Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: The KNOWING Thread!


Faery Queen of Cagealot Castle

Status: Offline
Posts: 8403
Date: 5:34 PM, 08/22/10
The KNOWING Thread!
Permalink  
 


What did you think of this film?smile.gif

Here is my belated review! i'm only a year late! But I have finally had the absolute pleasure of seeing Knowing.
This film didn't disappoint, not even by a whisper!

This thread isn't going to be spoiler free so...ahem, you were warned !smile.gif
I'm not going to give a plot summary either, and this may come out in a random haphazard kind of a way.

There was alot of interest in the symbology in the film when it came out. For one who's usually so interested in that kind of thing, it really wasn't the overriding focal point at all for me...which was a relief. And I'm left with just a spacious feeling about the whole experience which I really don't want to fragment into small analytical parts...but it's sure to happen as I carry on writing.

For me the experience of the film was all on the emotional level right from the start.
I thought the science / religion debate, although central to the film, was handled ambiguously enough for it almost to not be the overwhelming point of the film...which was very clever indeed, because of course that it the central theme.

For me it kind of transcended those themes because it was about the whole world, this planet, it's relationship to the rest of the universe and our oneness in the light of that. To me it was saying it doesn't matter what you 'believe' the truth is far bigger than any belief system you can have.

Nic was just incredible in this film. My emotions were owned by his character right from the start and it just intensified as each new layer of the story unfolded.

This was a dual thing, as the personal story of John and his son, and the loss of wife / mother was woven into the larger landscape of the film..the intersecting point being the break down of John's belief system formerly largely concretized by the loss of his beloved, as we find out later on in the film.

So there was a constant subliminal pain within his character, which made the emotional layering effect of the film so extra potent, for me.

The part where John began to be locked into his own pain when the predictions began to happen, was so contained yet powerful..as an actor, Nic conveys a certain energy so well, beyond the script and the action, even beyond the body language ( which he is a master at ) there is just always that quintessential element that pulls at something deeper through his films, and it was very present in Knowing.

The plane crash scene...it was simply unbearable...I can still feel pain when I recall it.. I almost had to hide and not watch...pretty much in tears from that point in the film.

The helpless futility for John of 'Knowing' something was going to happen right there, right then, but not being able to do anything about it, as burning bodies screamed towards him..it was horrific... but the power in that whole brilliant scene was Nic's performance of contained desperation, shock and heroism, doing all he humanly knew how to do but knowing it just could never be enough...
I find myself wondering, how can he convey so much pain, so quietly, so numbly?

And it grows...as the story unfolds more deeply... and you can feel it...for me I could feel the emotion gripping my body... this is what has left the lasting impression for me.

Yes, the imagery, the predictions, the alien / angels, the end of the world / new world, all very much of interest to me ( i don't mean to be flippant i'll probably get to them at some point if i don't run out of steam ) but, the whole is so much greater than the sum of the parts with this movie and the sense that i am left with is like an after shock of the emotional journey of the main protagonist...within the extreme almost inconceivable shock of the end of the world scenario.

The scene where John has to let Kaleb go..... I could not cry quietly...more of an out of control sob! Not that extreme emotional reaction is a measure of a good performance, but to be totally moved by a performance for me is the reason I enjoy film. Not to come at it from my head, but from my heart, and soul.

Brilliant performance by both actors, but that one tiny moment where Nic's eyes filled with real tears and his heart really was breaking, I simply couldn't see the character just the man. It was so real. Did anyone else get that? Lol, apologies if that's too fangirly for some...just being honest, this is how I experienced it.

I absolutely loved the 'space ship'... in awe of the artwork and effects for that, and the whole onyx/ black stone connection was truly a thrill, probably because I have a load of similar looking stones around me! Has it ever been confirmed as Onyx?
i kept thinking it wasn't shiny enough for onyx and it strongly reminded me of black tourmaline, or even obsidian. Then i kept thinking of the obsidian mirrors and how they are used for scrying and predictions....so that connection was there.
The scene where the space ship took off and all the stones fell back onto the ground in the clearing led me to think they were like a navigational homing device with like a magnetic gravitational pull...seeing as dark stones have those properties of grounding and bringing energy strongly into the earth anyway, it makes sense. and that ethereal beings and their beautifully non physical selves and other dimensional spacecraft, would need some thing with that pulling, magnetic earthly energy for them to materialize in this third dimensional form...that's what came for me. Probably pure fantasy on my part!

The angel / alien thing was interesting to me, because they were almost quite scary figures yet saviours, who had actually come to intervene here, to help, and ultimately perpetuate the human race.

Their long dark coats reminded me of Seth in City of Angels and how Nic didn't want to play a straightforward stereotypical angel, but something with a slightly more mysterious or even a smidgen darker energy. Angels in literature are often portrayed as 'awe' some figures, and that awe contains wonder, but also a fear of the unknown.

In that sense I feel that whether they were an angel or alien is not relevant..for on the whole, for most people, anything 'other' is considered 'alien'.

As I said at the beginning of this ridiculously long ramble ( sorry! ) the film somehow didn't lead me to analyse the detail, it was more the overall oneness of the world. For me, this oneness, that we have all overlooked, was symbolized by that horrific almost impossible to absorb moment....with the scratched in words ''Everyone Else''..... Our separation unified only in the final moment, when it is in fact too late.

