…or at least left me with the flu. i haven’t had the energy to blog in what feels like weeks. but given that it is the last day of the year, i thought i’d at least repost my Top Ten list for 2007 here. we always run these things sooner than i’m ready to read them myself…happy new year everyone. i’ll be back in this space with some new year’s resolutions on the 2nd.

We’re tight for space in the paper these days, but I wanted to post my entire Francis Ford Coppola here for anyone who is interested. (And with a correction, I stupidly misspelled Jean-Luc Godard’s name in the version that ran in the paper, which a smart reader pointed out.) I’ve got to say, in my days as a movie writer I’ve interviewed some big names — Ridley Scott, Tom Hanks, Hilary Swank, Oliver Stone — and a lot of people I particularly admire, like Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman. But when the phone rang at my house on Dec. 14th and it was FFC calling, I realized that my hands were shaking so much it was hard to transcribe. And the great director might have only had 15 minutes for me, but they were thoughtful ones. So here it is:

15 Minutes With: Francis Ford Coppola

It’s been 10 years since Francis Ford Coppola directed a feature film (1997’s “Rainmaker”). Now comes “Youth Without Youth,” the story of an old professor (Tim Roth) who is struck by lightning in 1939 and miraculously restored to youth — and agelessness. A time-tripping romantic odyssey intertwined with science fiction, the movie explores philosophical questions about everything from the birth of language to the nature of dreams versus reality.

Coppola, 68, funded “Youth Without Youth” on his own, using profits from his lucrative Napa Valley wine business, and as a result, he’s dubbed it his independent film. But don’t expect jarring camera work and poor lighting; “Youth Without Youth” was made on less than $20 million but it still has Coppola’s lush visual style. But it’s also defiantly challenging and more off-beat than anything he’s made since 1982’s “One From the Heart.” Movie critic Mary Pols talked to Coppola via telephone last week and found that this project is also very much from the master filmmaker’s heart.

Q: Like most Bay Area journalists, I harbor a fantasy about interviewing you at your vineyard in Napa. Where are you?
A: I’m in a hotel in New York, and it is snowing outside.

Q: In all the advance press I’ve read about “Youth Without Youth,” you sound so eager and almost anxious to please audiences with this film. Is that a fair characterization?
A: When you make a film it’s not a lot of different than when you cook a dinner for people and you hope that they enjoy it and that you are giving them a new and enjoyable experience. There are lots of different kinds of films, including the ones that you go to with your family that are fun but you might not remember much about two weeks later. But there are also the kind of films that inspired me when I was 18, like films by Ingmar Bergman and [Michelangelo] Antonioni, that after I saw them I wanted to think about and see again. I wanted to make a film like that. Films can be multi-leveled. The themes in them can be themes from our lives, like what is reality? And maybe the answers aren’t necessarily there, laid out easy. When I was 9 years old and went to camp, we would all look up at the stars at night and we thought, ‘Are they really real? What is real?’

Q: The inspiration was a novella by a Romanian philosopher named Mircea Eliade. It’s not exactly something you’d pick up at an airport bookstore.
A: He [Eliade] was a philosopher who wrote many serious works, but then he would write these little fairy tales that incorporated things he’d derived from Buddhism and other philosophies. And he did it for fun. A lot of times I came to something in his story and said, ‘Should I include this, what would a 14 year old kid think, would they understand it?’ And then I would think, I don’t want to lose it.

Q: If you’d made this film within the confines of a studio, they would have had you dump that stuff, right?
A: When you work in that system and you get the notes pretty much everything is about clarity and simplicity. Basically you are supposed to dumb it down so it can have the widest possibly audience. I actually think some 14-year-olds would be able to explain this movie to their parents. But audiences get conditioned about what a movie is supposed to be. There is this idea that after 40 years of watching television, that movies are supposed to go down fast and easy and then they are over. Even people who might be reading Stendhal at night tend to say, ‘Well that is fine for the book, but a movie ought to go down fast.’ But I think there is room for movies that can operate on other levels. Movies that make you think about different themes just for the fun of it. Like what if you had the chance to live your life again or be with a lost love again?

Q: If you could time travel, the way Tim Roth’s character in “Youth Without Youth” does, what age would you return to?
A: Well I guess I did it with this film. I became 18 again and went back and made an art film. I had the career of a 50-year-old man when I was in my 20s. I was always a little sad that the guy who wanted to make films like his idols, like Fellini, Pasolini and Godard never got the chance to because I became so famous and successful that it caused me to turn another way. But what is to stop me from making a student film again?

Q: So much has been made of this being an indie film that I expected something less formal and old-fashioned looking.
A: Since the story starts in 1939, I wanted you to get back in that mood and I wanted you to get back into the life of that philosopher.

Q: Vanity Fair called this “the strangest mainstream movie of the year.”
A: That’s interesting. Years ago they would have called it an art film but you are not allowed to say that any more, because that will make people think it’s something they can’t understand. This is an art film on one hand, but on the other, it’s ‘The Twilight Zone’ with a crazy fable worked in.

