on the cover photograph Aaron Bernstein makeup Katherine Taylor talent Katie Holian dress Rodarte
RE: MAGAZINE RE: MAGAZINE
The Cinematic Issue Editor-in-chief Aaron Bernstein Art Director Danielle Raynal News Director Taylor Block Business Manager Katherine Moore Fashion Editor Perri Rothenberg Social Media Manager Taylor Kigar Assistant News Manager Shelby Katz Events Coordinator Alison Wild Set designer Dylan Auman Fashion Associate Elizabeth Riden Fashion Associate Kathleen Sayler Fashion Assistant Chanelle Bertelsen Fashion Assistant Carmela Osorio Lugo Advisor Stefani Joseph Writing Contributors Victoria Bagger, Jonathan Edward Buckley, Robert Gifford, Sarah Humphries, Andrea McCarrel, Tamara Omazic
Visual Contributors Chase Baltz, Pat Bombard, Alison Bushor, Rosario Edwards, Maggie Esmond, Johanna Garcia, Tucker Klein, Alycia Linke, Emily Oot, Jen Paolini, Emily Quintero, Jason Scalfano, Foivi Spyridonos, Kat Weiss, Jake William, Kourtney Wilson
Permanent Contributors Bruce Block, William and Patricia Moore
LETTER FROM THE EDITOR In the heat of the summer sun, my older brother and I would salvage the finest remains of Halloween costumes past, dig through cabinets and closets to collect a considerable amount of props, scour our local neighborhoods for the coolest locations, bring along our little blue video camera, and make movies. Our mini-productions went on for a few summers towards the end of middle school; we would stay up all night, planning out the next day’s scenes, outlining dialogue and deciding who would get to be in front of the camera and who would get to record. From making films to watching them, I have always loved cinema. Whether they make you laugh or cry, movies give us the chance to escape reality and immerse ourselves in a completely alternate universe for hours at a time, exploring places and ideas in an unique and enticing way. As awards season quickly approaches right after the holidays and highly anticipated films begin to circuit theatres on a national level, I do not think that there could be a more stimulating or timely theme for this issue than one revolving around cinema. This marks Re: Magazine’s first multi-cover issue, with three different versions of the magazine being published. In the spirit of classic murder mysteries, our feature ed-
itorial has three alternative endings to suggest different potential murderers. Other genres that we highlight are spaghetti western lensed by Alison Bushor, East Asian cinema by Jake William, and classic Hollywood glamour by Pat Bombard. We interviewed Hollywood veterans that work behind-the-scenes on films, ranging from a location manager to a special effects make-up artist. We also had the chance to interview famed fine-art photographer Julia Fullerton-Batten on her cinematic approach to her highly acclaimed series “Awkward”. Re: Magazine continues to expand its boundaries as we shift our focus on a more national platform, becoming an alternative arts publication strictly for students by students. RENdition is a new style section by two sisters, Rachel and Nicole Effendy, who live in New York City and manage a highly popular blog www.racheletnicole.com. While the movies that my older brother and I used to make may have not necessarily been Oscar-worthy, I will never forget how fun they were to make. The rush of excitement bringing our ideas to life was addicting, and sharing the final products with our friends and family always proved satisfying. I hope this issue brings you similar thrill and adventure. Enjoy the show!
Aaron Bernstein Editor-in-chief
RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE
Table of contents 6 8 10 14 18 26 28 30 44
Documenting the Marriage Film and Fashion in Documentaries Milk, Marriage, & the Movement
R.E.N.dition New York Fashion Week SS13 Fashion in Film
When the Sun Goes Down by Alison Bushor Evolution or Regression?
Awkward by Julia Fullerton-Batten Hail to the Thief The Portrayal of the President in Film
Lights, Camera by Pat Bombard The Cinematic Magic of Dandelion Wine Book Review
57 62 93 97 108
Re:interpretation Illustrated Movie Posters
The Roots of Censorship
And Then There Were None by Aaron Bernstein Conversations on Cinema Behind the Scenes Interviews The Okiya by Jake William Dream Because Itâ€™s Free An Interview with Fashion Designer Raul Penaranda
DOcumenting the marriage by Andrea Mccarrel photograph by rosario edwards
RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE
Fashion has redefined itself through the use of film as an art rather than tired advertisement. Now, the film industry has taken a special interest in the art of fashion. Documentaries on fashion are particularly popular, bringing viewers into the mysterious and ever-changing world of style. Advanced Style, See Know Evil, and Girl Model are three new and up-and-coming films that will act as diverse examples of fashion documentaries gaining attention and praise. Blogger Ari Seth Cohen and filmmaker Lina Plioplyte teamed up to bring the spirit of Cohen’s Advanced Style blog to the screen. In his blog, Cohen captures the styles and spirits of fabulous older women and their truly unique styles. Through the use of film, Plioplyte and Cohen have been able to capture a whole new element of the spirits of these women. With film, they deliver not only the delight of a daring sense of style, but also the knowledge and character of creative older women.
See Know Evil by Charlie Curran focuses in on the life of late fashion photographer, Davide Sorrenti. Through interviews, Curran delivers an honest story of Sorrenti’s work and inspiring outlook on life. After Sorrenti’s death, a huge media battle concentrated on sensationalizing his death rather than memorializing his work and spirit. Through See Know Evil, Curran reminds viewers of the importance of Sorrenti’s work and his impact on those around him. In the controversial film Girl Model, light is shed on the global underage modeling industry. The film follows an American model scout and Nadya, a thirteen-year-old Siberian modeling hopeful. The film potrays extensive model castings for Japan with hundreds of underage girls. It then depicts Nadya’s entrance into what was hoped to be a glamorous and easy break into the industry. Her intense struggles are captured as we learn the model scout has a similar back-story. The story is intriguing, troubling, and unmistakably provocative. As the fashion and film industry continue to combine efforts, we gain two new perspectives. We are given a glimpse into the fashion industry by filmmakers, while the fashion industry demonstrates how beautifully film can be used. Stay aware of this artistic duo, for it shows promise to stick around. Girl Model was released in the United States on September 9th. As for Advanced Fashion and See Know Evil, we anxiously await their upcoming releases.
Milk, Marriage, & the Movement by jonathan buckley illustrations by chase baltz It’s 2008: I’m seventeen, Milk has come out and California voters banned same sex marriage with Proposition 8.
make it only legal for marriage between a man and a woman to be valid or recognized. Proposition 8 passed on November 4, 2008—thirty years and three days after Proposition 6 didn’t pass. It seemed things were moving backwards, instead of forward. Being seventeen, seeing history as portrayed in Milk, and then comparing it to the history I was living through made me wonder whether gay rights had gone anywhere since the strides made in the late seventies. Could a movement go so far only to slow down and settle? Of course, gay rights and the public’s exposure to such issues has changed since the seventies. After the discovery of Aids in the eighties, awareness and acceptance eventually increased. In the media, television shows such as Will and Grace and movies such as Brokeback Mountain put homosexual characters in the spotlight. But there were still issues that if not fought, would remain.
My mother and I went to a small movie theater on a rainy day in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It was a Sunday, a slow day for the theater and clusters of moviegoers arapid social changes in the seventies. The story progresses and Harvey Milk—as played by Senn Penn—proves to be nothing short of inspirational as he portrays the real life first openly gay politician to be elected to public office in California. “You gotta give em’ hope.” The voice fades out, Harvey Milk is assassinated, and the credits roll. Even then, the evolving struggle for gay rights was pushing forward.
Milk came in a timely manner, putting a mirror to the face of the American public during the voting period of Proposition 8. California’s votes began a ripple through the country and eventually throughout the world. In 2009, Milk was up for eight Academy Awards, including Best Picture.
In the same year as Harvey’s death Proposition 6, an initiative that would have banned homosexuals, and possibly supporters, from working in public schools, was being fought. After a long fight, the initiative was defeated on November 7, 1978. Thirty years later, California is fighting again, as gay marriage reappears on voters’ ballots.
At seventeen, I couldn’t see the changes in gay rights from the seventies to now, because I never lived it. I could only watch Milk, A Single Man, and other films that depict homosexuals during the time period, see the history and compare it to the present. While these films illustrate a different life than what is seen today, they speak the truth about our history and highlight how far a community has come, simultaneously reminding us what is at stake if complacency takes the place of hope and action in today’s political and social issues.
Gay marriage passed in May of 2008, but Proposition 8 was put on the ballot for the November elections. Proposition 8 would ban same sex marriage in California and
RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE
Later in 2009, gay marriage passed in New Hampshire. Since then, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” act has been repealed and New York has made gay marriage legal. In pop culture, we now have “The New Normal”, Anderson Cooper, and a “gay-friendly” Christian chicken fast food chain.