The actual end of the world scenario in the film feels like it would be experienced according to our own beliefs, i experienced a combination of resignation, resonance, fear and also hope.

The solar flare ending tapped into some fear for personal reasons..i made a suggestion as a child about the sun and the earth heating up before the term global warming had ever been heard of and announced to my bemused mother i was to write a book about it . and it just returned me to general feelings around the 2012 predictions and solar flares and stuff like that.

If I'm to give any considered opinion on the mind level, of what the end of the world scenario alongside the angel aliens was representing in the film, i would say it was possibly pointing towards what is known in new age terms as 'ascension', where the earth as it is and our race upon it undergo a transition to a higher dimension than 3d, transcending time and space. A more hopeful outlook than a bleak ending of the world for most, rather the end of the world as we know it, and the transitioning to a 'new world.'

In this light, perhaps the symbolism of the two children was of the ascension to a 'new earth'... which wasn't at all another planet, but the 'ascended' earth, so a bit like a parallel universe, in another dimension.

And when John says to Kaleb they will be together again, I took it..not to mean in a heavenly way, but in a parallel reality kind of a way. So i almost expected it not to be about 2 young children beginning an entire new race, but that the beings who came to rescue them were 'ascended' humans, from the future...in other words, 'us' from the future, in our evolved form.

As a spiritual, non-religious person, i.e without a belief 'system', some of the themes were very much up my alley and it was affirming for me personally to see some issues close to my heart being explored.

Overall though, I just wanted to share that I didn't experience the film at a mind level, i didn't feel analytical despite all the hype surrounding it about the symbolism, I was just overwhelmed, absorbed and completely affected by it on an emotional level.

Nicolas Cage was utterly superb in this film and I am filled with admiration for his performance. His years of experience as an actor and as a man, somehow seemed necessary for this role, both to be able to portray this character as perfectly as he did, and not to be internally destroyed by playing a character with such an intense and painful story.

I knew this would not be a film you could just brush off from and be unaffected by, due to the themes..but there is this extreme synergy because of his performance and the way he played the character, that is going to remain with me for life.
thumbsup.gif 5 stars and thankyou Nic smile.gif

Time for this fangirl to rest weary fingers. floating.gif


-- Edited by Lula Argante on Thursday 9th of September 2010 12:14:34 PM

__________________

 

 



Nicalicious

Status: Offline
Posts: 6722
Date: 4:52 AM, 09/09/10
The KNOWING Thread!
Permalink  
 


But did you like it? (Just kidding)

Awesome review, Lula. I loved it too. I went to see it because Roger Ebert gave it a great review, and was so impressed by it, couldn't stop telling people how great it was. One of my all time favourite movies.

Here is Ebert's review.

 March 18, 2009

 

by Roger Ebert

"Knowing" is among the best science-fiction films I've seen -- frightening, suspenseful, intelligent and, when it needs to be, rather awesome. In its very different way, it is comparable to the great "Dark City," by the same director, Alex Proyas. That film was about the hidden nature of the world men think they inhabit, and so is this one.

The plot involves the most fundamental of all philosophical debates: Is the universe deterministic or random? Is everything in some way preordained or does it happen by chance? If that questions sounds too abstract, wait until you see this film, which poses it in stark terms: What if we could know in advance when the Earth will end?

Nicolas Cage, in another wound-up, edgy performance, plays John Koestler, a professor of astrophysics at MIT. He votes for deterministic; as he tells his class, he believes "s**t happens." His wife has died, and he's raising his young son, Caleb (Chandler Canterbury). A time capsule is opened at Caleb's school, containing the drawings of students in 1959 predicting the sights of 2009. But the sheet Caleb gets isn't a drawing; it's covered with rows of numbers. In a prologue, we've seen the girl with haunted eyes, Lucinda (Lara Robinson), who so intensely pressed the numbers into the paper.

What do these numbers mean? You already know from the TV ads, but I don't believe I should tell you. I'll write another article that will contain spoilers. Let me say that Koestler discovers almost by accident a pattern in the numbers, and they shake his scientific mind to its core. His obsession is scoffed at by his MIT colleague, a cosmologist named Phil Beckman (Ben Mendelsohn), who warns Koestler against the heresy of numerology -- the finding of imaginary patterns in numbers. Mendelsohn's passionate arguments, which are not technical yet are scientifically sound, raise the stakes. This is not a movie about psychic mumble-jumble; Koestler is a hard-headed scientist, too, or always thought he was, until that page of numbers came into his hands.

By "scientifically sound," I don't mean anyone at MIT is going to find the plot other than preposterous. So it is -- but not while the movie is playing. It works as science fiction, which often changes one coordinate in an otherwise logical world just to see what might happen. For Koestler, it leads to a rejection of what he has always believed, to his acceptance of the paranormal, and to his discovery of Diana (Rose Byrne), the daughter of little Lucinda who wrote down the numbers, and Abby, the granddaughter (Lara Robinson again).

He believes these two children are somehow instrumental in the developing scenario, and he bonds with Diana to protect them from evil strangers in the woods -- who are mostly kept far enough away in long shots to prevent them from seeming more strange than they must. The logic of the story leads us to expect something really spectacular at the end, and I was not disappointed visually, although I have logical questions that are sort of beside the point.

With expert and confident storytelling, Proyas strings together events that keep tension at a high pitch all through the film. Even a few quiet, human moments have something coiling beneath. Pluck this movie, and it vibrates. Even something we've seen countless times, like a car pursuit, works here because of the meaning of the pursuit, and the high stakes.

