October 11th, 2013

Kori Rae, Producer of Monsters University, on her dreams to be a professional basketball player, MU's nontraditional themes, and her role as an animated film producer

Mary Tobin: How much of your own college experience or that of the other producers and director did you put into the film?

Kori Rae: When we first started talking about the circuitous path that Mike ends up taking to get to his goal of being part of the scare team in [Monsters University]—well the same thing happened to me. I ended up at Pixar in a really roundabout way. I had one dream—it seems crazy now, but I was going to play basketball. I was going to be either a professional player or be in the Olympics, that was my goal from childhood. It was all I did and focused on 24/7, ate drank and slept basketball. But then an injury in college changed that, and I had to kinda figure out what to do and where to go from there. My plan was to teach and coach. In many ways I am doing that, because producing is a lot like coaching, except you’re working with a much larger team. We have 250 crew members on the show. But it’s very similar, you’re getting all these people together to work on one focused vision and it’s as challenging as coaching, so it worked out in the end. And the truth is, there’s a piece on the DVD called “Paths to Pixar” and it just points out how many people at Pixar never intended to end up where they were. We have animators who were doctors or attorneys, a production designed who wanted to be a baseball player in Japan, and that kind of thing. And that’s what we feel like the theme of this movie is kindof about, it’s like when something gets in your way for that one thing that you think you’re supposed to do or who you’re supposed to be, remain open and see what’s around the corner. It’s usually in most cases it ends up being better than what you ever imagined.


Many college students are facing these questions of what to study and do with their lives now, why did you want to address those in a childrens film?

The beauty of it is that Monsters, Inc., came out when a lot of you were more that age. It just so happened timing-wise—and we didn’t even realize this until we were halfway through with making the movie—that a lot of the Monsters, Inc., audience would now be going to college or at least at that age. I think the beauty of Pixar films is that we feel that we can tell those stories that seem adult, but we can still do them in a way that appeals to kids and I think they’ll get a slightly different message but it’ll be the same thing and it might stick with them. They’ll look at friendship part of it and the conflict between Mike and Sully and understand all that and understand the humor, but we make these movies for general audiences and ourselves too. We don’t want to make them just for kids.


What is your role as the producer of an animated film?

I’m a partner with the director. We start each day by checking in and looking at what’s happening. But it’s my job to make sure that the director’s vision ends up on the screen. That means a lot of things—sometimes they know exactly what they want and sometimes they don’t and it’s up to the producer to figure out how to help them get what they need. They might be writing with a writing team and maybe it’s not working, maybe we need to pull in somebody to help with a certain part of the story, so I’ll suggest that we should get someone to come and just sit in with [the writing team] if I feel like they’re stuck. I’m looking ahead and trying to catch problems before they happen but also on a daily basis I’m just solving problems, often creative problems—and that’s always in support of the film and always in support of the director and what they need.



Monsters University is a bit dark compared to other children’s films–the message isn’t ‘you can do anything,’ it’s ‘you can’t always live your dreams.’ Why?

We wanted to tell the story of a character who doesn’t necessarily get what they want, and so in this instance [since it’s a prequel] you know that from the beginning. But it was our job to get the audience invested enough that you want to know—you know he’s not, but what does that look like when he doesn’t get what he wants? It actually added to the tension in the film…So often for most of us—and most of the people we know—it’s not that simple as going after your goal, working really hard, and getting what you want. Often, it doesn’t work out, and you have to figure out a new direction or a new path or a new way to get there. So we just thought that was really compelling and that was something that we hadn’t seen that much in films and especially family films.

Laugh-out-loud funny yet encompassing difficult themes not usually addressed in children’s films, Monsters University is an enjoyable prequel to Monsters, Inc. especially for a college audience that may find solace in characters struggling with similar issues about important life decisions.

