Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Ruffalo Says "Nuh-Uh" To Whining to the New York Times

Today I've got a follow up to this post regarding the New York Times article that was sort of about "Zodiac" but mostly about Fincher being a director actor's don't like working with.

In this follow-up interview Reeler did with "Zodiac" co-star Mark Ruffalo, Ruffalo offers a different take regarding Fincher's interactions with the actors on-set than the New York Times article did. In this brief item, Ruffalo says the following:
"Yeah, you hear stories about him being so hard and intense," Ruffalo said. "And then I met him, and I immediately just loved the guy and was thinking , 'Well, when is he going to change? When is this guy that you keep hearing about going to pop up?' And my relationship and friendship with him got deeper as we went along. I think Fincher, what he has no patience for is incompetence or just a casual attitude toward the work. If you come in and you don't know your lines and you're not prepared, Fincher's going to eat you for breakfast. You know? And so the actors who complain about Fincher are usually the ones who don't show up knowing their shit, kind of."
He goes on in the article to essentially call out Gyllenhaal and Downey Jr. for being unprepared on-set. Ruffalo seems credible here, but I'm not sure his perception on the matter totally reverses the impression left by the NYTimes article, though it definitely calls it into question. In any event, I'm hyped for "Zodiac" this Friday. Early word has been very good. I'd have been happy with "Panic Room" good, but some of the critics seems to be talking "Se7en" good. Can't wait.

1 comment:

blankfist said...

Wow. Se7en good would be awesome. I wasn't the biggest fan of Panic Room.

Dude, I finally got around to watching Kramer vs Kramer last night. Great movie. Just fantastic. It was bittersweet from beginning to end. In a time where, I think, most filmmakers feel a need to stand out by either way of shock or some catchy, high concept plot, this movie demonstrated the human condition in a very real and simple way. There was no new story in KvK. It deals with divorce. It deals with abandonment. It deals with personal priorities. It centers on a mover-and-shaker finding his purpose through caring for his child instead of his career.

Life is bittersweet. It's not Ozzie and Harriet. It's during the many pitfalls that we learn we're all in this big game of life together, and that is where we find our sweet moments. That's what was so remarkable about this film. We see Hoffman's character reacting to very true circumstances without the film making him a monster - or making anyone a monster for that fact. He's not over the top, because real people aren't over the top, typically. It's just great stuff.

Although, I have to disagree with you, Crane - Streep was kind of a bitch, dude. She abadoned her kid, then decided to go back for him after a year and a half. She wasn't a monster, but certainly irresponsibly human. Therefore, kind of a bitch.