The film has sensational special effects, which again I won't describe. You'll know the ones I mean. The film is beautifully photographed by Simon Duggan, the Marco Beltrami score hammers or elevates when it needs to, and Richard Learoyd's editing is knife-edged; when he needs to hurtle us through sequences, he does it with an insistence that doesn't feel rushed.

You may have guessed from the TV ads that something very bad is unfolding for planet Earth, and you may ask, not unreasonably, how these two nice parents and their lovable kids can possibly have any effect on it. Ah, but that would be in a random universe, and "Knowing" argues that the universe is deterministic. Or does it? Your papers will be due before class on Monday.

-- Edited by Lady Trueheart on Monday 8th of November 2010 10:31:48 PM

__________________

 



Faery Queen of Cagealot Castle

Status: Offline
Posts: 8403
Date: 11:47 AM, 09/09/10
The KNOWING Thread!
Permalink  
 


That's glowing praise indeed, Lady Trueheart! I'm so happy to know a Nic fan such as yourself, who also really really loves this film. multicolourlove

And thank you for posting Roger Ebert's review, he's my favourite critic. He and Siskel together did a series of film crits and were more often than not very positive about Nic's work.flowerface
Thank heavens for critics who can give such masterful and logical reviews. It's probably obvious, but mine tend to be all on the emotional level, because that is how I experience film. Especially Nic's performances. I actually feel the powerful emotional response in my body to the character. In Knowing, it was all the way through in my solar plexus and heart.

To answer your question, although i know you were kidding, I more than liked this film. I was stunned by it! Such a superb film on so many levels and I thought Nic's performance was utterly brilliant, what he did with this character was masterful and compelling. I also found it harrowing to the core of my being, so all things considered, saying i like it seems too diluted! It's one of the most, if not the most, powerful films I've ever seen. Another highly and unfairly underrated Nic movie, but fortunately those of us who don't feel the need to follow the blinkered let's bash Nic Cage and all his films herd, aren't afraid to speak the truth of the film. filmstarrystarrystarrystarrystarry



-- Edited by Lula Argante on Thursday 9th of September 2010 11:53:46 AM

__________________

 

 



Nicalicious

Status: Offline
Posts: 6722
Date: 4:20 PM, 11/06/10
The KNOWING Thread!
Permalink  
 


I did not realize that Ebert had done a second review of 'Knowing' because of all the negative reviews of it after his. Here it is here.


Love and hate and "Knowing"
-- or, do wings have angels?

 

By Roger Ebert / March 22, 2009

 

Either I'm wrong or most of the movie critics in America are mistaken. I persist in the conviction that Alex Proyas's "Knowing" is a splendid thriller and surprisingly thought-provoking. I saw the movie at an 8 p.m. screening on Monday, March 16, returned home and wrote my review on deadline. No other reviews existed at that time. Later in the week, I was blind-sided by the negative reaction. And I mean really negative.

"Knowing" is opening well at the box office, leading the weekend with an estimated $25 million. With a budget at around $50 million, that means it will be a money-maker for Summit Entertainment. But the critical reaction has been savage.

I went looking at the various online roundups of critical opinion. Of course such averages mean little, but they give you a notion of how people are thinking. I usually don't peruse them, but this time I was fascinated. What was it about "Knowing" that made it so hated?

• On Metacritic, gets a 39 average. The reader vote is 8.1.

• On Rotten Tomatoes, the Meter stands at 24, and only 15% of the "Top Critics" liked it.

• On IMDb's user votes, the "median" was 9/10, but the "arithmetic mean" was 7.7/10. Of 397 votes, 191 were "10." IMDb goes with the mean.

• On MRQE, only one of 43 agrees with me.

Spoilers follow

This is astonishing. Let's suppose I was completely wrong. Even if I was how bad could the possibly movie be? Half as good as the slasher film "Shuttle?" A third as good as "Last House on the Left?" If nothing else, it was a great popcorn movie: A time capsule contains perfect predictions of the following 50 years, a hero scientist races to avert disaster, two kids hear whispers in their ears, there are sensational special effects, mysterious figures loom in the woods, and at the end the kids are taken to another planet as Earth is incinerated. Plus a cerebral debate at MIT about whether the universe is deterministic or random.

Believe me, I know the plot is preposterous. That's part of the charm. You go to an end-of-the-world thriller starring Nicolas Cage looking scared to death, and you're in for a dime, in for a dollar. I love to dissect improbabilities in movies, but with "Knowing" I simply didn't care. I was carried by the energy. The premise, about that little girl in 1959 sealing up her letter, is preposterous. Every ad starts with that. What were you expecting, the Scientific American?

I wrote a blog discussing the movie. Right now it has nearly 250 comments. Most of my readers agreed with me. Some thought it stank. What interested me was how they discussed the movie. There seemed to be two big problems in some minds: Nicolas Cage, and the movie's Biblical parallels.

Let's start with Cage. Some readers said they avoid his movies on principle. Many found him guilty of over-acting. A critic was quoted who referred to his "fright wig," which is just mean-spirited snark. I found this reaction puzzling. Cage has two speeds, intense and intenser. I like both speeds. I find him an intriguing actor because he takes chances. He's an actor without speed limits. You want an Elvis who parachutes into Vegas? A weatherman whose viewers throw fast food at him? An explorer of the national treasures buried far beneath Washington? He's your go-to guy.

