"Night Film" by Marisha Pessl - Book Review

I decided to review "Night Film" - a new novel from Marisha Pessl - because the primary subject is a film director, and the themes/subplots involve moviemaking, hero worship, creative genius, and artistic eccentricity.  "Night Film" is a fascinating page-turner that I recommend to all aspiring filmmakers.  For everyone else, it's a solid mystery-thriller with several creepy scenes and a few preposterous plot twists.

"Night Film" is narrated by investigative-reporter Scott McGrath, a divorced 43 year-old living in New York City.  He recently suffered a career disgracement when his attempt to uncover a scandalous story on the reclusive film director Stanislas Cordova proved erroneous.  When Cordova's 24 year old daughter Ashley dies in an apparent suicide, McGrath is drawn back into Cordova's world, determined to find out the truth about this eccentric family of artists.

As McGrath digs deeper into Ashley's life, he essentially becomes a character in one of Cordova's horror movies.  He uncovers supernatural curses, people and clues disappear without explanation, and a whole cast of bizarre supporting players help/obstruct the case.  One of the more perplexing plot points is McGrath's decision to take on two young assistants, loosely connected to the late Ashley.  Together, the three form an unlikely (and implausible) band of detectives, chasing Ashley's shadow through New York City's darkest corners - and into the disturbing universe of Stanislas Cordova.

Cordova maintains a veil of secrecy to protect his creative genius.  When a close associate is asked what Cordova needs in order to thrive she replies, "Darkness."  She elaborates further:  "I know it's hard to fathom today, but a true artists needs darkness in order to create.  It gives him power.  His invisibility."  McGrath's question, however, is whether Cordova has taken that darkness too far.  And has his daughter paid the ultimate price?

Author Marisha Pessl

One of "Night Film's" biggest strengths is the authenticity of the central character of Cordova.  A filmmaker known for his terrifying horror films, Cordova refuses to be photographed and has not granted an interview in over 30 years.  His movies have a rabid cult following, and he now lives in semi-retirement at an isolated compound in upstate New York.  Cordova is an amalgamation of Stanley Kubrick, Terrence Malick, Francis Ford Coppola, Roger Corman, Michael Cimino, and Alejandro Jodorowsky among others.  The best part is that Cordova exists alongside them, in a parallel universe to ours.  When McGrath's young assistant says that Cordova grew up in New York playing chess in Washington Square, she is quickly corrected by an expert:  "That was Kubrick. . .Get your geniuses straight."  When McGrath feels that Cordova has crossed a line, he states that Cordova should be "terminated with extreme prejudice" in a direct reference to "Apocalypse Now."  At times, the story is very "Heart of Darkness"-esque, with the characters literally travelling up a river to look for the cult (movie) leader.

The book is full of movie and pop culture references, some not so direct.  Stylistically, it resembles "The Girl with the Dragoon Tattoo" as they both feature a disgraced journalist who take on their darkest case with the help of a quirky young female assistant.  At other times I thought of "Beautiful Ruins" by Jess Walter as it also deals with a parallel Hollywood intermingling real and fictitious people.

The novel is also full of fake news stories, reproduced to look like the real thing.  Much work and detail have gone into these pages to help make Cordova's world seem like an extension of our own.  These include interviews from Rolling Stone, and articles from Time, Vanity Fair, and the New York Times.  While this is definitely an unnecessary 21st Century marketing gimmick, I did enjoy reading these, as I have read so many authentic ones on the real directors I personally admire.  I guess it proves the role we all play in building up hype and worshipping false idols.

Fake NY Times Obituary

"Night Film" ultimately succeeds because it sticks to the template of a couple classics:  "Rebecca" and "Rashomon."  The former because the characters (and ultimately the reader) become obsessed with a character that never appears.  We learn every nuance of Ashley Cordova, yet she never speaks or lives on a single page.  Every character seems to have some Ashley anecdote, so McGrath - and we by extension - care more about the dead girl than the living ones.  The novel resembles "Rashomon" because it features various players telling vastly different versions of Ashley's brief life; often times the same exact event perceived by three different people.  Do we ever learn the truth?  Is there such a thing, or are they all, like the best films, simply stories we tell?