Ever since Mike Wasowski (Billy Crystal) was a little monster, he’s dreamed of becoming a professional scarer. He knows the best scarers come from Monsters University (MU), so when he gets to MU his entire life revolves around memorizing all the scaring techniques he can get his hands on; however, he can’t memorize enough techniques to overcome the simple truth everyone tells him: he isn’t scary. When he meets a legacy student and natural-born scarer, James P. Sullivan, “Sully” (John Goodman), the pair’s competitive spirit get them kicked out of the university’s elite scare program. An upcoming Scare Games competition gives them a chance to win their seats in the program back, but there are some obstacles that may prove too difficult.

While I was not initially overcome by connection to the story, Monsters University has grown on me. Different from traditional children’s films, which support a “you can do anything you set your mind to” attitude, Monsters University carries a theme that your dreams and goals might not be accessible and accepting that fact is a mark of maturity. I was initially taken aback by this theme, but I’ve come to realize that it’s a far more realistic and important theme than “you can do anything.” Many people don’t realize their childhood or even adult dreams, but their chosen paths may turn out to be better suited or more enjoyable than their dreams. While not the best Disney Pixar film I’ve seen, Monsters University proves yet again that Disney Pixar cannot fail at creating an inviting, fun film for all ages.

The Monsters University 4-Disc Ultimate Collector’s Edition Blu-ray 3D Combo Pack, 3-Disc Collector’s Edition Blue-Ray Combo Pack, and 3-Disc Blu-ray Combo Pack DVDs are now available in stores.

Grade: B+

We've all been there at least a few times in our lives.  Those moments when a movie is so ridiculous and so funny that you literally have to pause it because you can't hear anything over your own laughter, and everything blurs from the tears you can’t hold back.  For me, that happened more than once when I had the glorious experience of watching Tucker and Dale vs. Evil with my mates for the first time.

The film stars Tyler Labine as Dale and Alan Tudyk as Tucker, two lovable West Virginian hillbillies on their way to their "fixer-upper" vacation cabin to drink some beer, do some fishin', and have a good time.  But when they run into a group of preppy college kids who assume from their appearance that they must be in-bred, chainsaw-wielding killers, Tucker and Dale's vacation takes a bloody and hilarious turn for the worse.

You'll probably know Tudyk from his roles in Firefly (and Serenity), Death at a Funeral, and Dodgeball (eff yeah, Steve the Pirate!), so we already know he has some serious comedic chops.  Tyler Labine is less well known.  I first noticed him in the short-lived (but quite good) TV show Reaper way back in 2007.  Regardless, both Tudyk and Labine are perfectly cast in their roles; they so convincingly play the titular life-long best friends that one wonders if they haven’t been long-time off-screen friends as well.  Though both play a vital role in the film, Labine’s character becomes the focus, and he steals the show as the sweet, sensitive lug who falls for the girl out of his league.

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil draws most of its comedy from its heightened reality with exaggerated characters and hilariously gory happenstances.  The film builds its humor by having most of its characters make logical choices, even while these choices are informed and overridden by misunderstandings and entertaining twists of fate.  Much like The Cabin in the Woods, which NUFEC screened last year for Halloween, Tucker and Dale vs. Evil knows the slasher genre intimately and is able to flip common tropes for its own comedic ends.  While both films successfully satirize our favorite horror classics, Tucker and Dale vs. Evil is more concerned with eliciting as much laughter as it can in its 89-min run-time, while The Cabin in the Woods was more focused on the deconstruction of the horror genre, albeit with plenty of humorous elements.  

I love that this film eschews the common stereotypes in horror movies to make the under-educated hillbilly the lovable hero, and the middle-class, apparently innocent college student the dark and twisted villain.  But where Labine’s performance as Dale is spot-on, the character who becomes the villain (the “Evil” of the title) felt a little forced.  How have his friends never realized how batshit insane he is?  That sort of evil doesn’t come out of nowhere. 

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil is a rollicking good time, a tale of two delightful best-friends and the ridiculously bloody (and hilarious) coincidences and misunderstandings with which they must contend on their long-anticipated vacation.  Though it has a couple of flaws, horror fans and regular moviegoers alike will find something to love.  Just make sure the remote is close at hand for those inevitable moments when you just have to stop and laugh.

