from Possibility Pictures, a Christian production company. Did you have any reservations going into this film knowing that its audience could be limited?

No. That might be an interesting point, but it didn’t concern me at all and it certainly didn’t concern me when I met everyone and we started working together. The good thing about doing a film like is that everyone is just so onboard and everyone is so positive and eager to do the best they can. They started every day with a prayer meeting before safety call, which really sets the tone for a very loving, productive atmosphere. So no I didn’t. Maybe it might have been different if my character were a different kind of guy, but I just appreciated his struggle and his doubts and ultimately his outcome.

See, that’s the thing. The audience could be limited, but I think if people give the movie a shot, they’ll find it’s pretty accessible to everyone.

Oh absolutely. I was with the writer this afternoon and he was on the phone for over half an hour speaking with a reporter who’s Jewish and she was saying she can’t wait to spread the word as much as she can about this film because she wants people to understand that it speaks to everyone, not just one set or one branch of any kind of religion. I hope it’s universal. It speaks to so many people. It speaks to families dealing with it. It speaks to children dealing with it. It speaks to the friends. My character thought it was over. He thought he was never going to be able to live a life of peace. I think what I learned was that it’s never too late to turn things around.

Clash of the Titans an Unbridled 3D Mess

Something's wrong in Hollywood. It's called 3D. Now, before you naysay my statement, know this. I do not hate 3D. It has a place in film and, perhaps unfortunately, is the next evolutionary step in the future of filmmaking. However, with Avatar still going strong at the box office, Alice in Wonderland still climbing out of the rabbit hole and last week's How to Train Your Dragon enjoying its debut, the last thing we need is another 3D movie, yet here we are with the remake of the 1981 cheese-fest Clash of the Titans. Forget about what those big wig execs up in their ivory watchtowers want you to think. Clash proves that not every movie needs the extra dimension.

What separates this apart from those movies previously mentioned is simple. It was never meant to be in 3D. It was not filmed with that technology, like Avatar, or with the mindset for it to later be converted, as was the case with Alice in Wonderland. No, it was bumped up after the movie studio discovered just how profitable the format could be, considering the extra cost to see one in theaters. Thus, it looks horrid. Some scenes feel unfinished, certain visuals look blurry and at times, the characters seem misshapen with distorted heads and cut off body parts, as seen with the ear in multiple shots. Sometimes, I took my glasses off only to find much of it was barely converted, if at all. I watched whole scenes in crisp clear 2D without the glasses in a supposedly 3D movie. It's a nasty trick by the studio to force you into paying extra money with the notion that you're getting something more. Don't be fooled. You're not.

Regardless of how you're looking at it, you'll most likely wish you weren't at all. Clash of the Titans is an action bombshell, taking the genre and forcefully deflowering it with no regards to style or substance. It uses Greek mythology to prove itself as an epic, but it never does anything to warrant such a title.

Sam Worthington plays Perseus, son of Zeus, played by Liam Neeson. Zeus, a god, mated with a human in an act of revenge, who eventually gave birth to Perseus. Being half-human and half-god, a demi-god if you will, he is thrown into the thick of things when the battle between humans and the gods heats up. You see, the humans have betrayed the gods and Zeus is angry, so he joins with his brother Hades, ruler of the Underworld, played by Ralph Fiennes, to put them in their place. If the people of the city do not sacrifice the beautiful Andromeda, played by Alexa Davalos, a giant Kraken will come and destroy them. Perseus' mission is to figure out how to kill the Kraken and defeat the gods.

Essentially, it's a long winded journey to drably colored locales that all look exactly the same with the hopes of finding the information to take down the giant beast that ends in as boring a fashion as it possibly could. By the time Perseus finally gets to the much talked about Kraken, the creature merely waves his claws around, roars a few times and the movie ends. There's no battle, no showdown and, most importantly, no enjoyment to be had in any of it.

Perseus' journey is never fraught with peril or wonder. It gathers up the extensive history of Greek mythology, but has no fun with it. The PG rated Percy Jackson & the Olympians did more with its source material than this supposed grown-up tale of survival and sacrifice.

And that would be due to the script. This is a very badly written film, with unexplained plot occurrences and dialogue that would be better fit for a fun cornball picture. If you've seen the original film, you know it was a poorly conceived B-movie, yet irresistible in its campiness. This modern update doesn't even reach that status because it takes itself far too seriously.

Going hand in hand are the actors, who all seem half asleep in their performances. Liam Neeson, as established a star as he is, is boring as the god Zeus while Fiennes does little more than channel a less creepy version of Lord Voldemort from his roles in the Harry Potter films. Sam Worthington's banality may be the most egregious, however. He was great in Avatar and Terminator: Salvation despite their mediocrity where he proved himself as an up and coming action star. He was somebody to look out for, but he comes off as a second rate actor from a military commercial here. Sure, he looks strong and menacing, but his goofy way of talking in a loud whisper, not unlike Jack Bauer in 24, is laughable and makes his tough look moot.