In the end, "Night Film" channels the great cinematic biopic "Citizen Kane" as it tackles the subject of the brilliant, flawed Stanislas Cordova.  While McGrath searches for answers to Ashley's death, he's really searching for Cordova's Rosebud.  We see both the complexities and simplicities of one man's life, and how the deeper you look, the more normal everyone becomes.  Even the great Hollywood icons.

Stephanie Palmer, Author of "Good In A Room" Interview

The phrase "good in a room" is a popular Hollywood expression that refers to someone creative, usually a writer or director, who can consistently and effectively sell their ideas to decision-makers.  Stephanie Palmer is an expert in this area, as she worked as a creative executive at MGM for many years listening to thousands of movie pitches.  She wrote the book "Good In A Room" to help people create effective pitches to sell their ideas in any type of business.  It is a must-read for all aspiring writers in Hollywood, as well as anyone in a sales career.  Stephanie is a very in-demand speaker, and her new eBook How To Take A Hollywood Meeting is now available.  We spoke about the essentials of how to be Good In A Room.

Stephanie Palmer

Michael Carvaines:  How important is it to be "Good in a Room" as opposed to only having a great idea or script?

Stephanie Palmer:  These are actually three different things, though they are related. Let's think about them in terms of what can be sold.  First, there is no market for ideas, only for finished products.  You can’t approach any serious decision-maker in Hollywood with just an idea.  This is kind of like going to a restaurant expecting a delicious meal and the chef comes out and says, “Look at these wonderful ingredients.”  The value of your project isn’t just in the ideas or ingredients, but in the choices you make and how you put together a compelling finished product from all of the elements that you could include.  Second, there is a market for experts:  people who have demonstrated that they have the talent and experience to produce a quality project. Therefore, it is possible for an expert to be "good in a room," i.e., good at presenting him/herself and the ideas, and for the decision-maker to say, "Well, I don't like your idea, but I like you and want to hire you to work on another project."  Third, there is absolutely a market for scripts - though for new writers, that market exists in film and not TV.  TV projects are (with extremely rare exception) sold only by established writers who live in Hollywood (or the media hub where the show is intended to be produced, e.g., London, Toronto, Auckland). This is one of the biggest differences between TV and film - film scripts can be created and sold by anyone, even if they don't live in Hollywood and don't know any VIP's.  With a great script, these hurdles can be overcome.  With a great TV script... you'd still have to get a job in TV or sell a film script first before anyone serious will listen to you. It may not be fair but that's how it works.  Finally, the real secret to being good in a room is to a) understand that your idea, how you pitch your idea, and how you execute your idea as a script are all different but related things, and b) you have to have all of these elements working in harmony to be thought of as good in a room and to be successful over the long term.

MC:  Is there such thing as being too good?

SP:  In a way, yes. There are people who are very naturally likable and charismatic. They have an easy time getting meetings, but these meetings often lead to nowheresville.  The problem for these people is that they are thinking the interest they are getting is about their work, when the truth is that their work just isn't good enough but that they are persuasive enough to get in the room in the first place.  It sounds like this:  Someone says, "I'm getting these meetings with serious VIP's, everyone says they love my project, but then they say that they are overbudget, or they've got something else that's too similar in development, or it's just not the right fit... how do I get into the right room with the right person?"

The reality is that these people are being told, "Your work isn't good enough yet," but they don't know how to hear "No" in decision-maker-ese. I talk more about how to understand the difference between Yes, Maybe, and No in this post: The Lie Most Frequently Told In Hollywood.

MC:  What's the difference between Good in a Room, and BAD in a room?

SP:  Preparation. People who are good in a room prepare in several different ways, most importantly, they test their pitch and hone it long before they pitch to any decision-makers, and they practice their pitch on video and watch themselves. Anyone who does those two things has a much better chance of being good than bad.