He is also a superb actor. I cite "Leaving Las Vegas," "Moonstruck," "Adaptation," "Bringing Out the Dead." I have great affection for Harrison Ford, George Clooney and Brad Pitt. But can they go rockabilly like Nic did in "Wild at Heart?" Not that I liked the movie, but it's a good question. With him it's a lion-tamer on a high-wire. Anybody can play the ringmaster.

Now to the Biblical overtones. The movie has generated enormous interest because it seems, some say, to be based on the Book of Ezekiel, and the plot fulfills prophecies about the end of the world, visitation by aliens, wheels with wheels, and so on. I'm not as expert on Ezekiel as I should be, but I can see the parallels -- especially since it has been pointed out to me that the figures at the end might be angels, might be aliens, or might be one resembling the other.

Alex Proyas says he has no opinion on the question. Juliet Snowden, an author of the screenplay, tells me, "I will never tell." When I saw those glowing figures, I fully expected them to spread their wings, but they walked with the children into their spacecraft, which resembled a geodesic structure within rotating wheels. Several readers assured me that the figures indeed had wings -- but you might miss them, as they were wisps of light.

One famous interpretation of Ezekiel is that he describes an Earth visitation by aliens arriving in a spacecraft made of wheels within wheels. The film's appearance of these figures (four, just as he reports) and their vehicle seems to correspond with much of the first book of Ezekiel.

This is not the place for theology. Nor for settling the debate between determinism and free will, although there are many expert comments on the blog. ("About the best comments you will find on the Web" -- Computer World magazine) Nor, indeed, for deciding if the figures are supernatural or natural. It doesn't matter. The movie is entertaining and involving. It's great afterwards to debate the Meaning of It All.

What matters, in my opinion, is that the film's ending is just about equal to the set-up. There are two possibilities: (1) Nicolas Cage heroically saves the world, or (2) No more water but the fire next time. The ending is spectacular enough that it brings closure, if not explanation. I don't have to know if the beings are aliens or angels. Nobody in the movie does.

Why some people dislike Nicolas Cage is a mystery to me. I find him a daring actor who is often successful. Why many critics dislike the ending is, I suspect, because it is "religious" or "upholds Intelligent Design," or is literally a deus ex machina. It may be a deus, all right, but that machina is a lollapalooza.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090322/COMMENTARY/903229997


-- Edited by Lady Trueheart on Saturday 6th of November 2010 04:46:10 PM

__________________

 



Nicalicious

Status: Offline
Posts: 6722
Date: 4:24 PM, 11/06/10
RE: The KNOWING Thread!
Permalink  
 


Great line from the interview.


"With him it's a lion-tamer on a high-wire. Anybody can play the ringmaster."

__________________

 



The Changeling

Status: Offline
Posts: 1288
Date: 10:35 PM, 11/06/10
RE: The KNOWING Thread!
Permalink  
 


I've never read this second review but am now grateful to you, Lady T, for finding it.  For once, a critic seriously DEFENDS Nic's work.  It seems so many have joined the 'hate Nic Cage' bandwagon just for some warped popularity vote.   Nic, is an amazing actor, on so many levels.  I may not like everything he does, but I applaud him for putting himself out there, in all his glory, come hell or highwater!  He's an entertaining, and like Ebert said....fascinating, actor to watch no matter what the genre.



__________________

"Love one another but make not a bond of love.
Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls"
~~~~ Khalil Gibran ~~~~



Nicalicious

Status: Offline
Posts: 6722
Date: 11:05 PM, 11/06/10
RE: The KNOWING Thread!
Permalink  
 


Thanks, White Fay!

__________________

 



Faery Queen of Cagealot Castle

Status: Offline
Posts: 8403
Date: 3:54 PM, 11/07/10
RE: The KNOWING Thread!
Permalink  
 


It's the first time I've read this too...thank you Lady True!
Standout line for me:
I was carried by the energy

Exactly how I experienced the movie..how about you guys?
That's what i tried to convey, far more clumsily in my review than Ebert has skillfully done here! It's as if people want to step off the movie and look at it like a passing train with their analysis, when actually it's the ride that counts. I was completely submerged in the power of this movie.

I paused for thought at his line that Nic does intense and intenser, and was going to disagree, but then considered that even in a more contained performance such as in Knowing, it is no less potent or intense a performance!


__________________

 

 



The Changeling

Status: Offline
Posts: 1288
Date: 4:31 PM, 11/07/10
RE: The KNOWING Thread!
Permalink  
 


Indeed, carried by the 'energy' is a great way to describe the viewing of this movie.

__________________

"Love one another but make not a bond of love.
Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls"
~~~~ Khalil Gibran ~~~~



Nicalicious

Status: Offline
Posts: 6722
Date: 4:06 PM, 11/20/10
RE: The KNOWING Thread!
Permalink  
 


This is a good interview from when Nic was promoting 'Knowing.' Lots of insight from Nic. (If I have already posted this let me know, I can't find it.)


Q & A: Actor Nicolas Cage Looks Ahead With "Knowing"

When veteran actor Nicolas Cage came to town to conduct a press conference for Knowing, it was shortly before the sad and untimely death of Natasha Richardson--an artist who will be sorely missed and whose death has to make anyone think: who knows what fate has in store for us? If a different decision had been made--to see a doctor right after her fall, for instance--would she have survived?