Clash of the Titans is a disaster, joining the ranks of big budget travesties like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Land of the Lost. It's one of the worst movies of the year thus far and you should skip it, but if you must see it, take my heed and skip the 3D. Why pay extra when you'll walk out miserable either way?

Clash of the Titans receives 0.5/5

The Last Song Crippled By Hammy Ending

If you're like me, a lot of movies have lost their zest to you. After seeing and writing about hundreds of films on this website, I've gotten to the point where the majority of films are so predictable I could tell you what happens in them scene by scene based soley off the trailer. They all follow a formula set by the dozens and dozens of precedents before them. Nicholas Sparks book adaptations are perhaps the easiest to decipher. If you've seen The Notebook, A Walk to Remember, Nights in Rodanthe or the recent Dear John, you're familiar with the endings. As I watched his latest, Miley Cyrus helmed feature, The Last Song, I couldn't help but continually ask myself: who's going to die in this one?

Cyrus plays Ronnie Miller, a rebellious teen on her way down south to live with her father, Steve, played by Greg Kinnear, for the summer. She's a hardened person, already convicted of shoplifting, and she has a "down with authority" attitude. You can tell because she has a nose stud and wears leather boots. Watch out Lindsay Lohan! You may have some competition.

Ronnie has a little brother named Jonah, played by Bobby Coleman, who is accompanying her on her stay. While he is excited to see his father, a person he has spent little time with since the divorce, she can't wait to go home. She hates her dad because he left her, but while there she meets a strapping young lad named Will Blakelee, played by Liam Hemsworth, who starts to turn her world around. Through him, she becomes happier and starts to reconnect with her father, but with only the summer to spend there, will she be able to find true happiness?

If you take the time to really think about what happens at the end of these movies, you'll realize that all of them, with the exception of The Notebook, end without the relationship lasting. It almost seems like Sparks is a jaded lover, pessimistic from bad experiences brought on by past flings.

Without saying how, The Last Song ends in a decidedly different way, not closing the book on the story for good, but rather implying future events. While it may not reach the height of The Notebook (and is barely recommendable by any standard of quality filmmaking), it's a sweet story with an ending that really works, sans the cheese.

The biggest problem with Sparks' book-to-movie adaptations is that they never know when to quit. Instead of letting the emotion pour through naturally, they shove it in your face and try to force you to feel sadness. This is no deviation. I cared about all of these characters. Their performances were good and their chemistry was excellent. Cyrus and Hemsworth seem like naturals together (as they should since they are dating in actuality) and the father/son relationship between Greg Kinnear and little Bobby Coleman is as precious as can be. When tragedy struck (as was inevitable), I cared. I didn't want the events to play out this way. The movie had done its job. It had me in its grasp, so why so maudlin? Why take the emotion you've just spent the last hour and a half building and crush it under the weight of schlocky sentimentality?

What started as a somewhat uneven, but still solid little tearjerker went the way of Nights in Rodanthe and A Walk to Remember. At the end, when I was supposed to be sad, I was fighting back laughter solely so I wouldn't ruin the experience for any of my movie going patrons who may have been tricked by its overemotional gushing.

As the credits rolled and the lights came back up, however, I still found myself content with giving it my stamp of approval. It's funny, it's sweet, it's meaningful and it goes to show that you must learn to forgive those who have hurt you before the chance passes. It's nothing special, but there's something in The Last Song that keeps its heart beating despite its problems.

The Last Song receives 2.5/5

How to Train Your Dragon is High Flying Excitement

There's no denying that the king of computer animation is Pixar. That juggernaut has released 10 movies and all have been good. Their track record truly is amazing. DreamWorks, on the other hand, hasn't fared so well. After two solid films in Antz and Shrek, they went downhill quickly, releasing junk like Shark Tale, Over the Hedge, Bee Movie and the two Madagascar pictures. They redeemed themselves a tad with Kung Fu Panda and Monsters Vs. Aliens, but their newest film, How to Train Your Dragon, may very well be their best. They still have a long way to go before they start nipping at the heels of the folks at Pixar, but this is a step in the right direction.

