I have heard that he doesn't like this film or rather, doesn't like being associated with it anymore, or something along those lines. What is the story there? Does it have something to do with the politics behind the film or what?
thefilmicevidence.blogspot.com
Severus Snape, the bravest man Harry ever knew!
from what little I have read about it, there doesn't seem to be much explaining why he dislikes the film (and I have only read in one place that he does dislike it) it was to do with how it was edited and some of the cuts made.
To be honest there is so little about it I wonder if it is another of those comments that comes from the biography he hates and is actually therefore not true or has been exaggerated. It could even be something to do with this as well http://www.closetland.com/closetland/closetland.html perhaps she made the atmosphere on the set difficult
http://www.flixster.com/user/dragon041964
[deleted]
Wow, was that Closetland link as chilly as I thought? She made it clear that AR was at least fourth choice and that she would still prefer to cast it differently if she redid it even today. I bet she was a joy to try and work for.
share"if she redid it" Fact is that awful director only got to do 1 more film. Some people cant hack it.
shareWow...that article is so strange. How can she complain after she got what she wanted--herself as director and full creative control? She implied that Alan Rickman didn't bring the "humanity" to the interrogator the way Anthony Hopkins or the others would have. If that was her problem, then the fault is the director (herself) considering the some of the characters Rickman has made "human."
shareI have to concur with the 'wow'. Rickman was the best thing in what was to me, a fairly awful film. There was no need to make the torturer a child abuser from the woman's past. What was that all about? Why try and make sense of his cruelty? Sometimes people can be cruel just because 'its what they do'.
Awful film saved only by a brilliant performance (as usual) from Rickman.
IKEA - Swedish for sh/te
- There was no need to make the torturer a child abuser from the woman's past
I totally agree, and didnt see the point in that either. Rickman was brilliant in this, I liked him better in the first half of the film, where he was (in a way) completely insane, but at the same time, very calculated, a pro who is just doing his job.....
...btw Im never having a BBQ again.
" Look, there's two women fuc*ing a polar bear!" - Fear And Loathing in Las Vegas 1998
I hated the idea that the interrogator was the author's childhood abuser. It was completely unnecessary to the film and the interrogator's character and somewhat diminished the nature of the torture as a result. The interrogator tells the author at the beginning not to take what happens personally as it's not meant so and this gets undermined later by the revelation of who he was. It diminished the author too and her poignant story of the closet to the 5-year old child.
A man chases a woman until she catches himshare
As her abuser he was keeping an eye on his victim the author, his job allowed him more access to her life. It's like the coach or priest staying in touch with the family of his victim to make sure the victim doesn't tell.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
According to some interview, he didn't like the fact that there was no humour in the movie... He thought its seriousness could be over the top.
About his impersonation... I find it impeccable. I read the stage play and feel that the original interrogator was much less humane than Alan's version--Alan has brought a hint of vulnerability and feelings to the character, which is admirable. I really believe the director shouldn't be complaining. :)
According to some interview, he didn't like the fact that there was no humour in the movie... He thought its seriousness could be over the top.
''When we were making the film, I thought, 'This could be too relentless.' I mean, there wasn't a single joke in it.''
[deleted]