Here is a film that makes us ponder such questions, posed in a complicated, sometimes contradictory, fashion. By knowing what the future holds, and how "fixed" it is--that it is somehow "preordained"--does understanding that just enervate, or stimulate? This film raises a host of questions though it doesn't necessarily solve them.

Without revealing the ending, Knowing starts as a tale about a boy, Caleb Koestler (Chandler Canterbury), who finds a strange document with rows of numbers (which foretell a series of disasters) stuffed into a time capsule by a prescient, troubled girl (whose daughter becomes an adult Diane played by Rose Byrne). The film evolves into a grandiose sci-fi story that, in some ways, is far less satisfying than if it had been crafted with more ambiguities and less grand vision.

Nonetheless, at a time when people are compelled to question what is "fate," what is "inevitable," what decisions can we control, and what ones are beyond our power--this movie stirs such speculations as well. I leave it to others to craft a review on the aesthetic merits of the film. But the film was certainly cast with talented enough actors to convey Australian director Alex Proyas's intentions (whose previous sci-fi/fantasy films include I, Robot, Dark City and The Crow). Anchored by Cage who plays quantum physicist John Koestler, supported by Byrne and young actor Canterbury, the cast brings to life these characters reacting to the extreme circumstances of the film.

2009-03-22-knowing_movieposter_nicolas_cage.jpgCage, of course, has become a master of making the impossible seem feasible, and of realizing a character in strange situations reacting as any man would. He is skilled at rendering such characters because of his own fascination with such scenarios. Just look at his recent catalogue of films that draw on a sense of wonder that make them feasible: Next, Ghost Rider, or The Wicker Man.

Even while this film shows that disparate events can line up along some lines based on probability theory or chaos theory, so did this Press Conference, with a range of journos asking questions that were both on the money and way off course. By applying, hopefully, a deft editorial scalpel, this sprawling compilation of questions takes on some form and intent.

Q: Why does the science fiction genre appeal to you?

NC: Well, good science fiction is intelligent. It asks big questions that are on people's minds. It's not impossible. It has some sort of root in the abstract. So automatically you're getting closer to potentially divine sources of interest because it is abstract. It's one of the only ways that a film actor can express himself in the abstract and have audiences still go along for the ride. They don't contend it. They accept it, that they're going to go places that are a bit more of the imagination, a bit more out there, and that's more and more where I like to dance.

The other thing is that I got a little tired of movies where I had to shoot people. I got to thinking about the power of film and what that power is. The power is in fact that it really can change people's minds. I had that experience with China Syndrome. It made me aware. So I thought if it was this powerful, the power to change people's minds, then perhaps I should just be a little more responsible with that power.

That's not to say that I don't believe in freedom of speech. I do. It's just that at this point in my life, in my interests I would rather entertain you with the spectacle and with the imagination as opposed to servicing your blood lust appetites. But that's not to say that I might not find myself in that situation again. There are ways of doing it, even by showing it where it can be ironic, and there can be awareness in that as well. Just not gratuitous in the sense that I want you to get off by watching someone's head explode.

Q: Did you get into quantum physics to prepare for this role?

NC: I grew up with a professor, so that was all the research that I really needed. I just used my own recall of what that experience was like.

Q: So you could relate from that experience, growing up with it?

NC: Yeah.

cage+cropped.jpgQ: This is the second movie you've done where the future's been involved (the other being Next). What's your interest in the future, or in seeing the future? Do you think we have a predetermined future or is it all randomness?

NC: At the risk at impinging on your own personal opinions, or your own relationship to the movie, I would just offer that I'm not a chaos theorist.

Q: This film also deals with science versus fate. Is there's room for both phenomena on the same side of the coin or are they always going to be diametrically opposed?

NC: Again, without impending on your own personal choice, there are going to be those that wear the hat of religion and those that wear the hat of science. I still don't really understand why they can't wear both hats, because personally, I think that they go beautifully together.

Q: Even though the movie is about a possible end of the world, it's still a positive film. The story shows how you need to live each day to the fullest. Were you affected by the seeming moral of the story?

NC: Well, first of all, any opinion I give is not as important as your opinion. Your opinion is what matters to me and so if that's what you took from the movie then that's absolutely correct. Any awakenings that I may have had happened before I said yes to the movie. So I didn't really learn anything or get anything from it, but I was just ready to express it.

I had gone through various thought processes at the time the script came to me where I felt I was in sync with Alex [Proyas] and with the story. It's one of those rare opportunities where I felt like the filmmaker and myself were completely on the same page philosophically and in terms of style.

proyas+cropped.jpgQ: Alex Proyas spoke of valuing the rehearsal process and insisting on it. Does that help you as well? Did he allow for any improvisation or for you to put your spin on things?

NC: I generally enjoy the rehearsal process because that's where you can share your ideas, get your thoughts and feelings out and see whether or not they're going to land, whether or not people are going to agree with them, particularly the director. So you can sort out in that process any elements that need to be sorted out before you're on the set, and of course that saves time and it also makes everyone more comfortable working together.

And yes, Alex is the sort of director that's open to suggestions and makes you feel comfortable, relaxed enough to be able to create. It's quite liberating and he was open to various ideas.

Q: Can you expand on what you think is unique about Alex as a filmmaker?

NC: Well, he has this enormous capacity to design shots and design FX in a way where you know it's him that's doing it. They look beautiful. They're also scary.