R.E.N.DITION: NEW YORK FASHION WEEK SS13 Going to Fashion Week is like meeting your boyfriend’s parents for the first time - you’re nervous, excited and anxious all at once. You take about 10 years to plan out your outfits and about 10 minutes sitting at each runway show. We’ve been going to New York Fashion Week since the Spring of 2011, you most probably think we’d be a dressing pro by now—not! But each fashion week brings its own forms of anxiety and excitement. This season, we are proud to say that dressing up for our “boyfriends’ parents” paid off because the king of streetsyle himself, Mr. Bill Cunningham, called us “child” and stopped us in our tracks to ask for a photograph. Our hearts melted and so did our metal studded loafers—he is a true sweetheart! Mr. Cunningham was no doubt the highlight of our New York Fashion Week SS13, but there are definitely some major moments on the runway (though we must sadly report, not many) that made us squeeze each other’s hands in excitement. From Charlotte Ronson’s #plasticfanstastic (yes we made a hashtag because it was THAT fantastic) vinyl varsity jackets to Erickson Beamon’s bejeweled headpieces. This is our RENdition of New York Fashion Week SS13, we hope you enjoy boys and babes! XO, Rachel et Nicole
RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE
THIS IS WHAT WE CALL PLASTIC FANTASTIC.
CHARLOTTE RONSON Charlotte Ronsonâ€™s show this season was extra sepcial because we were seated behind the one and only Kimora Lee Simmons. She is as crazy as you think she is, but also as down to earth as that girl next door. Kimora sang along to Samantha Ronsonâ€™s music track and danced along with her shoulders as the models walk past her. Interestingly, while we had the queen of phat on our side, the princess of pink, Paris Hilton, was at the seat section across us. You can only imagine the mob backstage after the show.
KATIE GALLAGHER We love Katie’s presentations because not only are they short and sweet, but she always m anages to bring her world into ours within that short time frame. It truly allows us to understand her as an artist a nd a fashion designer. This year Ella Joyce Buckley sang live at Katie’s presentation which was titled ‘Everything Forever’. We thought to ouselves, if we could stay a size 2 forever, we would wear everyting Katie created, well, forever.
RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE
ERICKSON BEAMON We don’t think there can ever be enough words to explain the amount of glamour points you get when you wear a piece of Erickson Beamon’s jewelry. We got to see Erickon Beamon’s collection up close during fashion week, and may we say: no words can describe the genius behind this art.
NO WORDS CAN DESCRIBE THE GENIUS BEHIND THIS ART.
illustration by Foivi Spyridonos
RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE
fashion in film the six degrees of separation between mae west and sarah jessica parker by shelby katz Read the following: SJP. Sex & the City. Carrie Bradshaw. Now make a list of the first three things that come to mind from those words. If “fashion” isn’t on your list… well, then this article is irrelevant to you and you might as well stop reading now. But if you’re like the rest of us and it was first, please continue. Costume is a huge part of film, but it wasn’t always what it is today. Adolph Zukor, the founder of Paramount, was the first to introduce the concept of a costume designer, initially hiring designers Paul Poiret and Adrian at the height of Hollywood’s Golden Age. With more and more production companies popping up, and an increase in movie-going popularity, contemporary fashion began to take its cues from film more than ever before. Without the Internet and iPhones at our disposal to broadcast every second of Fashion Week, cinema is what brought the trends to the public and the public continued to look to cinema to find them. As Elsa Sciaparelli one put it, “The film fashions of today are your fashions of tomorrow.” Anytime you see a white pleated dress, who is the first person that comes to mind? Marilyn Monroe standing over a subway grate in The Seven Year Itch. At least I hope that’s what you think of. If not, I have three words for you: classic film deprivation. The dress, designed by William
Travilla, is so recognized and so celebrated, it has it’s own Wikipedia page. Granted, Angelina Jolie’s right leg has it’s own Twitter account. (One is substantially more ridiculous than the other.) Marilyn Monroe was the epitome of sex appeal in those days, a blonde bombshell. Mae West was another, though she sat much earlier on the time line, circa 1933, when she starred in I’m No Angel, opposite Cary Grant. Travis Banton was responsible for West’s wardrobe in the film and so created a sultry and unforgettable character, with sheer fabric and body-hugging sheath, contouring every inch of her body. Her character, Tria, is full of sex appeal and plenty of tease. Though this may not have been the direct onset, based on pop culture today, I’d say that trend isn’t going anywhere. If only we could move backwards this time around, from Ke$ha back to Marilyn. Moving on to the men of early 20th century film, let’s talk Cary Grant, Gregory Peck, and Humphrey Bogart; just a few of the most charming and debonair men of cinema’s Golden Age. But if there’s one that had a strong and everlasting effect on society, it’s James Dean. Think about it—someone tells you to picture a guy. He’s attractive, he’s a 1950s rebel without a cause, and he’s got slicked back hair, a red leather jacket, a white T-shirt and jeans. Maybe he’s on a motorcycle, too. No, it’s not Danny Zuko. It’s Dean. Who else? As Variety editor Robert Holfer once described it, that red jacket became the symbol of “a generation’s despair.” And now, drumroll please… the quintessential movie star and fashion icon: Audrey Hepburn. I’ll begin by saying that if you haven’t seen Roman Holiday, Sabrina, Funny Face, or any of the many Audrey classics, you’re missing out on life. This is also the part of the story where Edith Head comes in. Edith, probably one of the most well-known costume designers of her time, worked on numerous Academy Award winning films and was nominated for, and won, quite a few Oscars herself. Despite Audrey Hepburn’s close friendship with Hubert de Givenchy, and him being the man behind most of the clothes, Edith Head was the
tioned off for almost one million dollars and established a standard for elegance that endures even today. Edith Head also dressed Grace Kelly in a film called Rear Window. As a fashionable socialite, Grace Kelly’s character dressed in beautiful haute couture designs that Edith Head created, teaching working women of the time how to be chic. It was all about elegance, standing in utter contrast to the oversexed Hollywood designs of the 1950s. She also created a little square overnight bag for Kelly’s character that would eventually become the famous Hermès “Kelly Bag.” Elizabeth Taylor was another on Edith Head’s list of A-list actresses, as she designed and custom made the gowns for Taylor’s character in A Place in the Sun. Not only did Edith Head put Elizabeth Taylor in beautiful clothes, but also she created a dress that would become the most copied of its time. It was strapless and covered with silk petals, over a full and lightweight tulle skirt, and it became the prototype of the perfect debutante dress. All girls throughout the 1950s wanted this dress for their sweet sixteen or coming out parties, because all girls wanted to look like Elizabeth Taylor.
Emily Oot credited costume designer for a lot of her films, notoriously accepting the Oscar for costume design in Sabrina. Marking the beginning of their longtime collaboration, Audrey selected the entire post-Paris wardrobe for her character in Sabrina from Givenchy’s collection. Amongst everything else, there is one dress that has become the crown jewel of fashion in film. It is the little black dress Ms. Hepburn wears, while eating a danish in front of a 5th Avenue window at Tiffany, also designed by Givenchy. The black crepe dress and massive pearl necklace cascading down her back have become an instantly recognized look all over the world. As ticket sales rose, so did the sales of pearl necklaces and oversized sunglasses. The LBD, dubbed by Manolo Blahnik as “Divine!”, was recently auc-
RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE
Now let’s talk about Katharine Hepburn, who is probably one of the most prominent silver screen stars of her day. In the beginning of her career, she emerged as a traditionally vampy-eyed woman in gowns and pin curls. But as her career progressed she became the Katharine Hepburn we know of and love today. Her proud, but graceful posture made her stand out as a strong female lead in everything she did. Her red, untamable hair and strong sense of austerity proved Hollywood stardom wasn’t all peroxide blonde and vapid sighs. She did her own stunts, and accentuated intelligence and verve going head to head with male co-stars, including Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby. She also portrayed the typical spunky, tomboy sister in Holiday, also opposite Cary Grant, and that spunk is what landed her Johnny Case, Grant’s character, in the end. Perhaps the most iconic and recognized aspect of Katharine Hepburn, however, is her tailored trousers. Pantsuits on women today are a symbol of independence, equality, strength, and the idea of “breaking through the glass ceiling.” In the early 1930s, the traditional role of femininity kept women sticking to their long-established ideals. But despite constant scrutiny, Katharine Hepburn, being an independent woman herself, changed that forever. As the story goes, Ms. Hepburn strolled around the set of Bringing Up Baby in her underwear until the studio heads allowed her to wear pants. She was even awarded a CFDA award in 1986 for her feisty panache. Who’s going to buy a women’s tailored pantsuit now?