Grade: B+

When a movie stars five A-list actors, it’s usually either another attempt to create Love Actually or made by David O. Russell. The Counselor is neither of those things, so I had some reservations. However, the two names that piqued my curiosity were director Ridley Scott , director of Alien and Blade Runner, and screenwriter Cormack McCarthy, novelist behind Blood Meridian and No Country For Old Men. While the performances are very good overall, it’s these two creative forces behind the camera that make The Counselor what it is. After a bit too much rising action, the film rewards a patient audience with a great third act that makes the long- winded establishing scenes worth it.

The script, McCarthy’s first, is made up of dialogue-heavy scenes that illustrate each of the characters. These scenes are, until the midpoint, very light on plot and very heavy on character development. While we spend very little time with these characters, we feel as if we’ve spent a television season with them. The direction and cinematography, on the other hand, let the viewer in on just enough to grasp what’s going on but leaves enough for the mind to chew on. These two styles are very different, but together, they create something special. The screenplay comes to life thanks to all of the fantastic performances by the leading men and women. Javier Bardem is a shoe-in for his fourth Academy Award nomination. Michael Fassbender carries the movie very effectively as the title role. The other standout is Cameron Diaz, who has garnered a fair amount of criticism throughout her career but really shines here in a way that makes sense for her reputation.

The Counselor feels very much like a Coen Brothers film. No clean getaways, no innocent characters, no happy endings. In a way, it would have been a better film in their hands, but the dream team of Scott and McCarthy makes this a movie that’s very unique in most ways. Their styles almost clash, but ultimately compliment each other. The film deals a lot in the relationship between power and sex, as represented by the leopards kept by Diaz and Bardem; beautiful, majestic, feral, and ultimately extremely dangerous. The gaudy displays of wealth each character is accompanied by throughout the film is a reminder of their characters, but is consistently kept in the background; the production design is very well put together and illustrative of the greed hidden behind each of the characters’ motives. In one very striking scene in particular, a character makes love to their wealth in a way that encapsulates their ultimate flaws. We recognize their fatal flaw and watch it bring them to their knees, which is ultimately what makes The Counselor such an intriguing watch.

Rating: B+

Mary: My initial reaction: an absolutely fantastic film. The visuals were lingering but crisp, with several particularly powerful shots displaying unimaginable suffering in the foreground with innocent children playing in the background. The jarring spectrum of human emotion encapsulated in a single scene was amazing.

Brandon: I want to love 12 Years a Slave like everyone else, but I don't. The problem for me is that it feels like a stage play. It's like watching a handful of famous actors play roles, but PLAY THEM, not disappear into them. Ejiofor seems like he's acting in a play, as highlighted in the trailer by the line 
"I WILL NOT FALL INTO DESPAIR!"


Mary: That did seem a little odd to me. They seemed to be there to be famous, not be there to aid in the film’s overall effect.

Brandon: It makes it hard for me to be engaged in—the costumes and makeup, like Brad Pitt and Paul Giamatti, feel like play costumes and makeup (good enough to be seen from a distance, not with a camera up close). There's nothing wrong with it. But why do we need famous people? It doesn't feel real. Did it feel real to you? 









Mary: The fact that the film was based on a real story—that made it so much more real for me. I think being rooted in a real story helps films become more realistic, and this was based on a true story so that felt more real because it wasn’t simply trying to portray ‘slavery.’

Brandon: This did feel like a more realistic portrayal of slavery, but I take issue with rewarding it for being “based on truth." It's a sketch of truth, but we can't really understand the reality of the truth. It's based on truth, but always going to be distant from reality. Just look at The Social Network. Because it is that time period, we know how far it is from the truth. But with films like 12 Years, we just think, oh this is the reality. You can't accept that or fall into that trap.

Mary: If your qualm with historical films is that they're not close to reality, isn't a requirement of a film like this that it's based on the closest version of the truth we have?