Alex is an artist. He's an original and he can really make a movie look beautifully designed in a way that has his signature. But having said that, we both agreed that the [film] should be almost cinema verite, that there should be almost a documentary style to the performances so that it would make the experience more terrifying for you and perhaps more visceral in some way.

He's like a painter from any era of painting. He has the same abilities. That's what I mean about him in that I think he's an original voice. I don't feel like he's ever copying anyone else.

Q: Five minutes after you meet Diana--Rose Byrne's character--there's desperation in your relationship with her. Can you talk about that kind of relationship in a film, of two characters who have a desperate need for each other yet have to learn trust each other?

NC: Well, that was the challenge: how do I convince this woman to go along with me and to sort through what's happening in my life and in everyone's lives? It was kind of awkward at first because I was trying to go around the scene in different ways that would terrify her, and yet at the same time I had to keep her with me.

Now the thing is that Diana's mother had this calling and this ability, and she was living with the curse, if you will, of feeling that she was going to die on that particular date. So when I was able to give her those numbers, that's what brought her back. But I didn't really see how there was any way that I could get around it.

I felt that at some point early on in that dynamic she was going to be scared of John Koestler, that she would have to be scared of him and not to shy away from that, not to sugarcoat it any way.

rose+cropped.jpgQ: Rose Byrne is so good with such a complicated character; how was it working with her?

NC: It was refreshing to have a movie without it having to resort to love triangles or broken hearts, and to have an extremely talented actress play something other than those notes. It's only fair that actresses get the same shots at playing complex characters as actors do. Rose is very serious about the work. She's a real craftsman in that that accent is flawless. I couldn't believe that she was Australian. She has a very pronounced Australian accent, though, and so that in itself shows you the level of technique and also the willingness for her to go to places with me that were perhaps more surprising again. She didn't quite know where I would go, but I felt that was important to get that spontaneity and she went along with it.

She's got a lot of guts and depth. That also goes for Chandler Canterbury. Both of those actors, the movie wouldn't work without them because they were phenomenally real. Chandler has this enormous depth for his years and he's so truthful. It seems effortless.

Often you hear stories about never working with children. I disagree because children still have that residual magical thinking. They haven't had their imagination knocked out of them by turning into adults and life experiences. That's what acting really is, in my opinion. It's the ability to imagine what's going on around you is real. So it makes it very easy and it's a joy for me to work with Chandler.

Q: How did your relationship with your own son inform your relationship to your character's son in the film?

NC: Well, I dedicated the movie to my first son, because that's what the relationship was, really. It was me and him. I just have memories, and this script came to me at the right time. I had the life experiences and the emotional resources to play John Koestler. Indeed, some of the lines in the scenes came from direct memories of my times with Weston [Coppola Cage].

I had been looking for a way to express those feelings for a long time. Having been a single father, a single father out in California, I know that there is a gender bias, depending on which lawyer or which psychologist or family therapist that you talk to. It's like there's a full moon out if a father wants to see his son. That's just not true. Just because you're a man doesn't mean that you can't raise your kid. I think that families should stay together, but if you are a single father don't give up no matter what they say. So I wanted to have a chance to express that, to show that archetype in a movie: that you can have a devoted, positive relationship between that family, a father and a son as well.

Q: Have you changed your approach to films since having another child? Did you have any input into changing this film's script to a father and son?

NC: Well, I dedicated the movie to my first son because of those experiences that I had with him as a single father. I don't want to repeat myself, but I don't think that I would've been able to play the part 20 years ago. I think that I needed to have those memories in order to play John Koestler.

aknowing0320.jpgQ: Do you expect that you will have life-changing experiences while making a movie? Do films change your life in that way?

NC: The making of movies? Certainly they can. Anything is possible. Just the other day I was invited to go down to the subway rails and to be two foot from a whooshing subway train because I had to pass getting a certificate for subway rail safety. I never would've been in that situation before if I wasn't making movies. It was dangerous, but at the same time it was fascinating and got me thinking about the third rail, the awesome third rail.

One of the great bonuses of being a film actor is that I get to go to different places, meet inspiring people and learn different things. So all those details add up.

Q: How do you think you would handle the gift of knowing the future?

NC: I think that for me, I would want to know when it came to my children, if there was a way that I could prevent something. I don't think there's anything that would take over my parental survival instincts, but other than that, I like surprises. I think that if we knew everything that was going to happen it would be very, very boring.

Q: Have you ever had a sense of knowing, of an inclination, that came true?

NC: Yes, I think we all have. It's a part of being human, having those experiences--call it what you want, déjà vu, or whatever. You can explain it away with science, or you can explain it with something perhaps more paranormal, but I think they're still talking about the same thing.

Q: Anything that unsettled you?

NC: Nothing that I would share with you, but it is all semantics. I mean, if you tell me there's no such thing as a sea monster, I'll show you a white shark. It's all semantics, in my opinion.

knowing-lg.jpgQ: Your dad, August Coppola, was outside the rest of the acting Coppolas since he was a Comparative Literature professor. What happens when there is that break in a career-oriented family?

NC: Well, my father is the oldest of the three children. Carmine, my grandfather, came to America and it was really because of his skills as a flautist--he was a first chair flautist for Toscanini--that we kind of came out of, I mean really, an almost poverty-like situation. So it was the arts that did that.