Q: How have your children, both filmmakers [Both Sofia and Roman are writer/directors] influenced you as an artist?
A: Well I influenced them by asking them to try to only make personal films, and it came back to me. I realized, if I am going to tell them that, I should do the same myself. You know, you learn as much from your kids as you teach them.

Q: What should we tell your “Godfather” fans to prepare them for “Youth Without Youth”?
A: Well again, when people make a film or dinner, you do want with all your heart to please them but you also want to give them something of quality, you don’t want to give them fast food. They might like McDonald’s but you want to give them something thoroughly enjoyable that you’ve put more care into.

Q: So is this the Slow Food version of a movie?
A: (Laughs) That’s a good way of looking at it.

Q: What holiday movie are you most excited to see?
A:. I want to see the Frank Langella film [“Starting Out in the Evening”] and “The Savages.” And I want to see Julian Schnabel’s film [“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”].

Okay, in the Best Actor in a Dramatic Performance nominations we’ve got the heavy hitters, Denzel Washington (“American Gangster”) and Daniel Day Lewis (“There Will Be Blood”), who can’t take out the garbage without getting nominated for something. Then James McAvoy, who really came into his own in “Atonement”, George Clooney, who went beyond his usual delicious smoothness in the fabulously slick and smart “Michael Clayton”. Finally, there is Viggo Mortensen, who showed us parts of his body that probably half his lovers haven’t even seen in “Eastern Promises”.

They were all great. Really. I can’t complain. But there is only one logical choice: Daniel Day Lewis. I wasn’t behind his “Gangs of New York” nonsense, even though I recognized its power. This performance, as a turn-of-the-century oil prospector, is nothing short of magnificent. Big, bold, insane and felt from within. Consuming it is, I suspect, like eating at the French Laundry, although I’ve never been lucky enough to do the latter.

Again, I have a bone to pick with the stupid Musical and Comedy category. Yes, I know it gets more stars to the table. But just because “The Savages” has moments of comedy — and heartbreak — that doesn’t mean Philip Seymour Greatness Hoffman belongs there. He should be in dramatic, where I fear he’d still be swatted to the ground by DDL. Tom Hanks can’t keep his accents straight in “Charlie Wilson’s War,” which is so not a comedy, either in theory or practice. This post is funnier. I haven’t seen John C. Reilly in “Walk Hard” yet (hear it is great) but PSH would be my choice for a winner here. That’s just my choice though. You know who the Hollywood Foreign Press will pick though, don’t you? Here’s JOOOOOHHHNNNNY!!!

More on the supporting actors later, when i get done with work-work.

Damn, I just accidentally erased an entire line of thinking on this. Oh well, hazards of blogging. First of all, the absurdity of the Musical or Comedy category comes nicely into focus this year. Where else would you pit the finest dramatic performance by an actress of the year year, Marion Cottliard in La Vie en Rose, against Ellen Page’s sassy, heartfelt teenager in Juno? Dopey. I loved Ellen, just as I loved Amy Adams in Enchanted, but Marion gets my nod there. Helena Bonham Carter sings about as well as I do, although she certainly looks divinely matched to Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd. Nikki Blonsky? Honestly, I don’t remember anything about her in Hairspray except that she was plump and cute and generated one of my favorite rumors of the year; that Zac Efron and she were an item.
Over in Best Actress in a Dramatic Role, we have Cate, Julie, Jodie, Angie and Keira. Now Atonement is the movie that finally convinced me to stop disliking Keira Knightley. It also made me want to go out and get a swimsuit with attached cap. But I’d still toss her out, it’s true that she went beyond performing with a smile, but I think it was the movie that made her look good (like playing tennis with a better player than yourself). Jodie? Bah, she was tough and cool and very very fine, but The Brave One was too despicable in the end — the more I think of it, the more I dislike it — to merit her winning. (Hello, did the HFPA not see Laura Linney in The Savages?).
The problem with Cate Blanchett’s nomination is that she was in Elizabeth: The Golden Age, one of the most unexpectedly lame movies of the year. She’s OUT as my pal Heidi Klum says. That leaves Angie of the-most-powerful-scream-in-movies-this-year and Julie Christie from the lovely Away from Her. I can tell you who will win, based on the essential philosophy of the Golden Globes: alcohol, stars, more alcohol, stars having fun. They’re going to pick Ang because Brangelina looks so good on the red carpet. On the other hand, there might not be a red carpet, or a ceremony, this year unless someone starts listening to those striking writers…

Best picture nominees? Macho macho man!

Golden Globe nominations were announced this morning. The Hollywood Foreign Press is always over generous with their categories — what better way to get stars to your events? — but it seems the gang had a really hard time making up their minds. Seven best picture candidates? What is this, their top ten list? And what’s The Great Debaters doing on there? The local SF critics haven’t even seen that one yet, probably because it wasn’t considered a contender. Until now. Which makes me curious. But I also have a hunch that its inclusion on the list could just be a sign of the general adoration of Denzel Washington (witness American Gangster’s presence on the list. Yawn. So predictable).
Could a list be more macho? Atonement is the only thing halfway “girlie” on there. This list ought to make those studio chiefs who think women can’t open pictures feel smug. But oh, I’m so happy to see There Will Be Blood on there. I stayed up way too late last night contemplating my Top Ten list and in the end, There Will Be Blood made it because I loved the boldness of its utter weirdness. More coming as I contemplate the list.