Brandon: No, my qualm is with rewarding films for being "true" when that's often a misleading notion. But that's the phenomenon. "This one is based on truth so I should take it more seriously" is a common thing. As a method of making the character more relate-able, they center the story on someone who was free and is then enslaved. Which is fine in general, but it's something that makes these Schindler's List comparisons weird. I don't feel this is ‘the slavery movie.’ His experience is grounded in a free man, being enslaved, and waiting for his opportunity to get out of the situation. It almost then feels like a nightmare –with lines like, "I will survive. I will not fall into despair! I will keep myself hardy till freedom is opportune."
 A nightmare is a horrible experience that you know will end. There's a sense that this is temporary, which is a problem, since the misery of enslavement has a lot to do with the permanence of it. 










Mary: So what are your thoughts overall?

Brandon: None of it really sticks in my mind, I really just don't connect with the way McQueen looks at things, it doesn't make me feel anything. However, I’m reacting to the A+ praise it’s receiving. To some extent I’m slanting more negative because I’m not as enthusiastic. I think it’s an excellent film, but requires more criticism than some are giving it.

Mary:
I found several images striking, especially a few beautiful shots of what I believe were weeping willows—many more showing the internal struggle of various characters (Chiwetel Ejiofor, Cumberbatch, etc) without forcing too much dialogue. I can see why you take issue with this being called ‘the slavery movie,’ but I didn’t look at it that way. I think it was a compelling, engaging, beautifully shot portrayal of what one man endured during a time when his rights were nonexistent.

Brandon: B+/A-
Mary:       A

Matt Porterfield films aren’t riveting Hollywood-style crowd pleasers. They're actually the opposite; very muted and hard to interact with initially, but stick strongly.

I blindly bought Porterfield’s Putty Hill because of Richard Brody's high praise. He wrote that Putty Hill “…digs deep beneath the surface of the quiet doings of everyday people…Throughout this wondrous movie, visual experience itself conveys the muted joy of living despite unfathomable reaches of pain.” After seeing the film, I completely agreed with Brody. I feel like I know that Baltimore town.

Two years later, Porterfield has followed up with I Used to Be Darker. Like with Putty Hill, I needed more time to process I Used to Be Darker. It’s a great example of a film that feelslived in. I’m comfortable with these characters, I feel like I could go to a coffee shop with them and catch up on what we’ve missed since we last spoke. Part of the reason for this is elements of the setting are familiar. I identify with going to an indie show, watching friends jam, playing football with friends. More importantly, because Porterfield’s camera is observational, watching everyone but not getting involved.

Reflecting on the film, Porterfield made the following statement:

At its core, I Used To Be Darker is a story about family: what pushes us away from our own, what draws us back, how we negotiate new terms of engagement as we carve our own space in the world. And it’s a story about home, based on the belief that you can too go home again, but it always involves building something new.

I know I have a connection with Porterfield's world, but the feelings are buried deeper than I can articulate at this point. I need weeks or months to let them rise to the surface. A great example is the scene depicted in the teaser trailer. Bill plays the guitar, filled with melancholy, and then when he finishes the song, he smashes it. There’s something entrancing about this. The melancholy of the home. Bill’s despondency. The American flag. This moment illustrates Porterfield’s skill, crafting an image that creates a visceral response guiding you to a cultural reflection.

Something about Porterfield feels deeply American. It reminds me of the America seen in films like David Gordon Green’s George Washington. It feels true to me. An element of this is the use of music, as the film is intermittently filled with songs from either bands or individuals on their acoustic guitar. This idea of a person, alone, expressing themselves with an acoustic guitar evokes our individualism and the loneliness that often brings.

All the songs are engaging, and some are absolutely stunning. The scene that ends the film and plays over the credits, which I won’t spoil, is sublime. A woman and her guitar. It will stick with me for a long time. I’ll let you know when I figure out why.

Grade: A-

A.C.O.D. – Adult Children of Divorce – is everything you’d expect from a cast of strong actors with great timing and greater track records. Richard Jenkins and Catherine O’Hara play stereotypical bitter divorceés (there’s no shortage of badmouthing) and the parents of Carter, the A.C.O.D. in question, portrayed by Adam Scott (Step Brothers, Parks and Recreation).