My father, who was being groomed to be a medical doctor, always had an interest in books. He was just interested in literature and philosophy and that was his calling. That was before Francis decided that he was going to be a filmmaker. So my father already went on his philosophical and literary path and that was a train that wasn't going to stop, nor did he want it to stop.

I'm happy to say that he's quite happy now, continuing to write his books. Then the others in the family have more or less done directing, and I hope to see more music soon. I know that my son is doing very well in the music industry right now. So we'll see what happens there.

Q: It's unusual to have a family tree that cuts across so many talented generations. Do you ever wonder what it is about your family in that way?

NC: I don't really spend a lot of time thinking about it, to be perfectly honest. You can think about it. I'm not going to think about it [laughs].

Q: Have your children ever expressed an interest in acting, and how would you feel about that?

NC: My oldest son, right now he's very immersed in his music, but there might be a time when chooses to go into the cinema. My youngest son is three and a half.

Q: Do you have any aspirations to direct again in the future?

NC: I wanted to direct again. I haven't had time, but I would like to. When you direct you have to really devote a year of your life that project and so it's not something that I can really do right now. But I will again at some point.

Q: Is there any particular genre of film that stretches your acting muscles more than another, and is there a genre you'd like to do that you haven't done yet?

NC: I feel that I want to keep going in this science fiction and also perhaps fantasy direction for a little while longer. I think there's some room for growth there in my own abilities, in that I'll be a little more liberated working on that landscape. So I'm happy to be here now. I don't know of any other genres that I'm interested in. I like dramas, as you know.

Comedies not so much, only because I don't find the same things funny that many other people seem to find funny. I don't really respond to sex jokes and things like that. Some of my friends look at me and go, "Come on, Nic, that was my best joke. Why aren't you laughing?" I go, "I really don't know why I'm not laughing. I'm sort of out of sync with it." So I'd have to find something that was really about weird human behavior for me to laugh [laughs].

Q: Which one of your earlier roles still resonate for you on a second viewing?

NC: I don't really watch my movies again, but I can speak by the echo of it. I would say that Wild at Heart and Vampire's Kiss had more of that kind of energy to it. That's not to say that I can't still get kind of punk rock or angry, but I just think that I'm doing it for different reasons now.

Q: Where does your energy and passion for acting come from?

NC: It changed. In the beginning it came from an almost punk rock need to express a lot of anger wherever that may have come from. As I got older, it became or is coming more from a place of wanting to use the craft to help others in some way, to hold a mirror up to the situations that we're going through, to actually be more cautious about the way that I use the power of film and to see if there's anything that I can do in the performances that will resonate in the public a similar string that's on people's minds and is on my mind. That way we have that relationship.

Q: With this February being the best box office for a February in history, what role is Hollywood playing, given the current economic climate?

NC: Well, more than ever, movies reveal themselves as healing, as helpful, as encouraging, as escapist--anything that makes someone get through their day in these times. It's the best form of entertainment, and it's still arguably the most inexpensive form of entertainment.

I always say to myself that if I can make a movie that makes a kid smile or gives them some hope or something to get excited about, then I'm applying myself in the best way that I can. I don't think that just goes for kids. I think that it goes for adults as well and for families. So there is a need to go to the movies and just shut your mind off from the problems that are happening in our daily lives, the stresses between countries, the economy and global warming--all of those things that are on our minds.

But at the same time, I think that movies can help guide us through those experiences. I think all art tries to grapple with, redefine, come to terms with, express what's happening now when it's working. You can be entertained, but you can also be stimulated to think about things.

Knowing is one of those movies where you're going to get the spectacle and have the entertainment in the grand science fiction tradition. But also it will perhaps stimulate some discussion, to help you sort out on your own where you might chose to go in terms of your own needs. Now, I say that without preaching. It's up to you [as to] what you get from the movie.



__________________

 



Faery Queen of Cagealot Castle

Status: Offline
Posts: 8403
Date: 8:25 PM, 11/21/10
RE: The KNOWING Thread!
Permalink  
 


It's definitely familiar Lady True..perhaps you posted it in the interview section?starsmile
Such a wonderful read though, worthy of a place in this thread about Knowing!

I find it thrilling to read Nic's words on science fiction.... Which is actually a larger genre than often perceived? I'm particularly intrigued by utopian / dystopian worlds, and I guess you could say Knowing has elements of both?
For me Knowing is a blend of elements and the 'fantastical' although people consider it extreme is for actually quite subtle in this movie..it's not straight up sci fi all the way through..it has other flavours to it.

Lol you can understand why he's reluctant to elaborate on his own experiences of 'Knowing' or intuitive insights or anything that he calls 'paranormal' (for me there's a whole range of energies in between paranormal and scientific) not least because the media would jump on it, but also as he says, he's generous enough to want everyone to have their own experience. Not that him sharing his view would actually change anyone elses though?
I must admit, if there is anything I'd love to have with Nic is lots and lots of conversation about exactly this kind of thing...i think the man would have insights I could appreciate and be inspired by. starry

__________________

 

 



NIColicious Enchantress

Status: Offline
Posts: 5669
Date: 4:48 PM, 04/23/12
Just a little "Knowing" - Review
Permalink  
 


Last night, I watched "Knowing" fully for the first time, and I was so impressed with Nic`s performance, that I thought, I have to make this little review, or at least, my thoughts about it! As I am not really a fan of such apocalyptic movies, I had the feeling, it was the right time for me, to watch this one!