Essential reading for Hollywood writers

MC:  How can someone still be Good in a Room when they don't have the opportunity for an official meeting (a brief encounter)?

SP:  Be thoughtful about how to get that meeting.  The most important principle of networking is: control your introduction.  A great deal of success in the room depends on how you get into the room in the first place. I've spent hours writing one email to a VIP to get referred to another VIP - that's the strategy that works.  Generic query letters are like bulk mail - no one serious reads them.  But a personal letter or email that's very carefully put together can get results.

MC:  Is there an effective "elevator pitch," or is it not even worth trying?

SP:  There is, but the secret is customization.  I help business professionals to come up with an elevator pitch that they can adapt in a variety of ways.  That's the key - an elevator pitch isn't one-size-fits all.  It needs to be adjusted to context and the listener.

MC:  What do you tell writers who feel their words speak for themselves, and aren't adept at speaking in front of strangers?

SP:  I ask them (gently) if they'd like someone to pay them a lot of money.  If they would like that, they will need to learn to pitch.  The good news is that it can be a lot easier than you might think.  You don't need to be slick, extroverted, or salesy.  Many of the best pitchers I know are introverted writers who have learned to speak simply, confidently, and clearly about their ideas.

MC:  What about writers who feel they are true artists and won't partake in Hollywood networking?

SP:  They are welcome to write novels and, truth be told, I often recommend this path. Novels are solo acts.  Movies and TV shows are collaborative efforts.  You have to prove that you can participate in networking situations if you want to write in the visual medium.  However, you don't need to be false, fake, or compromise your personal or artistic integrity.  You just have to be prepared for the likely questions and have great answers prepared in advance.

MC:  How does Good in a Room apply to non-entertainment meetings?

SP:  What works in Hollywood not only works in other industries, it often works better. In Hollywood, the writers and producers at the top routinely pitch and sell multi-million dollar ideas that are invisible, intangible, and unquantifiable.  They do it in a seemingly casual and effortless way, though there is a strategy to how they succeed.  I help entrepreneurs to customize what works in Hollywood for their own business to help them find new clients, build their customer base, or secure financing from investors.

MC:  What's the worst pitch you've ever heard?

SP:  I can't honestly recall the content of the pitch because, true story, it was delivered by an adult man wearing only a child's diaper and waving around a sword.

Thanks so much to Stephanie Palmer.  Check out her website, or her book from AMAZON.

James Chressanthis, ASC - Filmmaker Interview

Greek-American filmmaker James Chressanthis, ASC made his first documentary thirty years ago while visiting his ancestral village in Greece.  Since then, he has worked as a cinematographer on countless movies and TV shows, and his feature length documentary "No Subtitles Necessary:  Laszlo & Vilmos" debuted at the 2008 Cannes Film Festival.  It's the story of legendary Hungarian cinematographers Laszlo Kovacs and Vilmos Zsigmond, who photographed some of the most iconic movies from the last 40 years and particularly groundbreaking films of the American New Wave of the late Sixties and early Seventies.  It is now available on DVD and streaming on Netflix Instant.  I spoke with him this week, just before heading to the Sundance Film Festival, where his cinematography can be seen in the world premiere of the feature documentary "Cesar's Last Fast."

James Chressanthis, ASC

Michael Carvaines:  Tell me about your new project.

James Chressanthis:  I was very fortunate in 1988 to travel to Delano, California, where Cesar Chavez was fasting on water and juice to bring to light the dangers of pesticides.  Particularly on the farm workers in the fields, as well as the general population by poisoning our food chain.  The director of the project was Lorena Parlee, and she was a filmmaker for the United Farmworkers of America.  She called me to come out and capture this.  Cesar Chavez fasted for 36 days, and thousands of people came to witness the end of his “Fast For Life”.  Jesse Jackson was running for president at the time, and he was going to lose the nomination, but he did a very good thing and brought the world press to this obscure outpost in California and brought all this attention to what Cesar was doing with this fast.  Aside from the news at the time, this footage has not been seen.  Now flash forward to 2012.  The original director Lorena had unfortunately passed away, and Richard Ray Perez had taken over the documentary.  I filmed additional material in 2012, and Richard did many interviews because he wanted to bring it into the modern age and not just be a historical documentary.  The premiere is Sunday, January 19th at Sundance.