All of this back and forth with fashion and film didn’t stop when Edith Head did. Films of later years continued to influence the fashion world as it continued to grow. Diane Keaton’s character in Annie Hall became an international style and screen icon. Woody Allen created a kooky character that inspired an entire generation of women in the 1970s to skip the department stores and go to thrift stores for waistcoats and ties. It ignited a trend that captured a sort of “street look” with masculine tailoring. Also popular in the 70s was the disco trend, prominent in Saturday Night Fever. Whether we like it or not, John Travolta’s white polyester disco suit has been revived on plenty
the film fashions of today are your fashions of tomorrow.”
of Halloween nights over the years. Along with it came 1980s Flashdance attire, à la Jennifer Beal. Designer Michael Kaplan had to cut off the top of Beal’s sweatshirt after it shrunk it the wash, thus starting the off the shoulder trend of the decade. Add some leg warmers, spandex pants, headbands and high-tops and you’re set for the dance studio and Donna Summer. Another film of the 1980’s that peaked retail sales was Out of Africa, starring Meryl Streep. The film takes place in the early 1910s, but the linen and khaki costumes created for the film led to safari inspired clothing everywhere. Banana Republic, which at the time specialized in travel clothing, as well as Ralph Lauren and Topshop capitalized on the trend and the demand for it dominated fashion years after the film’s release. Let’s not forget Clueless, either. “As if.” Cher, Alicia Silverstone’s character, is seen today as one of the most influential style icons of the 90s. She wore plaid schoolgirl ensembles; preppy sheath dresses, loud hats, knee-highs and clogs, and as they said so long to grunge, teens everywhere adopted this “total Betty” wardrobe. When Atonement was released five years ago, Keira Knightley’s green satin gown, designed by Jacqueline Durran, became all the rage and knock off’s were being produced everywhere for senior proms and the like. And today, like I mentioned earlier, all you have to do is put “Carrie Bradshaw” in a headline and the fashion world is instantly abuzz. Carrie’s wedding dress from the Sex
Kourtney Wilson and the City movie, designed by fashion savant Vivienne Westwood, sold out in one day after the film’s release. If that doesn’t say major, I don’t know what does. Maybe my mind is just a little stuck on Mr. Big, though. The influence of film on fashion has always been strong and will be forever. The two alluring and mysterious industries are deeply intertwined, and in my opinion, I wouldn’t have it any other way. Go ahead and sing the song. You know you want to. “She’s got Greta Garbo stand-off sighs, she’s got Bette Davis eyes.” I only wish.
photography by ALISON BUSHOR styling AARON BERNSTEIN set design DYLAN AUMAN hair, makeup KATHERINE TAYLOR talent ANDRESA EADDY (Halo Models) set assistant ABBEY EILERMANN set assistant ERIC MILAM styling assistant KALEIGH RYAN makeup assistant MOLLIE TAYLOR backdrop artist ALYCIA LINKE
opening spread shirt Vintage shoulder pads Claire Buyens dress Sarah Humphries tutu American Apparel leg warmers Brooke Atwood pants Lindsey Johnston belt Stylistâ€™s Own necklace Mamie Ruth shirt Vintage skirt Kimberly Ware top Brooke Atwood scarf Louis Vuitton shoes, hat Styling Team opposite page shirt Vintage jacket Brooke Atwood necklace Mamie Ruth
sweater Claire Buyens shirt, socks Styling Team skirt Marc by Marc Jacobs necklace Mamie Ruth hat Stylistâ€™s Own
shirt Vintage top Claire Buyens necklace Mamie Ruth hat Styling Team opposite page shirt Asos top Lindsey Johnston skirt Brooke Atwood necklace Mamie Ruth
Some argue that the fate of a film no longer relies on the talent of the actors or the quality of the plot. Some argue that there is an undeniable devolution of cinema. How?
Evolution or regression? With the golden days of Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, and Audrey Hepburn long gone, a new spectacle has taken their place. by taylor kigar illustration by tucker klein
RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE
A majority of popular modern films has become a mindless firework display. How many times can we put Leonardo DiCaprio in a suit and have him run from explosions? It seems every time I go to a movie, all I see are trailers for action films with no clear plot—only planes and trucks bursting into flames. Why is this genre getting pumped out over and over? One word: money. The producers of these films want lots of viewers (which means lots of ticket sales) and will try to get their movie played internationally as well as in the states. This poses a problem. Plot and humor doesn’t always translate internationally—but everyone understands explosions. (And so there you have the monotonous fireworks display that is modern cinema.) But this is about more than just explosions. Every other facet of popular cinema is changing. We are entering realms of technology the likes of which we could have never imagined. CGI is changing the face of acting. Literally. Does this use of extensive CGI overshadow actors? Think of all the new movies with this breakthrough CGI work: Alice in Wonderland, Avatar, Planet of the Apes, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter. A behind the scenes Alice in Wonderland reel was nothing more than little waif Mia Wasikowska in a big green room on a big green blob. Where does she pull her inspiration to emote if she has no real environment? The graphics can swallow actors whole—and their acting falls even further than flat if they’re already mediocre to begin with. But to the actors that are willing, it can present them with a challenge. They must overcome their absent environment and complete lack of tangible connection in order to just simply hone their craft—right from the raw origins. The most recent extreme example of CGI acting is, of course, Avatar. The actors ran around in black spandex, green sensors strung around their bodies, and heavy headsets with a square sensor right in front of their face. All the while, they were set atop a big gray square, had a fan blown on them and told, “Okay, are you ready? You’re falling down a mountain.” They were told to look at each other, standing in a big green room, and react to the loss of their home. They were told to show love and experience betrayal. How is that possible? How can an actor draw up such emotion when there is nothing around them that is real? The new true test of an actor is whether they can break through the distractions. Technology is the evolution of film, but the actors must evolve with it, or the progress is worth nothing.
The mention of Avatar brings to light another supposed, “devolution” of film. Some say plots aren’t as original as they used to be. Some say story lines are just being reinterpreted and reworked. But it’s important to realize the true meaning of originality before we decide what constitutes an unoriginal plot. The biggest problem I have with people’s opinion of “original plots” is the mention of Avatar. I’ve heard countless people tear Avatar apart saying, “Oh, a people invade another people and take their resources and ruin their land, but two people from opposite sides fall in love. James Cameron stole this. We’re watching Pocahontas.” Is the movie called Pocahontas? Are the main character’s names John Smith and Pocahontas? Are there cute raccoon and hummingbird sidekicks? Does the film take place on Earth? No? Then it’s not Pocahontas. Now, I’m not saying the plot of Avatar was the most original thing in the history of cinema, because it wasn’t. But reinterpreting basic conflicts in storylines is okay. Why? Because a basic theme of man vs. nature, man vs. man, or man vs. society must be present! Otherwise no one would be interested because no one could relate. No one would care. Creativity is all about pulling something basic that is shown to make the human race feel something, and add our own flair. Take Moonrise Kingdom by Wes Anderson. He has the basic Romeo and Juliet story of a young couple running away together, yet in an entirely original and quirky atmosphere. Originality can’t simply appear from the abyss. It needs a foundation to stand on.
However, I will agree that some of the constant remakes are unnecessary. What’s the need to make an entirely new Spiderman only five years after the completion of the first trilogy? Almost half the movies we see these days are remakes of films that were already made—and frequently are far worse than the original. The modern horror movie remake is a good example: The Hitcher, Halloween, The Grudge, The Haunting, Friday the 13th…the list goes on and on. But if all these special effects, all these explosions, all these grand displays and spectacles were to be completely removed from a film, would today’s audience still be entertained? Would they be impressed? Enter, stage right: The Artist. This film had no CGI, no special effects, and was almost completely silent. It relied on plot, it relied on serious acting, and it flourished. The Artist won Three Golden Globes, five Academy Awards, and is currently the most awarded film in French history. There’s your proof. While The Artist was a groundbreaking film, if others like it started popping up in theaters, they wouldn’t be successful. It was appreciated for its challenging visit to the past, but this type of film will only be welcomed once. The public still wants special effects. They want to be pulled from their reality because they know it can be done. We are always moving forward. Film is evolving, and technology is enabling us to see and experience things we couldn’t even touch before. I believe that is evolution—as long as the people that make the films evolve with them.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t worrying trends in modern moviemaking—that would be a ludicrous claim in a world seemingly dominated by the likes of Michael Bay and Adam Sandler. But look beyond the bloated CGI spectacles and scatological comedies crowding theatres and you’ll find a cinematic landscape as vibrant as it has ever been, perhaps even more so.