The movie begins with children in an elementry school, who had to make letters with anything, how they imagine, the people in 50 years would live. There is that little girl, Lucinda, who hears someone or something whisper numbers in her ear, that she wrote down on a paper, like in trance. Then, in a little ceremony, the time capsule is burried before the entrance of the school. Lucinda was so disturbed and frightened by those whisperings, she heard, that she hides in a closet in the basement of the school, where she scratches numbers on the door with her nails, and where the teacher finally finds her.

Then, 50 years later: John Koestler (Nic), is a teacher at MIT, teaching a class of students. (A really great performance). After class, he picks up his son, who had a hearing aid, but he isn`t deaf. He goes to the same elemetry school as Lucinda, fifty years ago. There is a ceremony, to lift the time capsule. The former teacher, meanwhile an old lady, opened it and gave the letters to the children. And, by a coincidence, Caleb Koestler recieves  Lucinda`s letter with the numbers. He takes it home with him. Then, a few things happen, that leads John to look more closely to that numbers, and he finds out, that these numbers aren`t just numbers, but a warning. First, he thinks, it is just a warning for him or his family, but then, as he diggs deeper and finds out, that the numbers correlates with the catastrophies happen, he connect the dots and tries to prevent some of the events from happening, but couldn`t. His son hears also, as Lucinda (who has a daughter and a granddaughter, and who died), those whisperings from the "whisper people", he calles them, in his head. He also has really horrible nightmares of the end of the world. While his father still tries to find out more about those numbers, especially the last one, what he thinks, means 33, but tuns out in the end, to a completely different meaning. Then, they meet Diana and Abby (Lucinda`s daughter and granddaughter) in a museum, and John tries to talk to Diana about her mother and the numbers, but she rather don`t want to talk about it. Then, after a while, they all work together and try to find a safe hiding place for them. And, throughout the movie, "angel-like" or "alien-like", shadowy people appears and whispering and protecting, as it turns out later, Abby and Caleb (the Chosen). In the end, they take them with them in their ships and the world ends.

I know, I left a lots of scenes out, but, I don`t want to spoil too much for those, who haven`t seen it yet. (Although, I think, I maybe have already said too much about it).

Nic`s performance and his genius, how he finds out, what this numbers means, is just so stunning and impressing to me, and another proof, that he is the best actor and performer of our time! It is just stunning!

I highly reccommend this movie! 10 stars out of 10:

starrystarrystarrystarrystarrystarrystarrystarrystarrystarry



__________________

"When you think about magic, it is imagination plus willpower focused in such a way that you can create a conscious effect in the material world..."

Nicolas Cage




Faery Queen of Cagealot Castle

Status: Offline
Posts: 8403
Date: 3:53 AM, 04/25/12
RE: Just a little "Knowing" - Review
Permalink  
 


Hi Roxy! Wow..you have just seen knowing? spaceship I remember being very effected by the film the frist time i saw it, i was not myself for about a week after! Wonderful to read your review, thank you for sharing. starry

We do have a thread for knowing reviews, would you like me to merge yours with that topic? there is something NICe about reading everyones' reviews together! flowerface

 http://www.cagealotcastle.com/t37801936/the-knowing-thread/



__________________

 

 



NIColicious Enchantress

Status: Offline
Posts: 5669
Date: 4:01 AM, 04/25/12
RE: Just a little "Knowing" - Review
Permalink  
 


Well, I tried to watch it a while ago, but, I had to stop, because, I couldn`t watch it anymore! It was too intense for me, at that time! And, a few days ago, it felt the right timem to give it another shot! And, sure, go ahead, Lula! Move it there, if you like and think, it is a better place for it! I wasn`t aware, that we had such a thread already! Thanks :)

__________________

"When you think about magic, it is imagination plus willpower focused in such a way that you can create a conscious effect in the material world..."

Nicolas Cage




Faery Queen of Cagealot Castle

Status: Offline
Posts: 8403
Date: 5:49 AM, 04/25/12
RE: The KNOWING Thread!
Permalink  
 


Will do Roxy!flowerface

Yes it is such a powerful film, all credit to Nic and the other actors for their superb and dedicated performances, you really get the feeling that they are giving their absolute last drop of energy it is that intense... and to Alex Proyas for creating an intelligent, engaging, mutlilayered epic movie that has power and ambiguity, suggests much yet remains enigmatic, is all  at once science fiction, disaster movie and moving drama! because of that and the scale of the subject matter it remains for me one of the most EPIC dramatic and toweringly impacting of Nic movies! starry



__________________

 

 



NIColicious Enchantress

Status: Offline
Posts: 5669
Date: 4:48 AM, 04/26/12
RE: The KNOWING Thread!
Permalink  
 


Thanks Lula, for moving it here! flowerfaceThis is the proper thread for it! And, indeed! It is EpNIC and powerful!



__________________

"When you think about magic, it is imagination plus willpower focused in such a way that you can create a conscious effect in the material world..."

Nicolas Cage




Nicalicious

Status: Offline
Posts: 6722
Date: 8:20 AM, 04/26/12
RE: The KNOWING Thread!
Permalink  
 


I am so glad that you were able to watch it this time and that your experience was positive, Lady R, it is one of my favourite films. I saw it in the theatre and I am glad I did. 

I have just enjoyed reading the thread again, your review, and also rereading Lula's comments; and now I believe I will watch the movie tonight. I haven't watched it in awhile and I want to see it on our new tv!



__________________

 

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page
Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard