The Bounty Hunter

Given the spate of poor choices Jennifer Aniston’s made in her film career, it’s fascinating to see the actress emerge time and again from cinematic mediocrity seemingly untouched–and ready to do it all over again!

Sure, execs are touting that her latest flick, The Bounty Hunter, reached its general projected earnings, making $21 million at the box office this past weekend and ranking third to Diary of a Wimpy Kid (#2) and Alice In Wonderland (#1). But when all is said and done, we know that Aniston has nothing to worry about. Why? Because we like her, and quite frankly, that likability factor is the predominant force behind her A-list status. (Considering her professional repertoire as of late, maybe that isn’t such a bad thing.)

We love Jen because she’s a dichotomy: On one hand, she’s the approachable all-American gal who’s dealt with her fair share of insecurities and heartbreaks; on the other, she’s the millionaire Hollywood actress living ‘the dream’–with the Tracy Anderson-trained hot bod and gorgeous Cali tresses.

Granted, she isn’t the only A-list actress who’s loved more for her personal drama and/or style than excelling at her craft (think: Katie Holmes, Sarah Jessica Parker, Jessica Alba, and yes, even nemesis, Angelina Jolie), but I think it’s safe to say she trumps them all.

Being famous for being famous isn’t necessarily an enviable position to be in, but Jen is in a lucky spot. Because the public [hearts] her despite her lackluster roles, perhaps it’ll give her an incentive to push boundaries and take the kind of professional risks that she’s seemingly open to taking in her love life (ahem).

(Sigh). But make no mistake: Unless the ratings are atrocious, you better believe I’m watching this chick flick–especially when you’ve got major eye-candy incentives like James Franco and Javier Bardem.

Talking to her, Ambrose was just as I imagined her to be: exuberant and sardonic, yet indisputably affable (hence, I’m still trying to figure out how the hell she differs from Claire Fisher). The Manhattanite took some time out from what she called her “epic press day” in L.A. to chat it up with me via celly about mundane stuff–like being a ginormous furry creature, dodging props in the recording studio with James Gandolfini, and playing Juliet in Central Park.

What attracted you to playing the role of a monster?

(Laughing) That’s interesting that you say monster–they’re never really called monsters, are they? Well, I was interested in the role because it’s the most epic children’s book of all time that’s been deeply imbedded in everybody’s psyche since 1963, and generations of people are obsessed with it–including one of my best friends who has a giant tattoo of Max down her back with a fork in his hand. And then on top of that, Spike Jonze called and asked me to do it, so that was pretty incredible. It seemed like a no brainer…and I kind of assumed the one who he wanted me to play, ya know? Because she has long red hair. I realize in retrospect that that was kind of irrational, but that’s why he cast me in it. It’s the one I look like–literally.

Were you familiar with the book?

Yeah, I grew up with it and read it to my kid all the time.

What did you think of the way Spike Jonze translated the book to film?

It’s whatever you bring to it, and I think that’s what’s cool about it. In the book, the illustrations go off the page into the land of the Wild Things. So you wonder how Spike is going to fill in those three particular pages where there are no lines, no words–that’s where the story is. I think the result was beautifully imaginative and creative. Even the way we worked to make this thing–there was no sense to it. It wasn’t like any other acting job, like you having a sense of the arc or anything; it kind of evolved over time. It was really just about being moment to moment with the actors and Spike. He was really physical. I remember the first minute we were recording, we had headbands on and little microphones so we could move around really freely, which is pretty unique compared to how you usually do voiceovers, where you’re confined to the booth. But we were running around like maniacs with props everywhere, throwing foam at each other. Actually, before I came on, they had a month of doing that–they were running around the woods, they had built sets, slept in piles–they were doing all this stuff that I unfortunately missed, but we sort of did some of that in the studio when I was there with James Gandolfini.

You’ve seemed to have covered so many genres as an actress. Do you prefer one medium over another?

You know, I can’t imagine life that excludes any of them. I work in the theater because I feel like I must, but every medium informs the other. I really truly like being an actor and all the different ways to do that. You pull out different tools…I like Shakespeare a lot so…

Speaking of Shakespeare, what were the most exhilarating parts of playing Juliet in Shakespeare in the Park?

What’s exhilarating about Juliet is that Shakespeare has taken care of her character very, very well. He has her pull out the reins of her life and then zoom toward her doom. She’s so passionate and so incredible. What was exhilarating about my personal experience in playing her was that it was in Central Park. Juliet talks to the elements–she talks to the moon, the stars and the heavens, and the sun–and to be outside under the canopy of stars and speaking that language was definitely the highlight of my working experience as an actor. I feel so lucky to have been able to say those words and play that part in this lifetime. I felt very close to that character.

And finally, this question is for all the die-hard <i>Six Feet Under</i> fans: Do you ever miss playing Claire?

Miss playing Claire? Oh that’s funny, that’s cute. You know what’s really funny, I’m out in Los Angeles doing press right now, and I literally can’t believe I was in L.A. and made that show for so long! Literally, who was that person?! It was a great working experience with great actors, and I liked going to work every day. On the other hand, all I have to say is: We did it. I mean, we really did it. We accomplished it.

(Where the Wild Things Are opens nationwide on Friday.)

KW photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures. This interview can also be found at The Village Voice.

My interview w/Michael Moore on Capitalism: A Love Story. Check it out right here!

Have you ever wanted to extract your soul from your body and freeze it in a glass container–perhaps sell it on the black market even? Yeah, me, too!

Cold Souls is a story of just that–the removal and illegal commodification of human souls by way of “soul trafficking.” The flick stars Paul Giamatti, who plays himself. Distraught over accurately depicting his character in a Chekov play, he decides, with the encouragement of his agent, to get rid of his burdened soul and put it into storage. The story gets juicy once he decides he wants it back, only to find it that it’s been stolen and trafficked to Russia!

Last week I went to BAM for a sneak preview screening of the dramedy, which included a Q&A with first-time feature filmmaker Sophie Barthes, cinematographer hubby Andrij Parekh, and Giamatti himself. Astra Taylor, the director of the recent doc, Examined Life, moderated the discussion.

Here are some highlights of the Q&A that won’t give the flick away:

-When asked which soul they’d love to possess if given the chance, Barthes and Giamatti both chose political figures. The director picked Henry Kissinger. Giamatti chose Winston Churchill.

-Barthes got her inspiration for the film from a dream she had when she was a little girl. (Not to give too much away, but in her original dream, it was Woody Allen (not Giamatti)…and yes, it was a chick pea.)

-Barthes isn’t so keen of critics insinuating she may be imitating director Charlie Kaufman–or any other director for that matter.

-Giamatti says he’s not good at improv, so the comic relief elements in the film went strictly by script.

-The soul extractor machine is symbolic of a ginormous vagina.

So is it worth seeing? I’d say ‘Sure.’ The film runs at a steady pace, and contrary to the way it’s being marketed, it’s generally melancholy in tone with comedic undertones. But the undertones resonate throughout the film, thanks to Barthes, who’s skillful at eliciting the two emotions from the audience. Ultimately, though, what carries the story is the enigmatic subject of the soul itself–and secondarily, the absurdity of transforming it into material form and “downsizing” it into an enterprise.

“Tea for two, and two for tea, Grey Gardens for you, and gay men for me!” That’s the tune I wanted to sing as I sat amid a fabulous sampling of Chelsea in Harlem last night for the celebration of Staunch!: The Ultimate Grey Gardens Festival at Maysles Cinema. The evening was a kick-off for the new Grey Gardens book compiled by Rebekah and Sara Maysles, daughters of director Albert Maysles.

The organizers at the cozy eponymous theater prepared themselves for a hefty gathering by having a simulcast screening of the cult classic both upstairs and downstairs, the latter serving as a recreation of Big and Little Edie’s room with other items and audio outtakes in tow.

Here’s a pic of what it looked like:

After the film, there was a panel discussion with Michael Henry Adams (author of Harlem: Lost and Found), Albert Maysles (in the flesh!), Jerry Torre (the Marble Faun!), Grey Gardens musical composer Scott Frankel, and Mr. Mickey (editor of Paper Magazine).

Highlights were:

1) Lots of talk on how gay men with mommy issues were mesmerized by this flick. What gay man doesn’t have mommy issues?

2) Jerry (the Marble Faun) admitting he had the hots for Albert when he first met him (laughter exploded from the audience), to which Albert responded “Oh, the opportunities I missed!” (thunderous laughter ensued).

3) Jerry’s love for Big Edie, how her words of wisdom helped him deal with his sexuality and how he appreciated the safe environment both women created.

4) Mr. Mickey sporting a fabulous set of purple beads round his chubby neck and trying to bring the conversation back to himself as much as possible. (Mr. Mickey, can we do lunch, girlfriend?)

5) Michael Henry Adams’s observation of how the dilapidated 28-room mansion symbolized the internal realities of an otherwise “perfect” neighborhood in the superficial Hamptons.

Although there were many more intellectual and cultural musings, what seemed to resonate with everyone there–both panel and audience alike–was the eccentricity and the authenticity of the characters. Recluses as they were, the Beales took an opportunity to show themselves to the world–completely and utterly as themselves. Who’s brave enough to do that these days?

Earlier this week, I interviewed director Nati Baratz on his documentary Unmistaken Child. Underworld Magazines was kind enough to publish my review. Check it out and go see the movie!

Which suddenly reminded me of Eddie Murphy’s comment in Delirious (starts at about the 15 second mark):