CINEMANIA It’s as simple as this: If you think cinema is devolving, you’re watching the wrong films. by robert gifford illustration by tucker klein
There are two common complaints against modern cinema. One: many believe that Hollywood has grown increasingly less adventurous and more businesslike, green-lighting fewer and fewer original, audacious projects and more and more tent-pole franchise films—mostly sequels, reboots and spin-offs of already-successful properties. This point is hardest to refute because, well, it’s true. Hollywood is less adventurous than it was thirty—or even ten—years ago. Name recognition and branding seemingly trump all other factors. Consequently, 2011 was the year with the greatest number of sequels on record—there were 27 in total, according to Box Office Mojo, beating the previous record of 2003’s 24. But this is evidence that Hollywood is devolving, not film as a medium. Major American studios may account for most global ticket sales, but they represent only a fraction of the sum total of films released in a given year. Take a look at some of last year’s films that weren’t released by major studios and it quickly becomes clear that 2011 was a great year for film, regardless of how many sequels and threequels invaded multiplexes. An astoundingly large number of superb films made it to theatres last year, and represent a broad range of genres, themes, and visual styles: The Tree of Life, a poetic, highly abstract film about everything from coming of age in the 1950s to the origins of life in the universe; Melancholia, an operatic look at depression and the end of the world; half-horror movie, half-indie epic Take Shelter, also about mental illness and the apocalypse; the hyper-realistic, profoundly moving Iranian drama A Separation; The Interrupters, a gritty documentary that relates inner-city violence to communicable diseases; Drive, a delicious cocktail that’s one part American car-chase movie and two parts arty European thriller. And I could name half a dozen others. The point is, cinema as an art form can thrive even in the absence of weighty Hollywood products—it’s doing just fine, regardless of how many sequels Pirates of the Caribbean gets. It’s also important to note that there are directors who manage to make personal, meaningful statements while still working within the Hollywood system. Martin Scorsese, David Fincher, Joel and Ethan Coen, Steven Spiel-
RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE
berg: All are critically beloved filmmakers whose work is reliably daring, meaningful, stylistically advanced and routinely seen in wide release, screening at thousands of theatres on their opening weekends. Sure, your local multiplex might have played Norbit and I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry in 2007, but it probably offered No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood and Zodiac, too. The former films may be examples of everything that’s wrong with Hollywood, but the latter are indicative of how much it can still accomplish. The second complaint lodged by many cinematic alarmists is that digital production techniques—particularly CGI and 3D—are ruining the medium. The idea is that the cheap spectacle films like Transformers deal in is drawing focus away from the fundamentals of storytelling such as narrative and character. This is absolutely true. It’s also nothing new—it’s as old as the medium itself. Cinema is a visual medium; its appeal is primarily to the eye. That naturally lends itself to eye-popping spectacle, and moviemakers have been taking advantage of this since the dawn of the medium. The only thing separating Avatar from Thomas Edison’s Uncle Josh at the Moving Picture Show (in which, famously, the audience can’t tell that the onscreen train isn’t actually barreling down on them) is a few decades’ worth of technological advancements; both seek to wow you through the power of their special effects. (I doubt many people would disagree that Avatar tells a better story, too.)
Moreover, there’s nothing inherently good or bad about these technologies. They’re just tools, and as with all tools they can either be used artfully or artlessly. Empty, hundred-million dollar snoozefest Clash of the Titans used 3D, but so too did doggedly noncommercial auteur Werner Herzog in Cave of Forgotten Dreams, a documentary about cave paintings that used the extra dimension to capture the sense of motion inherent to the works of art he was filming. CGI gave the world Sucker Punch, but it also gave us WALL- E. Do you really want to live in a world without WALL-E? Cinema, as a medium, is still in its adolescence. The novel has existed for centuries, song for longer, visual art for millennia. Film has been around for a scant hundred years. Its potential is still being revealed. New styles and methods of production are constantly being discovered and old ones being rediscovered and repurposed. To write film off as devolving is patently ludicrous. There are bad films, even bad trends—when has there not been? If you really believe cinema is in decline, take an afternoon and see The Master or Looper, two very different—but undoubtedly original and personal—films. Rejoice! The world of cinema is as fresh and vibrant as ever.
a series by Julia Fullerton-Batton interview by Tamara Omazic
It’s a simple scene: a young girl and boy staged in an ambiguous living room, purposefully evading eye contact.
the process is closer to analog—it looks more like film rather than digital.
But with Julia Fullerton-Batten behind the lens of the camera, the moment becomes a complex narrative of unspoken tension between two conflicted adolescents. “Awkward” is Fullerton-Batten’s fourth series focusing on teenagers growing into emotional and sexual maturity. The German-born photographer got her start in the advertising industry and transitioned into fine art after her first photo contest at age 25. Now, at 42, Fullerton-Batten has gained much recognition for her ephemeral, fantastical and cinematic photography, though she’s still engaged in advertising on the side. Re: Magazine caught up with Fullerton-Batten to discuss “Awkward,” her creative process and what’s next for the London-based artist.
JFB: The teenage years were an important time for me, I was 16 when my parents got divorced. What was quite unusual was that my dad actually got custody of us rather than my mum. It was quite a difficult and traumatic time because I was much closer to my mum at that time. She was always around and my dad went on a lot of business trips to Japan. Suddenly, we were living with dad and mum wasn’t around. It was quite extreme. Also when you’re that age, you’re going through a lot of physical and emotional change. You’re discovering sexuality and there’s just a lot going on in a female. And I’m sure in males, too, as I’ve yet to discover—I’ve got two young boys.
Re Magazine: I’m sure this is the one question you get tired of answering, but we have to ask, why photography? Julia Fullerton-Batten: My father was a passionate amateur photographer with his own darkroom, so I was brought up seeing him with a camera all the time and showing me prints. The camera was constantly on us. I became really interested and he gave me his camera, which was a really old Minolta. I was about twelve and just started taking photographs. I don’t remember this, but apparently, I was chasing this bag flying in the wind and trying to shoot it flying. Though I don’t remember that, but that’s what my father tells me. RE: You work mostly in C-type prints—what about this medium appeals to you? How would you describe the aesthetic? JFB: I used to shoot much more with four by five plate cameras and that would produce these beautiful negatives, but I would always have to scan them in order to print them quite large because it’s very hard to print directly onto paper. What I like about C-type prints is that
RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE
RE: How does cinema influence your work? JFB: I’m influenced by a lot of things, certainly TV and cinema. I look at things as one-off stills. People have asked before, “Oh, are you not interested in doing moving images?” But I find it hard to capture moving images. I personally see images as one-off and in that sense, though I’m inspired by Alfred Hitchcock and films like American Beauty. If I see a film I like, I’ll save certain stills as references for something I’d want to try in the future. RE: Several of your series to date focus on young adulthood—why do you feel drawn to that particular age group?
RE: “Awkward” focuses specifically on teenage sexuality and relationships—what sort of commentary or message were you aiming for and how did you achieve it? JFB: I chose the title ‘Awkward’ because I wanted to focus on the awkwardness between the sexes. I remember these boys that would come to my house and we would always just sort of sit and there was this awkward silence because you don’t really know what to say to one another or what kind of eye contact to make, especially if you really like somebody. I would just sit there in silence—I was very shy when I was younger—and I’d get very hot and flustered. Then when my mum would call me to eat dinner or something, I was very relieved, I could escape. That was when I was about thirteen or fourteen. So I wanted to show that awkward tension. In one image, there’s a boy in a living room and he’s standing there, wet. He’s come from outside to visit this young girl and they’re in the living room while the parents are somewhere else. She hasn’t asked him to sit down, he’s not sure if he can. So he’s standing there, wet, uncomfortable, as she sits comfortably. She’s avoiding eye contact and they don’t know what to say to each other.
RE: Why the choice to use street-cast models?
RE: Do you do your own styling?
JFB: Models from agencies is that they’re so used to being in front of the camera that they automatically put on a performance—I find that a little bit fake. Sometimes people will recognize them from other shots, which I don’t really like. So I have this amazing casting director who finds all these different subjects for me. When people haven’t been photographed before and you put them in front of a camera, they’re not really sure what to do. I quite like capturing that. It can be a bit uncomfortable, a bit stilted, a bit awkward.
JFB: I work closely with my own stylist and guide her with what I’m looking for. I avoid high-street fashion and look instead in charity shops or second-hand shops because all sorts of people donate their clothes there. I try to incorporate a lot of texture and I really like mustard yellow and browns. I don’t like bright, vivacious colors. I also like things that look worn—we’re not advertising the clothes. It’s about the storytelling and that’s in details like the dirt on the boy’s shoes or greasy hair.