Cesar Chavez with Ethel Kennedy

MC:  How did you become a filmmaker?

JC:  Working class background in Philadelphia.  Father was an engineer, and amateur photographer.  He gave me his camera at age ten.  Mother went to art school and encouraged me a bit.  I had zero encouragement from school.  I studied engineering and had a secret desire to do something with photography.  Even more secret to do something with movies.  When I was 16 I was in the library and found this red book entitled "The Work of the Motion Picture Cameraman" by Freddie Young, BSC.  And I was transfixed.  I quit engineering and went to art school.  Studied sculpture, photography, drawing.  I borrowed a teacher's Bolex and made a little movie.  I eventually made the documentary "Remembrance of a Journey to the Village" about my own roots in Greece.  I shot it, edited, mixed the sound, sold it to PBS.  Then I took it to film festivals and won several awards.  I quit my job teaching in Michigan, and went to the American Film Institute.  Got an internship with Vilmos Zsigmond.  And then started shooting music videos, which got me into narrative filmmaking.

MC:  Which opportunities are you pursuing now:  directing or cinematography?

JC:  I've been working regularly as a cinematographer, having made 5 movies in the last 2 years.  Mostly TV movies.  I'm trying to do some independent features.  As a cinematographer, I've read three great scripts this year, with major stars attached, yet none of them have been greenlit.  Even with modest budgets, the economy has not fully recovered where there's confidence to make these types of personal, dramatic stories.  And those are the types of projects I'm most attracted to.

Vilmos Zsigmond filmed by James Chressanthis

MC:  Does that come from having spent so much time with the great films of the 1970s while you were making your documentary about Laszlo and Vilmos?

JC:  Sure, but even before then I was interested in their movies.  I remember seeing "Five Easy Pieces" when I was young, and the fact that it was so raw and truthful, that I loved it.  It hooked me.  And it turned out, that so many of the movies I loved were shot by Laszlo Kovacs and Vilmos Zsigmond.  And also Conrad Hall, Owen Roizman, and Haskell Wexler.  And I got interested in those guys, as I slowly admitted to myself that I wanted to be a filmmaker.  Ironically enough, I loved these films and when I finally moved to Hollywood and became a cinematographer, I actually became an intern for Vilmos Zsigmond.  And I finally met my idols, and I realized they're human beings just like me.

MC:  Having been both a director and cinematographer, what are some of the filmmaking lessons you've learned from each?

JC:  I am so glad I made "No Subtitles Necessary" because I had been thinking of doing it for 20 years.  I learned to follow my gut.  One benefit that I didn't foresee is that when you start a film you're going to learn something new - it's not prepackaged.  All these new experiences were waiting.  And I got to meet all these filmmakers that I admired.  The interview with ("Five Easy Pieces" director) Bob Rafelson was a day I didn't want to end.  I actually called Laszlo and invited him to come to the interview, and he said, 'Oh, Jim, it's Friday afternoon and the traffic is bad, I don't think I can make it today.'  And then he died the next day.  And that's the other reason, that life is fragile.  And the fragility of life is something that we yak about, but you have to live it.  So the movie was just in time.

MC:  What was your favorite interview?