The subject of a popular book researching the effects of divorce on young children, Carter seems to be coasting by as a successful restaurant owner, despite being overshadowed by a lack of stable, healthy relationships in his memory bank. When his younger brother Trey (the adorably sheltered Clark Duke) proposes to his girlfriend, Carter must bring his parents together to ensure a peaceful wedding. A daunting task, Carter is woefully unprepared for the problems that will ensue.

Jane Lynch lends herself well to her role as Dr. Judith, the researcher who first studied Carter as a child, as well as the five other A.C.O.D.s she’s now reinvestigating. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays Carter’s frustrated girlfriend who, frankly, deserves better – and Jessica Alba’s appearance as one of the other A.C.O.D.s managed to contribute nothing to the plot other than awful fake tattoos and a weird plot angle that goes noticeably unfulfilled.

Scott plays Carter well as a headstrong, sensible guy who always seems to the only adult in the room. One might start to wonder if that’s all he’s capable of doing; it’s a real shame, as his Parks and Recreation co-star Amy Poehler graces the screen as Jenkins’ most recent wife, Sondra, in such a way that I almost forgot she was a comedian.

While the film is certainly full of deserved laughs, it touches on serious topics that I would’ve liked to see explored, or at least addressed. As an A.C.O.D. myself, a few scenes had me cringing at my déjà vu; the rest had me nodding in solidarity. For such a multifaceted cast, a more dramatic tone could have set this film apart. Instead it falls a bit flat, becoming predictable and certainly nothing special.

Grade: B

God Loves Uganda is a traditional, “teach you about a political situation” documentary. It opens with the following quote:

“I love Uganda, it’s a very loving country, caring country, but something frightening is happening that has potential to destroy Uganda. And it is coming from the outside.”

This narration is actually over images of nature and playing children. My initial reaction was, “uh oh,” am I running into another disappointing lecture, with condescending bias and little hope to change anyone's mind (like recent film Inequality for All)? The answer is no, Academy Award-winning filmmaker Roger Ross Williams has created a very good film. God Loves Uganda has a perspective, but it’s measured and fair in its representation.

The film is about the American evangelical campaign to bring the Christian Right’s values to Africa, and especially Uganda. Dr. Scott Lively leads this campaign. To give you an idea of what kind of person we’re dealing with, I’d guess that far right American conservatives would think Dr. Lively is too far right. He actually says in a clip in the documentary that the homosexuals were behind the Holocaust. Seriously.

He’s the major force behind the anti-gay legislation in Uganda, which suggests the death penalty for repeat offenses of homosexuality. Now you know what level of intolerance and lack of compassion we’re dealing with.

The film dissects different views of this issue, looking at the involvement of American evangelical leaders in Uganda (in the form of leaders and common missionaries), an exiled African studying the issue from Boston, an LGBT activist in Uganda who won the 2012 Clinton Global Citizen Award, and an anti-gay Ugandan pastor.

The film quietly but effectively exposes you to these American and Ugandan leaders as well as those who follow them. While scary and sad to witness people succeeding at preaching hateful ideas to Ugandans, such an occurrence is important to be aware of. I greatly appreciate that Roger Ross Williams doesn’t tell me what to think about the various scenes portrayed, though he doesn’t have to -- the bone-chilling reality is clear.

God Loves Uganda premiered at this year’s Sundance Film Festival.

Grade: A-

Debuting this weekend, Captain Phillips chronicles the harrowing events surrounding an attempted Somali pirate hijacking of a shipping freighter in 2009. In the capable hands of Paul Greengrass (director of The Bourne Supremacy/Ultimatum and United 93), Captain Phillips proves to be an incredibly tense and rewarding drama from start to finish.