The San Francisco Film Critics Circle has a policy against sharing the back stories behind our votes. There was a slip up this morning whereby a member had to be reminded of that policy and was then asked to remove a post that elaborated on, among other things, our runners up. If you follow this link about the New York Film Critics voting process, you’ll see why that’s a good policy. I don’t know Rex Reed, but if someone in the group dislikes him enough to characterize him as having a hissy fit with his colleagues over a specific movie, they should perhaps consider whether they want to be in a group with him. As for exposing the fact that someone in their group had a vehement objection to giving Sidney Lumet a Lifetime Achievement Award because they didn’t like “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead,” what purpose does that serve expect to make Lumet feel less cheery about his award? Film critics’ groups should keep their voting process private.

You may have read that the San Francisco Film Critics, of which I am a member, chose its annual awards winners last night. It’s an interesting list to say the least, in that it breaks with some of the more established groups (we’ve only been around six years) in terms of who we picked as the year’s best. The most “surprising” choice was “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,” a film that divided audiences and critics when it was released earlier this fall.
I’m a pretty passionate person — hence the job I’ve got — and so I left the meeting feeling fiesty, aka, pissed, and ready to do some blogging about our choices. Frankly, the only one I was thrilled about was Tamara Jenkins, who nabbed our screenwriting award for her original script for The Savages (opens in the Bay Area on Dec. 21st, look for my review then). But then we all went out to dinner after picking our awards and drank a fair amount. I got home late, contemplated the wisdom of blogging while wasted and was completely grateful that something had gone wonky with our login system, saving me from the embarrassment of waking up to see my drunken ramblings about how much I preferred my particular dude in the Best Actor category to our winner George Clooney (and don’t get me wrong, I think Clooney did his best work of all time in Michael Clayton).

The thing is though, when you sign up to be in a group, pissing and moaning about what the group chooses is as unseemly as gloating over a close “victory.” We’ve got a solid process of nominations and multiple ballots; it’s really democracy in action. Moreover, I like and respect my colleagues, many of whom are much more articulate about who they like and why than I am (I tend to swear and implore). I’ve got my own venue to write about what I like, ie, the Bay Area News Group’s East Bay papers. I’m lucky enough to write a Top Ten (that will show up around December 28) and in January, I’ll be pontificating about the acting and directing awards right before the Oscar nominations come out. And the SFFCC is not and has never been “Mary Pols and her friends.” It’s a group of 24 professionals who come together at a sweet coffee shop called Cafe Bianco (got to give them a plug, they’re so nice about hosting us) to fight a little, mope a little and most important, vote a lot.

From that process we come up with something that represents a group consensus at this particular moment in time. Then we go out to eat together (I can recommend the beef cheeks at CoCo500) and have a great time, now matter how much we disagreed with each other in the hours prior. In fact, at dinner I think the only thing we fought over was the last piece of mushroom flatbread. That, I believe, I wrestled away from my colleagues.

Happy Monday,

I promised a bit more information on “The Dead Girl” in my story last week about the Best Movies From 2007 You Haven’t Seen. But we changed our blogging system and I was too lazy to figure it out until now. Belatedly, here’s an excerpt from a long interview I did last month with Josh Brolin for “No Country for Old Men,” in which Brolin talks about his small part in “The Dead Girl” and Sean Penn’s reaction to it.

Brolin: Then two days later [after landing his part in the Coen Bros. No Country for Old Men] I got into a massive motorcyle wreck and snapped my collarbone.
Q: When was filming due to start?
JB: Two weeks. And the collarbone didn’t heal until the end of the movie.
Q: So did the Coens just say good, it will make you look more weathered?
JB: First of all I didn’t tell them and then my lawyer said, you have to tell them, because you are liable if you don’t. And I went, well that sucks, because I just wanted to grit through it. I was doing another movie at that time that I almost pulled out of, it was three days after the accident that I did this thing called ‘The Dead Girl.’
Q: Oh, I loved ‘The Dead Girl.’ That’s directed by Karen Moncrieff, who also did “Blue Car,” another wonderful movie.
JBA Oh, she’s so great. I just saw Sean Penn in Toronto and he comes up to me and goes ‘Brolin, Brolin, Brolin, [expletive] Brolin, man, ‘The Dead Girl’ was unbelievable.’ And he started to go off on this very specialized tangent on ‘The Dead Girl’ and Karen Moncrieff and her characters. He loved it. Loved it, loved it.
Anyway, I did it in a brace, and I thought okay, if I can do ‘The Dead Girl’ within three days, there is absolutely no reason why I can’t do [the movie] with the Coen brothers.