The film takes place in a village where Vikings rule. For hundreds of years, these Vikings have been at war with the local dragons who come to their land, burn down their houses and steal their livestock. To these people, dragon hunting is the most admirable thing you can do and those who do it earn the most respect. The leader of the warriors goes by the name of Stoick (voiced by Gerard Butler), a man who finds shame in his puny son Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel) because he has never amounted to anything. Hiccup desperately wants to be accepted and wants to kill a dragon to prove himself, but his weak stature doesn't allow him to. One day, however, he lands a hit on the most dangerous dragon of them all, a Night Fury, but can't bring himself to kill it. Instead, he lets it loose, but its tail is severely damaged and it loses the ability of flight. Hiccup bonds with the dragon, whom he names Toothless, and creates an artificial tail to help aid him. He quickly learns that dragons aren't dangerous creatures at all and, with the help of Toothless, tries to convince his village the same.

Story-wise, How to Train Your Dragon is DreamWorks most complete film to date. It hits a range of emotions they previously could have only hoped for. Like a Pixar film, this movie creates a distinct relationship between its two characters, in this case Hiccup and the dragon, and you come to appreciate their bonding. Toothless is like a stray dog who wants to be loved, but is wary of anybody offering it because he simply isn't used to it. He looks at Hiccup as he approaches him, all tied up in the projectile net, desperate and afraid. After Hiccup releases him, he attacks him based on the assumption that Hiccup means harm. It isn't until he spends time with him that he starts to let his guard down. It's truly amazing how much emotion seeps through this creature just by the way he looks at Hiccup. His character development rivals everybody else in the movie and you see him grow throughout.

The bond they create is the crutch of the film. You'll love them as soon as they start to love each other. Despite its colorful nature and appeal to children, its the drama that comes through the best. You'll care about the characters, sympathize with them and fear for their plight. It's the humor that doesn't necessarily work.

Much like most animated features, How to Train Your Dragon tries real hard to produce laughs, but it feels more strained here than in others. I wouldn't say this is a dark film, but it's not exactly happy-go-lucky either and deals with rejection, loneliness and crippling injury, both to humans and animals. However, it doesn't go all the way. Nobody dies in this movie. When the dragons shoot their fire, the humans jump out of the way and it passes right by. Due to what I assume is fear of excluding children, the film is toned down in every area, which includes its forced humor to lighten the tension. None of it works. Had it gone a more adult route and had the chutzpah to show the violence and drama unfold more naturally, this would be a modern day adult animated masterpiece.

It doesn't quite reach that height, but it's a solid tale nevertheless. The animation is beautiful, the close-to-being-overdone 3D works magic and the voice acting is wonderful. Despite a few too many recognizable voices from the likes of Jonah Hill, Butler and Baruchel, who just recently starred in She's Out of My League, they fit their characters well and by the time you reach the high flying, pulse pounding climax, you will have forgotten that there were actual people voicing these characters, though it does take a bit of time to get to that point.

I've always been a person fascinated with flight. Ask me who my favorite superhero is, I'll tell you Superman and I'm astonished when someone in a window seat on an airplane puts the cover down so they can't see out the window. Being up that high and being able to soar through the clouds holds a sense of wonder for me. It's a sight so beautiful it brings tears to my eyes. Perhaps this is why I loved How to Train Your Dragon, because it tells a story not always through dialogue, but through flight showing how their friendship develops while they are in mid-air swooping up and down and around. The beauty of these scenes is reason enough to buy a ticket. It may not be the next Wall-E or Finding Nemo, but it's a pleasurable diversion that promises a more promising future from DreamWorks.

How to Train Your Dragon receives 4/5

Interview with Ben Stiller, Noah Baumbach and James Murphy

Recently, I was lucky enough to participate in an interview with Ben Stiller, Noah Baumbach and James Murphy, the creative team behind the new film Greenberg. We discussed how the film came to be, what the process behind the music was and how different this role is for Stiller when compared to his wider known comedies. Greenberg opens today. This is the unedited transcript.

How was the dynamic behind the scenes for all of you and were there any moments you would like to discuss?

Stiller: Well, I feel that working with Noah is a very, very special experience because he just approaches movies in a very different way than I’ve experienced before. He wrote a very specific script and I think everybody working on the movie was really dedicated to it and wanted to do the best they could because they respected the script so much. There was a lot of camaraderie. There was a feeling that we were all connected and we were doing the best we could. It was a small production so we got to rehearse for a number of weeks and hang out a little bit. All the way down to the camera people and the crew, everybody was there because they wanted to be there so it had a much warmer, more intimate feeling that all came out of the atmosphere that was set for the movie.

James, how different was it writing, instead of from an emotion to a final product, from a final product to emphasize emotion? How was that transfer for you?

Murphy: Well, the way this kind of worked wasn’t quite so much like that, but I met with Noah before shooting started. We talked a lot about music and we talked about the characters and, what Ben said, there’s a lot of human camaraderie that made it very easy to kind of talk about what the movie needed. It wasn’t any less about my emotions than anything else. There was just something you were looking at and reacting to. But we also didn’t try to make a soundtrack that necessarily always accented the emotions. For me, after seeing the first footage, it was clear the actors were doing their job amazingly well and the stuff was there. We made songs that worked like a backdrop for what’s happening and let the emotions come through from the directing and the shooting and the acting.