RE: What was your editing process for this series? JFB: Whenever I finish a shoot, I’m not immediately happy with the results. It’s so hard because these shoots take six months to produce. But I always feel like I need to take a week or two after shooting before narrowing it down. Then I’ll closely supervise the retouching because that’s a job all in its own. These are probably the most polished images than any series I’ve shot before—I wanted them to look really flawless. I had an exhibition recently in New York where someone asked me, “Are these computer-generated images?” I laughed and said, “No, these
are photographs!” I don’t know if maybe I got a little too carried away with retouching, but I feel it fits. RE: You’ve got over 50 awards to your name, including several for “Awkward.” It seems like you’ve had a pretty full and rewarding career—what would you say has been the highlight? JFB: When I was younger, I was advised not to go into photography as a career because it has so many ups and downs. But I couldn’t imagine doing anything else—I’m so excited by it. I’ve had a book published and been in many
competitions and exhibitions and it all happens at a slow pace but I’m excited to do more. RE: What’s next for you? Do you think you’ll continue exploring themes of adolescence? Any upcoming projects in the works? JFB: Since “Awkward” I’ve shot a series of mothers and daughters and I’ve just released a new series, “Unadorned,” that’s large nudes inspired by 18th century painters. I feel like I’ve done the whole teenage thing and I’m in the process of researching a new project.
HAIL TO THE THIEF The portrayal of the president in film and television by Robert gifford illustration by courtney wirthit Americans are down on their government. Approval ratings for Congress are at an all-time low, the Presidential campaign is a cacophony of negativity from both sides and the past few years have seen widespread protests from both the right and left. Unsurprisingly, our growing national distaste for politics and politicians has been reflected in our artistic representations of the Presidency. Audiences in the past decade have been bombarded with reactionary documentaries from both the right (2016 Obama’s America) and left (Fahrenheit 9/11) that paint a picture of the Commander in Chief as alternately incompetent, corrupt and a servant of a dangerous hidden agenda, but such portrayals aren’t limited to (so-called) nonfiction films. The Day After Tomorrow and American Dreamz both featured broad caricatures of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, portraying them as, respectively, an idiot and the nefarious power behind the throne. (Oliver Stone’s Bush biopic W. painted a broadly similar picture.) Watchmen and Futurama both use a fictionalized version of Richard Nixon to satirize the institution of the Presidency, while The Simpsons Movie used Arnold Schwarzenegger to similar ends. All of those films and series have more or less liberal points of view, but discontent with the Presidency isn’t limited to the left. Primary Colors, for instance, is just one of many films to satirize Bill Clinton. Even doggedly conservative standbys like 24 and Tom Clancy (in novels such as Clear and Present Danger and The Sum of All Fears, as well as their film adaptations) have offered less-than-flat-
RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE
tering views of the Oval Office—again, portraying their fictional Presidents as either corrupt or incompetent. Still others avoid making left or right-leaning political statements entirely and instead mock the institution generally, such as Idiocracy’s President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, a howling pro wrestler played by Terry Crews. These films and television programs met with varying degrees of financial and critical success, but they were all made with a mass-market audience in mind. They aren’t subversive arthouse films or late-night TV comedies—they were all intended to appeal to a wide audience, which a sizable number did. There are a handful exceptions—such as the thoroughly rose-colored worldview of The West Wing—but, for the most part, the nation seems more interested in art that reminds them how bad the President can be, rather than of how good. It hasn’t always been this way. Most early films portrayed the President with respect, even reverence. It was simply assumed that the office deserved to be portrayed with dignity equal to its gravity. The Birth of a Nation, despite lionizing the Southern cause in the Civil War to such an extent that it paints the KKK as the heroes of the reconstruction, portrays Lincoln with the kind of adoration usually reserved for divine figures. (In fact, he’s often framed in a way that recalls religious icons.) John Ford’s Young Mr. Lincoln does more to humanize The Great Emancipator, but it’s no less awestruck by his rectitude and gravitas. So, what changed? It’s easy to say that a half-century of Presidential scandals and screw-ups have simply worn
down the public’s patience. Vietnam, Watergate, the Iran hostage crisis, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, Iraq—with all that evidence of moral bankruptcy and ineptitude, how could anyone not distrust our political institutions? And while that’s absolutely a factor, it’s not entirely satisfying. There have always been missteps and unseemly gossip about the President; why is it only now that they seem to stick so thoroughly in the public imagination?
The answer is that the very way that we relate to the President has fundamentally changed. During the first half of
No one attracts scorn and satire like an ordinary man pretending to be extraordinary.”
this country’s existence, the President was a distant, unknowable figure. The closest anyone ever got to actually seeing him was if he happened to give a speech nearby, and even then, he would remain essentially unreachable, raised above the realm of mere mortals by a balcony or a podium or a soapbox. His speeches would be reprinted in newspapers, his actions discussed and debated at length, but he remained fundamentally apart from normal society. He was, literally, far away—either in the off in the capital or, at best, a distant figure viewed from the edge of a crowd. Put another way, the President was always viewed in wide-shot, and that added to his sense of awe—you can’t see a blemish from a hundred feet. That mystique died with television, which suddenly put him in close-up, wrinkles and all. It died with Nixon’s flop-sweat as he debated John F. Kennedy, if it hadn’t died already. Suddenly, he was a man—a living, breathing, sweating man, capable of the same blunders, faux-pas and general mistakes as you and I. The office was made mortal. Lincoln probably tripped and fell once or twice in his life, but no one had a video camera to record it, so he remains The Great Emancipator while Gerald Ford remains primarily known for Chevy Chase’s impersonation of him. (Saturday Night Live is a good example of how our perception of the President has changed. It doesn’t just mock certain political figures—it
RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE
mocks everyone. Every last candidate for President must be impersonated; no one is safe from mockery, right or left, because nothing—and no one—is sacred.) And as television has become more invasive and obsessed with chronicling every detail of the President’s life, it becomes increasingly impossible to maintain that sense of gravitas that accompanies the office. How can he maintain an image of superhuman invulnerability if every last gaffe is recorded, viewed seven million times on YouTube and then dissected for ten minutes on The Daily Show? In the early days of television, every Presidential address was sacred—every network would interrupt their regular programming and beam the event to every home in the country. You could watch The President, or you could watch nothing—he was still something special. (Want to watch All in the Family? Too bad, the President’s on.) Now, most networks don’t even cover every night of the party conventions, and if you’re not interested in hearing the leader of the free world speak, well, you can just flip the channel. The office can’t even demand your attention the way it once could. It’s hard to have respect for the man when Presidential speeches are reduced to thirty-second clips that get jammed in between breathless coverage of the Kardashians on The Today Show. The way we visually relate to The President has fundamentally changed. Gone forever is the gallant iconography of Washington Crossing the Delaware. It’s easy to control your image when you decide what portraits you sit for; it’s much harder when any Redditor who likes can turn you into a meme. The President has been torn from his pedestal and revealed to be separated from the rest of us only by title. And no one attracts scorn and satire like an ordinary man pretending to be extraordinary.