“Siri, how do I deal with Somali pirates!?” – “Cap… that’s not an iPhone”

Minor spoilers follow, unless you're already familiar with the true story

When I heard this project was in development, I made a conscious effort to avoid reading up on the events Captain Phillips portrays. I have mild (okay, extreme) spoilerphobia towards some things, going so far as tranquilizing my brother with a blowgun I keep on me at all times when he starts talking about movies I haven’t seen. I believed not knowing what will happen next would make Captain Phillips just that much better. Coming out of the theater, I realized that that really didn’t matter, as Greengrass has mastered the art of suspense. To use a half-assed analogy, you know a guitar string will snap if you keep tightening it, but that doesn’t stop your heart from quickening with every turn. It’s hard not to compare it to last year’s Argo. Both films were based on well-known events, yet are incredibly tense despite the pre-determined outcome.

Paul Greengrass uses the signature directorial style he established in his Bourne films to great effect here. He keeps the camera close, planting the seeds of claustrophobia, and avoids using a steady-cam, making us feel as though we’re in the POV of a character in the scene. This makes some of the shots shaky, but the action is never confusing. Tom Hanks, in typical fashion, turns in a great performance as the titular Captain. He starts out authoritative, cool and collected, and remains calm and level-headed as the pirates seize the ship. As the situation becomes more unstable and uncertain, however, Hanks visibly becomes more nervous, desperate and scared. The journey he takes us on ends with a terrific final scene that will no doubt win him some deserved Oscar-buzz.

Surprisingly, we get nearly as much screen time with Muse, the leader of the Somali pirates (played by newcomer Barkhad Abdi), as we do with Captain Phillips, both before and during the hijacking. Although Muse and his cohorts, each of whom has their own distinct personality, aren’t fully characterized, they still become much more than faceless assailants. They have lives beyond this act of piracy, giving us some welcome insight into their motivations and encouraging a modicum of sympathy, at least for the pirate captain (though I may be a bit biased due to Muse’s kick-ass name). I wish the film had delved just a little deeper into the pirates’ backgrounds, but the movie doesn’t suffer for this element.  

With its excellent pacing and the masterful building of suspense, Captain Phillips will have you clutching your armrest and forgetting to breathe through much of its 134-min runtime. If you’re looking for a tense, dramatically satisfying thriller, hop aboard with Captain Phillips.


Grade: A-

The fact that Joss Whedon’s Much Ado About Nothing even exists is remarkable. Whedon’s adaption of Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing, shot in twelve days at his own home in California, is the result of an impulsive decision to make a movie rather than take a vacation. It is set in modern times yet keeps with the language used in the original play – with some slight changes. The film is entirely in black and white; while this is a result of time constraints and limited sets, it adds a feeling of timelessness and sets the stage for some breathtaking cinematography.

The story begins with the arrival of Don Pedro (Reed Diamond), Claudio (Fran Kranz), the malevolent Don John (Sean Maher), and Benedick (Alexis Denisoff) at the house of Leonato (Clark Gregg). Upon their arrival, Claudio tells Don Pedro that he has fallen for Leonato’s daughter Hero (Jillian Morgese). Thus begins a week of meddling, drinking, and general mischief making.

Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof are endlessly amusing as Beatrice and Benedick; a particular eavesdropping scene is one of the most comical pieces of cinema I’ve ever seen. Watching their battle of wits kept my brain active as well as entertained throughout the entire film. Although Hero and Claudio are technically the leads of this story, I’d say without a doubt that Beatrice and Benedick are the more memorable roles.

Between Beatrice and Benedick’s verbal sparring and constable Dogberry’s antics (played by Nathan Fillion), Much Ado About Nothing will have you laughing out loud. Yet the plot turns to a more serious place when Don John initiates a plot to sabotage Claudio and Hero’s engagement. Although all the actors showed their versatility, Acker really blew me away; she shows the many sides of Beatrice and her deliverance of the "Were I A Man" speech is powerful and deeply moving.

As a fan of both Whedon and Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing, I thoroughly enjoyed this film and would definitely recommend it.

Grade: A

Much Ado About Nothing is now available on VOD, Blu-ray and DVD.