Obviously, this is a very different role for Ben. Noah, what made you consider Ben for a role like this and Ben, what made you take a role like this as opposed to another comedy that you’re better known for?

Baumbach: Well, I’ve always wanted somebody with a sense of humor to play this part. There is a lot of humor in it, although it’s not played for laughs. It’s more authentically portrayed. Obviously, Ben is known for bigger comedies, but he’s done a lot of different stuff, so I never really saw it so much as a different role. It just seemed like Ben was the best person to play this.

Stiller: For me, I really have to say off the bat that I think there are four or five filmmakers that if you get a call from them as an actor, you basically would say yes no matter what it is and Noah is definitely one of those guys for me. What he was calling me with was something I felt very excited about too because it was so specifically written. We talked a little bit about it at the beginning, you know, about the age of the character and the issues he’s going through. Then it was just the chance to work on something that was really about the character and the chance to work on something that goes that deep in terms of the specificity of the writing was very exciting for me so I just felt very fortunate to have that opportunity.

Would you consider doing something like this again? Is this the way you want to take your career or do you want to leave it more open?

Stiller: First of all, I’d love to work with Noah again if he has anything.

Baumbach: Likewise.

Stiller: But yeah, sure, in terms of doing different roles and films, there are just very few filmmakers like Noah that have that sense of humor set in reality and are doing what he’s doing.

The letters that Greenberg writes in the movie are brilliant. Could you talk a little bit about that?

Baumbach: Well, in coming up with the character, Jennifer [co-writer] and I were exploring a lot of different professions and the story took different turns. I think, though, that very early on we came up with the letter writing. It seemed very apt for the character. It would be something that he pours a lot of energy into. There’s a lot of frustration and anger and in some ways it is his vocation. A lot of creative energy goes into it too, but it’s an energy that would be better used in other, more productive ways. I found it very funny, but also very moving that somebody would become so invested in letting these faceless corporations or people or journals or newspapers know how he felt about something after the fact. There’s something so self important about it because there’s the notion that nobody cares what you think and at the same time, there’s something totally futile about it because you’re spitting these things out to the ether. It was something structurally I wasn’t sure how the letters would play while we were shooting because I hadn’t written them as voiceover, but as we were doing it, I had Ben read them and it became a sort of score element in the movie.

James, what were the concepts going in creating the soundtrack and what goals did you have in mind?

Murphy: I think the goal for me was to make music that worked, that we liked, that seemed true to the character and true to the movie and that made Noah happy. It seemed pretty easy to do because we were able to talk about music pretty simply. I know I was very lucky to have that open line of communication. We were editing, I was making the soundtrack and Noah was editing the movie 100 feet from me, so it was very easy to have access and a lot of feedback, so I don’t know whether I ever really got self conscious about what the goals were other than deadlines and dates on the small level. I always just seemed to go with my instincts.

Baumbach: From my perspective, I wanted James to do something that worked for the movie, but to interpret it himself, to come at it from a personal standpoint. I think our relationship and friendship outside of work, or around the work, was very important because I think it helped support an environment where we both could talk freely and see what happened. Some of it is trial and error, in terms of some things you love, but when you put it against the picture it doesn’t work or it doesn’t feel right, but I think our track record was pretty good.

Murphy: I would give Noah music and he would just try it in different places if it didn’t work there, so he was very generous.

Noah: I loved everything James did, so I kept trying to find places for it which is good because I used music more in this movie than I have in previous movies and I was partly inspired by just trying to find places for his music that I really liked.

How did the story of an actively passive man finding his calling hood from his nothingness develop over time from pre-production to post-production?

Baumbach: Well, part of the experience is both interpreting the script when you shoot it and putting it together and rewriting it when you edit. That’s kind of a general way of looking at it, but because I’m so involved every step of the way, I think part of my job is being open to how it transforms and what other people bring that transform it. I really think that the character of Greenberg is in many ways a 50/50 collaboration between Ben and me. Ben didn’t improvise the dialogue, he did the dialogue I wrote, but he so inhabited the part and so transformed the character that I feel only part ownership of him now. I feel like Ben is just as responsible for it as I am and that’s true with many things. It’s true with the music too. I think the music is very specific and personal to James even though it was created to go with these pictures. Even in the post-production, the editing, I’m not precious about what I write. I tend to rewrite by cutting lines and moving things around and being open to what I have rather than what I anticipated having because it always becomes something different than what I started with.