photography by Pat Bombard stylist Carmela Orsorio Lugo hair Nicholas Shatarah makeup Michaela Wariebi model Hallie Hutchinson (Re:Quest Model Management) assistant Karen Bricejo 47
opening page necklace Stylistâ€™s Own robe Lara Smalls necklace Kristin Winters dress Raul Penaranda opposite page bracelet Stylistâ€™s Own shirt Urban Outfitters
bracelet Kristin Winters dress Raul Penaranda opposite page tank top Stylistâ€™s Own corset Vintage necklace Kristin Winters
necklace Vintage dress Raul Penaranda fur Elie Tahiri opposite page robe Victoriaâ€™s Secret
headpiece Kristin Winters dress Laura Smalls opposite page shirt, bracelet Stylistâ€™s Own skirt Merline Labissiere
the cinematic magic of
Dandelion Wine by taylor kigar
How does a child digest the shifting, infinite bounds of the universe? How does a single author capture the limitless revelations of a child? And how, then, can a small writer like myself explain to you in full color the weight of truth it all brings? Dandelion Wine, a novel written in 1957 by Ray Bradbury, is the story of Douglas Spaulding and his small suburban home in Green Town, Illinois. It is set in the summer of 1928 and spans through the long months of June, July, and August. It is the summer when twelve-year-old Douglas realizes for the first time that he is alive—and later understands that this means one day he must die. It is the summer when one inhabitant builds a happiness machine; when two others realize they were meant to be lovers, though one was born too early and the other too late, when a phantom called The Lonely One strays on the edge of the suburbs, waiting for its next kill. It is the summer when flasks of mountain air cures fevers, when bottles of dandelion wine made with Grandfather in the basement can capture seasons, and a waxen arcade fortune-teller holds the secrets on how to live forever. Bradbury is uniquely gifted in language and produced a
RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE
novel created entirely out the woven threads of small anecdotes and character narratives. He writes in lines of poetry, using metaphors and descriptions borrowed from the most vivid essences of food, spices, and color. He creates a world knitted from everyone’s childhood, capturing the hazy, sunlit strands of redolence that you almost can’t recall—but wouldn’t dare forget. Bradbury somehow finds a way to put to words the grand musings that come with the territory of being young and alive. He juices life, death, beauty, and curiosity all liquid and flowing into one bottle—and sparkling in that bottle is Dandelion Wine. It’s recently been revealed that a screen adaptation of the book is in the works, Bradbury himself signing off on the script before his death in June 2012. Though not much else is known about the cast or crew, Bradbury favored Ron Howard as a potential director, popular for his work on Apollo 13, How The Grinch Stole Christmas, and A Beautiful Mind. Though Bradbury is quite famous for his dystopian novel Fahrenheit 451 and other works of science fiction like The Martian Chronicles, Dandelion Wine is his most autobiographical: the characters and setting based off of him-
He juices life, death, beauty, and curiosity all liquid and flowing into one bottle—and sparkling in that bottle is Dandelion Wine.”
self, his childhood friends, and his hometown. For this reason, I fear that a film could never live up to the novel. Though the book is full of small, beautiful plots that would sing on the screen, and the filmmakers have a lush setting to work with—the most important tools of narrative will be missing: the inner dialogue of the characters, and Bradbury’s breathtaking description: “The wind sighed over his shelled ears. The world slipped bright over the glassy round of his eyeballs like images sparked in a crystal sphere. Flowers were sun and fiery spots of sky strewn through the woodland. Birds flickered
like skipped stones across the vast inverted pond of heaven. His breath raked over his teeth, going in ice, coming out fire. Insects shocked the air with electric clearness. Ten thousand individual hairs grew a millionth of an inch on his head. He heard the twin hearts beating in each ear, the third heart beating in his throat, the two hearts throbbing his wrists, the real heart pounding his chest. The million pores on his body opened. ‘I’m really alive!’ he thought. ‘I never knew it before, or if I did I don’t remember!’He yelled it loud but silent, a dozen times!” The absence of this description and monologue must mean exquisite cinematography and nothing less. The images must invoke viewers with their own metaphors of thought in order to communicate the message of the novel. The cast must be vulnerable in their acting styles, and the actors who play the young boys in particular must be precocious and filled with wonder about the earth around them. So patiently, us lovers of Dandelion Wine will wait for the film, biting the inside of our lips and picking our fingernails. Perhaps the book will come to life on the screen and reveal everything we dreamt in our heads. Maybe it will be a new adventure, the next tentative step in our vicarious childhood. We should welcome the opportunity like Douglas Spaulding, with open arms—but above all we should remember, that as summer comes to a close we can always go down to the cellar, pull up the old corks of winter, and let the golden warmth flow into us like dandelion wine.
Reimagining modern movie posters through illustration Like a good book cover, movie posters serve as a quick glimpse into their world and draw people in to the plot that waits beyond the title. Four illustrators approached creating posters for modern films in a classic aesthetic, emphasizing the unique character of handcrafted style that can be lost in today’s digital landscape.
Bronson Jason Scalfano Never Let Me Go Kat Weiss Moonrise Kingdom Emily Quintero Kill Bill Maggie Esmond
The Naive Girl
And Then There Were None photography by Aaron Bernstein
from left dress Susanna Ashkenas necklace Stylistâ€™s Own dress Vintage bracelet Stylistâ€™s Own dress Travis Mann dress Vintage
from left pants Chris Benz skirt, shirt, hat Vintage
on her cape Jake William dress Stylistâ€™s Own on him jumpsuit Phillip Herrold
on her, from left coat Brendan Combs dress Lillian Delustro necklace Stylistâ€™s Own on him, from left shirt Vintage jacket Isaac Penn shirt, jacket Danielle Elsner bowtie Vintage
from left dress Brendan Combs headpiece Abbey Eilermann jacket, skirt Julian Robaire skirt Vintage dress Vera Wang jewelry Stylist’s Own on him jacket Hermès pants Jil Sander
on her jacket, skirt Xenia Lally on him jacket Vintage
shirt, pants Vintage dress Stylistâ€™s Own
on her dress Vintage
on ground dress Adrianne Ekwensi bracelet Stylistâ€™s Own necklace Andi Harriman above dress Abbey Eilermann
on her jacket Vintage dress Abbey Eilermann
womenâ€™s stylist Jake William menâ€™s stylist Perri Rothenberg makeup artists Katherine Taylor, Megan Mateo, Nikita Jansen, Zak Schiller hairstylists Timothy Cabell, Quincy Parnum, Lekicia Thomas, Jane Xiang set design Dylan Auman styling assistants Chanelle Bertelsen, Liz Riden set assistant Abbey Eilermann
talent Madison Bildahl, Sarah Bloom, Wyatt Cole, Erin Kenna, Tucker Klein, Alison Wild RISE models Alexandria Angel, Brianna Dillon, Courtney Howard, Sarah Jimenez, Katie Holian, Katlyn Lamont, Aaron Odum, Scott Ramey, Makenna Reeder, Wes Shutters, Veronica Zak Tucker models Colton Donaldson, Nikita Jansen, Mark Oppenheimer, Megan Rose Phillips, Marie Sanders special thanks Trey Mackey at The Mackey House, Melissa and Lee Mundell at Brockington Hall
BROCKINGTON HALL Brockington Hall is a tastefully-renovated 1882 Classic Italianate villa-style mansion on a quiet, brick-paved, tree-lined residential street in Savannah’s Historic District. Just a block and a half from the City’s famous Forsyth Park, the venue space is 4,000 square feet on the elegantly-appointed parlor floor, with 14’ ceilings, hardwood floors, crystal chandeliers and sconces, marble mantles, oriental rugs, and elevator access.
For more information visit www.brockingtonhall.com or call for Manager Lee Mundell, 912.856.5117
RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE
CONVERSATIONS ON CINEMA interviews by taylor block
For many of us, film and television means sitting down with a large popcorn, relaxing, and simply enjoying the show. When we leave the theatre or turn off our respective TVs we credit the actors, directors, and maybe writers for a job well done. However, despite our naivety, there’s
an entire cast and crew responsible for making a film or TV show a success. Re: Magazine chose to shine the spotlight on the more conspicuous but equally unique professions that make the magic happen.
Re: Magazine caught up with Special Effects Makeup Artist Bart Mixon. Originally from Houston, Texas, Mixon got his big break in the business in 1987, when he moved to Los Angeles to supervise the special make-up and effects on projects such as Fright Night Part 2 and Stephen King’s It. Today, Mixon has an extensive and varied resume that covers all genres and areas of the industry. From TV dramas such as Private Practice to classic horror films like Amityville Horror, and even blockbuster hits including Men in Black 1, 2 and 3, Star Trek, Iron Man, and Planet of the Ape. He’s credited for creating monsters such as Pennywise the Clown and superheroes like the Thing in Fantastic Four. Re: Magazine had the privilege of talking with Bart about the industry and the unique craft he’s helped shape for the past 25 years. RE: Once brought on to a project, how do you begin to design a character?
SPECIAL EFFECTS MAKEUP ARTIST
BM: My Pennywise the Clown from Stephen King’s It is a good example of the process. I usually start by reading the script and making a breakdown of what it calls for. For a specific character like Pennywise, where it’s actor driven, it’s always best to start designing with that actor in mind. I would then start doing sketches over his headshot, just to play with things and get an idea of what I wanted to do. After getting a direction, I then did a full size clay sketch of, in the case of Pennywise, three different looks. I painted these in clown make-up, photographed them, and showed them to the director for his input. Sometimes you start getting their input before getting to this stage, but a lot of people have trouble looking at a two dimensional drawing and visualizing it—but that’s less the case since Photoshop and that stuff came out. Anyway, from these three looks, the director chose one he like the best, so that became the basis for Pennywise. It had the head
shape, type of nose, etc. I then did more design work for the color patterns, hair style, etc., and this continued to evolve up to our first make-up test when we put the appliances on Tim Curry and incorporated his thoughts about the lips and eyes, etc. RE: Some people see CGI as a crutch that filmmakers often rely on now. Do you agree? Has it taken some of the artistry out of your craft? BM: Yes, it can be. The worst thing about digital seems to be the fact that it gives the production the opportunity to not have to make a decision and commit to something at that time—they can put it off until later. In the past, if it was effects make-up or stop-motion or whatever, you had to have a plan and stick with it. You had to design your character, your effects, or your sequence, and shoot them according to that plan and then follow through with it. Now, they can just shoot a plate and fix it later, giving it little thought [it seems] at the time they are doing it. This can also be a good thing, as you can fix a lot of problems, but it also allows a lot of folks to bumble through things and leave a mess for others to fix laterr.