JC:  So many people were great.  Bob Rafelson is a lovable cantankerous raconteur but his description of the era was so clear and humorous.  Peter Bogdanovich was wonderful, and Tatum O'Neal was so surprised we were shooting on film that she changed outfits.  Karen Black was astonishing and her comments about the artistic process are a gem.  I loved the fact that we were filming in Steven Spielberg's office at Amblin, interviewing John Williams, and Steven was down the hall and wouldn't do the interview.  That's the one interview I wish I had gotten.  Because we tell the funny story of Vilmos being fired five times from "Close Encounters."  It's a great story to be fired five times then win the Academy Award, and then thank his teachers in Hungary and 'Thank America for giving me a second life.'  You can't write a better story than that.  But there's more to that story, because "Close Encounters" was so difficult.  And Steven still doesn't want to talk about it, but I see it as showing this conflict, because despite their disagreements, they made one of the most breathtaking masterpieces of all film history.

Available on DVD

MC:  How have digital cameras changed cinematography and filmmaking?

JC:  One critical change from the past two years is not a camera change, but the monitor.  We now have an OLED Monitor, that shows actually what you're getting.  Right on set.  Previously, none of the monitors displayed the full information of the image.  It was always an approximation.  Now, with this OLED, digital filmmaking has become really practical.  Also, the Alexa camera has become the standard.  All the previous digital cameras were useless.  One of the reasons is the Alexa is balanced for daylight and tungsten, and its contrast range and smooth highlights are the most pleasing of all the cameras out there.  It's the first digital camera where we have the confidence to disconnect from the monitor.  Just like film.  But I like the immediacy of digital.  That being said, I hope film keeps going.  If you've noticed, several big successful movies have been shot on film this year.  I hope it continues as a niche because it's valuable.  When I shoot digital, I shoot the same way as I shoot on film.  I don't change my working process.  I still use meters when I'm lighting and making decisions.  The cameras often aren't ready yet.  Overall, shooting digital is not any faster than film.  If you know what you're doing, you can move really fast with a film camera.  The incompetent people didn't know how to make it work and blamed the camera.  Ironically, we're coming back to the film model, in terms of the filmmaking process.  The process on set is almost back to the 35mm film model, and that's a good way to keep making movies.

MC:  I agree.  Thanks so much, and good luck at Sundance.

JC:  Thanks, it was fun.

James Chressanthis's movie "No Subtitles Necessary:  Laszlo & Vilmos" can be found here on NETFLIX and AMAZON.

"Saving Mr. Banks" - Tom Hanks, Emma Thompson, Walt Disney and Mary Poppins

"Saving Mr. Banks" is a tribute to old Hollywood filmmaking glamour.  If you enjoy behind the scenes dramatizations of the movie-making process and the styles of California in the early '60s, then this is the movie for you.  Although it's not apparent from the title, this is the origin story of one of the most beloved movies of all time:  "Mary Poppins."

Emma Thompson plays P. L. Travers - the original writer of the Mary Poppins books.  Tom Hanks plays Walt Disney, and the two engage in a battle of wills over the rights to adapt the character and stay true to a meaningful story.  It's a bit of a tearjerker, especially for any parents out there, but it's a surprisingly good film with several great performances.

As the movie delves into Mrs. Travers's past and the genesis of Mary Poppins, it flashes back to her youth with moving memories about her family (Colin Farrell plays her alcoholic father).  I enjoyed these nostalgic scenes, and found it an effective counterpoint to the present day working scenes at the Disney offices.

Once at the studio, Mrs. Travers exercises her right to script approval while her book is slowly turned into a musical.  It's a very humorous struggle, as Mrs. Travers cringes at the commercialism of all things Disney.  "Poor A. A. Milne," she sighs when she encounters a stuffed Winnie the Pooh.  Walt Disney has kept a promise to his young daughter that he would make "Mary Poppins" into a movie, and he's been chasing this promise for 20 years.  As the script is hammered out and songs rehearsed, Mrs. Travers keeps resisting.  Including the use of any animation.  But how to resolve the issue of the dancing penguins?