Emmy nominated costume designer, Ellen Mirojnick just might have the dream job. Responsible for conceptualizing and creating the wardrobe for over fifty Hollywood films, Ellen is stellar at her craft. She’s dressed some of the industry’s biggest actors such as Michael Douglas, Robert Downey Jr., Glenn Close, and Keanu Reeves, just to name a few. The films she’s collaborated on have been some of the best received of their generation. However, her job is hardly all shopping and trend forecasting. Ellen shares with Re: Magazine the importance of successful costume design and how it can make a character come to life. Re: Magazine: When brought onto a project where does your job begin? How do you begin to conceptualize the costumes and understand the characters your designing for? Ellen Mirojnick: My job begins by understanding the script and understanding the director’s vision. After I have that knowledge, I think about the tonality of the whole film. Then comes the ‘what, what, where’ of the character’s lives. Before I conceptualize the costumes, I will meet with the production designer as well. It is important that everyone is in concert with one another. After I understand and let the above morph into my senses, I begin to birth my ideas. RE: How do you use variations in wardrobe to show the depth or change in a character?
ELLEN MIROJNICK COSTUME DESIGNER RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE
EM: First you must consider who and what the actors needs are to accomplish the above question. A very general answer is, through the silhouette and the palette that you are working with…But it is extremely important that everything stays true to the story, even if the film is very stylized. In Fatal Attraction, Glenn Close’s character of Alex first appears as an attractive, successful and intelligent woman. We learn early on that she has problems, but she still has to appear as the woman we first met. There was a moment when she is alone at home, dejected listening to Madame Butterfly, turning a light off and on. I used a large white t-shirt keeping her arms and legs bare. The image I created was the polar opposite of who we had met earlier in the film. At this moment in the film, she was trapped in her sadness, a crazed damaged woman, very much alone. RE: You’ve dressed actors and actresses across the board from romantic comedies to sci-fi thrillers. Is it more difficult to design space age attire for movies such as Chronicles of Riddick or dress average men such as Denzel Washington in Deja Vu? Do you prefer a specific genre?
EM: I love to be challenged. Each genre presents its own challenge. Chronicles takes place in a sci-fi genre and that requires researching and looking for clues that will inspire the choices you conceptualize. Deja Vu is in a contemporary setting. In each case, I designed and built the entire film. Deja Vu had to appear real, however, each piece of clothing needed to be in multiples for action and be aged to an exacting reality. But my work always comes down to, what is the story? Sometimes that is the challenge, because it is not clearly defined in the script and somehow, I have to find a way to make sense of it, and satisfy the director’s vision. Sometimes the challenge is, will the characters be able to tell the story and will the audience understand it? I love designing contemporary stories, sometimes more than period pieces. It depends on the story and the people involved. But the reason I love contemporary work is that you are creating characters and imagery that will become the history and the template of the year the story takes place in. But if it’s a great script and a talented director, producer, production designer, I’m in! I love to try everything!
As us moviegoers leave the cinema having seen a fantastic movie, we often think to ourselves, “That actor was made for that role.” In reality, it’s hardly coincidence. Each actor, from the leading star to the humble extra, is hand picked for his or her respective role. In some cases, they are picked by Michelle Lewitt. Casting Director and Los Angeles native, Michelle Lewitt is responsible for casting Hollywood favorites: Transformers, The Holiday, Cinderella Man, and The Da Vinci Code, to name a few. She’s also worked alongside some of the industry’s most celebrated directors such as Michael Bay and Nancy Meyers. Backstage Magazine just named her one of the top ten rising casting directors in the industry. Michelle shares with Re: her prowess in casting and how she selects the actors “made for that role.” Re: Magazine: It seems this industry is heavily dominated by women. Why do you think this is? Michelle Lewitt: Yes casting is definitely dominated by women. I feel there are a couple of reasons why this is. First, I believe casting is a very intuitive, collaborative, and creative profession. And within that, you have to take on another person’s vision (the director) and deliver to them what they want, not necessarily what you want for your own personal vision. It is a very delicate balance to be creative within your own craft, and still keep the filmmakers vision at the forefront. This means that casting people can’t have big egos, because if the director wants or likes an actor that you don’t, you have to be willing to submit to their creative taste. That being said, casting women tend to have less ego-driven personality traits than men, at least from what I have witnessed in my experience. Secondly, there is a nurturing aspect to casting. As a casting director you need to really work with the actor and figure out what their needs are as a performer, and how you can help them in the room/audition. Also you need to bring many choices and options to your director, again meeting their creative needs for the project. Therefore, there is a lot of tuning in to other people’s needs and gaining insight into their creative instincts and tendencies. RE: When making a list of possible actors or actresses for a role, where do you begin? Do directors envision certain actors for certain roles or is it a cold search?
MICHELLE LEWITT casting director
ML: When I read a script or a character description, there are definitely actors that pop into my head that I think would be great for the role. But then I have to take into consideration my filmmakers vision and then find a balance of the two tastes. When I do a search, I am always thinking about what the director wants, and then looking for ways to think outside of the box and be creative with-
out sacrificing any of the attributes necessary for the character. Also during the search there are great ideas that surface that I didn’t think of while reading the script, and that is always fun to see a name and think, “Oh my gosh, of course! They are perfect!” RE: With new actors cropping up left and right, how do you begin to stay current and in the know of who’s in, who’s out, and who’s up and coming? ML: Of course keeping up with movies and television shows helps keep the mental database of actors current, and reading publications with current castings and whatnot. But also having good relationships with agents and managers, so that they are calling you with new clients they sign to set up general meetings so that you can meet them and get a good sense of who they are.
chestrate the locations of two-time Academy Award winning movie L.A. Confidential. Re: Magazine sat down with John to discuss how the where makes a movie. Re: Magazine: Before you even begin scouting for a specific location, what needs to be done first? John Panzanella: Well I read the script and I consult with the production designer. Often there are details in the script that give us a lead as to what direction we want to go. Sometimes in regard to a house it will say it’s a craftsman house or a mid-century modern house. Other times you won’t get any kind of indication whatsoever. It will just say an office building or a house or a barbershop. And then you go from there. If there’s not much detail the production designer and I will consult with the director. RE: Do camera and lighting requirements affect the ultimate choice of location? JP: Yes, you can never put a movie crew in a room that’s too small to shoot in. One of the paradoxes of finding locations is that frequently locations are larger than what you really think they would be in order to get a camera into the room and in order to light it. In a house you’re looking for high ceilings, if you’re in an office building, you want to be on a ground floor even if it reads as a skyscraper. RE: When scouting for a location, do you have a preference in terms of using a set or a real location?
JP: It’s really whatever serves the picture. For example, this past spring for Film Noir, we had to do scenes that took place in the 20s and they involved two movie theatres that were adjacent to each other. We could’ve gone down to Broadway around 7th or 8th Street and shot a couple of theatres there but there were so many active businesses that would’ve had to be paid off and signage covered over that it made more sense to go to the Universal back lot and shoot the scene there. It’s more stylized because it’s on the back lot and you really know it’s a back lot but ultimately it’s the lesser of two evils.
RE: From what I hear it sounds as if a lot of the movies you’ve worked on have been shot in Los Angeles. Have you scouted overseas?
As they say in real estate, it’s all about “location, location, location.” The same rule applies for film and television. Location manager John Panzarella has been responsible for setting the scene in some of Hollywood’s most memorable movies of the past 25 years. He helped choreograph the elaborate chase scene in The Italian Job as well or-
JP: No actually I haven’t. I might being to Iceland very soon but I really haven’t had the occasion to go overseas. I really like working in Los Angeles and if I had my druthers I would work here all the time. I think I work in Los Angeles more than a lot of people do and I like it. I like being home.
RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE
photography JAKE WILLIAM models MADISEN TAYLOR, NIKITA M’BOROUKOUNDA (RISE Model Management), ANDREW NEAL makeup and hair KATHERINE TAYLOR styling assistant SARAH HUMPHRIES photo assistants JESSICA IMHOFF, DYLAN SHAW
on her, left bodysuit, top TRAVIS MANN earrings CORRINA GOUTOS necklace STYLIST’S OWN on him jacket, necklace STYLIST’S OWN on her, right jacket ZAK HOWELL dress VICTORIA CULLINAN
dress YAQI SUN (opposite page) on her, left jacket, necklace STYLISTâ€™S OWN dress MICHAEL MANN on her, right dress MICHAEL ETIENNE
on him robe SARAH HUMPHRIES bracelet, rings, headpiece CORRINA GOUTOS on her top JULIAN ROBAIRE skirt MICHAEL ETIENNE
on him leather dress JULIAN ROBAIRE shoes JAKE WILLIAM on her shoulder piece CORRINA GOUTOS
on her top VICTORIA CULLINAN shoes KIERRA CORIGAN
DREAM BECAUSE IT’S FREE An interview with fashion designer raul penaranda interview by sarah humphries Raul Penaranda is a child of the world. Having humble beginnings that stretch from Columbia to Miami and finally to New York City, Penaranda made his way as a designer by his skill, vision, and the drive to thrive. Invariably accustomed to fashion and construction through his mother’s influence as a seamstress, Penaranda moved to NYC in 2000 to pursue his dreams of being a fashion designer. Finding success at many major fashion houses as well as an assistant designer position at DKNY, the designer found the courage to launch his own self-titled designer label in 2010. Now as Creative Director of the Raul Penaranda label, he oversees the inception and creation of luxurious seasonal collections. Raul Penaranda shares with Re: Magazine some important insight into his journey, process, inspirations, and accomplishments. RE: Tell us a little about yourself and your background. Where are you from? What brought you to New York City? RP: I was born in Cali, Colombia. At age four I moved to Caracas, Venezuela where I grew up and moved to Miami, Florida with my entire family as a young adult. In 2000, I relocated to New York City where I was offered a freelance design position at DKNY. I was simultaneously enrolled at FIT and Parsons. I come from a very humble family super rich in values; my parents are the foundation of who I am today, especially my mother who cultivated the 3 words I live my life by: Dream, Vision, Reality. “Dream because it’s free. Make sure to transform that into a vision and if you want to succeed in life, make sure it becomes a reality.” RE: Did you study fashion in college or are you self-taught?
How did you find yourself having a career in the fashion industry? RP: I’m not a fashion designer by school. I learned the basics from my mother who used to be a seamstress and used to dress my sisters and myself when we were kids. I only took the classes I needed at Parsons and FIT to level myself with other fashion designers. I found myself as an assistant designer for DKNY when a position was available and I applied even though I wasn’t a fashion designer graduate, but because of my sketches and color abilities I was given an opportunity I will be always grateful for. RE: Have you always known you wanted to be a fashion designer? RP: Since I was very young, I knew I was going to be a fashion designer. It was just a matter of making that dream into a vision and finally a reality. I choose not to have a second option in my life; it was imminent. RE: How long have you been working as a designer? RP: I had been in the fashion industry since 2000 when I started as an assistant designer for DKNY. Over the next ten years, I quickly made leaps throughout the industry. My portfolio includes work from some of the industry’s top fashion houses such as Oscar de la Renta, DKNY, Zac Posen and Tommy Hilfiger, along with industry giants Liz Claiborne and Kellwood. I held key positions as Creative Director of Merchandise and Trend Services, Senior Designer and Textile/CAD Designer. In 2010, I decided to make one of my long time dreams a reality and opened Raul Penaranda LLC to house my self-titled Raul Penaranda. (www.raulpenaranda.com) RE: What is your creative process like? Where do you get your inspiration? RP: My creative process is very simple. I take my feelings and transform those feelings into my designs. I consider myself an artist that creates emotions through my garments. I believe that fashion is an extension of people’s personalities and you must express that in anything you do. In this case, empowering women with my product is what I enjoy the most. I get my inspiration from every experience of my life, from different elements that create emotions. I am inspired by anything from a kind gesture such as somebody giving a seat to an old lady at the subway, or a morning run with my dogs at Central Park. In other words, I draw from my surroundings that constantly are giving us all kinds of information. photograph by Pat Bombard
RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE
my mother cultivated the three words i live my life by: dream, vision, reality.â€?
RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE
THE ROOTS OF CENSORSHIP by taylor kigar illustrations by jen paolini Do you remember the rush of sneaking into your first film? Constantly looking over your shoulder but feeling hidden and invincible in the dark? While your thirteen year old self hated the ratings, calling them stupid and unnecessary, most of us know now that censorship for different age groups is a very real and important thing. And though these ratings seem very simple now, their roots sprouted from some very slippery and disputed beginnings. Naturally, with the birth of film came the concern of what it would expose to the world. As long as films have been made, they have been censored. The very first censoring committee formed in 1909 was called “The New York Board of Motion Picture Censorship” (later changed to “The National Board of Review” in 1915). However, once no federal action to regulate censorship of films was passed, religious groups and families sought to have their own states decide what could and could not be shown in the movies. These groups won in a Supreme Court case of Mutual Film Corporation v. Ohio Industrial Commission, and one third of America was under state legislation for cinema censorship. This, to no surprise, caused problems for filmmakers. Six or seven different versions of their movies floated throughout the country, each chopped up and pieced together in entirely different ways. In 1922, these filmmakers joined together and formed the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America to finally decide what was acceptable, and what would be prohibited. And with this, the two official lists were born: the “Don’ts” list, and the “Be Carefuls” list. A few items on this “Don’ts” list include illegal drug traffic, scenes of childbirth, any suggestive nu-
dity (in person or silhouette), and willful offense to any nation or creed. Oh how things have changed… our entire modern genre of comedy has been knocked out with only a few items on that list alone. Other censored items from the “Don’ts” list like miscegenation, are much better off long gone— but with today’s overly vulgar and graphic films, maybe a revisit of some of these censors would be nice. Later in the 1930s when talkies became more popular, the “Don’ts” and “Be Carefuls” list became obsolete. What ruled now was the “Motion Picture Production Code”. If the film passed the code, they would be granted a certificate. Without this certificate (commonly referred to as the PCA), showing the film in any major studio theater was against the law. But with the approach of World War II, that code was put to the test. One movie that showed despite not receiving its certificate was The Outlaw, an “Adult Western” featuring bombshell Jane Russell in 1943. Thirty-seven scenes were cut and censored because they over emphasized Russell’s breasts. However, the director Howard Hughes simply waited a few years and then released the film in its original cut—and was met with great success. Entering the fifties, competition from TV and foreign films increased, and the MPPDA realized their code needed to be reformed once more. In 1956, abortion, childbirth, and drug addiction could be shown in films. At the beginning of the sixties, there was talk of dropping the PCA altogether. Finally, on November 1, 1968, our familiar G, PG, PG-13, R, AND NC-17 system was born.
how is the use of a single word more taboo than the objectification of women, graphic sexuality, and other various illegal topics?” 111 111
IT MAY BE TIME to call for another overhaul.”
As we all know, these rating boundaries have changed drastically since the fifties—and may be greatly influenced by money. It seems that most PG-13 movies with senseless violence and crude sexual humor are only PG-13 because the target audience are teens. If the movie were R, they’d lose prime ticket sales. But even the possibility of bribery aside, how is the use of a single word that is labeled as “profane” more taboo than the objectification of women, graphic sexuality, and other various illegal topics? Is the F word really a more negative influence than an entire film devoted to glamourized drug use and murder? How can Anchorman and Beowulf get a PG-13 rating while Bully initially received an R? Anchorman is full of some of the crudest sexual humor ever put in a film, and Beowulf is filled with explicit violence and blood. If you’re not familiar with Bully, it is an uplifting and educational film by director Lee Hirsch about the concerns and tragedy of bullying. Every student should see this film, however because of its rating, many young students couldn’t. The movie’s community, as well as many schools and families, were unhappy with the rating, and sought to get it changed. After much hard work and a 500,000 signature petition hosted on change.org, the R rating was finally lowered to a PG-13 in April. While we’ve come a long way from the initial censors first put on films, the prohibitions have become undeniably weaker as the morals of the public loosen and shock value becomes commonplace. It may be time to call for another overhaul, where we re-evaluate the ratings once more. After all the horror movie copycat killers and violence at opening shows (much like the recent shooting at a Batman 3 matinee in Colorado) I feel we must crack down on the graphic movies, placing guns, blood, and murder at a much higher rating than silly curse words and crude humor.
RE: RE: MAGAZINE MAGAZINE