This is a movie about the art of creation.  And since it's about movie making - it's about the art of collaboration.  Mrs. Travers wants to make the deal to adapt her beloved book into a movie, yet she can't relinquish control to such a personal tale.  It's a dilemma other artists often face.  "Saving Mr. Banks" tells her story, uncovering her deep-rooted fears and motivations.  Even Walt Disney reveals his "Rosebud" moment of what motivates him during every single day - even as the most successful man in Hollywood.  

Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks are truly fun to watch.  We, of course, know how their battle turns out, but it is a welcome joy during a movie season that has proven to be extra dark and sad.  "Saving Mr. Banks" is a good old-fashioned bit of entertainment that will stick with you, probably longer than most of the movies now playing.

Subtlety Doesn't Live Here Anymore - "The Wolf of Wall Street"

Martin Scorsese has never been known for his visual restraint.  But his in-your-face bombast is usually forgiven because of the complexities and nuances of original characters and fine storytelling present in his best work.  Which is to say his older films.  Unfortunately, I was very disappointed by the over-the-top excess and repetitive one-dimensional nature of "The Wolf of Wall Street" - both the movie and the Wolf himself, played by Leonardo DiCaprio.

While I expected something brash, I didn't expect to be bored and ultimately ripped-off.  I'm still not exactly sure what was the point of all the sex, drugs and cheating.  And really:  three hours?  Not necessary, people.

I appreciate that Scorsese is not holding our hands and directly telling us that bad behavior is wrong, but why would he need to?  Everyone knows that already.  And I also recognize that DiCaprio's crooked stockbroker Jordan Belfort is an unreliable narrator, but so is every narrator and such is the nature of storytelling.  What I don't appreciate is the lack of insight into these depraved actions.  Jordan Belfort tells his side, but doesn't anyone else get a say?  We the audience deserve to know more about why these people do what they do, and that omission left me sorely disappointed. 

Part of the problem, of course, is that Scorsese has taken us down this road before with more illuminating detail.  The comparisons are inevitable, yet he's asking for it.  Men behaving badly. . .in the '80s. . . cocaine and money. . .all shown in some of his classics.  But at times I felt "Wolf" was directly channeling his own work - and this felt self-referential and unoriginal.  DiCaprio even LOOKS like Ray Liotta in "Goodfellas."  But "The Wolf of Wall Street" is not in the same league.  It's not even Oliver Stone's "Wall Street."  I was thinking of Gordon Gekko, but not because of greed.  I remember what made him tick was when he asks Bud Fox to "Tell me something I don't know."  And that's what I kept wanting during this movie.

"Wolf of Wall Street" is the same note again and again and AGAIN.  It's not original or shocking, which it might have been if this movie were released in 1986.  What is shocking is the lack of morality.  This has caused considerable controversy since it's release, as the consequences of all the bad behavior are never shown.  So what is the audience to think?

It's been over five years since the most recent stock market crash, where countless Wall Street execs, several bank CEOs, and one Bernie Madoff made the public well aware that the financial industry is full of crooks.  Americans know this already.  This movie shows us the perpetrators, but not the victims or the consequences.  So again, I ask what's the point?  How can the audience be expected to laugh at such behavior when there were so many victims?  Money and jobs lost, lives ruined - and what does Jordan Belfort say:  "Money makes you a better person."  Really?  Do the filmmakers actually believe that?  They sure don't show anything to refute it.  Apparently, they too were duped by Jordan Belfort.

In terms of filmmaking the movie features more cinematic clichés:  the wiseguy voiceover, the tired rock soundtrack we've all heard before, and worst of all a scenery-chewing Leonardo DiCaprio that grows tiresome after the first hour, and painful by the third.  If Scorsese really wanted audiences to dislike Jordan Belfort, he should have cast ANYONE but the most popular, handsome actor in the world. 

Martin Scorsese is one of my all time favorite directors, but I can't just give him a pass and call him a master because of the movies he made between 1973-1990.  Is he still, at age 71, the best in the world?  Or is he, like so many other wealthy, praised geniuses who never hear the word no:  cut off from reality and adrift in his own neverland?